1975-06-03

PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY OF DELEGATES OF THE FRANCE-CANADA INTERPARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION

Mr. Speaker:: Before the oral question period, I wish to mention the tenth anniversary of the France-Canada Interparliamentary Association. We are quite honoured in stressing the importance of the event to receive the French delegation.
I am pleased to draw to the attention of the House the presence in the Speaker's gallery of the members of the French delegation under its very distinguished president, Mr. Lucien Neuwirth. On behalf of hon. members I extend to our distinguished guests a very sincere welcome.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated yesterday that the government was preparing to take certain legal actions in respect of the withdrawal of the services of longshoremen in Montreal. He said he would expect that by "tomorrow", which is today, he or one of his ministers would be able to inform the House in this regard.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Justice or myself could indicate that contempt charges are being laid this afternoon-they may have already been laid-and that actions are being taken against a certain number of longshoremen. If the hon. Leader of the Opposition wants further details, perhaps the Minister of Labour might give them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Labour might try his hand at telling us what is going on.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would advise the Leader of the Opposition, as the Prime Minister indicated, that contempt proceedings are being initiated this afternoon against the union in question. I have also been advised that this afternoon there will be charges laid under the Criminal Code against
the president and the vice-president of the union and other people. Also proceedings are being initiated for offences under the Canada Labour Code against certain individuals. Fourth, I would advise the Leader of the Opposition that evidence is being analysed concerning possible intimidation. After the analysis of that evidence, if it should appear to be sufficient, we will turn it over to the provincial authorities. In the meantime, so far as any possibility of intimidation being carried on on the premises to prevent workers turning up for work or other types of intimidation, the National Harbours police in co-operation with the Montreal police would prevent this form of conduct.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Justice. Could either gentleman indicate the nature of the criminal charges being laid and tell us whether these charges are being laid under a general instruction of the Minister of Justice of Canada or under the auspices of the government of the province of Quebec.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the initial charges being proceeded with involve actions which constitute possible infractions under the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, and accordingly those will be proceeded with by the agents who ordinarily are agents of the Attorney General of Canada, but insofar as they involve Criminal Code matters they will be acting as agents of the provincial attorney general. There may be certain other matters more clearly and ordinarily criminal in their nature, without any connection with the Labour Code as such, and these will be referred to the agents of the provincial attorney general.


STRIKE OF LONGSHOREMEN IN QUEBEC-NUMBER OF PEOPLE INVOLVED IN PROSECUTIONS-TYPE OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VICE-PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT OF UNION
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell the House how many individuals are involved in the series of prosecutions we have been hearing about in the last few minutes. Are we talking about half a dozen or are we talking about hundreds of people? What is the effect of this and what is the anticipated number of men who will be subject to charges, either contempt charges or charges under the Criminal Code or the Labour Code.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, so far as the reference to charges this afternoon is concerned, these charges are against the president, the vice-president and three or four others. That is my information as of this afternoon. With regard to the possibility of future charges, I cannot give any further information at this time.
29561-59%

June 3, 1975
Oral Questions


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary for the Minister of Justice. Could the minister tell the House whether the charges against the president and the vice-president of the union are being brought under the Criminal Code or whether these are contempt proceedings under the back-to-work legislation passed a few weeks ago in the House of Commons.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might clarify what the Minister of Labour said. We are planning to proceed with contempt proceedings arising out of the order of the Chief Justice made following proceedings under the special bill passed. That will go forward at once. There is in addition the matter of charging individuals for contravention of the special law in which cases charges will be laid under the Criminal Code. The same facts relate to sections of the Canada Labour Code. Some five individuals are involved in the immediate charges today.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, for clarification may I ask the minister, when he said there are contempt charges being laid now in connection with the refusal to obey an order involving the Quebec courts several weeks ago, could he tell the House now exactly how many people are involved in those particular proceedings. He mentioned the number five, and I am not sure whether he was referring to these particular proceedings when he mentioned that number.


Otto Emil Lang: The proceedings which came before Chief Justice Deschenes are against the union organizations as such and not against individuals.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, may I take a second to say something I intended to say at the commencement of today's proceedings. With respect to the outstanding questions of privilege, I thought it might be possible to make my ruling today. I find I would prefer to make it tomorrow afternoon at three o'clock.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. I should like to ask the minister whether a certain Sergeant John Leduc of the RCMP drug squad was acting with his knowledge or with his approval when he made certain statements to the press which implicate directly some 60 government employees and indirectly many more in the Montreal area concerning charges of illicit trading in drugs.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: No, Mr. Speaker, he was not, nor was he acting with the authority or knowledge of the commissioner or even of his commanding officer. As a matter of fact, we are not too sure whether the particular officers mentioned in the article did in fact make those statements because they are presently out of the country on a drug investigation. But it is being checked at present.


John Edward Broadbent: What steps is the minister taking concerning these very serious allegations? Does he intend to inform the House of the nature of the investigation that is taking place? I am asking the question knowing full well that the minister may not be able to give all the details if an investigation is underway, but I am concerned and the House is concerned not only about the potentially guilty people involved but also about the substantially greater number of innocent people who have been implicated by the revelation of this kind of information.


William Warren Allmand: I agree with the hon. member on that point. That is why we never say that an investigation is underway while it is still underway. I am meeting with the commissioner this afternoon and we will discuss this further. All we can say at present is that there has been an investigation into certain allegations of activities at the airport. I just cannot give any more information at the moment, but I will be ready to report further tomorrow.


NATIONAL REVENUE
John Edward Broadbent: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue. Could he inform the House on whether an RCMP report-which I am informed was made to his department more than a year ago, that is prior to the time the present minister became minister of his department-was brought to his attention concerning certain allegations made about employees in his department at the Montreal airport and, if so, what action he has taken since he became minister to deal with that report?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the Solicitor General, it is very difficult to comment on inquiries of this nature. In so far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned, we have co-operated fully with the RCMP in any investigations at that port in order to apprehend anyone who might be in violation of the law.
June 3, 1975


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General, and it falls along the lines of the questions put by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. Can the minister tell the House when he was first aware of this alleged internal report of the RCMP and of the investigation?


William Warren Allmand: When a reporter approached me in the corridor this morning and asked me if I had read the article in the Globe and Mail.


NATIONAL REVENUE
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I must say that that is a most illuminating answer. I have a supplementary question which I should like to direct to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister at present conducting an internal ministerial inquiry to ascertain whether customs officials are directly involved in this alleged smuggling conspiracy?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we are working with the Solicitor General's department and the RCMP to determine it.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Has the minister been advised of a fire which could have resulted in loss of lives in Sand Park, Fort George, during the night of May 11, and can he tell us whether steps have been taken to inspect all federal public buildings in the Indian and Innuit villages to correct all deficiencies in the electric heating systems and others which could endanger the lives of citizens living in those buildings?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice. I was not aware of the fire to which he referred. I do know that around Christmas of last year we received a report from the Dominion Fire Commissioner concerning the school to which the hon. member referred. All the measures recom-
Oral Questions
mended in that report dealing with public safety and the safety of the occupants were taken, including the installation of fire extinguishers, panic doors, alarm systems and so on. Next week further inspection of the electrical system is scheduled, and four new hydrants are to be installed in the near future.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Since this inquiry was conducted a year ago and this incident has just occurred, can the minister say whether he is in a position to take steps to have these public buildings rechecked and do whatever may be necessary to prevent any recurrence in the future?


J. Judd Buchanan: As I said, most of the corrective measures suggested have already been taken. We are now in the process of taking the final measures, and there will be an additional inspection next week. A similar process of inspections is carried out in our buildings throughout Canada.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darmouth-Halifax Bast):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the situation in Montreal for a moment and direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Leaving aside for one moment the area of charges, because I think the concern of the country is to see the port re-opened and the men back to work, could the minister advise the House whether he or any other members of the government are prepared to meet with representatives of the longshoremen's association who, I understand, are coming to Ottawa tomorrow for the purpose of airing their grievance? Could the minister give us some indication, first of all, whether he will meet with them; and second, whether he believes the port might be back in operation in a relatively short period of time?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, indications have been conveyed to the union in question that I would be prepared to meet with them. I will certainly not meet with them while they are in breach of a law passed by parliament. If they go back to work, I would be prepared to meet with them any time, of course, at their request.
With regard to the second part of the question as to my hopes that the port will be open and back to normal, I can only say that that is my hope and that we are trying to take all the actions necessary to see that that is the end result.
Oral Questions ENERGY

June 3, 1975


FUNDY TIDAL POWER PROJECT-COMPLAINTS OF NOVA SCOTIA OFFICIALS REGARDING DELAY OF STUDIES
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources which I asked the Acting Prime Minister on Friday. Have any complaints been directed to him or through him to the government regarding developments in connection with the new studies proposed relating to Fundy tidal power, in view of the fact that a number of complaints have been made by officials in the province of Nova Scotia regarding delays?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have had correspondence with the two premiers involved in this regard indicating their appointment of officials to the study, but I have not personally received complaints in this regard, although I have seen press stories to this effect.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention that I visited the tidal power station at La Ranee, in France, last week, and I wish to express my thanks to the French government for their courtesy on this occasion.


FISHERIES
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of State (Fisheries) and ask him if he is in a position to indicate the reply he made or will be making to the urgent request for financial assistance he received from the Prince Edward Island seafood processors. As the minister knows, they are forced to make this request because of the burden of carrying stocks of a very costly unsold product.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons the inventory of unsold products is fairly high is that in some areas the catch has been very good and we rejoice in that. As for the problem raised by the hon. member, I was contacted yesterday by the provincial minister of fisheries, Mr. Henderson, and I also had a word with my colleague, the Minister for Veterans Affairs. Today I discussed the problem with my officials. Tomorrow, one of my officials of the Fisheries Prices Support Board will go to Prince Edward Island. We are giving the matter priority.


LOSS OF LOBSTER GEAR-REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the same minister. Could the minister indicate to the House if he has had a chance to examine the ice condition reports that I sent to him some time ago and if the areas designated to

receive compensation for the loss of lobster gear last year are to be taken under consideration again?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the hon. member that I do not find it possible to positively review the matter a year after the decisions were made.


PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ENERGY FUND-SUGGESTION FUTURE CONFERENCES OF PRODUCER-CONSUMER COUNTRIES CONSIDER QUOTAS ON OTHER COMMODITIES
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Could the minister inform the House what position the government of Canada took at the recent meeting of the International Energy Agency in France with respect to the proposal of the Secretary of State of the United States for the development of an International Energy Fund? Did Canada agree to participate in such a fund and did Canada agree with the concept of limiting imports inter-domestic markets of foreign oil?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that question was not raised extensively at the International Energy Agency meeting although the propositions were discussed. In fact, at this point Canada has not agreed to the establishment of a fund or indeed to any limitation with regard to domestic action. Our principal attention at the conference was directed to the early completion of the allocation agreement in the event of any future international interruption of supply and also to support of the proposal that there should be more extensive international co-operation in the area of research and development.


James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What position did Canada take about the proposal that any future producer-consumer meeting with respect to oil should include a study of the possibilities of production quotas and so on in other commodities as has been proposed by third world countries?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we generally supported the initiative taken by the United States Secretary of State to have a resumed producer-consumer conference at which not only the question of energy but also the broader questions of manufactured products and other commodities could be discussed. We are waiting with interest to see the extent to which the other participants in the producer-consumer meeting, particularly the less developed countries and producers, would find the proposal of the Secretary of State a helpful step in getting the meeting going again. It is our general view that it would be useful to have a meeting and we would be quite prepared to discuss it on a broader basis.
June 3, 1975


INDUSTRY
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
What solution has the minister adopted to solve the problems caused to clothing manufacturers through the stoppage of polyester fibres imports from Hong Kong?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Canadian government the Hong Kong authorities restrained their exports due to representations made by the Canadian industry with respect to injury or threat of injury. Canadian fabric producers have stated that they can supply garment manufacturers with a substantial amount of the fabrics for delivery between now and mid-July. The Hong Kong authorities have also been authorized to release for immediate shipment the fabrics that were scheduled for shipment by the end of April. If there are cases where the type of fabrics offered by producers do not meet the quality standards, we will take a close look at those particular hardship cases.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, on May 27 in response to a question concerning a shipment of Vietnamese art treasures to Canada the Minister of Immigration and Manpower stated as follows:
... we will be continuing to follow this in light of suggestions which have been made through unofficial channels.
Can the Minister of National Revenue inform the House as to the present status of these art treasures?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No,
Mr. Speaker, in that they have not arrived in Canada. I have ensured that my officials are ready to receive them and deal with them under Canadian law should they arrive.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In order to determine whether these art treasures are part of the Vietnamese national heritage, has the minister made any inquiries of the South Vietnamese government on their position on these artifacts and has the minister considered it necessary to ask an expert on traditional Vietnamese artifacts to inspect thoroughly these art treasures, if they should arrive at Montreal?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, if they should arrive in Montreal that would probably be the appropriate thing to do, but they have not arrived.
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


INQUIRY WHETHER CANADA INFORMED UNITED STATES OF CONSEQUENCES OF SENDING OIL TANKERS THROUGH NORTHWEST PASSAGE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and has to do with the question asked last week concerning the fleet of icebreaking tankers which is being built in the United States to transport crude oil from Alaska through the Northwest Passage to east ports, and the complete surveillance of that area, as suggested by the minister. My question is this: has the minister informed United States authorities of this complete surveillance, of which they may be unaware, and of the dire consequences which could follow if a United States tanker fleet should carry this oil through the Northwest Passage in the manner indicated?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, our role is that of surveillance and I am certain that the United States authorities are fully aware of our capabilities of flying in the high Arctic and surveying ships passing through the Northwest Passage.


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of National Defence tell us whether he is aware of indications that the Americans have told the Canadian authorities that they will be carrying crude oil through waters which have been claimed under Canadian law as Canadian and which are subject to Canadian laws on pollution?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the substance of that question is the responsibility of my department.


SARNIA-MONTREAL PIPELINE-REQUEST PIPELINE CONSTRUCTORS REPLACE TOPSOIL
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and arises from complaints of farmers in my constituency to the effect that, in the past, pipeline constructors have often been careless in not replacing topsoil to its natural level in excavated trenches. Will the minister assure this House and the farmers and land owners of Ontario that the constructors and contractors of the Interprovincial pipeline running from Sarnia to Montreal will, after excavating and burying the pipe, replace the topsoil to its normal depth on the surface of the fields, in order that agricultural tillage can continue unimpeded?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has made extensive representations to me along those lines, which I have passed on to the National Energy Board which has direct responsibility in this matter. I will be glad to pass on to the board and support the hon. member's representations and seek assurances that the

Oral Questions
topsoil and also natural water flow will not be disturbed by any pipeline construction.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and has to do with the recent decision involving the Rural Development Council and the next phase of the development plan of Prince Edward Island. As the minister indicated earlier that this decision came as a complete surprise to the federal government, I wonder if the minister can say what assurances he has received and what plans are being made with respect to public participation on the second phase aspect, particularly third party participation, as that, certainly, was a vital ingredient in the first plan of 1969 and will be important for the over-all success of phase two of the plan.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I called Premier Campbell, but he is out of the country and will be away for a week or so. I talked to the acting premier and suggested that our officials should, during the next ten days or two weeks, discuss the final stages of the implementation of the second phase of the plan. The timetable I anticipate is that in the next two weeks we will get that agreement in shape. A portion of that agreement will relate to the general question of the consultative process and public participation. When the premier returns, I will sit down with him to discuss the final document and the eventual signing.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL-REASON FOR CHANGE IN PLAN-DATE OF SIGNING OF AGREEMENT
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder, since this decision came as a surprise to the minister, can he say if he has received indications showing why there was this major change in the plan after it had been worked out and was to be considered by the cabinet? Can he tell us briefly what those reasons are and, secondly, when will the second phase be signed and when will the details be made public, so that the people of P.E.I. and Canada will be aware of them?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, to answer the second part of the question, I do not expect that it will be much later than the middle of June, always assuming that the original discussions between our governments are embodied in the final documents. On the question of the rural development council, all I can say is that when the decision was taken by the government of Prince Edward Island I called, as I mentioned, to advise the premier of the

representations which had been made to me, but, as he was not there, I was not able to pass them on.


HOUSING
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Can he advise the House whether sufficient new funds have been made available to CMHC to meet the need in Quebec for single family dwelling construction?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have been checking with the corporation and the regional offices, and there are sufficient funds available to meet the applications which are coming forward now in encouraging numbers. The program is proving successful; so far, funds are holding up, and people should continue to apply.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister find out why the Chicoutimi office which serves the Saguenay-Lake St. John area claims it is lacking funds at the present time?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I will check into that and report to the hon. member, and I would urge that any constituents should re-apply, to make certain that the situation is as suggested. I will check the matter out, specifically.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. What does the government propose to do, in view of the failure of the government of Alberta to comply with federal law in obtaining CTC approval for its acquisition of Pacific Western Airlines. Also, does the government approve of this acquisition?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this is of course a matter which we are looking into and which has already been looked into mainly by the CTC. Surely this raises a number of issues which we should like to clarify before we reach a particular decision with regard to Pacific Western Airlines Ltd.
June 3, 1975


ARSENIC LEVELS IN NATIVE POPULATION-SUGGESTED PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a double-barrelled question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns his department's survey of arsenic levels in hair samples taken from residents of Yellowknife. Is the minister aware that the National Indian Brotherhood has conducted a similar survey which indicates a higher proportion of arsenic in people, especially in children. The survey shows arsenic at dangerous levels. Is the government prepared to introduce more strict regulations controlling emissions from the mine and to protect the workers in the mine, and is the minister prepared to have the mining companies compensate people who have been affected for the damage done to their health?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as' regards the first part of the question, I have read in the press some references to a study conducted by the National Indian Brotherhood. I did not get any copy of that study. We have asked the Indian Brotherhood to get us a copy; my officials will surely look into it with great interest. Again, we will examine what precisely is the scientific base of that study and compare with the one already done by my department.
As for the second part, further studies are under way. I have already stated, following the publication of the first study, that more thorough studies have been launched, particularly on identified cases showing what appears to be a high arsenic rate; this applies particularly to workers of plants in that region, and it is in light of this second study that we will be able to assess the necessary measures.


INFORMATION
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants in his capacity as co-chairman of the Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments which is dealing with the question of government secrecy? Would the hon. member consider discussing with his co-chairman the possibility of calling Ralph Nader as a witness, in view of statements Mr. Nader has made about government secrecy in this country?


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: -I hope that the famous bomb shelter has not shrunk so much that I will not be able to crawl into it.
6379
Oral Questions


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport concerning the Bilcom report. On May 28 the minister said he was waiting for all representations regarding the use of bilingualism in air to ground flight communications. Has the minister received all the necessary representations, and if so, is he in a position to inform the House when the government, in the interest of public safety, will announce their policy in this regard?


Jean Marchand: The
answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the minister prepared today to report on the progress of the study ordered by his department which was designed to canvass and monitor consumer groups and individuals in isolated northern communities in light of the very special problems they face?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I am not yet ready to give that answer, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Oberle: In light of discussion on Bill C-2, which is presently before the committee, will the minister make the report public to enable members to make a judgment as to how his controversial bill might affect people in those isolated northern communities?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, when the report is received, I will look into the recommendations, and if there is need to publish them I will be glad to do so.


HOUSING
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. As the minister knows, rural residents and those in small villages are not able to get CMHC approved loans. Has the minister made any progress at changing

Oral Questions
this stipulation in order that rural residents can have the same opportunity as urban dwellers to receiving government funding for housing?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the full premise of the hon. member's question, there were some 40,000 CMHC loans made in rural areas in the past year. The majority of those were on properties with septic tanks. As to the substance of the question, the policy has been reviewed by CMHC. I am preparing a release for all members so that they will know the new status. Greater flexibility will be granted. There will be close co-operation with the provinces to establish more flexible guidelines for rural areas, rural communities and fringe areas of urban communities where the health standards of the province are met and undesirable development does not result.


RURAL AND NATIVE HOUSING PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE PROGRAM COVERS EVERY CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Can the minister assure the House that the program for rural and native housing does in fact cover every federal constituency in Canada?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that assurance. I do not think it applies to Toronto-Davenport or downtown Halifax. However, in those areas which are designated by the provinces as being eligible under those programs, it will apply. In most cases, rural constituencies will be eligible if an agreement is reached with the province. It is a matter of priorities established in co-operation with the provinces, which we enjoy in great measure.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the fact that questions directed to the Minister of Supply and Services and the Minister of National Defence in order to ascertain whether the Canadian armed forces in Europe are eating Canadian beef have received noncommittal answers, will the minister tell the House whether armed services personnel in Europe are eating Canadian beef?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, all I know is having eaten beef at the station in Europe once or twice, it was high quality, excellent beef.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Will the minister inform the House whether the 707 trips to Lahr each week with cargo space for Canadian beef are being by-passed and we are buying our beef from the United States government?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I understand that certain meat is bought in different countries at different times. We buy high quality meat for the Canadian bases. At that time, a lot of it was coming from Denmark.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Justice assure the House that, contrary to the published press reports to the effect that the tragic shootings in Brampton will not result in stricter gun control legislation, he will in fact evaluate and support reasonable proposals for more effective gun control and also evaluate possible amendments to the Criminal Code to increase penalties for crimes involving guns?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we are always searching for ways of creating more order and control with regard to breaches of the law in this country or with regard to matters such as those to which the hon. member has just referred. It is not often recognized that we, in fact, have quite stringent gun control laws in this country with regard to restricted and prohibited weapons. We will certainly be looking at whether stiffer penalties or better procedures are in fact reasonable. It is a problem whether or not registration systems accomplish very much by themselves. It has been my stated view that we want to be sure they in fact do that and not simply impose unnecessary red tape upon the citizens of this country.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Is consideration being given to postponing the presentation of the budget from June 23 to mid-July, and is the reason for this the necessity of having a first ministers' meeting and the problem of scheduling such a meeting?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.


POSSIBILITY OF MEETING WITH PROVINCES TO DETERMINE PRICE OF CRUDE OIL
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Last week I asked the Acting Prime Minister whether a meeting of the first ministers would be held in June to determine the question of the price of crude oil in Canada. The Acting Prime Minister indicated there was some desirability in
June 3, 1975

holding such a meeting. Can we now have some indication whether such a meeting is to be held and, if so, on what date? That question may be directed to the Minister of Finance since he is implicated. If not, I direct it to the Prime Minister. I am sorry, the Prime Minister was not involved. Will the Prime Minister advise whether a meeting of the first ministers is to be held some time this month prior to the date of the budget and, if so, on what date, the purpose of the meeting being to determine the price of crude oil in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. There is no plan for a federal-provincial meeting of first ministers. Of course, this does not preclude consultation on a bilateral basis with various first ministers.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact the cities of Ottawa and Hull, the provincial governments of both Quebec and Ontario and the federal government have co-operated in controlling pollution of the Ottawa River, will the minister consider extending the federal control to the environmental officials operating on the upper Ottawa or Lake Timiskaming so that some control can be exercised before raw sewage is dumped by some municipalities into the Ottawa system? That control only rests with the provincial governments and the area municipalities at the present time.


