1975-02-07

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43 concerning the current situation with regard to Air Canada which is worse than most Canadians realize. It becomes a matter of extreme urgency that attention be focused at the earliest possible opportunity on some of the chaotic conditions that are undermining the efficiency and financial stability of our country's national airline. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That the Minister of Transport cause the management of Air Canada to appear at the earliest opportunity before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to explain, among other things, why the financial section of the company in Winnipeg has a 100 man-year backlog of uncompleted work and has lost irrevocably over $1 million, a heavy percentage of the airline's total deficit for this year, because of poor labour-management communications and relations causing havoc in accounting procedures, and collections despite the best efforts of many Air Canada personnel including the vice president in charge of finance.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion proposed. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, it cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be debated at this time.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. As the Airport Inquiry
Commission report contains a substantial error in adding, through a miscalculation, 46,000 people to the number of people in the NEF contour affected by noise around the Malton airport area, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That the Minister of Transport be advised to consider this grotesque error on any recommendation that he makes to the Governor General-in-Council concerning the building of an airport in the Pickering area.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion being presented pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for debate. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.


SUGGESTED REDUCTION OF DRUG COSTS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek permission to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since the spiralling increase in health care costs has become an alarming problem that was even on the agenda of the latest health ministers' conference, and since this situation comes mostly from the very high cost of drugs, an area where flagrant abuses have caused great hardship to all the people, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House of Commons may discuss now the very high cost of drugs and the immediate measures to be taken in order to reduce those costs for the benefit of all, including the government in his health programs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

Environmental Affairs


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that registered nurses at all federal government veterans' hospitals have rejected the contract offer from the Treasury Board, and in view of the fact that this could lead to nation-wide strike action as early as next month, resulting in our military veterans receiving entirely inadequate care in these institutions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs immediately to ensure that this strike situation does not come about.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the motion being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 be debated?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of grave and serious concern to the Canadian people. In view of the grave implications for the environment because of the Syncrude development in the Peace-Athabasca Delta, because of the secretive and underhanded manner in which both the Alberta government and the Syncrude partners have approached the potential environmental problems of the tar sands and because the federal government has specific responsibility for air and water, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House instruct the Minister of the Environment to table all documents and/or studies concerning the tar sands development as they relate to the environment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I listened carefully to the terms of the motion proposed by the hon. member. Not only do I have some difficulty about the element of urgency or immediate necessity, as opposed to perhaps other methods which might be used to produce these papers, but I did not even hear the hon. member use the terms set out in the rule. I understand he quite correctly described it as a matter of great interest to all Canadian people, but I did not hear the words "urgent and pressing necessity". If the hon. member used those words, I am mistaken. In the circumstances, I feel I cannot put the motion.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know Your Honour may not have been listening very carefully-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John R. Rodriguez: I did indeed use the word urgent. I said it was of urgent concern to all the Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: With the greatest respect-


John R. Rodriguez: I said serious and grave.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the belated acknowledgment by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that we have been propelled with unprecedented and unforeseen speed into the middle of an energy crisis, and his adoption last night of some gestures in the direction of energy conservation, and in view of the necessity, in the minister's words, of a permanent change in our consumption habits, and in view of the great saving in energy which would result from a structural shift in our urban transportation pattern from that oriented around the private auto to that developed around public transportation, and in view of the government's promises during the last election campaign and in the Speech from the Throne to undertake immediately additional steps to strengthen the effectiveness of urban transportation systems and improve commuter services, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
That the Minister of State for Urban Affairs introduce legislation immediately providing for a 50 per cent federal cost-sharing program for rapid transit and urban commuter services to municipalities.
I hope we can get beyond the gesture stage and do something which is real.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since the motion has been advanced under the terms of Standing Order 43 and there is not unanimous consent, it cannot be put.
February 7, 1975



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the consumer price index today showed another sharp increase in the price of fluid milk, and since we are told there will be further increases in the price of milk both this month and in April as a direct consequence of the removal of the consumer price subsidy, is the government now prepared to reinstate the subsidy since the price of milk is likely to rise to such an extent it will be beyond the ability of many Canadians to afford?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: While not accepting the premises of the question, at least the last one which fails to take into account the social policies of the government, I can say that there is no intention of reinstating the fluid milk subsidy.


SOCIAL SECURITY
James Aloysius McGrath: I should like to redirect my question to the Prime Minister who also has a direct responsibility in this matter. In view of the fact that the consumer price index has a direct bearing on the level of family allowances as well as old age security payments, and in view of the failure of the index to accurately measure the full impact of the increases in the cost of living on people who live on low incomes, fixed incomes and pensions, is the government now prepared to consider introducing a new method of measuring the impact of the cost of living on pensioners and low income earners in Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: There are pros and cons in relation to different methods. I will certainly consider any new method the hon. member might wish to bring to my attention.


James Aloysius McGrath: With great respect to the Prime Minister, a similar question was directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce several weeks ago. He gave the same undertaking as the Prime Minister, but we have received no report from Statistics Canada or from the minister, notwithstanding the fact that according to Statistics Canada the index no longer adequately reflects what is happening with respect to low income earners. In particular, I would refer the Prime Minister to a study by the National Welfare Council showing that low income earners spend twice as much on food as those in the higher income brackets. In the light of this study and other data made available to the government, would the right hon. gentleman undertake to recommend the adoption of a new index, especially bearing in mind the fact that family
Oral Questions
allowances and old age pensions are now based on the consumer price index?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is making an argument which is well known to the government and work is proceeding on this subject.


James Aloysius McGrath: Do something about it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are. There has been a report, I believe, by the Economic Council of Canada that this is still the best system. However, I repeat to the hon. member that if he has a better system he might draw it to our attention. What I put to the hon. member is that if he has a better system, then perhaps he would put it to us and we will study it along with all the others.


AGRICULTURE
James Aloysius McGrath: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has this responsibility, not the member for St. John's East. I ask the Prime Minister, as an interim measure as he goes about reassessing the value of the consumer price index, whether for starters he is now prepared to issue an order reinstating immediately the consumer subsidy on fluid milk so that Canadians are at least ensured of an adequate diet.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that question has been asked and answered many times before.


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. As the cost of imported products is a large factor in the CPI, and since the minister has stated repeatedly that inflation is world wide, can he tell the House whether the rise in the CPI has been markedly accelerated by the depreciating Canadian dollar which has gone down 30 per cent against the German mark since the Minister of Finance took office?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian dollar has kept pretty well at par with the U.S. dollar as that currency has depreciated, which has to a certain extent left us more open to world wide inflationary trends, but not markedly yet.

February 7, 1975
Oral Questions ENERGY


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-SUGGESTED DEBATE BEFORE FEDERAL COMMITMENT MADE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the Speaker's ruling on Wednesday against the necessity for an emergency debate on the Syncrude project on the ground that the government, if I may quote him, "must come to parliament for approval in some way or other", and considering that the Speaker added that if he should prove to be wrong in that judgment he would rule in favour of an emergency debate at a later point, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will assure the House that parliament will have an opportunity to debate the agreement before the government commits itself in a final way to the project.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is certainly a commitment which was made at the meeting in Winnipeg. If the hon. member is thinking of having a debate before further steps are taken, I would answer that there are two possibilities. The first is that a supplementary estimate will, of course, be needed to provide these funds, early in March I think it is, and the debate could take place then.
As the House knows, the government House leader is prepared to find time for important debates of the nature the hon. member is talking about. Last night was an experiment taken with that in mind, and the government is prepared to repeat this kind of setting aside of special time for debates of great importance to the House and the nation, providing some arrangement is made between the House leaders to expedite passage of other legislation. The House realizes that we have much to do before the end of this session, and we would very much encourage any steps taken by the House leaders together to permit the House to concentrate on vital subjects such as this, providing that the time the government gives up for these debates is traded against expediting other less urgent matters which are before the House.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-NATURE OF AGREEMENT-CONDITIONS TO BE FULFILLED BEFORE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OBLIGATED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In his answer in the House yesterday he said that an agreement in principle was reached between the government and the principals in the project. I should like to ask the minister whether he could tell the House if this agreement in principle was a written agreement, or was it just a verbal agreement concerning the minimum involved of $2 billion? Further, would he inform the House of the precise conditions he was alluding to that the government would have to feel certain would be fulfilled before it would consider itself obligated to the agreement?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I confirm the response that I gave yesterday that the agreement on Monday night was not rendered in writing. It was an agreement in principle 
and will be subject, of course, to the negotiation of a rather detailed contract in legal form between the governments involved and the existing consortium. I would have to say that the consortium agreement is a rather complex legal document involving the question of sharing of technology and the position of various participants in respect of the land, and it is required to make certain that the government will be given full opportunity in all these areas I was referring to when I talked about the conditions we had in mind.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF ECONOMIC VIABILITY STUDY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the answer on Wednesday by the President of the Treasury Board did not make perfectly clear whether the government had the Alberta study on the project for consideration before it entered into the agreement I should like to ask the minister to clarify that position. Did the government have such a study and for what period did it have it before it reached a conclusion? If it did not have that study did it have other independent studies, and will the government table either the Albertan study or others so that we can have a look at them?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we did receive from the Albertans a number of studies that had been done by outside consultants concerning the economic viability of the project. I can say in general terms that they confirmed the conclusions my own officials had reached as a result of their examination and audit of the Syncrude figures. As to the question of tabling the document, I do not think the property right is ours directly, but I would be glad to consider that. Of course, before any document of that kind could be tabled in the House it would have to be translated, but I will give full consideration to the suggestion.


SUGGESTED COMPETITION FOR INVENTORS TO FIND WAYS OF SAVING ENERGY
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In view of the energy problems we are up against in Canada, would the minister consider the possibility of launching competitions amongst inventors in Canada who could help create new energy and make better use of the one we already have? There is talk of shortages in the future. For instance, inventors of automobile carburetors and other equipment could encourage saving energy. The contests should be of interest to Canadian inventors with regard to patents.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to answer a similar question put to me last night by the hon. member for Rimouski. I must say that for the time being we are not considering such competitions in Canada, but the suggestion is very useful. We have now completed a study of federal research and development programs with regard to
February 7, 1975

energy. It is quite possible that such competitions or other steps could encourage Canadian inventions in that sector.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, on October 9, 1974, before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration the Minister of Labour in answer to questions put by myself referred to the need for "some type of formal structure for ongoing discussions" between labour and management "that could possibly lead to setting up some central body that would have the confidence of both sides and that could come up with comparisons ... criteria and standards that should be acceptable with respect to workers in various categories ... some standard against which you can judge what is fair and reasonable". Could the minister advise the House whether this concept was discussed at the recent meetings with labour representatives and, if so, whether labour expressed any interest or sympathy toward the proposal?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, informal discussions were held with labour representatives and the general idea received heartfelt endorsement.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, would the minister advise the House whether, since his comments of October last, he and his department have done any work toward the establishment of such a body and, if so, when can we expect that the details will be made public?


John Carr Munro: That will be a matter for a policy decision of the government at the time it is taken and announced, but work is being done on it in the department.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour on this very important matter. Knowing that the minister is aware of the urgent and pressing need to improve labour management relations and protect the public interest, will he consider most seriously asking cabinet to approve the creation of a body to be designated the "Canada Labour Relations Council" to assist the government in a regular review of issues affecting labour relations where the emphasis would be on the parties seeking joint solutions to their problems but where the government's lively interest in the resolution of these questions, with all that it
Oral Questions
implies, would be felt? Some of the objectives for the council, I would suggest very briefly to the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I .am sure the minister understands the sense of the question.


John Carr Munro: That is a representation, Mr. Speaker, and is being taken as such.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Last night the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources informed the House that the government intended to give leadership to the country by way of conserving energy, particularly in the use of large automobiles that are heavy users of gasoline. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister as the leader of the government to give leadership in this matter by disposing of his two large automobiles which are very heavy users of gasoline and to start using a much smaller automobile in their place?


An hon. Member:: A bullet proof bicycle.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would gladly convey this representation to the Solicitor General and to the RCMP. I would be anxious to see it happen, if it is possible. Perhaps I will ask them to try to armour a small car. If they could make the Fiat 300 SL bullet-proof, I would much prefer to drive that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last Friday, when I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs about the Canadian activities of the American Central Intelligence Agency, he replied that "there is no knowledge of any CIA activity in Canada, except that of the well known liaison officer who is established here as a liaison officer only". May I ask the minister whether, when he referred to a well known liaison officer, he was speaking of Mr. Cleveland Cram, who is described in the diplomatic corps directory as an attache with the American embassy, or was he referring to some other well known liaison officer?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I was referring to the fact that it is well known that there is a liaison officer here.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Who?

February 7, 1975
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would have to identify him and give the hon. gentleman his name.


INVESTIGATION OF FOREIGN EMBASSY PERSONNEL WHO MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN INTELLIGENCE GATHERING BEFORE ACCREDITATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Perrin Beatty {Wellington-Grey-Duff er in-Waterloo): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the minister who has been looking into the activities of the CIA, has not been able to discover that yet.
May I ask him this supplementary question which arises from the fact that some nine people who are listed in the 1968 diplomatic corps directory who had been involved at one point in intelligence gathering for the U.S. government also appear in the list of the Department of External Affairs of members on the American consular and embassy staffs. May I ask the minister whether, as a matter of procedure, proposed embassy personnel from foreign governments are investigated by the Canadian government with a view to determining whether they have been involved in intelligence gathering, and if so, whether it is reasonable to assume that they have given it up before being given accreditation by the Canadian government?
Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. gentleman would have to give me more convincing information than he is producing from his so called authoritative book called "Who's Who in the CIA" which he has used as the basis of his question which was published in Berlin and, we have good reason to believe, published by the East German intelligence service. It includes such persons as Lyndon Johnson, Dean Rusk, Walt Rostow, and Robert McNamara. Every distinguished person I know of is to be found there, except for the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not object to the association, but I would say to the hon. gentleman that if he would go back to 1962-1963, during that period of time he might find the CIA was connected with some of the activities of which he knew at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lafontaine.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to believe that the minister would laugh it off. Apparently, he feels that an appropriate way of dealing with people accused of being involved in intelligence gathering activities would be to have their picture taken with the Prime Minister.
My question deals with procedure. Surely, when accusations are made that a person might have been involved in intelligence gathering it is worthwhile asking the minister whether, as a matter of procedure, before accrediting embassy personnel from foreign governments, his department attempts to determine whether or not they have been involved in intelligence gathering for those government and, if so, whether or not it is safe to assume that they have moved to more arcane pursuits before moving to Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I assure the hon. member that the gentlemen to whom he has referred whose names, I under-

stand, appear in the morning newspapers, on the basis of an assurance from the American authorities have no connections whatsoever with the CIA. My hon. friend ought to base his questions, if he wishes to act responsibly, on a more authoritative source than "Who's Who in CIA", allegedly published by the East German intelligence service.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, I never would have hoped to be recognized twice during the same question period.
In view of the dissatisfaction shown by a number of welfare recipients as a result of the administrative complexity of our income supplement programs, due no doubt to their excessive number which makes for a certain lack of co-ordination, can the minister tell the House what progress is being made in the studies concerning the implementation of a single guaranteed annual income system for Canada, and especially how the various provinces are reacting to the proposed system?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I met with my provincial counterparts a few weeks ago and a new federal-provincial conference on this matter is to be held in two weeks. The discussions are progressing normally, and I am confident that we shall reach an agreement within the required time, that is before next summer.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF ANY RECORD OF AGREEMENT
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of what I consider to be a shocking state of affairs that the government of Canada has made certain commitments without any memorandum of agreement, without any exchange of letters of intent, may I ask the minister if any minutes or records were kept of the meeting that was held last Monday, February 3, between the participants in the Syncrude project? If so, will the minutes of that meeting be tabled, in view of the fact that I can hardly believe that the other participants concurred without some written statement as to what the minister was going to announce in the House as the principles upon which the agreement had been reached?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Each of the parties to the discussion took their notes, but I think the hon. gentleman misconceives

the situation. The parties, as he will recall, were suggesting that they would not continue with the development of the particular project unless they could see further participants coming in. We indicated, and I am referring in this regard both to the Government of Canada and to the two provincial governments, that we would be prepared to come in but this would be subject, of course, to the negotiation of a detailed legal contract with regard to the participation of the partners. In this regard, of course, the critical instrument for creating the obligations on our part and securing the rights will be that document when negotiated. The general principles-and, I said the other night, there was agreement in principle-were discussed between the parties and well understood. The greater complexities are yet to be worked out, and this of course is the reason no formal exchange was necessary on that occasion.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-PRINCIPLES TO WHICH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGREED
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In order that there may be no misunderstanding, may I ask the minister if the House is to understand that the principles which were enunciated were as follows: first, that the federal government is committed to an open-ended agreement to provide 15 per cent of the capital cost of the Syncrude projects; second, that the federal government will pay 15 per cent of the operating costs of the Syncrude plant and, third, that the participants in the project will be guaranteed a price for their share of the oil which will be based on the Montreal price for imported oil with adjustments for transportation and grading? Are these the basic principles on which the agreement was reached and are we to understand these are the commitments the federal government has made?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated several times to the House, the government would assure that in terms of policymaking and price setting in the years 1979 and onward when the plant will be in production, this particular project, and this particular project only, would be assured of a Montreal oriented price. The hon. gentleman asked me about that yesterday. Of course, it would be a price in relation to synthetic crude, adjusted upward because of the qualitative advantages the synthetic crude would have over Montreal oil but subject to reduction because of the netting back of the transportation from Montreal back to the plant site, that is, a reduction due to transportation costs from the Fort McMurray plant to Montreal.
With regard to the contribution, we would be contributing 15 per cent of the capital costs and the other parties contribute in the same order. Of course, in the process of operating the plant we will be responsible for the same share of operating costs, and we will have the same right to the benefits of the project as the other parties. I think I have answered all the points the hon. gentleman raised.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I assume from the min-
Oral Questions
ister's statement that he accepts my conclusion that the agreement is an open-ended agreement; it is not just $300 million or 15 per cent, whichever is the lesser, but it is 15 per cent of the capital cost of the Syncrude project irrespective of what that cost may be. I ask this question particularly in view of the statement this morning on the CBC by Mr. Armstrong, President of Imperial Oil, that the cost now looks like $2,200 million. If they are going to keep raising it every week 1 think we have a right to know what the commitment is. Is it 15 per cent open-ended or is it $300 million as a maximum and 15 per cent if it is less than the $300 million?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is the 15 per cent rather than the specific figure. It is what the capital cost may turn out to be, either up or down.


