1975-02-27

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received from Government House which is as follows:
Ottawa, February 27, 1975 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Bora Laskin, P.C., in his capacity of Deputy Governor General of Canada, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 27th day of February, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Andre Garneau Brigadier General Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. On Wednesday, February 19, last the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) rose on a question of privilege regarding the matter of members of this House appearing before committees of the other place to make representations to them on legislation which has gone through the stages of consideration in this chamber. The matter was raised subsequently and the question that was put by the hon. parliamentary secretary was whether a member can go to the other place and raise doubts about a piece of legislation on which this House of Commons has already taken a stand.
It seems to me that the hon. parliamentary secretary has raised two questions: first, can a member appear before a
committee of the other place? I suppose that amounts to a question of whether a member of this chamber can be prevented from so doing. On examining the precedents that were cited, and the Standing Orders, I can find nothing which bears directly upon the point of an hon. member of this House voluntarily appearing before a Senate committee. In any case, the precedents which would appear to offer some assistance are very early precedents which seem to me to have been overriden by usage common to the practices of this House since 1946, whereunder ministers have appeared in assistance of legislation and members have appeared in assistance of their own bills.
While exceptions are provided in this case under the Standing Orders of the other place, they are not referred to in the Standing Orders of this chamber. Accordingly, whatever precedents there were which might have supported the proposition that a member of this chamber could have been prevented from appearing before a committee of the other place seem to have been overridden by recent practices. Accordingly, I am not able to conclude that there is any authority whereunder the Chair could prevent such a thing being done by a member of this chamber.
The second question is whether, in so doing, a member can cast doubts upon legislation that has already been dealt with in this chamber. It seems to me that is hypothetical. No suggestion is made that such an event has taken place and no specific evidence of any occurrence is offered in support of such an allegation. In fact, no motion or inquiry seeking any action on the part of the Chair is appended to the hon. member's question of privilege. I would therefore conclude that no evidence is offered to support the contention that in any recent or specific case a breach of the privileges or Standing Orders of this House has taken place, and therefore I cannot find that a prima facie question of privilege is involved.
I should add, however, that much of the comment that was made in the course of the discussion-which was very long-on this very important point was valid. I refer, for example, to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to the effect that it is a curious anomaly that the other place takes such a grave view of this matter, sufficient to inscribe in its Standing Orders the punishment and penalties that ought to be visited upon one of its members who might condescend to come to this place and appear before this House or its emanations, but it takes a different attitude toward the presence of members of this chamber appearing before that chamber or its committees.
In addition, I am troubled by the fact that a committee of the other place having received, in any particular proceeding, one member of this chamber as a witness, it might find it most awkward to refuse others who wanted to

February 27, 1975
Public Service
appear. I cannot help but wonder if one day we may see this as a question of privilege of quite another form when a member or members-and, of course, they could be considerable in number-indicate that because one member of this House has appeared before a Senate committee to comment on legislation that has been passed by this House, surely that ought to be a privilege or a right extended to all other members who hold different views. While that would be action outside this chamber, it might pose a thorny question about the rights and privileges of members of this House.
Finally, from our own members' point of view it would seem to me that in doing so, obviously members are putting themselves in a situation where they are inviting a breach of Standing Order 35 which prohibits comment or reflection upon decisions of this House by members of this House, and they are inviting potentially grave affronts to parliament: they are inviting breaches of the privileges of the House. In fact, it seems to me that great care is needed on the part of hon. members appearing before committees of the other place in order to avoid these pitfalls. I can perhaps summarize these sentiments by saying it is to be hoped that neither members of this chamber nor of the other place will want to see that practice greatly encouraged.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
Considering that the federal government indicated last year that no layoff would result from the impact of technological changes on the postal system, and that, as reported in the press, 6,000 Toronto postal workers have just been laid off for the purpose of possibly crushing the strike of blue collar workers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the House discuss this situation now, so that immediate corrective action may be taken to remedy this situation and create as soon as possible a climate truly favourable to meaningful bargaining in this area.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek permission of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43 of urgent and pressing necessity, particularly in view of discussions in this House and elsewhere in recent days. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration be asked to tell this House whether the Minister of Labour, since becoming a member of parliament, has ever been involved with the illegal entry of an inadmissible person to Canada, whether any such case was ever investigated by the RCMP, whether the results of the investigation, if undertaken, were ever forwarded to his department and, if so, what action was taken.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: 

SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a very urgent matter.
Considering the many requests we receive from people between 60 and 65 years of age, asking that the old age security pension be extended to sixty-year-old persons, and considering that it is difficult for these people to earn an income by working, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the House adopt, without debate because this matter is very well known, a motion asking the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to introduce without delay a bill extending the old age security pension to sixty-year-old persons.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore, the motion cannot be put.
February 27, 1975



INDUSTRY


Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to discuss an urgent matter.
Considering that STAP-the shipbuilding temporary assistance program-will expire on March 31, 1975, that is in a few days, in view of the uncertainty of the future of this program, uncertainty that naturally affects our Canadian shipyards, and the minister's awareness of the efficiency of the program in maintaining a high level of employment in our shipyards, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote):
That the minister make a statement on motions indicating the intentions of his department with regard to STAP and, should the department intend to drop the program, that the minister advise us what measures are planned to replace it with comparable results.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


An hon. Member:: Reid said no.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope the record will show that a member of the Liberal Party said no to that request.



REPRESENTATION COMMISSIONER ACT


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-381, to amend the Representation Commissioner Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is consequential on results of Bill C-370, a private members' bill standing in my name which today will receive royal assent. As a result of that bill passing, there are some consequential amendments which are deemed to be advisable to the Representation Commissioner Act that are contained in this bill.


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


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General involving the massive probe by the RCMP and other federal agencies regarding the $21 million contract for the St. Lawrence. Can the minister indicate to the House the scope of the investigation being conducted at the present time into federal dredging contracts? Also, are there any other federal agencies involved and is the investigation virtually completed?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: All I can
say, Mr. Speaker, is that the investigation is still underway. There are other federal departments involved. I have been given no information to the effect that the police are ready to lay charges at this time.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to be followed by a further supplementary, since the minister has indicated there are other federal agencies involved besides the RCMP. Is the minister in a position to now disclose which other agencies these may be?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, to be certain, I better check on that. I will report to the House, possibly later in the question period.


REASON FOR WITHHOLDING PAYMENT TO CERTAIN MONTREAL COMPANIES FOR DREDGING ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Is the
minister in a position to report back to the House on a question asked him yesterday concerning the $1.5 million final payment for the St. Lawrence dredging contract? He was asked if the payment was held up because the government was waiting for the disposition of court proceedings in Hamilton? Can the minister answer this question today? Is there a relationship between the two?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I put that question to the RCMP immediately after the question period yesterday. I have not yet received a reply. All these answers are not in Ottawa. It is necessary to check with people in the field.


HARBOURS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the recent statement by the Minister of Labour regarding the integrity of Del Hickey and Joe Lanza of the Hamilton Harbour Commission, can the minister indicate whether it is true the Minister of Labour

February 27, 1975
Oral Questions
was instrumental in having Mr. Lanza removed from his position last summer and whether there were consultations with the Minister of Transport in this regard?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on this whole matter-


An hon. Member:: There is no answer.


Jean Marchand: Oh, yes, there are answers. First, I must inform the House in connection with this matter-I probably should have done this before, but I did not have the complete file before me-that I am the one who, in January 1973, two years ago, ordered the RCMP to inquire into alleged Hamilton irregularities. The same is true for the Quebec part of the dredging. I can produce the letters at any time. As Minister of Transport, I asked the Solicitor General to make this-


An hon. Member:: Will you table the letters?


Jean Marchand: Yes, I can do that. I have them here. I will have copies made. They are very regular letters. We thought there was some irregularity. There was some suspicion about the attitude of Mr. Lanza and another person; I do not recall the name, but I can get it in five minutes. I said I would renew their mandate for a few months, but I did not intend to renominate them after that. Actually, they were not renominated to the board.


HAMILTON HARBOUR COMMISSION-REASON FOR FAILURE TO RENEW APPOINTMENTS OF MR. HICKEY AND MR. LANZA AS COMMISSIONERS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I thank the minister for his very informative answer. Was there any specific reason why their mandate was not renewed?


Jean Marchand: No,
there was not. At that time no trial had taken place-there had been no inquiry but there was suspicion and, since those jobs are given at the discretion of cabinet, nothing binds us to nominating someone who might be suspected of not, say, meeting some ethical standards we are supposed to have when we serve the government.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Were there consultations at that time between the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour?


Jean Marchand: The Minister of Labour was entirely in agreement with what I was doing.


HOUSING
John Edward Broadbent: A question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Considering that interest rates on mortgages are now in the neighbourhood of 11 per cent, I would like to ask the minister whether, following the decision by the government of
[Mr. MacKay.)
British Columbia recently to embark on a program which would provide mortgages at 6 per cent, the federal government would be willing to initiate a joint federal-provincial program with all the provinces which are interested in taking part to provide mortgages across the board to Canadians at 6 per cent?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I do not know whether the hon. member is aware of the fact that we have already made available an effective mortgage rate of 6 per cent for those Canadians who need it. This has been done under federal legislation, and if we can speed up the passage of the housing legislation this afternoon I hope many more Canadians will be able to take advantage of this rate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I am well aware that something like .001 per cent of all the mortgages which go out from the federal government go out at 6 per cent, and that is precisely why I asked the minister whether he is willing to undertake the kind of action at the federal level which one province is prepared to take so that the average mortgage rate charged to the average Canadian would be 6 per cent.


Barnett Jerome Danson: I do not, of course, accept the premise of the hon. member's question as far as the percentage is concerned, with respect to mortgages which are supported by the central government through CMHC. However, I would be most interested in seeing what another government has come up with and discussing it with them to see what new answers they have found to a complex problem.


REASON FOR REDUCTION IN FUNDS ALLOCATED TO ONTARIO
John Edward Broadbent: Can the
minister explain to the House, in the way the Minister of Finance could not on Friday, why CMHC reduced the allocation of funds to the government of Ontario by the following amounts: from $78 million to $50.4 million for public housing construction; for co-operative housing from $65 million to $55.8 million, and for land assembly from $55 million to $35 million? Can he explain these cuts when, in fact, we are faced with the kind of housing crisis which the minister himself has described on previous occasions?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I do not have the precise figures before me. The capital budget of CMHC has, of course, been increased by 12 per cent over last year and Ontario's share has been increased as well. I shall be meeting with the Ontario housing minister on Monday to discuss the ways in which we can co-operate to ensure that our mutual objectives are best achieved.


John Edward Broadbent: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister has just said that he does not have the figures. I am using figures taken from a CMHC document. I would ask the minister to provide an answer to the House as to why the funds have been cut.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I do not carry all CMHC's documents around with me. The hon. member may carry one but I would have to carry a great deal more in order to answer questions that are put to me. I would be pleased to discuss it with the hon. member, but I would be much more interested in discussing it with the housing minister for Ontario.


TRANSPORT
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
The press just announced that the federal government has awarded the Bombardier corporation a $250 million contract to develop a prototype rapid transit train connecting suburbs and downtown areas. Could the Minister of Transport elaborate and tell the House what is happening to the large urban areas transit systems improvement project and could he confirm or invalidate that news about the award of a contract to Bombardier-Matra?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, let me answer a part of the question only. Otherwise, I would have to make an hour long speech on the development of the transport industry in Canada. I know that the news about Bombardier having been awarded a contract by my department is true.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Bombardier-Matra having been given an important contract of $250 million, could the minister tell how many new jobs will be created?


Jean Marchand: How many jobs? Well, I do not know; but I will seek information and I will be told. But at first sight, I cannot say.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General a question. As reported at page 3535 of Hansard the Minister of Labour said in answer to a question of mine:
Mr. Speaker, they wanted permission to look at documents in my office, the contents of which I was really not aware. They were in cabinets. I gave them permission to go ahead, even though they did not have proper authority.
Has the minister looked into the fact that the RCMP had no authority to seize documents in the office of the Minister of Labour, and why did they act without authority?
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did look into that. What the minister meant by that was that the search warrant the RCMP had on that occasion was for a different address. When the Minister of Labour saw that it was a different address, he felt he would not object to their taking the documents no matter where they were, and he gave them to them in any case.


NATURE OF DOCUMENT AUTHORIZING SEARCH OF HAMILTON
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I know the minister is trying to clear up this matter, but in light of the fact that there appears to be some discrepancy between the Minister of Labour and the Solicitor General, and since this matter is important, has the Solicitor General asked for a copy of the documents that the RCMP did in fact have with them when they entered and made a raid on the Minister of Labour's office; and if he has perused them, what kind of documents were they?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP had a search warrant to obtain certain documents from the Minister of Labour. When the Minister of Labour said that they did not have authority, he meant that they did not have authority to search at that particular address. It was not that the RCMP did not have general authority to search. Consequently, the Minister of Labour turned over all the documents at that address and at other places to the RCMP.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister tell the House what the documents were? What did they contain, and would he be prepared to table a copy of them in the House so that the matter will then be finalized and cleared up?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, do I understand the hon. member to be asking for the documents seized or taken by the RCMP?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Just to clarify that, Mr. Speaker, I am asking for the documents that led to the raid and gave the RCMP authority to make the raid on the Minister of Labour's office. What were those documents, and what did they contain?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there is a criminal investigation underway. Charges have been laid in five instances in this case already. Three men have been found guilty and the investigation is still being conducted. I do not think there are grounds to table in this House documents relating to a criminal investigation.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before we leave this issue, if we should leave it, in the course of giving an answer to my hon. friend from Central Nova the Minister of Transport read from a number of documents which he indicated a willingness to table. I have been waiting for him to do so, and I am wondering whether on a point of order I can ask the minister whether that is his intention.

February 27, 1975
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister did not indicate that he was prepared to table the documents from which he was reading; he indicated that he was prepared to table correspondence in which he ordered an investigation into certain matters two years ago. Presumably the minister, if he indicated he is prepared to table them, will do so.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. I wonder whether the Minister of Communications knows of or has caused any sort of police investigation, or any other type of investigation of a criminal nature, into the granting of cable TV licences in the Hamilton area?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Solicitor General on the same matter. I ask him the same question, and as well I ask him whether he has any evidence, or whether any allegations have yet been brought to his attention, which would lead him to believe that there should be a police investigation into the granting of cable TV licences in the Hamilton area.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, no such allegation has been brought to my attention. As far as I know there is no such investigation underway, but I will check into that.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question for the Solicitor General. Would he obtain a transcript of a television program this morning called "Canada AM" and the interview of Mrs. Ellen Reinke of Hamilton in which some remarks were made concerning the issuance of cable TV licences in the Hamilton area, and would he report back to the House if he thinks an investigation is warranted?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to get a transcript of the program.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to answer a question put to me a little earlier. I was asked whether other agencies were involved in the investigation with respect to the dredging contract in the Quebec City area. I said other agencies were involved. Then, the question was: Could you reveal the other agencies? I checked into that, and the answer is that it would interfere with the investigation if we made public the other agencies that are investigating. That would hinder the investigation.


ALLEGED FAILURE OF PRODUCTS OF CONNAUGHT LABORATORIES TO MEET STANDARDS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of health. In view of the fact that Connaught Laboratories are now under the control of the Canada Development Corporation, that the mandate of this corporation in the health care area is one of long term profitability, and that this mandate has resulted in more than one instance in Connaught being forced to compromise their own product quality control standards and to ship products which did not meet regulatory requirements, has the minister taken any corrective action to ensure that quality control is up to international standards and that the quality of the product is up to international standards?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily accept all the hon. member's preliminary comments. I simply say that frequent inspections were made in the Connaught Laboratories; as a matter of fact, the average number of inspections in recent years has been higher there than the average for the whole pharmaceutical industry. Each time deficiencies were found, steps were taken by the Connaught Laboratories at the request of our department to remedy the situation. Each new case brought to our attention has been investigated immediately by officials of my department.


Paul Yewchuk: Do I take it from the minister's answer that he is quite satisfied that all products of this laboratory are indeed up to the world standard of acceptability?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering what the hon. member means by world standards. I am not aware of such a thing. There are national standards in each country and it is up to each country to enforce the standards which apply within its territory to imported or locally made products.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Paul Yewchuk: While the minister checks what the standards are, may I direct a question to the minister responsible for the Canada Development Corporation and ask him whether, in view of the difficulties that have arisen because the mandate of CDC requires the corporation to be profitable and this does not appear to be compatible with products of high standard, he would be willing to consider changing the mandate so far as health care products are concerned.
February 27, 1975


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the statute of CDC attempts to reconcile two prime objectives: one is profitability, and the other is the public interest of Canada. I think that with its investment in the Connaught Laboratories it is trying to reconcile the two.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding a starred question of mine which has been on the order paper since January 30. It is my understanding that starred questions put on the order paper should be answered within a period of a week. I may be wrong on this, and if I am, I stand to be corrected. No answer has been forthcoming to my question. Yesterday, and previously, I attempted to rise on several occasions on this point, but was not recognized. If I am wrong, I would like to be told about it because I should like to know whether it is the right of an hon. member, when he places a starred question on the order paper, to receive an answer, and within what period of time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Simcoe North raises a point of order about the right of an hon. member to receive a reply to his starred question within a certain period of time. My understanding of the proceedings of the House in respect of starred questions is that a starred question entitles an hon. member to an oral answer when the answer is given, but does not give that member any right to demand an answer within a specified period of time.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Since I first came to the House it has been the custom for a starred question to be answered within the period of a week. If I am wrong, I want to know it because then, I wonder what is the point of placing a starred question if it is left up to the minister to answer it if and when he likes. This is the very point that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River raised.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Simcoe North raises an interesting point, but again I have to say that I cannot find any authority which would entitle an hon. member to an answer to a starred question within a period of time. What it does entitle him to is an oral answer in the House when the answer is given.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, my question then is, what is the point of placing a starred question on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: That is a good question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This exchange should not become an extended dialogue between the hon. member and the Chair. However, may I say that presumably the reason for placing a starred question on the order paper would be that it would result in an oral answer being given in the House, as opposed to a written answer.