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, obviously, if the report of the task force I set up to study the problem of the Ottawa river pollution indicates that the causes of that pollution are found upstream, certainly solutions will have to be found to it; then we can find out what the municipalities can do for, as we know, they are responsible for the treatment of their sewage.


William Arnold Peters: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister may or may not know of her responsibility because of the interprovincial nature of Lake Timiskaming, but when New Liskeard dumped all its lagoons into the river recently it caused considerable problems in the area, and this sewage will flow down into the Ottawa River as well. Secondly, an investigation is going on which indicates that a large amount of mercury and probably a large amount of arsenic as well is in that area. In view of the interprovincial nature of this problem, would the minister see that her officials participate with those now examining the situation?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, that is the very reason for which I set up a task force. Several jurisdictions are
Oral Questions
involved. I repeat that, although the hon. member mentions the jurisdictions of the two provinces and the federal government, the fact remains that nothing can be done without the co-operation of those municipalities.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister in charge of multiculturalism. Would the minister please advise the House when the report on the status of non-official languages in Canada will be presented to the House and why the report is being held up? Surely this report of some 500 pages has been translated into French.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe my information that it has been translated is correct. It is in both official languages. I can assure my hon. friend that as soon as it comes out of the printers I will make it public, and I have undertaken to do that.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In questions addressed yesterday to the right hon. Prime Minister on the National Energy Board's preliminary hearing on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline application, the Prime Minister stated that he would take notice of the question and refer the matter to the minister. Can the minister respond today to the question: In view of the fact that the National Energy Board has scheduled a preliminary hearing on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline for July 8, 9 and 10, is the government contemplating presenting or does it intend to present a statement or brief to the board?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know there is no intention of doing so. The normal course of action in this regard is to permit the private parties to make their presentations to the National Energy Board, which exercising its best judgment arrives at a decision. If the decision is affirmative it is referred to the executive, to the Governor in Council, for a final decision. It seems to me under those circumstances the advisable course is to await presentation of the evidence on both sides of the project, and then on the basis of the board's informed decision it will be for the government to arrive at a conclusion.
6382

June 3, 1975
Oral Questions ENERGY


OIL-POSSIBILITY OF AGREEMENT ON WORLD PRICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question along the lines of the questions asked by the hon. member for Don Valley and the hon. member for Edmonton West of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. At the world conference was price discussed, was it negotiated, and was there any agreement made at that conference as to the price of crude petroleum with reference to trade throughout the world?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there was a reference to the fact that the OPEC nations will be meeting at Libreville in Gabon during the course of this current month to decide on the pricing of petroleum in the world market after September 30 next. There was no agreement on an appropriate price between the consumer states who participate in the IEA on this question. There was some reference by Secretary Kissinger to the concept of a minimum guaranteed price in world marketing, but again there was no extensive discussion of this question and no agreement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the price that was discussed and which negotiations centred around the price of $8.50 a barrel?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the price that was referred to was the price that would be set by the OPEC nations at their meeting in Gabon, and presumably would be a price increase over the current level of around $11 to $12 per barrel. There was no discussion of specific figures in regard to a minimum guaranteed price.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Can he tell us today when the Agricultural Stabilization Board intends to end the program announced on April 1, which aims at assisting, and effectively assists, eastern potato producers, since, on the one hand, the existing terminology is relatively vague in that respect, and that, on the other hand, farmers would like to know the precise intentions of the government.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, at the end of the crop year, which normally is the end of June.


TRANSPORT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the number of answers that have been given of a rather fuzzy nature to the simple question whether or not the government intends in the new Transportation Act to alter, amend or in any way abridge the Crowsnest Pass rates on grain, would the minister give me the assurance that such course will not be followed?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I hope that very soon I will produce this new policy, and I can say to the right hon. gentleman that nothing changes anything about the Crowsnest Pass rates.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Now that the national president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers has consigned the public to the nether regions if they do not agree with the union's posture in current bargaining, can the Postmaster General give assurance that the public will be saved from this fate by the conciliation proceedings that are now getting underway?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, there is no particular reason why there should be a postal strike; the climate has improved tremendously, I think. I am sure the hon. gentleman would be the first who would be pleased to know that the backlog of 25 million pieces of mail in Montreal has been completedly eradicated and there is no longer a backlog.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There is still about a week's delay in the parcels section but that should be cleaned up soon. We have agreed to a conciliation officer, and I think that if the president's freeze, shall I say, on the exchange of polite insults is maintained and both sides get down to bargaining before a competent conciliation officer, there is no reason why we should not arrive at a good collective agreement within the month.


TRANSPORT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Transport who referred to his new policy coming out soon. Will it be coming out in the month of June, or if it is not coming out in the month of June will it be coming out before we recess, hopefully early in July?
June 3, 1975

Order Paper Questions


Jean Marchand: Mr.
Speaker, I sincerely hope that it will be before the House
recesses.	[Translation]



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT


[Stage Direction]
[English.]	.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that in 362 days the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements begins in Vancouver. I should like to draw to the attention of Your Honour and hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements and Habitat '76, Dr. Enrique Penelosa.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In response to my question during the question period concerning a report commissioned by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with a private firm, the minister, I am sure inadvertently, is reported in Hansard as saying that the report has not yet been received by his department. My information is that indeed the report has been received by his department.
My concern is twofold. Firstly, the minister might wish to set the record straight and admit that the report has been received by his department. Secondly, if it has been received and he is not aware of it, then because of the importance of the survey that was conducted he might wish to correct this discrepancy within his department and bring the report to the attention of the House of Commons and the public.
2.	1970-71	1971-72Sarcee	$ 218,090	$ 282,647Stony	605,250	785,265Blackfoot	820,100	1,172,446Ochiese	-	108,663Sunehild	-	-Blood	1,008,400	1,304,193Peigan	392,336	744,082Alexander	67,830	110,827Alexis	105,286	94,558Enoch	61,816	112,478Paul	106,090	171,907Montana	19,507	31,951Ermineskin	70,926	106,641Louis Bull	32,825	60,125Samson	206,782	240,815F our-Band	2,075	58,489Slaves	~	210,345


Marc Lalonde: for leave to introduce Bill C-62 intituled "An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, to repeal the Old Age Assistance Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof".


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
["1.\tIn addition to the Department of Labour, what other departments, if any, are concerned with multiculturalism?\n2.\tWho is the chief multicultural administrative officer (a) in Ottawa (b) in Toronto?\n3.\tHas the government policies concerning multiculturalism, particularly in regard to (a) reception and orientation (b) language and culture (c) education?\n4.\tWhat current government supported research studies are available dealing with multiculturalism and, in particular, third language learning?\n5.\t(a) What monies and federal programmes in the multicultural area are currently in operation to which community groups might make application for assistance (b) what are the criteria of such programmes?\n6.\tWhat committees or commissions are currently studying multicultural issues?\n7.\tIs the Federal Provincial Language Agreement currently being negotiated and, if so (a) who is doing the negotiating for the government (b) does it involve other than the two official languages (c) are both adult and children's programmes included?\n8.\tHas the government made a response to the latest recommendations of the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism and, if so, what is the nature of that response?\nReturn tabled."]
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 720, 1,330, 1,939, 1,965, 2,344 and 2,362.
Mr. Speaker, if question No. 1,362 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions No. 2,254 and 2,321?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	How many Indian reservations are in Alberta?
2.	In the years 1970 to the present, how much money, in the foim of grants, was given to each of these reserves on an individual basis?
3.	Are there any instances or extraordinary circumstances as to why one reserve may receive more in the way of grants or assistance than another?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: 
EXPORT OF OCEAN TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	(a) What was the dollar level of Canada's export of ocean technology-related commodities, physical or intellectual, since 1968 by year (b) what is the estimated value of such commodities for 1974?
2.	What targets, if any, have been set for the next five years, further to the intention to "stimulate development and effective participation of Canadian industry in the plan to see that Canada controls the essential industrial and technological ingredients to exploit off-shore resources," announced July 12, 1973 in the "New Oceans Policy" of the Minister of State for Science and Technology?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. (a) The
following exports are for the ocean industry which consist of companies supplying equipment and services for marine scientific activities and for the exploration and
exploitation of offshore non-renewable resources. These are very rough estimates based on departmental records.
Year	Exports (in $ Million)
1968	1.5
1969	1.2
1970	1.5
1971	2.0
1972	8.0
1973	37.0
(b) 1974	55.0
2. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is preparing proposals for the development and support of the Canadian ocean industry. The main objectives of these proposals would be to encourage greater research and development of ocean technology in Canada, efficient production of ocean-related products on an internationally competitive basis, development of internationally competitive service contractors, higher degree of Canadian ownership and control, regional expansion of industrial activities and an increased level of professional and technical personnel with ocean-related capabilities.


POSTAL EQUIPMENT
Mb'. Reynolds: 1.	On February 18, 1974, was a sub-contract let in the amount of $3.3 million to C.A.E. Electronics Limited, Saint-Laurent, Quebec, for postal equipment?
2.	Were tenders called on this sub-contract?


3.	What were the names of other companies tendering together with their proposed tender objectives?
4.	Has C.A.E. Electronics ever marketed such a system before?
5.	Did the Department of Supply and Services or any other department, provide financial incentives in this endeavour to provide Culler Facer Canceller?
6.	Does the Department plan on purchasing further shipments of the Canceller?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. Yes.
2.	Not known. C.A.E. Electronics Ltd. was offered as a suh-contractor by the prime contractor in the latter's tender, which was in competition with several other possible suppliers. C.A.E. Electronics Ltd. was acceptable to the department as a sub-contractor for this work.
3.	See 2.
4.	No.
5.	There was a premium paid for introducing C.A.E. Electronics Ltd. to this business. However, the amount of the premium is expected to be offset many times by the new opportunities, which have the potential to produce millions of high technology business, made available to C.A.E. Electronics Ltd. by the contractual arrangements concluded between the department and the prime contractor.
6.	One additional machine has been purchased and there is a possibility that the Canada Post Office will require more of these machines over the next two or three years.


HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICE CONTRACT
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Did the Department of Supply and Services award a contract valued at $109,542 to Canadian Engineering Survey Co. Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta for a hydrographic survey?
2.	To what intent is the survey to be used?
3.	For what reason was the survey requested?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: 1. Yes.
2.	The results of the hydrographic survey are required for up-dating the nautical charts of Thunder Bay and approaches.
3.	The accurate charting of navigable waters is essential to the development and maintenance of a viable, safe and efficient marine transportation system.


CBC-ADVERTISING
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	On how many occasions and in what manner were the dramas "Ten Lost Years", "Jamie Boy" and "Baptizing" advertised by CBC?
2.	Was this amount of advertising more than is customarily used for CBC drama and, if so, for what reason was it necessary.


Mr. Gustave Blouin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Not all CBC locations keep records in such a way that the requested information is available. However, when the
Order Paper Questions
amount of air promotion on the entire network and on the ten CBC local stations for which a count can be made is combined, the breakdown is as follows: Baptizing-57 promotional announcements; Ten Lost Years-89 promotional announcements; You're Gonna Be Alright, Jamie Boy-79 promotional announcements. News releases were sent to newspapers and publications across the country. Ad mats for Ten Lost Years and You're Gonna Be Alright, Jamie Boy, were made available to individual stations for placement in local newspapers. The network placed advertisements as follows: Baptizing-TV Guide, Ten Lost Years- Daily newspapers in Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa and Montreal; TV Guide, Chatelaine, Time, Financial Post; You're Gonna Be Alright, Jamie Boy-TV Guide, Financial Post.
2. No.


WOOD ISLANDS-CARIBOU FERRY SERVICE
Mr. MacLean: 1.	Has a programme of capital dredging been planned for the Wood Islands terminus of the Wood Islands-Caribou Ferry Service, in addition to the regular maintenance dredging for 1975?
2.	Have funds been made available by the Department of Public Works or the Department of Transport for such capital dredging and, if not, will they be made available through a supplementary estimate or by some other means in order that this work can be done during the 1975 dredging season?


Mr.   John. M. Reid@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: I am informed by the Departments of Public Works and Transport as follows: 1. No.
2. Funds have not been made available by the Department of Public Works for capital dredging. It is not expected that funds will be made available through Supplementary Estimates or other means during 1975. The Ministry of Transport does not have funds for dredging at Wood Islands and there are no plans to request money through Supplementary Estimates.


CANADIAN POLICE INFORMATION CENTRE
Mr. Beatty: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 621 and Question No. 622, what is the full and correct information with respect to the Canadian Police Information Centre and the Unemployment Insurance Commission?
2.	In each case, what was the reason for failure to reply to the Questions?
3.	For each department, agency, board, commission and Crown corporation that did not reply fully to the Questions concerning federal databanks, what would be the full and correct reply?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Ministry of the Solicitor General (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) is concerned: 1 and 2. The Canadian Police Information Centre does not maintain an automated personal data system used exclusively for statistical report or research, nor does it maintain an administrative automated personal data system. The Canadian Police Information Centre is an operational information system and, as such, questions Nos. 621 and 622 do not apply.

June 3, 1975
Order Paper Questions
1 and 2. In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned full and correct information was provided in response to questions Nos. 621 and 622.
3. See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Citation 171 (d).


FLIGHTS-MONCTON AIRPORT
Mr. Jones: 1.	How many (a) international flight (b) domestic flight arrivals and departures were handled at the Moncton Airport from March 13 to March 16,1975?
2.	How many passengers and how much baggage was handled in each of the flights?
3.	Were any of the international flights and the domestic flights diverted to Moncton and, if so (a) for what reason (b) how many were regular flights (c) were customs and immigration services adequate?
4.	Will the Airport be designated as an international airport with complete services and, if so, on what date?
5.	What plans have been made for the expansion of passenger, baggage, terminal, runway and other facilities at the Airport?


Jean Marchand: 1. (a)
There were seven arriving and 12 departing international flights, (b) There were 45 arriving and 55 departing domestic flights.
2.	There is considerable detail regarding passengers and baggage handled on each of the 119 arriving and departing flights. In summary, the following pertains: domestic arrivals averaged 62 passengers per flight with an average of two pieces of baggage per passenger, international arrivals averaged 193 passengers per flight, with an average of 1.5 pieces of baggage per passenger. Domestic departures averaged 56 passengers per flight with an average of two pieces of baggage per passenger, international departures averaged 147 passengers per flight, with an average of slightly more than one piece of baggage per passenger.
3.	Yes, some flights were diverted to Moncton, (a) Halifax International and Saint-John airports were closed due to the general labour strike and resultant snow accumulation. (b) None of the diverted flights were regular flights, (c) Since this airport is not a recognized international airport, facilities to handle large aircraft on international flights have not been provided, consistent with departmental policy.
4.	The Ministry of Transport has no plans to support international status for Moncton airport at this time and we are not aware of any requests from the airlines to do so.
5.	A master plan is now being developed for Moncton airport. Plans are now under review for passenger and baggage facilities. If approved, they will be provided as soon as availability of funds and national priorities permit. It is also planned to recap runway 11/29 in 1976-77.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	In addition to the Department of Labour, what other departments, if any, are concerned with multiculturalism?
2.	Who is the chief multicultural administrative officer (a) in Ottawa (b) in Toronto?
3.	Has the government policies concerning multiculturalism, particularly in regard to (a) reception and orientation (b) language and culture (c) education?
4.	What current government supported research studies are available dealing with multiculturalism and, in particular, third language learning?
5.	(a) What monies and federal programmes in the multicultural area are currently in operation to which community groups might make application for assistance (b) what are the criteria of such programmes?
6.	What committees or commissions are currently studying multicultural issues?
7.	Is the Federal Provincial Language Agreement currently being negotiated and, if so (a) who is doing the negotiating for the government (b) does it involve other than the two official languages (c) are both adult and children's programmes included?
8.	Has the government made a response to the latest recommendations of the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism and, if so, what is the nature of that response?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State) moved: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments by the Senate to Bill C-33, respecting the export from Canada of cultural property and the import into Canada of cultural property illegally exported from foreign states.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.

Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill C-57, to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1972, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should again like to
June 3, 1975

express my thanks to the opposition parties for the courtesy extended to my minister and myself in permitting me to handle this bill at the second reading stage. This is the second or third occasion the opposition has extended that courtesy, and I want hon. members to know that it is much appreciated.
The purpose of the bill now before the House is to propose a number of amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1972. These amendments relate to two of the federal government's main policies for financial support for the provinces and, through them, for Canada's municipalities. One is the program of equalization payments provided for in part I of the act; the other is the revenue guarantee program covered by part IV of the act.
Hon. members will be familiar with the equalization payments program and the massive financial support it provides to the less wealthy provinces. The basic purpose of the program is to provide provinces whose revenue-raising capacity is below the national average with enough funds to enable them to provide national average levels of service without having to resort to excessive levels of taxation. There years ago when the present fiscal arrangements legislation was introduced in this chamber, it was estimated the program would be providing equalization payments beginning at $1 billion a year. The main estimates for 1975-76 provide for equalization payments of $1,985 million. In the space of three years, federal equalization payments to the provinces have doubled. The program is clearly one of the main pillars of our federal fiscal structure, but the rapid escalation of payments has been an important reason for the recent growth of total federal expenditures.
The revenue guarantee program was introduced at the time of tax reform with the enactment of the 1972 Fiscal Arrangements Act. The original purpose of this measure was to encourage provinces to bring their income tax legislation into conformity with the reformed federal law and thus to maintain the consistency of federal-provincial income tax structures across the country. In the years since tax reform, the government has voluntarily extended the program to cover tax changes resulting not only from the 1972 reforms of the tax system but also from subsequent changes in the federal tax law which tended to reduce the federal and provincial tax bases.
Under the program, if the equalized yield of the province's current personal and corporate income taxes, at tax rates equivalent to those prevailing prior to tax reform, yields less than the amount that the pre-tax reform system would have yielded if it had applied, the federal government will make up the difference. During the fiscal year 1974-75, payments of $475 million were made to the provinces under this program. The main estimates for 1975-76 provide for the payment of another $340 million. All ten provinces receive payments under this program.
Before turning to the specific amendments themselves, I should note that the fiscal arrangements program is a complicated one and the legislation is technically complex. The complexity results, in the case of equalization, from the extent to measure the relative fiscal capacities of the
Oil and Gas
provinces with respect to all of the taxes provinces levy. In the case of the revenue guarantee, it results from the need to estimate tax yields of the pre-reform system. Of necessity, therefore, the amendments are highly technical.
The amendments dealing with the equalization program relate exclusively to the treatment of provincial revenues from oil and gas. They would do two things. First, they would carry out the proposal contained in the budget speech of November 18 last to equalize all oil and gas revenues that are not attributable to the international oil disturbance of 1973-74, plus one-third of the revenues that are attributable to this event. Second, they would provide for the reclassification of oil and gas revenues for the purpose of the equalization calculation. Both amendments would affect equalization for three fiscal years beginning with 1974-75 and ending with 1976-77 when the present fiscal arrangements expire.
The reason for the amendments respecting oil and gas revenues was explained at some length in the November 18 budget speech. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) indicated they would protect the basic equalization formula from distortions which would otherwise be created by the very large windfall revenues of the oil and gas producing provinces. While there is still uncertainty as to what these windfall revenues will be, it is clear they will run into many billions of dollars during the course of the present fiscal arrangements.
The potential cost of equalizing these revenues in full could be so large as to be beyond the capacity of Canadian taxpayers to finance. The minister expressed the fear that this result could undermine public acceptance of the fiscal equalization program and erode the basic principles on which the program is based. This was an eventuality the government wanted to avoid. The budget proposal would achieve this objective while at the same time permitting large but orderly increases in the equalization payments resulting from oil and gas revenues. This can be seen in the estimates of the portion of equalization payments that relate to oil and gas revenues. Assuming that the provisions of this bill are adopted by parliament, we estimate the cost of equalizing provincial oil and gas revenues, which in 1973-74 was $257 million, would be $380 million in 1974-75 and $415 million in 1975-76. The estimates are based on the prices prevailing at the time they were made, and on the prevailing royalty structures.
The bill would achieve the budget objective by dealing with oil and gas revenues in the following way. Those revenues which are not attributable to the international oil disturbance would be equalized in full. They are referred to as "basic revenues" in the bill. Those revenues which are attributable to the international oil disturbance would be equalized to the extent of one-third. They are referred to as "additional revenues." In the bill, "basic revenues" for each oil and gas revenue source are defined as the actual revenues of the provinces from that source in the 1973-74 fiscal year subject to an upward adjustment for any increase in the volume of production between the calendar year 1973 and the year for which equalization is being determined. Provision is made for a floor which protects provinces against a decline in "basic revenues" in the event that the volume of oil or gas production falls subsequent to 1973. "Additional revenues" are defined in