An hon. Member:: Open-ended.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think it is clear, since we have the minority contribution to this, that if there is any very substantial overrun the other parties, particularly the private sector, are going to call for a re-evaluation of whether we continue. We are hopeful that the estimates made by the parties of the capital costs are accurate, but obviously all the figures are not totally predictable at this time.


AMOUNT OF OIL TO BE IMPORTED-EFFECT ON BALANCE OF PAYMENTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister's statement of November 22, taken together with the National Energy Board forecast, indicated we would be a net importer of oil to the extent of about 200,000 barrels a day toward the end of this year in order to conserve oil for future production. In view of the fact that the minister's aims for savings as a result of his conservation program announced last night, even assuming the public participates to the fullest possible extent, would amount to about 24,000 barrels of oil per day, can the minister tell the House whether this means that the government is accepting this shortfall of about
200.000	barrels per day toward the end of the year with the very serious implications for our balance of payments and pressure upon the value of our dollar? Is that the situation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to look at the hon. gentleman's figures, and particularly his reference to November 22, to see the relevance to this particular question. I would put it rather on the basis of broader principles. The National Energy Board has recommended that in order to be assured at the end of the period that they have discussed, up until the mid-1980s, that we would have enough oil to meet demands of that part of the Canadian market now served by Canadian oil, plus 250,000 barrels a day to Montreal, we should greatly scale down the level of exports. There will be an interim period before the full
250.000	barrels is moving into Montreal in which we will move from a position of net exporter to net importer, and later in the period we would move in that direction as

February 7, 1975
Oral Questions
well. The critical question is to assure security of supply in the period between now and 1985 when we anticipate being back in a surplus position.


GOAL OF GOVERNMENT IN REDUCING CONSUMPTION OF OIL
Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would think the minister would know the figures, at least for the year 1975, and whether the government is prepared to accept the balance of payments problems in light of the rather picayune conservation policy announced very late in the day by the minister last night. Looking ahead to 1980 and the shortfall anticipated there-which will not be made any better by the recent news about the tar sands- and the possibility of shortfall of about one million barrels a day by 1985, has the minister established a goal for the amount by which he would cut consumption by 1980 through his conservation program? Can he give us a figure on what his goal is for cutting back consumption in light of the very difficult situation that seems to be ahead?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I can give a specific goal on that because it depends to a great extent on the co-operation of the other levels of government, of industry and individual Canadians. I did indicate last night the kind of figures we can anticipate if the program is generally supported by Canadians-for example, that the reduction of the increase in demand by one per cent per year could save the equivalent of 12 tar sands plants by 1990.


SHORTFALL IN PRODUCTION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS- GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO OVERCOME
Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the minister in all seriousness, with the information given us by an authoritative body pointing to a very serious shortfall in production of petroleum products, oil in particular, by 1980 in relation to demand, what is his policy with regard to meeting this? If he is not prepared to give us a forecast as to how much he will cut back on the consumption side in precise terms, can he tell us today or in the very near future what measures he proposes to adopt to save this country from facing catastrophe by 1980 or the early 1980's?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in the past we have announced a range of measures of which the hon. gentleman, if he is serious about the question, should be aware. This week's decision to participate in the Syncrude plant is one indication that we feel a technology should be fully developed to reach the 22 billion barrels of oil that are involved in the mineable oil sands. For this purpose, we are prepared to back the development of that technology in the Syncrude plant by the investment of $300 million as well as by other policy indications to that plant. As some exploration success has been indicated so far this winter, there is a real prospect for the development of additional hydrocarbon resources in the Mackenzie Delta and, ultimately, in the Beaufort Sea. We are taking measures with

the industry in order to permit that exploration program to go ahead, and I think results have been encouraging up to this point.
The Prime Minister indicated in his statement that, subject to meeting the criteria of the concerns of the native people, environmental concerns and also the impact on Canada's general economy, we would look to completion at an early date of the Mackenzie Valley natural gas pipeline. We have under active consideration with American officials now the question of whether there is a possibility of developing an oil pipeline as well, to link the resources from United States sources in Alaska with those now being developed in the Mackenzie Valley.
I do not think any responsible person at this point could give a firm and final prediction as to whether, as the National Energy Board indicated, it is possible that by 1985 we will move back to a surplus position; however, we think that the collection of all these measures provides an assurance that the Canadian hydrocarbon reserves as opposed to potential-the potential is obviously enormous-can be identified and harnessed within this time frame. It is that kind of policy which, as I have said many times in this House and before committee, the government has committed itself to, in order to develop the hydrocarbon potential of Canada.


FREQUENCY WITH WHICH FUTURE TAR SANDS PLANTS WILL COME ON STREAM-DATE OF PUBLICATION OF LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR FEDERAL LANDS
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister just indicated that the government is counting on other tar sands plants as well as conventional oil and gas from the high Arctic to supply Canada's future needs. May I ask the minister a two-part question. First, will he indicate at what frequency he anticipates future tar sands plants will come on stream. Also, will he say when he will be producing land use regulations and royalty structures for land under federal jurisdiction which were withdrawn in April, 1970 and promised "within a few months" almost five years ago, the lack of which is now deterring companies from exploring in that area and producing the oil and gas which he acknowledges we need but the finding of which he is not encouraging.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman may not have followed the situation very closely but there is an active exploration program under way both off-shore and in the Canadian Arctic and, indeed, this winter we have been encouraged by some substantial finds within the federal territories. So, the conclusion stated by the hon. gentleman is obviously erroneous.
With regard to the mineable oil sands development we have, as you know, provided assurances this week that the momentum which has already been commenced in that regard will continue.
February 7, 1975


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Whom are you trying to fool?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain could be described as a big mouth in a suit.
With regard to other oil sands plants, I refer the hon. member to the action of the Petrofina consortium or, rather, to the decision of the Alberta Resources Conservation Board which has authorized the Petrofina group to go ahead. We are, of course, keeping in close touch with that development. I have to say that I have learned, from my discussions with Shell, that at this point they have been discouraged from going ahead by capital costs rather than from the standpoint of any tax or land policy.
As to the oil and gas land regulations, my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has at the moment under consideration proposals with respect to changing land regulations for the Canadian Arctic only. In view of the pressure of the eastern provinces that we should not finalize our land regime with regard to offshore areas, we have acceded to that request and not done so. We do, however, intend to go ahead with a land regulation system for the Canadian Arctic, that is, for the land area in the Arctic which we now administer. My colleague and I are in the process of completing proposals in that regard.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise for this question which I am about to ask the Solicitor General because of the most unusual observation made by the Prime Minister in his answer to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings concerning the two $80,000 armour plate cars which are used by the Prime Minister. He suggested, surprisingly enough, that what had been done was done at the request of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Prime Minister directed the hon. gentleman to ask his question of the Solicitor General. I ask the Solicitor General when it was that the RCMP directed or ordered that the Prime Minister should have not one, but two armour plate cars. In the days of Mr. King, Mr. St. Laurent, Mr. Pearson and in my day we paid for our own cars. When was it that the Prime Minister was asked by the RCMP to have these two cars to protect him. Of course, I am desirous of seeing that he is fully protected at all times.


George Harris Hees: The other prime ministers did not need bullet proof cars.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have not the exact date before me, but I think some time last year the RCMP made a strong recommendation that a second car, a security vehicle, should be purchased for the Prime Minister because the one vehicle had to be used as well for visiting heads of state, such as for Her
Oral Questions
Majesty and members of the royal family when they come to this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: And, Mr. Speaker, it was felt that when visiting dignitaries come to this country, they should be given top security as well as the Prime Minister. In addition, it was found that the one security vehicle was out of use-I do not have the exact figures-for approximately 30 or 40 days each year for maintenance, repair and upkeep; consequently, owing to the increase in terrorism which took place in the world, unfortunately, in the late 1960's and in the present period, it was felt that the Prime Minister and visiting dignitaries to this country should be given top security.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the concern for Her Majesty is fully understandable-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: -although this is the first time the Prime Minister has shown any concern for her.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The right hon. gentleman is not correct. The second car was judged to be necessary, as the Solicitor General just pointed out, because I insisted on giving Her Majesty the privilege of using that RCMP car, out of consideration for her safety.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have heard specious explanations for wasteful expenditure, but the one I have just heard is new. Will the hon. gentleman produce the record regarding this and why Her Majesty, who visits Canada possibly two, three or four days in a year, is not able to use the car that is to protect the Prime Minister. Will he show on what date this was, because it is unusual for any Prime Minister to reveal a security question such as this. Certainly, this sounds like a specious explanation for an expenditure which cannot be justified.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to make it clear to the House that it was the RCMP which strongly recommended-


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister said he did.


William Warren Allmand: Listen for a while.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister said he did.

February 7, 1975
Oral Questions
[DOT] <1200)


William Warren Allmand: I will be glad to give the House the date on which this recommendation was made to me and to the Prime Minister. I will also be glad to give the House the number of days the one vehicle was out of service for the Prime Minister due to the fact it was on loan for visiting heads of state and heads of governments. Besides Her Majesty, there are many people who visit this country and require this top security. As I say, I will be glad to give the right hon. member information as to the exact number of days in the past few years in which the one vehicle was not available because of this reason.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before we leave this important subject, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will seriously consider providing the leaders of minority parties with bullet proof Pintos or Vegas.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what gratitude I would get for that. I remind the leader of the New Democratic Party that when I asked the airlines to provide them with free passes for travel within Canada, something which had not been done by previous Prime Ministers, I did not hear any thank you to the airlines for that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order. I do not understand the purport of the Prime Minister's remarks, unless it was to take a crack at me as well as the others.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish to make it very clear that I thank the Prime Minister for his courtesy. I have been very grateful for the courtesy ever since, not only as far as I am concerned but insofar as the party I lead is concerned. If the Prime Minister feels I have not duly thanked him, I now thank him publicly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my answer was given in the context of the question which referred to leaders of minor parties. I am glad to hear the Leader of the Opposition include the party he leads.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: The natives are restless. They sense the lion moving in for the kill. This whole question of bullet proofing did not arise until the time of the present Prime Minister. The other Prime Ministers were all very popular gentlemen. It has only been necessary to bullet proof these cars since the present Prime Minister took office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: May I answer this, Mr. Speaker? I just want to point out that the hon. member is right. The procedure was begun with me. However, I should point out that in the time the right hon. member for Prince Albert was Prime Minister, they should have had kick-proof cars. He will recall his car was kicked when he was getting out at the Chateau Laurier.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the right hon. member must have been facetious because it has no basis in truth and he knows that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have now spent a considerable amount of time on the non-point of order raised by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. The hon. member for Ontario gave notice yesterday of his intention to raise a question of privilege relative to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, after checking the record. Obviously, the proper time to have done that would have been at the beginning of today's session. If the hon. member were to be entitled to do it now, he would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House very sincerely for giving me this opportunity to reply in respect of a question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).
In that question of privilege, which did not directly deal with me, the hon. member made references to myself, my constituency and a person who was an employee in my constituency. The hon. member indicated in the statement he made at that time that a payment of $3,900 to Mr. J. Forester constituted a clear conflict of interest situation.
I must point out to the House that I fail to understand how that kind of casual allegation can be made. First, the $3,900 in question was not paid directly by the House of Commons or the government of Canada, but by senior citizens in the town of Ajax who made an application for a New Horizons grant. Second, the hon. member said these payments began to be made when this same J. Forester was an employee of mine as a special assistant. That is simply not true.
I wish to relate the facts. First, in respect to the two New Horizons grants: According to my check yesterday, the first grant was made in May 1973. The second grant was made in December 1973. On neither of these applications did the name Joe Forester appear.
February 7, 1975

At the time of the granting of those particular applications, Mr. J. Forester was a news director of CHOO radio, a local radio station in the town of Ajax. In fact, the New Horizons grant was to bring forward a senior citizens radio program. This man, who was a news director of CHOO radio at the time, was indeed involved in making representations to us so that these senior citizens would have such a radio program. In any event, Mr. Forester was not in my employ at the time and he was certainly not an employee of the government of Canada or the House of Commons.
On February 2, which is later that both of these grants, Mr. Joe Forester left the employ of CHOO radio and approached me for employment as one of my staff persons in the House of Commons. He was in fact hired as a second secretary in the House of Commons, operating here and in the constituency, dealing with constituency problems. I should point out that he did an excellent job.
Mr. Forester was hired on March 11, 1974, and continued in the employ of the House of Commons until May 23, 1974, when at my request in writing to my Ottawa office, I asked that the same gentleman be removed from my staff and put on a temporary leave of absence during the course of the election that was then being held. Even though he continued to serve as a constituency representative, I felt that that could be misinterpreted because he also helped me in my election. Therefore, I asked that he be given a leave of absence during that period and it was granted.
Mr. Forester remained on leave of absence from then until July 8, 1974, the date of the election, and was reintroduced on my staff on July 9, continuing until August 31, 1974. Since that time he has been an employee of the provincial government of Ontario in the department of the environment.
I think it is important to point out that when I hired this gentleman, in light of the fact he was a newspaperman and a broadcaster, he approached me to ask if he would have the right to perform free-lance functions which, I gather, is rather customary in that particular field of endeavour. I indicated to him that I had no objection, providing such activities did not interfere with his proper function as a servant of the House of Commons assigned to me as member of parliament for Ontario. With respect to any income he may or may not have had in respect of any extra-curricular activities with which he was involved, I felt it was either none of my business or that it was not an obligation of mine to pursue the matter. But if the hon. member would like me to make contact with him to provide him with such extraneous detail I would be delighted to do so.
The essential point, Mr. Speaker, and one which I think is more important than the wrong information which has been put before this House, is the casual approach as to the honour and integrity of another member of parliament, or the integrity of any other citizen without having the courtesy of giving notice of an intent to raise this question and, two, of not having the courtesy to approach me to find out what the facts really were. I would have been quite prepared to give him the facts and to have done any research to which he would have been entitled as to
Privilege-Mr. Cafik
those facts. I think it is really very bad news and a terrible example to do this kind of thing without the courtesy of what is commonly known as an examination for discovery of the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: I must admit that this is the aspect of the whole question which grieves me most, because I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member who raised this point. I must admit I am surprised and disappointed that he did not follow that particular course in order to acquaint himself with the facts which I think are relevant in this case.