Philip Bernard Rynard: What Your Honour is saying then is that the minister can either give an answer or not give it. If that is what Your Honour is ruling, let us have it so that we know.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking me for a ruling on a point of order. Let me make it clear. I have examined the precedents and authorities. I will put it in the terms of a specific ruling on the hon. member's point of order and tell him that I am not able to find any authority which can compel an answer to be given to any question, starred or otherwise, within any specific period of time. The adding of the asterisk requires an oral answer to the question.


ALLEGED FAILURE OF PRODUCTS OF CONNAUGHT LABORATORIES TO MEET STANDARDS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, you recognized me on a supplementary question which I should like to direct to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that in January of 1973 the Connaught Laboratories were found in breach of regulations covering raw materials, packaging and product stability, but nothing was done, and in February of 1974, Mr. Showalter, the chairman of the drug board, drew this to the attention of the chairman of Connaught Laboratories, Dr. R. J. Wilson, stating that there were violations in the finished products tests and quality control and that none of the other breaches had been corrected, and as governments were the big buyers of Connaught Laboratories products-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I want to ask the minister if he is aware of the fact that Connaught Laboratories have been selling those inferior products and vaccines all this time, thus subjecting the public to risk and destroying their own good name?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, from January 17 to January 19, an inspection was held at the Connaught Laboratories and some deficiencies were detected in certain drugs. Steps were taken as a result of that inspection to correct the deficiencies and that was it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On February 20 I asked him a question relating to the export from Canada of arms and military material to Turkey and whether licenses were being granted for this purpose. He replied that that used to be the situation, but that the situation had changed and the policy had been modified. He said he would like to refresh his memory in

February 27, 1975
Oral Questions
respect of the matter. So now, I ask him whether the policy of not granting licenses for the export of arms to Turkey at this time has been modified and, if so, how has the situation changed to justify this change in policy?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that at present there is no general embargo on the export to Turkey of arms or military equipment, although shipments of such material were suspended for a time following the events in Cyprus of last July and August. At present, each application for arms or military equipment to Turkey would be examined in the light of the existing and foreseeable political and military situation in the area before an export permit is granted. As the House is aware, it is not the policy of the government to allow the export of arms or military equipment to an area where military hostilities are taking place.


Francis Andrew Brewin: In view of the fact that Canada has peacekeeping forces in Cyprus, would it not be rather shortsighted, to put it mildly, to put weapons in the hands of those who might in certain eventualities use them against our own troops?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, I think one would have to agree with the hon. member. If that were the eventuality and if one shipped arms against that eventuality, it would indeed be shortsighted action. I do not regard it as an eventuality.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
As the North American aluminum producers in the United States as well as in Canada have recently announced a total reduction in production averaging about 13 per cent, can the minister tell us as a result of such move by Alcan in Canada, at Arvida, Shawinigan or even Kitimat, if it is an isolated decision or a step taken in co-operation with its competitors, as it sometimes happen now, if in any case he intends to investigate this matter or if at least he has met an authority of Alcan in Canada?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member is asking about the layoffs in the aluminum industry, particularly of Alcan Canada. I have met with officials of that corporation, and I have been told that the reason for those layoffs and reductions in production is the slowing down of their markets abroad, particularly in the United States.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since 700 people have been laid off, temporarily or not, by Alcan in Arvida or Shawinigan, can the minister tell us whether he knows when the company will recall its employees and whether he intends to ensure with his provincial counterpart that any potential establishment of an aluminum company on the outskirts of Quebec City by the Quebec government does not result in increased unemployment for Alcan of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, an area where the rate of unemployment is already 15 or 20 per cent?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the representations of the hon. member as valuable suggestions and bring myself up to date on the details. I will try to get an answer for him as soon as possible.


COMBINES
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary, this time for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
In order to ascertain whether Alcan, especially in the Lac Saint-Jean area, has reduced its production in order to create a scarcity of aluminum products and thus keep prices increasing, would the minister be willing to order an inquiry by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, and has he taken any measure in that respect, either on the sole initiative of his department or with his provincial counterpart from the independent government of Quebec?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be well aware that, under the Combines Investigation Act, the director of inquiries and combines looks into the matter every time he thinks appropriate to do so, and that I am not in a position to confirm or deny that an inquiry is underway.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It is with respect to the very serious situation in the potato industry in eastern Canada of which I am sure the minister is well aware. In view of the decrease on a year to year basis in terms of the price to the farmer of some 75 per cent in terms of marketable potatoes and the present situation whereby potato growers in eastern Canada are selling

February 27, 1975

their potatoes at about 50 per cent of the cost of production, I wonder whether the minister is preparing with his officials a program under the stabilization plan in order to be of assistance and to prevent a large segment of the industry from going bankrupt.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered a question in the House last week that we were looking at the problems potato producers are now facing in the Maritime provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and we are meeting the ministers of agriculture from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick next Wednesday, I believe.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Some weeks ago in response to a similar question by my colleague from Malpeque the minister indicated that his department had made a very serious study of the marketing problems, which are one of the fundamental difficulties in the present situation. I wonder if the minister is prepared to make that study available so that there can be more information in regard to the possible alternatives to help find some long term solution to this problem.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, not before I meet with the ministers of agriculture from the two provinces most concerned.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a supplementary question. Will he look favourably on some emergency solution which might be presented by the governments of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick so that producers will have the financial capability of planting crops this year rather than being forced out of business completely?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, that is one of our intentions when we meet with the provincial ministers next week.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister concerning the recent appointment of the new deputy minister of agriculture. While I note that the new deputy has impressive credentials in the fields of finance and internal government administration, his background suggests a complete absence of any experience in agriculture. I ask the Acting Prime Minister why the Prime Minister appointed a man without apparent agricultural experience as our new deputy minister and whether applications were considered from candidates with this necessary background in agriculture?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Denis Hudon, who has been appointed as deputy minister of agriculture, is one of the more senior
Oral Questions
and more experienced civil servants and a man who has worked in many capacities. I do not think it is absolutely necessary that the deputy minister be a specialist in any particular department. Otherwise, of course, it is very difficult to have flexibility within the public service necessary to give a career to intelligent people. I believe Mr. Denis Hudon will do extremely well as deputy minister of agriculture.


APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE-CONSULTATION WITH MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE-POSSIBLE APPOINTMENT OF WESTERNER
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Will the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether the Minister of Agriculture was consulted in regard to this appointment and whether he participated in the final decision? Will he also advise whether any serious consideration was given to the appointment of a deputy minister of agriculture from western Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Northwest Territories seeking the floor on a question of privilege? If so, perhaps the Acting Prime Minister could be permitted to answer and then I will see the hon. member.


Claude Wagner: Come on, Mitch.


An hon. Member:: Where is the answer?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, announcements and appointments of deputy ministers are the prerogative of the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: Hon. members opposite perhaps do not understand, but in the system of appointments of deputy ministers this is a prerogative which has always been very highly valued by Prime Ministers-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: -including the right hon. member for Prince Albert when he was prime minister. I happen to have been a civil servant during those days, and I know how much he protected that particular prerogative and put it into practice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Chair should be given notice of questions of privilege, but because of the grave importance of this matter I would like to raise it now. It is a matter which has just been brought to my attention. I would like to read

February 27, 1975
Oral Questions
a quote attributed to the Minister of National Defence found in the current issue of Maclean's:
Discussing the fate of the Indians and Eskimos, he wiE suddenly puzzle, "I mean, what did they ever do for Canada? Did they discover gas? Did they discover oil? They didn't even invent the wheel. Why, when we came here, they were still dragging things around on two sticks."
I think that is shameful.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter (Wally) Firth: I think that the native people of this country deserve an apology, and I think the minister's statements should be explained to the House. Indians and Eskimos continue to make contributions to the Canadian people. The explorers who first came here would not have survived without the help of the native people.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege. The accusation of the hon. member is correct but it should be directed to the author of that article. There was no quotation by me in those terms. I would ask the hon. member to look at the statements I have made which are on public record about the native people of this country. I would ask him to look at the first time I accepted nomination in 1968 and I will send him a transcript because those are my real views and not as expressed in that article. There were many other inaccuracies in that article as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has been seen on the question of privilege which he put forward and I permitted the hon. minister who was involved in the question to make a comment as well. The hon. member, of course, is raising a question of great importance. It is difficult to see how it becomes a question of privilege in respect of the operations of members of the House at this moment. In any case, the hon. member has exposed the point and the hon. Minister has replied and this would seem to be as far as it can go in that context. The hon. member may wish to pursue the matter further in another way.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for the Northwest Territories raised a matter and the Minister of National Defence replied to the effect that he should take it up with the author of the article. I think the way in which the hon. member for the Northwest Territories raised the point demands that the Minister of National Defence, if he did not make this statement, should categorically deny it.


An hon. Member:: He did.
[Mr. Firth.)


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I just did deny that in the most categorical and definite terms.


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


INCOME TAX
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In view of the fact that certain people with an annual income of $200,000 and over are taxed at a rate not exceeding 10 per cent, that the average taxpayer earning $7,000 a year is taxed at a rate of 12.14 per cent, and that horse owners will be allowed deductions up to $7,000, would the Minister consider introducing legislation designed to protect low income people instead of horse owners?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the question was put to me, I must point out that there was some confusion around me. I will read it and give a more complete answer.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I directed two inquiries to the hon. Minister of Finance, but he did not seem to listen to my remarks.
My question is this: in view of the fact that more than 50 individuals in Canada with revenues exceeding $200,000 were taxed at a rate of 10 per cent or less, that the average taxpayer earning $7,000 a year was taxed at a rate of 12.14 per cent rate, and that people owning race- or other horses will be exempted from tax over $7,000, I ask the hon. Minister if he considered introducing legislation to protect low income people instead of horse owners?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the question is so detailed that the hon. member deserves a detailed answer, which he will get.


ABORTION
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Would the minister advise if it is her intention to contact some of the well-informed persons in Europe on the abortion issue, as suggested by the Alliance For Life, when she visits that continent shortly?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, my impending trip to Paris has nothing to do with the problem raised by the hon. member. However, I have received a list of persons in countries having a wealth of data on abortion. I shall certainly contact them, when I am able to do so.
February 27, 1975


TRANSPORT
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport who has been relieved of some of his extra parliamentary duties. I wonder if he is now in a position to give us some hope that the mess he discovered might be cleaned up quickly. Can he give us a time frame in which we might expect to see some fairly definitive proposals emanating from his department? How long is this likely to take?


An hon. Member:: Ten years.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, I think this is a fair question to put to a minister but the hon. member knows the extent of the Department of Transport which covers airports, railways, airplanes, runways, ports and so forth. If he wants an answer on each of these subjects, I hope he will be patient enough to remain in the House next time I speak because an answer would take a couple of hours. I was working hard with the transport ministers from the west last week and we achieved a few things. We are achieving a few things in Saint John, New Brunswick; we are trying to work in Nova Scotia as well and we are trying to get an airport for Prince Edward Island. If the hon. member wants a full answer I can prepare a book and give him that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister knows my questions are always fair and I am just seeking some information.


Jean Marchand: This one is fair.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am prepared to wait for the book, but the minister has been saying for some time that he was going to produce a fundamental reform in the whole approach to transportation in Canada, that the legislation is not adequate and his department is not capable of coping with what is going on. When are we going to get that fundamental reform, allowing that the minister is working hard doing this in the west and doing that in the maritime provinces. When are we going to get the mess cleaned up that I thought the minister was talking about?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to intervene in this scintillating exchange. Recent comments compel me to say that general questions invite long, general answers. These are made not at the expense at the Chair but at the expense of other members who wish to take part in the question period. I hope this matter will be considered.
Oral Questions
for Fisheries. In light of the economic hardship faced by inshore fishermen in Nova Scotia due to the closure of La Have, Brown's and Georges Banks, what action is the government taking to assist these fishermen during this period of economic hardship, and would the minister inform the House if other nations are adhering to ICNAF regulations by refraining from fishing operations on the three banks named.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, a delegation from the area came to Ottawa for a prolonged meeting on Monday. The meeting involved officials, myself and other interested groups. We identified the problems. There was agreement that the solution would not be in reopening the banks, for reasons of conservation and preservation of stocks for the future. We are now looking at every possible avenue to reduce the hardship-I recognize that there is some hardship connected with this problem and I would like it to be as limited as possible. The delegation which came here appointed three of its members to continue working with our officials to this end.
As to the second question, I have no knowledge of other nations fishing in this area. We have a patrol ship in the area, which is watching it as closely as possible. I will check again; there might be some incidents which have not yet been reported to me.


CLOSURE OF LA HAVE, BROWN'S AND GEORGES BANKS- NUMBER OF SHIPS PATROLING AREA TO ENSURE OTHER NATIONS NOT FISHING
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister indicate the number of ships which are carrying out surveillance of this area, which is a vast one, and say how many reports he is receiving on fishing activity. Are they made on a daily, weekly or monthly basis? Also, will he say categorically that Canadian fishing activity is not being restricted while other nations are reaping this resource, because, according to my information, other nations are still fishing on Georges Banks.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, we will look into these allegations. I know that at times more than one ship patrols the area, but I will check and report to the hon. member.


COMMUNICATIONS
[Stage Direction]


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of State responsible


ABANDONED PINE TREE RADAR BASE-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PREVENT DAMAGE-INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE FUTURE USE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I will not ask a supplementary question. Did Your Honour recognize me for a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: No.


Jack Marshall: We must be coming to the end of the question period.

February 27, 1975
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please ask his question. Many other members are seeking the floor.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I could direct my question to five ministers but I will direct it to the Minister of Public Works. It has to do with a portion of land known as Pine Tree Radar Base, which was left three years ago by the American government to the Canadian government. As several departments and agencies of the federal government are interested in this facility, may I ask what action is being taken to prevent vandalism which is damaging millions of dollars worth of property. What is the government doing to prevent vandalism?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I know nothing about that particular case but would be glad to inquire and reply to the hon. member.


Jack Marshall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As I have received confirmation that the matter is to be investigated, may I ask the Minister of Communications, who answers to this House for Telesat Canada, if his department has investigated the site as being of interest to Telesat Canada? I might say that the property is being vandalized to such an extent that its deteriorated state should be an embarrassment to Canada.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire about the interesting question raised by the hon. member and reply to him as soon as possible.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my final supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. As the department has a particular interest in the equipment at Pine Tree Radar Base and as the matter which I am raising has been brought to his attention for the past three months through my inquiries, may I ask what action the minister has taken in connection with his interest in that site.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's question as notice and see if I can reply tomorrow.


TRANSPORT
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Earlier in today's question period he said that he had initiated investigations into contracts for the dredging of harbours in Ontario and Quebec. Did he at the same time, or has he since then, initiated investigations into dredging contracts in British Columbia, and has he any reports about those contracts?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, unless the Solicitor General did, but not at the request of the Department of Transport.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Solicitor General. Has he ever initiated in British Columbia investigations of dredging contracts in the way he did at Hamilton.


William Warren Allmand: Not to my
knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will check.


PROPOSED ELIMINATION OF GENERAL COMMODITY RATES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. lies Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a specific question to the Minister of Transport. Since the view is widely held, I think by the minister as well, that he, his department and the Canadian Transport Commission have insufficient authority to oversee properly areas of transportation involving freight rates, has the minister encouraged, or does he approve, the efforts of Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, as reported in this morning's Montreal Gazette, to reduce or eliminate the general commodity freight rates by making them specific rates or agreed charges, a move which will further reduce whatever authority the minister of the Canadian Transport Commission have over freight rates.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, although I had not intended to, I will read the Montreal Gazette and perhaps make some comments tomorrow.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While the minister is doing that, would he also look at other publications. In view of statements made during the last year or so by the Prime Minister, the minister and others, is he prepared to tolerate national advertisements by Canadian National Railways, in view of his statement that competition does not work in transportation in Canada. Will he tolerate these national advertisements put out by Canadian National, a public corporation, which state that railway rates should continue to be based on, and I quote, "normal competitive business practices".


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I must make a correction. I said that competition alone is not working in that field, and I maintain that. Outside that, I think it can work.


STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT THAT CAPITAL OUTLAYS BE RAISED FROM FREIGHT RATES-MINISTER'S POSITION
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister share


the views of the president of Canadian National, Mr. Bandeen, who says that the $5 billion which will be needed for capital outlays in the next five or six years should be raised exclusively from freight rates. Does the minister agree?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss that matter with Mr. Bandeen.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport to do with freight rates. Why was it deemed necessary to engage, in 1974, for the study of freight rates and future development of western Canada the American consulting firm of R. L. Banks and Associates of Washington.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the last part of the question. Would the hon. member repeat.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I asked why it was deemed necessary to engage the American consulting firm, R. L. Banks and Associates of Washington, D.C., for the study of railway freight rates and the future development of western Canada.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, that firm was retained by the Ministry of Transport and by the governments of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport a supplementary question about the American consulting firm's report. Has the study been completed? If so, will its context be made public?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the committee in question is working well, even though some would like to see it collapse. We publish only that on which we are in agreement. In the present case the committee decided that it should be a working paper, to be used for the committee's purposes.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The minister indicated in his answer that some people wish this whole study could collapse. I want to make it perfectly clear that certainly does not apply to me, if that is what the minister is insinuating.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In the language used by some of my customers in the province of Quebec, I must tell the House that last night there was a settlement of accounts between the House of Commons and the press gallery. In this regle-
Business of the House
ment de comptes, the House of Commons whopped the press gallery in hockey, six to three.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Solicitor General was not thinking of the press gallery as his future customers.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the government House leader the usual Thursday afternoon question. Now that we have prodded the Minister of Finance into facilitating the passage of the income tax bill, will the government House leader indicate what we will be doing for the rest of today, tomorrow and next week. Also, could he give us a list of the bills he hopes will be passed so that we can study them to see if they achieve the high standard this party insists upon for legislation.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in welcoming back the House leader of the official opposition, I must say I was perhaps remiss in not informing him of what went on in his absence.


Gerald William Baldwin: Not much.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am very pleased that we are finally reaching the end of the debate on the Income Tax Act. This will be continued this afternoon. I hope the hon. member will co-operate with the government in getting through the third and final stage of this bill. After we have concluded that, we will return to the second reading of the housing bill which was interrupted to complete the third reading of the income tax bill.
Tomorrow, I would like to call three items that I hope can be dealt with expeditiously. The first is the farm credit bill, C-34. There is a good deal of urgency because there are provisions for the extension of financial assistance and time is running short. Next will be the Northwest Territories bill which provides for an additional member. If we dispose of those items, I would like to move on to the opening, or perhaps even the completion, of the discussion on reference of the immigration green paper. Since we have a date by which the committee is to bring in its report, I think it is very important that we have the committee at work as soon as possible.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Four important committees have been listed for 3:30 this afternoon. I know from personal knowledge that this party has been trying to get one of these activated since the first day we returned after Christmas. On January 22, five weeks ago yesterday, a move was made to have the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence convened to study an important matter. Today is the first day that a sitting of the committee has been arranged. Along with it, there are three other important committees. As fate would have it, I happen to be on three of the committees. I am in a conflict of
3632

February 27, 1975
Business of the House
interest, if ever any member of this House was. I do not know which one to attend. I would like to go to all three.
I consider this sort of arranging of committees an affront to this House. It is wrong and should not be allowed to occur. The blocking system which was intended to avoid this has broken down. I appeal to Your Honour and, through you, to the government House leader to ensure that in future committees of this importance do not meet at the same time, but that they be spread out in an equitable fashion throughout the week so that those members who have the interest of their constituents and the work of this parliament at heart may attend to their business here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
My point of order will be brief. I want to say that the contract awarded to the Bombardier firm is for $1.5 million rather than $250 million as stated a while ago.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order in relation to a bill that was introduced this afternoon by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council. In his explanation on the introduction of this bill, he indicated that a bill in his name had been passed, sent to the other place and will receive Royal Assent today.
My point of order is in relation to the second bill which the parliamentary secretary introduced. He indicated it was consequential on the passage of the first bill. I suggest it would be a bad practice to allow the passing of a bill prepared by a private member which would, in fact, change other laws in order to make workable the law which we have already passed. This is a government responsibility. If a bill is passed amending the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, that is the responsibility of the government. The government should bring in the consequential amendment rather than the hon. member.
The reason I am concerned is that if this were allowed, it could do two things. The government could have two forms of legislation, one which they provide to their backbench members to bring forward with their agreement and the other legislation from their normal sources. That would not be in keeping with the use of private members legislation. The second difficulty is if a member has the good fortune to have a private members bill accepted, whether or not that bill had any effect, even though it had received three readings in this House, three readings in the other place and Royal Assent, it would not become operative if there were consequential amendments the government was not willing to put into effect.
I ask Your Honour to look at this because it appears to be a totally different kind of bill from what we normally have from private members. The practice in the past has been that once Royal Assent is given to a bill, it becomes law and the government is responsible for consequential amendments. It would be bad practice if, to carry out the will of this House, it were necessary for a private member to go through that procedure to make the amendments.

The responsibility to make it operative should be on the shoulders of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised a very interesting point in connection with the bill of the Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council. However, the practices of the House have been such that introduction of a bill pretty much follows as a matter of course. I am sure the hon. member's remarks will be repeated when the hon. member's bill comes up for consideration. In the meantime, he has raised a very worthwhile point that I will be pleased to consider very carefully.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-49, to amend the statute law relating to income tax, be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Thanks to the efforts of parliamentary counsel we found a printing error in the bill. I draw the attention of the House to page 269 of the bill as reprinted. In the French version, section 118(1) has been eliminated. I think it should be replaced and the rest of the page re-annotated. Perhaps the House would allow that to be done.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Stevens:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I presumed the Minister of Finance would at least give us the benefit of some remarks at this stage. During the proceedings in committee of the whole many questions were put to the minister which he declined to answer, and many amendments were suggested which he turned down. We are now asked to amend the bill once again, following an error. I had assumed the minister would be speaking on third reading.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this bill had been before us now for four weeks. I was here virtually all the time and responded as best I could to all the questions put to me. I have nothing further to add at this stage.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, on this motion to give third reading to Bill C-49, dealing with income tax provisions, I propose to move an amendment which would have the effect of requiring that the bill be not now read the third time but that it be sent back to committee of the whole for reconsideration of clause 4 and clause 7. That wording, of course, is necessary in order to comply with the rules of the House. The purpose of the amendment is to have the committee consider the advisability of striking out parts of clause 4 and clause 7 or, in the alternative, to insert a
February 27, 1975

proviso in each of these clauses by which certain subclauses would not take effect except by proclamation after April 15.
The two clauses to which I refer, namely, clauses 4 and 7, have caused great concern to the provincial governments and great anxiety to the oil companies and to the mining industry. They have also given rise to considerable opposition by hon. members in all parties on this side of the House. As the House knows, clause 4 provides that royalties paid to a provincial government in any form whatsoever are not deductible for income tax purposes. The minister has made it clear that royalties paid to private corporations, or royalties paid to a foreign government in cases where a Canadian firm is engaged in mining or petroleum production in other countries, will be admissible for income tax purposes. However, where royalties are paid to a provincial government they will not be deductible for income tax purposes.
Clause 7 contains a subclause dealing with fair market value. The result is that companies which are developing a non-renewable resource such as minerals, oil or gas will not be taxed on the basis of the price they receive for their products but on the basis of the price which is paid to the provincial government or any agency of the provincial government which sells those products. This looks to me and to my hon. friends like an attempt to prevent a provincial government from deciding how it will manage and market the resources of its province in a manner which it feels is most advantageous to the people to whom those resources rightfully belong.
It is the view of the members of this party that these two provisions in clauses 4 and 7 represent a serious and unwarranted intervention in an area of jurisdiction lying within the authority of the provincial governments. Under section 92 of the British North America Act, the resources of a province come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the province and the province has the right to determine the division of economic rent between the Crown in right of a province and the industry. The federal government has the right to tax the revenue which industry receives for exploiting and developing those resources. It also has the right to adjust the equalization payments so as to take into account revenue which the provincial government gets from the marketing of those resources.
But in this legislation the federal government has gone further and is seeking to intervene in deciding how a province chooses to manage its resources and how it shall decide to divide the economic rent between the provincial government and the industries engaged in resource development. This, in my opinion, is an act unprecedented in the history of Canada. Never before has a federal government sought to intervene in the field of resource development, in the field of royalties or with respect to the price a provincial government will get for the sale of products which belong to the people of that province.
I do not intend to deal, now, with the constitutional aspects of the matter. If the provincial governments decide that the federal government has exceeded its constitutional powers, it is a matter for them to determine whether or not to submit the question to the courts and it will be for the courts to decide the issue. There is, however, a political aspect to this whole question raised by these two clauses.
Income Tax
This country has to decide between the concept of co-operative federalism or confrontation federalism. The first prime minister of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald, said that this was not an easy country to govern. That remark will probably go down in Canadian political history as the greatest understatement ever made.
It is well known that Sir John A. Macdonald would have preferred, initially, to see a unitary form of government. As events transpired, we developed a federal system, and I think most of us are convinced that this was probably the right decision for the Fathers of Confederation to make. It is true that there are some advantages in a unitary form of government, but it is equally true that in a federal system of government the advantages, at least in my opinion, far outweigh the disadvantages. In a country of such vast space, with a people extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, there is a great deal to be said for having governments that are close to the people, in having governments that take over areas of jurisdiction such as health and welfare, education, resource development, labour laws and agriculture; matters which can be, I think experience has shown, much better administered on a provincial basis than by a unitary form of government which is operated from Ottawa.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Sometimes you get some very good provincial governments, too.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: However, as experience has shown, there arise differences of opinion with respect to the exercise of the respective responsibilities given to the two levels of government. Conflicts have arisen in the past and undoubtedly conflicts will arise in the future. We have to decide how these conflicts are to be resolved. They can be resolved by confrontation, by taking cases to the courts, and by building up hostility in which the people of Canada are torn between the claims of their provincial government and the claim of the government of Canada.
But there have been a surprising number of instances in our history where federal and provincial governments have been able to resolve their differences and reach consensus in settling conflicts. This has been true in the case of pension legislation, welfare legislation, health legislation. Solutions have been worked out in regard to labour legislation and in the particularly difficult field of agricultural legislation, where the federal government has responsibility for marketing and the provincial government for production. These differences in points of view have been worked out by compromise and negotiation and a solution has been found.
The energy crisis which began in the latter part of 1973 has raised a whole new area of possible conflict and confrontation arising from the fact that the provincial governments have the right to set the price of products such as oil and gas, or the price of a specific mineral, whereas the federal government has jurisdiction in dealing with these products when they cross interprovincial and international boundaries.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), whom I see in his seat, I think will acknowledge
28996 - 25)4

Income Tax
that when this whole matter was being discussed in the last session of parliament, we in the New Democratic Party supported the government in its contention that, although the provincial government has the right to set the price on its natural resources, the federal government has not only the constitutional authority but the duty to intervene in the matter in the national interest. For that reason we supported the minister last year when he sought to keep the price of oil, for example-this is equally true of copper, wheat and other commodities-at a level that was fair and commensurate with the economic situation in this country.
Nevertheless, it was not an easy conflict to resolve. The premiers of the provinces which produce oil took the position that they had the right to set the price of a barrel of oil, a depleting resource; that they had the right to build up reserves against future requirements to explore for further resources and to develop new industries when the oil had been completely depleted. Consequently, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) called a first ministers' conference which was held last March. At that conference some fear was expressed that the premiers, particularly of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, might take the position that, irrespective of what the federal government did about interprovincial or international prices, they would set the price of their oil and that if they did not get that price they would withhold production.
That would have been a serious step to take, and it is to the everlasting credit of the premiers that they did not take that position. At the conference with the Prime Minister in March, 1974, they agreed to accept the price of $6.50 a barrel. The Prime Minister praised them for their co-operation and assistance in working out a compromise that appeared to be reasonably satisfactory to all concerned. The premiers went back to their respective provinces convinced that this was to be the situation until at least June of 1975, and that they could count on this agreement being carried through.
This House is now confronted with a piece of legislation that projects us into an entirely new ball-game. Naturally, the provinces feel, to put it in the bluntest terms, that they have been double-crossed. They also point out that they, in their turn, have kept their share of the bargain. Premier Barrett of British Columbia announced that he was going to raise the export price of gas on January 1, 1975. At the request of the Prime Minister, he agreed not to raise the price of gas until after the first ministers' conference. He was prepared to be co-operative and to let this matter rest until all the premiers and the federal government had had an opportunity to review the situation.
This is why Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan wired the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on February 18 and asked him to hold back clause 4 and clause 7 until after the first ministers' conference. It is why members of the committee of the whole during the last two or three days have been pleading with the minister to put a provision in both those clauses stipulating that certain subclauses would not come into effect except by proclamation after April 15.
However, the federal government has refused to do this and we are now confronted with a piece of legislation which enables the Prime Minister to go to the first minis-

ters' conference in April with a fait accompli. He will say to them, "Parliament has decided: I no longer have any choice in the matter. This is how we are going to handle resources. This is how we propose to interfere in the management and disposition of the resources of the provinces. The only resort you have is if you want to take the matter to the courts and have a long, protracted constitutional argument".
I think this a good time for members of this House to realize how fragile the federal system is. I think it a good time for members to realize that a country which faces as many problems as Canada does at present, needs all the good will and all the co-operation it can get from all the levels of government. This is true in many fields. The Minister of Finance, in tackling both unemployment and inflation effectively and aggressively, will need the cooperation of the provincial governments.
Also, the energy question will still be before us. If Canada finally becomes a signatory to the international energy agreement, which may under certain circumstances call for a restriction on consumption of petroleum products in this country, we will need the co-operation of the provincial governments. If in the situation which is likely to confront us in the next few months and the next few years there is an atmosphere of hostility, with the federal government using the big club and the provincial premiers being angry and annoyed, I think federalism will not work as effectively as it should.
It is only natural for disagreement to occur from time to time between federal and provincial authorities. Naturally, they will not always agree as to the exact areas of their jurisdiction, particularly where they overlap. But the hallmark of statesmanship is for the federal government to retain sufficient good will so that it can prevent hostility and alienation from making impossible a co-ordinated approach to the national problems which confront Canada at this time.
Over the years that I have been in public life I have seen at first-hand many instances where previous federal administrations have been able to bring about that kind of co-operation and co-ordination to meet situations in which conflict and hostility could easily have arisen. The test of statesmanship will be this government's capacity to attain national objectives while at the same time securing the co-operation and good will of the provincial governments with whom it must work, which in most cases will be forthcoming if the federal government adopts an attitude of conciliation and good will.
I propose to move an amendment, because I believe that a solution can be found. The Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will agree with me, I think, when I say that so far as my colleagues and I are concerned, we have never tried to play-off federal and provincial interests. It is comparatively easy for any politician to play-off the federal government against his province or local region. We have repeatedly stood by the federal government when it has said that the national interest must come first. But the national interest can only come first if the federal government is able to persuade the governments of the provinces and the people of the
February 27, 1975

provinces to believe that the federal government is doing this in a fair and equitable manner and not by getting out the big club or riding roughshod over the provinces.
I say to the Minister of Finance that of course the government can use its majority to pass Bill C-49, amending the Income Tax Act, through this House. This the government can do by virtue of its political muscle. But the Minister of Finance and the government must recognize that it is possible to win the battle but to lose the war, and in the long run it is more important to win the war against economic stagnation, against inflation and against national disunity than it is to win a battle which in the long run could be self-defeating.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That Bill C-49 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole House for the purpose of reconsidering clause 4 and clause 7 thereof.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks before this extremely important bill is given third reading. I am told that credit unions are awaiting this legislation impatiently. I am aware of that, Mr. Speaker, but 1 also know that the provinces are awaiting impatiently the result of today's vote. I hope they will be favourable to upholding those provincial jurisdictions we stood for so proudly on this side of the House, as did for that matter the hon. member who spoke for me.
Mr. Speaker, we are definitely going to support that amendment as it meshes with our approach based on respect for provincial rights and provincial jurisdictions.


An hon. Member:: There are two founding nations in this country.