Oil and Gas
the bill as being the difference between actual revenues and basic revenues.
The second group of changes in equalization consists of a reclassification of oil and gas revenues into fixed groups known as "revenue sources", instead of the four groups the act now provides for. The result of reclassifying oil and gas revenues, along with accompanying changes in the measures of fiscal capacity which are used in calculating equalization, is to produce equalization payments which more accurately reflect the relative fiscal positions of the provinces. The consequence of these changes is to increase the amount of equalization payable. As of 1974-75, the increase is estimated at approximately $30 million.
The proposed new revenue sources consist of Crown oil revenues-that is, revenues derived from lands for which the mineral rights are held by the Crown-freehold oil revenues, Crown gas revenues, freehold gas revenues, sale of Crown leases and reservations on oil and gas land and, finally, other oil and gas revenues. The main effect of this reclassification is to recognize freehold oil revenues and freehold gas revenues as separate categories, reflecting the new provincial practices of deriving revenue from these revenue sources. The purpose of reclassifying revenues in this way is to place them into relatively homogeneous groups, to each of which a measure of fiscal capacity can be fitted.
I now come to changes in part IV of the Fiscal Arrangements Act concerning the income tax revenue guarantee. This, too, is a technically complicated part of the legislation and I will have to go into some detail in order to explain the intended policy. Four changes are proposed in this program. The first change would clarify the situation respecting provincial revenue reductions resulting from the indexation of the personal income tax. Specifically, the legislation will make clear that the yield of the "actual" income tax system will not be calculated on the basis of personal exemptions and tax brackets being indexed.
The government's intent in this regard was made clear as long ago as May, 1973, at a federal-provincial meeting of finance ministers and treasurers. The Minister of Finance at that time indicated that the federal government viewed indexation as being a change which differed in substance from other tax changes made since 1972 which have been permitted to qualify for inclusion in the revenue guarantee. He emphasized that the only revenues which governments would forego as a result of indexation would be those arising from the effects of inflation on incomes. He stated that governments ought not to be in a position where they could finance additional expenditures out of inflation, and that it was inappropriate for the provinces to expect compensation for revenue reductions resulting from indexation. These remarks were made before the onset of the global inflation which has been experienced during the past year and one-half. They are even more relevant today.
Second, it is proposed that a new basis be used for calculating the revenue guarantee payment. The amount of such payment to a qualifying province for any given year is equal to the excess, if any, of the yield of the pre-reform income tax system, if it applied in that year, over the yield of the actual or post-reform income tax system in that year after making certain adjustments. As

the act now reads, the actual yield from personal income taxes is determined on the basis of the provincial tax law, while corporation income taxes are based on the federal tax law. The bill proposes that all yields be determined with reference to the federal tax law.
This change is being proposed as a result of prospective divergences in federal and provincial income tax laws. Up to the present, differences between federal and provincial legislation have been very limited, particularly for provinces with tax collection agreements. Hon. members will recall that these are the agreements under which the federal government acts as the collector of provincial income taxes, provided the provincial tax law meets certain conditions respecting conformity with federal tax law.
At the December meeting of ministers of finance and provincial treasurers, the federal Minister of Finance announced that, while it was essential to preserve substantial uniformity between the federal and provincial tax systems, provinces with tax collection agreements could enjoy greater flexibility in modifying their systems and still have their taxes collected by the federal government. This offer was warmly received by the provinces. However, this greater flexibility will undoubtedly lead to various changes in provincial income tax laws during the remainder of the period to which the revenue guarantee applies which will move them out of line with the federal law.
A possible result of this offer is that a province which qualifies for a revenue guarantee payment could be in a position to initiate a tax change which would have the effect of reducing the yield of its "actual" tax system, as presently measured, and hence of producing a corresponding increase in the amount of revenue guarantee payments to which it is entitled. The revenue guarantee was not intended to provide compensation to a province for a revenue loss arising from its own initiative in changing the tax system. At the same time, provincial tax changes which increase provincial yields could, under existing legislation, result in a reduction in the guarantee payment to the province. The proposed amendment would forestall both such results.
A third change in the revenue guarantee meets a commitment the Minister of Finance gave to the provinces last December. It would define the "actual" yield of the corporation income tax in such a way as to exclude the amount of any provincial rebates to taxpayers of the additional provincial revenue derived as a consequence of the nonexpensing of provincial levies on oil, gas and minerals. This change would prevent sharp reductions in the revenue guarantee payments to provinces which make such rebates-notably including Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
Finally, a fourth change would prevent provinces from receiving a larger revenue guarantee as a consequence of not having adopted federal tax changes made since 1972. This amendment is being proposed to meet situations where the federal government changes its own tax structure in such a way as to reduce its revenues and a particular province chooses not to follow suit. Such a province
June 3, 1975

would not, in fact, lose any revenue and it would clearly be inappropriate to calculate the amount of its revenue guarantee payment as if it had. Accordingly, it is proposed that the yield of the "actual" system be adjusted in such a way as to prevent the making of a guarantee payment to a province for a revenue loss it did not sustain.
Mr. Speaker, that brings me to the end of my comments on this bill. The various policy issues in the bill have been taken up with the provinces and we have consulted with them fully on these changes. At the beginning of my remarks I noted that the purpose of the equalization program was to permit the less wealthy provinces in Canada to provide national average levels of service without having to resort to excessive levels of taxation. In this regard the program has been most successful. A look at the record will provide the necessary evidence of that fact.
Over the period of the present arrangements, equalization payments per capita, on a national basis, have increased by over 85 per cent, rising from $106 in 1972-73 to $197 in 1974-76. In Newfoundland, per capita payments rose from $215 in 1972-73 to $371 in 1974-75; in Prince Edward Island, from $224 to $410; in Nova Scotia, from $155 to $296; in New Brunswick, from $162 to $322; in Quebec, from $88 to $167; in Manitoba, from $68 to $122; and in Saskatchewan, from $112 to $127, notwithstanding the higher revenues that province now receives from oil and potash.
What contribution have these equalization payments made to the financing of provincial goods and services? In Newfoundland, equalization payments in the year 1974-75 represented over 58 per cent of all the revenues that province raised from its own tax sources; that is to say, for every $100 Newfoundland raised from its own sources, the federal government supplemented it by $58 in equalization payments. In Prince Edward Island the percentage was 57 per cent; in Nova Scotia it was 46 per cent; in New Brunswick it was 47 per cent; and in Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan it was about 17 or 18 per cent. This is a substantial contribution to provincial treasuries. These very large transfers have permitted the less wealthy provinces to make per capita expenditures at a level that is almost as high as that in the wealthier provinces. The basic objective of this program is clearly being fulfilled.
Mr. Speaker, the amendments being proposed in this bill will continue and strengthen this important program. I commend it to all hon. members and urge its adoption. ,


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the parliamentary secretary accept a question? Could he indicate to the House whether any province-if so, how many, and which provinces-has objected to the bill, particularly to the formula relating to the application of equalization to oil revenues?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) did not give me an opportunity to file my caveat. I was going to remind him of the lawyer who told his students never to tell their clients that they did not know the answer. When a law student asked him, "what if you don't know the answer?" the law professor said, "you get the client to go out and get more facts, while you look up the law". With that in mind, I will try to get the informa-
Oil and Gas
tion for the Leader of the Opposition and give it to him later in the day.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I thank the parliamentary secretary for his presentation and for his assurance that he will get the information that I sought from him. I think perhaps he understated the value of the equalization payments. He said that for every $100 raised by Newfoundland-it is important, in the interests of confederation, that the word "Newfoundland" be pronounced correctly-from its own sources, they get another $58 in equalization, whereas I thought he said previously that 58 per cent of all the revenue of Newfoundland came from equalization. Can the parliamentary secretary also clarify that for us a little later?
I do not intend to oppose this bill proceeding to the committee, but there are a few comments I would like to make in connection with it. First of all, I was deeply touched by the lecture which, the parliamentary secretary said, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) read to his provincial counterparts about what a terrible thing it was to live on the avails of inflation. I thought that was quite a lecture, coming from the Minister of Finance who not too long ago opposed the whole concept of indexation. It is interesting to see that in due course the minister not only reversed himself on that but is now lecturing the provinces about the sinfulness of their profiting from inflation in terms of having their revenues increased for that reason.
I rise this afternoon to direct a few comments to the parts of the bill that relate to equalization and, more particularly, to the equalization of oil revenues received by the provinces. As the parliamentary secretary explained, the approach to equalization of these revenues, under this bill, is to make a distinction between the revenues which the provinces receive on the basis of prices that were in effect before the so-called international oil disturbance-those revenues will be equalized just like any other revenues received by a province-and the revenues which provinces receive as a result of prices going up following the international oil disturbance, which would be equalized to the extent of one-third of such revenues.
As I rose, I was inclined to call that a phony distinction, but I think it would be more proper to call it an arbitrary decision. I understand, of course, why the government proposes to make such a distinction and why it finds it unacceptable to include in the equalization concept all the revenues that the provinces receive from petroleum. I understand that to do so would no doubt involve the government in very substantially increased expenditures under the heading of equalization. It would probably result in the imposition of additional taxation across the country for this purpose, which would mean that the people of Ontario, for example, would not only be paying higher oil prices but would be paying additional taxation in order to enable the federal government to meet its obligations under an equalization concept which involved the idea of the equalization of all petroleum revenues received from the provinces.
I presume it was for this reason that the Minister of Finance rejected the plea of the Premier of Nova Scotia,

June 3, 1975
Oil and Gas
for example, that all petroleum revenues should be included for purposes of equalization. Having said that I understand the reason for this and the reason for the federal government taking the position that it is not prepared to go further-that is, it is not prepared to commit itself to equalization payments on a bigger scale than this-I repeat that this distinction in the bill is arbitrary.
If one were to take the view that the increase in oil prices is the result of an international disturbance of short duration, then one might be justified in feeling that this is not really an arbitrary decision; to recognize these higher oil prices for purposes of equalization would involve a great deal of confusion, inconvenience and hardship. But there is no indication that they are not going to last; in fact, the more appropriate assumption is that higher petroleum prices are here to stay or are here for a long time at least.
So the bill does involve a significant departure from a pretty fundamental principle of the concept of equalization as it has developed through the years, that is, that all provincial revenues be included for purposes of equalization. Therefore, any premier who argues against this bill can properly argue that it does represent a departure from the principle which has been established. The only answer anyone would have on behalf of the federal government is that he would have to admit it is arbitrary; but he would have to say it is necessary to make this arbitrary decision.
I say it is arbitrary. I think the original method the Government of Canada had of getting out of this difficulty was also arbitrary, because the suggestion was made a year or so ago that if the oil and gas producing provinces put the revenue from petroleum, not into the revenue account but into some kind of capital fund, that would not count for equalization purposes. Surely that is not only an arbitrary position to take but one which would be very difficult to defend, because revenue is revenue for a province and a province which receives revenue does not change it into something else by putting it into a particular account. It may not choose for its own purposes to regard it as revenue but it is, in fact, revenue.
As it turned out, while this seemed to be the line along which the various governments were working a year or so ago to avoid the equalization difficulty this bill is intended to take care of, that did not work; but if it had proved to be workable, it too would be pretty difficult to justify in terms of the principle upon which equalization concepts have been developed through the years.
One thing I find very strange about the present position of the federal government is that for many years the premier of Alberta, Premier Manning, used to argue at federal-provincial conferences which I attended-and perhaps long before I attended them-that the revenues which the provinces received from the sale of oil lands and rights, for example, and the revenues the province of Alberta received in the form of royalties from oil and gas ought not to be regarded as revenue-not in total, at least-because they come from a depleting asset. What is striking to me is that in the days when Premier Manning of Alberta was putting forward that kind of argument, he received absolutely no sympathy from the federal government; yet when it became not only inconvenient but a very serious matter for the federal government to regard

all revenue from petroleum as provincial revenue, the federal government did not hesitate for a moment to completely reverse its position.
I think it is worth making that point, Mr. Speaker. Just as the Minister of Finance completely reversed himself on the subject of tax indexing when it suited his purposes, this government has completely reversed itself over a period of years with regard to provincial revenue from petroleum being regarded in fact as revenue. It really makes one wonder how seriously one should ever take any argument put forward by a federal minister of finance or any other federal minister on these concepts, because there have been very striking instances in which the federal government has completely reversed itself and the results flowing from these changes in the position taken by the federal government are of great significance to the country.
I do not know just what confidence the Minister of Finance in Canada can have today that any provincial treasurer or any provincial minister of finance is really going to take seriously any conceptual argument put forward by the Government of Canada. I do not know how a minister of finance of Canada can expect a provincial treasurer to have anything but skepticism at best, and cynicism at worst, about any conceptual argument put forward on behalf of the Government of Canada, because there are instances-I have mentioned two; no doubt I could dredge up others-where the federal government has reversed itself and completely changed its position when it has become convenient and profitable to do so.
I think these points are worth mentioning. This perhaps relates to morality to some extent. Perhaps the people should be as worldly as successive ministers of finance seem to be when it comes to looking after the interests of their own government. Perhaps I should not be surprised by this tendency of the Government of Canada to reverse itself, in view of some of the conditions which seem to exist in Canada where practically everyone is under investigation for one kind of fraud or another. I am not suggesting that the Minister of Finance is engaged in any such conduct, but I urge upon the minister-who is not here- and upon members of the government that if they expect the Government of Canada to be taken seriously, if they expect the financial concepts put forward by the government to be taken seriously, they have to pull up their socks and stop reversing themselves every time it suits their convenience to do so and every time it suits the federal treasury to do so.
In view of the vast increase in the revenues of the petroleum producing provinces and the consequential vast increase in federal expenditures that would take place in equalization unless the law were changed, I wonder whether it would not be more honest, more conceptually defensible, to review the traditional attitude toward provincial revenue as far as petroleum revenue is concerned. Would it still not be better to go back and look at some of the questions raised by Premier Manning at some of the meetings to which I referred?
I realize that that principle would not just be confined to oil but might also apply to other non-renewable
June 3, 1975

resources. A year from now there may be a big increase in the price of a raw material which produces enormous revenue to a province, from a source other than petroleum. Is the Minister of Finance then going to introduce some other makeshift fiscal arrangement with that province in order to accommodate himself to the difficulty?
I am not going to oppose the bill, and perhaps there is not time now to do something like this, but I say in all seriousness that it might be far more honest, far more open and consistent with the principle of the equalization formula not to arbitrarily remove fractions of revenue for equalization purposes. It might be far more satisfactory to go back to the concepts developed by Premier Manning and to recognize that the revenue that comes from a non-renewable resource in a sense is quite different from provincial revenues derived from other sources: it is a wasting asset. This problem and others that might arise as a result of sharp increases in the price of raw materials and minerals might be avoided, without the necessity of makeshift legislation, by introducing a concept upon which the federal government and the provinces could agree as to what percentage of revenue from petroleum and what percentage from other minerals should really be considered revenue and what should be considered something to be put aside to cover a depleting asset for the provinces.
I do not want to take any more time, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to make the point that, while I do not oppose the bill going to committee and while I recognize the Minister of Finance has a problem that is a hardship not only for the treasury but for the people of Canada in the form of taxation, I suggest that the means he has chosen constitute a very sharp and sudden departure from the principles that the Government of Canada adhered to for years. It involves a departure from the principle of equalization as it has been developed. While something like this must be done, I suggest that a better way could be found, a way that would endure without the federal government and the Minister of Finance having to stand on their head every two or three years to meet some new development. The minister could avoid the necessity of having to reverse himself from time to time in the so-called national interest.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic Party in parliament have always supported a strong federal government; they have always taken the view that if the economic and social welfare of the people of all parts of Canada is to be improved, if there is to be any kind of equality among the various regions of the country, then the federal government must play a very important role. Through its economic policies and its tax policies, it must see that the people are treated equitably.
Over the years, federal-provincial tax-sharing agreements went a long way toward meeting these objectives. Until a year ago agreements were arrived at after a good deal of discussion and compromise on the part of both the federal and the provincial governments; they were not unilateral decisions made by the federal government and imposed on all the provincial governments. But here, Mr. Speaker, we have proposals which are being rammed down the throats of the people and the provinces. To the best of
Oil and Gas
my information, every provincial government, Conservative, Liberal or NDP, has objected to the unilateral decisions made and being implemented in the minister's last budget and in this proposal.
We have been told by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) that the federal government could not afford to make equalization payments to the provinces on the same basis as it had until the recent sharp increase in the price of oil and natural gas internationally and the proposals by the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia to sharply increase the taxes or royalties they obtained from the sale of oil and natural gas, particularly for export.
We reject that argument, Mr. Speaker. It is a unilateral decision and we think it is unfair. We reject it because we know that the whole taxation policy of this government continues to be very unfair, continues to be inequitable and continues to press too severely on individual taxpayers, particularly those in the lower and middle income brackets. It continues to give great concessions to corporations, particularly those involved in the development and sale of natural gas, oil and minerals which are almost completely owned and controlled by multinational corporations.
I shall spend some minutes demonstrating the truth of my statements and showing how government tax policies have been of benefit to those in middle and upper income brackets. I shall consider the effects of indexing, a measure proposed by the official opposition and adopted by the Minister of Finance. According to the government's own figures, the benefits of indexing rise as income increases. For example, according to federal calculations the tax saving since 1973 accruing to a married taxpayer with two dependent children under 16 years old is under $10 if the taxpayer earns $4,000, about $200 if he earns $8,000, close to $600 if he earns $20,000, and about $1,300 if he earns $50,000. Clearly, indexing is of greater benefit to those in middle and upper income brackets.
The government apparently wants to preserve and protect the interests of large business. Let me quote part of the cogent analysis which the then minister of finance for the province of Manitoba, Mr. Cherniack made at the federal-provincial meeting of December 9 and 10 last year. He said:
The two-year fast write-off for manufacturers has been extended- despite the fact that there is no substantive evidence of its impact as a job-creating measure, and despite the fact that, even before the extension was announced, capital expenditures in manufacturing-which the measure is designed to stimulate-were expected to increase by 38.6 per cent.
Manufacturing and processing industries continue to pay tax at only a 40 per cent corporate income tax rate-a rate lower than that applied to individuals with taxable incomes of $12,000.
Mining and petroleum corporations have their tax rates increased to 50 per cent under the budget proposals, and then effectively cut to 35 per cent if provinces do not take up the additional federal abatements. Yet, these industries, according to the latest available data, pay corporation income tax on under 15 per cent of their book profits-that is, profits determined in accordance with sound accounting principles. Although these figures pre-date the 1972 tax measures, we have seen no evidence to suggest any major change has taken place since that time.

June 3, 1975
Oil and Gas
The government's tax policy has led to increased corporate profits. For example, corporate profits increased by over 21 per cent in 1972, by 35.7 per cent in 1973 and by 33 per cent in the first three quarters of 1974 over the same period the previous year. Having permitted the corporations to make those fantastic profits, the minister met with groups in industry, business and farming and asked labour to show restraint. When the corporations were making their greatly increasing profits, the minister remained silent, but now that workers are trying to recoup some of their losses brought about by inflation, now that workers are saying to the corporations, "We want a share of your increased profits," the minister is saying to the workers, "Unless you show restraint, this country will be in great trouble." Why did the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) not lecture the corporations when they were making their dramatically increasing profits? Why did they not ask them to restrain price increases which led to the increased profits I have described?
We know that we need a strong federal government with power to bring about a more equitable distribution of income as between individuals and regions of Canada? We do not think the federal government should be excluded from the resource tax field. On the other hand, we also think the provinces which derive substantial revenues from their resources should be entitled to go on receiving such returns. We are selling vast quantities of oil, natural gas and minerals at high prices, and we think that provincial governments and the people of the provinces have the right to the major part of the benefit of those sales.
This country is governed by a federal system of government. No one has been a more eloquent supporter of our federal system and constitution than our Prime Minister. After all, under the federal system and constitution, natural resources belong to the provinces. We do not think, therefore, that the federal government has the moral or legal right to arrogate unto itself unilaterally the greater part of the benefits derived from the sale of resources. In addition, we see no evidence of the federal government's willingness to promote more balanced economic and industrial expansion in the have-not areas such as the Atlantic region and the western provinces. An analysis of the geographic distribution of industries such as the petrochemical, aerospace, steel and other industries indicates a definite regional imbalance favouring the central provinces. Federal policies are leading to further regional imbalance in favour of Quebec and Ontario, provinces which already contain the bulk of our manufacturing industries.
Since the days of the western economic opportunities conference, during which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) made such glowing promises, we have seen little evidence of improvement in transportation. Inequitable transportation rates continue. The freight rate freeze has been lifted and the Crowsnest pass rates threatened. The Minister of Transport says one thing about the Crowsnest pass rates and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), who has responsibility for the Wheat Board, says another. The programs of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce continue to be weighted heavily in favour of central Canada. We say that major changes in policy are needed in all these fields, but there

is little evidence to show that the federal government intends to change its policies. The promises which members of the government made at the western economic opportunities conference when the government was in a minority position are being ignored: the government now does not need to worry about being defeated.
I have raised matters which concern us. We are concerned about government proposals being brought forward against the opposition of every province of Canada. I contrast the government's present proposal with something the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) said when he was minister of finance. In 1967, when speaking on the subject we are now discussing, he said:
We should seek in the future to measure the whole revenue or fiscal capacity of the provinces-to develop a comprehensive "prosperity index" if you will-in place of the partial measure now in use. Instead of selecting certain taxes and equalizing them to the level of the top two provinces, we should take into account all of a province's revenues and equalize them to the national average. This would be a good deal more expensive to the federal treasury, but far more equitable.
That was a very sound statement of principle. It seems to have been forgotten by the present Minister of Finance, but it is just as sound today as it was then. That kind of policy would not only help the western provinces, but the maritime provinces which have suffered the slowest rate of growth of any region in Canada almost since confederation, and very markedly in the past 20 to 25 years.
We were told by the Minister of Finance that if all the oil and gas revenues received by producing provinces were to be included in the equalization formula, as would have been done up to the time of the last proposals and policies being adopted unilaterally, the extra cost to the federal government for equalization could approach $2 billion, if not more. The government of Manitoba and the governments of the other western provinces completely rejected that calculation.
In December, 1974, the Manitoba minister of finance called on the federal minister of finance to put on record the assumptions which underlay his estimate, because their calculations did not produce such dramatic results. Their estimates suggested that for 1974-75, at least, the extra cost to the federal government of equalizing all provincial oil royalties would be about $200 million more than Ottawa proposed to pay under its plan to include only one-third of additional oil revenues in equalization. Of course, that $200 million figure did not include any allowance for cushioning the negative impact on Saskatchewan's equalization; nor did it include allowance for the addition of extra natural gas revenues, but these latter amounts did not appear to be as large as the totals for oil.
To my knowledge-I tried to check this with officials of the government of Manitoba-the federal minister of finance never took up that proposal of the Manitoba minister of finance. Without putting it into words, in effect he said, "I have the power. I have the authority. I am going to impose this unilaterally. There is nothing the provinces can do about it." It is for that reason and others that we intend to vote against this proposal. It is nothing more than a unilateral decision.
I say to the parliamentary secretary, as we have said to the Minister of Finance, that in implementing these pro-
June 3, 1975