Mr. Orlikow:: It is really quite simple. I put a question on the order paper; it stayed on the order paper for some considerable time. Finally, it was answered, not by me but by officials of the department concerned. There was an impression in the mind of some people who had suggested the question that the information given in the official answer did not quite square with the facts. They wrote to the department concerned, the Department of National Health and Welfare. The assistant to the minister wrote to the person concerned giving the fact that the man concerned had received, not the $100 which was asked about in the question, but in fact had received $3,900. The man concerned worked at one time with the hon. member. Mr. Speaker, that is what I put on the record.
Now, if there was a misunderstanding, if there was misinformation, it was not on my part. I got information, partly as a result of the answer to my question and partly as a result of the answer given by an official of the department. Now, if the information was incorrect or if the information has been misinterpreted, if the information hurts the hon. member or the person who got the $3,900, I am sorry. But I am not responsible for the information I get from the department. If the hon. member has a complaint it is against the department. If the person concerned gave the member wrong information or the member suggested to that person-as he told me on the telephone today, because I got in touch with him when he asked me to get in touch with him-if the member advised that person not to take the money while he was working with that member and the person took the money, then that is something between the person and the hon. member. But I do not have to take any responsibility for that, Mr. Speaker, and I do not. I gave the information precisely as I got it, no more and no less. I do not think I did anything wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This is not a debate. The hon. member for Ontario raised the question of privilege in the course of which he dealt with another hon. member to whom I have given an opportunity to make a contribution. Neither hon. member has asked the Chair to take any action resulting from the question of privilege. I do not see any other members who wish to make a contribution-


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege. The hon. member made a reference to the effect that there was incorrect information being provided by my department. I wish to challenge that statement.-

February 7, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Cafik


Harvie Andre: No, he did not say that.


Marc Lalonde: It certainly was said and if you examine the record you will see for yourself.


Harvie Andre: It was Cafik who said the information was wrong.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I wish to challenge that statement. I am not responsible for the type of questions the hon. member asks. The hon. member received the answer to the question which he asked which was: What were the names of the individuals associated with this project who received in excess of $100. We provided the answr to that question.
Subsequently, someone requested and obtained the full balance sheet for the particular project with all disbursements and income. We were quite agreeable to providing this information to that individual. If this was the information the hon. member wanted, that was what he should have asked for in his question. There is no contradiction between what was provided to an outside person who asked for information which was available and what was provided in this House in response to a question by the hon. member. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the allegation that officials of my department would have deliberately, or even inadvertently, provided inaccurate information to this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: We are on the same question of privilege. I am sure that both members wish to make further contributions. However, if I were to permit them to make further contributions, I am sure it would lead to yet further contributions being made by each one of them. This is not a forum for debate, it is a forum for raising a question of privilege. If there is a prima facie question of privilege and action is sought in a motion by the hon. member, the Chair has to take action. Both members have had an opportunity to put their views on the record. There is no action sought on the part of the Chair, and I am not able to find there is a prima facie question of privilege. It is a grievance concerning the accuracy of facts, which is a matter for question and debate. Opportunity has been given for a fair expose on both sides, and I think we should get on with orders of the day.


Norman Augustine Cafik: In response to my question today, the hon. member indicated a few moments ago that he had only put forward the facts he had received from the Department of National Health and Welfare or indirectly from another person who had the information with respect to the details. But that is not really true.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have said to the hon. member, as I have said to the hon. member for Winnipeg North, that this is not a forum to challenge the accuracy of one another's statements in this way. There has been a question of privilege raised and it is a long standing practice of this House that an hon. member raising a question of privilege must seek the opinion of the Chair as to whether or not there is a prima facie question of privilege, and if there is to seek some action by way of a motion. That has not been done.
I have tried to give ample opportunity for both hon. members to expose their grievances but in fact they are grievances and not questions of privileges. I have already indicated that I do not propose to let the two hon. members go back and forth for the rest of this hour. I feel that the matter is closed and that we ought to get on with orders of the day.


David Orlikow: A question of privilege!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North is seeking the floor, I presume to establish a question of privilege of some sort.


David Orlikow: I wish to raise a new question of privilege. It will be very short and it is in response to the comment made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. At no point did I question the veracity of the information given to me or to anybody else by officials of his department. The interpretation of the answers by me or by the hon. member is a different matter. I never questioned the veracity of the information given to me by the department.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State) moved: that Bill C-33, an act respecting the export from Canada of cultural property and the import into Canada of cultural property illegally exported from foreign states, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
He said: Madam Speaker, last October 30 I tabled in the House Bill C-33, an act respecting the export from Canada of cultural property and the import into Canada of cultural property illegally exported from foreign states. I think it would now be helpful for me to examine the need for such legislation, touch on procedures followed in other countries and state the philosophy behind the proposals I am making in Bill C-33. In this way I hope to place the proposed legislation in the context of my department's continuing and expanding role in developing policies in the cultural field.
Over the years Canada's heritage has been diminished by the departure of cultural treasures. Champlain's astrolabe and the Paul Kane diaries are only two examples of objects which left Canada instead of being preserved here in our own country for the benefit of future generations.
In the past, my predecessors took the initiative on an ad hoc basis to make purchases in emergencies when important private collections risked dispersal or export because our custodial institutions did not always have the

February 7, 1975

resources to compete with foreign buyers. In this way, the Manoir Richelieu collection was purchased in 1970 and the Borduas collection in 1972. Indeed, in March, 1972, my predecessor, reflecting the growing concern of Canadians for the preservation of the heritage, implemented a national museum policy.
This policy made provision for the creation of an emergency purchase fund. The idea was to provide ready funds to stem the continuing departure of national treasures, and even to buy back treasures which had left the country in the past, until appropriate measures could be taken better to control the export of heritage objects. This emergency purchase fund, developed as an interim measure, provided moneys so that the government could act quickly in the case of national treasures threatened by export or national treasures appearing on the international market which should be repatriated.
Since 1972 the fund has provided the means to buy a number of such national treasures that were in danger of being exported or that became available for repatriation on foreign markets. Within Canada this has involved such diverse objects as collections of decorative art from Quebec and a Tufts printing press in the maritimes. We have been able to preserve here treasures reflecting the artistic traditions of our native peoples. Many outstanding objects have been repatriated, perhaps most notably the Speyer collection of Amerindian cultural and artistic material from Canada which was purchased in West Germany last spring. Some members will recall the repatriation of the eighteenth century portrait by Greuze that had been part of the famous collection of Sir William Van Horne.
But the existence of an emergency purchase fund is only a measure suitable for a hit-or-miss operation. For one thing, it depends on the competent authorities getting advance warning of an upcoming "export" sale and an owner who is willing to accept a fair market price. Because of this hit-or-miss aspect, and in order to make special funding available to a wider range of custodial institutions such as archives, libraries and public authorities as well as museums, we decided on recourse to legislation. By establishing a system of control over the export of cultural property and by providing funds to facilitate the purchase of objects stopped by the control system, the emergency purchase fund would no longer be needed. The fund will, of course, remain in operation until this new legislation comes into force.
While developing the policy for this new legislation we studied the export control systems in force in a number of countries. The systems adopted by the United Kingdom and France turned out to be of particular interest in terms of the Canadian situation. The French system provided the example of a decentralized operation. To apply to export cultural property from France it is necessary to deal with certain designated Customs offices located throughout France in the areas of heaviest traffic. Members will recognize how, for a large country like Canada, it would be preferable to adopt a system which would provide for a number of centres where applications could be dealt with and decided on with the help of local professional expertise.
Cultural Property
If the French system provided the practical example of a decentralized control suitable to Canadian needs, the philosophy upon which the British export provisions were based seemed to represent an approach to emulate with its record of 25 years of successful implementation. Further, this experience has been characterized by support from all groups in the United Kingdom with a direct interest.
Thus, the legislation before the House proposes that the export of cultural property be based on two factors, age and value; that an independent review board be charged with the responsibility of judging appeals from individuals who, having applied for permission to export an object, have been refused by the Customs authorities on the advice of expert examiners; that in dealing with cases referred to it, the review board, like the expert examiners, be guided by criteria which, although by necessity subjective, have been inspired by successful experience in the application of like rules in the United Kingdom.
In 1952 the British government published the exhaustive report of the Waverley committee which had been appointed to recommended improvements in the practical application of export control. Among the principal recommendations which the British adopted, and which we believe should also inspire a Canadian system of control, are the following. First, the state must retain the right to prevent the export of objects of high importance in suitable cases. Second, in every case in which export is prevented, the owner must be assured of an offer to purchase at a fair price. Third, export control should be confined to limited categories of objects of high importance. Fourth, there should be a time limit within which the natural free flow of commerce in objects recently imported is exempted from controls. Fifth, offers to purchase should be related to the market price wherever the conditions admit of a general and reasonable market price being arrived at. Sixth, a special fund be established which could be drawn upon to assist in financing the retention of cultural property in appropriate institutions in the country after they have been declared to be of national importance.
In concluding this reference to foreign precedents, I would like to draw the attention of the House to two matters of practice and principle that both France and Britain have adopted. First, both recognize the critical importance of enlisting the co-operation of collectors and the trade if an export system is going to be able to work effectively and, second, in order to encourage the movement of national treasures into those institutions best able to preserve them, both countries offer various tax incentives to encourage gifts and the sale of national treasures to appropriate custodial institutions.
The system of control that I am proposing in Bill C-33 envisages the establishment, by order in council, of a control list based on age and value limits. The application of a broad criteria of age and value offers the simplest and most efficient way to apply control. Age, for example, is a factor that helps to establish rarity; value, on the other hand, helps to establish quality. Thus, the control list establishes the basis upon which the system will operate. It sets the ground rules, so to speak. However, Bill C-33 allows for changes to be made in the control list in response to the upward movement of prices on the market or in cases where the control may have been originally set

February 7, 1975
Cultural Property
at too low a price. At its simplest, the idea is to apply control to objects above certain age and value limits and to make no attempt to exert control over objects beneath these limits.
The categories of objects upon which the control list will be based and the age and value limits for these categories have been established in the legislation as the result of consultations with the professional community concerned. And I would emphasize that these age and value limits set minimum levels beneath which there would be no control.
Now to some specifics. Why must an object be more than 50 years old to be subject to control? Why must it be made by a person who is no longer living? Why is an application for a permit to export an object subject to control, but imported into Canada within the previous 35 years granted automatically? Canada is a young country. Our cultural traditions, except for those of our native peoples, have developed over a relatively short period of time. So although most European countries base control on cultural property 100 years old, 50 years seems a more reasonable and realistic time period to adopt for our Canadian situation. Of course, there are national treasures to be found in Canada that are less than 50 years old, but to try to safeguard them by the system I am proposing is impractical and, I suggest, undesirable. First of all, it would vastly increase the number of objects to be scrutinized. Then, it offers much greater scope for differences of opinion, legitimate differences of opinion, as to whether particular objects are or are not national treasures.
It is also worth pointing out that the control of trade in objects of less than 50 years of age would discourage the vigorous sort of two-way traffic I think we all wish to encourage which brings recent, important works of foreign provenance into the country in exchange for those that leave Canada and which testify to our growing artistic reputation abroad.
I think that all hon. members would agree that we should not try to exert control over an object created by a living artist. It would infringe upon the artist's right to dispose of a work as that individual sees fit. Further, during an active, creative life the artist should be enabled, with complete freedom-even encouraged-to gain an international reputation. Then there is the practical consideration that, while an artist is living, the body of work is not finite and the institutions responsible for selecting from it can do so in free competition with foreign private collectors and institutions.
I now come to the principles that I propose should be adopted in the case of objects imported to Canada which owners wish to export. Here, Madam Speaker, the aim must be to give collectors and the trade as much freedom as possible. It was clear that the only practical test is the length of time an object has been in Canada. In establishing criteria, we recognize that too short a time would cause genuine hardship to owners and dealers. If the time is too long, genuine national treasures may be lost without being given proper consideration.
Some European countries consider 50 years, the equivalent of two generations, as the passage of time necessary

for an object to become a national treasure "by association". For Canada, a younger country with a shorter history, I am suggesting 35 years, or a generation and a half. In fact, the watershed being proposed to start the control system off, if the legislation is implemented in 1975, brings us to the beginning of the Second World War, a time during which important works were not coming into Canada in any large numbers.
What the legislation requires, Madam Speaker, is that if any object falls within the control list, a person wishing to export that object must obtain an export permit. People will be able to apply at Customs offices at least one of which will be located in each province. If after comparing the description of the object as detailed on the application form with the control list, the Customs officer concludes that the object in question is subject to control, he refers the application to a local expert examiner. Otherwise, of course, he would issue a permit. Before going any further, I should like to emphasize to hon. members that the duties of the Customs officer are purely administrative. They make no artistic judgment.
Coming back to our expert examiner, if he decides, on the basis of the criteria set forth in the act for judging the significance and national importance of the object, that a permit should be granted, he advises the Customs officer, who then is required to issue an export permit. If, on the other hand, he advises that an export permit should not be granted, the Customs officer will not issue it and the applicant can keep the object, try to sell it in Canada or appeal to an independent review board. This board is to be equally representative of Canadian custodial institutions and dealers in and collectors of art and antiques.
This Canadian cultural property export review board, as its name suggests, will review the decision of the local expert examiner, on the basis of the same criteria, in order to determine whether the object really falls within the category of a national treasure. If the board decides the object is not a national treasure, it will direct that an export permit be issued. If, on the other hand, the board decides that the object is a national treasure within the meaning of the legislation, and if it is of the opinion that some institution or public authority in Canada might make an offer to purchase, it may establish a delay period of up to six months. If it decides that an offer to purchase is not likely, or in the event that a delay period had been established but no offer to purchase had been made within that time, the board would direct that an export permit be issued. Here I should note that there will be a procedure for determining what is a "fair offer to purchase" in cases where the parties cannot agree.
I should like to emphasize the necessity for limiting control to a minimum. After examining export control systems in force abroad, we concluded that all have some inherent defects which become greater as the number of objects it is sought to control increases. Whatever arrangements are decided upon must be administratively practical. Any attempt to be over-meticulous defeats itself. A workable system of export control must confine itself to limited, well defined categories. As Britain's Waverley report demonstrated, control has been least effective and most irksome when it deals with objects not of the first order of importance.
February 7, 1975

The system I am proposing, therefore, is the control of objects which are in the national treasure category. We want to catch those things that should be controlled without making the net so tight that we catch too much and the system becomes oppressive or unworkable, or both. I do not think that any member would seriously question the right of parliament to try to retain cultural property of high national significance in Canada, but there would be wide divergencies of view as to what constitutes a national treasure. Therefore, I should like to examine with hon. members what the act has to say about those who will make these difficult decisions, that is, the local expert examiners and the review board.
Normally, custodial institutions in the location of the Customs office which deals with export permits would be responsible for providing expert examiners. I am talking about local museums, galleries, provincial archives, university libraries, and so on. The Customs office will have a list of these institutions and in some cases the names of individual expert examiners not connected to them. From the description of the object on the application form, the Customs officer will be guided as to which institution or individual he should approach to get professional advice.
Obviously, regulations regarding the duties and responsibilities of the expert examiners will have to be drawn up to ensure that the bill is applied equally across the country yet takes regional or provincial considerations into account. Once again I should emphasize that we will be concerned about avoiding unnecessary delays. The tasks of the Canadian cultural property export review board are threefold. The first is to review applications for export permits as a result of an appeal; the second arises when an owner and a Canadian institution cannot agree on a fair price for an object for which the review board has created a delay period, and in such case the board, calling upon the advice of evaluation experts, will determine the amount of a fair cash offer; and the third duty arises out of the tax amendments proposed to the Income Tax Act.
The review board will have seven members including an independent chairman. It will be small in size to allow for informal proceedings and rapid action. It is to have a built-in parity between the custodial interests on the one hand, and the dealer-collector fraternity on the other, so as to be as impartial as possible. My intention is to set up an independent body under a chairman who would be a person of standing, experienced in administration and having a recognized interest in the Canadian heritage. I like to think of the board as a body of professionals with access to people employed in custodial institutions at the federal level who have the technical and special knowledge to assist it in any matter in an advisory capacity.
It will be seen, therefore, that the system of control is quite fair. Its operation will only affect objects considered to be of a high degree of national importance and so it will not seriously interfere with the normal trade or infringe unduly upon personal rights. It does not expropriate or confiscate property. If an application for an export permit has been received for an object considered to be of national importance, the owner will either obtain a fair price for the object, or at worst-from his point of view-his intention to export will be delayed for a period of a few months. Surely it is not too much to require an individual who has
Cultural Property
an object of national importance to wait for a reasonable period before he sells it abroad, in order to provide time for Canadian custodial institutions or public authorities to examine whether the object can be purchased and thus retained in Canada.
The Income Tax Act is to be amended in order to give Canadian institutions a competitive edge in negotiating for important works. One amendment will exempt from capital gains tax, national treasures disposed of to designated institutions or public authorities in Canada. The other concerns gifts of national treasures to designated institutions and public authorities which will be deductible from taxable income on the same percentage basis as if they were gifts to the Crown; that is, on a 100 per cent basis. I wish to personally thank my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) for his sympathetic understanding in agreeing to these tax exemptions which in my judgment are central to the operation of the whole scheme.
Hon. members will note that the tax exemptions are not restricted to cases where owners are attempting to export national treasures. This kind of restriction would be to the disadvantage of Canadians who sold or donated important heritage items to their local institutions. Thus, provision has been made for such cases to be referred to the review board. If the board rules that the object involved in such a transfer should be considered a national treasure, it will provide the owner with a certificate for income tax purposes.
No scheme of export control can be effective without adequate funds for assisting Canadian institutions to buy national treasures for which a delay period has been created. The absence of sufficient funds would negate the scheme. The bill proposes, therefore, that the Secretary of State be given authority, out of moneys appropriated by parliament, to make grants and loans to Canadian institutions to supplement what funds they might have available to purchase such objects. This authority would also extend to making grants and loans to help them repatriate heritage objects that become available for repatriation abroad.
The bill also proposes the establishment of a Canadian heritage endowment fund. Contributions made to the fund by the private sector would be deductible from taxable income as gifts to Her Majesty, and the Secretary of State would use the fund to make grants for purchases of the kind I have just been talking about. The moneys in the fund would not lapse at the end of the fiscal year and any interest earned on the balance would be credited to it.
I have outlined the tax exemptions and financial considerations of Bill C-33. I think, now, it would be appropriate to speak about my consultations with the provinces. Throughout the preparation of this bill, Madam Speaker, I have been very conscious of the important role that must be shared between the federal government and its agencies and the provincial governments and their agencies in the matter of preserving the heritage in cultural property. We have consulted fully with provincial governments and I am happy to report that I did not receive any objections about our intentions or the control system we were going to propose. In fact, I was most gratified to receive expres-

