1975-04-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The matter arises from a United States commerce department survey indicating that Canadian affiliates of U.S. controlled corporations will be reducing the real level of their capital investment spending in 1975 to a level far below that which would be indicated by the latest Statistics Canada survey. In view of the great importance of capital investment by U.S. affiliates to the Canadian economy as a whole, and, in particular, to the finance minister's supply increase strategy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies):
That this House instruct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to ascertain forthwith whether U.S. affiliates plan to reduce capital investment in Canada and to enquire amongst his counterparts in the United States why such a reduction would occur; and further, that this House instruct the Secretary of State for External Affairs to discover any changes that may have been made in the policy of the United States government towards the investment intentions of U.S. affiliates in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is present pursuant to Standing Order 43 and cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisons of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion regarding the announcement of the agreement reached between the federal Minister of Agriculture and his provincial counterparts on measures to give the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency greater control over production and marketing of eggs. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House instruct the Minister of Agriculture to provide all the necessary support and assistance to the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency to ensure that it will carry out its new powers with greater efficiency and render the destruction of eggs as a thing of the past.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I also would move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) yesterday that no conversations took place between Canadian and French authorities on the question of Canadian retaliation, or lack of it, in the illegal boarding of the Greenpeace III by French authorities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That a public inquiry be held into these most serious allegations made by French military authorities in this matter, and that that inquiry be conducted pursuant to the Inquiries Act.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Labour. I wish to ask about the strike of stevedores which is tying up the ports of Montreal, Three Rivers and Quebec. Can the

April 10, 1975
Oral Questions
Acting Prime Minister now tell the House, following a series of very vague responses to questions in the last few days, whether any initiatives are being taken to promote a settlement of the dispute which has been leading to the tie-up, and what are those steps?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the steps that can be taken under the existing legislative authority are being taken. We have not reached any decision to go beyond that at the present time. Steps are also being taken to see what can be done to reduce the interference that is taking place in the movement of grain out of these terminals in areas that are not related to the dispute itself. I cannot describe as yet what the success of those measures will be because they are just getting underway.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Minister of Labour is not here as he presumably has more direct knowledge of these things than the government House leader. Am I correct in interpreting the minister's answer as an indication that the government is considering certain courses but is actually taking no initiative with regard to promoting a settlement of this dispute at the present time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government is taking the measures it ordinarily takes under the law in order to promote a settlement, but it is not proposing to ask parliament to take extraordinary action at the present time. However, there are two aspects to this dispute, as the Leader of the Opposition probably knows. One aspect relates not to the movement of grain into the ships that would be under the control of the longshoremen, which is affected by the dispute, but to the movement of trucks to the elevators to pick up feed grain for the farmers in the area. We are examining this now to see what steps can be taken which would enable that movement to continue.


STRIKE OF LONGSHOREMEN IN QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF JUDGE GOULD
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that when the grain handlers' dispute arose last year the government moved right in, endorsing and urging acceptance of the Perry recommendations, even while negotiations were going on, is the government proposing to engage in the same kind of intervention now by endorsing the Gould recommendations and, if not, what is the difference between the two situations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be advisable to continue with the mediation efforts which are now underway.


INQUIRY WHETHER DIVERSION OF SHIPMENTS FROM WEST
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. On February 26 the minister announced he was looking at "a number of plans" to move grain "with an attempt to catch up as quickly as possible" after the strike ends, and that reference was to the strike on the west coast. In view of the announcement by the Wheat Board a few days ago to cut grain shipments destined through the Port of Vancouver by 10 million bushels a month and redirecting this amount through the St. Lawrence and the Maritimes, would the minister advise the House whether this is part of the contingency plans to which he referred on February 26?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to check the exact proposition to which the hon. member refers as it has not come to my attention. The fact of the matter is that the contingency plan for the period after the strike was one involving a maximum effort on the part of the railways to put as many cars into the west coast as possible, and a maximum effort on the part of the terminals there to unload for more hours than usual and to clean on an around the clock basis. These efforts have been putting a record volume of grain particularly through the Port of Vancouver, and very remarkably reducing the number of ships waiting there in quick order.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board announced on April 3 that because of labour problems at the Port of Vancouver shipments would be diminished by 10 million bushels a month. I would ask, first, if the minister is aware of this and whether this is now the policy of the Wheat Board, because the answer the minister has just given the House would appear to indicate that the Wheat Board is making announcements of which the minister is not aware?


Otto Emil Lang: That is right, Mr. Speaker. That can happen quite frequently, of course, because the Canadian Wheat Board is in fact a very independent organization, which hon. members opposite seem to forget whenever it is to their advantage to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I do not, nor did my predecessors as ministers, try to run the operations of the Wheat Board or interfere with its management, and that has certainly been the very firm practice of this government. I would suggest that the statement that somehow labour difficulties could lead to the diminution of the throughput out of the west coast is a very strange one in view of the fact that the reports which have been sent to me in the last three or four days show an increase in unloadings to the neighbourhood of 650 to 690 carloads a day, which is a near record performance.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister whether he will undertake an investigation to determine whether there is to be a diminution of 10 million bushels a
April 10,1975

month through the Port of Vancouver and report back to the House as soon as he has found out what the situation really is?


Otto Emil Lang: That is one service I am always very glad to perform. I will check into the matter with the Canadian Wheat Board and report back as soon as possible.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board I should like to direct my question to the Postmaster General or the acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the conciliation board appointed to deal with the dispute between the letter carriers union and the government has now made a report, has the government reached a decision about whether to accept the recommendation contained in the majority report of the conciliation board?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think upon reflection the hon. gentleman would appreciate the fact there is no indication as yet that the union has accepted the conciliation chairman's report as it is written.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the letter carriers union will be in a legal position to strike on Monday next week, and in view of the tremendous difficulty such a strike would create, would the minister consider making public the response of the government by the weekend so that the union can be encouraged to give sympathetic consideration to that majority report?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I must emphasize that there is no majority report. There is the chairman's report which the union accepted with an addendum which changes basically the union's position beyond that of the chairman. Between now and Monday I am sure the talks will continue between the union and the bargaining team of the government, or Treasury Board or the Post Office or whatever, and when it is appropriate to make a public statement then I am sure one will be made.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North on a final supplementary.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that when conciliation board reports of a similar nature have been made the government has accepted the recommendations when it suited it, I appeal again to the minister to indicate publicly if the government is prepared to accept as a basis for settlement the recommendation of the chairman or if not what guidelines the government is prepared to accept in order to avoid, not just this strike, but any other strikes which have had and will have some serious effect upon the people of Canada as a whole?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to appear obstinate-
Oral Questions


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: You are doing a pretty good job.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -but there is bargaining. There has been continuous bargaining with this particular union since January and we have established a very good relationship with it. We have no intention of jeopardizing this by making a revelation in the House of Commons. I think the union should be the first to know if and when we are ready to declare our final position.


POSTAL WORKERS-DATE OF GOVERNMENT REPLY TO UNION PROPOSALS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary which relates to the question I asked the Acting President of the Treasury Board yesterday. Could he now indicate when the Treasury Board will be making a response to the representation of the CUPW union with regard to negotiations taking place in this important area of postal services?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Acting President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the plan is to endeavour to speed up negotiations in respect of this particular contract which have not been progressing perhaps as rapidly as they should. It is our intention to endeavour to make these move more rapidly.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Communications.
Last month, the CRTC announced hearings would be held in the spring on the legislation which the federal government intends to pass on teledistribution and cablevision. This has prompted the Ontario Minister of Communications, supported by the Quebec and Manitoba ministers, to denounce this step as being an undue and exasperating intrusion into provincial affairs, especially since the federal government had promised preliminary consultations with the provinces. My question is as follows. Since there seems to be some inconsistency between the proposed consultation and the CRTC statement, can the Minister of Communications make a report on the matter and tell the House the position of his department in this regard and if there is any new development?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I can try to enlighten the hon. member as briefly as possible on a matter which, I admit, has rather complex aspects. But first of all, I think the hon. member is not well informed. The CRTC will not hold any hearing on legislation. The CRTC holds hearings on certain matters regarding cable diffusion under powers the Broadcasting Act gave to it. Those hearings will be held in June.

April 10, 1975
Oral Questions
I have stated in the House the other day that I had offered the provinces, under certain circumstances and according to a certain agenda, to hold a federal-provincial conference with provincial ministers of communications. I am pleased to be able to announce that the provincial ministers of communications have endorsed the agenda. We have reached an agreement, and the conference will be held on May 13. To conclude, a third point, Mr. Speaker: there is no conflict between the Broadcasting Act and the hearings the CRTC wants to hold. Indeed, it is under the Broadcasting Act and on its own right that the CRTC has planned those hearings. It is because the Broadcasting Act takes into account the exclusive federal jurisdiction over broadcasting in general and on cable diffusion in particular. As for the negotiations or discussions we must have with provinces, they will not deal with jurisdictional transfers, but could lead to agreements under which the provinces' point of view on communications problems could be better respected.
* *
*


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Communications.
The minister has just stated that there will be meetings and consultations in June concerning radio broadcasting. Also in June, French Canadians in Quebec will honour their patron saint, Saint-Jean-Baptiste. We have just received a leaflet entitled Quebec Fete and signed by Mrs. Lise Payette. Is the minister aware that Mrs. Payette is announcing now that, to really make something out of the June 24 celebrations, she will invite sport and TV stars, as well as political personalities both at the municipal and provincial levels, to take the first turn. Time will show. However, Mr. Speaker, my question is this: Will the minister allow a small organization which claims that there are French Canadians in Quebec and nowhere else in Canada, to use the CBC broadcasting facilities? Mr. Speaker, it is about time the minister take a stand and state here and now, as I hope he will, that the federal government will not let this Montreal gang dictate its actions.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the only reply I can make to the hon. member is that it is about time he realized, after some two and a half years, that I am no longer the Secretary of State.


FINANCE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Given the fact that in the discussions that are taking place currently between

the first ministers and the Prime Minister about the price of oil and gas it is clear that one of the major stumbling blocks is the tax regime that was created and the budget brought down by the federal government last fall, is the government prepared to revise its timetable and introduce the federal budget earlier than on the proposed end of May date that has been put forward so far?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have no reason to think that my colleague would wish to change that date. I believe that it is important that the budget be well prepared and take into account a thorough review of economic conditions and prospects. I see no reason to change that date on the basis of the suggestion made by my hon. friend.


James McPhail Gillies: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the Acting Prime
Minister-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Temiscamingue seeks to rise on a question of privilege or on a point of order. The rules adopted by the House and which came into effect this week require that questions of privilege and points of order be postponed till three o'clock. I shall recognize him for his question of privilege or point of order at three o'clock this afternoon.


ALLEGED INABILITY OF PROVINCES TO AGREE ON NEW OIL PRICE UNTIL BUDGET INTRODUCED
James McPhail Gillies: Given the fact that several first ministers, and particularly the premier of the province of Alberta, have already stated that it would be very difficult for that province to come to any kind of satisfactory agreement with respect to prices until the new budget is down, is the Acting Prime Minister therefore saying today that the federal government is taking the position that no agreement is necessary until after the end of May?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it would greatly facilitate a decision in this matter if the House could proceed as quickly as possible with the Petroleum Administration Act which would give the government the necessary authority to deal with prices of oil and gas.


James McPhail Gillies: Is the Acting Prime Minister therefore saying that the federal government has given up any hopes of arriving at an agreement without going to the bill to which he is now referring?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, but I think the hon. member will recall that the premier of Ontario felt that it might be desirable to have that bill passed as quickly as possible and urged upon this House, and particularly upon his own party, the desirability of such action.
April 10,1975


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Canadian government indicated to the provisional revolutionary government in Viet Nam that Canada will extend humanitarian aid to the victims of the war irrespective of where they live in Viet Nam so that the airlift of orphans and children can cease to be regarded as a principal instrument of our help? If this communication took place, what was the response of the PRG?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not made any such approach to the PRG. We have no diplomatic or other relations with the PRG. We are operating through the recognized international agencies, and through these agencies it is impossible to have humanitarian assistance directed to the areas in need in that troubled country. I do not think the approach suggested, in the circumstances, is necessary.


VIET NAM-POSSIBILITY OF APPOINTING CO-ORDINATOR OF ASSISTANCE AND INCREASING AMOUNT
Douglas Roche: Recognizing the willingness of the Canadian government to work through international agencies, specifically the U.N., has the Canadian government appointed a co-ordinator of Viet Nam humanitarian assistance so that the government of Viet Nam, whoever controls it, will be aware of our willingness to spend that $6.25 million announced previously for the good of people in Viet Nam, and will that aid be increased?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: With regard to the second part of the question, I indicated when the initial announcement was made with respect to the $6 million plus assistance that we were assessing the need and future needs, and it may well be that we will be required to increase that assistance.
With regard to the first part of the question, I do not see the need at the present time of appointing a particular co-ordinator to administer this aid. We are in touch with the international agencies, and if the time comes when a different approach is necessary, we will consider it, but in the meantime we are getting our aid distributed in the most effective possible way.


VIET NAM-OFFER OF AID BY CANADIAN FRIENDS OF CHILDREN OF VIET NAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the minister has been made aware, either by his department or directly by an organization called the Canadian Friends of Children of Viet Nam, that they now have undertaken by agencies to supply 100 tons of dehydrated food which can be shipped by commercial lines to Hong Kong and then by military charter flights into Viet Nam. Has he been made aware of that, and has
Oral Questions
he turned down that suggestion by that organization in Toronto?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check on the specific organization but in these circumstances it is usually better to provide assistance in the form of cash. We generally urge interested citizens to provide cash, because it is certainly a more mobile form of aid and meets the situation more readily. In some cases, we find it difficult to provide economical transportation and it sometimes happens that transportation costs equal or exceed the amount of the physical aid that is being offered. In this particular case, I will examine the details and see whether there is anything that can be done.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: One further question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the minister's answer. When he is investigating this I wonder if he would look very carefully at the suggestion of this organization which came up with three commercial airlines ready and willing to fly this food to Hong Kong from where it could be taken into Viet Nam by military charter planes. Has there been objection to this by his department because the Americans are working with the military charter planes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, that would not enter into the picture at all. The hon. member has made a suggestion and I can assure him that it will be considered very carefully.


RECOMMENDATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Following the report of the International Joint Commission pressing the governments of those two countries to act rapidly and put a stop to the damages along the Richelieu river and the shores of Lake Champlain, has the minister approached the cabinet or any of the departments concerned, to take action, and are steps being taken jointly with Quebec which suffered losses amounting to $1.5 million in 1972?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I know that the International Joint Commission has completed its studies with respect to the Richelieu river which involves considerations for both countries. In order to give a more authoritative answer I should like to consider the second part of the question more carefully.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a supplementary question to the Minister of the Environment.

April 10, 1975
Oral Questions
During her recent stay in Washington, did the minister raise the question of the floods along the Richelieu river and on the shores of Lake Champlain, and can she tell us today, in view of the report, whether the government is in favour of building a regulating system and of dredging a channel, or whether it would rather, according to the second option, make an intensive joint study on the environment, to determine the implications of the regulating of the Richelieu river in both countries?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, during my stay in Washington, I did raise the matter concerning the Richelieu river and Lake Champlain.
I discussed the report of the International Joint Commission. That report suggests that we make an intensive study of the effects such protection works would have on the environment. For our part, we consider that previous studies have already established that these effects would be minimal. However, we would be prepared to conduct a study on a smaller scale on the specific questions the Americans have raised.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the comment of the Prime Minister yesterday that collective bargaining will not remain free if it cannot be made less destructive to Canada than it is today, is the government taking any measures to correct this situation in negotiation with labour-management organizations in order to bring about a new style in labour relations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the general subject has been under review recently. As yet the government has no specific proposals to make but is hopeful that the studies under way will produce results which are better than the processes now going on.


Arnold John Malone: I appreciate that answer, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister could give an assurance that the government will bring in an innocent third party to such negotiations or studies especially in light of the fact that ten contracts are due in the grain industry this year? This is an industry which cannot in any way protect itself from the danger of strikes.


Mitchell William Sharp: The public interest is often involved in disputes of this kind, Mr. Speaker. I doubt very much, however, if it would help in the resolution of disputes if we were to bring in third parties. Perhaps the hon. gentleman has some ideas he would like to submit to the relevant committee.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Charles Lapointe (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
The parliamentary assistant, in reply to a question yesterday, advised me that the Minister of Agriculture and the government are informed hourly of the situation regarding the movement of grain in Quebec, following the closing of some ports on the St. Lawrence. Is the minister in a position to say today what is the exact situation, because I kept receiving this morning urgent appeals from farmers telling me it is getting increasingly difficult for them to get supplies from mills?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the condition is rapidly deteriorating and unless injunctions are obtained to disallow the picketing at the elevators in Quebec City and Trois-Rivieres, there will be some loss of poultry and livestock. We know people are being asked to share the feed that is in the area and feed is being trucked in from Montreal and Prescott. We do not think, however, that this will be sufficient to look after the needs that will be there in the next day or two.


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In his absence perhaps I might have the attention of the Acting Prime Minister or the Acting Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who, I believe, is the Postmaster General. My question relates to the fact that the Food Prices Review Board has refused to give certain information concerning the meat operations of Canada Safeway in Manitoba to the Manitoba Livestock and Meat Commission. In view of the fact that Canada Safeway specifically authorized the Food Prices Review Board to convey this information to the commission in Manitoba, and in order to avoid duplication of hearings and to facilitate this investigation, will the minister take up this matter with the Food Prices Review Board in the hope that the issue will be resolved?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member had his opportunity to make his representations on his question very clear. I will take the matter up with the appropriate minister at the first opportunity.
April 10, 1975


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: My question for the Acting Prime Minister concerns a very important conference that is going on this afternoon with regard to the economy. Could the minister indicate what the government's reaction will be to the proposals being advanced by the premier of Manitoba with regard to the necessity of price controls being imposed to deal with the problems of the economy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance made a statement in the conference today in which he pointed out that price controls had not been accepted by the Canadian people as appropriate under present circumstances. He said that as far as this government is concerned it felt this was a much less desirable method than the procedure he favoured, namely, to try to bring about co-operation amongst various groups in the community toward certain stated objectives. These were set out in his statement to the conference.


Gerald William Baldwin: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he is able to advise the House of the position of the Premier of British Columbia and the Premier of Saskatchewan with respect to this very interesting suggestion by the Premier of Manitoba?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I was not one of those privileged to be present during these discussions. I understand that one of the private members on the other side managed to sneak in but I was otherwise engaged. I shall make an inquiry and I am sure the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister will report on the conference.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY WHETHER YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES REPRESENTED BY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since Canadian citizens of the provinces are represented at the conference of first ministers by their elected representatives, can he inform me who is representing the people of the northern territories, of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, who are as vitally interested in the price of oil and in their economy as anybody else.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry; I did know the names a couple of days ago. I can get the information and give it to the hon. member.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are those two territories of Canada represented by elected representatives from the territories?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, no, I do not believe so.
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In that event, since the two territories come under the jurisdiction of the federal government and considering the views of the Prime Minister on the pricing of oil, can the minister say who is to express the views of the citizens of both northern territories in opposition to any increase in the price of oil?


J. Judd Buchanan: 
PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with the fatal beating of a penitentiaries commission official at Cowansville, Quebec, and is directed to the Solicitor General. I would ask-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I will ask you-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you, Sir, as the chief commoner in the House, would, when I put a question of serious nature, protect the right of an individual member and demand courtesy from the minions opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is always possible for the chairman to intervene and demand silence. Generally speaking, this is much more effectively achieved by the putting of a precise question, which elicits an answer.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I will reply. In the last six times-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


William Heward Grafftey: 
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has been recognized and has the floor for the purpose of putting a question. Perhaps he would do so, because there are several other hon. members who would like to put their questions.


William Heward Grafftey: Sir, I have tried to put my question, but it has been impossible, because of all the noise.
My question to the Solicitor General has to do with the fatal beating of a penitentiaries commission official at

April 10, 1975
Oral Questions
Cowansville, Quebec. Was the inmate suspected of being involved in this murder ever classified as a maximum security risk, and why was he transferred from a maximum security institution in Montreal to the medium security institution at Cowansville.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, these questions are presently under investigation by an administrative inquiry, as I mentioned yesterday in the House when answering a question asked by the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


An hon. Member:: Too late, too late.


Mr. Alexander:: Oh, shut up.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this supplementary question to the Solicitor General: What classification procedures, if any, were followed before this inmate was transferred from the maximum security institution to the medium security institution at Cowansville. Since the Solicitor General has been told time and again that his classification procedures are in disarray, when will he review this matter and act on it?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the classification procedures have been reviewed and changed on several occasions. As I just told the hon. member, this particular case is being investigated by an administrative inquiry. I shall be willing to report to the House when that inquiry is completed.


ALCOHOLISM-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES ON PREVENTIVE AND EDUCATIONAL MEASURES
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the alarming increase in alcoholism and its sequela, which a federal health minister has acknowledged to be a widespread dependence on drugs, and as alcoholism costs us over $1.5 billion a year and plays a significant part in 50 per cent of all automobile accidents and in suicides and homicides, what steps are being taken, with the provinces, in prevention and education?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. At the last federal-provincial conference of health ministers held in February, 1974, a special work group dealing with alcohol problems was set up to co-ordinate planning and activities in the field of alcoholism with regard to treatment, rehabilitation, counselling and public education. We feel, as ministers, that this represents a major step taken by the two levels of government. I expect a report from this working group as soon as it has arrived at its conclusions. I will be pleased to give further details to the hon. member and his colleagues when my estimates are considered in committee next week.


Philip Bernard Rynard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister consider prohibiting the advertising of alcoholic beverages, in conjunction with the provinces.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this matter is being discussed at present at various levels between the provinces and the federal government. It has been discussed, particularly with representatives of the provinces and of the CRTC, in relation to broadcasting, but I am not aware of the conclusions of these discussions.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister. As the United Kingdom has called for an urgent summit meeting of NATO in May, because of the concern throughout Europe about the spread of Communism in Portugal, Italy, France, all NATO countries, and the problems faced by Greece and Turkey, two NATO allies, has this matter been discussed with our NATO partner, the United States, and what action will Canada take in response to the request of the U.K.?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, discussed the idea of such a conference with the Secretary of State of the United States, Dr. Kissinger. We are giving consideration to it. Of course, if a meeting were called, and if it were agreeable to others, we would be there. However, the issue is this: is this the right time to call such a meeting. In general, I think this government would believe that a high level meeting on NATO affairs is desirable; but whether the timing of this meeting is the right one is the question before us.