posals the government is overriding very simple, firm, plain commitments which the Prime Minister made to the provinces. Following the first ministers' conference in March, 1974, the Prime Minister made a statement in this chamber. He said on March 28, 1974:
An agreement reached yesterday which underlines the good will and national feeling that exist in all provinces and regions ... which stands as a tribute to the vitality of our Canadian community. As I have said, yesterday was a great day for federalism ...
The national oil agreement I have just described would surely not have been possible without the good will and deep commitment to Canada of the premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan ...
The House may wish to note that Saskatchewan intends to place most of its added oil revenues in a capital fund for energy development; Alberta proposes to handle a high proportion of its added revenues in the same manner ...
While the revenues taken into those capital funds would not be subject to equalization, the federal government will, of course, pay equalization respecting any oil revenues that go into general funds.
There we have the Prime Minister saying that money which the provinces collected as a result of royalties or taxation on oil or natural gas because of the higher international price, which they put into a capital fund to be used for the development of energy resources, would not be deducted in calculating the equalization grants. It was a very fair statement. What happened when we got the budget? That statement of the Prime Minister was made at a time when there was a minority government. The Prime Minister had to think about the feelings, ideas and desires of the provincial governments as well as how he could face parliament. He made a very clear commitment, which was jettisoned six months later by the Minister of Finance and the government. There is no question that it was a commitment made by the federal government. In the last budget, and in the proposals before us today, that is completely ignored. We are now told that everything over one-third more which the provinces collect will be deducted in calculating the equalization payments.
If Ottawa feels that the people of Canada can benefit from the sharp increase in the international price of oil and natural gas, I agree with it. However, why does Ottawa not now increase the corporation taxes paid by the resource industries, the oil, gas and mineral industries? Instead, Ottawa does the exact reverse: it continues to expand the very favoured tax position of the resource industries in this country. Foreign capital came here in relatively small amounts. Because of our very generous tax laws for depreciation, fast write-offs and all the rest, the money made in this country by the multi-national corporations was plowed back into it. Almost 100 per cent of that money was paid for by the Canadian people either by the price they paid for oil, gas and minerals or by the tax concessions to the corporations.
These tax proposals are something else. Not only will provinces not get equalization payments on two-thirds of the money they get through increased royalties or increased taxes from the oil and gas companies, but taxes paid by these companies to the provinces by way of royalties will no longer be deductible for income tax purposes. How discriminatory can the federal government get? How much more can the federal government do for these corporations? If, for example, the CPR or the Hudson's Bay Company receive royalties from Imperial Oil, Shell or other oil and gas companies which have drilled on their
Oil and Gas
property, these are deductible for income tax purposes. Why should royalties paid by Imperial Oil, Shell, Gulf or any other oil company that has drilled on land owned by the government of Manitoba, or the government of Saskatchewan, or the government of Alberta, or the government of British Columbia-or for that matter, if oil is found, as I hope it will be, in the eastern maritime provinces-not be deductible for income tax purposes? What justification can there be for this discrimination?
As I said a few moments ago, if Ottawa feels that the oil and gas companies are not paying their share, which we have claimed for years, why not tax them as any other corporation is taxed? But no, the government did not enter this field and would not enter it until the provinces did so.
I simply cannot understand how this can be justified under any circumstances, unless the very simple explanation is that the government has always been the friend and defender of the large, multinational corporations, particularly the oil, gas and mining companies which have drained the lifeblood of this country, made exorbitant profits and which, thanks to the federal government, will continue to make exorbitant profits. We certainly intend to oppose this bill, and any bill like it, as hard as we can.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on Bill C-57, which is now on second reading.
As the parliamentary secretary has so well said in his speech, it is a very technical bill and, in my opinion it is not within a few minutes that a member of Parliament can succeed in getting to the bottom of things. A general idea can certainly be had, but in my opinion, it would be wise that the bill be referred to the committee and studied very carefully; as a result, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) could assure us of his intentions and of the federal government's intentions for the few years to come.
It is more than obvious that the government's duty is to ensure that the different areas in the country benefit from Canadian natural resources as a whole. Obviously one of the means to reach that goal is to ensure that each and every provincial government and, through them, each and every municipal government, obtain revenues enabling them to guarantee people in their areas services similar to those granted to less favoured area. But by what means? Since the beginning of Confederation, Mr. Speaker, the federal government and the provinces have never got along with regard to the sharing of revenues from natural and other resources. If one studies Canadian history, all successive governments in Ottawa have moved towards greater and greater centralization, which has always proven detrimental to the provinces. Such centralization became more obvious during the war years. During the World War I the federal government asked the provinces to grant it greater sources of income, alleging that wars were costly, and that universal freedom was at stake. "Well, once the revenues shall have been sacrificed and the war over, we shall attempt to return to the situation prevailing before the war."
Between World War I and World War II, about twenty years have gone by. During all that period, nothing but

June 3, 1975
Oil and Gas
haggling prevailed to recuperate the sources of revenue that had been granted to the federal government for World War I.
And then we start all over again. There is the war of 1939-45. Again the federal government says to provincial governments, yield us some revenue sources. We need them badly to make our war effort. And since the province of Quebec is different from the others because of its French nature-the only province in Confederation to be French-speaking-necessarily it had to fight harder to keep and get back its revenue sources to be able to provide Quebec taxpayers with services and culture in line with the French culture, its traditions, its habits and customs which are necessary and an enrichment in a confederative country like Canada.
Just remember after the war of 1939-45 the great political battles of two outstanding statesmen, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent who was at that time Prime Minister of Canada and the Hon. Maurice Duplessis, premier of the province of Quebec. Quebec was passing legislation to recover the revenue sources yielded because of the war and Ottawa was opposing that on the pretence that it had an absolute need of all those revenues to administer Canada, and while this was going back and forth increased centralization was taking place; there was even encroachment upon the powers of the provinces and centralization was taking place year in and year out. Today, I think that if we want to ensure the survival of Confederation we will simply have to give the provinces more autonomy and respect their rights so they will be strong within Canada as a whole-not strong in one area and weak in another, but strong within Canada as a whole.
I think that is the best method to ensure the survival of Confederation so all Canada can benefit from those advantages, the natural resources that Providence was good enough to award us. And to do that concessions will have to be made. The provinces, admittedly, have very heavy responsibilities. They also have responsibilities visa-vis the municipalities, and people are expecting ever more services. That is absolutely normal and as far as possible the leaders must meet the quite legitimate and reasonable demands of the population, but to be able to meet them adequately it takes revenues to pay for expenditures.
Well, that is the ongoing problem. Ottawa needs money. The provinces need money, and so do the municipalities. The municipalities are lacking the revenues to meet their obligations. If we look at the financial reports of our municipalities, we see that most of them are so much in debt that more than 60 per cent of their revenues go to servicing that debt. They run into debt, they get ratepayers into debt today for 50 years to come. They get ratepayers not even born into debt. That is serious, because it is to pay services for today. Fifty years from now, these people will still need services. I think that is not a good financing method.
The Federation of Mayors of Canada is formed, I think, of intelligent people. They meet every year. What do they talk about during these meetings? I attended some of them; nothing has changed, it is still the same today. They talk of revenues, of demanding a better distribution of tax revenues from the governments to municipalities so that

they can meet their obligations. That is what we are talking about today. Resolutions are passed, asking Ottawa to yield revenue to the provinces, and the provinces in turn will have to do the same. Everybody is fighting, all administrators are fighting for a better income, and we appear to persist in keeping the same financing methods of 50 or 100 years ago.
There has been no evolution, no change in the public sector. We keep on thinking in terms of sources of revenue, taxes on individuals and corporations in such a way that individuals are over burdened. Corporations are unable, to a reasonable extent, to develop natural resources to the benefit of all people simply because of that financing method of the public sector.
According to me-and I think of it very seriously-it would be time for the Canadian Parliament to make a decision, being the supreme authority. We know that provinces may not legislate in the monetary area: they cannot deal with it because they are not allowed by the Constitution.
To my mind, we could manage by granting the municipalities, the provinces, higher tax income. The federal government, which has the power to legislate in the field of finance, could find another source of revenue by using modern means, means that would correspond to our economic development, modern techniques, swift production, accelerated financing, by resorting to that financial institution of its very own, the Bank of Canada, by adopting amendments that would allow that institution to provide and loan it the sums of money required to finance part of the administration of the country. Not useless loans, but loans based on common sense, on reality, on the gross national product of our Canada,-although it may be declining now, but I trust that is only temporary-so that we can get back to normal and put to better use all our human resources, and increase the gross national product. That would enable the federal government to find sources of credit, loans from the Bank of Canada at a reasonable rate, comparable to administrative costs.
What is it that overburdens the municipalities, the provincial governments, the federal government in the field of finance? Rates of interest that are too high. That is absolutely senseless. Order must be put in that field, and the federal government has the authority to act.
I hope that when Bill C-57 goes to committee, we will have a chance to go into things in depth and very objectively in order to improve the situation in favour of the provinces and the municipalities, and thereby put an end to centralization.
This is provided the Canadian confederation remains strong and that throughout the country the people are satisfied. Thus the people could benefit from the same services throughout Canada because in short, we are all . living on Canadian territory and the entire resources must be distributed for the benefit of all Canadian areas and people.
When the bill will be considered in committee, I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) will take note of the proposals and suggestions made to improve it and make it meet the requirements of the provinces, to respect further
June 3, 1975

the provincial autonomy and pave the way for revamping the revenue sharing field and also to introduce changes in the financing of the public sector by accepting a reform of our monetary system which would considerably relieve the burden of interest.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. Before recognizing the parliamentary secretary, I would remind hon. members that he will close the debate when he speaks. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members for their interventions in this debate: I am sure some of them at least will be helpful to the minister when he appears before the committee which will study the bill clause by clause.
Once again the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) has indicated, not only here but in so many other areas, the main responsibility of the federal government for the fiscal management of the economy of the country. Although he and I disagree on the method or the way in which that might be done, he has indicated as a federalist on many occasions, for which I think he can be singularly proud, that we do have a main responsibility here to see that we keep our economy on the track, as it were. I know the suggestions made by the hon. member are valid because we have heard them in other speeches, particularly at budget time.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), I think strayed somewhat from second reading or from the principle of this bill, and we got once again into the question of taxation of natural resources and the stance taken by the respective provincial governments and federal government at budget time. I say, with respect, that it is probably a debate that will go on for some time in an effort to determine which is the chicken and which is the egg in the royalty taxation field.
The hon. member sees fit to place the blame on the federal government. The position of the federal government, in effect, was a reaction to a rather exorbitant increase in rates. In that case, had it not reacted to the situation we would have had an inconsistency. I think that if the hon. member studies the recent speeches of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) he will see that the anomalies and the inequities that were built in were such that if someone proposed to drill in the province of Saskatchewan, he would have found himself paying something like 17 times more in the way of taxes than he probably would have paid had the well been drilled in the province of Alberta. With a view to bringing some kind of sanity to the situation, the government was forced to react as it did.
I am happy to see that in the November budget there was a backing off from the position taken in the May budget and that the province of Alberta reacted in kind. It was particularly gratifying to the government to read the recent statements by Mr. Don Getty in his new portfolio, that many of the differences occurred in about 10 per cent
Oil and Gas
of the area and that there is a tremendous amount of co-operation in 90 per cent of it. Perhaps we can work out the difficulties. There was no indication of a stance by the federal government that it would say anything other than that the natural resources are owned by the provinces, but here we are talking about a taxation field in which the federal government has some responsibility, as the hon. member for Bellechasse has indicated, to the national economy.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) raised two questions, one in respect of the 58 per cent figure which I mentioned in my opening remarks. I would indicate that the equalization payments to Newfoundland in 1974-75 represented over 58 per cent of the total revenues that Newfoundland raised from its own sources. In other words, equalization is not equal to 58 per cent of Newfoundland's total revenue from all sources; the percentage expressed in this way would be lower.
Second, the Leader of the Opposition wanted to know specifically what provinces opposed the provisions of the bill. My information is that there has been very little in the way of opposition in writing from the provinces in respect of the equalization provisions of the bill. I suppose a review of the correspondence would be necessary in order to read the recommendations, or objections, for that matter, that may have been made. The minister did discuss the provisions of the bill with his provincial colleagues at an in-camera meeting. With great respect, I think it would be inappropriate to go into the exchanges which took place at that time. Certainly, there was no hint that the provinces were not consulted; but in the final analysis the government must make a determination.
The Leader of the Opposition made much of the fact that the Minister of Finance and the government had seemed to reverse or change their stance. I say that in all probability that is true because it is necessary to meet new conditions. If conditions remained basically the same, there would be no necessity for any change. Equalization was never intended to cover the tax revenue explosion which occurred because of the international oil disturbance. What the federal government and the Minister of Finance were endeavouring to do was to protect the equalization program so that it would not lose the confidence of the Canadian public through the necessity of having to tax far beyond what I think the taxpayers would be prepared to pay. When this disturbance came, it was necessary to find some way around it so that the equalization program-which I think everyone agrees is necessary in order to equalize to some extent the differences in our country- could be effective; otherwise the program, in effect, would have been destroyed. The Minister of Finance indicated on more than one occasion, but particularly at the meeting of ministers of finance on December 9 and 10, the following:
I would also like to say that I am conscious of the need to begin looking at the equalization arrangements for the 1977-82 period. As you know, the present program expires on March 31, 1977. There is no doubt in my mind that this program must be renewed. It is customary for the federal government and the provinces to sit down together and examine the program in order to consider any improvements which may be needed. A review will be particularly useful prior to 1977 in view of the recent, and totally unanticipated, disruption brought about by the international oil disturbance.

June 3, 1975
Territorial Lands Act
Here again, if the program and the formula are found to be unacceptable by the provinces, they will have occasions on which to put forward their views. This is not a permanent program; it is to be enforced only over the next two years.
I think the other questions probably would be more properly dealt with at the committee stage. The hon. member for Winnipeg North referred to the $2 billion figure. That did not relate to the 1974-75 or the 1975-76 period but, rather, to a year later when oil and gas revenues might rise to a substantially higher level than now exists. The hon. member will have an opportunity to direct questions to the minister on that specific part of the bill. With that, I would like to thank hon. members for their interventions and hope the bill will now receive second reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.

J. Judd Buchanan: that Bill S-20, to amend the Territorial Lands Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
J. Judd Buchanan: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to remove the excessive and arbitrary penalty contained in section 24(2) relating to contravention of the terms of section 24(1) of the Territorial Lands Act. It is intended to provide for a blanket order in council which would enable an employee of the Government of Canada to become a shareholder in a corporation owning or having a direct or indirect interest in territorial lands. The order in council would spell out the type of shares which could be held and would be retrospective to cover those already owning such shares.
The hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) expressed some concern in committee when this bill was being discussed in so far as the conflict of interest aspect was concerned. The order would further state that an employee of the Government of Canada would not be authorized to hold such interests as a shareholder where that interest would enable the derivation of any direct or indirect interest from government contracts over which he could influence decisions, or would create a conflict with his public duties.
It should be noted that an individual order in council would still be required to authorize the purchase or acquisition of territorial lands for, as an example, recreational or other personal use. The order would apply to shares 
acquired by an officer or an employee of the Government of Canada either before or after the making of the order. The amendment in the bill does not contravene the provision of the Treasury Board conflict of interest guidelines. Should an employee of the Government of Canada be clearly aware of a real or potential conflict of interest, he would be expected to declare it.
There is one other point that was made during the debate in the committee. The hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) expressed some concern about the use of the singular rather than the plural, and he was concerned that this would have the effect of still requiring individual orders in council rather than a blanket order in council. We pursued this concern with the Department of Justice and were informed that one should not read any significance into the use of the singular rather than the plural in a legislative sentence, unless the context would clearly provide or require the singular use only. The singular includes the plural, and vice versa in this case. In the present case, the difficulty does not revolve around this factor. The difficulty in enacting a general order under subsection 24 (1) as it now reads is that there are no guidelines given on the power to prescribe the interest in a corporation or the interest in a class or classes of corporations that may be authorized by the order, so that it is impractical to make a general order under subsection 24 (1) as it now stands.
The proposed new subsection 24 (2) contained in Bill S-20 would remove this difficulty and permit a general authority to be issued, which is the objective.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations regarding Bill S-20 which in my opinion is being passed a little too quickly through the House and was passed through the committee a little too quickly. I was sorry that witnesses were not called from the Northwest Territories or the Yukon to make their views on this bill known. When the bill was introduced in the House on April 11, I mentioned the fact that I thought it was quite important to the north and that I would like to see witnesses from the Northwest Territories brought before the committee because a number of important things are happening in the north at this time. First, there is the possibility of granting the right-of-way for the proposed pipeline, there is the question of unsettled land claims of the native peoples, the expansion of communities there, and so on.
I find myself unable at this time to vote in support of this bill and I urge other hon. members not to vote for its passage. It contains certain provisions which I find not very satisfactory. It raises in my mind a question as to whether the bill applies to commissioner's land. In the Northwest Territories we have town or hamlet council land, municipality land, commissioner's land around the municipalities, and then Crown lands. I believe this bill would leave it open to federal civil servants to purchase commissioner's land. Should they be in a situation where they would have prior knowledge of the expansion of a municipality, they would know what land could become valuable in the future, thus making speculation and conflict of interest possible.
Another serious question that I have with regard to this bill is, who will police its regulations? The intent of the
June 3, 1975

bill is good. However, if the department itself is to ensure that the provisions of the bill are put into effect, why bother passing it? Another question in my mind relates to clause 24 which makes this bill retroactive. Is this provision there to let someone off the hook who has acquired some land in the north?
These are some of the important questions which this bill raises in my mind. I am sorry that no witnesses from the north were called before the committee to make known their comments on this bill, and I am sorry that duty called me elsewhere when the bill was before the committee and I was unable to raise these questions at that time. For these reasons I find myself unable to vote for the bill as it is at present.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-50, to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The chair has had an opportunity to look at the four motions which are introduced as amendments at the report stage of Bill C-50. Having looked at these amendments, I find there appears to be some procedural difficulty with regard to them as related to the royal recommendation.
The first motion, which is in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), seeks to amend the bill in clause 1 by deleting line 11 at page 1 and substituting a new commodity, namely, wool. The second motion also seeks to alter in a significant way the royal prerogative by establishing a new base price; and with respect to motion No. 3 the period of five years is altered to two years.
On each of these motions, before making a final ruling the Chair is quite prepared to hear arguments from hon. members on the procedural acceptability of the amendments. We might begin by considering the first one, motion No. 1 in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motion proposed-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I would remind him that the Chair is inviting comments from hon. members, not on the substance of motions 1, 2 or 3 but only on their procedural acceptability. If hon. members have contributions to make in that regard, the Chair is prepared to hear their arguments now.
Agricultural Stabilization Act


Thomas Gordon Towers: May I ask you a question, Mr. Speaker? Do you propose that we deal with all the motions at this time, or are we to deal with them separately? Should we try to establish the basis of each amendment as it is presented, or are you prepared to accept our dealing with them all now?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I would simply remind the House that with respect to motion No. 4 there seems to be no difficulty; it appears to be in order. However, with regard to motions Nos. 1 to 3, in the mind of the Chair there are some reservations as to procedural acceptability and I was asking, only with respect to motion No. 1, if hon. members wished to present argument as to whether it is procedurally acceptable.


Thomas Gordon Towers: In speaking to the procedural problem, I consider it is an omission on the minister's part in not having included that commodity originally in the bill. Personally, I am disappointed, as I am sure the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) is, that the minister did not see fit to include that commodity in the bill originally, and also that he did not bring in a bill or an amendment himself which would have covered it. It would seem to me that it is very important, in dealing with this stabilization bill, that that farm product be included along with other farm products and it would be discriminatory if we could not proceed on that basis at this time. I would hope, Your Honour, that you would allow this amendment to be debated at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: In order to facilitate the business of the House, perhaps hon. members would agree that for the purposes of debate we could proceed at this time to motion No. 4, which has no procedural obstacles in the way. We could return later this evening to the other motions, at which time hon. members would have had an opportunity to consider them more carefully and they may wish at that time to present procedural argument. If it is agreed, we can proceed now to motion No. 4. Is it agreed?


Mr. McKinley:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think your suggestion is agreeable but I would ask unanimous consent of the House to allow the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) to move motion No. 4 on behalf of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). Further to that, I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has anything to say with regard to motion No. 1-it appears simply to add another commodity, namely, wool and it appears it was an oversight by the minister or the department-or if the minister would be prepared, if Your Honour suggests it is necessary, to obtain the necessary royal prerogative from the Governor General to look after that amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is it agreed that we proceed to motion No. 4?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Gordon Towers: motion No. 4:
That Bill C-50, an act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, be amended by deleting subclause 5 (2) being lines 10 to 18 at page 4.

June 3, 1975
Adjournment Motion
He said: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this motion it is a matter of deleting, in clause 5(2), lines 10 to 18. The deletion is simply this:
The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after subsection 10(1) thereof, the following subsection:
"(1.1) For the purpose of stabilizing the price of an agricultural commodity, the Board may exercise such other powers as are prescribed by the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the Board, for that purpose."
In dealing with this motion, one of the main problems is that nowhere in the bill is there an explanation of what is constituted by the word "Board" that is in line 3 of (1.1). Certainly we would want an explanation of that to really understand what the minister is trying to get at with this stabilization bill. It would seem to me that we have to be very careful in the legislation we are passing, because of the fact that we have seen in time past the political manoeuvring which does take place, primarily before elections.
Going back a certain period of time to the last time there was a hog stabilization payment made, there was a stabilization payment made to the farmer and at the time it only required a dollar and some cents, I believe, for each hog affected by the legislation, but because of the fact it was just prior to an election-at least we have to assume this-the then minister of agriculture decided that it would be advisable to pay $5 per hog on 200 hogs, which meant that those people producing the maximum number of hogs could receive up to $1,000. I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) wants to establish a sound basis upon which these payments will be made and it will not just be at the whim of the minister of agriculture of the day or the governor in council.
We have to take a serious look at the legislation as it is being debated in this House to ensure that it will stabilize the agricultural industry in Canada. We have to realize that we are in competition with our neighbour to the south, and the fact that it is using its agricultural production to a large degree to counteract its deficiency in energy production will create a difficult period in our agriculture industry in the months and years which lie ahead.
Certainly we do not want the agricultural industry to have to rely on an election in order for it to obtain the proper income for its products. In view of that, we have to have the legislation tied down to a form which will not only be acceptable to the industry but also satisfactory to the consumer and ensure that there will be an adequate supply of whatever product we are dealing with.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight are as follows: the hon.

member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Immigration-Need for farm workers in Nova Scotia-Government action; the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Health-Medicare-Alleged setting of time limits for medical examinations-Government position; the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds)-Labour Conditions-Possibility of meeting Mr. Fitzsimmons, president of Teamsters Union-Government position.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I think there would be agreement to take order No. 36 standing in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), and the government would request that all other items stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. Items Nos. 8, 34, 4, 10, 24 and 33 are requested to be stood by the government. Is it agreed?


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Do they retain their order?