February 7, 1975
Cultural Property
sions of support from all my provincial colleagues as well as helpful comments and suggestions.
In discussing the tax incentives I had in mind at the federal level with my provincial colleagues, I suggested that they might wish to examine what tax incentives could be initiated at the provincial level, particularly in the area of inheritance taxes. I do not believe that the succession duty laws generally in force are such as to encourage people to leave collections of important works to their local institutions. Nor do they do anything to discourage heirs from selling important works outside Canada perhaps to get the best price in order to pay succession duties. I explained to provincial ministers the current British practice where an heir to an object which forms part of the national heritage is exempted from estate duty so long as the object is not sold. Since 1972, this practice has been broadened so that works of art may be accepted in lieu of estate taxes to cover works which would be a pre-eminent addition to a public collection. It is interesting that the French government has adopted similar provisions. I hope that provincial governments will examine the possibility of amending the succession duty laws where appropriate.
I would like to take a moment, Madam Speaker, to point out the important relationship that exists between dealer, collector and public institutions. The dealers sell objects to collectors. Some collectors, either following professional advice or with a well developed innate sensibility, build up collections which by their very nature and quality are of interest to our custodial institutions. I have only to cite some great Canadian benefactors to demonstrate how important their generosity has been for establishing the very foundations of the collections of many of our public institutions. Objects formerly from these private collections are now preserved so that they can be shared and appreciated by future generations of Canadians as they appear in exhibitions and are made available for research. I am thinking of the collection assembled by Lord Beaver-brook of which the Atlantic provinces are justly proud, the Adeline Van Horne bequest to the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, the Vincent Massey gift and bequest to the National Gallery, the Sigmund Samuels bequest to the Royal Ontario Museum, and the Zacks bequest to the Art Gallery of Ontario.
Institutions such as the Norman Mackenzie Art Gallery and the Mendel Art Gallery in Saskatchewan, and the Glenbow Institute in Alberta, house the collections of their founders and benefactors. In British Columbia, the donation of the Koerner collection to UBC was instrumental in the decision of the federal government to allocate funds for the construction of a museum of anthropology at the university in honour of the centenary of British Columbia's entry into confederation.
I mention these examples to illustrate how institutions in all parts of Canada have not only benefited from but have been dependent on the generosity of public-spirited patrons. I believe, that all levels of government must actively facilitate this movement from the private to the public sector by taking the reasonable but necessary steps that will encourage future benefactors and philanthropy.
Responsibility for preserving the heritage must be shared between governments and it must be shared be-
tween the public and private sectors. I have tried to explain some of the ways this can be achieved. That is why I hope the creation of a Canadian heritage endowment fund which I mentioned earlier, a fund to which corporations and individuals and institutions can make contributions, will make funds available to supplement the moneys which the government itself will be making available. Canadians must be encouraged to make gifts of money as well as objects to help preserve in Canada our heritage in cultural property.
It is important for me to stress once again, Madam Speaker, that our system of control not attempt to set up too fine a screen which, in addition to creating high administrative costs, would catch objects of minor importance. This would simply create unnecessary delays in the trade, to the detriment of normal business. Our interest lies in objects of particular quality, significance or rarity.
Bill C-33 is not intended to replace the acquisition accounts of federal or other institutions. And as the federal government provides funds for federal custodial agencies, so must other levels of government provide their own institutions with adequate budgets to increase their collections. In this way they will be better able to compete for the purchase of objects of local or secondary importance which perhaps it would be desirable to retain in Canada but which do not fulfil the conditions of national importance that are set out in this bill.
In my statement in January, 1974, I mentioned that I wanted to assure the art and antique trade in Canada, as well as collectors, that the system of control I intended to introduce in the House would be reasonable and fair; that it would be designed to secure their active co-operation and support. Experience in other countries has shown that no system of export control can be effective without the active co-operation of dealers and collectors who are in a position to frustrate even the most stringent export controls unless they are persuaded that the system is reasonable.
I should explain that many dealers first offer important works to our custodial institutions as a matter of principle. I do not think their public-spiritedness as an important group with a recognized role in the preservation of the heritage is always appreciated. Yet on occasion institutions may not have funds to take advantage of this kind of first refusal and an object may be lost to the institution and even the country. Sometimes the very existence of an important item has not been realized until too late or, more commonly, the availability and the significance of an object have been known, but not the danger that it might be exported.
If I have been gratified, Madam Speaker, by the reaction of the provinces, I have been also reassured by the reaction of many dealers and their professional associations. They recognize, as I am sure do all members and Canadians generally, that we must maintain a basically free market but that it is the duty of the state to preserve and maintain in Canada collections of the best objects of national cultural significance. What will be important for these trade interests as well as collectors is the speed with which the control system operates. I have told the many interested people who have mentioned concern about unnecessary delays that it is my intention to ensure that Bill
February 7, 1975

C-33 will function efficiently and that decisions will be taken with dispatch.
Although I had not thought it necessary to provide for this in the legislation, I intend to organize, perhaps on a biennial basis, a widely representative conference involving all the various interests-the institutions, the trade, collectors-to discuss how the system of control is working. It would, as well, provide a forum for discussion of any other matters related to the preservation of our heritage in cultural property. I would like to think of this conference as a kind of advisory council, and my department could provide for the travelling and living expenses of the people invited to take part.
So far, Madam Speaker, I have dealt with the matter of the export of cultural property from Canada. I hope I have explained why the successful implementation of Bill C-33 must, by the very nature and complexity of the problem, be carried out in a spirit of co-operation and compromise on the part of all concerned. Now I would like to turn briefly to the problem posed by the import into Canada of cultural property illegally exported from foreign states.
The movement of cultural property from one country to another can no longer be a casual and informal matter. Just as I believe that the Canadian government has a responsibility to act as a guardian of the heritage of Canadians, I also believe that this responsibility extends to the cultural heritage of mankind. During the negotiations to repatriate the Speyer collection of Canadian Indian ethnography from West Germany, to which I referred earlier, it was axiomatic that the West German authorities should be kept informed of our intentions. In fact, they facilitated our obtaining this important collection for Canada. I think hon. members would agree that we should not become a point of entry for illicit traffic in cultural goods.
Bill C-33, therefore, also sets out procedures which enable a foreign state, signatory with Canada to a bilateral or multilateral cultural property agreement, to apply to the Secretary of State for the recovery and return of cultural property that has been illegally exported from that state to Canada. The bill empowers the Attorney General to institute the legal proceedings in Canadian courts necessary to accomplish this. Of course, the interests of bona fide Canadian purchasers are protected under the legislation and Canadian courts will decide what compensation is to be paid to such a purchaser by the reciprocating state when an object is to be returned to that state.
I should also mention that these provisions in the legislation are necessary for Canada to ratify the UNESCO, 1970, convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. As hon. members may be aware, I led the Canadian delegation last October to the eighteenth session of the UNESCO general conference and I declared that it was the government's intention, once this enabling legislation became law and the appropriate consultation with the provinces had been completed, to become a party to this convention.
Cultural Property
As I have stated outside the House, Madam Speaker, I have every confidence that in presenting this bill to the House, far from precipitating Canadians into rashly disposing of their national treasures abroad, they will recognize, having considered the provisions of the act, that it will be to their advantage to wait until it becomes law. I am sure that they will decide to play the game in the spirit of legislation which is fair and designed to protect the legitimate interests of all concerned.
Madam Speaker, I should like to thank the House for its time and attention in allowing me to propose Bill C-33 for second reading. I hope that this legislation will gain the same support inside the House that it has already gained in the country at large.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: One o'clock.


Mr. Fairweather:: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the House would agree, so that my speech would not be interrupted by the lunch hour, to call it one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that we call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being one o'clock, I now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 12.55 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In the proceedings on the adjournment motion of yesterday, February 6, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) said, concerning a delegation of workmen from the electrical industry which came to Ottawa on January 27, as recorded on page 3001 of Hansard:
It was regrettable that on that day, while the meeting was set up, not a single member of the government met with these gentlemen and ladies who were with them.
That statement is not only incorrect, it is mischievous in its intent. If the hon. member for Vancouver South wishes to organize a meeting, it is his responsibility to ensure that those he wishes to be in attendance are advised and that responses are received as to their availability. This was not done. However, when information was received that the delegation was here, a meeting was arranged at less than half an hour's notice. In addition, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), his parliamentary secretary and several government members, including myself, were in attendance.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: The hon. member is not a member of the government.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct any misunderstanding which may have arisen because of the inaccurate statement of the hon. member for Vancouver South.

February 7, 1975
Cultural Property


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I point out that the hon. member's point is not a valid question of privilege. If he wants to get in his two cents' worth, all right. But he is really abusing the rules of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Of course, any member who wishes to raise a question of privilege may do so, but he should do it within the rules which apply in this House. Of course, the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) has given the Chair notice of his intention, as required by Standing Order 17(1), to raise a question of privilege.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, should that not be Standing Order 17(2)?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has a grievance or a complaint which he wishes to bring to the attention of the House. This having been said, let me take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Vaudreuil and other hon. members the fact, confirmed by the hon. member's concluding remarks, that this is not a valid question of privilege. This question has already been raised three times by the hon. member for Vancouver South, first as a question in the House, as recorded on page 2618 of Hansard for January 27; again, as recorded on page 2722, on January 29; and later again, last night, when the hon. member for Vancouver South participated in the adjournment debate and dealt with the same question.
I think hon. members are aware of the provisions of the Standing Order which requires advance notice of a question of privilege to be given to the Chair, and of the provisions of Standing Order 17(1) which obliges hon. members to bring forward such matters at the first opportunity. This the hon. member for Vaudreuil did not do. Of course, he may not have been in the House when this question was raised on two occasions in the past, and evidently he did not attend the House for the adjournment debate last night, but he had the opportunity, immediately after prayers today, to raise this question. Finally, to return to my first point, I suggest that the hon. member's question really is more a dispute of fact or a grievance. Let me refer to citation 113, page 102, of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, which reads in part:
Members of ten raise so-called "questions of privilege" on matters which should be dealt with as personal explanations or corrections, either in the debates or the proceedings of the House.
Further down the page the same citation reads:
-a dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of fact, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
I think hon. members should follow the advice of the Chair and examine attentively any alleged question of privilege before it is brought before the House and uses up the important time of the House which should be available for the deliberation of legislation. I therefore cannot accept at this time the hon. member's question of privilege.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act is something that a Progressive Conservative would be very comfortable with for ideological reasons if not for any

other reason. It is profoundly conservative concept in the traditional use of that term. Therefore, the minister is in for a pleasant afternoon. The wish to preserve and keep for Canada our treasures is an objective I am sure all of us share. I hope that members who follow me will join in my expression of congratulation for this measure.
The whole tenor of the minister's speech was trying to fill a very important gap in the whole area of Canadian nationalism, the Canadian ethic and our cultural heritage. To some these are nebulous terms while others can rouse themselves to great passion about them. However, this bill and what it purports to do will be important for us. The minister listed many of the artifacts that have been lost to Canada because we have not had this type of legislation. I share the minister's view that we will have to work very closely with the provinces because of the property, civil rights and cultural aspects of the bill.
Heritage is something like citizenship. It is something we all share; however, many have a hard time articulating it. We can find it in a painting, an object of archaeological importance, an antique piece of furniture, and so on. Heritage is the sum of many things. This bill gives us a chance to consider our heritage and what to do about it. However, as I have said, the bill is part of something much larger. The minister mentioned the British experience. I say with the utmost good will, and with no presumption on my part, that the British could very well have a Waverley commission after 200 or 300 years of imperialism. In other words, now that the objects of art have been claimed from the world, the Waverley report can tell the British government what to do about keeping those artifacts within Britain. This very issue was raised recently with the acquisition by the National Gallery of an important piece of sculpture from Italy. We have to be very careful and sensitive to the wishes of other countries.
When I was considering the bill and what I would say about it, it occurred to me that Canadians really do not know very much about how to give. The minister mentioned some income tax changes. There can, of course, be publicity about one's citizenship when one gives to the government or the Crown. Many foundations in the United States have advisers whose job it is to tell generous people how to give wisely. I suppose all of us who are lawyers have had experience with clients who if they knew about the needs of our galleries, museums and so on, and how they could go about making gifts, would be a little more ready to do so. Therefore, I welcome the income tax changes.
There is also a change in the bill that interests me because it has to do with amending the Copyright Act. In answer to questions of mine and my colleague the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) dealing with an aspect of copyright which could be handled rather quickly in the House, the government took the view that we should deal with the entire Copyright Act. Many of us do not accept this. I am talking about cheap American editions of books by Canadian authors on which no royalties are paid to the authors. This matter could be handled very quickly, I am sure, with a large measure of cross-party support if a simple amendment to the Copyright Act were proposed to parliament.
February 7, 1975

We are prepared to do this if it suits the government. However, when many of us who are concerned ask questions about the Copyright Act and its unfair effects on Canadian authors, we are met with, "Oh, well; the Copyright Act is in the process of review and this matter will be dealt with in the package". The Copyright Act has been in the process of review all my adult life, which is saying something because I have reached the halfway mark. Ever since I came here in 1962 I have been told that the Copyright Act is under review. A succession of ministers have dealt with this question. I hope the new and vigorous Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) will really put his mind to the problem, and that we and those who follow us will not be met with the same excuses in the years ahead. Let's get on with blocking that obvious loophole right away so that Canadian authors have the protection to which they are entitled.
In his speech the minister mentioned UNESCO and the fact that Canada will ratify the 1970 convention as a means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. I hope his expectations about obtaining provincial agreement has a better foundation than the also long-espoused hope to get the provinces to agree to the ratification of the convention on human rights. It is time for another move in the constitutional field. It might be a several-pronged approach so that many of these international agreements that are waiting for ratification, I suspect much to the embarrassment of many people in Canada, can go forward.
Having mentioned UNESCO, I think it is right to say that the convention is one of the positive aspects of the contribution UNESCO is making to the world of culture. As an observer of the scene, it saddens me very much that at a recent meeting of UNESCO their objectives were, in my opinion, much too narrowly based. This organization which has done so much for the world has suddenly found itself to be very highly politicized.
Hopefully, the bill will prevent what many of us who live in the Atlantic provinces-or, I might say, the older, settled parts of Canada-have observed to our sorrow through the years. That is the movement of treasures-I use that word in the widest sense of our history-virtually by the truckload to the United States. Any citizen of New Brunswick has seen it happen. Buyers come from the United States and go around to the various homes, at least in Atlantic Canada and I suspect very much the same thing happens in Quebec, and pick up treasures for resale in the United States.
I know there is a dollar value in this bill and I know that there are other aspects to it, but I hope that collections-the minister mentioned several collections that are still intact in many places in Canada-of value to our heritage will be acquired through the fund the minister is going to set up. This would be of benefit to us all.
The objective of Heritage Canada, which of course is a charitable foundation which has very close links with the government and whose objectives have application to this bill, is to encourage the preservation of the best of our heritage for future use. Obviously there are countless aspects of heritage which may include such things as our
Cultural Property
literature, our music, our theatre, and crafts. The heritage which is immediately threatened includes those visible and concrete things which our ancestors gave us. To some, of course, the heritage is in the very geography of the country and the fact of our national parks. The inspiration for founding a parks system was Sir John A. Macdonald who set aside Banff as the first example of this system of preservation.
But to many geography is not enough. Land and the setting aside of land is not enough; there has to be some of the very things I have mentioned-houses, churches and other things used by our forefathers, such as the furniture which was produced for their homes, their decorations, and so on. I think the minister mentioned, for instance, the acquisition of Papineau Manor or the Papineau Chapel. At least, I have seen an account of this recently; I suppose it was in the Heritage quarterly report. If I may say so, it was a wise decision to acquire this for Canada, but it astounds me to think that until this bill is passed it might, under law, be possible to take Papineau's "revolutionary flag" and export it somewhere where current revolutionaries might find a use for it.