EUROPEAN SECURITY CONFERENCE-RELATIONSHIP TO CALL FOR EARLY MEETING OF NATO-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he, or the Acting Prime Minister, in a position to inform the House of the position Canada would adopt relative to the European Security Conference and does he see any relationship between the call by Britain for a summit meeting of NATO leaders and the European Security Conference.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is not the necessary relationship between a NATO summit meeting and a security conference. It is not possible for the security conference to conclude its work and be associated with a NATO summit meeting at the end of May. If the conference were to conclude its work this summer, it is conceivable that a
April 10, 1975

NATO summit could be associated with that conference in the fall. But at the moment they are not connected.


J. Michael Forrestall: The minister now appears to be telling the House that in the opinion of the government a meeting of the senior leaders of the NATO countries should not be held until there has been some disposition of the work of the security conference. Is that what he is saying?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No. That is not a firm policy. We are, as a government, concerned about further progress at the European Security Conference and we want to hang in there for a further period in order to improve this particular aspect of our international relations. The question of a NATO summit meeting at the present time has been dealt with by the Acting Prime Minister. While in principle we would favour a summit meeting, a question could be raised whether the timing-at the end of May-is appropriate.


POSTING OF PRICES OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS-REQUEST GOVERNMENT TAKE NO ACTION AGAINST PHARMACISTS
Mr. Rod Blaker (Lachine-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that two Montreal drug store chains this morning challenged the Quebec College of Pharmacists by posting price comparisons of brand name and generic drugs, thus, in effect, finally giving Quebecers an opportunity to do their pharmaceutical shopping on the basis of price information, will the minister assure the House and the Quebec pharmacists that his department and the government will not participate in any legal actions which would or might result in consumers of pharmaceutical products being deprived of this kind of price comparison and consumer protection services?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, again this matter was discussed at the meeting of federal-provincial ministers of health in February, 1974. The federal government proposed the authorization of price posting of prescription drugs but the provinces were not unanimous on this proposal. However, it was agreed that we would pursue the matter further. We are not persuaded by the argument that price posting will increase drug abuse. It is my intention to see that the food and drug regulations are amended so as to permit price-posting. The new arrangement will, however, not extend to the advertizing of narcotic and controlled drugs which have a potential danger for abuse. I therefore do not intend to institute proceedings against drug stores which post prices in the current circumstances.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT CONVEYED TO EGYPT ITS APPROVAL OF OPENING OF SUEZ CANAL-CANADIAN REPRESENTATION AT CEREMONIES
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the honourable and learned Secretary of State for External Affairs, coupled with my good wishes for the success of his African trip commencing tomorrow. Can he advise the House whether Canada has conveyed to the government of Egypt its approval of that country's contribution to the diminution of international hostility and economic hardship through the reopening of the Suez Canal, and can he tell us whether the Canadian government is to be represented at the ceremonies marking the re-opening of this historic waterway? If so, would he like to take a political descendant of the great Benjamin Disraeli with him?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I thank the hon. member for his good wishes and his penetrating question which I should like to take as notice.


ACCESS TO THERAPEUTIC ABORTION COMMITTEES IN HOSPITALS-POSSIBILITY OF AMENDMENT TO CRIMINAL CODE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I admit it has been asked before in different forms by the hon. members for Halton and for York South, but I am trying to reconcile differing views within the cabinet. How does the government intend to overcome the inequities perceived by the minister in relation to access to therapeutic abortion committees in hospitals, and is an amendment to the Criminal Code contemplated so that there might be equality of access to what the minister in his statement termed semi-public institutions?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there are no differences of opinion among cabinet members on that matter. I said that the provisions of the act now in force are known. Unfortunately the benefits of the act are not equally available throughout the country; the provinces are responsible for administrating health services, especially hospitals, and there is very little the government can do to force an institution to take measures in that regard.


Mr. Fairweather:: Does the minister not agree that a simple solution to this difficulty would be an amendment to the Criminal Code?


Marc Lalonde: I do not believe so because the Criminal Code as it is now constituted allows the creation of therapeutic abortion committees. The Criminal Code is purely

April 10, 1975
Oral Questions
permissive and it is up to the individual to make use of this permission.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In the light of the decision by the Quebec Court of Appeal to superimpose its ruling over that reached at the jury trial in the Morgentaler case, and the recent confirmation of that decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, and taking account of the demoralizing effect this could have on the whole of the jury system, would the minister advise us whether consideration is being given to amendments to the Criminal Code so that appeal courts reversing jury decisions would be obliged to refer the trial back to the jury?


Otto Emil Lang: We have already given some consideration to the implication of the decision whereby a court of appeal, uphelp by the Supreme Court, substituted a verdict for a jury verdict, with a view to determining whether any change in section 613 was required. It is our conclusion at this point that the very words of the Supreme Court in upholding the decision by the Quebec Court of Appeal set out sufficiently carefully the unlikelihood of this happening, the fact that this is a very rare occurrence and that there should be no fear at all of an adverse effect on the jury system. It was noted by the Supreme Court that this may have been the first time this has been done in Canada and that it may be a very long time before the exact circumstances arise again, where a similar course would be possible. As I read the Supreme Court decision, I think there is very little to fear in terms of this becoming a very common occurrence.


REQUEST FOR PARDON FOR DR. MORGENTALER
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In the light of the minister's answer that this is a rare occasion and it is unlikely to be repeated, would the hon. gentleman now give consideration to those provisions of the Criminal Code in the Morgentaler case relating to a free pardon. Will the minister advise us that the cabinet will, at least, give consideration to the question of a free pardon in the Morgentaler case?


Otto Emil Lang: The very court which said it was a very rare occasion said this was precisely one of the kinds of occasions where it could properly be seen to be used.
The hon. member should recognize that any action on the part of the executive with regard to clemency or an alteration of sentence is very rare indeed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: We ought not to confuse this with the question of the commutation of death sentences which is

specifically placed upon the cabinet as a burden. I suggest that what the hon. member is really doing is voicing the opinions of some who do not like the law as it now applies and who therefore want an amendment to the law to take place. To do so in the way he suggests would be highly reprehensible on the part of the executive.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Poulin.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of interest and order. Since we are now on the new procedure, I should like to try this out for size as being the right time to ask the government House leader about the business of the House for the ensuing week. In my humble view, this is probably a better time than waiting until all the routine proceedings are completed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it is an appropriate time, but I have sent a message to my hon. friend to which I have not yet received a reply. Perhaps I should wait until I have had a reply and then I can announce the business.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I can say that the answer is in the negative, so that might enable my hon. friend to proceed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Then may I suggest the following bills for consideration tomorrow: S-9, S-20, C-30 and C-19.


Gerald William Baldwin: And for today?


Mitchell William Sharp: Today we will discuss Bill C-34, the Farm Credit Act. I announced that last evening. If we deal with the amendments, we will turn to Bill C-13.


David Réal Caouette: My question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, as well as that of French-speaking members of this House is as follows: Awhile ago I asked a question of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier), who said that he was no longer the Secretary of State. This is true, but I would like him to refer the matter to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner). Here is my question of privilege. Mr. Speaker, hon. members have received a leaflet entitled Quebec Fete, signed by Lise Payette and sponsored by the City of Montreal and the CBC. I would like to establish clearly and remind the
April 10, 1975

Secretary of State at the same time that Saint-Jean-Bap-tiste Day does not belong only to the Province of Quebec, but to all French Canadians. When we celebrate St. Patrick's Day, in honour of the Irish people, it is not only for the Irish people of Quebec, Ontario, or British Columbia, but for the Irish people of all Canada. The same thing is true for French Canadians. However, Mr. Speaker, if the people want to make this a separatist issue by saying that Quebec alone is concerned-and this is the meaning of the leaflet-I do not want the CBC to give five cents to finance separatists like Mrs. Lise Payette, or wooden-faced Francois-Albert Angers of Montreal, or people like that. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the CBC is now financing the destruction of Canada rather than its unification.


Mr. Speaker:: This is certainly an important matter, not only for French Canadians, but also for all the members of this House. Perhaps fortunately for the Chair, the hon. member did not ask, through the Chair, that any action be taken to rectify the situation, therefore, the question remains as stated.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In response to the recent question that I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), the minister attempted to impute motives to the questioner, myself, and I submit that this is a violation of the privileges of this House. The answer given by the Minister of Justice, imputing motives in the question, in effect deprived the questioner of the right to be seen and to ask an objective question. When the Minister of Justice suggests that it is a narrow group of people who are asking that question about juries, let me assure Your Honour and the members of this House that many members of the legal profession are vitally concerned that the jury system should survive in this country and the question of the survival of the jury system is a serious one indeed.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member may have mistaken the reference to the number of people who had a certain view; that was with reference to the question whether clemency should be granted, not with reference to the question about juries. In my earlier answer I think I made it quite clear that I, too, was concerned about the integrity of the jury system but that I was satisfied, from the discussion in the Supreme Court on the matter, that there was no difficulty. I think it is also clear that I did not impute any motives. However, I did say that a certain view was being expressed and put forward, and I think that is very fair comment indeed.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-387, to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to state that the purpose of this bill is to prevent the use of steel leg traps for the trapping of animals.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 352, 1,182, 1,337, 1,350, 1,351, 1,595, 1,599, 1,672, 1,758, 1,766, 1,777, 1,814, 1,861, 1,892, 1,922, 2,117 and 2,127.
Mr. Speaker, if questions No. 53, 615, 1,285 and 1,372 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that questions No. 401 and 769 be made orders for return and also ask the consent of the House to table immediately the information which has already been submitted. The balance of the information will follow as soon as it is submitted to me.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary be deemed to have been made orders for return in the manner described by the parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Mercer Reid: Would you be so good as to call starred question No. 1,609?
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. [Text]


Mr. Jones: 1.	(a) On what date will the announcement be made with respect to the acquisition of a new centralized regional postal distribution centre

April 10,1975
content of all representations made to the minister or the department.
2.	(a) No (London East), (b) Project 311936 was approved in the amount of $123,201 on February 3, 1972.
3.	(a) No. (b) No.
4.	(a) Yes. (b) No.
5.	(a) This project did meet the basic criteria of the Local Initiatives Program, (b) Not applicable, (c) The final approval of all projects rested with the then minister of manpower and immigration, the Hon. Bryce Mackasey.
6.	Not applicable.


Mr. Huntington: 1.	What was the total cost of advertising in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74?
2.	What was the breakdown of the programmes against the total cost of advertising for these years?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. $107,759.83,	1972-73;	$138,430.27,
1973-74.
2. There is no meaningful breakdown by program because the advertising was department-wide. The emphasis, however, was on consumer affairs.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	In the last fiscal year, what was the (a) total number of thefts reported (b) total value of goods reported stolen from (i) CNR freight (ii) Air Canada freight?
2.	How many investigators are maintained by (a) Air Canada (b) CNR to investigate thefts or losses from freight entrusted to those carriers and where is each investigator located?
3.	In the last fiscal year, how many reported thefts or losses from (a) Air Canada (b) CNR were not solved as of January 31, 1975?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. (a) (i) 612. (b) (i) $646,400.
2.	(a) Not applicable, (b) There are 48 claims personnel, whose duties involve the investigation of losses including thefts, located as follows: Moncton, 6; Montreal, 13; Toronto, 15; Winnipeg, 4; Saskatoon, 3; Edmonton, 4; Vancouver, 3.
3.	(a) Not applicable, (b) 402. The above figures are on calendar year basis (1974) and include both freight and express. Further breakdown is not available from our records.

Order Paper Questions
in the City of Moncton or the Greater Moncton area (b) on what date will work commence (c) what is the scheduled completion date?
2.	(a) On what date will the announcement be made with respect to the erection or acquisition of a new post office building with adequate facilities in the Town of Riverview (b) on what date will work commence (e) what is the scheduled completion date?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. (a) The date is not yet known, (b) Canada Post Office is now studying postal operational and facility requirements for the Moncton area. No date for the commencement of this project can be given until these studies are complete. However, the Estimates Book for 1975-76 shows that it is anticipated that an initial $200,000 should be spent on a Moncton facility in 1975. (c) A completion date cannot be scheduled until a commencement date for the project has been established.
2. (a) With respect to the requirements for postal facilities in Riverview, this area is presently serviced by three sub post offices and ten letter carriers. There is no immediate intention to build new postal facilities. However, the need for new facilities is constantly under view as towns increase in population, (b) Not applicable, (c) Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) What were ail the details of Local Initiatives Programme Project No. 311936 (b) what were the names and addresses of all those appearing on the application and of all those who endorsed or recommended this project in any way?
2.	(a) Was this project located in the constituency of London West (b) was it approved in the amount of $117,000 on January 27,1972?
3.	(a) Does the name of Mr. Lloyd Francis Stevens appear in the Department file for this project as having endorsed its approval (b) was the Department or the Minister aware as to whether or not this is the same Lloyd Francis Stevens mentioned in Who's Who as a supporter of the Liberal Party?
4.	(a) Was the construction firm on this project Ellis Don Construction Limited (b) was the Department or the Minister aware as to whether or not this was the same Ellis Don Construction Limited mentioned in the London Free Press on or about July, 1973 as publicly stating that it had donated more than $10,000 in five years to the Liberal Party?
5.	(a) In what ways did this project not meet the criteria of the Local Initiatives Programme (b) what were the names and job designations of all LIP personnel who pointed this out (c) what was the identity and job designation of the individual making the final decision to accept this project?
6.	What was the name of the designated Regional Cabinet Minister under the Local Initiatives Programme under whose jurisdiction approval or disapproval of this project fell?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. (a) Madame Vanier Children's Services Project No. 311936-1971-72 LIP. Project Description: To construct a four-building complex on three acres. To include a clinic building, a specialized school, an activities building and a 3-unit townhouse. To purchase two halfway houses and to renovate them for the community. To create 64 new jobs-45 permanent positions once the organization was fully operative, (b) Names of Sponsors: Mr. A. R. Martin, Chairman, 217 Deer Park Circle, London, Ontario; Dr. John R. Dubois, Executive Director, 534 Queens Avenue, London, Ontario. The Department of Manpower and Immigration regards as confidential the names and

The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. To classify a missing shipment as a theft or as stolen, satisfactory proof must first be established. Frequently, the securing of proof is not possible or evidence is not obtained until long after a claim is concluded. Thus Air Canada has a claim classification under the heading "Non Delivery", which includes: (i) A loss, (ii) Failure of a piece or pieces of a shipment to reach destination for
April 10, 1975

reasons related to such things as misrouting and poor packaging, (iii) Possible theft.
Following are statistics for the year 1974: Percentage of air freight claims for all causes, including Non Delivery, Pilferage, Damage and Delay, to the total 814,884 shipments carried was .65 per cent, (a) Total number of Non Delivery and Pilferage claims: 2,325 or .29 per cent of total shipments carried, (b) Total Non Delivery and Pilferage claims costs: $483,765 or .74 per cent of total air freight revenues totalling $66,533,647. Air Canada's position in relation to Non Delivery claims is below the average of major United States carriers.
2.	(a) Air Canada maintains four Security Representatives located at Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Los Angeles airports who call on the services of outside police forces, as required, (b) Not applicable.
3.	(a) This information is not available from our records, (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: Since the date of the answer to Question No. 2,598 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament setting forth items of furniture, fittings, fixtures or contents of any kind whatsoever purchased for the Prime Minister's summer residence at Harrington Lake, what is the itemized list of all additional items purchased and the cost thereof?
2, 3 and 4. Name and S.I.N.	Address
Order Paper Questions


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Since the date of the answer to question No. 2,598, which listed items purchased to July 31, 1973, included herewith is a list of items purchased from August 1, 1973 to December 31, 1974. August 1, 1973-March 31, 1974, Nil. 1974-75*: Dinette set, $414.16.
'Expenditures up to December 31, 1974.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	In the constituency of Bellechasse, do any employees of Unemployment Insurance Commission assist recipients in completing application forms and, if so, how many?
2.	What are their names, addresses and annual salaries?
3.	On what dates were they hired?
4.	In what municipalities are they employed?


Robert Knight Andras: 1, 2, 3 and 4. In the constituency of Bellechasse there are five persons employed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission who assist claimants in completing claim forms.
Annual*
Salary 1974	Date of Hiring
Mrs. George Chabot Mrs. Bserilla Rouillard Mrs. Carmen T. Lejeune Mrs. Leonard Goulet Mrs. Alexandra Bernard
St-Damien, Constituency of Bellechasse, Que. St-Philemon, Constituency of Bellechasse, Que. St-Magloire, Constituency of Bellechasse, Que. Armagh, Constituency of Bellechasse, Que.
St-Raphael, Constituency of Bellechasse, Que.
*276.00	15/12/1960
$160.50	09/1961
$205.50	03/12/1959
$408.00	03/1964
*361.50	03/1968
Annual salary based on $1.50 per form completed on behalf of a claimant.
Each one of these representatives works in the municipality where she lives and serves the neighbouring municipalities.


Mr. Epp: 1.	What is the total amount of federal funds given to the St. Boniface Cultural Centre in Manitoba?
2.	What was the amount for each year 1968 to 1974?
3.	What were the major programmes at the St. Boniface Cultural Centre which received federal funding?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: 1. $855,000.
2.	1970-71, $510,000; 1971-72, $40,000; 1972-73, $190,000; 1973-74, $65,000; 1974-75, $50,000; total $855,000.
3.	Except for capital grants of $500,000 in 1970-71 and $150,000 in 1972-73 toward the construction costs of the building, all the grants were to assist in paying for the administration and operation of the centre.


Mrs. Holt: 1.	(a) Is the government aware methadone, an addictive drug is being used as an alleged cure for heroin addiction as was heroin used
as a cure for opium addiction (b) is this new drug being abused in British Columbia and the rest of Canada?
2.	(a) How many legal methadone clinics are there in Canada (b) where are they located?
3.	By area, how many people are on methadone maintenance and what are their ages?
4 For each of the past ten years, what amount was dispensed by the clinics?
5.	After considerable use and experience with methadone, has any study been made or is being made of the side effects and general medical condition of users, especially those who were on extended treatment and, if not, will a programme of such research be established?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the length of the reply to question 1,609, I ask permission of this House to have it printed as if read.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
4680

April 10,1975
Order Paper Questions


Coline M. Campbell: 1. (a) and (b) Methadone has been in use for many years as a potent narcotic analgesic and as such is subject to the controls that apply to all narcotic drugs. Since 1963, interest has centered around the controlled use of methadone as a treatment aid in programs aimed at social and economic rehabilitation of heroin addicts. As a consequence, consumption of the drug increased considerably and reports of misuse and abuse of methadone came to the attention of the Department of Health and Welfare. In view of the serious concern over this development, a Special Joint Committee of the Department's former Food and Drug Directorate and the Canadian Medical Association was established in 1970 with the purpose of reviewing the use of methadone in the treatment of narcotic addiction. As a result of the recommendations of this Committee and those made by other experts in this area, new regulations were implemented on June 1, 1972 bringing methadone under even more strict controls and permitting its use only by practitioners specially authorized for that purpose. These regulations have resulted in a marked decrease of consumption of this drug and brought its use under proper control.
2.	(a) Number of clinics with protocols allowing the use of methadone for the management of narcotic addiction: 33. (b) British Columbia, 14; Alberta, 2; Saskatchewan, 2; Manitoba, 2; Ontario, 5; Quebec, 7; Nova Scotia, 1.
3.	Narcotic addicts treated with methadone: October and November, 1974: British Columbia, 837; Alberta, 45; Saskatchewan, 34; Manitoba, 51; Ontario, 201; Quebec, 43; Nova Scotia, 1. Information on ages of narcotic addicts treated with methadone is not available.
4.	Canadian imports of methadone: 1966, 3.29 Kg; 1967, 5.71 Kg; 1968, 10.4 Kg; 1969, 13.4 Kg; 1970, 30.19 Kg; 1971, 40.59 Kg; 1972, 40.680 Kg; 1973, 0.001 Kg; 1974, 22.5 Kg. These numbers indicate a fall in consumption after the introduction of additional controls in 1972 and the importation of almost no drug in 1973 is due to the consumption of leftover stock from the previous year.
5.	There is a limited amount of literature on the effects of methadone and the results of treatment programs for narcotic addicts which include the use of methadone. The report of The Special Joint Committee of the Department of National Health and Welfare-Canadian Medical Association which was set up to study the use of methadone in the treatment of narcotic addiction was published in 1971. The LeDain Commission of Inquiry Into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs has also reviewed this matter. The Health Protection Branch is continuing to assess this modality of treatment.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many firms and/or persons have been engaged in a legal, consulting and advisory capacity since the inception of CEMA?
2.	(a) What are the names of the firms and/or persons (b) how much money was paid to each firm and/or person for each year up to and including December, 1974?


Eugene Whelan: Since CEMA operations are not funded by government, it is considered that the information requested is confidential to CEMA.


Mr. Herbert: In the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for the month of April 1975, what is the budgeted number of public servants to work in the continental regions of (a) North America excluding Canada (b) South America (c) Europe (d) Asia (e) Australasia?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: (a) North America (excluding Canada) 104, (b) South America 34, (c) Europe 91, (d) Asia 26, (e) Australasia 21.


Mr. Firth: Is there, at this time, a government arrangement whereby optometrists are hired to provide eye care to the Native population of the Northwest Territories and (a) if not, is the government planning on instituting such a medical service (b) if so, when did eye care for Natives become available?


Marc Lalonde: No. (a) No. (b) The government, through the Department of National Health and Welfare, believes that the simple checking of visual acuity and the prescription of corrective lenses is not an adequate service to the native people. Instead, service is provided in three zones (Northwest Territories) by contract through the universities with consultant ophthalmologists who regularly visit the settlements to provide both diagnostic and refractive eye care. For example, in the MacKenzie zone, ophthalmic services are provided under the supervision of a qualified ophthalmologist who is resident in Yellowknife. The alternative suggested of utilising optometrists to do all the necessary refractions, would leave uncovered the other numerically much smaller but potentially much more serious group with actual eye pathology who would then all have to be evacuated to the south for an ophthalmologic opinion. This would at one time increase the cost and defeat the aims of National Health and Welfare to provide care and diagnostic services to the greatest extent possible in the home community.