John Mercer Reid: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) moved: that Bill C-236 to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when the present Unemployment Insurance Act was proclaimed on June 23, 1971, it included several aspects which were commendable. It included, for example, a maternity benefit clause, a sickness benefit clause and a clause covering the period of qualification for contributions before one could collect unemployment insurance of at least eight weeks in the previous 52-week period.
The new act also eliminated some things that were commendable and some that were beneficial and useful to the working people of this country. That is what my bill, C-236, is trying to amend. One of the things the new act eliminated was provision for workers who were injured or became sick on the job and as a result received workmen's
June 3, 1975

compensation while they were off work. For example, a worker may be off for 52 weeks during which time he collects partial workmen's compensation benefits. At the end of the 52 weeks he is deemed ready to go back to work, but his former employer tells him that he could not keep the job open and had to hire someone in his place.
This worker may have contributed to the unemployment insurance fund for many years. He meets all the conditions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. He is willing and able to take a job, so he goes to the unemployment insurance office and files for benefits. His records show that he has not worked in the last 52 weeks, however, so he has not the required eight weeks of contributions to the fund. My amendment would extend the qualifying period to include the time that the worker was off due to sickness or was in receipt of compensation benefits. For example, if he was off for 52 weeks, then the unemployment insurance office would go back over the past year and 52 weeks to get eight weeks of contribution so he would be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits until he could get back into the work force.
It is a very simple amendment and it is just. It deals with a condition that was recognized in the original Unemployment Insurance Act before it was amended in 1971. The reasons for having it in the act prior to 1971 are still relevant.
I know that private members' bills have as much chance of passing in this House as a snowball has in the nether world. I know there is the practice of talking out these amendments, but I appeal to all members of the House to let this one pass. It may not be used in urban ridings where most occupations are less hazardous than those in my own area, where mining predominates. Insurance companies recognize that miners have the most hazardous jobs in the country and demand a higher premium from them than from other citizens. The chance of workers in my area being affected by the act as it stands is much higher than, say, workers in the riding of my hon. friend from St. Catharines (Mr. Parent). I know that even though he is on the government side of the House, he will recognize the great need for this kind of amendment which would benefit workers in highly industrialized areas whose jobs entail a great degree of danger.
This is the kind of amendment that is supported by the trade union movement, Madam Speaker, which has consistently suggested it to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) who is responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Act. Other amendments could be brought in, but this one is very important to the worker. I checked with the trade unions in my area to find the extent to which this particular amendment would be used, and found that compared to other sections of the act such as the maternity section, it would be used very often. It is very important in industrialized areas where workers have hazardous occupations.
Someone who has worked for 20 or 25 years and finds that he does not qualify for unemployment insurance benefits is in a very difficult position. He can go to the welfare office and ask to be put on the welfare rolls, in effect going through a very dehumanizing process in order to keep himself and his family going until he can find a job. Surely this is no way to treat people who made their
Unemployment Insurance Act
contributions to the fund when they were healthy and working. This amendment would maintain the dignity of the worker who finds himself in such a situation.
I therefore hope that other hon. members who speak on this amendment do not resort to the usual device of talking the bill out, but that they let it go to a vote. It is very important to the workers of this country that this bill is passed and that the act be amended in this fashion.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Madam
Speaker, it is not my intention to talk out this bill, but it seems to me so important that it will require 15 or 20 minutes of my time. I have done some research into the proposed amendment and have some ideas regarding its effect on the Unemployment Insurance Act. I should like, also, to deal with what is wrong with other sections of the act which pertain generally to the situation to which the hon. member referred.
In 1971 there were fundamental changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act which among other things reduced the minimum insurable weeks required for eligibility to eight in the previous 52. This feature, in conjunction with the payment of sickness benefits, significantly reduced the need to provide for extensions to the qualifying period. The significance of the reduction to the requirement for eight weeks of insurable employment was that claimants would be paid benefits on a combination of recent labour force attachment and the difficulty in finding employment at the particular time he or she was unemployed. This is in contrast to the previous act which was based almost solely on the number of insurable weeks worked in the qualifying period.
I understand that experience with the new act since 1971 indicates that extensions to the qualifying period could be useful to the following categories of claimants: extended sickness, workmen's compensation, imprisonment, labour disputes, courses of occupational-vocational instruction. Studies on the potential advantage to extend benefit periods in these circumstances are under way in the Unemployment Insurance Commission but are not yet complete. Completion is dependent upon other in-depth studies being carried out that might bear either directly or indirectly on the suitability of reintroducing the extension of the qualifying period concept. Therefore, to proceed independently with proposals for amended legislation in this regard would be premature.
Let us consider benefit period extension. A significant consideration that must be taken into account in dealing with this general subject is the parallel requirement to also study the need for extensions to existing benefit periods for similar categories of claimants. For example, an individual who initiates a claim for benefit and is then incarcerated for an extended period of time should be treated with the same advantages as the individual who was incarcerated before he had established a claim for benefit. This effect compounds the degree of study that must be entered into before extensions to the qualifying period can be agreed upon.
Let me now say a word concerning workmen's compensation. At this time, working level discussions are being

June 3, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
undertaken with provincial workmen's compensation boards in order to determine the extent to which unemployment insurance should be co-ordinated with payments from these agencies. These interrelationships not only deal with eligibility for benefit but also with dissemination of information to potential claimants vis-a-vis their rights to unemployment insurance. Except for permanent settlements, any moneys received from workmen's compensation boards are considered to be earnings and therefore deductible from unemployment insurance benefits. At the same time, since these earnings are not from employment they do not constitute insurance earnings for unemployment insurance purposes. However, an individual would have to have a period of incapacity while in receipt of workmen's compensation benefits for a period in excess of 42 weeks before his eligibility for unemployment insurance had expired.
My first point on the motion, Madam Speaker, is that provincial governments are already involved in workmen's compensation. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) raised an interesting point which strikes at the very heart of unemployment insurance. The question as I see it, having read his motion, is whether unemployment insurance benefits should be taken out of the realm of insurance and considered as being in the realm of or form of guaranteed income.
In my short time as a member for this House I have seen the shortcomings of unemployment insurance. I have seen the self-defeating aspects of unemployment insurance and I have also seen the real worth of unemployment insurance. Let me state emphatically that the federal government, rightly or wrongly, appears to me to be shouldering all the blame for what sometimes should be a provincial responsibility. For instance, I do not think the federal government should be held solely responsible for the housing crisis in this country. Neither should it be held solely responsible for the unemployment figures in this country. I am amazed to observe that in provinces of high unemployment, politicians blame the federal government, but in provinces of low unemployment politicians give credit to the provincial government.
This obvious lack of consistency is never attacked by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the cabinet. They appear to accept the total responsibility for all wrong and accept no credit for what is right. That is an admirable trait, but its one shortcoming is that inevitably provincial elections are fought in the provincial arena and the federal government is the main issue. The same holds true of this motion.
Provincial governments have a clear mandate to augment federal policy. They have the right to introduce budgets and thus hold in their hands the key to success in such areas as workmen's compensation. Every year provinces, in bringing down provincial budgets, must decide on their social welfare policies. For instance, how much should someone on welfare get? How high should be the minimum wage? What provisions should be included in the provincial workmen's compensation act? How much money should be allocated to blind people's allowances? How much can the province spend on day-care centres? To what extent can the province make use of the federal 
government's 50-50 formula under the Canada Assistance Plan?
Unemployment insurance is a blessing in some cases but a curse in others. The question which must always be asked is, "How far should we go?" It should not be, "How far can we go before we exhaust the public treasury or overtax the working man." There are areas in which the unemployment insurance scheme needs changing. If the hon. gentleman for Nickel Belt were suggesting that we should amend the act so that overpayments which are the fault of the interviewing process or of the computer are not charged to the recipient, I would wholeheartedly support it.
How you can ask a seasonally employed man to repay a $1,000 overpayment for which he was not responsible, I do not know. But that is the law, Madam Speaker. That is what the act we are discussing says must be done. How anyone can expect a person living in a rural area to commute 200 miles to work, to a job that pays the minimum wage, I do not know. The hon. member noted this point in his argument. Yet under the act, if a worker refuses work in the closest industrial centre, which could be hundreds of miles away, benefits are cut off immediately. That, too, is part of the act. At present the Unemployment Insurance Act discriminates against people in the outports of Newfoundland or in the rural areas of other provinces.
The hon. gentleman who proposed this motion is concerned perhaps about the same things I am concerned about, namely, that what is effective in Alberta may not be appropriate in Newfoundland; what may be a practical insurance scheme in a province which has high standards of social legislation may not be practical in a province which does not have those standards. To be truly effective, the Unemployment Insurance Act would need to stipulate different regulations for different parts of this country and for different classes of working men and women. Should the regulations for western Canada be the same as those for Newfoundland? In western Canada thousands of jobs remain unfilled, but in Newfoundland no jobs are vacant. I do not think they should be the same.
By the same token, provincial government policies must be different in different areas of Canada. Should we not consider the economic deprivation of Newfoundland? What should the policy of that provincial government be? Perhaps we could take a lesson from progressive areas of Liberal policy or from the professed policy of the party of the hon. gentleman who proposed this motion.
As far as I am concerned, unemployment insurance should only be used for someone who is looking for a job but cannot find one. He or she should be capable of working. The only exception I would make would be for cases of pregnancy. The unemployment insurance regulations should be open for those people who honestly cannot find work. The workmen's compensation acts should guarantee someone a salary in case of sickness or injury and it should be an adequate compensation. It should be part of the social legislaiton of each province. The working man who pays in to these insurance schemes deserves consideration.

I also believe that the provincial governments are responsible for their own social policy best suited to their province. They are also responsible for developing policies that will guarantee employment. In areas of high unemployment, government initiative may be the only answer for development and perhaps nationalization of industry should be considered. The federal government should stick to certain limits or it will eventually become so involved in provincial matters as to warrant the presently unjustified criticism it is experiencing with unemployment figures and housing.
I will agree with the hon. member on one point, that where a provincial government has been lax, where it has fallen down on social legislation, has got itself into serious trouble financially or is off base spending the hard earned money of the people, some mechanism should exist to make up for that inadequacy, for the sake of the people. Provincial and federal government are elected to protect the people with the workingman's hard earned money, but each government should shoulder its own responsibilities.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Madam Speaker, I am glad to associate with the sponsor of the bill, because I notice that his intentions are excellent. However, with regard to the administrative complications arising out of the present act. I believe that such a bill would further complicate the calculation of benefits owing to a person on unemployment insurance. The fact that a worker is victim of an accident on his job certainly deserves particular attention, so that he may not lose, on such an account, his right or privilege to benefits to which he may be entitled were he on unemployment insurance.
However, Bill C-236 obviously concerns sections 18 and 21 of the act. And section 18, concerning the qualifying period, is quite complicated. It reads:
The qualifying period of an insured period is the shorter of (a) the period of fifty-two weeks that immediately precedes the commencement of an initial benefit period under subsection (1) of section 20, and (b) the period that begins on the commencement date of an immediately preceding initial benefit period and ends with the end of the week preceding the commencement of an initial benefit period under subsection (1) of section 20.
Sections 22, 24 are just as complicated.
I said earlier in this House, and the hon. member who just spoke also suggested that provisions of the act are contrary to amendments introduced by Bill C-236. I also repeated at every opportunity, especially when I gave my views on the acts involving workers, that the legislation is always worded in and almost unintelligible way, and certainly not readable by the workers. The position taken by the sponsors of the bill is very important. But concerning improvements to the unemployment Insurance Act, there should be proposed an amendment explaining clearly that changes proposed should be made part of the act, and be worded to take into account the fact that a worker lost certain benefits he could have been entitled if no accident had happened.
At any rate, the explanations supplied in the bill are pertinent. It is stated that the purpose of the bill is to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to provide that where an insured person is not working and is receiving total temporary workmen's compensation because of an
Unemployment Insurance Act
industrial accident or illness, there shall be added to his qualifying period. The time spent off work and in receipt of the workmen's compensation.
I support the bill, and take this opportunity to suggest that when in due course the Unemployment Insurance Act is amended, which has long been overdue, undoubtedly because the act is too complicated, and therefore there is uncertainty as to how to amend or improve the various unintelligible parts in the act in order to avoid present complications.
And concerning the complexity involving illness, I will give a few examples. I could state hundreds of them, but I thought it would be in order to bring to this House's attention a few facts that occur in cases of illness, concerning qualifying periods, computations, exclusions. There is no end to the story!
I have here the case of a recipient who submitted a claim for sickness benefits on October 27, 1973. He provided the appropriate medical certificate establishing the duration of his disability to December 20, 1973, when he would be recovered, fit and available. On February 7, 1974, the claimant had not yet received any payments. As his claim had been lost, he had to start all over again. He had to file a new claim, provide new medical certificates, even if he had recovered since December 20, 1973. This happens regularly. It is an example of a bureaucracy paralyzed by a red tape avalanche, and the cost of all this must be paid by the Canadian taxpayers.
I have evidence that certain investigators insisted on obtaining a medical certificate from someone who had had a routine medical check-up. This is really astounding. This badly framed legislation has caused so many complications of all kinds that a great number of sections should be amended in accordance with the role of social legislation, and I hope that when they are, the suggestions of the hon. member will be considered.
I have here another case: On January 14, 1974, the commission advised a claimant that his uneligibility period from November 18 to January 5, 1974 was over. However, in another letter, dated February 7, 1974, he was advised that his uneligibility period applied to the complement and extension phases and that his payments were finished. This is all very complex. How can the poor unemployed man, who had a lot of difficulty during his employment period and who acquired by his contributions a right to payments when he becomes unemployed, understand all this? At certain times, there is pandemonium. Then, it is unavoidable that members of the House suggest solutions to try to ease the effects of an overly complex legislation.
I have here another case, a sickness benefit claim submitted on November 18. After completing the normal formalities, the commission paid the contributor $280 for four weeks. Then, the problem of medical certificates came up. He provided four of them. The commission advised him on January 24 that he will perhaps obtain another extension if he reports within the time allowed by the commission.
With the bill now under consideration, I am convinced that there would be problems of medical certificates, since the referral physicians who are considered as specialists

June 3, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
would create problems. I know in certain cases that they are not, although they do give medical certificates to claimants referred to them. In the above-mentioned case of February 18, he is told that his claim which took effect on November 18 is considered as his initial claim and that up to now he has received five weeks of benefits.
At that time, he still had two weeks of sick benefits to receive and he is advised that he will get them in a fortnight. He is also told that since January 20, he is qualified to obtain the ordinary benefits, since the commission has received the authorization from his physician that he could perform some light work and that the claimant was available since January 25. One must not forget that this last letter is dated February 18 and that the person concerned received his benefits during five weeks, as of November 18, 1973.
I could give numerous other examples, but I do not wish to waste time in this regard. I agree with the sponsor of the bill. I also agree that it be passed. However, before concluding, I believe it to be in order to sum up the matter thus: as a result of the complicated legislation drafted by technocrats who have never known the difficulties of unemployed people, a confusing situation has arisen, with the following results; months of delay in the payment of benefits, overpayment of benefits, benefits twice-paid and, in some instances, no payments at all.
All of this due to all kinds of reasons, as insignificant as may be: compromised eligibility, for a start, because of complementary periods, qualifying periods, prolonged periods, to which one must add waiting periods, and leave credits considered as earnings. And to complete the picture, payment procedures were centralized by organizing a team of push-button civil servants fed with often erroneous statistics, who attempt to control the situation to the best of their ability, with more failures than success, by using computers that are out of order as a result of an overload due to income tax returns, so that mistakes mushroom, and unemployed persons suffer from the situation.
It is a sort of summary of the legislation's results. It has brought in certain benefits, I would say a lot of benefits, to many unemployed. But there is so much complications in the technicalities of the regulations that the legislation gives rise to great anxiety for the families of the unemployed who are waiting for unemployment benefits which are not coming.
So, I will conclude by saying that I support fully the proposed legislation, and I would appreciate a lot when time will come to bring forth changes to the legislation- which badly needs them-that the suggestion made today not be forgotten.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend from Nickel Belt and I have known each other for many years and, while we have not always been in agreement on the various issues that we have discussed, I must say that today we do stand shoulder to shoulder at least on this particular aspect of the bill he wishes to have passed. I would hope that the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) would not think I am simply helping to

talk the bill out by giving him all this support which he so richly deserves.


John R. Rodriguez: I am watching the clock.


Gilbert Parent: I might preface my remarks by suggesting that should this bill be talked out, which I hope it is not, the hon. member could perhaps come to the manpower committee, of which I am a member, where I am sure we would receive him and his suggestion with open arms.
The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) earlier mentioned that there could be an extension of one category which would be useful so far as unemployment insurance benefits were concerned; among others he said that long term illness could be taken into consideration. One aspect of workmen's compensation that I should like to see corrected is that when a man has to stay off work this is counted against him when he comes to draw unemployment insurance benefits. However, I hope we will not take a piecemeal approach to the problem but rather that the comments that have been made will be regarded as an overview of the problems sometimes faced in administering unemployment insurance benefits.
I read some time ago a book called "Future Shock" by Alvin Tofler, and in the book he said people will continue to go to school, not simply for a few years and then leave school never to return, but as an ongoing project right into adult years and beyond. It seems to me this is one aspect that the hon. member for Nickel Belt might also consider.
Having been a teacher, and I understand still being a teacher in good standing with the board, I know the hon. member will appreciate that people who try to better themselves, if you will by pursuing educational studies at school, should in no way be penalized for doing so. If people who have worked for a number of years wish to take a few months or even a few years off to further their education, when their educational term is over and if they are not immediately employable, then I think they should be eligible to draw benefits for which they have worked over the years, though I would not suggest they should draw unemployment insurance benefits while they are actually at school.
I should like to address myself specifically to the cost of unemployment insurance benefits and to pose a question and possibly answer it, though not necessarily for the enlightenment of my hon. friend who, I am sure, is aware of many of the facts and figures that I will be quoting.


John R. Rodriguez: As long as my hon. friend is not wrong.


Gilbert Parent: The hon. member knows that if I am wrong I will be the first to admit it. However, sometimes mistakes are made inadvertently and I am sure the hon. member will at least grant me a small error along the way if one is made.
To return to my remarks, Madam Speaker, what is the cost of UIC? There were changes made in unemployment insurance premiums recently. Maximum insurable earnings under the Canada Pension Plan were changed on January 1, and this means higher unemployment insurance payments for anyone earning over $8,840 a year, and higher Canada Pension Plan payments for anyone earning over $6,600. Moreover, certain salaried employees who
June 3, 1975

have been paying unemployment insurance premiums at reduced rates will have to pay more because they will have to pay the full shot for the next year.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt will remember the discussion we had some years ago when we were asked to include teachers under the unemployment insurance fund. At that time there was a great furor as teachers felt they would not be among the unemployed because as far as they could see into the future there would always be a need, as indeed there is, for good teachers, since teachers were simply not turned out from our colleges of education without jobs being available. I am a bit sad to say that the prognosis they formed at the time has not held true. In the year 1973, 1,800 and some odd teachers were the beneficiaries of unemployment insurance. More and more people across the country are coming under this scheme, so I would hope again that this would be taken into consideration by hon. members.
Premiums under both these schemes I mentioned are determined by the individual's income level. Under the Canada Pension Plan, which applies to all Canadians other than Quebec residents, the charge is 1.8 per cent of gross income up to a maximum of $6,600. However, the first $700 of income is exempt, making the top premium 1.8 per cent of $5,900, or $106 a year. Next year the percentage and exemption remain the same, but the maximum pensionable earnings will increase from $6,600 to $7,400, so the maximum premium will go up from $106 to $120.
Under the unemployment insurance scheme Canadians at present are paying 1.4 per cent of their gross incomes up to $8,840, which makes the top premium $123 in 1974. This year the maximum insurable earnings will increase from $8,840 to $9,620, and the maximum premium, which the hon. member will no doubt make a note of, will go up from $123 to $134.68.
However, quite a few Canadians have been paying less than the 1.4 per cent, so the increase will be relatively larger for those people. Those are the people who were not covered by the unemployment insurance plan before the scheme was extended to cover everyone at the beginning of 1972. Such people were phased into the scheme gradually, paying reduced rates in 1972, 1973, and in 1974, unless they changed jobs. In each of those years the rate was moved closer to the standard percentage, and for 1975 the difference will be wiped out.
One might ask what the cost of unemployment insurance is to the country. Let me refer to a news release of May 28, 1975, in which it is stated:
Manpower Minister Robert Andras has promised to study a proposal which could bring 18 more weeks of unemployment insurance benefits to jobless victims of the auto slump.
I draw attention to this because in many ways my constituency is affected just as is the constituency of the hon. member for Nickel Belt. We have many members of the United Auto Workers in St. Catharines, and this information was of particular interest to me.
The news release further states:
-unemployment benefits for the first four months of this year totalled $1.2 billion, an increase of almost 50 per cent over the $830 million total for the first four months of 1974.
Unemployment Insurance Act
If projected for the rest of the year at present jobless rates, the total benefit cost of the program this year would be about $3.5 billion-far more than the 1974 total of $2,116 billion.
I just wonder how the suggestion in this bill would fit into this scheme. We were not given any figures by the hon. member, but undoubtedly they would be forthcoming at a later time when this bill got to the committee. I give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt in that regard.
The news release further states:
Increased unemployment this year with a resultant larger number of claims for benefits and a higher level of payments due to increased earnings are among factors that will push the total up.
Manpower Minister Robert Andras told the MPs that in 1975 the country will face the highest level of unemployment in 14 years.
Again this prognosis saddens me, but it is one which we must consider and check to see how things develop.
The news article then states:
For the Unemployment Insurance Commission this means substantially increased demands will be made on both its administrative and financial resources ...
In the first four months of the year, the jobless rate ranged from a low of 6.7 per cent in January to 7.2 per cent in both March and April.
It seems that the people who must apply for unemployment insurance benefits are affected in more ways than one. I have addressed myself to the problem, if you will, in respect of a man or a woman who has been employed for a long period of time and then has to apply for social benefits. To me it is a natural duty or responsibility of every able person to look after himself or herself, in so far as it is possible, and where this is not possible I feel it is incumbent upon society to look after its own.
If, through inadequate legislation, the ambitions of the unemployed person are removed, his dreams are shattered, and his strength is stifled, then we as a nation will have to pay the price, and a high price it will be, because we are depriving ourselves as a group of the many productive years such people would have as citizens, workers, and contributors to society.
What is the reaction of a person who is unemployed for an extended period of time, particularly to his physical makeup? Naturally there is worry about the support of the family, meeting financial commitments, and this is not conducive to quick recuperation or a desire to get out and on the job. Quite to the contrary, in some cases this can worsen the claimant's condition and bring about a series of other ailments including ulcers, stomach and nervous disorders, insomnia and low morale. We do not want any of these things among our citizens because these things can even affect the health of the immediate family.


An hon. Member:: What was that about not talking it out?


Gilbert Parent: My hon. friend asks about talking it out. I would hope he will bear with me for a few more minutes.


John R. Rodriguez: About five seconds.


Gilbert Parent: I have a few more points to make and I am sure they will be beneficial to you when you present the case to the committee.
6404

June 3, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I would just like to remind the hon. member that his remarks should be addressed to the Chair and not to members on the opposite side of the House.