Marc Lalonde: It might give them ideas.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: As the minister says, it might give them ideas. A recent example of the same dilemma is to be found in Britain. The minister mentioned the Waverley report. In Britain now, many of the ancient churches are selling some of the important church decorations, the altar silver, and so on. So the board the minister is going to set up, composed of experts-hopefully, the experts will have the advice of members of the public-will have a very formidable job if our heritage is to be kept for us.
Heritage Canada believes that a first priority in wide heritage conservation is better law at the federal, provincial and municipal levels for preserving buildings. They also suggest that we should have a register-the minister might apply himself to that at a later stage-of what we feel is worth preserving. It should be a register because that which has a local habitation, a name, must be named in order to concretize the general principle. I like everything in that concept except the verb "concretize".
We must know what is there to be protected before effective protection can be provided. Stock must be taken. The heritage property, buildings, areas, parks and natural landscape must be listed. Presumably the review board or some agency of the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) will, in terms of items to be protected by this act, have a similar type of register when the legislation comes into force. It will be a little more difficult, of course, but fortunately the minister is helped by a very large and increasingly well informed public opinion which feels it wants very much to save these treasures for future generations.
Canada, of course, does not have many archaeological sites which yield valuable treasures, except those the minister mentioned in terms of our native peoples. There is not a hoard of Canadian material which the world museums are hungry for. The Canadian problem is to protect the fragile and meagre evidence of our prehistoric past and to save the evidence of the cultures of our native peoples and to preserve in Canada the works of art and art

February 7, 1975
Cultural Property
materials which have accumulated during our short history.
In thinking about this subject, as I mentioned earlier we obviously think of the whole question of nationalism, and we shall have other opportunities to deal with aspects of it as government legislation comes forward. But I think, very fortunately, Canada lives beyond speeches made here, even beyond our poets; an essential part of our Canadian psyche is the love found between these borders, embodied at times in geography, harsh and gentle, and sensed so strongly when one returns from an absence. We then get into our paradox, because I am going to quote a United States poet, Emerson, who said:
The ear loves names of foreign and classic topography. But here we are, and if we tarry a little, we may come to learn that here it is best.
Surely Emerson and anyone who loves his works do not use that quotation in any narrow or xenophobic sense. We have had enough of Little England and Little Englander as a concept and I think we have had enough in the world of little nationals anyway. The nationalism I speak of is a much broader concept. We have seen many tragic manifestations of the narrow variety. Of course, many of us, because the land is so large and so disparate, will have our own special places where our identification as Canadians is sharpened by sights, sounds and even smells which arouse clear but undefinable feelings for us about the land. As I say, I use this concept not in a restrictive sense.
Among the multitude of forces which shape today's world, nationalism need not and does not take a back seat to any in its strength and vigour. It is full of pros and cons and liable to vigorous debate. Regardless of one's own position, it cannot be denied that nationalism is a force to be reckoned with, and what I can see from my biased position the positive variety is a very essential element in nation-building. And from a strong nation which understands its identity will come a strong internationalism.
Canada and the Canadian scene provides a wealth of illustration of this topic. The fact that to many Canada is a branch plant economy, much of which is dominated by subsidiaries of American firms, makes the task of cultural expression and development more difficult. As a result, many of us, among whom I certainly classify myself, busily considering what should happen in this field, read American magazines. The prospect of cultural paralysis is certainly distasteful to thoughtful Canadians in prodding them into determining what course of action is open to them in changing such an outlook. Since it is assumed that the responsibility of the government is to protect the cultural heritage of the nation, this is the very rationalization of the bill that we are considering.
We will be anxious in committee to go into the specifics of the bill. I think the debate at second reading stage is not meant to pick up particular clauses and try to find weaknesses in them; rather it is the opportunity to have a more general debate on the whole topic. One Canadian writer, Margaret Atwood, had this to say:
It's all very well to say that art transcends time and place. But good writers don't cut themselves off from their roots, from the ground they stand on. They may transcend their nation, their time, their class, by being good, but they don't transcend it in the texture of their work.

I think that says in much more elegant terms what the response of this party will be to this bill. We will not take a narrow look, and I hope that the minister and the board will not be taking a narrow look either.
The Canada Council annual report about a year ago enunciated the problem of trying to understand the role of the arts in the quality of life. The report said it was useful to consider them in their broadest sense. They are, after all, a kind of self-expression. They help us cope with the often described feeling of powerlessness that is one of the overriding problems of mankind. It is in this sense, I think, that by having our heritage preserved to us we will not spend as much time as we usually do in trying to work out our own identity.
If I could find fault with the psyche of our country, I think it would be that we spend so much time deliberating upon our identity. I think it is time wasted. Northrup Frye wrote about a book published some 40 years ago by Frederick Grove, called "In Search for America". In this book the narrator, the hero, keeps looking for the genuine America buried beneath the hustling capitalism that occupies the same place. This buried America is an ideal that emerges in Thoreau, Whitman and the personality of Lincoln. All nations have such a buried and uncreated ideal, the lost world of the lamb and the child, and no nation has been more preoccupied with it than Canada. The paintings of Tom Thomson and Emily Carr, and later of Riopelle and Borduas, is an exploring, probing painting, tearing apart the physical world to see what lies beyond or through it. Canadian literature, even at its most articulate, seems constantly to be trying to understand something that eludes it, frustrated by a sense that there is something to be found that has not been found, something to be heard that the world is too noisy to let us hear.
If we can preserve unto ourselves these essential elements of our history which are made up of physical artifacts, we can spend a little less time on this elusive search. The Canada to which we really do owe loyalty is the Canada that we have failed to create. I should like to suggest that our identity, like the real identity of all nations, is the one that we have failed to achieve. It is expressed in our culture but not attained in our life. Just as Blake's New Jerusalem to be built in England's green and pleasant land is no less a genuine ideal for not having been built there, the uncreated identity of Canada may be, after all, not so bad a heritage to take with us. But that does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that we do not prospect for the New Jerusalem; to do less, of course, would be to reject our heritage.
Therefore, the analogy I should like to draw in ending my remarks in response to the minister's speech is that in a sense we are prospectors as citizens-prospectors trying to find the identity which is, after all, all about us. I very much hope the bill-not just the ink and paper of the bill, but its philosophy-will assist those who feel the way many of us do about ourselves, and that it will be an important tool in the attainment of this elusive identity.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, to Bill C-33 which is before us today, a bill respecting the export from Canada of cultural property and the import into Canada of cultural property illegally exported from
February 7, 1975

foreign states. In trying to define the word "nation", a Canadian scholar said that a nation is a group of people who have done great things together in the past and hope to do great things together in the future.
Certainly part of that greatness of the past, that heritage of the past, rests not only with the deeds of Canadians who have gone before us, but also with our national treasures, historical relics, art work and other memorabilia which make the past, in a very real and concrete way, come alive and give us a sense of identity which this nation up to this time has always found trouble in defining. The influence of American culture in our daily lives through the medium of television, movies and magazines certainly swamps Canadians' appreciation of the great achievements of our forefathers. So in no small way is this bill to protect that heritage, the great relics of our past, a bill that is long overdue and very important.
The aim of the bill is to regulate the export of national treasures by establishing categories of age and value limits. In principle we find the bill quite good. However, my party has two major criticisms of the bill since in two areas we find major weaknesses. The bill provides that the export of an object falling into a national treasure category can be postponed. But under the terms of the bill, as I read it, in the end the export of these national treasures cannot be prohibited. There is only one very narrow example of where the export of national treasures can be prohibited; but in general the bill can only postpone the export of national treasures-not prohibit it altogether. I think if an item is of historic or cultural value, it should not be exported: it is as simple as that.
The second criticism I have of the bill is that it uses the method of tax concessions in order to prevent the export of certain national treasures. I would like to elaborate on that matter a little later in my speech. First may I review the operation of the program to be set up by this bill. The minister proposes to draw up a control list which would contain a number of criteria for prohibiting certain objects being exported, at least for the time being.
The minister states there will be an age limit in respect of these items; that to come within this category they must be not less than 50 years old. He then outlined the difficulty in trying to put into this category items less than 50 years of age. I would remind him that this age limit may in certain circumstances, such as items from World War II, mean that historical items that fall within that time-frame will not come under the legislation.
The minister also has provided for a value limit of not less than $3,000, and an exemption in respect of articles imported into Canada in the last 35 years. I appreciate and understand the minister's dilemma in trying to categorize the thousands of items which may fall within this jurisdiction if we extend or limit the time or the value of the object. But because exceptional circumstances might arise, I would hope that there would be provision in the bill for ministerial discretion so that the minister on his own, when a case is presented to him, could declare an object that does not fall within the age or value category to be a historical treasure or item of historical significance and therefore it would come under the terms of the act. I
Cultural Property
would like to see that kind of discretionary power in the bill.
The bill also proposes to control illegal imports of cultural property from other countries and provides for a system whereby a foreign state may apply to recover cultural property illegally imported into Canada. This is a valuable provision in the bill. Certainly, anyone who has visited the British Museum in London, England, realizes the historical treasures of ancient Egypt which the British have in their possession. Canada can, of course, afford to be generous in this area since we have not throughout our history plundered nations of their historical treasures. Nevertheless, there are examples of items that should in reality belong to other countries and I am happy to see the provision enabling other countries to get those items back.
The system the minister is setting up seems to be very thorough from the point of view of allowing anyone who has an object of cultural value the most thorough review as to whether his object can or should be exported. As I understand it, the system works along these lines: a resident who wants to export an item that comes within the control list applies for an export permit; the permit officer then refers the matter to an expert examiner, that is, if the item is on the control list; the expert examiner then makes a decision as to whether the item or object can be exported-and then, if he concludes that the object should not be exported, the owner of the object can appeal within 30 days to the review board. The cultural property export review board, in turn, has a number of functions and powers at its disposal. It can review the application for export permit, it can receive an appeal from an applicant for an export permit and reverse the decision of an expert examiner or, if it agrees with the expert examiner, it can establish a delay period of up to six months within which to determine a fair market price for the object.
In an official press release of October 30, 1974, the minister elaborated on the powers of this export review board. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, this board does not in the end have the power to prohibit the export of an object after six months. I quote from the release as follows:
If after the delay period has expired a firm cash offer is not obtained from a Canadian institution or public authority, the review board must instruct the permit officer to issue an export permit.
So we could have someone appeal the decision not to be allowed to export an item, but after six months, if no Canadian institution buys that item, the person is allowed to export it even though it may be of significant historical or cultural value to this country. There is another aspect of the review board, which is as follows-and again I quote from the minister's press release:
The second responsibility of the review board arises in the case where an applicant for an export permit and an interested Canadian institution cannot agree on a fair cash offer for the object for which the review board has created a delay period.
That is the six-month period I was referring to. I continue to quote from the release:
If the institution in question accepts this evaluation, and offers to purchase the objects, but the applicant does not accept the evaluation, an export permit will not be granted. If the applicant accepts the evaluation but neither the interested institution, nor any other institution or public authority in Canada, is willing to purchase the object at
3034

Cultural Property
the evaluated amount, then the review board will instruct the permit officer to issue an export permit.
We see, then, that where a cash offer is not forthcoming from an institution and there cannot be an agreement between the holder of the object and the institution as to a fair cash offer, that is the only case-in that narrow circumstance-in which an export permit will not be granted. Under any other circumstance there is a delay of six months. If no Canadian institution buys the object, then it can be exported. It seems to me that if an object is of any worth-and coming under the control list it is of significant value to this country, by implication-the government should not have that loophole in the legislation, namely, that after six months it can be exported.
My other major criticism of the weaknesses of the bill has to do with the way in which the government wants to encourage people not to export or, in other words, to keep these historical or cultural objects. The method proposed in the bill is to offer certain incentives to assure offers of purchase. First, we will set up the Canadian heritage preservation endowment fund out of which loans or grants can be paid to institutions or public authorities for purchases of cultural property. The second method, the one to which I object, is that tax concessions are offered to the owner and would-be exporter of the property to encourage him to sell rather than to export.
If the owner decided to donate his property to a designated institution, that is an art gallery or museum which has been so classified by the Department of the Secretary of State, he is eligible for a tax deduction of the full value of the item. Previously, this deduction has applied only to items donated to the Crown. In that circumstance, if a person decides to donate the item, he should receive full tax compensation. I do not see any argument there about giving someone a tax concession if he donates the object to a Canadian institution. But the second concession would allow the owner who sells his property to a designated institution or public authority to be exempt from a capital gains tax. We oppose this. Why should someone who speculates in art rather than in some other commodity such as land, housing, or whatever else, be given special status? This is what the tax concession does for someone who may have a historic relic, a cultural object or a piece of art. If he is holding it back so that its value increases, then he can gain under this legislation.
We have accepted in principle that speculation in land and other items is not justified. This bill would give someone who speculates in these objects a tax concession. As I said earlier, if an item is of cultural or historical value, it should not be allowed to be exported, whether or not there is a domestic buyer. The review board should simply refuse to issue a permit, rather than try to coax the owner into a sale by offering tax concessions.
The idea of an endowment fund that I mentioned earlier is a good one as it would give institutions and public authorities the funds they might otherwise not have to make purchases when special opportunities arise. The money for the fund is to come from gifts or bequests received by the government for such purposes, and from money raised through the sale of securities and the inter-

est accruing on the balance. I commend the minister for this provision in the bill.
Also, the provision respecting the importation of property from foreign states is significant. It is proposed that the government make agreements with other countries and exchange lists of items which should not be allowed in, and when a foreign state makes a request for a return of property which has been allowed into the country, the Attorney General of Canada will institute an action in the Federal Court or the superior court of any province in order to recover the item: penalties will be imposed on those involved in the illegal importing of the item. However, if the item has been purchased in good faith by someone or some institution, the court may set an amount of compensation to be paid by the foreign state for the recovery of its property. These arrangements seem to be very reasonable.
In conclusion, may I say that we accept the principle of the bill. We think it is very important to the national heritage of this country that important objects of historic and cultural significance be preserved. But we say to the minister and the government: If you are really serious about this problem, there should not be the loophole of allowing the item to be exported after a period of delay; nor should you be using public money, through tax concessions, to entice people who may be speculating in these items to take advantages that would not otherwise be there.
I look forward to raising in committee these issues with the minister, to arguing our case and presenting amendments so that the bill may be strengthened and the cultural heritage of this nation firmly protected.