Roch La Salle: Yes, there are two founding nations in this country. It was just pointed out to me, Mr. Speaker. Several immigrants also came here to help us build this beautiful country that is Canada, a country that nevertheless still has its problems.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few more comments on Bill C-49. In view of its importance, I am pleased to participate in the last minutes of this debate. As all hon. members, I recognize of course that this bill is quite important for all Canadians and affects all sectors of the taxation area. I recognize that it makes certain benefits available to several thousands of Canadians, and provides the government with necessary funds.
As several comments were made on those very important points, I would like nevertheless to make a few remarks on that clause designed to prevent from now on resource companies from deducting royalties paid to the provinces from their taxable incomes. I think that up until now, Mr. Speaker, several provinces indicated their opposition in that respect. The hon. member who spoke before me pointed that out by moving an amendment, and it is regrettable that the government remained inflexible on the recommendations of the provinces.
I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that we would answer in the affirmative, that we would wait at the very
Income Tax
least until after the federal-provincial conference which will take place very soon, in order to allow the provinces to discuss that very important point. And the question is why this government refuses to defer those particular clauses affecting the provinces in order to allow them to discuss those powers which this government is granting itself in this bill. Recently, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) unequivocally stated that the provisions on royalties are final and will not be the subject matter of negocia-tions at the next federal-provincial conference. I regret to be induced to believe that this is an unacceptable centralizing scheme and I think it is important for members to discuss this matter reasonably and objectively this afternoon.
That is the important point of this bill. We can be accused to oppose a legislation which is hardly advantageous as I said earlier, but I believe that the striking feature of the whole bill is that centralizing attitude.
We heard a good deal about viable, profitable federalism. How could we achieve such an objective by introducing a bill unacceptable to the provinces? It could be suggested that it is for the sake of national unity that we passed this legislation. The hon. member who spoke before me raised that point. I believe that if it is in the national interest, we should respect in fact the provincial jurisdiction recognized in our constitution. Then, I say we could speak of provocation and arrogance against the provinces. Undoubtedly, the premiers or the responsible ministers who will meet in the near future will not be prepared to have objective discussions with the federal government.
I should have thought that the federal government has the responsibility for coordinating the efforts of the provinces. We know full well that the provinces, in their own spheres, are making great efforts to solve the problems of their electors. To my mind, it does not behoove the federal government to centralize, and to take unilateral decisions such as the one it is now taking.
In view of the stand taken by the federal government, through which it will be depriving the provinces of considerable income, I say it is "holding-up" the provinces in broad daylight.
Perhaps, I should at this point put this question to hon. members: What are we doing about our responsibilities? Are we going to betray the people in this way? I hope not, Mr. Speaker. We must reflect on that aspect of the matter, and take into account the objections of the provinces to the clauses of the bill they consider unacceptable.
As for those who talk about national interest and the implementation of a workable federal system, I think their attitude only contributes to undermine our system. We discourage the provinces. As I said, they are making efforts considering the increasing number of problems within their respective territories. I also repeat that the federal government's basic responsibility is to co-ordinate rather than to centralize. I deeply regret that most government members have not been successful in urging their own government to respect the wish expressed by the provinces.
The federal government surely needs funds to run' the country, but I do not think it should assume alone that responsibility. In my opinion, when it comes to depriving

February 27, 1975
Income Tax
the provinces of certain taxing privileges or sums of money, I am convinced that provincial first ministers act in good faith. I believe that they would agree with their federal counterpart to give the federal government a fair share of the profits they derive from their natural resources. However, I repeat that it is unacceptable that a decision be made in Ottawa without consulting the provinces. This is definitely not the way we shall conceive a workable federal system, and we shall not as long as the provinces do not feel perfectly at ease within the present system.
I know that similar remarks have been made on several occasions. The failure of the government to listen carefully to the claims of the provinces always makes me sad. There again, we know for a fact that the provinces put forward some claims with regard to the coming federal-provincial meeting, but Parliament is being required and urged to pass this bill which infringes upon very important provincial jurisdictions.
So, as I said, decisions are made here in Ottawa without any consultation and then the provinces are asked to discuss the problems we are now facing. I wonder whether that is not a strange consultation to have before a decision is made.
Later on, one will wonder what happens either in the province of Quebec or in Alberta or in British Columbia. One will wonder why some provinces are not satisfied, why certain provinces are putting in so many claims to the Ottawa government, why we have those pitched battles between the federal government and the provinces.
We of the Progressive Conservative Party will be accused of concentrating our efforts on protecting Alberta's interests.
For once I was very happy to support the claims laid by Alberta's government which was carefully protecting its provincial rights. It was not only a responsibility, on its part, but a duty to protect the rights it has acquired a long time ago.
I think one could also ponder on what is going on in Quebec, on the thousands of Quebecers who are gradually losing faith in this federalism that is being called profitable or viable. Attitudes such as the one shown by this government are things that discourage not only the provincial premiers or the ministers responsible in that field but also the electors in every province. We still have the opportunity to think seriously about what we are going to do this afternoon. Either we say yes to the provinces and show our respect for provincial jurisdictions or, on the contrary, we say to the provinces that everything must be settled in Ottawa. And then we ask them to embrace the system, to have a feeling of freedom.
I venture to think, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members will assume their responsibility, which is not necessarily to support a political party or to see if it could be defeated or not in the House. I think that every member has formally committed himself to serve his constituents' interests at every opportunity. I think that today, we have a unique opportunity to serve the interests of the provinces without prejudice to the national interest.

Then, at the last minute, I appeal for much more understanding and open-mindedness than were shown until now with regard to certain clauses of the bill that are sure to displease the provinces if this legislation is passed.
This government had promised us a just society and started consultations. I hope they will meet their commitments much more honestly than they are doing presently.
The hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) made a few remarks. I wish he had spoken to this bill. I should have liked to know if, as a Quebecer, he intends to answer the Quebec ministers who expressed their views. I would have liked to know if, like many others, he intends to replace the Quebec first minister, because there are little problems at present. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the Quebec government made representations. The minister, Mr. St-Pierre-


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hear a member from Quebec talking about confusion in the Liberal party and saying that things are going badly. As a supporter of the Union nationale I think that for him things are not only going badly, it's all over. The Union nationale does not exist any more in the province of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member asks me to speak on behalf of Quebecers. When I have the decency to speak on behalf of Quebecers-they are only three on their side to speak on their behalf and I wonder how he can show such a lack of common decency-Mr. Speaker, I shall try to say something that makes sense.
Mb. Deputy Speaker: Order please. The hon. member will agree that his point is only an argument, I therefore recognize the hon. member for Joliette.
Mb. La Salle: Mr. Speaker, further to my previous remarks, I again urge the Quebec members to take a stand on this fundamental question, namely the respect of provincial jurisdictions. I say to the hon. member for Levis that despite the large deputation from Quebec in Parliament, if the members betray Quebec's interests today, they will betray them again by passing this legislation which deprives the provinces of a fundamental right. The hon. member from Levis knows it. He dares not speak on this bill because he will have to follow the party line. That's it!
Mb. Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member for Longueuil rises on a question of privilege.


Mr. Olivier:: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) made a personal attack on me, first as a Quebecer and second as member for Longueuil. When he thinks others betray their fellow Quebecers because they do not belong to the Progressive Conservative party, the member for Joliette goes too far. I suggest the hon. member for Joliette should be asked to withdraw his remarks, otherwise the matter will have to be referred to a committee.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would indicate right now to the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) that when I
February 27, 1975

am invited before the Committee on Privileges and Elections, I have no hesitation in going.
I did not suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is because I belong to the Progressive Conservative party. I said that the duty of a Quebec member in particular, and of all members in general, was to respond to the needs of their province.
And I repeat, members who support the legislation as introduced will betray the interests of their own province. Recommendations made by the Quebec government do not favour the clauses now before us, because they feel the latter do not meet provincial needs.
Therefore, I wish I had seen Quebec members show their respect for provincial jurisdictions, or at least ask the minister in charge to wait until after the federal-provincial conference, in order to try and reach a solution satisfactory to the provinces.
I believe the federal government is in error if it believes it can decide alone in such matters. I repeat it is important that consultations be held before the federal-provincial conference. I believe that after, provinces will be quite ready to give the federal government a certain percentage of resource revenues because I believe the premiers are quite capable of assessing federal needs, in consultation with the federal representatives. I say however that if the federal government acted in this way, this is a unilateral and unacceptable decision.
Because I invite hon. members to examine this aspect, all types of arguments will be raised to lead people to believe that I am the only one who thinks he has got the truth. Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely not the case but, as a member of Parliament, I say that our responsibility is to respond to the hopes of the provinces when we speak of promoting proper federalism and ensuring its continuity. The way decisions are taken in this House will certainly not satisfy the provinces and help them rely on federalism.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I will again invite my colleagues in this House to think well before taking a vote on such a fundamental principle. I believe that a negative answer rejecting my call would not be forgiven by Canadian people; for they are anxious that the jurisdictions granted to the provinces under the constitution should be recognized, jurisdictions which could be totally quashed by this legislation. I believe that we have to look far ahead to understand the importance of this legislation and its implications not only on oil, but also on all areas of resources. I think that every member in his province must think it over to give an affirmative vote and allow the provinces to maintain the rights they have had for such a long time.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Joliette allow a question?


Roch La Salle: Yes.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Joliette if the advantages which he referred to earlier in his speech and which Quebec got through an agreement on oil with Alberta and the other provinces were to bring the same profit to Quebecers, would he oppose them?


Roch La Salle: If I understand well, the hon. member asked me if I am going to vote against the legislation. I
Income Tax
will certainly do so. I am going to vote for the amendment because we are going to vote on an amendment requiring the federal government to allow the provinces to negotiate on royalties before accepting this piece of legislation.
And I think this is quite important. I said at the outset that this bill contained very good proposals, but one is unacceptable and cannot be supported by a member who honours his commitments.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, we are nearing the end of this debate, but I think there are a few things still to be said. In effect, we are debating the economic condition of the country for the first time in almost two years. I suggest the last budget is a rerun of the May budget, although conditions have changed since then. The May budget was concerned with attacking the resource industries and bringing their profits into the federal treasury, and also attacking the provinces on provincial rights. Both budgets have much in common, although the May budget imposed some conditions on the resource industries which were withdrawn in the November budget.
At the moment, the taxes on the resource industries will seriously cripple them and our economy for the next few years unless further changes are made. This attack was a direct violation of the principle of confederation whereby the provinces would own the resources and the people of the provinces would have the right to enjoy the revenues accruing from those resources. We have heard much about the rights of the provinces, and it is generally considered by students of the federal-provincial situation that the provinces have had decreasing taxation in the last few years, with increased commitments in the fields of health, welfare and social services. It is true that most of the increase is due to the actions of the federal government and it is hard to understand why there would be such action without consultation with the provinces.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has made the play that he is the saviour of national unity. There is no doubt that this has sharpened, particularly in western minds, the feeling that they are remote from Ottawa and that the federal government has no rapport with the provinces, particularly the west.
The November budget represents a partial withdrawal in the field of resources but leaves much to be desired in taxation of the oil and gas industries. The president of the Mining Association of Canada said recently that mining firms can expect at least two years of tough times. The mining industry depends greatly on sales to the United States and has felt the effects of the recession in that country. The president of the Mining Association of Canada was also pessimistic about the future of the resource industry because of the squeeze as between the federal and provincial tax systems. He said, as reported in the Montreal Gazette of February 27, 1975:
If you find anything, you couldn't justify developing it, so there's no use going out and looking.
He also said that federal and provincial taxes combined now range between 60 per cent and 130 per cent of profits.

February 27, 1975
Income Tax
The budget has not paid sufficient heed to Canada's worsening trade position. Last year our trade deficit went up from $6.6 billion, the 1973 figure, to $9.5 billion. Our high tariff walls and advantages given to the manufacturing industry and processors, by reduced taxation have not reversed the situation. But for the surplus of $5.5 billion in our crude materials trade last year, our trade position would be much more serious. Last year this country experienced a favourable balance of trade in petroleum to the extent of $1.5 billion. According to recent forecasts, our net trading deficit in petroleum products in the coming year will be $750 million. Yet it has been this government's policy to inflict punitive taxes on the oil and gas industry, thus diminishing activity in the search for oil and gas at the very time when such activity should be greatly increased.
By introducing the present budget, the federal government has decided to play fast and loose with our economy in an attempt to break the hold of the provinces, particularly the western provinces, in the field of resource taxation. We can only lose in the short run. The whole of Canada stands to lose much from this move. External forces are reducing the demand for our resources. Trade with Japan is not increasing as was hoped by trade officials who had forecast a $1 million increase in trade with that country. Japan wants to cut back by 30 per cent, purchases of Canadian copper. Copper represents our single most important export to Japan. This country is no longer considered as a reliable supplier of rapeseed and farm produce, and we shall lose markets because of strikes and shipping troubles. We have always tended to think that resources will fetch high prices and be in great demand, but the high prices of our resources on world markets are probably largely the result of devaluation of our currency.
The budget has failed to take into account the difficulties our exporters face in external markets. Further, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) refused the opposition's request for a modest reduction in income tax. Such a reduction would have left more money in the hands of wage earners and thus increased demand for durable goods, sales of which are falling off. The demand for cars and appliances is also soft, and more money in the hands of wage earners and taxpayers would stimulate sales. A modest reduction in income tax would also reduce the government's tendency to spend and institute new programs. Also, it would contribute to savings on the part of taxpayers, something that is vital to our economy. As well, a tax reduction would provide some insurance against renewed inflation which according to some forecasts is to increase markedly at the end of this year.
The thrust of this budget is in the wrong direction. Producers should be given more tax leeway so they can reinvest in more efficient and expansive growth. The government has already done this for manufacturers but has not permitted resource producers to be efficient and productive. Governments, federal and provincial, have taxed resources too heavily. They have failed to appreciate that much of the so-called increase in profits has been the result of inflation. Although we may not like it, we must be painfully aware that as a nation we would be foolish to depend on the manufacturing industry to provide us with a high standard of living-a high standard brought about

by external trade. Like it or not, Canada's primary industries, including agriculture, forestry and resources, have not been encouraged by this budget.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the main motion, moved by the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment defeated.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among the parties and it is my understanding that there would be a disposition to complete third reading of this bill before private members' hour is called. I understand there is just one speaker, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), who is making one of his rare speeches. I am sure we will all listen to him with great interest and then complete third reading.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Unless we are provoked.


Mr. Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) has proposed that the House now agree that one speech will be made on third reading, by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), and that thereafter the vote be taken forthwith. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the government House leader suggested
Income Tax
that I speak on third reading. It being his wish, I will make one of my rare speeches in the House to remind him of some of the facts that have been brought to the attention of parliament and are now reported in Hansard as the result of the debate that has taken place on Bill C-49. Having said that, I should like to direct a question to the government House leader and ask how he was so successful in silencing 107 of his backbenchers who must have wished to speak during committee of the whole stage on this bill, yet they sat mute throughout the entire deliberations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I say that because surely it is strange, when we are considering income tax legislation and budgetary measures which will result in the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) taxing Canadians at the rate of $100 million a day, that the backbenchers sitting on the government side would have not been more anxious to participate in the committee of the whole review of the legislation on which we will soon have a third reading vote. I say that because we in the official opposition believe that government spending has got out of control with this government.
The spending spree that has occurred since the present Minister of Finance took office is truly remarkable. In the short period that he has been Minister of Finance the real growth in the country has been only 15 per cent but inflation has been 30 per cent. Government spending, however, has jumped 67 per cent, the money supply is up 56 per cent and credit and bank borrowings are up 82 per cent. Surely it is clear from these figures that this minister has far exceeded the economic excesses of his predecessor, Mr. Benson. Under Mr. Benson, a former minister of finance, inflation in the country was only 11.5 per cent, compared to inflation under this minister of 30 per cent. But, most significantly, spending under this Minister of Finance is up 95 per cent, based on his budgetary figures. In a similar previous period, spending under Mr. Benson was up 49 per cent.
We have made two main thrusts during debate on this bill. The first is that we believe the government can, and should, give a further tax reduction to Canadian taxpayers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We believe such a reduction would result not only in the taxpayer having more money-and I would suggest he can spend his money better than this government can spend it for him-but it would also mean that this government might be restrained in its spending habits. If this government does not choose to discipline its spending, surely at some stage it is up to parliament to begin disciplining it in that respect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, our second main thrust was that we believe the royalty taxation provisions in this bill are most unfortunate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Calamitous!
3640

February 27, 1975
Adjournment Motion


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We believe it is using a legislative means- a revenue, taxation means-to really distort the constitution of this country. We believe there are serious infringements of provincial rights within this bill. Many of our speakers, including my colleague the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), pointed out the difficulties which will arise. The hon. member for Joliette pointed out the position with respect to Quebec. I reiterate that we as an opposition are diametrically opposed to the revenue approach the minister has shown in this bill with respect to royalties.
We are anxious that the bill be proceeded with. We believe we have had a good debate. I am, frankly, disappointed that in debating the bill-which contains 142 sections and is 302 pages long-we have not had more participation from government backbenchers who must be as disturbed as we are by many of the provisions of this bill. But obviously the whip was out and they were silenced. As a result, some of those hon. members have told me privately that they know amendments will have to be made to the bill, yet they did not feel they could stand up and point out the amendments they believe will be needed.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We are at the conclusion of this debate. I sincerely hope that although the Minister of Finance has walked roughshod over our suggestions to date, he will at least take our arguments into account and act in a more restrained way in future.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath)-Broadcasting-Code governing standards of television programs; the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin)-Agriculture-Request for increased funds for department; the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jeli-nek)-Public service-Strike of general labour and trades group-Suggested action to ensure mail delivery.