Gilbert Parent: I apologize, Madam Speaker, and I will see to it that all my remarks are addressed to you or through you to hon. members opposite, and I hope you will accept that apology. I trust you will not put a stop watch on me.
How is a person affected emotionally when he is out of work for a long period of time? The traditional role of the man in our society, and I say this knowing that this is women's year and that a large number of wives work, is as the breadwinner and head of the family. A reversal of the roles, that is, the wife being responsible for the family and its upkeep for a long period of time, can in some cases seriously affect the emotional balance of the unemployment insurance claimant, particularly when benefits run out.
The only alternative is welfare, the latter being particularly applicable when the wife is unable for one reason or another to work. The loss of material goods in such cases is highly possible. It might involve the foreclosure of a mortgage or the loss of a car, a television set, or other items. In such cases starting over is a most demoralizing procedure.
Some people might never bring themselves back up to the level or standard of living which they once knew and which they worked so hard to achieve. How does this affect a person mentally? In some cases there is an extension of the emotional aspect. A good citizen in the society which surrounds him might become seriously warped in the face of non-existent benefits, particularly after illness, which quite conceivably might be followed by a loss of employment. This is basically what we are discussing today, the inability of a person to carry on his or her work because of illness. These people who may have been hard working taxpaying citizen contributors to our society sometimes because of illness end up as bitter persons devoid of any ambition or any desire to take care of their commitments.
I would hope that these few suggestions that I make in respect of the bill brought forward by the hon. member for Nickel Belt might be useful to him, and I would invite him to bring them to the attention of the Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. I would hope that this bill would not be left to die on the order paper or remain dormant. I should like to see it revitalized and discussed more fully.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, with his bill today the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has reminded the House of the necessity for more work on the existing Unemployment Insurance Act in order to improve it in some parts and to bring about some profound changes in other parts. His proposal of course is to be commended. We certainly agree with him on the substance of what he has put forward to the House.
If the hon. member had assiduously attended the meetings of the Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, as he did in the past, he might agree with some of

us that to proceed piecemeal on this very important piece of legislation would not really be in the best interests of the country and the people who benefit from the legislation. As was mentioned by the hon. member for Kamou-raska (Mr. Dionne) we would rather include this suggestion, since others that have been put forward by members in various parts of the House, as part of a total package that could be considered by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) in the hope that he will soon bring forward basic changes to the existing legislation.
I should like to give some examples of where there is need for improvement. There should be extensions in respect of the qualifying period as it affects people who aree in receipt of Workmen's Compensation Board payments. In that same category we should also look at the situation of people who suffer from extended illnesses. Amendments are also necessary there. Then there are those people who have been imprisoned, who had been employed before imprisonment and perhaps while in prison. Consideration should be given to these people so that it would be easier for them to enter the work force. Then in respect of people engaged in labour disputes we should consider an extension of the qualifying period. There are also those who are involved in occupational and vocational training courses.
There are also other examples one might give in relation to the initiative taken by the hon. member. It seems to me there should be rewards under the law for people in relation to their attachment to the labour force. In other words, the longer one has worked the longer one should be entitled to benefits. This kind of reward presently is absent from the legislation. Surely Canadians who have been working for a period of 20 or 30 years understandably feel they are entitled to a reward in proportion to the number of years they have worked. They should be rewarded for the continuity of their work so that when they happen to become unemployed this would be reflected in the legislation.
We should eliminate the practice of benefit control officers penalizing innocent people who really do not understand what they are asked to sign in the form of statements submitted to them by the benefit control officers. We should improve the language of the forms which people find extremely difficult to understand when they have to fill them out. We should also provide notice to claimants that they are about to run out of benefits in two or three weeks' time. This should be the procedure rather than the present system whereby someone receives a letter saying that he or she has run out of benefits, period.
Then there should be substantial amendments in respect of training allowances for people undergoing training so that they will have a better income while being trained for jobs. There should also be a rule that would permit the fund to create jobs in the public sector when there is a shortage of jobs in the private sector. I see it is six o'clock, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
June 3, 1975



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-50, to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there would be consent to reverting back to the procedural question that was raised about motions Nos. 1 and 3 standing in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), and motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The suggestion is made that we deal with the first three motions to amend Bill C-50 at report stage at this point. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, on taking a look at these three motions I think it is quite clear that they all propose additional charges against the revenues of the Crown. I do not think it is necessary for me to read the royal recommendation. It is found on the page opposite page 1 of the bill. It lays down the limits beyond which parliament cannot proceed on the money that can be spent.
I direct the attention of the House to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 246(3) on page 207, which reads:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objections and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
I would point out that in the case of motion No. 1 an additional commodity is added. In motion No. 2 the conditions are changed so as to change substantially the base price upon which future payments are to be made, and in motion No. 3 the word "five" being changed to "two" is a significant change in the number of years over which the stabilization program is to take place. So I would argue that these three motions offend against the royal recommendation and the traditions and principles of the House of Commons, and therefore cannot be put.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I dealt with motion No. 1 and I suggested then that it
Agricultural Stabilization Act
corrects an omission by the minister. I had hoped that he would have included that commodity in the bill. I believe it is a very serious omission. However, in view of the argument presented by the parliamentary secretary, and in view of motions Nos. 2 and 3 which possibly could be dealt with together, you may wish to separate motion No. 1 from the other two. I want to point out that clause 3.8.2(1) reads:
The prescribed price of an agricultural commodity in a year shall be, (a) in relation to a named commodity, the amount obtained by adjusting ninety per cent, or such higher percentage as the Governor in Council may prescribe, of the base price thereof for a year by an index calculated in such manner as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council to reflect the estimated production costs of the commodity in the year as compared with the average of production costs for the five years immediately preceding the year;
My point is that this expenditure has already been covered in the clause, and the purpose of motion No. 2 is merely to clarify exactly what is included in indexing. This was debated at considerable length, and the minister himself stated that he would take into consideration the cost of fertilizer, the cost of labour, the cost of gas, and all the input costs of a product. If he is going to include all the input costs-and I agree that he should-transportation costs should also be included, and so this amendment is needed for clarification. This does not necessarily mean that the amendment will cause a considerable increase in expenditure.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is the transitory expense of an agricultural product? Should you consider its cost to a certain point only, from the combine to the bin, for instance, and disregard any other cost? I assume that the minister will consider the cost of transportation of grain sold outside the Canadian Wheat Board to market as part of the cost of production. This amendment is just for clarification. It could have been included as an encompassing clause, but since we are not sure about that, it was included for purposes of clarification.
With regard to motion No. 3 we find that deleting the word "five" and substituting therefor the word "two" will create no great expenditure of money. It just means that the averaging cost instead of being calculated over five years will be calculated over two years. In fact it could well be that as a result there will be a lesser expenditure if this amendment is adopted. The parliamentary secretary, in my opinion, is misleading the House when he states that an extra expenditure is involved here. By reducing the number of years to two we will be making the cost of production more realistic.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that you will seriously consider this amendment, and at least allow the second and third amendments to be debated because they are of fundamental importance. It is certainly a matter of clarification. It is tidying the whole bill up, and it does not necessarily mean that there will be a greater expenditure. It is just a matter of clarification so that the producer will know exactly what will be constituted as a cost of production.
As I said earlier, this is covered in the previous clause 3.8.(2), and I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will look favourably upon the reception of at least two of these amendments, if not all three.
29561 - 6114

June 3, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers). The addition of wool in motion No. 1 as an agricultural product should not be denied, and I notice that industrial milk and industrial cream have been separated. I presume that had only the word "milk" been used, that would have meant both industrial milk and industrial cream, but for purposes of clarification and making sure that both are covered, I presume this wording was used.
I think wool should be added because that would signify that wool would come under the legislation. Wool is very much a product of sheep. Leaving wool out would be the same as saying that cowhides would not enter into the calculation of the returns from a cattle beast on the basis that it was separate. Therefore I think wool is very much part of this bill, and to leave it out would mean that the bill would not cover wool. Surely if it is to cover sheep, it really signifies that it covers sheep only as meat, whereas wool should be considered part of the product of sheep. It just so happens that wool is a major part of the return on sheep production. Therefore I do not see any point in not allowing the word "wool".
The bill does include sheep, and I think a good argument could be made, in figuring and assessing the returns from sheep, that one has to consider the value of the wool. All this amendment does is clarify something which has already been implied, that is, that sheep will be covered, and that wool is part of the return from the raising of sheep.
Turning to motion No. 2, it reads in part that:
... the base price the cost of transportation of such agricultural commodity from representative producer shipping centres to representative markets averaged for the said five years."
I think this is a very good point. After all, the cost of shipping produce from the general area where it is produced to the general area where it is consumed is substantial, and it makes all the difference in the world. For instance it is argued that western beef producers are being unduly discriminated against by virtue of the high cost of transporting beef carcasses versus live cattle. I think this is a major factor to be taken into account.
The way the legislation presently reads, those who live close to a consuming centre will get quite a lot more out of this base price than those who live far away. Adding the cost of transportation to this base price would remove some of these inequities and make a more representative bill. It does not necessarily mean that the cost would be higher, because the cost of shipping commodities is representative of the cost-


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to know if the hon. member is addressing himself to the substance of the bill and the motions, or whether he is dealing with the procedural aspects.


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, this does not change the money involved and what the treasury would be responsible for. Deleting the word "five" and substituting the word "two" merely underlines the fact that some number has to be used. It could be one year, two years, five years, 10 or 20 years. None of those figures would imply that the

treasury would be responsible for any more costs. To say that substituting the word "two" would cost more than "five" only assumes that inflation will continue, and therefore the average of five years will be less than the average of two years. It could well be the other way. I think motion No. 3 does not in any way imply that the cost to the treasury will be any greater. It may well be less. I suggest that any number could be used, five, ten or twenty, but in a practical way two years does not necessarily increase the cost to the treasury. It may reduce it, and I therefore suggest that it should be allowed so that we might debate it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, there are several reasons for urging that the amendments are in order. The first, of course, is that the parliamentary secretary has argued that they are out of order. That, by itself, is a major reason.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I can understand why the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) might have wandered a little, because he had the greatest difficulty following the parliamentary secretary in his very tortuous point of order.
I would point out to the Chair the wording of this royal recommendation, and if one were to follow with precision the argument advanced by the parliamentary secretary I must say that this would place great inhibitions upon an opposition which has grave problems trying to put forward proposals to alter bad legislation to make it better and to improve some of the proposals of the government. The difficulties are, of course, in the rules. The royal recommendation in this particular instance says:
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act to amend in the manner prescribed the definition "agricultural commodity"...
I would suggest that if the words "the manner prescribed" are to be given the fullest, strictest and harshest interpretation, which the parliamentary secretary urges for them, it would mean that the use of those words in any other bill before this House, with a royal recommendation attached, would make it impossible for the opposition, or any hon. member, to move an amendment. Some day there may be a member of the government party with enough courage to move an amendment. I look forward to that. Some day I will see rising out of those ranks of statues opposite-


Mrs. Campagnolo:: Oh, Jed!


Gerald William Baldwin: -an hon. man or an hon. woman who will say, "I don't like what the government is doing; I'm going to try to amend it". I look forward to that day. I hope it will happen when I am still in this House. I do not have much hope, but one can wish. I hear them making noises occasionally, but that is as far as they go.
If I can get back to the point I was making, Mr. Speaker, that if these words "the manner prescribed" are to be given the very strict, harsh interpretation ascribed to them by the parliamentary secretary, it would be almost
June 3, 1975

impossible, if the same words were used in the royal recommendation accompanying other legislation, for members of this House to move any sort of amendment at all. I submit to the Chair that "the manner prescribed" could be expanded to cover all aspects of the bill.
Most people realize that in the interpretation of a statute, the whole statute must be taken together in order to get the meaning. According to the rather absurd, argument advanced by the parliamentary secretary, that would mean that any attempt to amend a particular clause in a meaningful way would be an infraction, and would prohibit a member of the House or a party in this House from making a change.
I am rather shocked at the parliamentary secretary's attempt to do this. He is dredging back 200 years to a royal recommendation, the prerogative of Charles I, James I, Elizabeth I, and Henry VIII, that highly undomesticated monarch. Mr. Speaker, those were the rules that prevailed in those days-"the king can do no wrong"-so the Commons, struggling to do their job were confronted time after time with the fact that the king had brought in a bill and said to them, "You can proceed with this bill for these purposes, but our recommendation circumscribes you, so you are limited in what you do."
We are in the twentieth century, Mr. Speaker. We are a parliament struggling to deal with the tremendous problems which the group of hon. nonentities opposite have been unable to deal with. The parliamentary secretary is attempting to invoke this harsh and rigid rule which is founded on what was done 250 or 300 years ago. I am ashamed that the parliamentary secretary would try to urge Your Honour to delve into the mists of antiquity to call up that rule.
I know we find the rule in Beauchesne today, but if Your Honour were to do the research he would find its origin rests in the days of the kings. Remember, Mr. Speaker, kings lost their heads, and Speakers even lost their jobs from time to time.


Mitchell William Sharp: No threats now!


Gerald William Baldwin: I cited a case yesterday where the Speaker was so incensed at what the government was trying to do that he got up and made a speech. I would not hold it against Your Honour if in making this decision you saw fit to censure the government. I would be prepared to sit down and listen if you were to find that what the parliamentary secretary is trying to do is wrong.
If Your Honour is not satisfied that the sound arguments of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) and the hon. member for Dauphin have demolished the rather trivial proposition of the hon. parliamentary secretary, I would call upon you to consider the consequences of a ruling of this kind which prohibits the opposition or a member from making an amendment. After all, it is only on a contingency basis that those royal revenues-which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) loves so well-will be in any way circumscribed. There is no certainty of it.
If one looks at the Public Accounts and examines the expenditures made under this bill it will be found that they were extremely limited in some cases-especially under a Conservative government which produced such a
Agricultural Stabilization Act
great degree of prosperity in the agricultural industry that it was not necessary for the government to be called upon to make good. It is only a contingency liability in this legislation; it does not have the effect of directly dealing with the revenues of the Crown.
I call upon Your Honour to rule with all your resources and advice in an attempt to put the parliamentary secretary back where he belongs.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take very long on this. In reference to motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3, I would refer Your Honour to Hansard for January 24, 1958, when a member of the opposition presented a motion to add another commodity. I would submit at this time that by order of the Governor in Council any commodity can be added to this bill at any time the need is found.
This is what was said at page 3790 of Hansard for the date I have mentioned:
Mr. Chairman, in connection with this amendment, I would like to point out that it is clearly out of order. I think there is no question that if this amendment were accepted it would add to the general cost to the treasury and it is not within the competence of any private member to make an amendment which would have that effect. I therefore think there is no question that the amendment is out of order.
That statement was made by the then minister of agriculture, Mr. Harkness. The amendment was ruled out of order.
In regard to motion No. 2, when the hon. member talks about the present clause in the legislation he says it is already covered by clause 8.2(1). This is not so in terms of expenditure. He refers to the cost of transportation and not to cost of production of input items. We use that if we are figuring the cost of any product today. When costing beef, for example, we figure out the cost of the transportation of the animal and the cost of the transportation of the grain. This is the way it is done, whether some people want to recognize it or not.
In motion No. 3 there is reference to a two-year base. When the bill was first introduced into this House in 1958, the government changed the original period from three years to ten years because it thought it was better. There is no doubt that what members opposite are suggesting now would make it more costly to the government. We have tried all the different formulas, and we think the five-year base period is the most beneficial for the producer and the consumer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I thank hon. members for their contributions to this procedural debate; they have been enlightening, and even at times entertaining.
I think it is quite correct to point out that the guiding principle with respect to the procedural acceptability of the motions before us is in Beauchesne's fourth edition at page 207. Citation 246(3) points out that the recommendation is in reference to:
... not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) made the argument that this was only a cost, but I think the citation goes well beyond a charge alone.

June 3, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) argued that there was an omission. I would respectfully point out that this is a point of debate.
The citation makes it clear in these words:
... the royal demand of recommendation ... must be treated as laying down once and for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only ...
If there were an omission it would be the prerogative of a minister of the Crown to withdraw and replace the recommendation, and that prerogative would rest with him alone.
In the case of motion No. 1, it appears clear that a commodity has been added which goes beyond the terms of the recommendation, and therefore it appears to offend section 3 of citation 246 of Beauchesne's fourth edition to which I referred. I therefore rule that motion No. 1 is unacceptable from the procedural point of view.
Motion No. 2 purports to add a new factor or condition in establishing the base price of an agricultural commodity. Therefore, it does, according to the passage I cited, fall into the prohibited category.
Motion No. 3 offends perhaps one of the most fundamental provisions of the recommendation, namely, the number of years needed to establish the base price.
I therefore rule that Motions Nos. 2 and 3 are not acceptable procedurally, and cannot be put.
Does the House wish to proceed with motion No. 4, which appears to be in order?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among House leaders and there is, I think, general agreement that, rather than proceed immediately with the bill now before the House, we should consider several other items on the order paper namely, item No. 15, coming under government business, dealing with the travel of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, then items S-25, S-17 and S-15. If we complete that business before ten o'clock, we would propose to revert to consideration of Bill C-50. I hope that there will be consent for this proposal.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to accept this proposal. We are always willing to accommodate the government. We look forward to anything which will improve our desperate economic situation. I do not know what the Explosives Act will do to the economy, but we are willing to discuss it.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we also agree to this re-arrangement of our business. At least we will not get any less done this way.


Gerald William Baldwin: Stanley, you are a cynic.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is it agreed that we proceed as suggested by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner).]


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mitchell William Sharp: That the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development be empowered to adjourn from place to place in Quebec and Ontario on two separate occasions on June 8 to 10, 1975, and on June 15 to 17, 1975, or during the summer adjournment of the House, to study economic development on reserves and to inspect some historic sites and parks, and that the necessary supporting staff do accompany the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: that Bill S-25, to amend the Privileges and Immunities (International Organizations) Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments about this short bill. Although it is relatively small in size, in terms of the number of clauses it contains it is an important bill.
As hon. members will have noted, the European communities will open a mission in Ottawa in the fall of 1975 and the purpose of this bill, which seeks to amend the Privileges and Immunities (International Organizations) Act, is to accord the mission legal capacities and immunities and to provide that the representatives of the communities shall be accorded privileges and immunities normally accorded to diplomatic envoys under international law.
I wish to underline the importance which Canada attaches to the forthcoming opening in Ottawa of this mission of the European communities. As hon. members know, an important thrust of Canadian foreign policy at present is to establish a contractual link with the European communities. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) mentioned in the House of Commons yesterday, I believe, the European commission is now seeking authorization from the Council of Ministers to commence negotiations with Canada for the development of a general framework agreement between the communities and Canada. That, of course, is an important development, and it is our expectation and belief that the Council of Ministers will authorize the commission to undertake these negotiations, which we hope will result in the establishment of that link. Obviously, because of the importance which we attach to this development in our relations with Europe, we consider the opening of a mission of the communities in Ottawa as a significant step. We welcome that development.
The purpose of this bill therefore is to grant to the mission and its representatives the privileges and immunities which are normally accorded to diplomatic envoys under international law, and this is to be achieved by a

simple amendment to the Privileges and Immunities (International Organizations) Act.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we accept the proposition put forward by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). We do not propose to discuss the bill at length now. We think there will be an opportunity in committee to examine the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or any civil servant whom he might allow to appear before the committee for examination. I made my opinion known yesterday during the debate; and any hon. members who did not hear me, may, if they are interested, read the report of what I said yesterday about the contractual link. I can only say that it is high time the government did something to restore the prestige, influence and status with European nations which it was so profligate in throwing away in earlier days.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether what I am about to say will qualify as a second reading speech.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Welcome to the diplomatic world, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we agree to the second reading of this bill.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, hon. members really seem in a happy mood tonight and determined to proceed quickly to pass this piece of legislation. However I should like to point out to the House the importance of Bill S-25. Even though it has only two pages, it is of great importance on account of the privileges granted in the international organizations having relations with this country.
The bill's explanatory note reads thus:
The purpose of this Bill is to allow the Governor in Council to provide, by order, the same privileges and immunities to the European Communities in respect of its organization and officials in Canada as he may provide in respect of other international organizations covered by the Act.
I agree entirely with those provisions but I believe certain reservations should be expressed about the order that may be issued by the Governor in Council to extend the same privileges to the European communities without the matter being referred to the House.
I believe we should trust the Governor in Council in the granting of those privileges but in some cases, those recommendations should be submitted to the House so that parliamentarians may be informed, may be aware of the intentions of those international organizations that wish to obtain the privileges intended in this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Explosives Act


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.

Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill S-17, to amend the Explosives Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


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


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I would like an explanation of this bill because I am concerned with one aspect which affects cartridges and explosives. If the parliamentary secretary wishes to make a statement before I speak, I will be pleased to hear him.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few brief comments concerning Bill S-17, to amend the Explosives Act. I want to thank the opposition for their courtesy in allowing me to steer this bill through on behalf of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald).
The general aims of Bill S-17 are to improve control over the distribution of explosives, to provide authority to regulate over the use of fireworks and certain blasting operations, and to update the act with respect to rapid technological changes in the industry. This is the first amendment to the act in 20 years. The last amendment was in 1954.
The high rate of accidents in the explosives industry in the early 1900's, many involving fatalities, emphasized the need for control over explosives. As a result, the first Explosives Act was drafted and introduced into the House of Commons in 1911, and was assented to be passed in 1914. Proclamation was delayed, by the way, until 1919 when the Department of Mines was assigned responsibility for the administration of the Explosives Act. This statute is primarily concerned with public safety and is designed to control the manufacture, testing, storage, sales and importation of explosives, and their transportation by road.
In the 55 years following proclamation of the act, numerous changes were made to the regulations by order in council. The act itself was amended in 1926, in 1946, and most recently in 1954. The amendment of 1946 brought the sale of explosives under the control of the act, allowed the seizure of unauthorized explosives and of all explosives used to commit an offence under the act. The amendment also authorized the minister to order the seizure and destruction of abandoned or deteriorated explosives which present a danger to the public.