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to congratulate the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) for having presented this bill during the first session of the 30th parliament and for reminding this House that, at the Canadian Art Conference held in February 1971, the hon. secretary of that time had mentioned in his speech the preparation of this bill, to control the export of masterpieces and objects d'art being part of our national heritage.
I am gald that this bill is now before the House. Following consultations held between the various provinces of Canada and the hon. Secretary of State, the Canadian provinces seem to me to be unanimous as to the contents of this legislation. And this is all the more significant since one province in particular, namely the province of Quebec, maintains a policy of cultural sovereignty. There is no doubt in the mind of hon. members that the protection of our heritage, both personal and real estate, is one of the most important aspects of this policy of cultural sovereignty.
Consultations held with the Quebec government in this regard indicate that the act on cultural property, given assent by the Quebec lieutenant-governor on July 8, 1972 and stipulating, at clause 15, that the Minister of Cultural Affairs can designate any cultural property the conservation of which is of public interest, would be useless were
February 7, 1975

this bill not passed. Indeed, provincial governments can decide to classify property as being part of our cultural heritage, but unless our legislation restricts its exportation, it goes without saying that their objectives will not be attained.
I am therefore particularly pleased with the fact that, even in the context of a cultural sovereignty policy, the federal government has managed to conciliate its policy with that pursued and championed by the provincial governments.
Before broaching the contents of this bill, Mr. Speaker, I could not possibly fail to reassure the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) with regard to the flag of the patriots of 1837. That flag, Mr. Speaker, is now displayed over the fireplace in the main salon of Chateau de Ramezay; it is part of the national heritage and in no danger of leaving the country.
And now, Mr. Speaker, about the bill: some of its provisions are rather perplexing, all the more so because, as chairman of the Quebec Museum Society, I have had occasion, since the adoption of a federal policy on museums, of elbowing many civil servants and representatives of federal institutions responsible for the application of the policy. We noticed that one of the more immediate advantages of the policy had been the help offered to private museums. 1 am afraid most Canadians are unaware of their importance and I should like to point out, especially for the guidance of the hon. member who spoke before me, the important role played in the past by private collectors in the conservation and highlighting of our national heritage. For instance, Mr. Speaker, the Montreal Fine Arts Museum was founded over 115 years ago on the instigation of Montreal patrons of the arts; it is still a private museum. The McCord Museum of McGill University in Montreal, founded thanks to a donation by the Hon. David Ross McCord, is also a private museum. Museums belonging to religious orders in Quebec, be it the museum of the Ursuline Nuns, that of the Quebec General Hospital, the Quebec Seminary or the Quebec Jesuits, are all private museums whose present collections are apt to belong to our national heritage and have all been preserved by private institutions.
The Chateau Ramezay to which I alluded earlier was also founded more than a hundred years ago by the hon. Justice Georges Bady of the province of Quebec and there again a patron of the arts enriched our national heritage with treasures of which we now seek to limit the export.
I do not agree with the speaker who preceded me and said that we would unduly promote speculation by allowing patrons of the arts who donate funds to museums to enjoy tax deduction privileges. Indeed, during my term as president of the Quebec Museum Society I often realized that several museums risked seeing their collections stopped if they could not benefit from legislation providing tax abatements for their patrons. In fact, for the last ten years, the marketing of works of art has been such that a patron, before giving individual pieces or his collection away, often tries to sell them on the private market. And without an additional incentive to attract those collections into museums, whether private or public, there is a danger that our national heritage will be scattered all around the world.
Cultural Property
Not only do I believe that the bill does not provide enough protection, but that it should also be part of an overall policy of tax incentives for cultural institutions.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, that for instance our present fiscal policy allows a lower exemption to the donor than to the seller of an object, in other words, it is more profitable to sell than to give something to a museum, since the tax exemption to be obtained will be higher in the case of a sale that it would be in the case of a donation.
Mr. Speaker, that seems to me an aspect of our taxation policy which deserves early attention. Mr. Speaker, our taxation policy makes it more advantageous, specially at the provincial level, for an individual to sell or dispose of his art object while he is living rather than bequeath it to a cultural institution.
So, Mr. Speaker, our taxation policy, which was amended in 1969, is not designed basically to promote the increase of our heritage in museums, both private and public.
I am not one of those who think that patrons speculate on works of art. The few patrons I had the opportunity to know in the last ten years left me with the impression that they were a lot more inclined to part with their works at a loss than try to sell them on international markets. I am thinking, for example, of Mr. Hershorn's collection, a collection that was acquired with a fortune made in Canada through the sale of uranium, and that collection could not be kept within Canada because the discussions that took place some ten years ago did not allow Mr. Hershorn to get an adequate tax exemption.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, one must know that most large American museums were built from private donations. As an example, the Washington National Gallery whose donations by Messrs. Mellon, Widener, Kress, Dale and Rosen-wald helped put together one of the largest collections in the world. The city of Washington now has one of the largest modern art museums that was left to them by Mr. Hershorn, a Canadian. Why? Because our tax laws at that time did not allow that collector to get the exemptions that were being made available to him elsewhere.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to have an aggressive policy on the conservation of our heritage, our tax policy to help cultural institutions must be revised.
I talked earlier about museums. I would not want to forget other cultural groups working in Canada, be it in the area of theatre, the seventh art, ballet, music, all those institutions should give tax exemptions to those making donations to them. Under the present legislation, the Minister of National Revenue recognizes for income tax purposes institutions which are incorporated under the acts which apply to non-profit corporations. These institutions can give receipts for sums deductible for income tax purposes to a maximum of 20 per cent. Mr. Speaker, when someone wishes to donate a painting to a museum, this painting is often much more valuable than the allowed 20 per cent. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we penalize the private institutions who work in the cultural field when we allow such regulations not to be amended as soon as possible.	*
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the objectives pursued by the hon. Secretary of State will complete the
28626-57/^

February 7, 1975
Cultural Property
whole cultural affairs policy that Canada must have in order to preserve this identity which the previous speakers emphasized.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the fund which will be administered by the Secretary of State must receive the full support of Treasury Board and I would be opposed to surplus funds left over at the end of the fiscal year being returned to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
As you probably know, when a program has not spent all the money allocated to it at the end of the fiscal year, these funds are returned to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It would be absolutely terrible for the purchase of art works that unexpended funds be returned to this Fund, since the following year it might prove impossible to buy a work of art for which the purchase price might be more than what would be left in the fund.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that Treasury Board regulations should be amended and I am quite sure that my colleagues on the other side of the House will agree with me on this point.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill now under study is one element of a comprehensive policy for the preservation of our heritage. It concerns an important aspect of this heritage, that of personal estate. I would like to mention that we must also preserve our real estate. Federal legislation in this area seems inadequate. The jurisdiction of the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) covers only national historic sites. The regulations or programs now administered by the hon. Minister of State responsible for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) do not provide funds for the restoration of private properties with historical value. I am aware that a work group has been assigned the task of defining the workings of a historic restoration program.
Mr. Speaker, if we mean to reach these objectives, we shall have to be a lot more aggressive than we have been in the past.
And I shall conclude with this statement from the hon. member who spoke before me, statement to the effect that the Progressive Conservative Party is very happy to have such legislation at this time to preserve our cultural property. Mr. Speaker, all those who are involved in the preservation of our cultural heritage are indeed the most enlightened people within our society.
When they take time to preserve a property which is part of an urban surrounding, be it a church, an institution, a private residence, an old plant or mill, they are contributing to the quality of urban living.
Our cities are affected not only by air and water pollution. They also suffer from pollution by poor landscaping, shaddy construction and tasteless architecture.
Mr. Speaker, if we must, as a government, favour the preservation of our cultural environment, we must also get involved in this aspect of conservation which I feel is far from being reactionary and will prove all the more useful for improving the quality of urban living.
I am confident that my colleagues will agree this afternoon to refer this bill without delay to the standing committee.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak about this bill. I agree with most of the expressions of criticism put forward by members of the opposition so far, and in the few moments that I intend to speak I hope to point out some areas in which we need to exercise caution.
One of the first things we must agree on is that culture is not a fixed concept.
Culture is fluid, always changing, and therefore there is a real danger that the government, in making its judgments, will look on culture as something rigid, as something fixed, as something around which one can put parameters, or try to establish something which is termed as Canadian culture.
I support the intentions of the bill but point out that it is dangerous to assume that there is a right or wrong culture. Culture is never right or wrong. Culture is-it exists. Cultures around the world vary.
Sometimes we think the behaviour of people in another country is funny. For example, when the Food and Agricultural Organization workers of the United Nations drilled wells in Egypt and protected them with concrete so that the local people could drink pure water, they discovered to their amazement that people would not drink this water. It was too clean. In their culture dirty water, strong smelling and sharp tasting water, was water which made you into a man. Clean water was no good. We may laugh at their ideas and speak of the strangeness of foreign culture.
The fact is that even in our own culture there are ideas which seem strange to others. For example, we tell children that if they eat carrots they will grow hair on their chests. Our culture has been "Playboyized"-if I may coin a word-in the way it considers females. People in some countries think an obese person is beautiful.
The point is that cultures vary, and the government should not assume a role under which it fixes culture, as it is not the government's job to control culture. Its job is simply to record and document for the sake of history.
We must be careful not to implant in our children the notion that their culture is the only one which matters, for fear of developing super nationalistic attitudes. If we imprint such notions too strongly attached to Canada that they will ignore the big perspective, ignore the big world outside. Today we can see events on our television screens instantaneously with when they are happening. Advanced electronic devices enable us to see events as they happen. We must be careful not to implant in our children a supernationalistic attitude which will hinder their perception of the total picture.
Television is a potent force. Some wonder why, during the Viet Nam war, young people of one of the nations fighting, resisted that war. The logical reason is that the Viet Nam war was the only war in history which was shown on television as it was happening. It was fought in the living rooms of the North American people. The lesson to be learned is this: it is tremendously important for us to acquire an international outlook.

February 7, 1975

That leads me to this point, that Canada is made up of a mosaic of people from many countries and this bill will enable Canada to develop an image in keeping with its international origins. The people of this country have come from practically every nation on earth. More important than that, this country is only two lifetimes old. Two lifetimes ago the ancestors of our people were living in other cultures. We are fortunate in being heirs to their cultural values.
For too long some people in this country have talked about the search for the Canadian identity. Although I concur with the minister's efforts, as put forward through this bill, to safeguard some aspects of our culture, we should be clear about one thing-Canadians should enjoy a very real sense of identity. Anyone who has been to the Gaspe and watched the people there carving their wooden statues, who has seen the potato fields and red soil of Prince Edward Island, who has hunted in northern Canada and perhaps photographed the Canada Goose flying overhead, will know what Canada is; will know that Canada is unique among nations. We do not need to spend much time in searching for a Canadian identity, for it is here.
We are the inheritors of many cultural values. Our land is populated by many peoples, by the Eskimo, by the Indian, and by those who have come from other ethnic backgrounds; and all made Canada great. This is what we must bear in mind. The government ought not tell us what nature of culture we should have.
It is important for us to keep in mind the three points I have made; First, the government cannot enclose culture in parameters, cannot decide what is good or bad in culture. It can only protect and record. Second, we should avoid instilling a spirit of supernationalism into our people, even though some nationalistic influences probably are valuable. Third, we should not use this bill as a means for creating what some call a Canadian identity, because it already exists. Canadians already ought feel that our country is unique. They already have an identity, one for which they need not apologize. Although in many ways our views in this House diverge, I concur with the intent of the bill, so far as it goes. That is to say, I support the principle underlying the bill.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on this bill and give it some tacit support. I also wish to support the views that there is an area in the bill which needs some attention and definition. I refer to paragraph (a) on page 3, which reads:
objects of any value that are of archaeological, prehistorical, historical, artistic or scientific interest-
I refer specifically to the phrase "objects of any value". I think it is a fundamental maxim that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Therefore value is a qualitative and not quantitative measure. It is subjective and almost totally extrinsic.
Any values that relate to art come by the values that we impose on them. It is a well known historical fact that Shakespeare wrote his plays in a matter of weeks. He intended them to be used only once for the purpose of his travelling company, and afterwards they would be discarded. It so happened there were enough members of the
Cultural Property
audience standing in the wings who cribbed his notes well enough to preserve them. They did that because they realized there was extrinsic value in them.
For that reason it is difficult to impose a value on articles such as this. Therefore the sensitivity of this bill lies in the area of judgment. That judgment has to be given to the members of the review board who will be appointed to regulate this act. It is parliament that has to establish the criteria and the review board that has to make them workable. There lies the difficulty in this bill.
The very need for this legislation indicates that art is not only art. It is also commerce. Value can be imposed on it, not because of its extrinsic value but because of the commercial value that it attracts. The fact is that demand creates value. A work of art like the Mona Lisa has value not only because of the work of art itself, but because there is only one. Therefore it is in demand.
Another example of this is the current interest of nostalgia in Canada. It is a fact of life that those articles which a few years ago we were discarding, putting in attics or out in the back sheds, today have some value because some people saw the value in them. They have imposed value on them. This caught the public eye. It has become popular. There is now an additional value imposed, a commercial value.
There is another aspect of this bill which concerns me. That is the commercialization of historical sites and articles within the country. I notice the bill refers to import and export. The question I wish to raise is the value of historical sites that remain in the country but are controlled by interests outside the country.
What about foreign investment in the country in historical sites because of the commercial value? That is a part of our culture to which we need to pay attention. It is the nature of a young country not to impose enough value on its short historical past. Future generations will criticize us for not having done so. Therefore we need to preserve that short historical past.
We, as a parliament, need to examine the degree to which foreign interests should control historical artifacts or buildings within this nation. Some time ago, if not even to this day, the home of Sir John A. Macdonald was in the hands of a foreign nation. It is tragic that we do not have enough interest in our history to control those very sites that are nearest to our historical roots.
I wish to add one short postscript to this short speech. Revenue will be derived from the administration of this legislation. That must be one of the intents. Our government has done some work in helping museums establish our historical identity. I encourage the minister and the government to take the additional funds accruing to the government from the administration of this bill and apply them to helping museums in the future so that they can do a better job of preserving our historical past.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, the general objectives of this bill certainly meet with my approval. I do not want to traverse or repeat the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Fundy-Roy-al (Mr. Fairweather), or other members who have spoken with regard to the general purposes of this bill. I think that generally they are quite acceptable.

February 7, 1975
Cultural Property
I wish to raise two points, however. I find in what might be called these motherhood or rather innocuous bills like this that one discovers there may have been hidden in among the intricacies of the acceptable provisions some sharp knives or harpoons. There are two in this bill. They are among those that I have objected to in other bills in years past.
There is one of these in clause 2. I do not suppose that very many members recognize that this bill, if passed by this House and the other place, on coming into law becomes binding upon the government of Canada and upon the governments of the provinces. A great deal is being made about Bill C32 being made binding upon the government of Canada and upon the provinces. I challenge the right of this House to say simply that this law shall be binding upon all provincial administrations and upon this administration.
There is no right of appeal in this bill. That is the second point I am going to make. A decision of the minister amending an order of one of the officers appointed under the bill, or a decision of the review board, shall be binding upon the government of Canada and upon the government of any province, not only as to fact, but as to law. This is true regardless of how erroneous it may be, founded upon total misconception or because of an error made in honest exercise of judgment, but an error nevertheless. There is just a little too much of this. We have objected to this in the past, not only in the provincial legislatures, but at the level of the Parliament of Canada.
We have objected time and time again to boards being given power of decision from which there is no appeal. I remember an amendment being made to the Customs Tariff Act in 1961, long before the minister came to this parliament. It was an historic occasion, a very small minority in this House held up a very strong majority for days before other steps were taken to upset the legislation. The subject matter was the determination of quantities of goods made in Canada to define class or kind under the act. The minister was supposed to arrive at a decision from which there was to be no appeal.
Judging from the reactions of the opposition of the day to representations from this side, one would have thought that all the civil liberties of Canada were being put at issue. And, of course, the counterparts of their own party being in a majority in the other place, that provision was stricken from the bill. What is the difference now? Why have they changed their philosophy? There is to be no appeal from the decision of this minister, no appeal from the decision of the review board. I hope the minister will be able to give us an explanation when he closes the debate. When the bill goes to committee appropriate efforts will certainly have to be made to secure these corrections.
I should also like the minister to tell us why he thinks these decisions should be binding upon the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces. Is it to be a new feature of drafting that legislative draftsmen, perhaps with the encouragement of some of the more authoritarian members of the cabinet, should dredge up a clause of this type? We have rarely seen it in the past. It is true we saw