Mr. Towers: 1.	For what purpose is the Post Office calendar published each year?
2.	Since the information printed on the reverse pages is posted in all post offices and elsewhere, is advertising the basic reason for publishing the calendar and, if not, for what reason is it published?
3.	For what reason was a calendar printed this year when there is supposed to be a cut-back in government spending?
4.	(a) On what basis is the calendar distributed (b) if on request only, how are taxpayers informed of its availability?
5.	(a) On the 1974 and 1975 calendars, on whose authority was Victoria Day replaced by Fete de Dollard in the French version (b) what has Dollard to do with Victoria Day which was proclaimed by Parliament as a statutory holiday (c) for what reason was not the same rule applied on June 24 where the calendar shows St. Jean Baptiste Day without an English replacement?
6.	For what reason was July 1 left blank instead of showing its correct name Dominion Day?
April 10, 1975

7.	(a) Is the contract for printing the calendar granted by tender based on cost and efficiency and, if not, for what reason (b) what firm or firms were assigned the contract for the years 1973,1974 and 1975?
8.	Will a 1976 calendar be produced and, if so, at what cost?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: 1. To inform mail users of Post Office services and products available and to explain how they can best take advantage of these services and products. It is a useful vehicle in mail rooms of large and small businesses, used in classrooms for educational purposes and is handy in homes for easy and ready reference to mailing deadlines and other postal information required on a day-to-day basis.
2.	The reasons are the same as above. Calendars are available in limited quantities. As the demand for the calendar far exceeds the supply, other means of information are required.
3.	There is a continuing need for such vital postal information. The calendar is in great demand and our surveys have indicated that it helps Canadians to better understand our complex operations and thereby make better and proper use of our services.
4.	(a) Through major post offices across the country. Some are delivered by marketing representatives to the business community and others are mailed on request, (b) Through posters at distribution points and through free, unsolicited publicity in the media.
5.	(a) One does not replace the other. They are both celebrated on the same date, (b) Dollard Day, and Victoria Day, are identified as holidays in most collective agreements in Quebec, (c) There is no English equivalent known.
6.	It was deemed appropriate to esthetically identify this special holiday with a group illustration of our Canadian emblem, the maple leaf.
7.	(a) Yes. (b) 1973, Metropole Litho Inc., Montreal; 1974, Ashton-Potter Ltd., Toronto; 1975, Lawson Graphics, Toronto.
8.	Yes. The cost will be approximately $200,000.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Did the government conduct a survey to determine the extent of the transfer of advertising revenue to those magazines that it seeks to help, which will result from the legislation it proposes to bring forward and (a) if so, what are the results of the survey (b) if not, is a survey under consideration?
2.	Have any magazine industry surveys concerning advertising revenue been conducted recently and, if so, have the results of the surveys been communicated to the responsible Minister?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1.
The government has conducted no survey to study a transfer of advertising revenue to Canadian periodicals as a result of its proposed amendments to Section 19 of the Income Tax Act. However, the Secretary of State's Department did conduct a computer search to determine whether Canadian advertisers could reach the same audiences through Canadian media as they now reach through
Order Paper Questions
"Time" and "Reader's Digest". Results indicated that they could.
2. In 1973 the Magazine Association of Canada reported that Canadian advertisers spent $35 million for space in 13 major consumer magazines. About one half of this amount was spent on space in "Time", and the two editions of "Reader's Digest"-"Time" earning $9.2 million, and "Reader's Digest" $7.2 million. These figures have been communicated to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has also received a privately commissioned survey completed by Canadian Facts Co. Ltd. entitled "Advertiser Executives' Attitudes Towards one Aspect of the Special Senate Committee Report on Mass Media November, 1974."


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Salvatore Taormina enter Canada on or about June 5, 1968 and, if not, on what date did he enter Canada?
2.	Has the RCMP ever conducted an investigation in regard to this person and, if so (a) on what dates (b) for what reasons (c) what were the details of the investigation?
3.	What are the names of all persons who at any time made representations to the government on behalf of this person for purposes of his admission to Canada or for any other purpose and, in each case, what are the details of such representations?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Manpower and Immigration and the Solicitor General as follows: 1. Salvatore Taormina arrived in Canada on June 5, 1968.
2.	No.
3.	In accordance with the schedule for the destruction of files, the file concerning Salvatore Taormina has been destroyed. It is therefore not possible to respond to this part of the question.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	How much money was spent by CBC on laboratory equipment used in production of the series The Collaborators?
2.	Did the purchases include an electron microscope and, if so (a) what was the purchase price (b) in how many episodes did it appear (c) what was the approximate time it was actually visable?
3.	(a) What items purchased fall into the following ranges (i) $500 to $1,000 (ii) $1,000 to $5,000 (iii) $5,000 to $8,000 (iv) $8,000 to $10,000 (v) over $10,000 (b) what is done with such items when the Corporation is finished with them?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. $530.
2,	No. An electron microscope was loaned to the CBC without charge by a scientific equipment company and was returned to the company at the conclusion of the
series.
3.	(a) None, (b) the items are placed in CBC stock for possible further use in television productions.
29557-21V2

April 10, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 24 listing a number of wives of senior public servants who are not themselves members of the Public Service and who have received language training at public expense, how many husbands of such persons (a) are within five years of possible retirement (b) have already retired as of this date (c) in each case, what is the husband's (i) name, (ii) position in government service (iii) earliest possible retirement date?
2.	What are all the justifications for giving language training to wives of Public Service employees approaching retirement age?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. It is the policy of the Public Service Commission not to establish arbitrary age limits as a factor in selections for appointments or for training courses, unless there are compelling reasons to do so. An amendment to the Public Service Employment Act to extend the prohibitions against discrimination contained therein to age and marital status has in fact received second reading in the House of Commons and is now before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs (Bill C-16).
With regard to language training, the President of Treasury Board announced in the House of Commons on November 21, 1974 a Cabinet decision that, on economic grounds, unilingual public servants over 60 years of age who occupy or are appointed to bilingual positions would be exempted from the requirement to undertake language training.
Records are not kept in such a way that the specific information requested in this question can be readily supplied. A reply would require the review of the personal files of every public servant involved and the necessary staff is not available to undertake such a review.
2. See first paragraph of one above and the answer given to Question No. 1,446, March 12, 1975.


Mr. Coates: Was there any government involvement, financially or otherwise, in the purchase of a yacht by the Hamilton Harbour Commission and, if so (a) what was the nature of the involvement (b) on what date was it purchased (c) from whom and by whom was it purchased (d) for what purpose (e) for what amount?


Jean Marchand: No.


Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the advisability of electrifying the railway system of Canada?


Jean Marchand: The
benefits of the electrification of a railway line are a function of the traffic density over that particular line. Enough savings have to be made on fuel, maintenance and locomotive capital costs to pay for the construction of the catenary and electric power distribution systems. In Canada many studies have been conducted by railways to determine whether electrification was economical. So far

these studies have revealed that electrification could be marginally profitable but only on very few sections of the line. In the context of more restrictive fuel policies, electrification could be advisable.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 46 of the Second Session of the 29th Parliament, which states in part that a total of $1,669,213 was allocated under the Local Initiatives Programme for 1972-73 in the constituency of Rosedale, Ontario (a) what are the names of all projects involved along with their addresses and the names and addresses of those signing the applications (b) in each case what is a detailed description of the actual project, specifically including the functions performed under the project?
2.	What are the names and addresses of all persons or organizations who recommended each project in any manner whatsoever to the Department?
Return tabled.



CONSULTANTS HIRED BY CROWN CORPORATIONS FROM 1968 TO DATE

M. MacKay: 1.	From the 1968 fiscal year to date (a) how many consultants were hired (b) what were the terms of reference and time length of the work assignment (c) what was the amount paid to each (d) what was the name of each for all Crown corporations?
2.	What are the names, positions, number and salaries of public servants for all Crown corporations that held a position similar to that of the outside consultant hired by the government?
Return tabled.



LIP-ALLOCATIONS IN CONSTITUENCY OF CAPE BRETON HIGHLANDS-CANSO, NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total amount of money allocated under the Local Initiatives Programme for 1973-74 in the constituency of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, Nova Scotia (a) what are the names of all projects involved along with their addresses and the names and addresses of those signing the applications (b) in each case what is a detailed description of the actual project, specifically including the functions performed under the project?
2.	What are the names and addresses of all persons or organizations who recommended each project in any manner whatsoever to the Department?
Return tabled.



PUBLIC SERVANTS CLASSIFICATIONS

M. Stevens: As of October 31, 1967, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many public servants were classified as or had an equivalent pay range to DM 3, DM 2, SX 4/DM 1, SX 3, SX 2, SX 1 (b) how many vacancies were there in each classification (c) what were the minimum, mid-point and maximum salaries in each classification (d) who, by name, were classified as DM 3, DM 2, DM 1, SX 4, and on each date, what title did they hold?
Return tabled.
April 10, 1975



TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF GOVERNMENT GRANTS

Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	(a) What is the total expenditure by way of government grants for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975 (b) what are the specific grant programmes and the amounts of each making up such expenditure?
2.	(a) What is the anticipated total expenditure by way of government grants for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976 (b) what are the specific grant programmes and the amounts of each making up such expenditure?
Return tabled.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Will Opportunities for Youth Programme funds for this year be distributed on the basis of Canada Manpower Management areas and, if so, what are all the reasons?
2.	What are the names or designations of all Canada Manpower Management areas (a) what electoral districts or portions of electoral districts are included in each of these Management areas (b) what are the total funds allocated for 1975 for each Management area?
3.	(a) What are all the factors involved in deciding how the allocation of Opportunities for Youth funds for each Management area will be divided amongst communities in that area (b) did any political considerations enter into this distribution and what are the names of any Cabinet Ministers who have responsibility for advising on such distribution within Management areas?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-34, to amend the Farm Credit Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary) moved:: That Bill C-34, an act to amend the Farm Credit Act, be amended by deleting the words "thirty-five" in lines 42 and 48 at page 2, lines 3 and 12 at page 3, line 38 at page 7 and line 22 at page 8, and substituting therefor the word "forty".
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this bill I should like to say at the outset that I believe these amendments are good, particularly the one which will increase to $150,000 the amount a young farmer can borrow, and allowing him to declare that he will go into farming but remain in another profession or occupation up to five years. The proposal embodied in this amendment was in our policy paper during the last election campaign. It has been taken directly from that policy paper and, as I say, I think it is a good amendment.
My amendment to the bill will raise the eligible age of a young farmer, for the purpose of taking advantage of the Farm Credit Act, from 35 to 40 years of age. I think this
Farm Credit Act
will be an improvement because it is a well known fact that life begins at 40. Apparently, age 35 was chosen because the officials of the department felt that these 30-year loans should be paid back at age 65. There are many good reasons for raising the eligibility age to 40. We are trying to get young people back into farming. Sons and daughters of farmers very often have to leave the farm because the farming operation cannot support more than one family. These people, therefore, go into other fields or professions. By the time their parents are ready to retire, giving them the opportunity to go back into farming on the parents' land, they are over 35 years of age. On most occasions these people have to borrow under the Farm Credit Act.
Very often the young people who want to go back into farming have worked for a number of years in another career, and before they can retire with a pension they must put in a certain amount of time. It is not a bad idea for people who retire from another career to go back into farming. Many of them have experience in associated agricultural professions, which does not hurt them one little bit in their farming endeavours.
It has been stated that the purpose of this legislation is not to assist people who have had professional careers as horticulturalists or school teachers, for example. I do not believe that when we are passing legislation we should state who, or who cannot, take advantage of the legislation in that way. Certainly, I do not think you could find a better farmer than the individual who has been educated and has practised as a horticulturalist or a professional in some other agricultural field. I, personally, know a young man who had a teaching degree and a degree in agriculture. Following a career as a horticulturalist, he went back to farming his father's farm. He had a difficult time starting up, as he had to quit his job in order to qualify for farm credit, but he went ahead and is today an excellent farmer.
We know that over the years farmers have lived poor and died rich. I do not think any young man going into farming today can get very excited about that prospect. These people do not want to live the same type of life as their parents or the individuals from whom they have taken over the farm: they want to enjoy life, just as everyone else does.
The trend in the past few years has been for people to leave the farm. Statistics indicate that a few years ago 30 per cent of the children of farmers stayed on the land, but the number has now decreased to 10 per cent. If we are to attract these young people to farming, we cannot do it by just making more money available: we must make it possible for them to enjoy the standard of living that is enjoyed by people living in urban areas. There is nothing wrong with a young person going into another profession to earn money he intends to use in farming in later years, because in many cases the amount an individual can borrow under the Farm Credit Act is not sufficient and he will need the equity that is built up while in another profession.
Many occupations have pension plans and similar benefits, but it takes a number of years before one can qualify for such benefits. I do not think people who follow this course should be left out of this legislation, and for this reason, as well as others, I think the age should be raised

April 10, 1975
Farm Credit Act
from 35 to 40. I cannot understand why this government or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) would not accept this amendment, particularly if we are really concerned about getting young people back into farming. I urge the government to accept this amendment to raise the eligible age from 35 to 40 years of age.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments in connection with this bill and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker). We had a very detailed and excellent discussion on this bill when it was before the committee, and I think all hon. members are anxious that it be proceeded with and passed. The people in the west, particularly with spring coming, are very anxious to see this bill passed in order that the young people can take advantage of these amendments.
I support the amendment of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. The bill brought in by the minister describes a young farmer as someone under 35 years of age, and the amendment of the hon. member would raise the age limit to 40. This matter was discussed in the committee. There was a suggestion that perhaps it would not be actuarially sound to lend $150,000 to a person 40 years of age. However, in reading the Minutes and Proceedings of Evidence of the agricultural committee for Thursday, March 20,1 note that Dr. Kristjanson said, as reported at page 25:5:
So, we looked at that, and there is nothing wrong actuarially with it; there is no problem. In other words, there is no reason that a man 40 years of age is not as good a risk as a man of 35.
A great many young people who have been born and raised on a farm are anxious to become involved in farming, possibly by taking over a farm of their father or uncle. In such cases they need a large amount of money. I understand this is the reason the limit has been increased from $100,000 to $150,000. In the course of the committee hearings I suggested that the young farmer clause, which permits a young farmer to phase into full-time farming over a period of five years, be altered to provide, on a sliding scale, that people up to 50 years of age be allowed to phase into full-time farming.
There are many people in the province of Saskatchewan, young and middle-aged, who have been born and raised on a farm, who are working full-time but also have perhaps half or three-quarters of a section of land which they are working in the hope that one day they will be able to become full-time farmers. At the present time, because of the way this legislation reads, one must be a full-time farmer in order to qualify for a loan under the Farm Credit Act. If these people were given the opportunity to phase into farming over a period of three, two or one years by borrowing money, it would enable them to take up farming as a full-time occupation. These people are not hobby farmers: they are honest, sincere farmers who have been born and raised on a farm. They see farming as a way of life they wish to follow.
I note that Dr. Kristjanson, at the same meeting of the committee on agriculture, indicated he would consider the suggestion of allowing phasing in over a period of, say, four, three, two or one years. I hoped the minister would

today come forward with an amendment to provide for this. On the other hand, if the flexibility exists as suggested by Mr. Kristjanson, perhaps after a year's operation under the new amendments the minister will see fit to bring in further amendments in that regard. This is a matter I intend to bring to his attention in about a year's time after this new section of the act has been operative, and if he should feel that he can bring in the necessary amendments at that time, I would welcome that. I would be prepared in the near future to bring in such a recommendation if it has not been done otherwise.
I do not think I have anything more to say on the subject except that the amendments contained in this legislation are certainly welcomed by members on this side of the House. However, I should like to see the change in respect to young farmer, and I urge the minister and members on the government side to support the amendment of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary.


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker). I wish to amplify his comments for a moment and draw the attention of the minister to some of the remarks of my colleague from Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), because I believe the problems involved in phasing into farming are particularly acute in areas where there is homesteading activity or the possibility of earning a considerable amount of money in other occupations, such as in the oil fields of Alberta. A great number of my constituents work in the oil fields and try to become involved in farming on a part-time basis. These people have been caught up in regulations which have been established, for very good reasons, in respect of hobby farmers. Because of this, in very many cases some people are ineligible for a program when there is no real reason for their being ineligible.
In many cases, the people involved have an unusual degree of initiative and ability which should be rewarded by the government when they desire to become involved in agriculture. As it now stands, in areas near oil-producing fields and similar activities it is difficult for individuals of this kind to become eligible for assistance either under this legislation or that which is available from other jurisdictions. I support the contribution of my colleague from Moose Jaw and urge the minister to very seriously consider the hon. member's recommendation, with particular attention to easing the difficulty facing people who wish to phase into farming in areas where a similar problem exists.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I shall also be brief. Our group finds this amendment acceptable and worth while. I believe it should be accepted by the government and I hope the minister will agree to raising the age limit to 40. It is not only very young persons but those who are young, up to age 40, who wish to become involved in farming. All the minister need do is stand up and say he approves of the amendment. I ask the minister to agree, and in that way we can deal with this bill very quickly.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
April 10, 1975


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Whittaker) negatived.


Eugene Whelan: that Bill C-34, to amend the Farm Credit Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, we would be glad to give our consent to third reading of the bill at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is it agreed, by unanimous consent, that the bill be read the third time now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eugene Whelan: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


NORTHERN CANADA POWER COMMISSION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, March 26, consideration of Bill C-13, to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and motion No. 2 of Mr. Nielsen.
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me refresh the memory of hon. members on the nature of the amendment before us by saying that the bill that has been introduced in the name of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) would delete subsections (1) and (2) of section 6 of the present act. Subsection (2) of the act presently in force requires the Northern Canada Power Commission to account to the governor in council for certain expenditures over the limit of $50,000. The proposal by the minister and the governor in council is to remove that requirement of accountability and in effect to allow the commission to act on its own, to make expenditures on its own, and to act in every other way without the requirement of being accountable to the governor in council or to the House.
The amendment by my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), representing as he does the interests of the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, would reinstate the requirement of accountability on
Northern Canada Power Commission Act behalf of the Northern Canada Power Commission. In view of inflation and for other reasons it might be advisable to change the dollar limit and perhaps to require accountability for expenditures of a higher range than is now the case. That is a matter which we on this side of the House would be prepared seriously to consider. But that is an entirely different question from removing accountability altogether, and it is the total removal of accountability which the minister is now proposing.
As members on this side have made clear on several occasions in questioning in committee and in the House, we would prefer the accountability of the commission to be to the councils of the territories and, preferably to the elected members of those councils. But that is not something we could achieve here today, so we will have to settle for a lesser kind of accountability. Again I emphasize that even a lesser kind of accountability is far pre-fered to no accountability at all. What the minister is proposing is to establish for that commission the capacity to act without any kind of accountability except as may trickle back through the public service appointments to the board of that corporation.
I simply wish to draw to the attention of the House two very dangerous aspects of the proposal of the government. First is the question of the principle that the Parliament of Canada should be able to exercise some control over the activities of agencies acting in the public name and spending public money, such as the Northern Canada Power Commission. They should not be allowed, particularly a commission of this sort with its special functions, to operate totally freely. That is the principle, and it is a matter which is of particular concern to us here, now, because the capacity of parliament to oversee and to control the activities of various agencies to whose existence we give approval has been eroded over time. So it is important to us as an institution, and to my colleagues and myself, not to allow one more instance of erosion in this case.
The matter of the accountability of public institutions to publicly elected officials is far too important to let it lapse in a case such as this, which might not command the interest of many members of this House, particularly members on the government side, because perhaps they are not interested in what goes on in northern Canada. However, we on this side are interested in what goes on in northern Canada and in the principle that parliament should have the power, not only to spend public funds but also to set public policy in matters which affect the national destiny and to require from public agencies accountability to this institution if it is not possible for them to be held accountable directly to the elected representatives of the people of the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. So the first objection I have to the proposal by the minister to create this unaccountable corporation is one of principle.
My second objection is to the fact that the Northern Canada Power Commission would have the capacity to undertake ventures, to issue regulations and to act in other ways which could cause serious harm to the environment of northern Canada, and which could involve us in major projects undertaken solely at the discretion of the commission without giving us a chance of review or veto,

April 10, 1975
Northern Canada Power Commission Act apart from whatever mechanisms may exist and apply as a result of existing federal laws or regulations.
The Northern Canada Power Commission is not a tiny agency without powers: it is, in fact, an agency which has substantial powers and could make decisions which could have serious and harmful effects upon matters of interest to the House and, indeed, to the country. In my view, it would be possible for the commission, acting on its own, to start another project of the dimensions of the James Bay project. It could become involved in any other kind of project, perhaps of smaller dimensions but nonetheless involving, as all hydro projects do, the possibility of very serious danger to the environment of the area affected. It could become involved in matters relating to the export of power, raising questions of great importance to the whole country and not simply to the select group of people who might sit on the commission. We are dealing here with important matters. The commission would be dealing with important matters. What the minister proposes to do is to allow the commission to deal with matters of great importance to the whole country without having to be responsible or accountable to the whole country through the cabinet, through parliament or through the elected representatives of the two territories concerned.
I want to deal for a moment with the environmental aspects of the power that is being granted to the commission. We all know that whenever major hydro developments are undertaken-and they fall within the ambit of concern of this commission-there is the possibility of environmental damage. This situation may have more severe consequences in northern Canada, the ecology of which is more susceptible to damage than other parts of our country. As is known to members of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development who accepted the invitation of my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon, to visit Whitehorse last year, there is a great deal of controversy about surveying and about areas in which hydro development should or should not proceed. These are important public questions, but the minister is proposing to allow such questions to be decided in private by a commission which is not accountable to the governor in council and, consequently, indirectly through the minister to the House. To me that is a very dangerous principle involving specific harm to an important part of this country, and I, as one member of parliament who has taken the opportunity-as have several of my colleagues on this side of the House-to visit northern Canada and listen to the concerns of people who live there, feel it is not a capacity we would like to see built into a commission without a great deal of care and deliberation.
I am not sure why the minister wants to attack the principle of accountability. I am not sure why he wants to destroy the present requirement in the law that the commission must be accountable to himself and to his colleagues in a formal, legal way. I do not know why he wants to establish, in this commission, a capacity to do things which might have an effect upon longer range public policy and which might have an important effect on the future of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, in effect, without accountability. It is a very dangerous principle, and I hope that when the minister comments on the

very sensible amendment of my hon. colleague from Yukon he will tell us why he wants to do away with accountability to the governor in council and, consequently, to this parliament, and why he wants to establish this agency with an extraordinary capacity to affect the future of the north.
I assume that the minister will try to answer these questions and justify his insistence upon doing away with the accountability of the Northern Canada Power Commission when he speaks in response to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Yukon. I simply want to make the point that the onus is very clearly on the government to prove its case, because it is the government which is changing the existing situation. The existing situation has a requirement of accountability. This party is not trying to initiate a major change; it is the government which is initiating a major change-and we want to stop that particular change because it is dangerous to the principle of accountability to parliament. More particularly, it is very dangerous to the future development of the northern territories and its people.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, this amendment and comparable ones have been discussed in previous incarnations of this bill, as well as on this one, on several occasions. I find it rather interesting that hon. members opposite, who usually make great protestations and express great concern about government bureaucracy, government red tape and redundancy, should urge that the government maintain what is basically a redundant feature in the legislation. We feel strongly that this feature is redundant because the governor in council approves all projects. The funds for the projects are included in the main or supplementary estimates, and therefore they are approved by this House. In addition, all individual contracts are submitted to and must be approved by Treasury Board in accordance with the Financial Administration Act.
Therefore, we feel that this is a redundant piece of legislation which unnecessarily complicates the situation, and that the question of accountability which was raised so vigorously by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), is covered. It is covered by the fact that the funds which go to the Northern Canada Power Commission must go through the normal procedures of this House, and then the individual projects are subjected to the scrutiny, and must receive the approval, of Treasury Board, as I indicated, under the terms of the Financial Administration Act. So, basically, we feel that this matter is properly covered as it now exists, and that this deletion is simply in respect of a provision which is no longer necessary.