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, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, obviously this debate is not about the highly emotionally charged issue of abortion. The reason I wanted a copy of a letter from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) which was leaked to the newspapers- a letter he wrote to the Secretary of State about a proposed grant to a women's group in Saskatoon-was to underline the whole issue of secrecy in government. I believe the leak was a calculated one. I believe that leaks of government information occur largely because of the very restrictive techniques the government uses in classification of documents.
I strongly believe that the system of classification referring to "Secret", "Top secret", "For eyes only", "This letter is a judicial opinion" or "is giving a legal opinion", and so on, is a technique to frustrate the free flow of information from parliament, ministers, and so on, to the public. In the few minutes available to me I hope to develop this theme.
Someone in the government-I wish I knew who it was, because I want to pay tribute to him personally-made a comment in another forum. It was made at the time when parliament was considering what to do about continuing the Canadian contribution to NATO. One of the documents the government used for basing its decision on was marked "Secret: for Canadian eyes only", and some wag on the government benches said that this admonition was for all Canadians except members of parliament. I think this rather hard-hearted statement underlines the much more fundamental problem which faces us as legislators. Here was a decision being made, the document was classified, a parliamentary committee was considering the whole issue, the document itself was for Canadian eyes only-officials and ministers-but the committee of this House charged with the responsibility of making recommendations to the government on the NATO issue could not see the document.
Then we consider the whole issue of papers prepared for the government and its departments by a consultant hired from outside the government service. I think last year's estimates included several hundred million dollars in consultants' fees. My inaccuracy is showing, but it was certainly a very large amount of money.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Three quarters of a billion.
February 27.1975


Mr. Fairweather:: Yes, it was astronomical. My leader reminds me that it was three quarters of a billion dollars. That was the figure I had in my mind. It was so exorbitant that my simple maritime mind could not grasp the implications of spending such a vast amount of money on consulting fees. In most cases the papers and documentation produced by these outside consultants are not available to members of parliament. I think the spokesman of the minister is ready to take a very narrow view on this issue and use the technical expression that the letter to the Secretary of State was a legal opinion. I think this is indeed a narrow technical view.
I wish to now develop a couple of other thoughts about the whole issue of availability of documents and the secrecy in which government seems to wrap itself. In an article entitled "On telling people" which is to be found in Essays on Reform, 1967, which is edited by Bernard Crick, Professor J. A. G. Griffith writes:
The wish to take the lid off the machinery of government, to see how it works, who says what to whom, at what level decisions are taken, what private criteria are used, how far "politics" is allowed to override those criteria, on what statistical and other "facts" the decisions are based: this wish does not derive only from curiosity or from party animosity but also from self-interest, from quis custodiet, and from a feeling-by some-that governments represent another group interest.
Professor Griffith makes some suggestions that I will paraphrase for the purpose of this debate. First, we should be told much more about the background against which decisions are taken. Second, there is a vast, shaded area about which most of us know nothing and generally suspect the worst: flitting in and out of this are those who wish to appear to be of the number in the know. The nearer we are to the source of the truth, the more we will hear-although not necessarily the more truths. Obviously, foreign affairs and national defence are deepest in this shadow that Professor Griffith enunciates. We accept, obviously-who would not accept it-the need for some of this, but surely it is overdone.
Third, when the government consults private interests before finally taking decisions, could we not be told something of the bargains struck, the compromises reached, the promises given? We have an excellent example of this in the very tough decisions that obviously must be taken by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) on the matter of the severe problems faced by Canadian textile workers and their industry. Obviously, the government will be striking bargains with other governments and with that trade; yet the House, which at some time will have an obligation to make decisions based on those bargains, will know nothing about the background on which they were made.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We will be in the same position as the minister.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Fourth, governments could afford to be much more open about their policies. Ministers seem to be genuinely fearful of being specific about the ends they are seeking to achieve. The Minister of Justice, because he also represents a constituency embracing part of the city of Saskatoon, wrote a letter to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner). Somehow, in the great system of government,
Government Information
that letter was classified; at least, I could not get it in the ordinary course of events and must take up the time of the House to debate this motion.
I repeat, the issue is not that of abortion or the Criminal Code. A decision was taken by this parliament on that issue. Rather, the issue is whether parliament can obtain an important letter written by one minister to another on a current, topical issue, rather than have the letter leaked to the press because of the frustrations felt by the people- presumably they were servants of the Crown-who made it available to the press.
Professor Griffith ends with a plea for "telling people". Although the article was written for British readers I suggest it is equally apt in this country. We read in the newspapers, we listen to and look at political commentators, we hear ministerial statements and we are conscious of the existence of another world, the other side of the moon. So we become cynical to the point of switching off radio and television during general election broadcasts because, simply, we do not believe what is being said. I think this is crucial to the parliamentary institution. It is a curious fact, Mr. Speaker, that just on Monday of this week the Trilateral Commission attempted to convene a conference on the governability of democracy. It is somewhat ironical that the conference could not be held because of the public service strike which meant there was doubt whether guests from all over the world could get here. However, that irony could be discussed on another occasion.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I am flattered that the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) is in his seat this afternoon. He and I have been part of this debate since we entered this House 13 years ago. I think we have probably looked at all the same articles and we have come across a rather perceptive little book, written by Professor Brian Champman, called British Government Observed in which he says that the passion for secrecy is a phenomenon that is inherited from Great Britain: it had its origin in the days of Napoleon when the British government was anxious to keep unto itself its secrets.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think the Irish have to accept some responsibility.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: My leader mentions the Irish. It is not yet St. Patrick's Day, so I will allow him to make that interpretation. I take the presence of the Postmaster General as encouragement. He sits close to where I am and I have heard him make pretty well the same plea that I make; that is, lessen the incessant secrecy. When I was in Washington recently, for example, somebody told me that the number of classified documents in the possession of the United States of America is so monumental that easy retrieval has become impossible. Classification, of course, is therefore a joke. Mere numbers have looked after the secrecy. There are hundreds of millions of documents in a huge warehouse in Virginia and it is terribly hard to obtain access to them because of the very number.
I suggest the truth is that if anything useful and significant is to be done in this free society, it must be done publicly and in such a way as to consult, involve and carry with it those affected. I suggest this is the core of some of our frustration and the reason people are convening semi-
28996-26/2

February 27, 1975
Government Information
nars on whether democracies are governable. The government has the responsibility, as parliamentarians have, of carrying the public with it when tough decisions should be taken. If every time we attempt to take the public along with us in this decision-making we are faced with "Classified", "This is a judicial opinion", "For eyes only" or "Top secret", it seriously impedes the work we are called upon to do. Understanding and consent in this instance does not spring from some previous interaction of government and voter at a general election but, I suggest, has to be the constantly renewed product of a continual exchange of communications. This is a stage where the two uglies-I have used the words before-of dehumanization and depersonalization make it more important than ever that legislators should understand the thrust and purpose of government policies and thus are able to communicate them to the public.
I am sorry I have taken so much time. I suggest it is not sufficient to keep repeating-I am guilty of this as well- with boring regularity slogans like "open access" or "executive privilege." We must avoid more than mere sloganeering. We must avoid what Harold Laski once described as the "trained incompetence of the specialist", that narrowness of vision which often comes with immersion in a program or a policy field. Breadth of view must be combined with technical skill in effective policy-making. Generally, the training of information technologists does not overcome their limited social and political sensitivities. That should be particularly true of members of parliament, otherwise every one of the 264 members of this House could sit in his office and never go to Halifax, Nanaimo or any point in between and become immersed in some issue. The danger is that specialists may never hear from elected representatives about the realities of those very decisions which must be made and about how those decisions will affect the specialists themselves.
I am the last man to stand here and criticize the public service. I will not repeat the oft stated compliments. I think our public service is excellent, but I think the best public servants recognize the need for a continual flow of information from what the poet calls "the heartland of this country", because that is where the hang-ups are and where the problems are to be found. We need a process of continuous interchange. Our quest for information is not helped by a very much exaggerated classification system.
My notice of motion really has little to do with the copy of a letter. The letter was made public to the press, because somebody in the minister's office leaked it. I have spent my time pleading for the government to be much more forthright in giving information. If information is given, I suggest there will be much greater public acceptance of some of the policies of the government, and presumably this is what the government devoutly wishes.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. friend of Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) for his quite interesting outline of the problem. He will understand however that he has already obtained an answer from the minister, to the effect that the requested docu-

ment contains a legal opinion and knowing his experience and his authority, he surely approves the government for not acceding to his request.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) objected to the motion for the production of copy of a letter which he wrote on October 21, 1974 to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) in connection with a grant to a women's group in Saskatchewan, because, according to a well established practice, the opinions of legal officers of the Crown on governmental policy matters being included among privileged documents, they have generally not been delivered. I refer him in this connection to page 272 of the 17th edition of May's Parliamentary Practice as well as to page 338 of Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure.
The guideline governing notices of motions for the production of papers was put forward by the government and printed as an appendix to Hansard of March 15, 1973, on page 2288. The fact that all or part of the documents containing that opinion may have been made available to information media does not constitute a valid reason to break away from traditions preventing the disclosure of such secret documents. If mandatory disclosure applied to such papers, the freedom of expression and the frankness that are essential in the good conduct of public affairs would be seriously jeopardized and the exercise of the responsibility of guiding ministers of the Crown would thus be paralyzed.
On December 10, 1945, a member of Parliament introduced a motion for the production of copies of all orders in council, legal opinions, correspondence and other documents kept by various departments concerning the investigation on a suit for damages caused by an explosion at the marine powder depot in Bedford Basin. The minister, Mr. Mahew, replied that negotiations were under way and that it was impossible to give the hon. member a complete answer. He could give specific information, but it would have required several months to give all data. He then asked that the motion be withdrawn. Mr. St. Laurent, the Minister of Justice, added that his department refused to table texts of legal opinions submitted to other departments. This would be an evident departure from the principle of professional secrecy between a client and his lawyer. If it were the client who had to convey an opinion he had received, things might be different, but he would not like it inferred that when a department seeks the advice of the Department of Justice, the latter may not respect concerning these opinions the principle of professional secrecy which exists in all areas covering the relationship between a client and his lawyer. There were discussions on whether or not the motion should be stricken out. The Speaker stated that, since a motion for papers is not debatable, it was not permissible to rise on a point of order about it.
So that my colleagues may deal for a few minutes with this issue, I shall conclude by saying that I have been very much impressed by the arguments put forward by my hon. colleague about the availability of information to members of Parliament.
In my opinion, the hon. member is right. A member's work should be considered as privileged in a certain way;
February 27, 1975

perhaps he should have access to more information than he has now. On the other hand, if confidentiality and public interest often clash with our work as parliamentarians, it will take a smart one to draw a final line.
Perhaps today's debate will make us more conscious of how important it is to look into the matter more closely and with a great open-mindedness, so that we might consider parliamentarians, whatever their political affiliation, as being people who run a country and thus, need more information.
Mt. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General): Mr. Speaker, since I have only a few minutes, I would like to give a brief outline of the situation relating to access to government documents, particularly as far as ordinary members' work is concerned, as mentioned by the previous speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has inherited parliamentary traditions which are cherished and, at the same time, administrative discretion which is one of the greatest barriers between the citizen and the central government and which largely conditions the climate in which the latter carries out its information duties. Canadian scholars are aware of the basic conflict existing between administrative secrecy and the need for information in an active democracy.
At the highest level of our political system, decisions are made in Cabinet, by ministers who swear to keep confidential all issues dealt with, discussed and resolved in Privy Council. The press, the public, the opposition parties and even hon. members often note their powerlessness to get information related to the administration of this country.
In Canada, except for the Official Secrets Act, no regulation prevents or allows access to official documents. A decree is being drafted which will set up the procedures opening access to those documents. On May 1, 1969, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) announced that our country too was getting prepared to adopt a policy aimed at making it easier for researchers and others to gain access to federal government documents dated before July 1, 1939, and this within the limits of the national interest.
The Prime Minister went on to say that this new policy would show the desire of the government to stimulate the interest and participation of Canadians generally in the affairs of state. It has been said in the House of Commons that this was a very trivial measure, and outside the House, that this measure was not going far enough. The Royal Commission of Inquiry on National Security advocated constantly reminding departments and officials of the advisability of lowering the security on documents. However, they add that in doing so, ministers should be allowed as much discretion as possible. For example, direct access to public papers through government publications has always been freer in Canada and in the United States than in most other western democracies.
In a brief dated June 1967 dealing with the implementation of the information act, the U.S. attorney general stated:
-information distribution must be the general rule and not the exception, that all citizens have equal rights of access, that the burden of
Government Information
justifying the confidential nature of a document is on the government and not the petitioner.
The new legislation sets out for the first time legal procedures enabling a citizen who feels that his rights are encroached upon to lodge a complaint against an agency that refuses without apparent reason to disclose papers. Federal courts have the right to punish directors of official agencies for non-compliance.
As far as public access to government papers is concerned, the French system, for example, seems to be more restrictive than the others was examined, including Canada's. Records are no longer confidential or privileged the very day a minister authorizes the communication of documents pertaining to a specific period. In that respect, there are no automatic provisions in France such as the 30-year rule they have in the United States and Great Britain, and that has been in effect here for a couple of years.
Sweden has recognized for nearly 200 years that all government papers are of public nature unless otherwise restricted by the courts. The Swedish system and its open administration are worthy of admiration but are not necessarily easy to adopt to the Canadian situation. The Swedish form of responsible government is far from similar to ours. It might be difficult because of that to transplant successfully in this country the methods of access to public documents in effect in Sweden.
Coming back to Great Britain, a country that gave birth to our parliamentary system, their tradition of administrative secrecy was challenged by academics and was considered by a committee of inquiry on the public service.
Canada is falling behind other countries, including Great Britain, the United States, and more particularly Sweden, with respect to free access to administrative documents by ordinary citizens, members or parliament or newspapermen. But we know from what happened in the United States that legislating is not a panacea. It is possible to get round the law and twist its purpose. A constant watch has to be kept in order to make sure that access to free information, once enshrined in statutes, is an actual fact.
The consequences of that principle of free access to information are sometimes excessively feared. No one ever talked seriously about lifting all restrictions applying to document consultation. Even in Sweden, there are a number of serious restrictions. The advantage of the Swedish system is that citizens can see a practicial application of their democratic system. Yet, in my opinion, it is logical to think that anyone, a citizen and a taxpayer, may have the right to have access to documents dealing with him in some particular way, without necessarily admitting that he should be allowed unlimited access to information concerning other people. In fact, that might be prejudicial to those people, and I think in that respect we should stick to the principle of a basic prudence. In studying this motion put forward by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) I have to conclude my remarks considering the principles that have been displayed here, by saying that if we consider what is going on throughout the world with respect to information, and if we look into our parliamentary system, the democratic system which rules our country, we cannot really find in

February 27, 1975
Government Information
any other nation a system which might apply directly to Canada as far as access to administrative documents is concerned.
I therefore had, Mr. Speaker, to thank the hon. member for Fundy-Royal for his remarks which I agree with mostly. However, I cannot say I fully endorse the representations he made this afternoon, and which in fact he had already made several times during other parliaments. They really are very interesting, and I dare hope the government, the departments and the whole cabinet will take good notice of them to help us devise and pass once and for all regulations governing access to so-called social and administrative documents.
I thank the hon. member for his participation. The House may rest assured that if, in the near future, the government is in a position to take a definite stand, I will be most happy about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before I enter into the few remarks I would like to make, I wonder if I could raise a point of order. In view of the fact that the time in this hour is limited at both ends by the fact that we started late and may be interrupted at any moment by a knock on the door, I wonder if there could be unanimous agreement that this order retain its position at the top of the list for the next day that this type of order is called.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) puts forward the suggestion that in view of the fact this hour today did not begin until well after five o'clock and will conclude before six o'clock, this motion retain its priority at the top of the list instead of dropping to the bottom, as it normally would, in order to ensure that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) is given the benefit of the full hour before reaching the time limit. Is there agreement?


Mr. Caccia:: As a large number of private members' bills are awaiting discussion, it seems to members on this side of the House that it would be more desirable to permit other bills that have not yet been called, to be discussed.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can only be accepted with unanimous consent.


C (1750)
Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I think I have the right to speak. When I was approached by the government House leader to facilitate third reading of the government's bill, I agreed to do so because I believe in the system and in helping the government proceed with its legislation. I could have said no, but I did not. I ask the same courtesy now.


Mr. Speaker:: We are on the same point or order. I now propose to ascertain whether or not there is unanimous consent forthcoming for the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre whereby the notice of motion in the name of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal would retain its position on the order paper.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure the House appreciates the decision which has just been made. May I just say to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) that returning to this motion on another day when it is called does not prevent our dealing with private members' bills. This motion can only be dealt with on a day allotted to notices of motions for the production of papers.
I want to support wholeheartedly not only the position taken by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) but the excellent statement he made on this important issue. I am afraid I cannot be so complimentary about those who have spoken from the other side. Every time this theme comes up, we hear about the guidelines which were announced by the former president of the privy council, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), guidelines which were appended to Hansard the day they were announced. Mr. Speaker, those are the government's own rules by which it determines whether or not it will make papers public.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-39, an act to amend the Customs Tariff (No. 2)-Chapter 23. Bill C-40, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act- Chapter 24.
Bill C-370, an act to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Chapter 25.
Bill S-18, an act respecting International Air Transport Association.
Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair till eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Dupras:: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The House has heard the request of the hon. member to return to motions. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle) tabled the first report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence and moved that the said report be concurred in. Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, February 26, 1975, consideration of the motion of Mr. Danson that Bill C-46, to amend the National Housing Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had ten minutes in which to start my comments on second reading debate of Bill C-46, and at that time I emphasized the importance of public housing if the most urgent needs of Canadians for housing were to be met.
I also spoke of the important role to be played by co-operative and non-profit housing as the third force in the housing field, and I quoted some words of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford), who at the time was the minister of state for urban affairs, on the subject of co-operative housing and non-profit corporations in the field of housing. I noted that he mentioned the fact that neighbourhood groups in these organizations have a vital role to play. I also mentioned that in my constituency Forward Nine Community Development Co-operative set up a housing co-operative, which now has 75 units, which they have rehabilitated and rented at moderate and low rentals. The project, I pointed out, was well managed, highly successful, and provided a model which others could copy.
I asked what the government had done. Last year parliament passed an act to amend the National Housing Act,
National Housing Act
and by section 18 of that act it amended section 44 of the previous NHA to provide in subsection 1(b) that CMHC might enter into agreement with non-profit corporations and co-operatives to make contributions for the purpose of assisting to provide housing accommodation to individuals, or families with low income, at rentals that were less than those required to meet the cost of amortizing and operating the public housing project.
It seems to me that with the passage of that act a little more than a year ago there was a clear direction by parliament to the government to proceed in the field of assisting co-operative housing, nor was the legislation in any sense restrictive as to the nature or manner of assistance. However, its implementation clearly requires the allocation of adequate funds. So far as I can make out, no such funds have in fact been allocated under section 44(1) (b). To be fair I must say that I have corresponded with the minister on this subject, and one of his assistants assured me on the telephone that when other difficulties- which I will come to in a moment-were solved, such funds would be provided. I would like, at some stage during the discussion of this bill, to hear more from the minister on this point.
Another problem which has arisen in connection with co-operative housing concerns the contribution of the federal government in respect to rental supplements. I have already referred to a seminar which took place in Toronto on March 25, to which were invited the representatives of non-profit and co-operative housing. I mentioned that the former minister was present there and gave an enthusiastic endorsement to the section dealing with co-operative and non profit housing, which he called the third sector.
The then Ontario minister of housing, Mr. Sidney Han-dleman, spoke of the close consultation between the two senior levels of government in respect to this third sector. He went on to describe the necessity for a rent supplement, and the federal minister sitting there expressed no dissent, at least judging from what he said. Later a committee was formed to discuss the need for an adjustment of the supplemental program and to work out its details. On this committee were a large number of community developers representing projects in different parts of Ontario, a municipal liaison committee, and representatives from the Ontario regional office of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
This committee made a report on May 10 of last year setting out a number of guidelines in regard to these rental supplements, and further progress was made. One agreement was reached involving a modification of the rule that no more than 25 per cent of the non-profit project would be supplemented and would be subject to supplemental assistance. The CMHC representatives were there, and apparently went along with that agreement.
In December the plans of the Forward Nine Co-operative, and no doubt, of many other co-operatives, to take advantage of the rent supplement plan, were advanced when their project was approved by a provincial order in council. There was a provincial order in council approving the projects involving rent supplements, after several months of discussion. But difficulties intervened. Where