June 3, 1975
Explosives Act
The amendment of 1954 revised the whole act into the second consolidation of statutory orders and regulations. The same year, an order in council revised the regulations dealing with the transportation of explosives by road. The major significance of this change was to formalize the road transport of explosives under a permit system and to increase the amount of explosives that could be transported by road to a maximum of 10,000 pounds.
The value of the legislation has been clearly demonstrated during the last 50 years by a significant reduction in the number of accidents. For example, during the four years immediately prior to the introduction of the Explosives Act in 1911, there were 42 fatalities in the manufacture of an estimated 40,000 tons of explosives. By comparison, during the past four years there was only one fatal accident in the manufacture of approximately 900,000 tons of commercial blasting explosives, and the industry ranks high among the top ten safest industries in Canada. In addition, and despite the significant yearly increase in the amount of explosives being used, there has been a progressive reduction in the number of fatal accidents in construction and mining, due mainly to the power under the act to control, through testing, the authorization or certification of explosives.
In effect all explosives, either manufactured or imported for use in Canada, undergo stringent authorization tests to ensure that the most reliable, predictable and safest explosives are available to Canadian users.
There are now 68 factories licensed under the act to manufacture explosives. Fifty-eight factories manufacture commercial blasting explosives, for example, dynamite and blasting agents. Three manufacture blasting accessories including detonators, safety fuses, and detonating fuses. Another three manufacture ammunition, mainly sporting ammunition and industrial cartridges. One firm manufactures fireworks, and three others manufacture military explosives and pyrotechnics.
As I mentioned previously, this is the first amendment since 1954, and during the interval the explosives industry has undergone significant changes. Hence the act contains a number of obsolete terms and conditions which require modernization. In this same context changes are also required to improve administrative procedures and to make information, particularly regarding authorized explosives, more available to the public.
The bill also seeks to improve control over the distribution of explosives. Under the present act, the Governor in Council has the power to regulate over the sale of explosives and we are, by these amendments, seeking authority also to make regulations over the purchase and possession of blasting explosives.
Under existing legislation we have good control over the manufacturer and the vendor of blasting explosives, but insufficient control over the purchaser. We are convinced that we must achieve better control in order to remind the purchaser of his obligation to exercise a more responsible attitude and provide adequate safety and security for explosives in his possession.
This year we have dealt with over 150 incidents of abandoned explosives representing approximately 9,000

pounds of dynamite and 4,000 detonators. All of these incidents have been a direct result of carelessness.
Abandoned and deteriorated explosives pose a serious hazard to the public. Every year several are injured by explosives they find near construction sites. In another case three hunters lit a fire in the stove of an abandoned cabin and were killed when a cache of dynamite exploded. The owner of the property some years previously had ordered more dynamite than he needed for a drainage project, and had cached the explosives in the cabin and forgotten about them. An unfortunate incident, but one which we should be able to prevent under a system of more precise controls.
In future, by this bill the purchase of blasting explosives will be restricted to, first, a person with a valid provincial licence authorizing the storage and use of explosives in a mine or quarry operating under provincial or territorial jurisdiction; second, a person with a valid licence issued pursuant to the Explosives Act for the manufacture, sale or use of explosives; and third, a person with a valid purchase and possession permit.
Recommendations one and two will account for most of the explosives normally consumed, while the third recommendation will cover the balance of the explosives purchased, mainly by the small, intermittent user. The first two recommendations are already reasonably covered by existing federal and provincial licences, but recommendation number three is entirely new. In the latter case the purchaser will be required, pursuant to amendments to the regulations, to complete a form of application giving such personal general information as location, duration, and intended use of the explosives purchased. Provided the licensed distributor can positively identify the purchaser, he may then complete the transaction.
A purchase and possession permit will be valid for a specific period not exceeding 90 days, and will contain detailed requirements to be observed by the permittee for the secure storage and transportation of the explosives. For identification, the explosives will be marked with the permit number, and the purchaser will be required to retain the permit until he disposes of all the explosives. We also intend to recommend regulations which will place the onus of responsibility for the safety and security of explosives on the purchaser rather than on the distributor, as is presently the case. A proposal in this bill will also make it an offence to abandon an explosive.
I would like to emphasize that these additional controls will apply only to blasting explosives. We do not intend to alter significantly any of the present exemptions to the regulations applicable to fireworks, fusees, flares, signals, sporting ammunition, propellants, primers or industrial explosives. In fact, the present regulations, which have been in force for many years, virtually exempt safety cartridges from the manufacturing, storage, sale, importation and transportation restrictions normally applied to other explosives.
In March, 1972, when a similar bill, Bill C-7, was introduced to this House some hon. members misinterpreted the intent of the legislation. Despite assurances to the contrary, they felt we had in mind to restrict the sale,
June 3, 1975

purchase and possession of sporting ammunition. This misinterpretation of the intent may have been related to a proposed change in the wording of the definition "explosive" and the proposal to delete the term "safety cartridge". However, these were both housekeeping changes and had no relationship to our general intent to introduce tighter controls over blasting explosives. If there is still any doubt concerning these two items we will be pleased to provide more specific information on the changes during hearings in committee.
Representation has also been made to remove such items as sporting ammunition, propellants, flares and fuses from the explosives classification, on the basis that these items are not really explosive in nature. We are the first to agree that a box of shot shells is not as hazardous, from the standpoint of a mass explosion, as a case of dynamite. However, the propellant used in ammunition is made up of high explosive such as nitrocellulose, often in combination with nitroglycerine, and the primers contain explosive ingredients common to detonators. So the manufacture of ammunition is obviously an explosives operation subject to control under the act.
I believe concern was also expressed that, as a result of provisions in this bill, the hand loading of ammunition would not be possible as it would be considered illegal manufacture. There is no change in this bill respecting manufacture, and the reloading of ammunition on private premises is already recognized and approved in the present regulations.
Another matter which prompted some discussion concerned ammonium nitrate. Of course this is a well known chemical which is widely used as a fertilizer. It is also a common ingredient in explosives. In fact some grades of dynamite, as well as many of the water gel and slurry explosives, contain over 60 per cent of ammonium nitrate. In addition, a common blasting agent used mainly in open pit mines and quarries is composed of approximately 94 per cent ammonium nitrate and 6 per cent fuel oil. However, despite its widespread use as an essential ingredient in explosives, ammonium nitrate is not classed as an explosive for the purposes of the Explosives Act unless it is (a) made, manufactured or used as an explosive, or (b) it is stored with other explosives. The reason for this latter requirement is that ammonium nitrate can be made to detonate under the stimulus of a suitable primer such as a stick of dynamite.
Finally, I would like to review the department's position in connection with the application and administration of the act and regulations. The Explosives Act is fundamentally concerned with public safety. The areas of responsibility include manufacture, authorization, storage, sale, importation, transportation by road, and by this bill will additionally include the purchase, possession and use of fireworks and blasting explosives.
The agency directly responsible for the administration of the act is the explosives division of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The division is comprised of a small group of trained explosives specialists, including the chief inspector, his assistant and seven inspectors. This group attends to the administration of the act as it applies to approximately 68 factories which Wnually produce in excess of 250,000 tons of commercial blasting
Explosives Act
explosives, several million detonators, large quantities of blasting accessories, sporting ammunition, industrial explosives, fireworks and military explosives. The division is also involved in additional duties related to the storage, handling, sale and distribution of these explosives. The division is not staffed to police the industry but rather to advise and educate. The policy of the department as it applies to the administration of the act is to persuade those people who handle explosives that it is in their best interests to comply with the safety requirements.
This gives a general review of the proposed amendments to the act which, as I indicated, have been based primarily on a wish to tighten up the policing and control of industrial explosives and to tidy up certain aspects of the bill from a technical and legal standpoint. I shall look forward to the opportunity of hearing the comments of other hon. members on this bill, and to having a very full discussion of the proposed changes and hearing other comments when it goes before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to indicate that we on this side certainly concur with this bill having second reading. We had some questions regarding the effects the bill might have on sportsmen and the use of ammunition. These have been answered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Foster), but I would enter the caveat that we reserve the right to examine the bill in committee to ensure that in fact the law substantiates what the parliamentary secretary indicated to the House.
I also have some concern about the effect of some of the new regulations on farmers and their operations, and the fact that regulations might prevent the efficient use of explosives by farmers who may require to use them in their operations. But bearing in mind the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) has demonstrated that he is always willing to listen to and accept positive amendments from the opposition, I am sure we can pass this bill through committee in short order.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the parliamentary secretary for his remarks and I express my appreciation to the government of the changes made in this bill which, in my opinion, make it much more acceptable than the previous bill.
One of the fears we had about the last bill was that by tightening control over the sale of safety cartridges and magazines we would in fact eliminate hunting in much of the country. I am pleased to note that the parliamentary secretary, who comes from the same part of Canada as I do, has taken that into consideration. I am more than pleased about the changes which are taking place. We were opposed to the previous bill and its deficiencies in respect of the handling of explosives.
I agree entirely with the parliamentary secretary when he says that for a long time we have had a great number of factories that have been able to produce sophisticated types of explosives without any major disaster or accident.
6412

June 3, 1975
Explosives Act
The explosives manufacturing industry in Canada has enjoyed a better safety factor than many others.
It is also gratifying to note that the parliamentary secretary has taken into consideration problems in relation to ammonium nitrate and the use of diesel fuel. The previous bill did not consider this aspect at all. This is probably the most common explosive used in the mining industry today, and because of the mixed condition of the explosive it has to be handled with a great deal of care. Many mining companies operating quarries were not handling this explosive carefully enough before the informative discussions that took place several years ago.
It has always been my opinion that we should make an extreme effort to clean up those messes which have been left for many years by mining companies at quarry sites, and by prospectors in various parts of the country. Years ago it was a simple procedure for a prospector to buy a couple of cases of dynamite, take it to a prospecting site which showed little promise after a relatively small amount of drilling, and then cache the dynamite with fuses and caps in an unprotected place, and move on to another site, repeating the same process.
I know of accidents that occurred in my own community around Kirkland Lake, Gowganda and Cobalt when children found dynamite or caps. Fortunately in most cases they have taken these to their parents before something serious has happened. This has always been a danger in developing areas where proper care has not been taken in the handling of explosives. This situation was brought forcefully to our attention regarding a quarry field where the FLQ found an almost unlimited and unprotected source of explosives.
I believe, like most hon. members, that we should strengthen our laws in respect of explosives. Explosives are very dangerous, particularly to the young and others who are unaware of the danger. For this reason explosives must be kept in protected locations. Producing mines have always followed this course by maintaining powder and cap houses under suitable control at a reasonable distance. This has certainly not been true of quarries operated by construction companies, and it has not been true of many farmers who in the past used limited amounts of explosives.
The government should be congratulated for tightening up this legislation. The provision in this bill in respect to the transportation of explosives by motor vehicle will prove to be of prime importance. I am sure that anyone who has travelled the northern highways has been surprised to see very large trucks with relatively small signs indicating they are carrying explosives. These trucks regularly travel in normal traffic, with no other safety precaution and only that one small sign on the front.
Star Transfer has for many years hauled explosives from Parry Sound on Highway No. 11, particularly on weekends in very heavy traffic. Fortunately, and mainly because of the competence of the drivers, no serious accident has occurred. I think everyone will agree that this practice is potentially hazardous. The government has done much to eliminate this hazard.
Another potentially dangerous situation is the use of agricultural fertilizers and fuel oil. This is mainly because

many people are unaware of the danger. The product is being used for a different purpose, but there is always the danger of a small explosion setting off a larger one. This is particularly so when people without knowledge of the danger carelessly handle the materials. Once people have an indication of the potential danger, the danger itself is lessened. The last time we had a bill of this nature before us we provided for a warning to be placed on products stating that under certain circumstances with extreme force they would explode. That warning should be brought to the attention of all those who may be using such products and may not be aware of the potential danger.
I should again like to congratulate the government for having removed the words "safety cartridges" from the bill. I am violently opposed to the elimination of hunting rights in the northern parts of Canada. Had the previous bill been passed and enforced, no storekeeper would have been able to build the required facilities for storing ammunition. This would obviously have provided complete gun control, unless there was bootlegging of safety cartridges. The removal of those words does not seem to weaken the legislation. What the bill will now do is control explosives, but will leave the decision in respect of gun control in Canada to be made by the House in the form of other legislation. If we want what people refer to commonly as strong gun controls we should provide them by separate legislation rather than bringing in such controls by the back door, which is what the previous bill would have done.
I am very much in favour of the proposed changes to bring the act up to date. I do not see the date when the act was last amended, but I think the bill was originally proposed to control explosives in the mining industry in the Yukon and areas such as Cobalt. The situation has changed, and we require new regulations. I hope the parliamentary secretary keeps track of this legislation to see that it is not changed before it receives third reading, in order that it remains solely an explosives control act, rather than something many of us do not want to see in this bill.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the parliamentary secretary for introducing the bill and for explaining it, because before reading the legislation I had fears about the question of safety cartridges being included.
I think that now we can profitably discuss the bill, concerning the safety of sales, possession and transport. In years passed anybody could own explosives, in my area at least. They were often kept in unlocked hangers, open day and night to anyone who wanted to get dynamite or detonators and so forth.
This is why we had so many accidents in my area. Sales permits were issued to general stores, or anyone for that matter so it seems. I do not know on what grounds they were issued, but I believe the act tolerated it, if there was an act to truly protect the people. I remember that logging companies, mining companies a few years ago were still carrying dynamite to work in automobiles or small trucks. Dynamite was left overnight on the site without supervision. Often 100 or 150 sticks of dynamite were missing. Nobody knew who had taken it. I believe, as the hon.
June 3, 1975

member mentioned earlier, that the FLQ crisis somewhat scared Quebec autorities and led them to amend the Explosives Act.
I believe that, for a good control, first if you want-It is not enough to say that you pass a legislation, it has to be respected, and I say "well respected". A reform has been initiated in my area. I think it had been realized that the regulations imposed had been disregarded and there is little care, I believe, about those things now. I do not know if it is because the act is not stringent enough, but it is probably for that reason that this bill is being introduced to make it even more stringent. If you do not have competent men to implement that legislation, it will be more or less void.
I am thinking of those who are responsible for explosives. The minister is talking about the premises in which the explosives will be stored, that is magazines. In our area we already started to establish a magazine according to government standards and under the supervision of the federal police, and I think the commerce of dynamite and all explosives throughout Canada should be kept out of stores, and each region should have its magazine and the owner of that magazine, the manager should have a degree in explosives. That is most important.
If you let anyone have a magazine, anyone who knows nothing about explosives, if you let him have a magazine just because he has enough money to build it, to establish it, you will miss the target. We have people throughout Canada with degrees in explosives. They are the people who should be responsible for those magazines. They may not often have the funds to establish those magazines. It is the government's duty to help those people who are ready to co-operate, but let them not be asked to assume everything, to assume establishment costs, because the government requires 100 per cent protection. I am glad that we are dealing with this bill so that the attention of the minister can be drawn to that question. Magazine managers are required to do a lot of things, but the government never takes a step, never lends one dollar to try and help them have 100 per cent safe premises, for we know that magazine owners have to deliver dynamite to working sites, and should never leave near the building sites the remaing explosives, but should bring back to protected magazines the unused explosives every night. And I believe it is only at that condition that no dynamite stick, no explosive will be left astray, and that they will all be stored in safe places, that we will have people respect that bill which we will pass in a few days.
If we do not take the means to make people respect the legislation, we shall pass a law which will have no result. And I believe that we must first of all pay attention to marketing and transport because today, for someone who owns a powder magazine and wants to transport dynamite, the requirements are very strict. I know something about this, because I worked with those responsible for the powder magazine in our area. The authorities are very strict, and rightly so, but when the man responsible for the powder magazine has cancelled-if I may use this word- has cancelled boxes of dynamite, these authorities should not allow these boxes to be placed on the black market when the man qualified to do so has decided that they
29561-62%
Explosives Act
were unusable, that they must be burned and rejected, when they can be sold in little political side-jobs.
This is not the way to make people respect the law. I believe that when a group or a man is given some responsibilities, it is the duty of the department to help him because the department is the supreme authority in this matter and it must help him when things like this happen. .1 remember that letters were written on the subject to two or three places, but the real culprit was not found; everything was hidden.
As concerns explosives, we must act directly and in full daylight to put a stop to little political games and plots with such dangerous arms. I believe that it is only if we do this, if we take all necessary safety measures concerning storage, transport and sales of explosives, that we shall start to live a bit more safely, and I believe that everyone will be glad about it.
Once again, I congratulate the sponsor of this bill and give him my assurance that we support the bill and are happy that it was introduced.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Speaker, I would like to add just a few relevant considerations to what my colleague for Roberval has just said.
During my life, I had to use explosives very often. At that time, they were called "dynamiters"-I do not know if it is still the word used today. I was then a professional dynamiter for a big mining company, and I had the responsibility of the use of explosives and also the 24 hour control over the explosives used. The existing law was not as strict as the present one. It requested mostly from the dynamiter a much greater responsibility than today. And fortunately I never had to deplore any accident, because we had a sense of responsibilities at that time, unlike the time we live in now. We knew how to use dangerous things with discrimination, and we could accept with great caution all the responsibilities that were given us. We knew that these things were dangerous but also very useful. Recently in 1975, Madam Speaker, I went to my son's farm. While I was there, there came a time when a few sticks of dynamite would have been very useful to destroy a piece of rock and increase the effectiveness of the drain system on part of the land. This task could have been carried out within minutes with dynamite, but I was amazed to learn that one could under no circumstances obtain anywhere in the whole area the few sticks of dynamite and detonators necessary for this job.
Some people got scared all of sudden when were discovered in a number of Canadian centres a few sticks of dynamite which could have been used for all sorts of unfortunate and unsavory jobs, and under the guise of protecting the public, private property and society, much too stringent rules and regulations were established, without considering that in private undertakings, on farms, explosives are often needed for improvements.
I would like to suggest to the parliamentary secretary who introduced this legislation earlier to pay attention to the drafting of the regulations which will follow enactment. In fact, I often said in the House, Madam Speaker, that legislation is voted by parliamentarians, but that regulations are made by technocrats, and that such regulai

June 3, 1975
Industry, Trade and Commerce Act tions are often more important than the law. We experience it every day in the enforcement of the Unemployment Insurance Act which is about one quarter inch thick; the regulations are now three quarters of an inch thick.
They are regulations unknown to parliamentarians and they are often enacted against the legislator's intent. Now I think that in the case which is concerning us, the situation is most important. After enactment of this legislation the minister responsible should follow very closely the making of the regulations. These should come back if necessary not only before the cabinet, but sometimes also before the committee of the House so that the House may be sure that the regulations issued following the adoption of the act are consistent with the wishes and the conception of the legislators.
If we proceeded that way, we would not have unpleasant surprises afterwards. We must at least admit that in the daily economic life, explosives will always be necessary. We must not think that when we talk about explosives it is always in terms of disaster and destruction. I think we must first regard explosives as a means to assist man in controlling nature and destroying obstacles, thus allowing mankind and society to achieve with less effort projects that exceed human forces.
This, Madam Speaker, is my way of understanding the use of explosives, and I agree that we should have stricter controls. The regulations would also have to be flexible enough in our rural areas to enable a responsible person capable of maintaining an explosive depot to have control over the depot and be competent enough to go and help farm or industrial organizations that may need help. We should not have stranglehold regulations to the extent that no one be allowed to use this discovery, this essential economic force, thus depriving everyone of its advantages.
Madam Speaker, that is why I suggest that the people involved in drafting regulations have enough foresight and flexibility so that the regulations, once applied, be in accordance with the intent of the legislator.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.

Alastair William Gillespie: that Bill S-15, to amend the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Madam Speaker, this is a bill which when approved will allow the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to perform more effectively an important industrial development function.
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).j
Through analysis of imports, Canadian entrepreneurs, particularly those in smaller businesses, are made more aware of market opportunities. They are thus in a much better position to make informed decisions which can and have resulted in new investment, production and employment. The use of import analyses, therefore, is complementary to the department's other programs to encourage the expansion of efficient Canadian industry. We have been providing these services for many years, but have had to operate in a rather cumbersome manner. The proposed amendments will make our operations more effective.
Detailed analysis of import information is required in order to produce these services, because Statistics Canada data is sometimes inadequate for this purpose since it is compiled to provide information for general use. For instance, the single import classification used by Statistics Canada for "surface active agents, compounded" includes no less than 40 products. This kind of more detailed information only comes to light by means of an examination through our import analysis. Such detail is a basic prerequisite to most feasibility studies carried out by entrepreneurs contemplating establishment or expansion of production facilities. Yet if Statistics Canada were to publish this detail for all items at all times, each publication would fill a room, not to mention costs, delays, and other problems.
In brief, then, the essential difference is that in contrast to Statistics Canada's broad assembly of data from customs documents into predetermined general classifications, the import analysis division of the department researches the precise identification of selected items and compiles them into more finite descriptive product categories.
Such information has already stimulated considerable development of industries in Canada, measured in terms of expanded production, increased exports and, particularly, additional employment. Opportunities frequently lead to the establishment and expansion of small businesses. Furthermore, these analyses, by identifying potential opportunities, can make a valuable contribution to resource upgrading by adding value through processing prior to export. At the same time these analyses are of value in the formulation of commercial policy and in tariff negotiations, particularly in highly complex product sectors. I do not need to remind the House of the important negotiations presently under way in Geneva.
The value of import analysis as an industrial development tool has been exemplified tangibly many times. Recent unsolicited feedback from industry indicated that the department's import analyses have played an important role in decisions to establish a number of new manufacturing operations as well as in numerous expansions of existing operations. Also based on the same voluntary information-and I emphasize the voluntary aspect of the information-these expansions and new operations resulted in several thousand new jobs with a capital investment of at least $150 million. Inasmuch as this information was unsolicited, the data should be regarded as a minimum indication only.
The uses to which the import analyses are put make it essential that the basic data be as detailed and precise as possible, and that it be available in time to permit effec-
June 3, 1975

tive action. The only source documents which meet these needs are customs invoices and import entries.
Import analyses are currently conducted by staff of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce having access to customs documents and sworn under the Statistics Act, in order that the confidentiality of transactions of individual importers be protected.
Under section 5(e) of the Industry, Trade and Commerce Act the minister is required to undertake import analysis for industrial development. The act does not provide, however, the authority necessary for the minister to carry out this mandate. The proposed amendment will make it possible to facilitate and otherwise improve the ability of the department to carry out this valuable service for Canadian business.
Finally, it can be stressed that only those employees of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce who are specifically designated by the minister and who have taken the prescribed oath will have access to such documents and information. This is clearly outlined in section 6.1(2) of this bill. Furthermore, the essentiality of maintaining the privacy of information which might otherwise identify the business activity of an individual importer, his agent or his customer, is fully recognized and safeguarded by the provisions of this bill.
These safeguards, which are comparable to those embodied in the Statistics Act, were closely examined and strengthened in the bill's passage through the other place. I believe that I have made clear what the benefits of import analyses are. I think they have been clearly demonstrated. I believe that improved access to source documents will increase their impact on industrial development in Canada.
I hope the House can move rapidly forward to the consideration of this bill at committee stage.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, this bill gives the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) the right to obtain from the Department of National Revenue invoices of goods imported into the country.
We in the opposition agree with any proposal which will enable the minister to improve on the very inadequate job he is doing to protect the jobs of Canadian workers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Don't get political.