it in Bill C-32, but we can understand it being in that bill because there is an authoritarian desire to tie down one or more of the provinces. But why should it be included in a bill of this nature?
I am suggesting that provision should be made for appeal to a federal court. Maybe that would give the Federal Court something more to do-there is a big structure in place there now and I am not sure I have yet understood its precise purposes. It seems to me that a right of appeal to the Federal Court should lie from a decision either of the minister or of the board. I do not think such a step would be taken lightly, and I do not think the occasion would arise very often; I am sure the minister, on the advice of his officials, would exercise the necessary care when making decisions.
Then again, I want to know why the minister feels that he himself, by his actions, should be able to bind the Government of Canada or the government of any province. I invite those hon. members from the Province of Quebec, in particular, to consider what the reaction of the government of that province would be to a decision of a review board at this level which would bind that government. I recall the case of the Polish treasures after the second world war and the problems which arose as a result of their retention by the Government of Quebec. There are clauses here which swing a mean axe at any individual or government which holds foreign cultural property, and a good deal of explanation is necessary on these points.
Aside from this, I believe the objects of the bill are laudable. I would hate to see it spoiled by the two features to which I have drawn attention.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Madam Speaker, I must first congratulate the minister on having introduced such an interesting bill. As a Canadian, I am very happy to see that the government really wants to protect all our national heritage, of which every Canadian can be proud when he has time to stop and admire the achievements of those who left their mark in our country.
Obviously, a young country like Canada is right, more than any other, to protect its cultural property and to prevent its invasion by cultural property which cannot enrich our national heritage. This is why we should be very careful. I think that the purpose of this bill is to better protect what can be exported and should stay in Canada on the one hand, and on the other to prohibit the import of cultural works that may not quite suit our reality.
Under Bill C-33, the Governor General in Council may establish by order a Canadian cultural property export control list in order to prevent our country from being deprived through exports.
I have often seen younger people admire objects made by the early Canadians. I have seen this many times while visiting my country. Young people during their holidays were enthused about some monuments, works of art, things that are part of our national heritage. They made very encouraging remarks.
Nowadays, we are too often ready to criticize the younger generation for its lack of seriousness and dissenting views. I do not agree. We were young once and we may
February 7, 1975

have said or done things that could have lead the adults in our time to think the same way. Today, the young are free to express such views, but deep in their heart, I feel they are proud of their country, of their ancestors, of their customs, of this culture and of all the things which make up our heritage.
This cultural property also has a very strong power to relate the younger generation to the older, which can only help to keep our country united, whatever our origin, our culture, our language. I have often found that it could help to forge very strong ties between the present and the past generations and at the same time between Canadians of different origins and cultures.
The Canadian government should encourage even more those who own some cultural property by giving them financial help, if need be. This is only a suggestion I make to the minister, because it may happen that some cultural property of great significance for our national heritage is owned by persons whose financial means do not allow them to give proper care to that property.
We still remember the paintings stolen from the Quebec City Museum some years ago. Every member here will recall it. They belonged to a former Quebec premier, Mr. Duplessis. Much was written about them. They were finally recovered. They are of very great value and should be considered cultural property. I refer to them as an illustration.
There certainly are in each province agencies for the protection of cultural property, whether government agencies or non-profit organizations. I feel the federal government should generously help them protect property of every nature that make up our Canadian heritage. In my hometown, Montmagny, there is a very old manor, the Dupuis-Couillard Manor Museum. An agency was established in the town to purchase it and convert it into a museum. The owners, responsible for its upkeep, are not millionaires. There also I suggest it would be fair, it would be in our country's interest to help agencies feature such works and maintain them in a proper state of repair we could be proud of, keeping them in their original condition, and not let them decay into an eyesore.
The Quebec Department of Education removed from the curriculum some years ago courses on our country's history. I think this is regrettable. Even though there are taboos in some parts of our history, this is no reason to strike history off altogether. The department realized its mistake and steps are being taken to reintroduce the teaching of history in schools.
For my part, when I was a student and I could read for myself, I was always fascinated by the question, what is this country of mine? Who founded it? What happened? How did we go about it? I had and still have great admiration for the history of Canada, whatever may have happened. Those people wanted to take over undeveloped land to build a country. I liked and I still like to study the history of my country and I feel that Canadians in all provinces should do the same so that our children may learn they are Canadians and know the beginning of this country we call Canada, in order to take great pride in it. That is a real cultural property we should try to protect and foster as best we can.
Cultural Property
We, as Canadians, have the privilege to live in a country with many cultures. I think that is an asset. Each of us brought in his culture from his original country. We put them together and the result was fantastic. Indeed, it is interesting to build a society with a number of cultures.
Madam Speaker, before I conclude, I would like to call the attention of the minister on a matter which seems very important in order to avoid another constitutional dispute. We had a truce in that field. I should like to ask the minister whether any consultations with provincial governments have taken place before this bill was drafted, and if so, whether those provincial governments agreed on this bill as a complement to their own program for the protection of our national heritage in every area. Has there been any agreement? Have discussions taken place? Will the passage of this bill cause any constitutional conflict? That is the question I am asking the minister. I hope he will be able to answer it. If there were no consultations, can the minister tell us whether he intends to hold such consultations between now and the final passage of this bill, and bring in amendments that seem fit for the whole of the country?
Madam Speaker, those are the few points I wanted to make on this bill at the second reading stage. I am sure we will have the opportunity for a further clause by clause discussion in committee. I want to say again to the minister how happy I am that such a bill has been brought before the House.


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Madam Speaker, I will try to be as brief as possible. This bill is a welcome one. We all welcome the assurances of the minister that he is seeking the active co-operation and collaboration of the antique dealers and art dealers of Canada in achieving the purpose of the bill, which is to preserve and safeguard a very important part of our Canadian heritage.
I seek the attention of the House for a minute or two because I happen to have two private members' bills on the order paper, Bills C-329 and C-356, both of which deal with areas not covered by this bill but which, nevertheless, are areas of the same general concern. The first is a bill to provide for the establishment of the office of archaeological curator for Canada, and it was stimulated by an incident which all members of the Indian affairs and northern development committee were part of a year or two ago.
When that committee visited the Northwest Territories we happened upon a scene in Tuktoyaktuk where a bulldozer was excavating a site for a mission and had exposed a very important find of archaeological material. As a result the entire population of Tuktoyaktuk scrambled to look for these archaeological items.
There were literally thousands of items pulled from the site in a very unprofessional way, in the sense that the history of this site could have been examined far more expertly had a system of rules been in effect which would have required the local RCMP officer to contact the territorial administration, or federal branch of Indian affairs, and have a team of archaeologists sent to the site to stake it out and conduct the dig in a proper way. The result was

Cultural Property
that this site was not worked in an adequate or proper way. All kinds of material were siphoned off in an illegal way as the result of the basic lack of any archaeological rules in respect of federal territory anywhere in Canada.
The purpose of Bill C-329 basically is to provide for the establishment of an office of archaeological curator for Canada, who would be responsible for developing archaeological rules and regulations for all territory under federal jurisdiction; to protect known and to-be-discovered archaeological sites in Canada; and to establish rules and regulations governing exploration for and excavation, recovery and disposition of archaeological artifacts and historical items located on or under all lands, rivers, lakes and sea beds falling under federal jurisdiction.
This is an area, I would submit to the House, which is directly in line with what is covered by the bill now before the House. In fact, the other part of my bill does actually provide for the power of the curator to forbid the export from and import into Canada of items that are covered by this bill. My bill just happened to be given first reading two weeks ahead of the government bill.
My second bill provides for the establishment of the office of Parliament Hill curator, and that also was inspired by an incident here last year when I made an inquiry of officers of the House as to what was happening to the glass being taken out to be replaced by these beautiful coloured glass windows we now have around us.
The manner in which those leaded glass windows were taken out was a very simple one. A sledge hammer was put through the window and then pulled back, leaving not a single piece of those historic glass panes remaining. They were glass panes which, I am sure, every museum and many other historical organizations in Canada would have been anxious to obtain. Not one pane was saved.
I do not think many members of this House realize that there has never been a person on Parliament Hill with the responsibility for protecting the historical and architectural integrity of this place, the hill, its buildings or the furniture in them. There have been all manner of furniture used by historical Canadian figures, most of which has been sold, or removed and put into other government offices, or which just disappeared because no one has been responsible for it.
I would urge upon members that while we are discussing this bill proposed by the government we should also give consideration to the subject matter of my two bills. They may not be phrased in precisely the terminology the government would accept, but the subject matters are there, and the objects are good ones I think hon. members would accept.
All I would ask is that at some point, perhaps while Bill C-33 is being discussed in committee, or at the beginning of a private members' hour, we have consent in respect of the reference of the subject matters of these two bills to the committee that will be discussing and considering Bill C-33. If that could be done today, that would be fine. If it requires further discussion among House leaders, I would accept that. I would just like to make this appeal, as I feel the subject matters are so similar and the objects so worthwhile and I would hope members will give this their sympathetic consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Subject matters of Bills C-329 and C-356 referred to Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question on Bill C-33?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Mr. Drury:: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) I should like to propose that we now carry on with Bill C-26.


Mr. McKinley:: Madam Speaker, I think we would be agreeable to that. We could pass that without debate, and also Bill C-3 at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. What is Bill C-3? Which bill do you propose to put, Madam Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I propose to put Bill


Stanley Howard Knowles: I stood because I wondered what Bill C-3 was. I now see what it is, and I am glad that it is not included. We are prepared to let Bill C-26 pass without debate. We have spent the afternoon on a motherhood bill, so now we might as well pass this housekeeping bill.


CIVIL SERVICE INSURANCE ACT
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that Bill C-26, to amend the Civil Service Insurance Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would suggest to the minister that because of what is now the business of the finance committee, which has scheduled extra sessions to the end of this month in order to deal with Bill C-2, which is of great importance to the House leaders, and because that committee will have the estimates of many departments before it following that bill, this bill would be better referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous

Estimates which could deal with it this month. May I commend that suggestion to the minister.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Madam Speaker, it was proposed first that this eminently sensible suggestion should be put forward by the government, but now that it has been made we will merely endorse it. We support the proposal for second reading of the bill and reference to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, private bills.
e (1600)



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: moved that Bill C-370, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


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


John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, I would just like to explain the bill briefly to the House, and what is contained in it. It is a bill which deals with the problems that led us to suspend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
In many ridings in Canada there have been difficulties with the 25 per cent differential. Members have complained on many occasions, and properly so, that the 25 per cent differential has not been used according to the way in which we interpreted the act. It came out in hearings which the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections held that one of the reasons why the 25 per cent differential was not applied was because of the provision in paragraph 13(c) subsection (1) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. This subsection states that the 25 per cent differential, up or down, can be used as follows:
Electoral Boundaries
(1) special geographic considerations, including in particular the sparsity, density or relative rate of growth of population of various regions of the province, the accessibility of such regions or the size or shape thereof, appear to the commission to render such a departure necessary or desirable, or
The difficulty in the interpretation of that section has been that some commissions have interpreted it as meaning that, because the rate of growth is included, they cannot use any kind of differential at all, or the differential that they use is minimal. The consequence of this has been that in the projected last readjustment of electoral boundaries within the province it was discovered by many members that the size of the rural ridings was getting completely out of hand, and it was practically impossible for members to cover the area properly.
Consequently I brought in an amending provision which was put before the House and sent to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, which considered it along with three other bills, all of which had for their purpose the expansion of the percentage by which the commission had the power to vary the size of the various ridings.
The committee, after discussion, determined that the problem that they wished to have solved by this would be best solved by Bill C-370. As a consequence the other bills are still tabled in committee waiting to see what happens to the fate of this bill.
I recommend this bill to the House. It was unanimously accepted by the committee, and it stands before the House as a partial solution to problems that created so much difficulty for members in the previous House of Commons.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, I must confess that while I am in a very co-operative mood, I believe that something has gone wrong with regard to the movements of Bill C-370. As you can see by the number, this bill was introduced very late in the day. I think it was discussed just before Christmas, and not much attention was paid to it. It was then sent to the committee which came up with this recommendation. However, a third reading debate is very narrow.
I must say that a discussion of a point of view that is pretty well opposite to that taken by the committee becomes very difficult on third reading, if one wants to move into the wider subject as members were able to do in the committee. But there is no notice required with regard to the posting of an amendment.
I will advance the argument that I find that the rate of growth aspect in the demographic conditions to which the commissioners must pay attention is absolutely deadly insofar as the introduction of proper amendments of constituency boundaries, around cities with fast growing metropolitan areas, is concerned.
First of all I will say that if an appropriate notice had been received and one could have posted an amendment to the committee report, or to the bill as it comes back, there could have been a debate at report stage. But we were precluded from doing that simply because it was only this afternoon that it was negotiated that Bill C-370 would come forward. I suggest that if this is going to be the case at least a 48 hours' notice of the taking up in debate of a report, or of a bill of a private nature, be given, particular-
3042

February 7, 1975
Electoral Boundaries
ly of a report. I am not so much concerned about bills, because I do not like to find myself in disagreement with this committee. Its members were very agreeable to me on a bill earlier this year, and they shared my views with regard to the nature of commissioners' reports.
I would like to have had a great deal more to say about this, but when I look at report No. 5 of the Committee on Privileges and Elections as it appears in Votes and Proceedings I find that there was absolutely no discussion. There was only the question of whether clause 1 should carry, and it was carried. I wonder if a discussion is reported or is in evidence elsewhere. I find in the minutes of the proceedings that that is what happened.
I would like to say that I can recognize the point of view put forward by the parliamentary secretary, but I invite hon. members who represent ridings that are on the periphery of major urban centres to look at this. I know that, ever since we have had independent commissions, all of the points I have made and that have been made by my colleagues, and practically all the representations I have heard, have centred on the rate of growth of these constituencies.
I recall the 1966 or 1967 commission. They did not alter the boundaries of my constituency as I had suggested they should. I knew where the development of the city was taking place in my constituency, and I warned the chairman that already he was out of date and that the population of my riding had gone up by perhaps 30,000 over the rate that was posted in the report.
The changes in Edmonton West in 1966 took place when the population was perhaps 145,000 or 150,000. There were
88,000	voters. I was left with about 55 per cent so-called after redistribution, but I warned the commissioners that what they were doing in leaving me a certain section and not giving it to the adjoining constituency would mean that both constituencies lost voters over the remaining period because they were constrained.
Already, six years after the event, the population of my constituency is in excess of what it was in 1966. The relative rate of growth was a most important thing to consider, yet the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) would seek to remove it from the consideration of the commissioners. On the other hand I want to ask the commissioners to take into account certain parts of my present constituency so that we can look at the relative rates of growth.
It is senseless to hold that a central core constituency which will likely have a zero population growth, or even a negative population growth, should be held down to the strict figures provided by the formula, and that alongside it a constituency could be set up with relatively the same number of people. We know that the developers are out there and things are going to be booming, so why not take into account relative rates of growth?
I am satisfied that a number of hon. members agree with me and I am wondering why the elimination. I would have thought the committee would have been wiser to add another factor into the consideration which would take care of the problem that has been raised. I agree there is a problem, but I do not think we are dealing with it in the

right way by removing this particular factor. In all honesty I think the hon. member is creating a greater difficulty. I see the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) in the House; he is faced with the same problem as I am, and I think he would share my views.
How would we do this? I would hope that we could agree to look at the question again. It is my view that the report should be referred back to the committee for further examination and consideration of not only the factors of the rates of growth but of the factors which motivated the hon. member in putting forth his bill. In view of the fact that we are going to have a redistribution, in all sincerity I urge the House to send it back to the committee for reconsideration, and I will make a motion to that effect.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That Bill C-370 be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for reconsideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member. Is the House ready for the question?


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Madam Speaker, I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment of my colleague with too much enthusiasm. I speak as a member who represents fringe areas of one of the major cities of Alberta. The constituency of Palliser includes the north side, the west side and the east side of the city of Calgary, and there has been a large increase in population since the last redistribution. I think my hon. friend has failed to recognize that there is more to representing a constituency than the mere fact of population. In the 1974 election there were
72,000	people on the voters' list for Palliser, 50,000 of whom resided within the corporate limits of the city of Calgary, so that it could be considered an urban riding.
I must speak in favour of the motion for third reading of this bill. I hope it will not be referred back to the committee. I had the privilege of sitting on that committee the last time the bill was before it, and there was general support for the proposition. One hon. member from Scarborough spoke in opposition, but with the idea that it seemed as if we should have considered representation by population in this country. It has always been my view that the law of the land should have a chance to apply, and it is my interpretation of Bill C-370 that that is what we are trying to accomplish here.
In the 1964 debate which led to the passage of the present act there was provision for a 25 per cent tolerance. As the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) has pointed out, in many instances this tolerance has not been applied. That was particularly the case with the report of the commission that led to the suspension of the past redistribution. There are many instances in Alberta where so-called rural cities had populations assigned to them vastly in excess of those of other ridings or constituencies in the province.
I see the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt) in the House. He may have something to say about the treatment he received under the law as it now stands.