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to make a few comments regarding the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and reiterate a point I made some weeks ago. I was somewhat surprised to hear the comments of the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark). He also knows that the people in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories are asking for more autonomy and that they would like to be able to make more decisions about matters which concern them. To put a restriction like this on a
April 10,1975

corporation which works in the north is working against autonomy, in my estimation, and is restricting a corporation which is willing to move up there. So far there have been some very small moves, but not half as many as the people in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories would like to see. We would like very much to have the corporation controlled by the people of the two territories through their elected councils, and to hear their comments regarding restriction of the corporation. We should not put the people of the north again in a position where they have to come down to Ottawa, cap in hand, begging for money for projects to keep the power commission operating. I would therefore like to indicate, for the record, that I am strictly against this amendment as it is too restrictive on the corporation.
The minister mentioned that there are certain restrictions inasmuch as the estimates have to pass through the normal procedures of the standing committee, and so forth. This amendment would add a further restriction. Therefore, I would like to register my protest to this amendment on behalf of the people of the Northwest Territories.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Erik Nielsen: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-13, an act to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, be amended in clause 4 by striking out the word "Governor" where the same appears in line 23 at page 2 and lines 4 and 5 at page 3 and substituting therefor in each case the word "Commissioner".
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is either because the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) has chosen not to understand, or he really has an honest lack of understanding for what we are trying to do, that he takes the position he does. The hon. member, in interpreting the view of my colleague from Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) and other members of this party who have spoken on these amendments, has distorted-I will not say deliberately but through either an innocent or honest lack of understanding-what we are trying to do here. But I challenge him and his loud-mouthed colleague beside him to try to distort this amendment, calling clearly, as it does, for the
Northern Canada Power Commission Act decisions to be made by the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. The bill of the government calls for the setting of rates with the approval of the governor in council. For the edification of my friend from the Northwest Territories, that means the cabinet of this House of Commons; it does not mean the council of the Northwest Territories and it does not mean the people represented through their elected members on that council.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Which amendment is he referring to, the one we just deferred or the one we are dealing with now?


Erik Nielsen: Again that illustrates the innocence, the lack of understanding of my friend from the Northwest Territories. We are debating motion No. 3. The government seeks to amend section 10 of the act through clause 4 of this bill. This amendment seeks to wipe out the approval of the governor in council and substitute therefor the approval of the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories through their elected representatives on the respective territorial councils. If the hon. member has any further questions, I will be glad to hear them.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yukon seems to be getting a little excited about a matter that is also of importance to me. He does not seem to realize that I am supporting the amendment.


Erik Nielsen: I am very glad to hear that, Mr. Speaker. We have finally got through to the hon. member for Northwest Territories. If he supports the amendment we are discussing now, then he certainly should have supported the last amendment which calls for exactly the same thing. I want to explain, in the hope of getting through to the minister, the reason why we in the opposition are advancing this amendment.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Wally is away ahead there.


Erik Nielsen: Wally will have to get up pretty early in the morning to be ahead of anybody in this party.
Mr. Speaker, what has the governor in council got to do with setting rates for the consumption of electrical energy in the Yukon and Northwest Territories? Why should the governor in council be bothered with setting the rate for the consumption of electrical energy in my home? What sort of national priority does this have? I did not hear the comments of the minister with respect to the previous amendment, but the amendment before us in this bill seeks to have the rates established by the commission, subject to the approval of the governor in council. Surely, in this day and age of a national government being confronted with things much more important than setting my electric light rates, there should be some understanding of the priorities and the legitimate desire of the people of the Yukon and Northwest Territories to have this housekeeping task performed at home.
Where else in this country does the federal government decide on the light bills of consumers? Where else does the federal government, in the form of the governor in council, debate whether the commercial rate for hydro should be
4688

April 10, 1975
Northern Canada Power Commission Act .0145 or .0175? In the provinces this task is, quite properly, conducted by electric utilities boards or public utilities commissions, and it should be done in that fashion in the north.
The amendment before the House would put the responsibility for approval of rates in the hands of the commissioner in council in each of the territorial councils of the northern territories. Because the Chair, on March 26, raised some doubt as to motion No. 4 standing in my name on the order paper, it very much comes into the debate at this stage because if we pass over this amendment-I hope the hon. member for Northwest Territories is listening- and lose it, and if the Chair rules motion No. 4 out of order, there is no backtracking in an effort to make the setting of rates under this clause of the bill subject to the regulation of the local public utilities boards in the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
For that reason, there will be an amendment to this amendment standing in my name, which will be moved by one of my colleagues. In effect, it would make the setting of rates under this clause of the bill subject to the approval of the Yukon and Northwest Territories public utilities boards. If that amendment to this motion fails, then we are left with the choice of substituting the commissioner in council for the governor in council. Of course, if my amendment fails, we are back where we on this side do not want to be, that is, having the rates set subject to the approval of the governor in council. This choice should at least be put to the House and made available to the people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. For those who are unfamiliar with the motion that will be debated in a moment or two-that is, motion No. 4 standing in my name-it calls for the whole of the activities of the commission to be subject to the regulatory control of the Northwest Territories or the Yukon public utilities board, as the case may be.
I want to put things in perspective for a moment, Mr. Speaker. When the legislation was passed in 1948 there was no question that the NCPC was going to be a power monopoly in the north. There was no question that they were going to be the sole generators and distributors of electrical energy in the two northern territories. The principle put forward at that time upon which basis the bill received passage was that the commission was to assist the development of industry in the north by making available a source of electrical energy. According to the minister of the day, a Mr. MacKinnon, the object was to supply electrical power at as low a cost as possible, subject to the plants being self-sustaining.
That was the assurance given by a minister of the Crown when this commission was created. We seem to have departed from that principle and the present minister in particular seems to have departed from it. I will come to that in a moment. In the debate on this matter on June 14, 1948, as reported at page 5171 of Hansard Mr. MacKinnon said:
With the approval of the governor in council-
This bears directly on what we are discussing.
-the commission shall establish schedules or ranges of rates for the power it supplies on the basis of not less than cost, which will include interest on the principal amount made or deemed to have been made to the commission in respect of the plant supplying the power, and all

costs of operation and maintenance of the plant lines and other structures, together with costs of administration and salaries. Charges will also cover the establishment and maintenance of a contingency reserve fund. Rates are to be reviewed annually by the commission.
These matters are reviewed in the provinces by bodies directly responsible to the elected representatives of the people of those provinces. This is not the case with respect to the territories and clause 4 of the bill, which we seek to amend, at present does not provide for such review. We seek to amend clause 4 and to provide for one of two alternatives. We want the setting of rates, as was suggested in the debate of 1948, to be subject to the regulations of our own public utilities boards or, failing that, we want to make the setting of these rates by the commission subject to the decision of the commissioner in council of each of the territories, and in that way give some input power, some responsibility to the elected representatives of the people of the two northern territories, or to agencies responsible to them, rather than to the minister or the governor in council.
A prime example of this government's colonial approach, if I may use that phrase, was made manifest by the answer which the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) gave me when I asked who was representing the people of the northern territories with respect to the pricing of oil at the first ministers' conference now being held here. I was not surprised to hear him say that the people of the two northern territories were not represented by any elected representative. I am used to hearing that kind of answer from the treasury benches. All the same, I was astonished to hear the minister admit that he does not even know the names of his own bureaucrats who are listening at the conference and ostensibly protecting the interests of the people of the north.
I suppose the government's view is that we of the north do not know enough to run our own affairs and that the people in Ottawa, 4,000 miles away, know better how to set our electric power rates. If the government thinks that we do not know what electrical power rates should be charged for two, three or four-bedroom houses, and if the government in its schedule of national priorities puts such matters ahead of inflation and unemployment, I suggest that its priorities are distorted.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to refer again to the 1948 debate, particularly to remarks recorded at page 5173 of Hansard for June 14. An hon. member participating said that the Yukon Consolidated Gold Corporation, a private corporation which was dredging for gold, was supplying power to the citizens of Dawson city at exorbitant rates. Mr. Archibald said:
The company there had its own electric plants to operate the dredgos, but it is taking the citizens of Dawson city to the cleaners through the high rates it is charging.
Some 26 years later, the people of the area are still complaining that the Northern Canada Power Commission is taking them to the cleaners. The commission held a public meeting, the first of its kind, in the Yukon. I do not know whether the same has been done in the Northwest Territories. The meeting took place in the last part of February, and about all it received were complaints about
April 10, 1975

the high rates being charged for electrical energy. Officials of the commission responded by saying that increased costs in the last year, particularly of diesel fuel which run the diesel generators, were responsible for the increased charges.
The citizens of Dawson city, of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, are isolated. They depend on diesel fuel, the cost of which has been going up. The price of oil, a matter of vital interest to the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, is being dealt with at the conference across the way; yet the people of the territories are not given any input through elected representatives with respect to the setting of oil prices, including diesel oil prices. There is not a damned thing we can do. I think it is sad when citizens of Canada who live in our two northern territories are denied privileges which are accorded other Canadians through the electoral process. This is a sad state of affairs.
Members taking part in the 1948 debate were concerned in case the body being created by the government became a monopoly. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who was active in that debate, said as recorded at page 5174 of Hansard:
I did not quite understand the minister. Did he say that when this commission takes over it will enjoy a monopoly privilege in the production and distribution of power within the territories? Is that the general plan in view?
The minister, Mr. MacKinnon, replied, "It is not a monopoly of power." As reported at page 5175 of Hansard, the right hon. member for Prince Albert said:
Thank you, sir. I come back to this matter because the minister takes so many words to answer a simple question. Is it the intention of the Northwest Territories power commission to be the exclusive producer and distributor of power within the Northwest Territories, subject to the existence of one company which at the present time generates power there?
The right hon. member was referring to the Yellowknife Consolidated Gold Corporation. Mr. MacKinnon, the minister, again replied at considerable length but did not quite answer the question and the right hon. member for Prince Albert had to ask the question again, to which the minister replied as follows, as recorded at page 5175:
I think it is essential at times to add something to the answer rather than to say merely yes or no. But in this particular case, answering briefly, I would say that it is not the intention of the government or the commission to do what is suggested by the hon. member.
The right hon. member had asked whether there was to be a monopoly in the production and distribution of power. Hansard then records the following exchange:
Me. Diefenbaker: To have a monopoly?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Yes.
The minister agreed that it was not intended to provide a monopoly power. Clearly, when Northern Canada Power Corporation was created it was not intended to give it a monopoly in the production and distribution of power. Last January 20 a meeting was held, presumably in the minister's office or close to it. Several people took part in this meeting, representing the industry and the department, including the minister. It is my information that he was there with his deputy and his special assistant-I believe Mr. Robinson is the name. The meeting got under way at 9.30 in the morning and the minister, according to
Northern Canada Power Commission Act my information, made the statement that the Northern Canada Power Commission had been granted the exclusive right to produce and distribute power within the territories, local distribution to be decided by the local government.
Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the statement by the minister, if he made it, and I have no reason to believe he did not. He said the Northern Canada Power Commission had been granted the exclusive right to produce and transmit power within the territories. Nothing of the kind! Nowhere in the present act is there any statement that the commission has an exclusive right to produce or distribute power within the two territories, and nowhere in this bill do we find such a provision. So it ill behooves the minister to attempt to leave the belief among his listeners that somehow legislation is in existence, or is about to come into existence, which gives the commission the exclusive right to produce and distribute power within the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
The amendment to the act of 1948 which was brought forward in 1956 again raised this question, and the minister of northern affairs of that day who was sponsoring the bill was asked whether some kind of monopoly would be created with respect to the production and distribution of electrical power in the Yukon. The minister, Mr. Lesage, gave the same kind of assurance. Reports of the debates will be found in Hansard of February 27, 1956, April 25, 1956, and July 30, 1956. To sum up briefly, the minister of that day, Mr. Lesage, gave the same kind of assurance as was given by Mr. MacKinnon.
I suggest to the House and to the minister that the only reason those bills were passed in those days was this assurance, and that it is an act of deception to come before the House now and take a position different from that which obtained at the time of the passage of the act of 1948 and the amendment of 1956. It is an act of deception, perhaps unintentional, on the part of the minister to suggest there is some kind of legal exclusiveness in the right of the NCPC to produce and distribute power in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. It is simply not true in law. If the minister wants to create a policy outside the powers contained in the act, that is another matter. It is not unusual to find ministers in this government exceeding the powers given to them by legislation. If any hon. members are skeptical in this regard, I have no doubt I shall be able to convince them. The hon. member for Northwest Territories will be particularly interested since I believe there are one or two profitable power generation plants in his constituency.
The existing legislation permits any revenues generated by any one plant in the system to be used for the purpose of improving that plant or for distribution by way of rate reductions to consumers of the power generated by that plant. That is what the act says and that is what the existing legislation permits the commission to do. But when we ask in committee or, on occasion, in the House whether the commission has been complying or not, they say, "Of course we have been complying. We are not breaking the law." I then point out that they have been tabling a financial statement on a plant by plant basis since 1948, yet all of a sudden this practice stopped-three
29557-22V2

April 10, 1975
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
years ago, to be precise. I ask why, and they say, "There is no particular reason, except that continuance of the old practice might give our competitors the edge over us."
Mr. Speaker, the rates of competitors are fully exposed through the public utilities boards of each of the territories. What the commission has in fact been doing contravenes what the law requires, namely that profits should be used to improve plant or reduce rates to the consumers. The commission has been taking revenue derived from plants which are making money and lending it to plants which are losing money. They say, of course, that the money is being lent at appropriate rates of interest, that it realizes a proper return. But the practice is still not justified in light of the prohibition contained in the act. What the commission is doing is a breach of the law, and it should not be permitted.
While, as a citizen of the Yukon, I do not mind revenues from the plant at Whitehorse being used to lend money to the losing plant at Dawson city or at Mayo, I do object to revenues earned at Whitehorse being lent to a losing plant in Field, British Columbia, or in Moose Factory, Ontario. This is why I say there should be control not only over the rates set by the commission but also over the manner in which the moneys are spent. The cabinet has certainly acquiesced in this illegal practice on the part of the commission-and while the minister was appointed to office only recently, I must include him in the cabinet for the purpose of condemning him and the cabinet.
Instead of lending these moneys to Moose Factory, Ontario, Field, B.C., and other losing plants in the system, the commission should have been giving us, as consumers in the north, the benefit of either plant improvement or rate reductions, and these have been denied us. That is what the act of 1948 and the amendment of 1956 contemplated. In direct contravention of the law, the commission has denied us this benefit and instead has applied those revenues in an unlawful fashion to make loans to plants which were losing money.
Again I remind hon. members that my hon. friend who will be following me in the debate will be moving an amendment to my amendment, so the House will be left with a choice of placing the rates in the hands of the public utilities boards or, failing that, in the hands of the commissioner in council. I hope one of these two amendments will be adopted. Failing that, I suppose we must go along with the idea that according to the cabinet's system of priorities, the setting of rates for consumers in the territories is far more important than dealing with inflation, unemployment and all the serious and urgent problems which confront this country.
I would think that the minister would want to get out of the rate setting business. If he is going to pay more than lip service to the idea of giving the people of the north more say in their affairs, I would think he would be eager to say to the members of this House, "Yes, indeed, any rate set by the commission should go to your public utilities board; I will accept your amendment". Or if he did not like that, at least he ought to say, "Yes, indeed, let the commissioner in council be the body that approves the rates, and not the governor in council; we do not want to be bothered

setting rates for the households in Whitehorse, Frobisher Bay and Innuvik".
I hope the minister will do this and get rid of this headache of his. Having said that, and in the hope that the minister might consider these matters favourably, I have nothing further to add.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, in following my colleague from Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to speak in support of motion No. 3 to amend the bill now before the House, I cannot help but express some sympathy for the minister so early in his career having to defend a measure that has been portrayed during this debate and in committee as such an unpopular and colonial step so far as the people of the Yukon and Northwest Territories are concerned. I know the minister personally, of course, and I sympathize with him. It is not his nature to do the kind of things that are contained in this bill. Unless I am a very poor judge of character, I do not assess the minister's integrity in the way it is portrayed in this bill. He shakes his head; he agrees with me.
I wonder why, after all these years with the Northern Canada Power Commission, we are now giving the commission a total monopoly. It was argued in committee by some of the officials that the provinces have established Crown corporations for the purpose of assuring their citizens an adequate supply and efficient distribution of power. The fact is that the Yukon and Northwest Territories are not provinces. There is no political tribunal for the people of the territories; they must come to Ottawa if they have questions to ask about the conduct of this very important utility.
It was very apparent in committee that the officials of the northern power commission took every effort and went to great pains-I know this is a very strong statement to make-to undermine the integrity and discredit the conduct of the private companies that are now operating in the Yukon. Here is what happened, Madam Speaker: officials examined the transfer of funds by these private companies from the Yukon to other parts of Canada and, indeed, to places outside Canada and evidence was put before the committee of the exact amount that these companies transferred from the Yukon-money that was identified as profits that the companies made-to other areas where these private companies operated.
Let me examine for a moment the word "profit". To a private company, the participation of its shareholders is a cost of doing business, as is the distribution of dividends. It should also be interesting to examine the transfer of funds from the northern power commission to Edmonton, where its head office is now, and also to Ottawa. This examination was not carried out by these same officials; however, it was said in committee that the profits being made in the Yukon and Northwest Territories are being transferred to other parts of the world.
The reason we have to establish a monopoly for the northern power commission in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, in my opinion, is that the commission has become embarrassed by these private companies. These private companies have traditionally shown a better record in regard to the production of cheap power, the efficient production, distribution and transmission of
April 10, 1975

power, and have traditionally displayed better corporate citizenship. The committee heard evidence that some of these private companies have helped with community affairs which the government and the power commission have not been able to do. It was established that the northwest power commission has sold power to one of the private companies in excess of the price at which it is selling power to its own customers, yet this private company has been able to satisfy its own customers.
The cost of doing business in the Yukon is very high, as it is in the Northwest Territories. We agree that the establishment of rate zones, as is the case with other Crown corporations operating in the provinces, is likely to be a good thing; but why did it have to be done in this manner? Why were we not given the financial statements for the last three years which show the profit made by some of the plants operating in these territories and might embarrass us in regard to how these funds should be applied? Why cannot we be honest with each other and say that there are areas in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon which have extreme difficulty in maintaining some kind of rate that would enable a private citizen to use electricity in his home and to have some of the essential services? If we had seen these financial statements we would have been able to compare them with the operations of the private companies, to the embarrassment of the government.
The motion before the House asks that the rate be set by someone other than the cabinet here in Ottawa. Surely there must be some local autonomy in a vital question like this. Let us recall the fact that in some provinces, owing to the lack of rural electrification, it became necessary for the government to assume the responsibility of taking over private enterprise in order to assure the proper distribution of power. Since everything is shaped in that way, surely we must also take the final step, once equal distribution is achieved, of insisting that the setting of the rates remains with an authority in the area where the power is to be generated, transmitted and distributed.
Surely the minister will want to rise before this debate is completed and lend his support to that idea. I have had occasion to travel to the Yukon with the minister and I have enjoyed a number of private discussions with him when he has expressed his desire and willingness to pass on as much autonomy as possible to the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Surely, in an area as vital as this, the minister will want to assure adequate representation on the part of those elected to protect the interests of these territories, particularly in relation to the matter under discussion.
We must remember that in the Yukon and Northwest Territories 40 per cent of all the jobs are held by civil servants. It is much easier to understand the speeches and remarks of hon. members from these territories, who are constantly expressing their suspicion about the activities and dealings between Ottawa and the territorial councils, when we realize how many civil servants there are in the territories administering the business of the people there who are spread over such a vast area.
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
We are not talking about an area that is poor, or one that needs subsidization. We are talking about territories that are carrying on activities such as gold mining, the harvesting of asbestos and tungsten, as well as fur trapping, commercial fishing in the Yukon, and territories with a significant number of oil discoveries. Our eager eyes are looking at these territories as the storehouse of our future; they have sawmills and many other important industries which contribute to the well-being of this country as a whole. All kinds of funds are being transferred from the Yukon and Northwest Territories to Ottawa.
What the people in the territories are really asking for is a place at the table where vital decisions are made. The hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) has already said he will support this motion, and my colleague who will speak after me intends to propose an amendment to motion No. 3 in the name of the hon. member for Yukon.
I hope the minister will insist on a time slot during this debate in order to express his own desire to adhere to the wishes of the people of the territories and to respond to this very significant amendment in a positive way.


Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, my remarks will be relatively brief, as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) have spoken at length on motion No. 3 and the proposed amendment. During the Easter break I had the opportunity of reading some of the history of Saskatchewan and Alberta and their aspirations and hopes prior to becoming provinces of Canada. A somewhat similar situation exists today in respect of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in that there is hope that before long these areas will become provinces of Canada.
It was interesting to note that a number of the briefs presented by organizations that appeared before the committee expressed this hope. Also, the minister appeared before the committee and indicated he was looking forward to the day when each of the territories became a province. The officials of the NCPC said they were looking forward to the day when the commission was divided in two, one part being in the Northwest Territories to handle power production and distribution there and the other in the Yukon to do the same thing in that area. This is what will happen when each of the territories becomes a province. We have to be fair to the people in the territories. I do not think these areas will become provinces within the next year or two, but we must plan gradually for the day when they do. It seems to me this can be done by giving the territorial councils and the elected representatives of the territories more power.
The motion as it stands, and I intend to propose an amendment to it, has this idea as its purpose. Motion No. 3 provides for the substitution of "commissioner in council" for "governor in council". This would mean that representatives of the people of the Yukon and Northwest Territories would have more input and more control over the setting of rates. It seems to me this would be one step toward self-government by the people in these territories. I propose to read my amendment to motion No. 3 first, and then discuss it, Madam Speaker. I move:
That motion No. 3 to amend Bill C-13, an act to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, be amended by deleting all of the

April 10, 1975
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
words after the word "case" in line 6 of the said motion No. 3, and substituting therefor the following:
"the Public Utilities Board of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories as the case may be".
What we are proposing by this amendment is the substitution of the public utilities board in each of the territories for the commissioner in council. This will mean that the boards responsible in each of the territories will have the opportunity of considering and deciding on the rates that will be charged by the commission. It is important that we give the territories more and more responsibility as the days and years go by, because the people there are now or will ultimately be entitled to self-government. I think all of us on this side of the House-in fact, on all sides-are looking forward to that day. I urge the minister to seriously consider supporting this amendment to motion No. 3.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The Chair would like to study further the amendment of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), and perhaps with the agreement of the House the debate could continue and a decision might be rendered later.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I do not intend to speak at great length on this matter. I gather that it would be inappropriate for me at this stage to speak to the amendment under consideration. I think the principle is the same in either case; it is the principle of having decisions which affect the localities of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon decided in those localities rather than by the cabinet or the governor in council. I would hope and expect, from what the minister said in speaking on the previous amendment, that this is a change which would recommend itself to the minister and the government precisely because it helps avoid the kind of red tape about which he was speaking with respect to the earlier amendment.
What we have in the bill the minister has introduced- which has come through the change that we are now considering-is really a quite remarkable proposal to anyone acquainted with the situation in the colonial parts of Canada, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. It is a situation where utility rates in those areas must come to the federal cabinet for decision. As a representative in this House of the national parks, I am acquainted with that kind of situation because in the townsites of Banff and Jasper questions concerning the licensing of dogs must be decided by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As a result of the minister following the initiative of the committee of which he was a distinguished chairman, that situation is likely soon to change: at least, I understand that changes are in the works.
Unfortunately, there has not been as much movement toward bringing a kind of real democracy to the northern territories as there has been in respect of bringing a greater degree of democracy to local governments in town-sites within the national parks. I think it is a quite remarkable fact that in this bill the government again appears to be attempting to confirm the unhappy colonial status of residents of the two great territories of the north, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, by making

them, in effect, come to the cabinet of Canada for approval for setting rates relating to the Northern Canada Power Commission.
Both proposals, the original motion of my colleague the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the amendment introduced by my colleague the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), would allow that matter-which surely is a local matter, because if anything is a local matter, utility rates are-to be decided in the territories either by the commissioner and the council or more directly, as proposed by my friend from Moose Jaw, by the public utility boards of the respective territories.
It is very tempting to consider the kind of arrangement the cabinet would have to establish to deal with its heavy responsibility of adjudicating rates in respect of turning on or off the lights in the Northwest Territories or the Yukon. We do not know much about what goes on in cabinet, but one thing we do know is that it has a very active committee system; various ministers are assigned special responsibilities concerning committees of cabinet. If this bill should pass without the amendment, I presume this would mean that a special subcommittee would be established to deal with turning off and on the lights in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: Let there be light.


Charles Joseph Clark: This is an indication of the absurdity of a responsibility, which is essentially a local responsibility related to essentially a local matter, being held by the cabinet of Canada. What alarms us here is not simply the absurdity of it, because I confess we have become rather accustomed to absurdity from that side of the House, but rather that this is one more instance of clinging colonialism which unfortunately has been the hallmark of the attitude of this government toward the people, including the elected representatives of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
Unless there is some compelling reason which is not evident to us as to why this must be a matter for the attention of the Prime Minister of Canada-that is, the turning on and off of the lights in the territories-and unless we can be shown that there is some compelling requirement for this matter to occupy the attention of these people, it would seem to be absurd that this power should not be vested where it belongs, that is, with the people and institutions of the parts of Canada which exclusively it affects.
My colleague suggested that perhaps there is some kind of association with the biblical phrase "Let there be light," and that a responsibility which has to do with such authority could not be delegated to mere colonials in the territories. I think that if there is a justification for this absurd action, it is a justification of similar absurdity. What we propose here, if these amendments are approved and come before the House for final consideration, is a change which would be simple to accomplish and which in fact would have limited significance to the role of the House of Commons, but would clear away from the cabinet-which we hope is occupied with other things-the heavy responsibility for turning on and off the lights in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. It would also clear away the impression symbolized by this act that
April 10, 1975

there has been an attitude of colonialism perhaps evidenced by the cabinet toward the people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
Our amendments are very simple and the principle is clear. When the matter is local, and surely the turning on and off of lights is local, the responsibility should be local. Yet the bill says otherwise. We have in the amendment of my colleague from Yukon, and the further amendment of my colleague from Moose Jaw, introduced a simple mechanism to return to the local officials responsibility for what is in practice and in fact purely a local matter. Prior to his ascension to those greater heights, the minister in his earlier incarnation demonstrated a certain reasonableness from time to time. I hope that virtue has not entirely departed from him and that he will be reasonable in dealing with this simple amendment to make a slight dint in the unhappy legacy of the colonialism of his predecessors toward the north.
I hope the minister will accept the simple mechanism we are providing and allow the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories at least the responsibility to decide when, how and at what cost their lights will be turned on.


J. Judd Buchanan: Madam Speaker, this matter of the territorial public utilities board was discussed by us at some length, not only in the debate on the bill before us in its present incarnation but in the debates on previous measures. In the discussion in the standing committee I made the following remarks:
It has been suggested repeatedly that the Northern Canada Power Commission be answerable to the respective territorial public utilities boards. There are two questions, in my opinion, of practicability involved here.
From a jurisdictional viewpoint, we find that it has not been the practice to require federal agencies to report to boards appointed by a junior level of government, such as a province or a territory.
The second problem derives from the very purpose of the public utilities boards. These are normally established to control private enterprise utility operations in order to ensure that the rates charged produce no more than reasonable rates of return on capital invested. Since the commission is prohibited by law from making a profit, this form of control is not required.
This is recognized in all provinces, where none of the provincial hydro corporations is answerable to the provincial utilities boards. In view of the doubts that have been expressed to the committee, the commission has sought, and to date has obtained, written confirmation of this point from the following: the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority; the Saskatchewan Power Corporation; Manitoba Hydro; Ontario Hydro; the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission; and the Nova Scotia Power Commission. Quebec Hydro has indicated verbally that it does not make itself accountable either. We have not yet received written confirmation, therefore they were not included in this list.
Notwithstanding provincial practice, the commission, wishing to take the fullest possible account of the views of the territorial utilities boards, has initiated the practice of seeking counsel and advice on pending rate changes and on the extent of equalization within the proposed rate zones.
Madam Speaker, as I indicated, I find the position of hon. members opposite inconsistent. In the previous amendment they argued for increased involvement and intervention of the governor in council to approve contracts of over $60,000 in value. Now there is an about-face and they are suggesting it is wrong to have the involve-
Northern Canada Power Commission Act ment of the governor in council and that it should not be done at that level. I would just like to say that I share the desire of northerners to run their own affairs. This bill responds to that desire by increasing the size of the Northern Canada Power Commission by two members, from three to five members. These two members are to come from each of the territories.
In addition, as I have indicated before, recently the commissioner of the Northwest Territories was named chairman of the Northern Canada Power Commission, so that now northerners on that board will outnumber the others three to two. So we are optimistic that they will have a significant role to play in the operation of the Northern Canada Power Commission. As I say, we look forward to the day when the commission will have a majority of northerners sitting on the board.
I also indicated in the committee that I look forward to the day when we will be in a position to split the Northern Canada Power Commission and to have one power commission resident in the Yukon and the other power commission resident in the Northwest Territories. I am sure that desire is shared by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).
The amendment of the hon. member for Yukon would seek to substitute the commissioner in council for the governor in council for the approval of rate zones and for the establishment of a contingency reserve fund. In our view, since the Northern Canada Power Commission is responsible to the Parliament of Canada through the minister, it should not also have to seek authority from the commissioner in council. This would require formal council debate on motion and approval for any rate zone and schedule to be changed and also for the contingency fund to be built up. With respect to the latter, territorial councils provide no part of the funds spent by the commission and therefore should have no say in the contingency fund that the commission feels it needs to carry. In any event, with Commissioner Smith as chairman, and two northerners appointed as commissioners, there will be full input by northern representatives in any of these decisions.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I cannot let some of these statements by the minister go unanswered. I hope he does not get into a rut. He is pulling the same stunt that was pulled by his predecessor in speaking about the separate entity of the territorial governments in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories when it suits him, and when it does not suit him he forgets all about this entity of the territorial governments. He has done that by saying, on the one hand, that the government wants to see as much input as possible by the people of the north into the decision-making process in their own affairs, and so on. Yet when it comes to comparing the procedures that are followed with respect to the setting of the rate by public utilities in the provinces, he makes an argument saying that in none of the provinces which he mentioned is the procedure followed where the utility has to submit its rate to a public utilities commission, that the province does its own policing of the rates, not the federal government.
By adopting that argument, what the minister is in effect saying is that there is no such thing as a territorial

April 10, 1975
Adjournment Motion
entity, that the government will make the decisions here. I put it to him that his argument, if it has any strength at all, has strength in the existence of a territorial entity capable of dealing with the setting and reviewing of rates in the same fashion as the provincial government. If he uses the argument in the sense that he is urging upon members of the House his view that there is no such thing as the territorial government because the function of rate setting and reviewing will be done here and not at the territorial level, even if his argument is correct, and I will go along with it, then surely the review and the approval should be at the territorial level and not at the federal level.
The minister says that great strides have been made within the act for the purpose of injecting territorial input into the decision-making process, and he cites in support of that the fact that the council will be increased to five members and there will be one member from each of the territories. But that still leaves a majority of three-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but before going on to other business I would like to inform the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) that there is some doubt as to the acceptability of his amendment. However, a decision will be rendered later.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Social Security-Proposed eligibility for old age pension at 60; the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)-Abortion-Suggested investigation of reason for high rate in British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta; the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth)-Northern Affairs-Reason for removal of heavy equipment from Fort Smith vocational training school.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, private bills, public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday February 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fairweather:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of a letter written by the Minister of Justice to the Secretary of State, dated October 21,1974, about a grant to a women's group in Saskatoon.
Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Speaker, I lend my support to this very worthwhile application by my hon. friend from Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather). I think he is doing this House and the country a great service by being one who persists in presenting to the House and the country the need for a more open system of government in Canada. We must have more candour and more honesty. We have had inflicted on us by ministers, parliamentary secretaries, senior mandarins, junior mandarins and civil servants who have a craving to prepare a great many documents for the purposes of show and tell only, a paper blizzard, documents which say much but inform little. This is the problem we face. There cannot be an informed and intelligent electorate, with a government which is responsive to the needs of the people and which will provide policies to deal with those needs, unless there is a system by which the government is compelled to provide information which is needed.
I have spoken on this subject in this House many times before and I intend to speak about it as often as I can. I see my hon. friend sitting across the floor today who was at the committee where I spoke the other day. I hope that he was persuaded to some extent by what I had to say and that he might be persuaded to agree with me on the views I am about to express.
I do not suggest that the government does not tell us all we want to know because it is a matter of corrupt, evil or bad actions on their part. It is a desire to conceal mistakes; it is a desire to erect a paper curtain behind which the government can operate free from inspection by this House or by the public so that it can make mistakes, be guilty of bad judgment and yet preserve that passion for perfection and the need to appear impeccable, which is the trademark of all mandarins and many of the people in government.
The other day in the committee before which I appeared, I quoted-and I am going to take the time to quote them in this House-some very interesting observations by people and by commissions which amply support the proposition which my hon. friend from Fundy-Royal has brought forward. In 1964, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-not yet having jumped into the Parliamentary waters but obviously thinking of it, because it was just a few months before he was elected-said this:
Democratic progress requires the ready availability of true and complete information. In this way, people can objectively evaluate their government's policies. To act otherwise is to give way to despotic secrecy-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!
April 10, 1975


Gerald William Baldwin: I think my hon. friend is applauding because he agrees with me. I hope he will agree with me when the opportunity comes to put into effect provisions in this House which will make the Prime Minister's words before he came into the House conform with the rules of the House. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), then the minister of justice, in an address made at the annual meeting of the Canadian Bar Association in September, 1969, made a very strong statement. I will not read it all but just a couple of sentences as follows:
Government secrecy is sometimes legitimated as the state's right to privacy, but may well be a denial of the public right to know. If individual privacy is a foundation of democracy, the citizen's right to know is fundamental to any participatory democracy.
The final sentences uttered by the then minister of justice in discussing whether, in the case of trials where the government is a litigant, the executive should have the right to deny the court information which is part of the essential evidence, were as follows:
-I should perhaps add that I personally favour the view that the judiciary rather than the executive should, to the greatest possible extent, be left to determine whether documents should be produced and to balance the various conflicting public interests that may be involved-
At a later date the then minister of justice, at the conference on computers in May of 1970, said the following:
In other words, government secrecy is sometimes legitimated as the need for a government's right to privacy but which may well be a denial of the public right to know-
He was repeating what he had said earlier. He ended with the following statement:
-what is necessary, then, is a freedom of information act entitling the individual to information which the government authority has arbitrarily seen fit to withhold-
I will quote very briefly from the recommendations of the task force on government information. Several prominent members of the public service today were involved in that: Mr. Bernard Ostry, Mr. Tom Ford and Mr. D'lbber-ville Fortier. Their final recommendation in this task force, which was surveying the entire question of information, the need of the public to know and the compulsion on the government to inform, was in the following terms:
The right of Canadians to full, objective and timely information and the obligation of the state to provide such information about its programs and policies be publicly declared and stand as the foundation for the development of new government policies in this field. This right and obligation might be comprehended within a new constitution in the context of freedom of expression.
In another paragraph, which I think is extremely pertinent and bears out what I said before, that the feeling that people in government must appear to the public always to be right, rather than any deep-seated, instinctive compulsion for corruption, the following appears-and this was a task force which travelled through this country and spoke to many people:
Many felt that the government information services aim primarily to please the ministers and to gild departmental escutcheons; that the public on occasion had to force information out of them; that the information was given in scraps and driblets and, often, only when its release suited someone's idea of political expediency. Certain departments were said to deliberately withhold information of public interest if there was a chance it might tarnish the departmental image. It was argued that the failure of departments to reveal the flaws in their
Government Information
programs could conceivably have the unfortunate effect of hiding from the government itself important changes in the very conditions under which such programs were taking place. One group insisted there were cases in which departments had suppressed research because the results might have discredited previously enunciated departmental theories.
I could go on in detail but I will not. I will simply refer to a report made by the Economic Council of Canada in its eighth annual review in September of 1971 which, in its final paragraph, made a comparable recommendation. In June, 1971, the Science Council of Canada which was undertaking a special study dealing with fishery and wildlife resources, surveyed people in this field all across the country and made similar observations.
I deduce from all this that people in government-and I think it is probably more true of people in government service than of elected people in government-have this fear of being caught in an error. They are anxious to avoid the appearance that the propositions and the advice they give to their minister or department may, in the light of future events, turn out to be incorrect. This is the main cause of so much of the secrecy in government, and I do not see why it should be so. We all make mistakes. Even Mr. Speaker makes mistakes occasionally. The problem there, however, is that we are not allowed to challenge him in this House. I think the distinguished occupant of the chair at the moment is prepared to admit that some of the decisions he has made during the course of his career in the chair might, upon reflection, have been changed. I see a smile which I take to mean assent.
I make mistakes. Amiable and distinguished members of the government party opposite make mistakes. Why in the name of heaven should people in government service and the government ministers feel that they are different? The public would have a great deal more respect for the processes of government and those engaged in it if occupants of the seats of the mighty would admit from time to time that they were wrong. There would then be a greater measure of candor, less cynicism and much more respect- and today this government needs the respect of the people it governs, the people for whom it legislates. Instead, people in this House, people in government in particular and people in the public service are reluctant to admit they have ever been wrong.
Some months ago the Minister of Finance brought down a budget in which there were errors and miscalculations. They were probably quite honestly based on information given to him by his public servants. I think he would have greater respect from the people of the country today if he would stand up and say, "I was wrong. I made a mistake and because of errors and misjudgments, many of which were the result of advice tendered by people in my department, and economists. We have got into a mess; I admit that, and now we are going to try to come up with some new ideas." I suggest that if any minister of finance had the courage to do that, he would gain a greater degree of respect and admiration from the people of the country. In this House we need the support and respect of the people, and we do not have it today.
I am not concerned about Gallup polls, Mr. Speaker. When you cross this country from the east coast to the

April 10, 1975
Government Information
west coast and talk to people, it does not take more than half a dozen sentences before it becomes apparent what little respect and how much cynicism and distrust exist. I put it down to the fact that people have reached the stage that they do not believe a word that this government or its supporters has to say-not only this government but provincial governments and municipal governments, and not only in Canada but in the United States as well.
The trouble in Indo-China that the United States faced for many years came about as a result of the lies and deceptions practised by the Johnson administration in the Gulf of Tonkin incident when the armed forces presented a fictitious scenario, a plan which led congress to put certain economic power to declare war into the hands of the president. We see the tragic consequences of that today, and it was disclosed in the Pentagon papers. There is not very much respect for government in the United States today.
We have not reached that stage yet, Mr. Speaker, and I plead, particularly with members on the government side, that we should bear that in mind. The government should make sure that there is a greater flow of honest factual information to the people of Canada.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) made a very fine speech. He knows a great deal about this subject as he is an old parliamentarian. I enter this debate as a layman, not an expert. I know the hon. member once referred to me as having a certain amount of political virginity-


Gerald William Baldwin: No, intellectual virginity.


Samuel Victor Railton: I hope he still thinks so.


Gerald William Baldwin: I think you have lost it since then.


Samuel Victor Railton: To get to the case in point, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) has moved for the production of papers on a certain matter involving the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). From what I can make out, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal wishes to have made public some advice which was asked of the Minister of Justice by the Secretary of State.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: No; the other way around.


Samuel Victor Railton: I am sorry; it was the other way around. The reply was considered by the minister as a legal letter of advice which, of course, is exactly the same as a solicitor's written advice to a client. I think it is well understood that information of this kind is protected in civilian life and, similarly, it is protected in a governmental exchange. Advice of the type given, let us all admit, is confidential; it is restricted and can only be released with the consent of the party asking or receiving, or both. In addition, there is frequently a third party.
I am not too sure why the papers were asked for, but I think it was about some group in Saskatchewan that was requesting a grant. I am not certain of the purpose of the grant. Of course, the third party in this case might very well have wished to have the correspondence made public. In a different case, however, the third party might take

the opposite view and expressly instruct that the information be kept confidential.
The case referred to concerns a confidential legal opinion and is somewhat parallel to the advice that a doctor gives to a patient, which is strictly confidential. When a doctor obtains his licence he accepts the premise that his advice regarding a patient is privileged, confidential and secret. His case records should not be released without the consent of the patient or his legal adviser. The doctor can give a confidential opinion, if the patient agrees. He could, I suppose, give a non-technical, off-the-cuff report or opinion on the patient; but if it is inaccurate, untrue or given without consent, he could be sued.
This, then, is the situation we are discussing today. We are talking about the confidentiality and implicit restrictiveness of a paper which expresses a legal opinion which could involve two ministers of the Crown. Why should we have to argue the point? Surely it is clear. In private life, restricted information or legal opinions could, if made public, be used against the individual in question either through malice, sharp business or just gossip. So in government practice the making public of secret information could harm either one of the two ministers or even the group or agency which may have been the subject of the discussion in the first place. I submit that the government has taken the correct course in refusing to make public confidential information. Surely no one would deny this fact.
I have heard this subject and similar subjects discussed many times in private members' hour. This is but one of several similar occasions I have witnessed since my election to this House. If I remember correctly, the government House leader of the twenty-ninth parliament tabled as appendix B to Hansard of March 15, 1973, under the heading "Notices of motions for the production of papers", general principles outlining the government's position on this subject. The guidelines were covered by 16 points which all seemed reasonable. They related to internal departmental memoranda, interdepartmental confidential memos, secret information, communication with foreign powers, certain national defence information, research into future policies, preparation of government bills, and so on. Apart from dealing with national secrets which might be conveyed to an alien power, they placed emphasis on confidentiality. Surely it is obvious that when the government or a government official asks for an opinion from a private person, group or agency, that opinion or good advice might not be forthcoming unless there were an understanding that the opinion or advice was to be strictly confidential and protected.
The other day I read my own comments as recorded in Hansard to do with a certain notice of motion for the production of papers. I also read what I had said in the Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments. I refer hon. members to page 1384 of Hansard for April 11, 1974. The debate in question arose from the request for the production of papers to do with cabinet discussions on the Veterans Land Act. The motion was moved by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The debate
April 10,1975

itself centred on the Veterans Land Act; the notice of motion for the production of papers was merely a ploy to obtain a debate.
I am sure that both the mover and seconder of the motion knew that their request for the production of papers was not acceptable. They were asking for details of internal cabinet discussions and no doubt expected to be unsuccessful. We heard a certain amount of humbug. There was talk about democracy and some suggestion that it is the people's right to have these papers made public. Surely it is an important tenet of democracy that we shall protect officers of the Crown and their confidential advisers. I contended in that debate that the notes and memos of a minister running a department should be confidential as he may be discussing a program that might be retired, changed or initiated.
On January 23, 1975, I once more participated in a debate on the production of papers. I refer particularly to page 2551 of Hansard for that day. On that occasion the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) asked for a long list showing the salaries of civil servants and also for the confidential report of the advisory committee. Such information fell under the category of "Consultant Studies" as set out in appendix B on page 2288 of Hansard for March 15, 1973. Naturally, when the consulting or advisory group was asked to make its report, it was determined that it was confidential. Also, naturally, it was implied that the resulting government decision would be made public.
Not only has this subject been discussed in the House; it has also been discussed on three occasions in the Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments. The main witness appearing before the committee on February 25, 1975, was Professor Rowat who was, as one would expect, in favour of loosening the guidelines, to give, in his captivating phraseology, more information to the citizens of Canada. He contended that far more information could be made public than the government is at present making public. He suggested that almost all conversations, letters, reports of meetings and government research in many fields should and could be opened widely to public gaze.
The principal witness appearing before the committee on March 4, 1975, was Dr. Dunton, formerly president of Carleton University. He contended, in the main, that a great deal of the knowledge gained by lower government circles when they explore new concepts and policies involving, for instance, pipelines, transportation, fiscal policies or possible projected changes should immediately be made available to lower echelons in parliament, to both government and opposition members. I point out that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) appeared as a witness before the committee when it met on March 11 this year.
My reaction to all this is that premature release of information may be as bad as late release. Surely it is necessary and reasonable for the government, for the Prime Minister and the cabinet to hold discussions for some time before announcing an impending or possible new policy thrust. They must be given an opportunity to be in possession of most of the facts before other people possess them, because they are responsible for showing
Government Information
leadership in ensuing debates. I am of the opinion that this government, as its record will show, has been generous in producing background information.