National Housing Act
did the difficulties come from? They came from the representatives of the federal government.
People were told that the federal government regulations were not in place. This was more than a year and a half since legislation had been passed providing for assistance to co-operatives, but their regulations were not yet in place at the beginning of this year, and it was stated that under the federal regulations senior citizens were to be excluded from rent supplemented accommodation. This was put forward on the grounds that there were other forms of legislation dealing with senior citizens.
If it is true that this objection was made, to my mind it is utterly unreasonable. Everyone knows that the integration of senior citizens with the rest of the community is highly desirable, and in a co-operative low rental project this was obviously a sound and a necessary thing.
So desperate was the situation that the Forward Nine Co-operative sent a telegram to the minister. I had it here, but I don't know where it is at the moment. I will paraphrase it from memory. In that telegram the co-operative said that their whole co-operative project was threatened with disaster unless these matters could be cleared up quickly. No doubt while I am quoting this one project in my own constituency, there are many more of these projects which are in exactly the same position.
I wrote to the minister on January 16 telling him my views on what I called a crisis for co-operative housing in Canada. He has not yet had time to respond to my letter, but one of his assistants was good enough to phone me and tell me that considerable progress had been made and that settlement of outstanding problems in regard to the regulations and the methods of operation of the rental supplement in co-operative housing was expected shortly.
I do not know whether as yet the regulations are finally in place after these months of delay. I do not know whether the funds have been made available, or when they will be made available. I acknowledge that this so-called third sector, of which the minister's predecessor spoke with such enthusiasm, is only beginning to emerge, but I plead with the minister-I notice he does not have the time to listen to me now, but perhaps he will read what I have to say; or perhaps his attitude reveals the degree of his interest in co-operative housing-that if any real meaning is to be given to the words of his predecessor and to the provisions of parliament in respect to co-operative housing, then we must have promptly the necessary regulations, and the necessary funds made available.
I say it would be tragic if the detailed plans made by the co-operatives themselves in agreement with the Ontario government-and apparently acquiesced in by the representatives of CMHC-should be allowed to fail. I ask the minister to make it clear that he adopts the same enthusiastic attitude as his predecessor to the role of the third sector, namely, co-operative and non-profit housing. I want to make sure that he tells us that he agrees with the words of his predecessor about the vital importance of this particular sector of housing.
I do not believe that co-operative housing is the total solution to this problem, but it has an important contribution to make. I think it would be a betrayal of the whole co-operative movement, of co-operative principles, of the

plans which have been made and, indeed, of what parliament has authorized, if we are to have further delays and inadequacy of response to this need.
I understand that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), the parliamentary leader of my party, is going to speak in this debate on the reason for our opposition to this bill. I will not attempt to go over that ground, but I do want to put my views in a nutshell.
The direction of the bill is once again the wrong direction. The emphasis is on assistance to financial institutions. The beneficiaries are once again those who need it least. We reject the philosophy that housing aid should be denied to those in most urgent need and provided for those who need it least. We must oppose this legislation which exemplifies the application of that philosophy which we reject.


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in this House to express my concern regarding this totally inadequate amendment of the National Housing Act. My hon. colleagues have spoken well and criticized the amendments, and they have proposed substantial improvements such as legislation to allow taxes and mortgage interest payments to be deducted from federal income tax, which is of more help for rural homeowners who, under the present system, cannot get mortgages from CMHC unless they are hooked up to municipal sewers. I wonder what is wrong with a good septic tank? If the land has the capacity, this is an adequate means of disposing of sewage.
The other ideas brought forward, the extension of the $500 grant to first time buyers of existing homes, the extension of the Veterans' Land Act past March 31, 1975, the increased availability of mortgage money at reduced interest rates, are commendable. Tonight my concern, however, is the apparent and even reasonable suspicion and fear that Canadians feel when government sponsored housing projects are proposed. Too often in the history of public housing, here and in other countries, government sponsored and developed housing units stand as monumental examples of high density, low income, low cost, substandard ghetto-type housing which creates a host of social and economic evils.
We should not be surprised at the reaction of local politicians and citizens as the senior governments come bearing these questionable gifts. The only surprise we should feel is that people did not realize much sooner the type of development that was proposed. Some of the biggest housing disasters in the world have occurred as a result of the actions of well-intentioned governments. There are many slums as a result of this type of thing.
Municipalities have not just occasionally suffered as a result of the actions of developers but have suffered even more through governments promoting this high density, low quality concept as a pragmatic and expedient political answer to housing demand and need. Now that the community has experienced some of the side effects of creating and repeating this destruction of liveability, not only are municipal governments resisting development but so are the residents who naturally, and rightly so, want to
February 27, 1975

protect their life style and the environment. This suspicion is accompanied by delays and escalations in construction costs. These will continue until the government shows innovative leadership in reaching beyond the mere creation of a housing unit and begins to concentrate on placing and integrating homes within highly desirable communities and environments.
The tools and the opportunities are available in this country now, Mr. Speaker, and I am optimistic that the minister and his administration have the expertise to do the job. If they have the will and the energy, they can lead the way in innovative housing for Canada and the world.
I hope the government will never be so total that it has the capacity to provide all the housing units required by Canadians. I would say, however, that it has an obligation, through example, to show the way in innovative horsing development, and I would say that the opportunity is available here and now.
I call tonight for a concerted and co-ordinated effort by all levels of government to demonstrate leadership in the area of housing through the construction of a model community as a demonstration project in conjunction with the upcoming United Nations Conference on Human Settlements-Habitat-to be held in Vancouver in 1976.
What I propose is the construction of a model community which would incorporate the best ideas and efforts of all levels of government in co-operation with experts in the fields of urban planning, transportation, sanitation, construction, the environment and finance. Input would also be sought from sociologists, psychologists, recreational experts, consumers' groups, and tenants' associations. Hopefully, the result would be a community concept which stresses low density and an interrelationship of man and his environment to their maximum mutual benefit.
The people in my constituency were recently alarmed by a government proposal to develop a 5,000 acre city at Burke Mountain, adjacent to the greater Vancouver area. Through past experience with government proposals they feel they have good cause to fear that their lifestyle will be destroyed and replaced by high density, low cost, low income housing, with all its social and economic disruption. This need not be the way, however. The Burke Mountain area qualifies in every respect for a world model demonstration project. Canada shows leadership in many fields. I think we can be justly proud of the World's Fair in Montreal, and we are again showing leadership in promoting the Olympic Games in Montreal. But I think Canada can do more than that. We can show leadership in housing as well.
A conference has been arranged to be held in Vancouver to talk about human settlement. I think it is important that this should not just produce another pile of paper to be recycled. We should be taking advantage of the expertise that will be coming from all over the world. We should have a model ready to be presented to the conference, and we should welcome the input from people from older civilizations. They could travel out to see this beautiful site. Burke Mountain is a low level mountain, with forests, ravines and rivers. It has a tremendous potential for development, but of course many people would prefer that it remain in its present condition on the periphery of de-
National Housing Act
velopment of one of Canada's largest cities. But it is inevitable that the area will be developed, and it has already been marked for this by the municipal and provincial governments.
Instead of creating another housing project with more dwelling units, I think we should take this opportunity to create something in tune with the environment, and develop this project as a world model. There will be other models at the conference, of subdivisions and so on, but I am talking about a major world innovative project based on the best planning available in Canada, and supplemented by the expertise available at the world conference.
I am pleased that the response to this project has been positive, and I commend the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) and the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) for showing interest. Mayor Tonn of Coquitlam and the council are most enthusiastic as well. I have also spoken with the premier of British Columbia and his minister of housing, who have both expressed interest.
I am pleased to announce tonight that I have arranged a meeting for March 5 to be chaired by Dr. Walter Hardwick of the University of British Columbia, to consider this proposal further. I should thank the ministers involved for making the expertise of their staffs available to us, and I should thank as well members on all sides of the House who will, I hope, be represented at this meeting. I think it is important to note that the province of British Columbia, the regional districts and the municipalities are coordinating their efforts in a non-political, non-partisan way in order to try to do something about a major problem in this country.
I call on the minister to examine the ideas I have put forward. Let him apply money and expertise to the solution of our housing problems. Let him confer with the head of Central Mortgage and Housing. A good beginning has been made in Ottawa with a model development. Similar developments ought to be encouraged. I hope the minister will encourage other similar programs and make them realities, so that he, as the housing minister for all Canada, will lead the way in bringing about solutions.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in talking on this bill on behalf of my party let me state precisely how we look on housing.
We begin by assuming that housing is not a commodity, not a chattel, not a service like any other in society. It should not be a resource which we can or cannot buy, depending on income. We do not liken it, for instance, to something like colour television, which one can or cannot afford, depending on income, or to an expensive automobile, which one can or cannot buy, again depending on income. We do not think housing can be regarded as a commodity of that kind.
We believe that housing, like medical services and like education, at least up to university level, should be available as a basic social right. Housing is a right to which every Canadian family is entitled by virtue of being part of our society. We test housing legislation by asking how it conforms to this general principle. We ask does the legislation recognize that housing is a social right, that

February 27, 1975
National Housing Act
houses are not a commodity like any other in society? Second, if the legislation recognizes housing as a right, does it do something to fulfil that right? If the legislation meets either test, particularly if it meets our first point, we supported it, even though it may not go far enough in providing all the necessary details. Certainly the first test is crucial. The measure before the House completely fails to meet that test. There could not be a more clear revelation of Liberal philosophy on housing, a philosophy which has certainly continued since 1968 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office.
Of the many ministers and departments which have been given responsibility for housing, not one has brought forward legislation clearly embodying the notion that housing is a social right. Actually the legislation which has come forward has suggested just the opposite, namely, that the market will ultimately determine whether a Canadian family will obtain a house. Any mechanisms introduced by the government for providing housing have been aimed at the banks, trust companies and other financial institutions. The aim of the government has always been to give incentives to these basically market-oriented institutions to provide services.
It is morally absurd and economically fallacious to pretend that our housing needs can be, or ought to be met by policies of this kind. Legislation of this kind is as outdated as legislation would be which tried to reverse the principle of medicare. But that is precisely what this government continues to do; I shall show later exactly how it does so.
First let me say something about the real housing needs of Canadians. What is the situation? The minister himself, according to an interview reported in the Ottawa Citizen last October, acknowledged that Canada still needs to establish a minimum of 800,000 new housing units, which includes new housing as well as rehabilitated units. Altogether we need a minimum of 800,000 newly established housing units for the people of Canada. That figure was mentioned by the minister; he was not far wrong, and I give him credit for acknowledging the need. On the other hand the Canadian Council on Social Development says that we need one million units if we are to meet the housing needs of Canadians.
What is the human meaning of the figures mentioned by the minister and by the Canadian Council on Social Development? They mean that four million Canadians are inadequately housed. That is what the figures mean in human terms. They mean, as the minister knows very well, that more than 50 per cent of our native people are grotesquely under-housed. They mean that people in the Maritimes are inadequately housed to a disproportionate extent, and that people in our large cities, in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal in particular, are inadequately housed. They mean that four million Canadians, men, women and children of every racial origin in our society, are inadequately housed. Surely in a society enjoying one of the highest per capita incomes in the world in 1975, this situation is unjustified. There is no excuse for it, considering our present economic potential. I am not talking about Utopia. I am talking about the state of our economy in 1975. The fact that four million Canadians are inadequately housed should make us, as legislators, ashamed.

What about housing starts? The minister himself acknowledged the need. But what has been the record of the government and of the minister? In 1974 we saw 222,000 housing units constructed. That figure does not represent an increase. It is the lowest number of new units built since 1970; it is the lowest number built in four years. Instead of increasing, our housing starts are declining. The minister expressed the hope that in 1975, 210,000 units will be built. That is a lower figure than the one applying to 1974. He is not increasing the number of units which are to be built each year. He acknowledges as a target a lower figure, a lower number of units than was built last year.
We discovered, when we saw the figures for January, that if the present rate of construction is projected forward for the rest of the year, instead of even 210,000 units being built to meet the minister's target, only 176,000 will be built.


Mr. Railton:: How does that compare with what is happening in the U.S.A.?


John Edward Broadbent: The Liberal member opposite asks how this performance compares with what is happening in the U.S.A. Liberals always try to compare what happens in the United States with what happens in Canada. I rejected such comparisons long ago.


Samuel Victor Railton: We have done five times better.


John Edward Broadbent: The United States does not have medicare-does that mean that we should reject the principle of universal medicare? We have all kinds of social programs in this country that they do not have in the United States.


Samuel Victor Railton: Tell us more about the 210,000 proposed units. How does that compare with what they are doing in the United States?


John Edward Broadbent: It is characteristic of the Liberal party that it has always looked to the United States for its ideas. That is a crucial part of its problems.


Samuel Victor Railton: That's rubbish, and you know it.


John Edward Broadbent: questions about housing in the first month of this parliament, his answer was that somehow the crisis had disappeared because he had been elected for at least a four year term and had that amount of time to deal with it. That is typical of the Liberal party when it comes to carrying out serious social objectives.
Let us apply the test by looking at this budget to see what kind of money the government is putting up for what the Prime Minister described as a crisis. For 1975 the budget is being increased to $1.2 billion from $913 million last year. On the surface this looks like an increase. In fact the minister is quoted as saying it is a 12.5 per cent increase.
I wish to make two points. If you take the estimated rate of inflation for 1975 which was provided to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) by his advisers, it is in the neighbourhood of 10 to 12 per cent-and that is a conservative estimate. You must also consider that the inflation rate in housing has been higher than the general increase in the cost of living. The inevitable conclusion you would draw, keeping both those facts in mind-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: If we could have order, Mr. Speaker, it would be nice to hear some substance instead of wind from the Conservative party. I would be interested in getting a serious question from them at any time.
If you take the rate of inflation in general and the rate of inflation in housing in particular, there is in fact a reduction in real dollars in the government's housing budget for 1975. The minister must admit that. I look forward to his comments on that later in the debate.
One provincial minister of housing estimated that, far from being an increase, there has been a 20 per cent reduction in real dollars allocated for housing. I do not necessarily say it is 20 per cent. However, I do say there is no increase in the amount of money to be spent on housing by the government. Surely that is totally unacceptable.
Let me say something about mortgage rates. In 1974 mortgage rates went as high as 13 per cent. They recently came down a bit, and are now about 11 per cent. Second mortgages are still going at between 14 and 16 per cent. What does this mean in basic human terms?
On the average mortgage a family has to pay approximately $250 a month just for the interest rates. They are paying some bank or other financial institution $250 a month. How many people in Canada can afford that? The question is rhetorical. The minister knows that in terms of income, it excludes about 80 per cent of the families in Canada. They simply cannot afford to pay that. Surely it is an unacceptable situation. If we regarded housing like we regard medicare, we would make a change in our financial administration so that families do not have to get into that kind of bind, and the majority of families would be able to buy houses.
What about housing costs? In 1974 the average price of a home in Canada was $42,000. From west to east the provincial averages are as follows: British Columbia, $43,200; Alberta, $37,200; Saskatchewan, $24,000; Manitoba, the data is not yet available; Ontario, $46,900; Quebec, $32,900, and the Atlantic provinces, $30,500. I again ask rhetorically,
National Housing Act
how many Canadians can afford homes in that price range? The answer, of course, is very few.
What is the general conclusion? After considering the supply of housing the government hopes to bring on the market, the mortgage situation, prices for 1974, and what they are likely to be in 1975, the conclusion is inevitable. The poor in our society, that 20 per cent of Canadians who live below the poverty level, are right out of the picture in terms of being able to afford housing in this country. There is no way they fit into the market. That is the first point.
The second question is where does the average family of the lumberman on the west coast, the packinghouse worker in Toronto and the steadily employed person in Halifax, find itself in terms of being able to purchase a house? I am talking about the regularly employed family which is not afflicted by unemployment or living on an inordinately low income. The fact is that it too is excluded from the housing market.
Young families simply cannot afford to buy houses in most places in Canada, even though their incomes are quite reasonable in terms of existence in society in a general way. In short, whether we consider the poor or the average family, housing is by no means a social right. It is still very much a commodity in the market place, to be bought or not bought by those with a substantial amount of income at their disposal. Housing is far from being a social right. It is still the privilege of the affluent in society. It is out of reach for the vast majority of Canadians, but so far the government has not done anything about it.
I have referred to the past and current market situation. Now, I ask what about the minister's bill? It deals with four areas. First, there is AHOP, the Assisted Home Ownership Program, that marvellous election promise of the Liberals. This legislation provides a subsidy of up to $600. However, who gets that money? It will not directly benefit the low or average income earners. The Liberal party, true to its historic traditions, has decided to subsidize the banks. It is a continuation of the corporate rip-off.
The typical solution of the Liberal party is to help the poor by giving money to the rich and hoping it will trickle down. I see the minister shaking his head, the implication being that this is not a subsidy to the banks. I will point out how I think it is a subsidy, and the minister can correct me.
Let me use the example of a mortgage rate of 10 3A per cent. A family may qualify for the AHOP loan and receive the maximum $600. What procedures are followed? This may bring down the mortgage rate that family has to pay by two percentage points, to 894 per cent. Does this mean the bank gets only 8 3A per cent? Of course not. The bank will still get 10 3A per cent because the great generosity of the Liberal party is going to provide that $600 to the family on condition it is passed on immediately to the banks.
All this program does is provide money to the banks from the pockets of the taxpayers of Canada, and channel it through the hands of the people who need housing. It does nothing at all to force the banks to bring down

February 27, 1975
National Housing Act
interest rates. It does everything to increase their profit margin.
The program is harmful, too, inasmuch as it takes the pressure off the banks to bring down mortgage rates. To put it in blunt terms, why the hell should they? Why should they bring down mortgage rates if the government is going to subsidize them at present levels? So they keep them high, and hope the government will continue to pay people money to pass on to them. Apart from that, it is a waste of money. It is estimated that for 1975 the cost of this marvelous, new, progressive legislation will be about $35 million. I say it is a gift to the banks.
If the government wanted to make a sensible amendment to the AHOP program it could borrow money at 9 per cent. I should like to get the minister's attention so that he could reply to this point.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Say something worthwhile, then.