It has never been my experience that the constituents I have the honour to represent, at least those residing within the city of Calgary, demand absolute parity with all other constituents and electors in the province of Alberta. They did not have what you might call a greedy attitude to representation. I know that Toronto Star editorial writers think there is magic to the idea of representation by population. The point is that the people of Alberta feel that their province is under-represented in this chamber, whereas the central provinces are not. I think one should remember the vast area of land which the member representing a rural riding in Alberta must service. The population of such an area is much more spread out than the population in an urban riding or in a mixed urban and rural riding.
I sympathize with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River who presented this bill. If the editorial writers of the Toronto Star had their way, the area of northern Ontario from which he comes would be represented by half the present number of members. We cannot represent this country properly if we follow such suggestions.
I urge hon. members to pass this bill which is to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, and give the act itself a chance to work properly. If Bill C-370 does not accomplish its intended purpose, parliament will have another chance to consider the matter. As things now stand, members feel frustrated. We are engaged in a redistribution process at present, and it is imperative that we give the law of the land a chance to work as it should and as it was intended to work by those who passed it in 1964. I ask the House not to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). Let us not send this legislation back to committee, but let us read it the third time and thereby amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, as proposed.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I will not take up much of the time of the House. I sympathize with the sentiments of the hon. member who does not wish this bill to be referred back to committee. I endorse his thoughts.
I remember what happened in my own case when a commission last reviewed boundary lines in British Columbia. I remember the strange things that happened about boundary borders. There was a certain readjustment of borders and locations on geographic lines. I remember going with two others to the commission. One was an incumbent member of parliament who wanted to impose his brand of political philosophy on the commission; I was the second person, and, as a candidate, I wanted to impose my political philosophy and views upon the commission; but the third fellow also had his own views. The consensus was that our meeting with the commission was an exercise in frustration.
Afterwards I talked to the secretary of the justice of the peace who had presided over the hearing, and asked what percentage of applicants throughout British Columbia made applications which were geared to and based on political motives, or based on the whim of an individual member of parliament or candidate. The answer was that 99.9 per cent of all submissions fell into that category.
Electoral Boundaries
The riding of Kootenay West if very large, and for that reason I sympathize with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) and can well imagine how long it takes him to get around his riding. I am concerned about some of the ridiculous decisions of commissions. For instance, in a community like Revelstoke they will establish a boundary line down the main street and divide the population in half. Half the people are represented by one member of parliament and half by another. This is ridiculous in a small community.
Sometimes the boundary line is drawn just outside a community, and 10,000 or 15,000 people who work and trade in the community but live just outside must deal, in federal matters, with a member who does not represent the community in which they have an interest. Why could the boundary not be drawn logically, say, through an area with the lowest population density? Why divide a village, town or relatively small community? I recognize that large urban centres like Toronto and Vancouver must be divided into constituencies. But, in smaller communities, why not draw the border in a way which will affect the least number of people? Why not follow land contours, say, or a stream?
In my riding, for some strange reason-and I do not want my constituents to think that I object-I must travel north for about 100 miles and then 25 miles south, across to Arrow Lake and down into the community of Edgewood. The only way I can determine if I am in my riding is by knocking on farm doors and asking the people where they vote. If they vote in Edgewood, I say fine. If they vote in Lumby I know I am in the wrong riding. That shows how strangely our borders are established.
Not enough thought is given to the drawing of rural riding boundaries. The commission seems to establish boundaries according to factors other than geography. Little consideration is shown for the member who is to serve the riding, no matter what his politics are. If a member is to represent his people, he should be able to do a good job. More attention should be paid to how a member is to serve his riding, to how far he must travel within it, and under what conditions. These things must be taken into consideration. I would rather see them considered here then considered by a commission after a boundary is drawn.
I do not like the idea of appearing before a commission and asking for a boundary change. The motives of people who do this, even in all sincerity, may be suspect. The commissioners have their work to do. They should receive input with respect to the establishing of boundaries before boundaries are established, not afterwards; but that has been the practice.
Commissions establish boundaries; then we talk to them, and they alter those boundaries by 2 or 3 per cent. That is ridiculous, and you end up looking foolish in front of the public. The commissioners view submissions as being entirely politically motivated. In my view, the present process is wrong. I support the principle of the bill put forward by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and do not support the proposal by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) to refer this bill back to committee.
28626 -58)4

February 7, 1975
Electoral Boundaries


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak briefly on Bill C-370. It seems that two members on my side want to do the same thing but cannot agree on how to do it. Sometimes it is not easy to resolve disputes concerning the boundaries of certain constituencies. I believe passage of this bill will make any commission heed the 25 per cent tolerance provision in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
The population of Pembina constituency is varied. We have fur trappers in one area and highly urbanized people in another. Therefore it is important that the provision regarding the 25 per cent tolerance should be implemented in my riding and other ridings of Canada. Which is easier, travelling from 109th to 125th Street in an urban constituency, or travelling 100 miles to another town in an adjacent rural constituency?
Basically, we are not continuing with the re-allotment or re-drawing of these boundaries in a proper perspective. We say representation by population, but we must recognize there are two points in that statement, representation and population. The people throughout Canada must be represented properly. It is much easier to represent an urban constituency which is more populated than a rural constituency with less population, because of the travelling expenses and various other aspects.
Just prior to Christmas we passed the re-adjusvment act of 1974 which increased the size of this House. There again we took the wrong view as to what we should do in representing the people of Canada. Although we increased the size of this House, we did not increase the representation. It would be much easier to accommodate the people of Canada if the services to the individual member were improved instead of increasing the size of the House. A member is here to serve both as a legislator and as an ombudsman, to his constituents.
The facilities which a member has to serve his constituents must be improved if he is to do a good job for the individuals he is here to serve. I feel very strongly about this. Over the past number of years the workload of the individual member has increased immensely. We receive a good many more requests because we are much more available than members of previous years. That is partly because of our own doing and partly because of some of the adjustments made to the services available to a member. When I speak of available services, I do not want that to be misinterpreted. Too often mailing privileges and free telephones are referred to as privileges of a member when, in reality, they are services to the constituents. They give the constituents a more effective voice in Ottawa.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Speaker, I merely wish to make a few comments on Bill C-370 which concerns the eastern part of the province, and more specifically the area I represent.
I feel that, in the past, when electoral boundaries were readjusted, one very important factor was not given enough consideration in the setting of a riding's limits, especially in the case of rural ridings.

It is generally recognized that over the last few years, rural ridings have been losing electors to urban ridings. Consequently, the factor should not be changed, nor should consideration be denied a 25 per cent difference, so that rural populations might be given better representation, and their members of parliament might represent ridings of reasonable size geographically. In view of the fact that rural ridings have a dwindling population, if they were to have a population corresponding to that of urban ridings, a member would have miles and miles to cover.
Hon. members representing these areas will be faced with working conditions which are completely inhuman. Here is an example: I think it affects all hon. members representing rural ridings, irrespective of their political affiliation. The conditions are the same for all. Distances and ridings remain the same, no matter which party is holding the seat.
Madam Speaker, there are times when the elected member of a rural constituency must visit three different communities the very same night. This occurs very often. For instance, let me tell you that I was working last week in my office in an area of my riding. A number of hon. members have acquired this habit. Instead of having his constituents drive many many miles to see him, the elected member will go to his constituency to give them the opportunity to see him.
The following week, the member goes to another area of his constituency. Last week, I was working in my office in another part of my riding. In the evening, I was supposed to attend three meetings, and because roads in rural ridings are not highways, we had to drive very slow. This results in a considerable waste of time. If we are compelled to cover more mileage than we are covering today, people will no longer be at the meeting when we get there, although we cover the whole distance.
It is necessary to take into account the fact that, as far as the human aspect is concerned, and whether the community is large or small, there are people, families living there. They have the same rights as anybody else. When they invite their member of Parliament for any occasion, it is the duty of the member of Parliament to attend.
As far as I am concerned, I try to give equal attention to all communities, whether populous or not, because I take into consideration the factor and the principles I have just outlined.
So, in the circumstances, since the bill is very important and the matter of redistribution has been settled, we shall have to act in the future. I think the bill should first be seriously examined, then passed, because by the same token we shall amend the act. We shall thereby authorize the commissions to heed a decision of Parliament and make it possible to guarantee rural areas sufficient representation in the House of Commons. We shall certainly have the advantage of geographically more balanced electoral districts and therefore, members for those ridings will not have to work in abnormal conditions.
We are willing to work and please people, but no legislation should impose positively impossible things on members of parliament. I therefore heartily commend this bill. If it has to be referred back to a committee, let it be
February 7, 1975

referred. Anyway, the committee already has considered it. I hope they will not go back on their decision, and the bill will come back to us as amended and be passed. The sooner the better, for in many parishes, at least in my area, people are wondering whether they will stay within a constituency or fall under the jurisdiction of another one, and that accounts for a lack of interest in the population. It becomes harder to communicate with them. Our task is made more difficult. There are municipalities, for instance, where, because a local initiative program met with a refusal, people are mistakenly led to believe that they will be transferred to another constituency and that their member of Parliament will no longer pay any attention to them. These are very delicate matters which we must examine in order to prevent an upsurge of hostile feelings towards honourable members, and avoid parish split-ups. Those were the few remarks I wanted to make with respect to the bill under study.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, it gives me real pleasure to enter the debate on Bill C-270, a bill which I believe to be long overdue, seeking, as it does, to remedy obvious shortcomings in existing legislation.
If we consider the British North America Act in perspective of the terms of the constitution that relate to representation by population, it is doubtful whether the fathers of confederation would ever have accepted that proposition under present day conditions, or if only they had known how Canada would have developed.
At the time of confederation, 95 per cent of all Canadians lived in the rural areas. However, according to the Lithwick Report, by the year 2,000 the situation will be reversed and 95 per cent of all Canadians will be living in five major cities-virtually the entire population will be crowded into only five urban areas. Obviously, this creates new problems in terms of deciding how people would be best represented. During the decades of the 'sixties and 'seventies, 250,000 people have left the rural parts of the prairie provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and it was forecast that during the 'seventies the rate of emigration from rural communities will be even higher.
The problem has already been well outlined. The question before us now is really one of the semantic meaning of the phrase "representation by population". I maintain you cannot simply concentrate on the word "population". It involves consideration of the circumstances in which people can, in fact, be represented. The truth of the matter is that one cannot represent people if one cannot be within the proximity of people. It is essential that if one is to represent others should be able to have contact with them. If there is too great a distance between one group of people and another, the task becomes almost impossible.
At one time, I thought my own constituency was a large one; after coming to Ottawa I realized that it was not nearly as large as some of those represented by other hon. members. Nevertheless, I understand the inconveniences of having to travel a couple of hundred miles to interview people in connection with various matters throughout the length and breadth of a rural constituency. We should realize, too, that regardless of the size of his constituency a
Electoral Boundaries
member is increasingly responsible to keep in touch with his constituents on, essentially, every issue which comes before parliament.
Though my constituency is largely rural, I nevertheless have to concern myself about veterans affairs, questions dealing with industrial plants, questions dealing with natural resources and so on. Like the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) I would urge, therefore, that we do not simply focus on population but that we should recognize that there is a tremendous need to increase the size of the research staff available to a member of parliament.
Representing people means that a member must be able to see his constituents and be visible to them. To serve them is a different matter: that involves the provision of the necessary staff. We should take a look at what is being done in the United States where Congressmen are given an allowance of $140,000. While this may appear an excessive amount at first glance, the fact is that if one is to deal efficiently with all the issues and representations which come before a member of parliament, there must be an increase in staff. I am one who thinks it is extremely important to consider all these aspects which relate to representation. From this point of view, sufficient staff should be provided to members to enable them to handle all their duties with the necessary expertise.
Obviously, something needs to be done when we recall that the City of Toronto elects more members to parliament than the whole of the Province of Alberta, or that the cities of Toronto and Montreal combined send more members to parliament than all three prairie provinces. Population should not be the only factor to engage our attention when we consider the words "representation by population". Certainly I have every sympathy with the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) whose constituency makes up about one third of the total area of Canada-that is his territory which he calls his constituency. It is impossible to cover that area adequately.
Anyone who has carried out any studies in the field of communications or in the field of sociology well knows there is a limit to the size of a group when it comes to making sound decisions, and though there may be a temptation to concentrate on the notion of population when establishing a criterion for fixing the number of members of parliament, it would be very easy for this institution to be too cumbersome to engage in a worthwhile decisionmaking process.
We are already considering a number of related matters. It behooves us at this same time to set a limit on the extent to which this chamber should grow, thus dispensing with the notion that the number of members should grow in relation to an increase in population. A relatively small group of people, well staffed and provided with adequate research facilities, can do far better work than a larger number without these advantages. Presently members are forced to plough wide and shallow, handicapped in their efforts to debate legislation adequately and criticize issues as they come before the House.
In conclusion let me say again that the real issue here is the issue of representation by population. The term "population" is not, I submit, the only word upon which we should concentrate our thinking. The question is whether

February 7, 1975
Electoral Boundaries
or not a member truly has the capacity to represent his constituency with fairness to all. A member must be available to his constituents so that he can fully participate in bringing federal affairs before them. Likewise, the people of his constituency have a sense of feeling toward the federal government.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I have listened to what has been said and have had an opportunity of reading what was said in committee hearings. I share the objectives regarding flexibility and use of the 25 per cent. However, I still disagree with hon. members. I think they are tying a noose for themselves. In view of the disposition of the House, I am quite prepared to withdraw my amendment, with the consent of my seconder. All I say is simply that I am far from convinced, and I sincerely hope hon. members have not fashioned a noose for themselves, one worse than existed before.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that the hon. member for Edmonton West is allowed to withdraw' his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West)) withdrawn.


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


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


John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions in regard to dealing with three bills having to do with a holiday. The three bills are C-208, standing in the name of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), C-240 standing in the name of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), and C-249 standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
As a result of the discussions it has been proposed that Bill C-208, which had been reported back to the House by the justice committee in the last parliament, be given second reading and sent to the standing committee; that the subject matter of Bill C-240 standing in the name of the hon. member for Hillsborough, and Bill C-249 standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre be discharged and their subject matters sent to the same standing committee, justice and legal affairs. The committee would then have all bills on this subject, listed as private members' public bills on the order paper, before it, and it can then discuss the matter and report back to the House, which report the House might want to consider at a later time.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Madam Speaker, although I regret that the matter was not disposed of in the last parliament or earlier in this parliament, I am pleased to go along with that suggestion, and I hope we will have a fruitful discussion of the bill and action in this parliament.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to be a fly in the ointment, but regretfully I cannot go along with the proposal of my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary. I do not know whether it is the wish of the House to proceed on the basis of time left for debate, but I cannot go along with the proposal. I guess a motion would have to be put before the House to debate any subject further.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Might I ask the hon. member whether he would indicate which part of the proposal he does not approve?


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: The part of the proposal I do not approve of concerns Bill C-208. I cannot say that I have the same objection to the bill of my hon. friend for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) because his is simply a concept and will not produce legislation, as I understand his proposal. Basically I am not in favour of a new holiday being created at this time of inflation; I do not think we can beat inflation unless we work. Perhaps we should be looking at it the other way, and should have an extra day during the year rather than one day less.


John Mercer Reid: There does not seem to be any agreement to proceed in this way, Madam Speaker, so may I put another proposal before the House. I am rather embarrassed about this but there is a small bill standing in my name dealing with a proposed new bridge between Fort Francis, Ontario, and International Falls, Minnesota. When the bill was originally passed in this House in 1971 a five-year limit was put upon it. Unfortunately the U.S. Congress did not take action until recently, and the five-year limit is running out now. There is no time to build the bridge within the one year left under Canadian law. This bill would extend the period for another five years, and make consequential amendments which flow from the United States legislation. If there is agreement to take Bill C-367, it could be sent to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for consideration and report.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



FORT-FALLS BRIDGE AUTHORITY ACT MEASURE TO REMOVE REQUIREMENT FOR ACT OF U.S. CONGRESS BEFORE COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION

John Mercer Reid: that Bill C-367, to amend the Fort-Falls Bridge Authority Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if there would be any point in suggesting-I trust that I have the ear of the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) as well as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid)-that, instead of the proposal that was made, the subject matter

of all three of the holiday bills be sent to committee so that the question of an additional holiday or holidays might at least get under discussion in one of the committees.


John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, we would accept that.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Madam Speaker, the suggestion is interesting. We think that the subject matters are important enough that they be given some discussion and that they should be put on early in private members' hour during
Fort-Falls Bridge Authority Act
next week. My hon. friend from Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie) will then be able to expound on the importance of the subject matters.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday next.
At 5.02 p.m the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
/

Monday, February 10, 1975