Charles Joseph Clark: Even you can't keep a straight face.


Samuel Victor Railton: If one reviews the record of the past few years to do with taxation, agriculture, inflation, rising food prices, natural resources, law of the sea, the international monetary fund, world oil prices, Syncrude, pipelines and immigration, one will see that this government has made available a great deal of information for the benefit of members of parliament and the public. The standing committee discussed procedures in other countries. Sweden, in particular, was represented as the ideal socialist state and was said to have advanced liberal laws allowing more public acquisition of confidential material. On close scrutiny it turns out that this is not quite correct. Members who have been there report that this ideal state of affairs is mythical. True, the laws are there, but in practice those members think more information can be dug out in Canada than in Sweden.
In conclusion, I say that we come out well in any comparison. The present government's policies and guidelines in divulging restrictive information are, in reality, better than those of most other countries. Of course, I expect opposition members to attempt to discover hidden facts, and as often as possible. That is their job. I also hope-I think members expect this-that the government will continually review its guidelines, accept criticism and attempt to liberalize, wherever possible, its treatment of restricted information.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by referring briefly to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) and to say that I noted, though I was not particularly impressed by, the idea that the public is the patient in its relationship with the Government of Canada. I think the analogy the hon. member used was inapt in that particular, and I do not think it an apt analogy for another reason, that is to say, the reason for which this debate was generated being exactly opposite the case of someone, say, the Secretary of State, going to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) and seeking a legal opinion.
What happened in this case was that the Minister of Justice sought to impose upon his colleague a legal opinion which was not requested. That surely changes any client relationship, even if the client relationship were a valid analogy for keeping from the people and the Parliament of Canada important exchanges of which this is only one symbol. The point was made by my distinguished hon. friend from Fundy-Royal earlier when opening this discussion, that what is at issue here is not the content of this particular letter but, instead, the practice which has unfortunately become deeply ingrained in the government of keeping information from parliament and from the people of Canada.
I am following in this debate, and I am honoured to do so, two hon. members, for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), and for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who have won the

April 10, 1975
Government Information
respect of parliament and of observers of parliament for their knowledge of the rules and procedures here. I participate as a junior member of parliament who has been surprised in my short time in this House at how often I am told that public business has to be kept from me, that I cannot be told about this or that, that I cannot be trusted with certain information. I am told this often, as we all are as newcomers to this House. As members of the House of Commons of Canada we are in the category of restricted people who cannot be trusted with information. Surely that is a situation which should not be allowed to continue.
The problem with respect to the insistence on secrecy does not apply simply to the failure of the government to produce papers. I spoke recently to an assistant deputy minister, someone who, incidentally, is earning more than any of us here, and he told me that he didn't wish to be quoted but that if he followed the habit around here he would have to stamp "secret" on the toilet paper because that particular classification was so much in use.


Mr. Beatty:: Probably because it was bought from a Liberal without tender.


Charles Joseph Clark: There are a number of other instances of secrecy here. I want to deal quickly with some of them. The point was made earlier about consultants' reports. We now contract out a great deal of the responsibility for decision-making to consultants. Nearly a billion dollars is being spent on consultants' fees. Yet very many of the reports which are received, reports which should be public information, are hidden from us. They are hidden from members in this House. We are not to be trusted. We are not to be trusted with these reports which are provided by consultants, at an annual fee of a billion dollars, to advise the government. That is one instance.
I want to go back to something my hon. friend from Peace River mentioned when he talked about the report which inspired the development of Information Canada. There was heavy emphasis in that report on a sort of ombudsman role, a role which would not simply involve a big machine spewing out propaganda year after year from Ottawa to the country, but which would somehow go out and try to gather opinions from the country and feed them back to Ottawa.
The report envisaged that someone would go out and try to find grievances and make sure they were corrected. But that part of the report was ignored. The part which was acted upon was the part dealing with propaganda. So we have a very serious situation now in which Information Canada only sends out the approved version of information which, in many cases, and I say this with regret, cannot be trusted to reflect the facts.
As well, Information Canada has led to an immense duplication of information facilities. For every member of the press gallery there are ten or 15 information officers dumping stuff on their desks, sending out the approved versions, elbowing up to them at the bar of the Press Club to make sure that the approved version is communicated to the country. That is a very sophisticated and large propaganda machine, something which should be of concern to everyone in this House who is worried about the

right of Canadians to know what is going on in the country.
Another developing practice has been that of making important announcements outside the House instead of inside the Commons. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) today, for example, announced his new economic policy, which I remind hon. members on the other side is an incomes policy. He did not make his announcement here in the House but outside the House.
Again, we have witnessed the frequent practice of answers to serious questions being given flippantly in the House so that another means of access to information is cut down. We even get from our distinguished and well-respected Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), now that there is a fixed time limit to questions in the period, answers given by him to every question very, very, slowly so as to consume as much time as he possibly can. This cuts into our capacity to elicit information through the question period.
During the last few weeks a very surprising experience relating to questions of national security happened to be discovered by chance. We were putting questions to an unprepared minister in a standing committee and it came to light that it was the practice to fudge the estimates, not to be honest with the House of Commons and the people of Canada in the estimates which were brought forward because the government hides votes for security services in a range of departments.
When that matter was raised in the House the minister, the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Drury), announced the government's preparedness to set up some kind of arrangement by which members could be briefed on questions of security. Yesterday I sought leave to introduce a motion to urge the House leaders to go ahead with that arrangement. But it was voted down by members of the other side. They did that at the beginning of the question period and then, a few minutes later, talking out of the other side of their mouths, they refused to answer questions on security matters on the grounds that such things should not be discussed in the House. They said under the standing order they should not be discussed anywhere; they said in the question period that they should not be discussed in the House of Commons. It is unfortunately the position of the Government of Canada that important questions relating to security as well as to other matters should not be discussed anywhere. Mr. Speaker, that is not a position which anyone interested in a democracy can accept without a great deal of fear.
A degree of confidentiality has, of course, to apply, perhaps in all matters and certainly in security matters. But that is a quite different principle from the principle which is enunciated and illustrated by the government, which says you cannot trust parliament and you cannot trust the people with anything except the approved versions sent out under the imprimatur of Information Canada.
I recall in 1968, Mr. Speaker, in the election campaign of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the heavy emphasis that was placed upon the phrase "participatory democracy". There was a heavy emphasis placed on getting people involved. Well, we all know that the basic essential element to participation is information. You cannot have
April 10, 1975

participatory democracy, both words, unless the people are informed. If you are going to have the people receive only approved versions, you are going to have participatory something else. It won't be participatory democracy. The danger is that it will be neither.
I make the point-I emphasize it-that it is not just members of this House who suffer from the prejudice which is illustrated in the refusal to publish the letter which gave rise to this debate, it is also the people of Canada generally, and our very system, because as my colleague from Peace River said earlier, the system of democratic and parliamentary government is suffering seriously from the cynicism which has been engendered across this land in part by the feeling that you cannot trust politicians to tell the truth. They will give a partial truth, or if there is some information which is important for them to keep they will stamp "secret" on it and refuse to let you have it. That is a very serious, cancerous cynicism and it has directly to do, among other causes, with the insistence on secrecy of the government we have today.
As a member of parliament who comes from outside central Canada, as one who comes from a rural constituency not particularly well represented in the public service, with views, attitudes and even prejudices which are perhaps not replicated in the senior public service or treasury benches, I want to talk for a moment about the danger of basing decisions upon wrong information. What we have here is not simply a refusal to publish information and to let members of parliament know. What we have here is a situation that ensures that decisions are taken by a tight little group whose practices of secrecy allow no ventilation. There is no certainty that they are acting on premises that are shared in northern Quebec or western Alberta, or in any other part of Canada that is some distance, be it in miles, ideas or views, from the cabinet or senior public service.
That, in a country of such diversity and fragility as ours, is a highly dangerous situation, one that I hope my colleagues on the other side, who I believe are worried about unity and the future of this country, will seriously consider, because this insistence on secrecy leads to decisions that do not reflect the needs and requirements of this country, and it can serve to disunity us, perhaps drastically.
My colleague from Welland, and the parliamentary secretary who spoke before him earlier in this debate, referred to this letter as being a legal opinion. That happens to be the dodge, or the excuse, in this case. In other cases when there are legitimate demands for information that should be in the public domain other excuses are given for not making the information available. There is always some reason why the practice is not to make the information available to the public.
I think the question that we should face is not: is it the practice? Because of course it is. The government has set the practice. It is a practice designed to keep as much information as confidential as possible. Rather the question here is: why are we slaves to that practice? Why do we have it? Clearly it is wrong to keep information from
Government Information
the people of Canada, from the democratically elected representatives of the people. As a general principle I think we would all agree it is wrong. Yet it is the practice. And so the members on the government side of the House allow themselves to be lulled to sleep by the incantation that the wrong that we are committing is a wrong that it is the practice to commit. I say that that is not good enough.
Clearly we need a society-certainly we need a parliament-where as much information as possible is known. I think others want to participate in this debate, Madam Speaker, so I will stop now by asking the representatives of the government here today: why fear an informed parliament? Why do they fear an informed public? Why insist on a practice of holding back information that would allow the public and parliament to be informed about the facts on which decisions are based?


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, may I first congratulate that last speaker, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who preceded, him, for their eloquent speeches. Much of what they said made a great deal of sense. Hopefully in the not too distant future some changes will take place which will mean more information will be made available.
However, on the particular issue before us today it is with reluctance that I oppose the motion of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather). I am sure all members would like to see as much information made available as could be made available. We on this side of the House are faced with the same limitations in this regard as those across the way and, as our duties and obligations to those we represent are similar, we share the same frustrations when unable to obtain a certain document or piece of information which we may deem pertinent in carrying out these duties. However, representatives from all parties in past debate on this subject have agreed that free and unlimited access to all information and documents was impossible, or certainly unwise.
In order to clarify the situation, guidelines were established indicating several categories of restrictions for the production of government papers or documents. I think we are all aware of what these guidelines are; they were made public and consist of some 16 different items. The purpose of the guidelines is to ensure required confidentiality for the effective functioning of government while at the same time guaranteeing access to all government papers not meeting the specific restrictions. However, many opposition members feel that the application of these guidelines leaves too much power of discretion in the hands of the government, and obviously this motion is a case in point. The motion of the hon. member was refused because it was classified "legal opinion or advice provided for the use of the government", the very first restriction listed in the guidelines for exempting documents from publication.
This motion is quite unique in that the hon. member is requesting a document, most of which he admits has been made available by the media, and the minister has refused to release a copy of the letter in question although he, too, knows that its unauthorized release took place months ago. Therefore the actual production of this particular letter is irrelevant; the question is simply should or should not this document, or more broadly this type of document,

April 10, 1975
Government Information
be made available to members, and therefore to the public?
To someone who is unfamiliar with the workings of parliament, it must seem redundant and somewhat suspect for members to be debating the disclosure of a certain document that has already been disclosed. However, I do not feel it is redundant, nor do I suspect the motives of either the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, who served with distinction as joint chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments which first examined the guidelines, or those of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), for the question before us is of fundamental importance. It deals with rights of members to have access to information; the well-established practice of including the opinion of law officers of the Crown on a question of government policy in the class of confidential documents; and the possibility of establishing a precedent in the compulsory disclosure of certain information, the effects of which on the performance of the government, to say the least, would be uncertain.
It is this latter point about which I am most concerned. My hon. friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Marceau), has pointed out that, just because in the case before us some or all of the documents containing the legal opinion may have become available to the media, this is no reason why we should abandon the tradition that such confidential documents should not be disclosed. It has been shown where this tradition has been withheld in a number of rulings.
Even if it could be demonstrated that the disclosure of the particular letters in question does not create any of the negative effects which the guidelines were established to prevent, it would still be unwise to produce the document. For this document clearly is a legal advice provided for the use of the government and, as such, falls into the first criterion for exempting government papers from production. To produce this document would be to reject that particular criterion and the long-established and accepted practice on this point.
Nor can it be argued that because the disclosure of the letter really did not disrupt the functioning of the government, then the category under which it was restricted should be abolished. This would be like someone saying Russian roulette is a safe pastime because they once struck upon an empty chamber while playing it. It is not possible to allow for the disclosure of some legal opinion and withholding other such opinion. It is an all or nothing proposition, or may as well be. If a person giving legal advice has to worry about whether this advice will be made public, then the value of the advice will be questionable at best.
The important point at question is not the contents of a document as such, but rather the nature of those contents. I have said that the motion for the production of papers before us is unique in that we know the contents of the particular letter in question. This information actually acts as more of a hindrance than help in that it distracts us from the real point. In other motions of this kind we do not know the actual contents of the government information requested, and must debate them solely on the nature of the contents of the requested information.

If the guidelines were based only on the contents of government papers or documents as opposed to the nature of the contents, then they would be much less restrictive and permit far greater access to governmental information. This is because much of what is considered confidential could be released, and by itself would not cause too much disruption to the operation of government. The document which the member is requesting is an example, as are a number of other leaks of different kinds which have taken place in recent years. However, if these leaks were to occur on a large scale, or compulsory disclosure of documents were based on their individual content, then I feel the cumulative effect on the effective functioning of government would be disastrous.
This debate reflects the growing concern about public access to governmental information and the complications and contradictions that have arisen in this regard in the past number of years. From the earliest times governments of all types have been anxious to preserve secrecy for matters affecting the safety or tactical advantages of the state. However, dangers to the state have changed in character and become more complex, and have come to seem internal as well as external.
The activities of government increasingly affect all the affairs of the citizen. Its economic discussions have come to be considered no less vital to the basis of the life of the community than decisions on defence. Advances in science have both peacetime and military applications. Rapid changes in society, and the increased influence of centralized institutions further complicate the issue. More and more information about the private affairs of citizens comes into the possession of the government, and there is a feeling that the government should safeguard the confidences of the citizen almost as strictly as it guards information of use to the enemy.
On the other hand, these developments have increased the need for more effective, democratic control. This means more information to enable citizens to make rational decisions about matters affecting their lives. Progress in education and in technology has increased the possibility of circulating information on a wide scale and in considerable detail.
A report presented to the British parliament by a committee chaired by Lord Franks stated that:
We are faced... with an increased area in which consideration of secrecy may arise, and at the same time with an increased need for the diffusion of information together with the technical capacity to supply this need.
Similarly, Professor Donald C. Rowat, of Carleton University, tells us:
There will always be the problem of drawing the line between the government's need to deliberate confidentially and the public's need of information. It is simply a question of emphasis.
It is exactly this question of emphasis, and the problem of drawing the line between what documents should be disclosed and which should not, that we are discussing today. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal stated clearly that the issue was not abortion and that the motion had really little to do with the copy of a letter, but rather the
April 10, 1975

issue was greater accessibility to governmental information or, more pointedly, secrecy in government.
I stated at the outset that I was somewhat reluctant to oppose the motion because I was sympathetic to the objective of greater accessibility to information and less secrecy in government. However, we must proceed carefully in this direction. It would not do simply to throw away the guidelines governing the production of papers and open the flood gates to free access to information.
I believe that most members would agree that the positive benefits accrued by such action would be heavily outweighed by the damage done to the effective operation of our democratic government. Furthermore, whatever weaknesses and criticisms members may see in the guidelines, they serve an important role; first of underlining the acceptance of the principle that government has to justify its withholding of facts, and second, of providing a focus where constructive criticisms and suggestions for a greater flow of information can take place. Even those members who have been strong critics of the scope and application of the guidelines have conceded that their introduction was a very considerable step forward in that it indicated a realization that there was a need to deal with public access to governmental information.
The Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, of which the hon. member for Fundy-Royal was former joint chairman, and of which I am now a member, is indeed dealing with this subject at the present time. I am grateful to the hon. member for having initiated this debate which will be helpful to me in those deliberations, as I am sure it will be to other members of the committee.
However, I am unable to accept the motion, for to do so would be to render useless the very first criterion for exempting government papers from production, and would seriously undermine the guidelines as a whole. I am not arguing that the guidelines are perfect, for I feel many of the criticisms against them are valid and means must be found to open up much more information to the public. However, until these means are found and other alternatives put forward, the guidelines must remain. At the present time, for better or for worse, they are all we have.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes there are left I should like to make a few brief comments and to associate myself completely with my colleague, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), in his request that the government be more forthcoming with information that should properly be in the public domain.
It is one of the facts of life that many people who have been watching governments have noticed that they are very quick to classify information which can be potentially embarrassing to government. Having heard the speech of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton), I can only say that if the government is anxious to classify information which could be potentially embarrassing to it, it should first have considered the hon. member's speech.
The particular case before us graphically illustrates the tendency of government to treat information about the activities of public officials, in their public responsibility in respect of the dispensation of public funds, as its pri-
Northern 'Canada Power Commission Act vate property. It is interesting to note that the document it is classifying as secret has already in fact been released to the press and is public property. This says something about a government that would take this attitude toward information which is already public and should properly be public. Governments by their very nature tend to be more protective in respect of information in the public sector and more contemptuous of the right to privacy of information in the private sector.
I was interested, when doing some research for the debate today, to read the following from an excellent book by David Wise, entitled "The Politics of Lying";
. .. when information which properly belongs to the public is systematically withheld by those in power, the people soon become ignorant of their own affairs, distrustful of those who manage them, and- eventually-incapable of determining their own destinies.
The irony of that statement is that the author was former President Nixon of the United States. This is one of the facts of life, and the speech of the hon. member for Welland has made former President Nixon look extremely progressive in his viewpoint.
We had an experience just yesterday of the government House leader, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), specifically refusing a motion proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), seconded by myself, which would have given parliament the opportunity to have some parliamentary overview of information which is classified as secret by the government. The government refused to have the House leaders get together to consider a mechanism for parliamentary over-view. Later in the day the Acting Prime Minister, the same man, had the gall to tell the House of Commons that it was improper then for the House of Commons to debate matters like this in a public forum. In other words, it could not be debated in private because the government refused to set up the mechanism to consider this, and it could not be debated in public because the government felt this information should not be made public. Certainly from my point of view that graphically illustrates the attitude of the government toward secrecy. Mr. Speaker, I see that it is six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-13, to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on
[Stage Direction]
April 10, 1975
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Motion No. 3 (Mr. Nielsen) and the amendment (Mr. Neil) thereto.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. When the House proceeded to the consideration of private members' hour the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) had the floor on an amendment upon which the Chair had some reservations and some doubts in relation to its procedural acceptability. Of course I do not wish to prevent the hon. member from completing his remarks on the doubtful amendment, so I wonder whether he is seeking the floor to continue his speech, in which event I will rule afterward. The hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, to carry on in respect of the doubtful question or doubtful amendment, the minister told us how we had made this great step toward, providing an input by the citizens of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory into the decisions of the commission by touting the two additional members who will be sitting on the commission of five. I was making the point that this still gives the government a majority of three.
The minister makes much of the fact that when this bill was first introduced he appointed the Commissioner for the Yukon Territory as chairman of the commission. That is no different from the unsatisfactory state of affairs that existed for so many years heretofore when his deputy minister and the previous deputy minister were chairmen of the commission, and so we go back all the way to 1948.
Having the Commissioner for the Yukon as chairman of the Northern Canada Power Commission is no different than having the deputy minister as chairman because he is a government servant, he will take his instructions from the minister, and he will do precisely what he is told to do by the minister as he does now. So there is no difference at all in the change. I am sure the minister is aware of the fact that brief after brief was presented to the standing committee calling for a commission of seven, the majority of whom would be people outside government service. Then we would have a meaningful majority and a meaningful input into the decisions of the commission-something that we do not have now.
The last point the minister made in response to our plea to him to have rate approvals and reviews subject to the decision of the people in the two territories, either through the regulatory vehicle of the public utilities board or through the commissioner in council, was that this would be far too cumbersome and that all we would really be doing would be substituting one body for the other. I suggest to him that it is far better to have these decisions made by the people whom they concern most, rather than having the rates for public utilities in the Yukon be a matter for consideration by the cabinet. It seems to me to be a misplacement of priorities for the government to place that as an urgent matter over other matters before the House.
The minister spoke of the future when the Northern Canada Power Commission might be divided into two bodies, one functioning in the Yukon and the other in the Northwest Territories. That is no bar at present to having

the rate structure set, reviewed and approved by the elected representatives of the people in the north at this time. It ill serves the minister to suggest that by giving this kind of power to the bodies in the north, parliament will somehow lose control. That is not the case because he knows that the commissioner in each territory takes his instructions from him, and he knows that if he does not approve of a rate that has been set by the commission, or of a rate zone that is established by the commission, he can inform the respective commissioner in whichever territory it involves of his views and instruct him accordingly. So really the minister has ultimate control. That is the state of affairs. It would not detract one iota from his responsibilities and powers.
Having said that, I will take no more time on the amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), in the hope that before making any ruling on the acceptability of the amendment hon. members will be given the opportunity to reply to Your Honour's doubts, which I hope will be expressed by you before calling for those views.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before we proceed further, and upon the invitation of the hon. member for Yukon, let me say at this time that I will soon make a ruling on the acceptability of the proposed amendment moved by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), upon which the Chair had some reservations before we stopped our proceedings for private member's hour this afternoon. This gave the opportunity to the hon. member to contribute further to the debate, which I do not question.
Let me say, for the better understanding of hon. members and because I wish to invite them to put forward their point of view on the acceptability of the amendment, that although the hon. member for Yukon might be speaking for the third time when he rises to speak again, he will be speaking on the procedural point.
I do not think I should say any more at this time. Let me only bring to the attention of hon. members a couple of points of reference. First I should like to refer to the first few lines of a citation at page 381 of May's eighteenth edition, which read as follows:
The fundamental rule that debate must be relevant to a question necessarily involves the rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.
In the view of the Chair the question before the House now is not the bill but the motion of the hon. member for
Yukon.
Let me also refer to citation 203(1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition at page 171, which reads:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.
Paragraph (3) reads:
An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved.
The ruling that I am ready to make will be mainly based on these two citations, and also on Standing Order 75(5) which obliges hon. members to give notice if they want to put forward at the report stage, an amendment to a piece of legislation before the House.
April 10, 1975