John Edward Broadbent: The only time a Liberal thinks anything is worthwhile is if you agree with him.


An hon. Member:: Are you any different?


John Edward Broadbent: If it really wishes to benefit the people instead of the banks why does not the federal government borrow money at 9 per cent, which is the current rate it pays for funds, then apply the subsidy itself and put the money out at 7 per cent, instead of getting it through the banks and subsidizing the high mortgage rates? The government can get money at 9 per cent. Why should it subsidize the banks at 10 3A per cent? The method now proposed is totally unjustified, even accepting the basic assumptions of the Liberal party.
Next, the bill provides financial incentives for private developers, encouraging them to build more rental accommodation. Once again this program is a direct subsidy to the developers so that they will build more houses. It is a giveway to the developers.
The third aspect of the bill is that dealing with nonprofit housing corporations. I must say that when I read this part I thought there had been a terrible mistake in the legislation. I reached that conclusion because the bill seemed to make sense. How, I asked myself, could the Liberals be proposing to acquire land for non-profit housing? I thought there had been a grotesque error somewhere-that somebody on the Treasury Board or in the department had made a mistake. However, reading on, I found my prejudices about the Liberal party were confirmed.
I discovered that though they had decided to acquire land for private housing they intended to remove the 10 per cent capital grant which was formerly available. In effect, they were saying to the poor people right across the country, "We shall buy this land for you, so go ahead and build your housing units; at the same time we are taking away the 10 per cent capital grant we formerly provided." That is a typical piece of shifty work by the Liberal party. They give with one hand and take away with the other to make sure there is not redistribution of wealth in the country-that would fly in the face of everything that party stands for, Mr. Speaker.

Next, the government is to provide assistance in connection with sewage systems to municipalities. Here I am glad to say the Liberals have done something which in principle one cannot object to, and the amendments in this area make sense. One could quibble about detail, but I will rest there. I think it makes sense. Even though it is brought in by the minister responsible for housing I still think it is good, and he must be given credit.
To sum up, three of the four aspects of this housing legislation are totally contradictory to the principle that housing should be a social right.
What is an alternative approach, in 1975, which recognizes that we need a million new units and acknowledges at the same time that behind the statistics are four million Canadian lives? What if we took housing seriously as a social objective, recognizing that housing is a social right, and that unemployment is running at 7 or 8 per cent? First, instead of $1.2 billion for housing the budget should be at least twice that amount for 1975. This would also mean a serious commitment to creating thousands of jobs in a year which will likely be the worst in terms of numbers unemployed than any year since the depression. So, in terms of facing up to a social responsibility it makes sense, and in terms of creating the number of housing units we need it makes sense. That is the first step we should take.
Second, instead of relying on the private sector, instead of providing financial incentives and all kinds of rip-off opportunities, the money should be channelled through public hands and kept entirely in public hands until it gets to the people who really need housing. How could that principle be implemented?
Let me deal first with land assembly, which represents a major cost of housing. The federal government should duplicate on a national basis what the Manitoba government has done.
The Manitoba government in Winnipeg-I see the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) listening to my remarks and perhaps he will interject on this point- through the means of public land assembly found it could buy land, provide the servicing required in the form of sewers, water and so on, and sell lots for $7,000 a unit. That is exactly half the price that the commercial market has established in the city of Winnipeg today. The kind of financial incentive, the free market wheeling and dealing that is supported by the Liberals and Conservatives sees lots selling in the same city of Winnipeg for $14,000, twice the price of land assembled publicly by the government of Manitoba.
That demonstrates that a government that wants to regard housing as a social right, and which uses governmental authority in the interest of the people, can bring down land costs by 50 per cent. I should like to see this kind of program duplicated across the country on a national basis, and a government committed to this would put up the funds that would enable such a program to be implemented.
The second point I want to make is connected with mortgages. Instead of providing charity to the banks and using millions of dollars of taxpayers' money under AHOP
February 27, 1975

to subsidize the banks, as the minister is in this crass legislation, what the government should do is to amend all legislation pertaining to the Bank of Canada and financial institutions so as to make it mandatory that banks place a certain percentage of their investments in mortgages at 6 per cent.
I see the minister shaking his head in bewilderment, and I do not doubt it, because what is involved in this suggestion is the taking on of the banks in our society. It is exactly analogous to what the government of Saskatchewan did a few years ago when it brought in medicare. The NDP government said that medical care was a social right. Every other reactionary force in society, including the Liberal party of Saskatchewan and the Tories, said no, we could not do that. They said we could not challenge the medical profession in that kind of way. But we did in Saskatchewan, and within a few years all other parties across Canada suddenly discovered that you could take on the medical profession. They suddenly discovered that the majority of Canadians liked medicare.
I say that the majority of Canadians would like more money at 6 per cent, but the only way to give it to them is to say to the banks that on a certain part of their investments, they are not going to make a profit. They can make a profit on colour television sets, electric tooth brushes and other gadgets, on the financing of shopping centres and so on; but on any money that they put up for housing for the people of Canada they will not make a profit. Over all in their operations they would still be profitable. A 6 per cent mortgage policy could be implemented on that kind of basis, and on no other. However, I do not expect the Liberal party, which has never been known as a party willing to take on the banks, to understate the position a wee bit, will move in that direction. But if it wanted to it could, and it should.
Finally, the new emphasis on housing policy for low income people in particular should be placed upon co-operative housing. In 1973 the budget for co-op housing was $2 million. It has now been raised to a paltry $4.5 million. If the government wants to make it possible for poor Canadians to get housing, then this is the sector into which it should move. Yet it has allocated a paltry $4.5 million. If the government wanted to express a genuine concern on the part of this parliament for the real housing needs of the people, it should expand this sector of its housing budget beyond what it is at the present time.
I conclude by saying on behalf of my party-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Tories will have an opportunity to express their eighteenth century philosophy as soon as I sit down. The New Democratic Party a few years ago fought the battle for medicare.


An hon. Member:: And lost.


John Edward Broadbent: And won. Every damned Tory and Liberal government in the country copied it, once they found it acceptable. We fought the battle for medicare a few years ago because we believed it was the social right of every Canadian. From this year on we have every intention of fighting the battle for housing. I believe that in a
National Housing Act
few years housing will become the social right of all Canadians, and the snickers and sneers that we are hearing tonight from the two old line parties will be laughed into history.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity of making a few comments on a bill which strikes me as very important for all Canadians, and which, in addition, represents an element of prime importance in our economy.
I am sure the government recognizes the urgency of intervening quickly in this problem of prime importance to all Canadians, but again, I feel the government proves incapable of implementing the required measures.
I should like to point out to the House, Mr. Speaker, that though the bill now being studied is not bad in itself, it does not meet the real needs of Canadians where housing and urbanism are concerned. We are at grips with what seems to me to be a fundamental economic problem in Canada, which needs to be resolved as quickly as possible. As I said a moment ago, this bill falls far short of suggesting the solutions needed to the housing problem in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, a housing policy for Canada has been for many years part of the Social Credit Party platform. Everybody knows that this is a serious problem which affects all Canadians, and this is one of the reasons why the Social Credit Party of Canada strongly supports the development of a housing policy.
I suggest that, although it may be sound theoretically, the housing policy which is set forth in this bill would not work. The grants will benefit people with above average income, while small earners will not be eligible. It is high time, Madam Speaker, for the government to become aware of this problem. The government should unquestionably increase the grants to small earners, thereby giving them once and for all access to single dwelling housing. I feel that the changes to the bill are very important and acceptable as a whole, but that this bill is still incomplete, imperfect and, as such, fully out of touch with the needs of the underprivileged.
I am delighted to see that the bill provides increased assistance to non-profit making housing projects and to housing co-operatives as well as federal programs of land rentals for non-profit making and co-operative housing. Moreover, I think that the latter will enable the corporation to purchase and improve lots and rent them at a very low price to non-profit making corporations. Another amendment which seems to be important but only for some people is the aid granted by the government to facilitate the purchase of a house. On the other hand, I consider that the low amount of $500 granted for that purpose will be insufficient for individuals with low incomes.
Since housing is essential for all, that it is a consumer's item which is costly, it is undeniable that we must deal with the matter in order to help the underprivileged as soon as possible.

National Housing Act
I think it would also be advisable for the government to provide and build homes for senior citizens, because most projects are on a cost-share basis and unfortunately, funds are often earmarked for this or that project and the province of Quebec, particularly, uses them according to its own priorities. We all know that there is a lot of confusion and unrest in Quebec now. I think that the federal government would be well advised to assume its responsibilities and build homes for senior citizens and for people with low income. It should build moderately priced housing, as is more and more the case now.
As recent statistics show, in many families, 30 per cent of the budget goes to housing. This means that the cost of housing represents about a third of the consumer price index. The most affected by this remain citizens with a low income.
Madam Speaker, housing is essential to all Canadians. He must fight against the hardship of winter and have a home where he can fill his needs.
Today, it is almost impossible to buy a house, considering loans are for a 40-year period, and this only tends to sink people into debt for 40 years. We all know that under current standards houses have a guaranteed life span of 20 years. But contrary to logic loans are made for a 40-year term. After 20 years, the house is finished and the sad owner is left with another 20 years of payments. What for? Absolutely nothing. The house is uncomfortable, and he might as well live out in the open.
As I indicated, it is almost impossible to own a house today, considering loans are granted for a 40-year period. This is discouraging for people. I feel someone wishing to build a house of any type should be able to repay in ten years. But it is the opposite way. A great many people own houses guaranteed for 25, and even 40 years, still carrying mortgages higher than their value, to the point that owners cannot even repay, and let them go.
Madam Speaker, I would like to discuss some ways of giving each Canadian the opportunity of getting decent housing on normal terms.
As a first solution, interest rates should be brought down, since they are very high, and money should be made more readily available to every citizen, because each one of necessity must find shelter.
One of the points the government has finally understood is the lowering of the sale tax on building materials from 12 to 5 per cent. That reduction is most likely to end in a smaller increase in the cost of a house, rather than in an immediate lowering. Moreover, Madam Speaker, are we Social Crediters not the ones who have been calling for that for many years? Yes, Madam Speaker. This example has been followed by builders and real estate agents as well as by consumers. One thing is sure: that reduction does not immediately really influence the price of a singlefamily house, and the next increase will certainly be countered or less steep.
Once again, we urge the government to encourage Canadians to build single-family houses by guaranteeing them long-term loans at an administrative rate. Furthermore, we would like single-family house owners to benefit as well from a tax reduction equivalent to the interests

they pay on mortgages and the amount of their school and municipal taxes.
I would like to make a digression to stress that the government now seems to give $50 on the interest the borrower has to pay. It would be better if the government would give this to those who borrow. The way it acts now, it encourages loan shark and usury and I am convinced that this is a bad thing.
Once again, we invite the government to spur Canadians to build their own family house, as I said earlier, by providing them with long term loans at low interest rates.
Madam Speaker, I hope wholeheartedly that the bill now before us is for the benefit of all Canadians.


John Douglas Reynolds: Madam Speaker, this is the first time since he was appointed I have had an opportunity of speaking in the House while the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) has had a bill here, and I want to congratulate him on his appointment to office. It certainly is refreshing to have a minister who can get mail answered more quickly than the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Bas-ford) used to answer his mail, and it seems that he is making some progress in the housing field.


Barnett Jerome Danson: It's the Post Office.


John Douglas Reynolds: Perhaps the minister should be made Postmaster General.
It is always a pleasure to speak after we hear the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) speak because it always seems that his party has a great ability to distort some of the things the government or the opposition says. I certainly think that the Leader of the New Democratic Party distorted the part of the bill dealing with AHOP. For just a few moments I thought that the NDP was accepting the financial philosophy of the Social Credit Party when its leader spoke about solutions in financial areas.
It is interesting that we have a bill before this House on housing just two days after we received in the mail a brochure from the government of British Columbia which, as everyone is aware, is a New Democratic Party government, and to hear members of that party applaud in this House for their leader, and to hear their sanctimonious views on solving the nation's problems, we wonder why they cannot solve those problems in the province of British Columbia.


An hon. Member:: Hang them all.


John Douglas Reynolds: Hon. members of the NDP wish to interrupt and talk about the hanging bill instead of about housing, because it is something which bothers them and something which is very unpopular in their party. I can only remind hon. members that in the last parliament they had some 30 members, and now they are down to 13.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: That's a persuasive argument.


Mr. Gilbert:: How many Tories are there in B.C.?
February 27, 1975


John Douglas Reynolds: Thirteen Tories in B.C. and only 2 NDP. NDP members are really upset when they are told the truth and given the facts. I can only say that the New Democratic government of B.C. will probably reduce their numbers in B.C. just as they did federally in the last election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Tories and Liberals are cheering each other again.


John Douglas Reynolds: It is nice to see that they are finally listening to something. After two and a half years in my province-and I am not saying the provincial government is completely to blame because the federal government has some responsibility in housing, although I personally believe it should be giving that responsibility to the provincial governments and municipalities and supplying the money to do the job-but after two and a half years of a socialist government in my province, it was interesting to read in The Province, a Vancouver newspaper, on Saturday, February 22, under the headline "City Leading in Home costs":
Vancouver has replaced Toronto as the most expensive residential real estate market, according to a chart prepared by the national service of A. E. LePage Ltd....
The company said that a house that cost an average $50,831 in Toronto would cost $52,356 in Vancouver, a difference of $1,525.
I think that is a great example of some of the ideas of socialism.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank free enterprisers for that.


John Douglas Reynolds: After two and a half years, a home in my riding which could have been bought for $35,000 now costs $55,000. If that government stays in power much longer the cost will be $75,000.
After two and a half years all that the great provincial government in my area can bring out is a nice brochure called "Housing for People", published by the British Columbia department of housing. I just want to read the first page, written by the Hon. Lome Nicolson, who is our great provincial minister of housing. He says:
Most British Columbia communities are proud of their residential areas lined with attractive homes and well kept yards. But there are still far too many households living in deplorable accommodation.
The goal of this government is to provide access to adequate and reasonably-priced housing as a basic human right for every citizen of our resource-rich province. As with health care, education, and the other social services, it requires all levels of government to work together to make this possible.
The provincial government, through the new Department of Housing, is attempting to meet its share of this challenge with its HOUSING FOR PEOPLE programs.
In its first year, the Department has chalked up an impressive record. But this is just the beginning. Our programs will be improved and expanded.
That "impressive record" is the highest cost of housing anywhere in Canada, and the lowest rate of apartment availability of any province in Canada. That is the record of the government of the province of British Columbia, and I think it is pretty poor. The rest of their brochure is filled with pictures, including one of a poor child eating spaghetti, a great public relations job by a public relations
National Housing Act
firm, but it certainly has not solved housing problems in British Columbia.
This bill will not really solve all the housing problems in Canada, although my party approves of the bill in principle. The only part of the bill that has any real relevance is the sewage treatment assistance, which is certainly needed in many areas of my riding and throughout Canada. One of the problems we have to relate to in housing-I can remember at a committee meeting on the last estimates asking the minister and the president of CMHC a very simple question, and I hope the minister, either in this House or when he speaks on this bill in committee, will be able to give us some answers-is that the government could not tell us a few months ago how many serviced lots were needed in the city of Vancouver to keep the housing market at an even trend.
Nor could it tell us how many housing lots were needed in the city of Toronto to keep the market at an even trend. If the government cannot tell us how many lots are needed, that is where the problem lies. I hope the minister will be able to answer that question in committee because I do not see anything wrong with being a free enterpriser, however much the gentlemen to my left seem to think there is something wrong with it. I think the people in the free enterprise building market can solve housing problems in Canada as long as they do not get the interference that are getting from all three levels of government right now. All they want to know is that there are lots available-


John Edward Broadbent: Subsidizing the developers.


John Gilbert: Barney is going to subsidize you, don't worry.