George Harris Hees: This bill would enable the minister to become better acquainted with the goods being imported into the country. It is particularly desirable that he be better acquainted with the volume of manufactured products, those which produce jobs, which are entering the country in steadily increasing quantities, taking jobs away from Canadians and causing unemployment to rise.
For instance, last year imports of manufactured products into Canada increased by no less than 13 per cent over the previous year. When the minister is asked what he plans to do to slow down these rapidly escalating imports of manufactured goods and to stop the stealing of the Canadian market away from our producers and our
Industry, Trade and Commerce Act workers, he simply refuses to answer. Instead he describes the programs that have been employed by his department for a number of years-programs which have recently proved to be totally inadequate to meet the situation-and which have allowed a steadily increasing proportion of the market to slip through the country's fingers.
As an example, Madam Speaker, last week I outlined specific incentives which the government should introduce to induce greater productivity, research, and development and, by lowering costs and prices and increasing quality and design, enable Canadian producers and workers to regain the sales and jobs which the government's negligence in this regard is losing every day. As he always does, however, the minister simply continued to refuse to even consider practical suggestions made to him. With the passage of this bill I hope that perhaps at long last the actual figures on the imports of these manufactured goods that are pouring into the country every day in increasing quantities will finally be brought to the minister's understanding.
I hope that the sight of the actual invoices showing the quantities which are increasing every day, taking jobs away from Canadian workers, will convince the minister that the situation is very serious indeed. This was agreed by one of his backbenchers the other day, who had the guts to get up when I asked a question and ask the minister if he would bring my sensible suggestions to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).
I hope that at long last the sight of these invoices will bring a little sense and action into the minister's comprehension. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that we in the official opposition are very pleased to allow this bill to go forward.


William Arnold Peters: Madam Speaker, I was of the opinion that this would not have a great deal of effect except that it would probably legalize something that takes place now, but after listening to the previous speaker I think that if the bill is as important as he makes out, then we had better look at it again.
It seems to me the minister should give an explanation of why he needs this information. Surely the information should be fairly familiar to his department already. They must know what is available in this country, and the reasons why what is not available must be imported. If they do not know this, then I agree with the previous speaker that they are not going to provide the type of information that will enable the minister to decide what should or should not be developed in Canada.
I should like to ask the minister if the bill will solve a small problem that I raised about a year ago. A small company was manufacturing a product and found it necessary to import an adhesive it needed from the United States. It had discussed its needs with senior officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and tried the adhesives that the department recommended but none was satisfactory. It then applied for a permit to import the adhesive free for excise tax so that it would be competitive.

June 3, 1975
Industry, Trade and Commerce Act
It was told-and, Madam Speaker, I did not believe it but I have a copy of the letter-that Shell Canada said they were aware that the product was not manufactured in Canada, that they had patents in the United States for it, and they might consider doing something about it in the distant future. Because of this situation the tax could not be removed. This leads me to wonder if the one hand knows what the other is doing. This seems to be a pretty piddling little bill to provide such a vast amount of knowledge that is obviously necessary.
It would seem to me that if you prove the commodity is not made in Canada, that there is the potential for making it here, then the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce should either agree to reduce the tariff or to assist somebody in the development of the product.
The company in question was a small one, in the flake-board field-but flakeboard is important in Northern Ontario. The product is shipped to New York, and part of the raw material comes from Portland, Oregon, because there are not the resources in Northern Ontario to meet the demand. I was not able to persuade the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, however, to ask for a remission of the tariff so that the glue could be imported.
The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) indicated that the bill would create a lot of new jobs. I hope he is right, but my small dealings with the department indicate that the bill will have to be much enlarged. It will have to have a lot more information in it than the present bill. From a quick reading all this bill says is that the information from the Department of National Revenue, which is privileged information and cannot be divulged because it is the private knowledge of a specific company, under certain circumstances can be divulged to the minister or an official of his department. For what purpose, Madam Speaker? The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings believes it is going to produce a great rash of industries. I do not believe it is even going to solve the little problem I had about an adhesive that is not made in Canada. Because Shell Canada could make it if they wanted to, the 17 per cent tariff is not removed. This does not allow a small company in Northern Ontario to have at least a reasonable advantage in the marketplace, so I do not think it matters a tinker's dam whether the bill passes or not. In the first place it comes from the Senate, which makes it suspect because they are not in touch with things anyway.
It is a pious hope to believe that this is going to make the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce more valuable. I would suggest they give some consideration to the small problems brought to their attention. I am sure every member of the House who brings a problem to the department can provide the information on the company and all the input and invoices, or whatever is required.
It is my belief that when a company wants an advantage it is willing to provide the information, and it is not necessary to go to the Department of National Revenue for it. That department is sacrosanct; the information it has is not supposed to be leaked to anyone. Some businessmen do not think that protection is any great advantage. We live in the age of thievery by computer. If all you have to do is ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) for

some secret information, this measure will not do what the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings expects.
I listened to the minister and listened to the former minister of trade and commerce expressing the pious hope that this bill will help to solve some difficulties. The fact remains that most of our raw materials flow south and finished goods flow north, and releasing or not releasing a limited number of industrial secrets will not reverse the trend. Instead of spending our time in the House and committee discussing the passing of secrets between two ministers of the same government, we could better spend our time exhorting the department, in the words of the former minister of trade and commerce, to get off its fanny and sell and tell every other department to help our industry compete in the market place.
I, for one, think this bill does little except tinker with the present situation. It will not solve the problem of the entrepreneur who wants to sell. As it is, businessmen are inundated with paper work, but their problems persist and do not go away. I think our time could be better spent considering measures which will enable Canadian businessmen to compete in the marketplace. We should not waste time discussing silly bills like this which deal with the exchange of confidential information between two cabinet ministers.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Speaker, this is another very interesting bill which, if implemented, might enable the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) to provide greater protection to Canadian producers, more particularly in the area of textile and production of meat, specially poultry.
I wonder whether that legislation will be likely to really protect textile workers who for a few weeks now have been losing their jobs by the thousands. I often drew the attention of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) on the serious problem of textile product imports. Several members made representations to the minister so appropriate action could be implemented to protect jobs in the textile area and also our Canadian textile industries.
Recently, the minister answered a question by a member, saying that steps will be taken within a few months to ensure the efficiency of a truly appropriate protection. But God knows whether in a few months, the way things are going now, it will not be too late to really ensure the survival of that industry in Canada on which thousands of heads of families depend to provide for the needs of their families.
The situation is the same with respect to meat imports. I also drew the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a few weeks ago on the fact that poultry is imported from the south while quotas are imposed on our domestic producers. And that is going on under the benignant look at our Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who should I think always be in close cooperation with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) who is putting up enormous efforts-I recognize it and I say so-
June 3, 1975

to ensure a certain profitability for the operations of Canadian farm producers.
Under the legislation before us-Bill S-15-I feel there are far too many possibilities to get round the act. At one point, it is said in clause 5:
(5) The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce may, by order, authorize the following information to be disclosed:
(a)	information relating to a person or organization in respect of which disclosure is consented to in writing by the person or organization concerned;
Imagine! If I simply had to give my consent in writing as to whether I am willing to pay my taxes or not, I would give my consent in writing to not paying them. I think the taxpayer might do the same. Secondly:
(b)	information relating to a business in respect of which disclosure is consented to in writing by the owner for the time being of the business;
First, they are asked if they consent to give us the information required for their protection. If they refuse, if there are minor offences, petty offences, a fine of $1,000 or six months imprisonment is imposed, perhaps both if it is a little more serious. But have we really considered the fact that a $1,000 fine for a violation of that law has allowed benefits, profits, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars? It is not even a tithe. I feel that penalty is not adequate. We should be far more categorical, far more strict if we really want that act to be efficient and achieve the hoped for results.
Madam Speaker, I see you are about to call it ten o'clock. So I shall do so myself, but I do not want to speak on this bill again tomorrow; therefore, I am willing to see the bill deferred to the committee.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

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

Robert Jardine McCleave: Madam Speaker, over the past two summers the Agricultural School in Sneek, The Netherlands, has provided from 14 to 16 young students who have come to central Nova Scotia and worked on the farms in my constituency and in two adjoining constituencies. These have been good, young
Adjournment Debate
farmers indeed. Some of the farms they worked on are now owned by people who originally came from The Netherlands to Canada. I think I can safely say without too much contradiction, at least from my Nova Scotia colleagues, that Dutch immigrants as farmers are the most cherished possessions we have. Dutch people really know how to farm.
When the time came for the farmers of Nova Scotia to get their help this year, they found that a quota of 50 had been applied on Dutch students coming to Canada, partly because of economic conditions, I suppose. In any event, when the Nova Scotia farmers got near the scene, the 50 had been spoken for. They had gone somewhere else. It is because of the fact that they have gone somewhere else that I rise to make my complaint this evening.
I really do not want to go into the minutiae as to when the Nova Scotia farmers approached the Manpower offices this year, whether they approached them in time or not. However, I understand that some kind of approach was made three months ago. The farmers were told there were restrictions or quotas applied only at the beginning of April. It appeared that whoever got the 50 Dutch farmers coming to Canada had by that time made their wishes known and had snaffled the whole lot, leaving my cupboard, so to speak, bare. I do not want to get into that sort of argument.
My main concern is that there be farm help available to the farmers in my constituency and the adjoining constituencies. I am advised by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) that all efforts will be made through something known as farm labour pools across Canada to help meet the labour needs in agriculture. Unfortunately, when I talked to my source in the farming community tonight, and that was just a couple of hours before I came to take part in this debate, he advised me that not one of his farmer friends or himself had been given any kind of a lead as to farm help available.
Despite Herculean efforts by Manpower offices across Canada to provide farm help in central Nova Scotia, something that has been known for at least three months is needed, not one person has been referred to those farmers. Under those rather incredible conditions and considering the fact that no one from Mexico or the Caribbean, where I gather we have an agreement to get most of our help-and I do not quarrel with that-is available to work on the farms of Nova Scotia, I want to make a simple representation to the minister.
There is still time to contact that agricultural school in Sneek, The Netherlands. There is still time to contact the Canadian embassy at The Hague to say that there are farmers in Nova Scotia who are prepared to pay air passage for Dutch farmers. They are prepared to pay the minimum wage of $2.25 an hour. These people will work in pleasant surroundings. As a farm area, there is nothing nicer than central Nova Scotia. I hope that some common sense will prevail and this matter will be solved.


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the hon. member that we have authorized up to 50 students from agricultural schools in The Netherlands to take summer employment on farms in Canada. Officials of the

June 3, 1975
Adjournment Debate
department in The Hague have advised that the maximum number of students has already been reached for participation in the 1975 program. Unfortunately, due to current economic conditions in Canada we have found it preferable to restrict the number of foreign students and young workers who are authorized to take temporary employment in Canada this year.
If the farmers in the hon. member's constituency will make their labour needs known to their local Canada manpower centres, I am confident that Canadian students will be provided with equitable wages and working conditions and can meet the needs of these farmers.


HEALTH-MEDICARE-ALLEGED SETTING OF TIME LIMITS FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I just want to refer to a question I put to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), as reported at page 4934 of Hansard. I brought to the minister's attention the fact that there was interference with doctors and their examinations in the province of Quebec. In his reply the minister said:
I have sufficient confidence in the ability of ray provincial counterparts and in the spokesmen for the medical profession in this country to deal with this matter.
I should like to make a few comments on the minister's answer. First of all, I really wonder whether he does have sufficient confidence in his provincial counterparts. Although he says he has, he never reached any agreement on the sharing of costs. He wanted to give them the same sum year after year plus 6 per cent, but this was turned down. There was to be no more cost sharing for the minister. For a man who has so much confidence, he really oozes cautiousness regarding new programs until he knows what they are all about and are going to cost. He would like to run away from mounting costs, but finds he cannot do so.
Although it was his party and not the minister who brought in the relevent bill, the government is responsible for the quality of medical care and its standards across Canada under the Medical Care Act passed on December 21, 1966. Federal contributions were to be about one half the actual cost, not including administration which was to be carried by the provinces. However, very soon after the enactment of the legislation costs rose and have been going up and up ever since.
It is always easy to blame somebody else. Modern care hospital beds were going out of sight due to rising costs. Then it was discovered that there were no chronic care beds or chronic care homes. This is typical of the way the state does things. It is now in a dilemma and wants to close some of the wards in hospitals, but overhead costs are such that the government would only save 20 per cent. Then people complain about the costs of the medical profession.
The government would like to cut down on the cost of doctors, but if it quit paying the doctors entirely all that the state would save would be another 20 per cent. Now the state has hit on a scheme-the doctors must take only 10 minutes for a check-up. A little more extensive check-

up, such as a gynaecological examination must take 15 minutes, and so on.
Doctors cannot be time clocked. When you tell doctors they must allot time and take ten minutes for one patient and 15 minutes for a gynaecological patient, no doctor who practises medicine would tolerate such orders. It would be only one short step until the state would tell the doctors how many patients per day they could see. Our doctors must never forget the central fact that always remains, and that is the care of the patient.
The minister is an intelligent man. How does he even tolerate the suggestion of time limits for examinations when this involves the health and treatment of 30 per cent of the poor in this country?
We have an aging population, with a dropping birth rate. This means we will have more and more patients 50 years of age and over. These are geriatric patients who often have one or more illnesses, and the key to better medicine is the prevention of disease in these older people, particularly chronic diseases and diseases of a disabling type. Only by preventing these chronic diseases as long as possible will we cut medical expenses. To do this geriatric research studies should be going full steam ahead in order to prevent or avoid multi-care programs for the aged, at least controlling some of this runaway expenditure.
I hope the parliamentary secretary will convey to the minister the idea that he better take a serious look at this suggestion of interference with the conscience of the doctor and the patient. This will have a very serious effect in this country by placing the state in complete control of the conscience of the patient and the doctor.


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has brought up the point about the care provided by doctors.
I should like to point out that each province has considerable leeway in determining a number of important matters relating to the operation of its medical care insurance plan without jeopardizing its entitlement to receive federal financial support in respect of its plan under the Medical Care Act. For example, each province can decide how its share of the cost of its plan will be financed (that is, through premiums, sales tax, other provincial revenues or by a combination of methods), whether coverage will be on a voluntary basis or not, and whether services additional to those of the national program will or will not be included in the provincial plan.
This prerogative also extends to methods of physician remuneration. Remuneration of doctors is, by and large, on a fee for service basis and has been for many years. Physicians' fee schedules were established by the various provincial medical associations to be used as a guide by their members in determining what fees will be charged for their services. The fee schedules also have been used as a basis for payment by governmental and private insurance arrangements for many years.
The Medical Care Act requires that the medical care insurance plans of participating provinces provide a reasonable level of payment for insured services. General-
June 3, 1975

ly speaking, provincial medical care insurance plans provide for some measure of consultation and in some cases formal negotiation at periodic intervals between the medical profession and the responsible authority before payment from the plan will be revised.
The federal legislation permits the medical care insurance plans of participating provinces to remunerate doctors by other methods, such as by full-time or part-time salaries, sessional fees or various combinations of contractual arrangements, but the prevailing method of payment to date has been on a fee for service basis.
With respect to the matter of establishing a relationship between time and particular medical services, this is certainly not a new phenomenom. For many years various provincial medical associations have elected to base professional remuneration on the time required to perform a particular kind or amount of service. Although the time factor is often recognized in these areas of care, generally speaking existing fee schedules are marked by a lack of differentiation according to the time taken by a doctor to render services especially in the case of office visit services.
In the case of Quebec I am informed that the question of inserting in a contract the amount of time the doctor is required to spend with his patient refers to the minimum of time, not the maximum. As the minister pointed out in the House on April 17, "There does not appear to be any intention of restricting the time spent with patients". I trust this adequately outlines to the hon. member the federal government's responsibility in this area.


LABOUR CONDITIONS-POSSIBILITY OF MEETING MR. FITZSIMMONS, PRESIDENT OF TEAMSTERS' UNION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Madam Speaker, I want to use my time tonight talking about a great boycott, about which a lot of Canadians have heard, but about which very few Canadians know very much.
I was shocked last week when I read a letter the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) sent the labour critic of our party inviting him to join the minister in a handshaking ceremony with Mr. Cesar Chavez at the front doors of parliament. I have not been here very long but I do not think this type of thing has happened very often, that is, ministers of the Crown meeting people, especially foreign dignitaries, at the front door of this House in a public ceremony, especially the leader of a union which does not have any representatives in Canada.
My question to the minister last week was whether he would accord the president of the Teamsters' Union, the competing union in this great boycott in the United States, the same treatment. I have seen Mr. Fitzsimmons up in our parliamentary restaurant on different occasions when he was with the president of the Teamsters' Union in Canada, who happens to be one of the hon. members of that place next door. Yet I do not believe there has been any move to have the Minister of Labour meet Mr. Fitzsimmons at the front door.
I was also surprised to learn that the Minister of Labour was hosting a luncheon for Mr. Chavez and some of his
Adjournment Debate
people. I will admit that the minister, when he recognized my interest, was kind enough to invite me to the luncheon, which I did attend and at which I listened to Mr. Chavez. I also believe it is very important that this House makes sure that Canadians know exactly what is going on in respect of the grape boycott by having Mr. Fitzsimmons up here to explain the teamsters' side on the subject of this boycott in the United States.
Because I had an interest in this subject I made a trip down to California over a year and half ago, on which occasion I spoke to many of the farmers in the area who were very concerned. To my amazement I found out that at one time Mr. Chavez's union controlled a large number of the farm workers. As of this time the teamsters have about 400 contracts in California and Mr. Chavez has only about 14. The teamsters represent between 25,000 and 30,000 workers, while Mr. Chavez represents around 5,000.
A few weeks ago I took a trip down to this area in order to check into some of the things I had discovered a year previously. I called on a man by the name of K. K. Larsen, who own a large grape farm near the area of Indio, California. I went to see him because he has a unique farm. It is one that was under the control of Mr. Chavez's union, the United Farm Workers. He had a free vote of the workers that was conducted by a Father Humphreys. Mr. Chavez goes around the country saying that he has a lot of support from the Catholic Church and other churches, but Father Humphreys happens to be a Catholic priest in the area and he volunteered to hold a free vote of the workers on that farm. The workers on that farm voted 66 to 22 to have the Teamsters' Union come back in.
I visited that farm for the prime purpose of speaking to the farm workers there, because I wanted to determine why they preferred the teamsters over Mr. Chavez. I heard many stories of the same kind I heard from Mr. Chavez about people being beaten up. There was even some talk about murder and the burning down of some buildings. I heard the same thing about Mr. Chavez from people who do not like him. I would admit that some of these stories are possibly true and that there have been some roughhousing tactics, but they have been done by both sides. They have been done under provocation, and I believe they would have happened no matter what anyone did in an attempt to stop them.
In talking to these workers I discovered that they were very happy to be under the Teamsters' Union. They had medical care benefits much better than those under Mr. Chavez. They were quite pleased, as are most farm workers in California, that Governor Brown brought in a bill in the legislature of the State of California which would call for elections in the State of California for all farm workers. Mr. Chavez has been going around the country saying that the Teamsters did not want a vote and that they preferred the situation the way it was. In any contact I have had with members of the Teamsters Union I was told they would agree to a vote, that they wanted a vote. They wanted their conditions, as did Mr. Chavez. Now they have finally got most of their points together and the bill is passing through the California legislature. We will see free votes.
Part of what really disturbs me about seeing Mr. Chavez coming here and receiving support from the Canadian

June 3, 1975
Adjournment Debate
government is that I will guarantee to the government that the picture of Mr. Chavez and of our Minister of Labour will be all across California in a very short period of time, with a statement that the Canadian government supports Mr. Chavez. I think that is wrong, and we should bring the teamsters up here so that they may avail themselves of the same publicity so that the people in that area will not be misled by Mr. Chavez, as I believe they have been misled by him a number of times. It is time now for a free vote. I am sure, from the information I obtained from the farms I visited, that a free vote will see the teamsters have their union in this area.
I asked them why they are continuing the boycott since they have the legislation and there will be a vote. I asked them why Canadians are being asked not to buy Californian grapes any more, and I was told that the boycott has really worked, that it has given them what they really wanted.
I checked into the situation when I was in California and I have some statistics that I should like to quote:
Table grape growers and shippers in California are completing one of their largest volume seasons. Shipments are expected to total approximately 20,000 rail cars (1,250 packages per car, mostly 23-pound boxes), which will make this the heaviest volume since 1969 when 20,761 cars were shipped. The 1974 crop is expected to be 4 per cent larger then 1973, or approximately 800 cars.
I think that points out that Mr. Chavez's boycott has not worked, that it has been a real nuisance to many people, and that it has affected many workers.
Another paragraph in the same document reads:
The boycott by the United Farm Workers of America has been a nuisance to grape shippers, especially since their workers predominately are union members.
This is something Canadians must understand. This is not a fight between unions and workers and management; it is a jurisdictional dispute between unions, and the Canadian government should take no part in it.
The document goes on to read:
The nuisance value and the inconvenience to consumers, the major economic significance of the boycott seems to be the increase in the retail price of grapes in some markets. Retailers intimidated by the noise and disruption attending boycott demonstrations sometimes choose not to advertise and promote grapes. This reduces the volume they sell, but the natural reaction is to compensate by increasing the retail price. As a result, consumers in the few market areas where the boycotters have been most active are paying higher prices for grapes than consumers in most other areas of the country.
So all this boycott by Mr. Chavez has increased, in Canada especially, the cost of grapes to the Canadian
consumer, and it has also affected honest and sincere union workers in California who want to do their job and to pick grapes so that people who own the farms can sell them and can have a good living.
I hope the government makes sure to invite Mr. Fitzsimmons so that his union may get equal publicity over something that I insist is a straight union squabble and has nothing to do with letting Canadians buy what produce they want, but has a lot to do with putting picket signs in front of stores telling us what we should or should not buy.


Charles Robert Turner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make the following points to help clarify this situation and provide some perspective. First, the Canadian Labour Congress, as well as other groups, has given and continues to give very full support to Mr. Cegar Chavez of the United Farm Workers. In this respect the federal Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) considers it most appropriate for his office at least to extend some visible recognition to Mr. Chavez and to the cause which he espouses.
The Minister of Labour has always had close empathy with the legitimate aspirations and objectives of working people, particularly in cases involving basic rights. Indeed, the minister considers this involvement as being not only reasonable in the circumstances but democratically desirable in terms of responsiveness to the feelings of concern evinced by numerous labour groups throughout Canada.
I am informed that the minister did not invite Mr. Chavez to Canada. A committee of Canadians, including many church groups, invited Mr. Chavez to Canada. The minister held an all party reception for the guest, including representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress, the Progressive Conservative Party, the NDP, the Liberal party, and, I understand two farm workers, for the purpose of meeting Mr. Chavez.
The minister supports what Mr. Chavez is trying to do in raising the standard of living of farm workers. Certainly if Mr. Fitzsimmons, the president of the Teamsters Union, who represents 85 per cent of farm workers in California, requests a meeting with the Minister of Labour, the minister will be pleased to meet him at any time if he is approached.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 2 p.m.

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Wednesday, June 4, 1975