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, permit me first to make a submission with respect to the applicability of Standing Order 75(5). In my respectful submisson that rule does not apply to anything other than a notice of an amendment to a bill, and contains a further refinement requiring that that notice make reference to the appearance thereof on the notice paper. I do not believe that that rule was ever intended to preclude members from moving amendments at the report stage. If that intrepretation were to be placed on Standing Order 75(5), it would mean that all other members of the House would be precluded from moving any amendment to any of the motions now standing in my name on the order paper. In my respectful submission that standing order was never intended to be applied in that restrictive sense. It follows consequently that all hon. members are free to move an amendment to a motion which appears properly on the order paper at the report stage of any bill.
Dealing with the other two points raised by the Chair, I take it that both deal with the question of relevancy. The authority quoted by you, Sir, cites a long standing rule of the House that not only debate must be relevant but any amendment must also be relevant. I can only assume that the Chair has doubts with respect to the substance of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, perhaps by virtue of a failure to appreciate the intricacies and the finer points involved in the legislation and the structure within which that legislation operates in the territorial scheme of things in this federal structure of ours.
Clause 4 of the bill purports to make any rates which are set by the Northern Canada Power Commission subject to the approval of the governor in council. To say that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Moose Jaw is out of order on the ground that his amendment, calling as it does for that power to reside in the hands of a public utilities board rather than the governor in council, is to suggest that any amendment which would substitute any body other than the governor in council for the purpose of performing the function called for in a government bill would be irrelevant, and it would therefore follow that the motion on the order paper would also be irrelevant and therefore out of order, which I submit is certainly not the intention of the rule as to relevancy.
I would suggest that the relevance rule cited by Your Honour would catch any amendment moved which attempted to do away in its entirety with the function which is to be performed by the governor in council under the government bill, and by the commissioner in council under motion No. 3 standing in my name. The rule as to relevance, in my submission, does not apply to the function of the governor in council under clause 4 of the bill. If I, by my motion, or if the hon. member for Moose Jaw, by his motion, had suggested that the approval of the fire department or of the dogcatcher of the city of Whitehorse would perform that function, I might find myself in some agreement with the Chair, but in my respectful submission the suggestion in my motion No. 3 on the order paper, that the approval of the commissioner in council rather than that of the governor in council should be sought, does
Northern Canada Power Commission Act not make that motion out of order on the grounds of irrelevancy.
If Your Honour accepts that, then the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Moose Jaw attempting to substitute for Commissioner in Council the public utilities board of the Yukon and Northwest Territories must also be a proper amendment. In order for an amendment to be caught by the relevancy rule with respect to this section, the amendment would have to introduce a subject matter which could not in any way be relevant or connected to clause 4(3) of the bill, but the mere substitution of one agency for that which is called for under the terms of the proposed subsection (3) of section 10 in clause 4 of the bill does not make the matter irrelevant.
In the event that the preliminary statement made by Your Honour did not encompass the inventory of possible objections the Chair might have, I might anticipate that it could be said by the Chair that substituting anything for the phrase "governor in council" would somehow be objectionable by reason of the fact that we were eliminating the omnipotent powers of the governor in council under our constitution, but here I simply point to the government's action in the amendment to section 6 of the act where it abolished in its entirety the control of the governor in council over the activities of the commission.
In brief summary, Standing Order 75(5) simply was never intended to prohibit members from moving amendments to motions standing on the order paper which have been moved in the proper way under Standing Order 75(5). Second, the rule as to relevancy, in my respectful submission, was never intended to prohibit a member from seeking, as in this instance, to substitute a different vehicle for the purpose of approving rates set by the commission.
All motion No. 3 seeks to do is substitute the commissioner in council for governor in council, and all the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw seeks to do is replace that amendment with another one which would make the approval of the public utilities board necessary rather than either the commissioner in council or the governor in council. Thank you for hearing me, Sir.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there is no other hon. member who wishes to express his point of view on this amendment proposed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, I shall try to be as explicit as possible and make my decision in the light of the comments made by the hon. member, but at the same time in the light of my convictions and on the basis of the practices and the rules of this House. I wish to remind hon. members that this applies to any kind of ruling or decision rendered by the Chair.
The Chair is not here to judge the value of an amendment nor to support an amendment as to its substance. The hon. member for Yukon in his remarks addressed himself to whether the Chair was capable of seeing the substance of the amendment because of the complicated nature of the legislation before the House at this time and the implications of the amendments. He was actually asking the Chair to make a judgment on the legislation proposed, and more or less make a decision'on a proposal

April 10,1975
Northern Canada Power Commission Act moved at the report stage by the hon. member which does only one thing, and upon which he has given notice.
The hon. member's motion No. 3 seeks to replace the word governor with the word commissioner and, by my interpretation of Standing Oder 75(5), the fact that the hon. member did propose such a limited and a restricted amendment he also precluded other members from moving amendments to his motion. But the Chair cannot get into this question because I know that on some occasions the hon. member himself, and other hon. members, might prepare amendments or motions for the purpose of preventing other members from moving amendments or subamendments to them.
I do not feel that Standing Order 75(5) is restrictive. It is up to the initiative and the will of hon. members to try to attach in their own way amendments to motions, or subamendments to amendments, but they have to do it within the confines of the rules. The rules under which we proceed at this time are quite explicit, and they require hon. members to give notice.
Returning to my first point, the one that the hon. member seemed to agree with generally as to the question of relevancy, he will have to admit that, his proposal being so limited, providing for a change from the word governor to the word commissioner, then the proposal made as an amendment by the hon. member for Moose Jaw is completely outside that proposition. Of course the Chair also has to ask himself whether the hon. member for Yukon would have the same opinion if the hon. member for Moose Jaw had proposed the words "the House of Commons" instead of a public utilities board. The Chair is not here to judge whether the hon. member for Yukon is satisfied with the amendment which is proposed.
To my mind the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Moose Jaw is completely foreign to the motion that is before the House at this time. Of course it is not foreign to the bill, and the hon. member for Moose Jaw had all the latitude and all the time that any hon. member had to put his proposal forward under Standing Order 75(5) by giving 24 hours' notice. His proposition would thus be before the House, and the House would make a decision. But to try to force the Chair into creating a precedent by the use of an amendment to a motion, thus bringing in a completely new matter which is no less than a substitute proposition to delete the basic proposition, and the only proposition which is included in the motion would, I think, create a bad precedent. At the same time I wonder if the motion proposed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw is not also in anticipation of motion No. 4 which will be coming before the House later.
Because of all these considerations I find it very difficult to follow the points raised by the hon. member for Yukon. I can refer him to many precedents, the latest being a decision by the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) who was occupying the chair in the House of Commons on December 17, 1973. I am sure if the hon. member takes the trouble to read most of the decisions made by the Chair in regard to proceedings at report stage he will find this decision to be the right one.

For all these reasons I cannot accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw. The House is now considering motion No. 3 which appears in the name of the hon. member for Yukon. Is the House ready for the question?


Douglas Charles Neil: I would therefore have a further amendment, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have to preclude the hon. member who has already spoken when he moved his amendment. I am ready to allow a few seconds for hon. members if they wish to participate.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, in light of the ruling you have just made I should like to move the following amendment:
That motion No. 3 to amend Bill C-13, an act to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, be amended by deleting all of the words after the words "out" in line 3 of the said motion No. 3 and substituting therefor the words "with the approval of the Governor in Council" where the same appear in lines 22 and 23 at page 2 and the words "on such basis as may be approved by the Governor in Council" where the same appear in lines 3, 4 and 5 on page 3 and by adding to clause 4 next after lines 5 on page 3 the following:
(e) All schedules or ranges of rates for public utilities supplied by the commission under this act and the rates to be charged within those schedules or ranges established pursuant to this section shall be subject to approval by the Yukon Public Utilities Board or the Northwest Territories Public Utilities Board as the case may be.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hope the hon. member will not mind if the Chair takes time to read this proposal, which is quite complicated. Are there any other hon. members who have not already spoken who wish to participate while I consider this proposition?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I just thought I would say that there is a phrase in the Book of Revelation that says "There was silence in Heaven for the space of half an hour". Maybe we can enjoy a little bit of Heaven right here.


Erik Nielsen: I might also say that there was something in one of the books somewhere that says "Let there be light". That is what we are debating.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that, if you repeated the ruling you have just given, that would be more than adequate to deal with this new amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I finally found my way through the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). I have to say that this amendment has to be ruled out of order completely at the outset because, to repeat what I have said about relevancy, the rule of giving 24 hours' notice for a new proposition applies even more to this one. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris, or any other hon. members whether they have participated in the debate or not, will see in comparing motion No. 3 to the amendment just moved by the hon. member that the amendment takes out all of the proposition. It takes out the meat of the point that was put forward in the change that was proposed by the hon. member for the Yukon. Without repeating myself I must say I cannot accept the amendment. If hon. members will look at the amendment, they will find that it does not
April 10, 1975

meet the requirements of the standing orders, practices and rules of this House. Therefore I cannot accept it.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Because the House spent quite a few minutes on the procedural debate, I wonder if hon. members would agree to consider motion No. 5 now. The Chair has already given notice about its position regarding the acceptability of motion No. 4, and after the House has disposed of motion No. 5 perhaps hon. members will express their views on the procedural acceptability of motion No. 4. We will now consider motion No. 5.


Erik Nielsen: That Bill C-13, an act to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 8 to 16 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
13. The Commission may investigate a project and advise the Minister or the Commissioner in Council of the Northwest Territories or the Commissioner in Council of the Yukon Territory, as the case may be, of the areas that might be served, the estimated amount of capital required, and the proposed rates that in the opinion of the Commission would produce revenue equal to the costs specified in section 10.
He said: Mr. Speaker-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This had better be good.


Erik Nielsen: I am sure if the hon. member who just interjected would read the act and then read the amendment, he would concede there is merit to the amendment. In case others in this House do not appreciate the refinements of the proposed amendment, I will take a few moments to explain it-with the hon. member's approval, of course.
The bill we are discussing seeks to repeal section 13 of the existing act in its entirety, and replace it with proposed clause 5. I quarrel with the thought behind the repeal of section 13. Not only has the government deleted sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the act, but now it intends to delete those all-important words in the existing section which would require the commission, with respect to any investigation it might undertake, to confine the costs of such investigation to an amount equal to the revenue generated, as specified in section 10. This important provi-
Northern Canada Power Commission Act sion was written into the act in 1948 as a piece of insurance, to prevent the commission from embarking on the investigation of a project when costs might exceed any contemplated revenues which might be realized if the project were undertaken. I think that safeguard, that insurance, should remain in the act.
I do not think projects should be undertaken with a reckless disregard for revenues which might be derived from those projects. I think a project should only be undertaken if revenues generated will pay for the costs of the project; otherwise the project should not go ahead. If we allow that provision to remain in the act we shall keep the self-sustaining theory alive, the theory on which the act was based in the initial instance.
I have a further objection to the clause as it exists and as it has been carried over into this bill. According to the language of the bill the commission may investigate a project and advise the minister, or the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories or the Commissioner of the Yukon Territory, as the case may be, and so on. That, Sir, is as fine a piece of gobbledygook as I have run across in a long time.
Sir, the commissioner of each territory is an employee of the minister, and the requirement for the Northern Canada Power Commission, which is responsible to the minister, to report to his employee is sheer nonsense. If that reporting provision is to mean anything, surely there should be a requirement to report to the commissioner in council of each of the territories. Asking the commission, which is controlled by the minister, to report to his employee, and his employee alone, makes no sense at all. If the concept that the council of either of the territories is involved in the decision-making process means anything, the reporting provision I have referred to makes no sense. My suggested amendment, as contained in motion No. 5, would change that section of the bill. I would require the commission with respect to the investigation of any project to report to the minister on the one hand, or on the other hand to the commissioner in council of the Northwest Territories or the commissioner in council of the Yukon Territory.
I was very careful in drawing up the wording of the proposed amendment in the hope that it might find favour with the government, because it leaves the commission the alternative of reporting either to the minister or to the commissioner in council. The choice is left open. On the other hand if the minister were to tell the commission, "You are to report to me, under the section, and to no one else," he would completely nullify the effect of the words "commissioner in council". My amendment, if accepted, would at least leave the semblance of a line of communication to the elected representatives of the people in both territories.
My proposed amendment also seeks to change that part of clause 5 of the bill in which the government would simply like to confine the report to the estimated amount of capital required and the effect on the schedules or ranges of rates established under section 10. The existing provision of the act requires the commission to report on the basis that any such project would produce revenues equal to the cost of installing it. If this feature is retained it is my submission that consumers in the north will not

April 10,1975
Northern Canada Power Commission Act be saddled with the expense of uneconomic projects, as they will be if the commission is allowed to have an unfettered sphere of action in investing in projects regardless of the relationship between revenue and cost.
As the bill now reads they could decide on any project they chose and simply calculate the cost of that project and its effect on the rates to be charged, as opposed to the present situation where the commission is obliged to act in a responsible fashion and relate the costs of such projects to the revenue to be generated from them. If my view the latter is a sound principle to follow, and my own amendment would restore it.
The type of provision we have been asked to endorse would open the door wide to saddling consumers of electrical energy in the north, at the whim of the commission, with rates calculated to pay for the project which might be unrealistic or far more costly than they should be. For this reason, and in order to give the elected representatives of the people of the north on the two councils some opportunity of making an input, I put this amendment forward in the hope it will find favour with the government.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the amendment put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), and I do so for two basic reasons. The proposal now in the bill violates two fundamental principles which were put forward in the recommendation which resulted in the legislation we are now considering. That recommendation stated the amendments were being made to provide for changes in financial management. I think we would all agree that in making changes affecting financial management of the power commission the object would necessarily be to improve the situation. The hon. member for Yukon has told us that his further amendment arises from the fact that the proposal in the bill as it stands is a retrograde step which removes some of the safeguards which existed in the unamended act. On this basis alone motion No. 5 should receive enthusiastic support from all quarters of the House.
My second reason for supporting the amendment is that the bill as proposed violates what I believe to be the real purpose of the government in bringing forward amendments to the Northern Canada Power Commission Act. I am sure the minister would agree that when the number of members of the Commission was increased from three to five and provision was made for their expenses, the whole intent was to bring about more effective control on the part of the residents of the two territories over the activities of the Northern Canada Power Commission. However, as has been pointed out during the course of the debate today, this idea of closer control by the residents of the territories is an expression of tokenism rather than of fact.
The bill as it now stands is just another example of tokenism. For example, it states that the commission may investigate a project and advise the minister, or the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories or the Commissioner of the Yukon Territory-and so on. Actually, and the hon. member for Yukon has already made this point, it is a case of the minister advising himself. As has been pointed

out by several members, the commissioner of the territories is really a creature of the minister of the Crown responsible for administering those two territorial regions. Why do I assert this to be the case?
Over the past 15 years promises have been made to the territories which were supposed to ensure greater local autonomy. The first important gesture in this regard was made in the early 1960's when, for the first time, the commissioner for the Yukon Territory was appointed from within the Yukon population-I refer to Mr. Gordon Cameron who served with distinction for some five years. Mr. Cameron refused reappointment because, as he said, he was just a figurehead of the minister in carrying out his responsibilities. He discovered, after five years in office, that he had no power, that there was really no local autonomy; he took his orders directly from the Ministry of Northern Affairs in Ottawa. I recall the phrase he used at the time of his resignation. He said that the reins directing policy in the Yukon were held at some 5,000 miles distance in Ottawa. And he refused to function any further as a flunkey.
Gordon Cameron, the first from within the territory to hold this responsible position, was succeeded by Jack Smith, who is still the Commissioner of the Yukon Territory. During the intervening years the status of the Commissioner has not changed one iota in terms of his powers. As a former minister of northern affairs I can say this is one of the things we hoped to change, and we looked forward to the granting of local autonomy to both territories as one of the major forward steps in the development of Canada's northern regions by our centenniary year, 1967. Very little progress has been made in this regard. The Commissioner of the Northwest Territories, who now has been in office a considerable number of years, is in precisely the same position as the present incumbent in the Yukon Territory. In light of these observations, I would challenge anyone to dispute that that is the situation.
I think the hon. member for Yukon has put forward a very important amendment which would place in the hands of the commissioner in council some control over the activities of the Northern Canada Power Commission. There has been a subtle change in the past few years that would more than justify this change in wording from "Commissioner" to "commissioner in council", because now members of the councils both of the Yukon territory and the Northwest Territories have been given some limited executive responsibility.
It would appear to me that, as a logical concomitant of that change in the status of the members of the territorial councils, the wording proposed by the hon. member for Yukon is a proper designation of the relationship with respect to clause 13. Certainly it would be much closer to realizing the recommendations that caused the government to bring in the amendments we have been considering in the debate today so as to give closer control over the power commission in the territories to the elected representatives of the people of the territories themselves. I hope all hon. members will give their support to this necessary amendment.
April 10, 1975


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my two colleagues from the Yukon and from Brandon-Souris speak with authority. One of them represents one of the territories whose future we are discussing tonight; the other has served as minister responsible for those territories during a period which the residents there look back on as a welcome change in attitude on the part of the federal government toward developing some degree of local selfgovernment in the territories, a change that unfortunately was undone in the years following 1963.
In effect this amendment contains two elements. The first has to do with the provision that the advice must be not simply to the commissioner who, as has been pointed out, and as is well known in the north, is too often an extension of officialdom in Ottawa, but instead to the elected councils of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. These are people whose mandate is not simply given by a minister in Ottawa; theirs is a mixed mandate, partly from Ottawa now but also partly from the people whose lives, whose ability to turn off and on lights, and whose requirement to pay the bill, are most particularly affected.
As the bill introduced by the minister stands, the requirement is simply to report to the commissioner after an investigation. Further as is well known, the Commissioner of the Yukon or the Northwest Territories is really the minister in disguise. He is the arm of the minister, appointed by the minister and answerable to the minister. He is the creature of the minister and, as a matter of practice, he acts in much closer liaison with the minister and anonymous officials in Ottawa than he does with the people whose lives he in effect controls as commissioner of those territories. In effect there is only an option on paper now, not an option in fact. The option on paper is either to report directly to the minister or to report to him in other clothes.
The bill as it stands is even more absurd than that. Under the amendments to the Northern Canada Power Commission Act the chairman of the Northern Canada Power Commission is also the Commissioner of the Yukon Territory. So what the minister would have us do is have the chairman report to himself. It reminds one, as someone standing behind me said a moment ago, of the old song "I'm my own grandma".
While many of us on this side of the House are aware that the actions of the government frequently leave people talking to themselves, this must surely be the first time that it has been written into a statute. It seems to be clearly an oversight, an absurdity, in order to give the appearance of creating an option, to require that the Commissioner of the Yukon Territory, in his capacity as chairman of the Northern Canada Power Commission, report to himself; to require that he report not to the minister, but to the minister in disguise in the territories-the commissioner.
What the amendment does is to give status to the elected council as well as eradicate an absurdity now in the law. It is primarily a democratic amendment, what I might call a symbolic amendment, indicating that the Parliament of Canada recognizes the importance of the councils of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, and that it is not content simply to leave a reference to the governing body of that council to the commissioner acting alone.
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
Perhaps not many members on the government side of the House had, or have taken, the opportunity that many of us on this side have had to visit northern Canada and speak directly with the people there, people who have lived for too long with what, in effect, is a colonial regime where all important decisions are taken at a great distance from them. Those who have visited those territories, many of them in the Progressive Conservative party, and have listened to the concerns of the people there, not allowing themselves to be misled by the emanations of the bureaucracy, know the concern of the people there about self-government, about having the ability to control their own destiny. We also know that progress toward some degree of self-government in the Yukon and Northwest Territories has been glacially slow. Although progress was made during the period when my colleague from Brandon-Souris was minister responsible for the territories, since that time progress has, as I say, been glacially slow.
While there is not much that we can do now in amending this particular bill to add substantial powers, or give added status to the councils of the Northwest Territories and Yukon territory, we can at least make the symbolic act of passing this democratic amendment which requires that there be a reporting not simply to an official named by Ottawa but instead to the whole council, which is comprised of directly elected people of the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
That is the first of the two elements of the amendment proposed by my colleague from Yukon. I repeat that it would remove the absurdity of having the chairman of the Northern Canada Power Commission report to himself because he wears both hats, that of the chairman of the commission, and that of the Commissioner of the Yukon Territory. The amendment would also have the symbolic and democratic effect of offering some satisfaction to the people of the Yukon and Northwest Territories that there are members of the House of Commons who, even with the limited capacity before them tonight, are prepared to make a stand regarding the right of these people at least to be consulted.
The second element of this amendment has to do with the apparent wish of the minister to remove from the Northern Canada Power Commission the requirement that was placed upon it some years ago-more than 20 years ago when the commission was established-that the rates produce a revenue equal to the specified cost of projects proposed by the commission. As my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon has indicated, it is insurance that there will be enough revenues from the rates to pay for the projects.
As the House may be aware, the original theory here was that this should be a self-sustaining commission. That theory endured until this minister, or whoever drafted the bill, and we cannot be sure that we should blame him, introduced this legislation which would take away the insurance that the rates would meet the costs of the projects.
We have to bear in mind that already today we have weakened the restraints on the Northern Canada Power Commission by removing the requirement to report to the

April 10, 1975
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
cabinet on major expenditures of over $50,000. This is one more restraint that is removed. It is not so much the removal of the restraint that should be reviewed. I suggest to the House that what should be reviewed is the direct invitation to over-spend. Once there was the insurance, or the requirement, that costs should not exceed revenues, relating specifically to projected projects. Now there is not that insurance, so there is a clear invitation to over-spend. There is no guarantee that members of the Northern Canada Power Commission will accept that invitation to over-spend, but there is the invitation and the possibility.
If the Minister is going to oppose this very progressive and sensible amendment by the hon. member for Yukon he should make it clear why he is inviting the Northern Canada Power Commission to over-spend. He will have to justify that invitation to over-spend in order properly to convince the House that the insurance clause which has been in the act since the commission began should now be removed.
I spoke earlier during this debate, when the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) was in the House, about the dangers that could be involved for the whole of Canada, particularly for those of us who are concerned about environmental consequences, if there are too few restraints placed upon the Northern Canada Power Commission. As it stands, there is in this bill the capacity of the commission to undertake literally any kind of hydro project. As we have learned in parts of Canada where ecology is perhaps more impervious than it is in parts of the territory we are talking about, hydro electric projects can be dangerous and can have consequences beyond those that we can foresee. That is a factor we must bear in mind when we are considering the wisdom of removing from the Northern Canada Power Commission the restraint that has, to this point, required it to generate, by its rates, revenues which are equal to the costs the commission incurs.
For those two reasons, first, the democratic reason of requiring a reference to the elected council and not simply to an appointed commissioner and, second, the insurance element that will require rates equal to the costs involved in projects, I earnestly hope that the minister and others on the government side will accept the wisdom of the amendment proposed by my colleague.


Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, after some discussion with the minister we have arrived at a compromise in respect of Motion No. 5. At this time I should like to move the following amendment:
That Motion No. 5 to amend Bill C-13, an act to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, be amended by deleting the words "the proposed rates that in the opinion of the Commission would produce revenue equal to the costs specified in Section 10" and the following substituted therefor:
"the effect on the schedule or ranges of rates established for a rate
zone under Section 10."
As I said, this is a compromise that has been reached. It is not exactly what we wanted but it is satisfactory to us and the minister, and I trust it will be approved and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The question is on the amendment by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. 
Neil). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


J. Judd Buchanan: Madam Speaker, I should simply like to indicate that we have discussed this compromise and it is acceptable to us.


Erik Nielsen: You should speak to your backbenchers
over there.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Neil) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Shall the motion as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 5 (Mr. Nielsen), as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: We will now return to Motion No. 4 in the name of the hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: That Bill C-13, an act to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, be amended by adding to Clause 4, next after line 5 on page 3 thereof, the following:
10A. The Commission shall be deemed to be a public utility within the meaning and for the purposes of any ordinance of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories that provides for the regulation of the operation of any system, works, plant or equipment for the production, transmission, delivery or furnishing of electricity and the provisions of any such ordinance shall apply mutatis mutandis to the commission.
He said: Madam Speaker, it should be clear even to the government whip that the purpose of all our efforts, here and in the committee, has been to take the Parliament of Canada out of the business of setting rates for my electric light bill in the Yukon and putting that power where it belongs, in the hands of the public utilities commission.


An hon. Member:: Then the power is going to go off out
there.


Erik Nielsen: We have been turned off by the government in Ottawa many times before. Surely it makes sense that the Government of Canada should not be in the business of setting rates for my electric light bill in the Yukon, or anybody's electric light bill in the Northwest Territories. Surely the proper body to be doing that, as is the case everywhere else, is a public utilities board.
The minister has made the argument in the past that this situation does not prevail in the provinces enumerated by him this afternoon. Those are provinces which have machinery set up to look after this sort of thing. We are denied that kind of machinery by virtue of the strictures placed upon us in having this controlled by Ottawa. All this amendment would seek to do in this one small sphere is take the headache away from the governor in council or
April 10, 1975

from the cabinet, and give it to the public utility boards in each of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, which would look after the setting of their own rates for their own electric energy.
I hope the Chair has had time to reflect favourably on the doubt that was expressed when this motion was first moved. I hope there is not a procedural problem here and that the motion can be put to the House. Even before that happens I hope this amendment would commend itself to the minister. The minister, by virtue of the direction of his own department-and that in effect means not his direction but that of his predecessor-has directed that legislation be placed on the books of ordinance of each of the territories to establish a public utilities board. What would be the purpose of doing this unless it were so that we could look after this kind of housekeeping problem ourselves, rather than clutter the already cluttered agenda of the cabinet and, I might add, of a cabinet that is cluttered up itself. Let us take this housekeeping problem away from the over-burdened cabinet and put it where it belongs, in the hands of the agency that was created by the minister to do this very job.
I hope the minister will rise right now and cut short the debate by telling us this will be done, and then we can consider the discussion on the bill at an end. If the minister goes along with this amendment, so far as we are concerned all the others will go by the board and we need not vote on anything tonight. This really is the only thing the people of the north are seeking.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I want to refer to Mr. Speaker's decision of March 26 on this particular amendment, motion No. 4. It would appear that it is introducing a new and substantive provision into the bill. It is suggested that a new clause cannot be received if it is beyond the scope of the bill.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I wonder whether we might speak to the procedural point before a decision is made?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. If the hon. member would look at May's eighteenth edition, he would find it is stated that a new clause is out of order for many of the same reasons as an amendment and, in particular, will not be entertained if it is beyond the scope of the bill.
Further on page 508 of May's eighteenth edition it is stated that an amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill. Again I wish to cite Beauchesne's fourth edition at page 285 where it is stated that amendments are out of order if they are irrelevant to the bill, or beyond its scope. For all these reasons the amendment cannot be accepted.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I say what I am about to say without any intention whatsoever of impugning the Chair and without any intention whatsoever of questioning the ruling that has been made by the Chair, but I regret very much that I and other members who may have wished to contribute to the debate on the procedural point were not invited to do so before the ruling was made. In
Division
making that statement I hasten to add that in all probability Your Honour overlooked the usual long standing procedure of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: I am trying to be as courteous as I can in making the point, Madam Speaker; but as I say, it has been a long standing procedure and practice in this House that members be called upon to make submissions on procedural points before decisions are taken by the Chair. I regret that was not done in this case, but I accept the ruling.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member had a chance to make his procedural comments before the Chair entered the decision.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mrs. Campagnolo) applauded that statement. There have been changes in the occupancy of the chair since this debate arose. I had carved out for myself a reservation that I would want to make a submission on this procedural point before the decision was made by the Chair. I accept the ruling. I regret only that I was prevented from making that submission before the ruling was made.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The House will now proceed to the deferred division on motions Nos. 2 and 3.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

The House divided on Motion No. 2 (Mr. Nielsen) which was negatived on the following division;
(Division No. 29)
Alexander
Alkenbrack
Baldwin
Bawden
Beatty
Brisco
Cadieu
Caouette
(Villeneuve)
Carter
Clark
(Rocky Mountain) Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Crouse Darling Dinsdale Ellis
Fairweather
Fraser
Friesen
Hamilton
(Qu' Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Hargrave Holmes Howie Huntington Hurlburt Jarvis Johnston Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand)
Korchinski
Lambert
(Bellechasse)
La Salle MacDonald (Egmont)
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacLean
Malone
Masniuk
McCain
McCleave
McKenzie
McKinley
McKinnon
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
Nielsen
Oberle
O'Sullivan
Patterson
Reynolds
Roche
Rondeau
Schellenberger
Schumacher
Smith
(Churchill)
Stanfield
Stevens
Towers
Whittaker
Wise
Yewchuk-60.
[Stage Direction]
April 10, 1975
Division
++NAYS
Messrs.
Allmand	Fleming	MackaseyBaker	Flynn	Marceau(Gander-Twillingate)	Foster	MclsaacBechard	Fox	McRaeBegin (Miss)	Gauthier	Morin (Mrs.)Benjamin	(Ottawa-Vanier)	MunroBlais	Gendron	(Hamilton 1Blouin	Gillespie	Ny stromBoulanger	Goodale	O'ConnellBreau	Goyer	OlivierBuchanan	Guay	OrlikowBussieres	(St. Boniface)	OuelletCaccia	Guay	ParentCafik	(Levis)	PearsallCampagnolo (Mrs.)	Herbert	PelletierCampbell (Miss)	Hopkins	(HochelagaCampbell	Isabelle	Penner(LaSalle-£mard-Cote	Jamieson	PhilbrookSaint-Paul)	Joyal	Prud'hommeCaron	Kaplan	RailtonClermont	Knowles	RainesCollenette	(Winnipeg	ReidComtois	North Centre)	RichardsonCorbin	Lachance	RobertsCorriveau	Lajoie	RompkeyCote	Lalonde	RoyDaudlin	Lang	(Laval)De Bane	Laniel	SaltsmanDionne	Lapointe	Sauve (Mrs.)(Northumberland-	Leblanc	SharpMiramichi)	(Laurier)	SmithDouglas	LeBlanc	(Saint-Jear(Bruce-Grey)	(Westmorland-Kent) Stollery	Drury	Lee	TessierDuclos	Lefebvre	TrudeauDupont	Loiselle	TrudelDupras	(Chambly)	WatsonDuquet	Lumley	WhelanEthier	MacDonald	YanakisFirth	(Cardigan) MacGuigan	Young-102.
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Nielsen) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question now is on motion No. 3, standing in the name of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No.3 (Mr. Nielsen) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the motion of Mr. Buchanan, seconded by Mr. Jamieson, that the bill be concurred in.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As amended.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now?
/
April 10, 1975


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock!


Mr. Speaker:: At the next sitting of the House.



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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, on Monday, February 3, as reported in Hansard at page 2836, I put this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde):
In view of the increasing difficulties being faced by elderly people as they try to cope with today's cost of living, will the minister consider recasting the proposed legislation regarding pensions at 60 so that those pensions will be made available not only to spouses but to all persons over 60 who are out of the labour market? Will the government also consider providing in 1975 a substantial increase in the basic amount of old age security?
The reply of the Minister of National Health and Welfare was to the effect that the government had already expressed its plans in this connection in the Speech from the Throne and he hoped it would be possible to bring in these plans in the form of proper measures as soon as possible. I suppose there are few phrases that are used more often around here than the phrase "as soon as possible". We are now into the month of April and nothing has happened with respect to this matter.
Accordingly, I am taking part in this late show tonight for the purpose of pressing upon the minister once again, whether for the tenth time or the hundredth time, the urgency of reconsidering the question of the age at which old age security is available. Before the minister brings in the measure that was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, namely, the proposal to provide on a needs test basis pensions to spouses between 60 and 65 where one spouse is already 65 years of age or over, I plead with him to recast the legislation and to make pensions available to any person at age 60 who is out of the labour market.
The arguments for this proposal, Madam Speaker, have been made so often, and the unsatisfactory reply of the minister has been given so frequently, that I do not think one needs to take the full seven minutes allotted tonight to go into it. I simply press the point that in our society today, making a living having become what it is, there are thousands of people who find it difficult to keep on in the rat race until the age of 65.
I am not proposing a pension for everyone at age 60 the way it is available to everyone now at age 65, nor am I proposing compulsory retirement, but I am contending that those at age 60 who are out of the labour market for whatever reason should be given the opportunity to obtain
Adjournment Debate
old age security and also any benefits to which they are entitled under the Canada Pension Plan.
May I point out to my good friend, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that he is having a rather sterile session. In the minority parliament he was a busy minister; he brought in all kinds of legislation and we made pretty good progress. But what is his record so far in this session? So far in this session he has got parliament to pass Bill C-22, a very important bill amending the Canada Pension Plan, which by the way was a piece of legislation left over from the minority parliament and which was almost passed before the last election, but that is literally all that has been passed since the last election in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. And what has he got on the order paper?


An hon. Member:: Nothing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Someone to my right says nothing, and that someone is almost correct. He has only two items on the order paper. One of them is a measure in his namfe that came from the Senate and which we are going to deal with tomorrow, Bill S-9, to repeal the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act, and that is actually the only item on the order paper in the name of the minister as Minister of National Health and Welfare. The other item in his name is in his name as minister responsible for the status of women, and that is Bill C-16 having to do with equality of status. It is an important measure and I hope it will not be long before it is brought forward.
But, Madam Speaker, there is nothing at all on the order paper in the whole area of pensions. I looked through my files today and I came across the orange paper. I remember how excited I was when that paper was brought down. I felt we had a minister who was interested in these matters, but what is his record? This minister has held conferences with his counterparts in the provinces, and he has talked about a guaranteed annual income. I gather that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has overruled him in cabinet on that.
I do not like to see my hon. friend having such a poor session. I am giving him the opportunity tonight to make up for this sterility and bring in a measure that would be warmly accepted and welcomed on his side of the House. Indeed, it would be warmly welcomed in all parts of the House and it would make a real contribution to the social security structure of this country. I call upon the minister to forget that record he has played so often and to tell us tonight that he is prepared to consider introducing at this stage a measure providing pensions on a voluntary basis at age 60.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am always interested in listening to the hon. member, but I was particularly struck by the comments he made regarding the lack of legislation before the House. I was struck even more by the comment from the Tory party to the effect that there was nothing. The hon. member referred to the bill amending the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act. I was interested to hear once more that on the part of the Tory party the status of women is nothing. Members of that party have shown plenty of evidence to this effect by their comments in this
4712

April 10, 1975
Adjournment Debate
House in the past, but it is nice to see it again on the record tonight. I certainly hope that the women of this country will note that particular comment from the Tory benches.
As far as the comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) are concerned, I am sure he will be happy to know that there will be substantial amendments to several aspects of the Old Age Security Act brought before this House. The government was committed in the Speech from the Throne to introduce a measure that will come into effect by October 1, 1975. That measure will be brought before the House and I hope, with the co-operation of the House, it will be passed in plenty of time to come into effect by that date.
As the hon. member has also stated, we passed the most important amendment to the Canada Pension Plan last fall that has ever been brought forward since the inception of the plan. That signified a substantial increase in the benefits to those contributing to the plan.
There are other amendments to other legislation that will also be introduced before the end of the session. I hope it will be possible to debate them in due course, providing the opposition allows enough time for the consideration of all the bills now before this House or to come before it. As far as the issue raised by the hon. member is concerned, it has been debated so often I do not think I need add anything.


ABORTION-SUGGESTED INVESTIGATION OF REASON FOR HIGH RATE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, ONTARIO AND ALBERTA
Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, the Federal Advisory Council on the Status of Women has committed an absurd error in urging the government to grant full pardon to the convicted abortionist, Henry Morgentaler.
The 30-member council, set up by the government, is supposed to advise the government on steps to improve the role and status of women in our society. How is the cause of women's rights furthered by giving such a blessing to a man who, by his own admission, has destroyed the lives of thousands of unborn children?
Truly it would be a travesty of justice to permit Dr. Morgentaler to go free. I recognize that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has made him into a modern martyr through continued adulation of him, but the excessive pro-abortion sentiments of the CBC and the Council of Women have destroyed their judgment on the profound significance of the Morgentaler case.
The Morgentaler case must be seen against the background of what is going on in Canada. Section 251 of the Criminal Code permits a therapeutic abortion committee to allow an abortion when continuation of the pregnacy of a mother "would be likely to endanger her life or health".
Since the law went into effect, abortions quadrupled from 1970 to 1973 to 43,201, and they are now 12.6 per cent of live births in Canada. This alarming rate of increase is most noticeable in the three wealthiest provinces of British Columbia, where the abortion rate is 26.7 per cent of

live births, Ontario where the rate is 18.3 per cent, and Alberta where the rate is 18.3 per cent, and Alberta where the rate is 13.8 per cent. These figures support the argument that abortions are being permitted for reasons far beyond health; to argue otherwise is to suggest that it is more dangerous to a mother's health to be pregnant in a rich, instead of a poor, province. But at least through these past few years many have thought that the government was unhappy at the rapid growth and might move to tighten the law.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) is on record as having warned provincial attorneys-general, who administer the Criminal Code, that social and economic considerations are not to be taken into account in determining the permissibility of abortion. The President of the Canadian Medical Association, and a number of leading lights in the communication world have attacked the minister for being too strict. They have argued that the World Health Organization definition of health "as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being" should be the criterion. This is regarded by many others, myself included, as a ridiculous definition. Who among us is ever in a state of "complete physical, mental and social well-being?"
The pressure is building, and the CMA has turned to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for support. It looks like the Prime Minister is encouraging the wide definition of health, for he told the CMA in a letter that hospital abortion committees should have "sufficient latitude". He backed up his view with a statement in the House of Commons that "the Criminal Code refers to health as involving many considerations apart from purely physical ones". This is highly misleading, to say the least.
When I asked the Minister of Justice to clarify the matter he said it is up to the provincial attorneys-general to carry out the law. He did not differ from the Prime Minister's interpretation, nor did he respond when I asked him point blank: "What is the minister doing to reduce this needless escalation of abortion which is a continuing violation of the civil rights of the unborn child?". I find it shocking that there is so little governmental concern at the rising abortion figures.
The law needs to be tightened to make it more explicit that abortions would be permitted only when the life of a mother is "seriously endangered". One of my colleagues, a physician, tells me that if this phrase were in the law there would be practically no legal abortions since modern health methods have reduced the danger of pregnancy to almost nil. But instead we have this erosion to abortion on demand because we are gradually accepting the wide definition-and the government is getting away with it.
Now the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has begun promoting more therapeutic abortion committees. I agree with the open letter to the minister from the Canadian Physicians for Life that the minister ought to adopt "a policy aimed, not at encouraging but at eliminating the practice of non-medical, social abortion". To claim that the absence of abortion committees invites "a breaking of the law" is ridiculous. Dr. Morgentaler operated in Montreal where there are at least five abortion committees, and his trial made clear that his client knew about, and had access to, abortion committees.
April 10, 1975

The federal government, the CBC and the Council of Women notwithstanding, there is a very strong anti-abortion opinion in this country which will soon be dramatized by the presentation to parliament of one million signatures collected by the Alliance for Life. What I find especially sad is that the Council of Women, which has so much positive work to promote, has become so entangled with pro-abortion that it has made such an outrageous proposal to free a notorious criminal abortionist.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I would say to my hon. friend, the member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), that I entirely agree with him and I am now expressing my personal opinion when I also deplore the increasing number of abortions.
Whatever our religious beliefs, whether we are Catholics or not, some basic principles must remain among which the conservation and preservation of life.
I am indeed giving my personal opinion and it is not proper for me to condemn those who do not share that view, but I wanted to express it publicly as I have already done so in previous years.
I now want to answer the question of my hon. friend when he asked on December 12, 1974 that an investigation be held on the reasons for the high rate of abortions in British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta.
There is no doubt that the great difference in statistics concerning the number of abortions performed in various parts of Canada would lead to the conclusion that in some areas, the clauses of the Criminal Code on abortion are too freely interpreted. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) has, on various occasions, expressed his concern about the matter, and made known the intentions of the legislator. Still, one must understand that the federal government, though it edicts the regulations concerning penal law, does not implement nor apply them. The governments of the ten provinces apply all the provisions of the Criminal Code, including those on abortion. Consequently, the implementation of penal law in the provinces depends on their respective attorneys general.
As for us, it is clear that the justification for abortion Parliament inserted in the act rests on life and health, and I feel it would be better to rely on the judgment of experts in the matter. If medical committees accept that responsibility and endeavour seriously to determine whether the motives authorized by Parliament are present in a given case, then, to my mind, the act will achieve its purpose. I thank my hon. friend for having brought up that matter; I can assure him that to my mind, and I repeat this, we agree totally with the efforts we have made to stir in the public an awareness of the fact that the problem of abortion may be a determining factor for the society of tomorrow.
Adjournment Debate


NORTHERN AFFAIRS-REASON FOR REMOVAL OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT FROM FORT SMITH VOCATIONAL TRAINING SCHOOL
Walter (Wally) Firth: Madam Speaker, prior to raising the question on March 21, 1975, with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) regarding the removal of some heavy equipment from the vocational school at Fort Smith in the Northwest Territories to a site higher up north, I gave the minister notice that I would raise it, as I also did after his reply, with which I was not very satisfied, when I gave plenty of notice that it would be transferred to the adjournment debate. I believe that the minister has now had sufficient time to look at this matter in detail and, I hope, to provide an answer that will be satisfactory to the people in the Northwest Territories.
The question involves two pieces of heavy equipment, two scrapers, which were removed and sent to the Mackenzie highway construction project. My comments on this matter will be brief and I hope that the minister now has an answer.
The general principle of having on the job training on a construction site is not a bad idea, but I do not think this should be done at the expense of a government school that is well run and is paid for by the taxpayers, a school for which the government can take a certain amount of credit.
A number of vocational courses were started in the vocational centre at Fort Smith which have met with a certain amount of success, for which the government can rightly take credit. However, I do not think that move to take the equipment away was very wise. It was to the detriment of the training centre at Fort Smith. I would much rather have seen another plan put into operation which I believe would have been more fruitful and less costly. That plan would have been to move the students, after reaching a certain level of training at the vocational school, to jobs at such places as the Hire North project.
Those are the main points I wanted to raise, and I hope that the minister now has a satisfactory answer.


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) I would point out that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) stated in the House that Assistant Commissioner Hancock met with the Fort Smith council to discuss the matter of the two pieces of machinery. To add further to the reply of the minister, the function of the school at Fort Smith is that of a training centre, and it is planned as a place where native peoples may learn to use implements and equipment which would be regularly found on reserves.
In regard to the two scrapers which have been taken with the permission of the school at Fort Smith to the area of Willowlake River and the Hire North training section, the salient fact is that these are very large pieces of equipment and only required for advanced training. A scraper is generally used with a bulldozer, front and back,
4714

April 10, 1975
Adjournment Debate
and it is a machine which takes up the overburden preparatory to road building. I would add that this machine combined with two D-8 bulldozers is only used below the permafrost line. These are very sophisticated pieces of equipment used only for advanced training.
The hon. member has asked if these machines will be replaced at Fort Smith vocational school. The fact is that once a student has completed training on equipment normally used in settlements, if that student indicates a desire to move into commercial or industrial heavy machinery then the training is completed in the Hire North
program, and the equipment is returned to Fort Smith until it is needed again for advanced training.
T emphasize that the equipment was removed with the concurrence of Fort Smith officials, that its use by Hire North is properly undertaken, and that it will be returned to Fort Smith following its use.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.35 p.m.

Friday, April 11, 1975