John Douglas Reynolds: We have had a short interruption from the New Democrats, and again they are distorting things. I did not mention one word about subsidization. Free enterprise in this country can build houses without government subsidies. It does not need government interference either. It galls me to stand here and listen to these people talk when, for a year and a half, they sat in bed with the government and approved all its policies, and now they are saying they are bad.


John Gilbert: Check your record of voting on housing.


John Douglas Reynolds: All we need in this country to solve the housing crisis is for the free enterprise builders of this country, and we are not talking about all the large developers-


John Edward Broadbent: On a point of order, I wonder if the hon. member made reference to the fact that this party-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is this a question or a point of order?


John Edward Broadbent: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. member suggested that the New Democratic Party supported all the policies of the previous government. I just want to point out that it was his party which voted with the government on the mortgage mechanisms bill, and it was only the NDP which voted against it.

February 27, 1975
Division


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: This is a matter for debate and not a point of order.


John Douglas Reynolds: It is interesting to watch the N.D.P. members after a year and a half of voting with and keeping the government in power, now blaming this party for keeping that government in power.


John Edward Broadbent: Don't get confused by the facts.


John Douglas Reynolds: This country needs serviced lots so that houses can be built. It needs a federal government which is willing to negotiate with the provinces and tell the provinces that, if they expect to receive federal money, they had better make sure there are enough serviced lots on the market every year to maintain the housing market in Canada. That puts the problem right into the hands of the builder and the developer.
All we hear from our friends to my left is about big developers. I want to tell them I come from a riding which is one of the largest in Canada, and the big, bad developer in my riding builds only six to ten houses a year. He is a small Canadian businessman, and he is having a hard time because of government interference.
I want to close because we want to get this bill into committee so that we can receive some answers to these questions from the minister. We hope he will be prepared, because this party is prepared to do anything to get housing going in Canada, and we are not prepared to stand around and make phony statements, as does the N.D.P. party to my left. We want to get some housing built in this country, so we want to get this bill to committee.
[DOT]	(2130)


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the acting prime minister if he will reverse the order of business which he announced for tomorrow. Is it a fact that the Northwest Territories bill will come forward first and that, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) will pilot it through?
February 27, 1975


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, since there seems to be a better chance that the Northwest Territories bill will get through rather than the other bill during the course of the day, it is my intention to call it first, which I hope will elicit a very short debate, and then we could go on to the farm credit bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, on February 13, as recorded at page 3185 of Hansard, I directed a question to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) regarding the need for regulations putting into place guidelines to govern sex and violence on Canadian television. My question was prompted by a number of questions raised in the House by a number of concerned members of parliament over the growing tendency by Canadian television, and especially CBC, to depict violence on programs and to portray explicit sex scenes and offensive language.
Like most decent people in this country, and especially parents in this country, I am becoming fed up, as, I am sure, many hon. members are, with this tendency. I can say that I am growing extremely impatient with the failure of the statutory authority, in this case the CRTC, to enforce regulations in accordance with the mandate they have under the Broadcasting Act that would specifically prohibit broadcasters, especially CBC, from offending the morals and mores of the vast majority of people in this country. Hardly a week goes by in which there is not such an offending program that contains offensive language, explicit sex scenes, and violence bordering on sadism.
I will be the first to admit that there is little or no evidence to indicate that explicit sex on television is harmful to young minds, but there are few who would disagree that sex on television offends our Judaeo-Chris-tian moral standards, whether it is the Friday night blue movies in Toronto or what passes off as Canadian content on CBC television. I doubt very much if there is a member of this House who has not received a letter from an irate constituent who was shocked by what he had seen on Canadian television, and especially in recent years on the CBC.
But there is a real case to be made about the harmful effects of violence on television. Violent crime is on the increase in Canada as well as in the United States. The Surgeon General of the United States, when he appeared before a U.S. senate subcommittee a few months ago, reported on a study that had been made by a scientific
Adjournment Debate
committee covering a period of two years. This was his blunt conclusion:
"The overwhelming consensus and the unanimous Scientific Advisory Committee's report indicate that televised violence, indeed, does have an adverse effect on certain members of our society ... It is clear to me that the casual relationship between televised violence and anti-social behaviour is sufficient to warrant appropriate and immediate remedial action ...
A research scientist at Stanford University said that there is exposure to violence on television and that:
... aggressive behaviour on a one-time basis can be repeated in free play by as high as 88 per cent of the young children seeing it on TV.
Even in our own country there is concern. A few weeks ago the Solicitor General for Canada (Mr. Allmand), in a speech in Toronto said, and I quote from a press report:
... that his department is studying television violence and may limit programs containing violence if it concludes they encourage aggressive behaviour.
I quote again from another Canadian source, and this is a recent press report:
Chief Justice George Gale of Ontario's Court of Appeal has urged entertainment industries purge themselves of excessive violence as part of an attack on urban crime.
He went on to say:
... "it's little wonder children eventually go out and try to practice what they have seen.''
In the very few minutes at my disposal on this adjournment debate obviously I cannot go into the arguments in any substantive way. I believe that the evidence is in, and it warrants action on the part of the government through its agency in this regard, the Canadian Radio Television Commission. I might say that the counterpart of the CRTC in the United States, the FCC, recently asked the United States congress to enact legislation to sharpen up the definition of obscenity so that that commission can put into place regulations which would govern the growing tendency on the part of United States broadcasters to use programs which exploit sex and violence. I believe that there should have been some action on the part of the CRTC in Canada.
There should be regulations, and the least the government should do is immediately embark on a program of public hearings which would have, as the end result, the promulgation of guidelines which would govern the use of sex, violence and offensive language on television, and which would have the effect of satisfying what I believe to be the very great concern of a majority of people in this country.


Gérard Pelletier: Madam Speaker, the government does not intend to legislate on the matter of forbidding televised violence, nor to impose in the near future a code of ethics in that respect. As for obscenity, it is already dealt with in our legislation. However, considering the importance of that matter and the interest it has aroused, the CBC has informed me that they are looking into the possibility of having a special public hearing, as the hon. member just suggested on that matter of televised violence.

Adjournment Debate
I also got the following representations from the CBC: the matter of a relationship between televised violence and violence as it has been witnessed in human behaviour has been discussed and studied for at least 15 years. The most significant contribution in that respect was made by the United States Surgeon-General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behaviour. That five volume report encompasses more than 50 different studies. Broadly speaking, its conclusions are that televised violence may cause some children to have anti-social behaviour under particular circumstances. The report states for instance that the effects of repeated televised violence may appear on a long term basis or indirectly. However, there is a tendency among a minor group of people to argue that televised violence would attenuate instead of stimulate aggressive impulses, but here again depending on environment and conditions.
No such extensive survey has been undertaken in Canada. However, it has been shown that Canadian television programs display a lesser amount of violence than American made programs. The Canadian Radio-Television Commission recently carried out a detailed analysis of the contents of 53 television programs broadcasted by Canadian television stations in a major Canadian city to determine the proportion of violence in Canadian made programs as compared with American programs. All the programs analysed were aired at times when the greatest number of children are known to be listening. The analysis dealt with 28 entertainment programs made in Canada and 25 in the United States. According to the standards of reference, the analysis showed that out of a total 103 scenes of violence, 95.1 per cent happened in the 25 American made programs, and 4.9 per cent only in the Canadian made programs.
The matter of violence on television is therefore linked with a problem which faces all countries of our western hemisphere since all of them, at least occasionally, buy American series.
Consequently, two conditions will probably become indispensable, over the long term, to remedy the proliferation of scenes of violence, namely: a significant increase in the quantity and quality of Canadian production; and, a change in the influence of marketing strategies on production, the choice and scheduling of programs.


AGRICULTURE-REQUEST FOR INCREASED FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT
Léonel Beaudoin: Madam Speaker, quite recently, I have on a few occasions drawn the attention of the House to the serious problems which are creating upheavals on every hand in our Canadian agriculture. Since the situation seems to be deteriorating almost constantly, I return to the charge once again today with criticism that is meant to be constructive.
Energetic steps must be taken immediately in agriculture. The situation has now really become alarming for our farmers. In 1974, we witnessed a swift increase, without parallel, in the cost of production, namely an increase of 23 per cent. On the other hand, the increase in income amounted to only 17 per cent. To that, for farmers as well as others, a 12 per cent rate of inflation must be added. So

this means that especially in Quebec, despite the few millions of dollars injected by the government of Quebec, agriculture stood in a very precarious situation at the end of the year.
On the one hand, in the budget speech of this year, there was no special provision to support agriculture, which is already depressed, as I clearly indicated at that time in the House. On the other hand, since the beginning of this year, the cost of inputs has been rising steadily.
Besides, the conference on Canadian agricultural outlook for 1975, held in Ottawa last January, indicated that feeds, fertilizers, chemicals, energy, fuel, binder twine, agricultural machinery, electricity and some other items will contribute to raise production costs this year. Furthermore, the economist of Agriculture Canada, Mr. C. R. Phillips, has emphasized that we have every reason to believe that inflation will play the same part in 1975 as it did last year.
This means that the government must act as soon as possible, if we want to avoid an irreparable disaster in agriculture. According to a Department of Agriculture press release on the outlook for 1975, the gross agricultural income will increase by 4 p. 100 in 1975, but the net agricultural income could fall by 12 per cent, mainly because of the increasing cost of production factors.
Madam Speaker, this only means that unfortunately we shall soon be witnessing many bankruptcies and a massive exodus of farmers going to welfare offices, as the list of forthcoming auctions already shows, even in winter. If I must be accused because of my speech, I would rather be accused of saying the truth than hiding it. In any event, nobody could stop things from being what they are.
Besides, Madam Speaker, I would like to give two or three examples showing that agricultural producers will go belly up if the government does not act. First, I must say that most farmers in Quebec now have to pay $100 or more a hundredweight for the hay which they will need until the end of winter. It is a real disaster when you think that it used to cost $30 or $35 a hundredweight.
On the other hand, I have been informed recently that binder twine for hay is selling at $33 a two-roll package. After all, it is not gold twine to reach such an incredible price. Two years ago, the package was selling for about $6.
And what about feeds whose prices keep increasing steadily? In that respect I want to point out that the government must set profiteers straight as soon as possible, even if they are farmers in certain cases. The balance of the whole Canadian agriculture depends on it. I must point out here that I do not want to be the only defender of Quebec farmers but I must expose injustice where I see it. That is why the federal department of Agriculture must intervene vigourously. I quote from an editorial by Francois Dagenais in the newspaper La Terre de Chez Nous of January 22, 1975:
Western Canada is certainly the primary cause of the increase of input costs. Feeds prices spiralled in 1974. Indeed, since the majority of grains come from the West, producers in those provinces experienced revenue increases of around 36 per cent in 1974. Quebec producers contributed in part to that balance which is more than positive.
Madam Speaker, how can the federal department of Agriculture allow such a disparity? I agree that farmers should make profits but not to the extent of some living at

the expense of the others, and with impunity. I am not afraid to say that in the area of agriculture, we are close to an emergency. If we refuse to admit it today, the events in coming months will undoubtedly bring it home to us.
That is why the government must act as soon as possible and require the co-operation of our western grain producers so that grain prices will be acceptable to eastern producers. We can only support our agriculture if everybody co-operates.
There are other solutions on the very short term. I point them out to the minister because I want my criticism to be positive. If, for example, the Department of Transport must greatly reduce freight rates to move grain from the West to the East, let it do so. Emergency measures are needed to deal with an emergency.
Furthermore, Madam Speaker, the government must really expose some large businesses who run monopolies, build up inventories to boast prices, and take undue advantage of the difficult situation in which our agriculture finds itself. That is one of the major factors of the stagnation now facing agriculture. Those large businesses must be put in their place, and quickly.
Furthermore, a bank of farm products should be created as soon as possible and I congratulate the minister who said he intends to do so. It was pointed out in the Globe and Mail of October 11, 1974. In fact, I would like to ask the minister what has since been done? We need that bank as soon as possible to ensure our national security.
The Minister of Agriculture stated that he was in favour of establishing a world system of food security through large-scale stocking. It is true to maintain that we have no right to consider Canadian agriculture apart while severe starvation is experienced in extensive areas throughout the world.
For all those reasons, we should no longer hear the following in Canada: "Do not produce too much; avoid production or avoid overproduction." Those words were said again recently and it immediately reminded me that the same Liberal government repeated them in 1971 to western grain producers and even paid to prevent them from producing. We see today the fine results: they are disastrous. Madam Speaker, our country has no reserve and eastern farmers must pay excessive prices for grain.
The situation is urgent. Moreover, the country cannot be administered as it was 15 or 20 years ago, when a politician or a minister could allow himself to consider a problem for months and years knowing that one way or another, the problem would solve itself with time. We can no longer say: Time will mend things. On the contrary, it has become obvious that time worsens the situation and heightens the problems. We cannot delay, we must take immediately drastic measures to preserve our agriculture.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it will be difficult for me to answer in two and a half minutes all the things the hon. member raised in his speech this evening. Let me say, first, that in less than two years the government has granted industrial milk producers increases of approximately 40 per cent.
Some of the things the hon. member said this evening have little to do with the question he raised in the House
Adjournment Debate
the other day, and I feel I can add little to what I said when the hon. member opposite raised his question the other day. I must advise him that I am not completely certain what he means when he refers to the need for special subsidies.
I remind all hon. members that there are several important bills before this House which are designed to enable farmers to receive a more stable return for the products they produce. These bills are needed and must pass if we are to see continued expansion in Canadian agriculture. One that I hope receives quick passage tomorrow deals with farm trade. Maybe members could even pass the farm stabilization bill so that we can get on with the business of running agriculture in Canada.
I remind the hon. member that general stabilization is provided under the terms of the Agricultural Stabilization Act. This act provides for a revolving fund of $250 million and can be drawn upon as required to stabilize producers' returns. The revolving fund is then recouped through supplementary estimates.
I note the hon. member's concern about the supply and price of hay. I can advise my colleague opposite that my officials have checked on the situation and are following it closely. Our reports indicate that sufficient supplies are generally available. It does appear that to coax out supplies farmers must pay prices which are above those they are normally accustomed to paying.
I cannot agree that the government should take action at this time to import hay from the United States since there is nothing to stop producers from arranging on their own to buy hay in the United States and transport it to Canada, duty free. Our information is, however, that prices in the United States are the same as or higher than those prevailing in eastern Canada.


PUBLIC SERVICE-STRIKE OF GENERAL LABOUR AND TRADES GROUPS-SUGGESTED ACTION TO ENSURE MAIL DELIVERY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, the disruption of mail service in the Toronto area as well as other parts of Canada is threatening the very existence of the small businessman, an existence which has become a vital part of our overall economy as it is the small businesses that form the backbone of our economic and industrial way of life.
It is the small businessman who has to depend on regular mail delivery to keep his establishment operating on a day to day basis. Without regular mail delivery, there are literally thousands of businesses in the Toronto area alone which are finding it impossible to meet their payrolls, with many of them already laying off employees due to the curtailment of orders being received. They cannot, without regular mail delivery, keep their flow of cash moving and be expected to adhere to their budget requirements.
On top of this, and the sagging economic climate Canadians in general are being asked by the government to accept as a way of life, the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Basford) has the gall to instruct federal sales tax offices to demand of business establishments the delivery of their

February 27, 1975
Adjournment Debate
federal sales taxes at their own expense to the government by any means other than the post office mails.
As if this were not enough, and with a general post office strike a likely possibility in the near future, the national representatives of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, who were to attend the Joint Senate-House Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service of Canada this afternoon, did not attend because, as stated in a brief presented to the committee in their stead, and I quote from that brief:
The responsibility for this decision can be attributed to the recent actions of the Treasury Board of Canada which is trying to use the postal workers to break the strike of the general labour and trades component of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
Earlier this week the post office, although shut down in Toronto, delivered over one million cheques to old age pensioners and other welfare recipients in that city because many of these individuals could not get by without them. That was indeed a very heart-warming gesture. However, let me assure you that there are many, many small and medium size businesses which cannot get by without regular mail delivery either.
With a continuation of this strike, and others that will inevitably follow unless some immediate alternate course is taken by the government, we will only add to the complete destruction of the economy in this country. It is plain to see that the suggestions I made last week, as well as those made in the memorandum to cabinet by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), relating to the fragmentation of union power should be seriously considered. Let me suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if this permissive government is hesitant in dealing with single public sectors, or is hesitant in asking the post office through the Public Service Alliance of Canada to deliver all business documents along the line welfare cheques were delivered, and surely we cannot be expected to wait for the Finkelman committee to conclude its deliberations, then I believe it is time that serious consideration be given to introducing legislation which would eliminate the right to strike in essential services, but which would instead, for the sake of the working man, establish an automatic annual cost of living increase, with an additional yearly adjustment in the form of a bonus.
It is clear that unions in this country have become more powerful than the federal government, which seems to be becoming weaker. This is obvious from the failure on the part of the government to prosecute individuals taking part in illegal strikes. Although it may be beneficial in the
long run for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to go prancing around Europe, it is hard to believe that in these troubled times at home, with growing militancy within the labour force in many sectors of the economy, the Prime Minister of Canada should turn his back on problems which should and must receive the total attention of the head of the government. The example set by the leader of the government will not help matters.
Continued work stoppages of this kind, which last year resulted in the loss of approximately 10 million work days, and are expected to give rise to an even worse situation in 1975, can no longer be tolerated unless Canadians, two-thirds of whom do not belong to unions, are prepared to live in conditions of economic disaster.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, the disruption of postal service in the Toronto area results from the current General Labour and Trades strike. Members of that union who maintain equipment and vehicles in the Post Office in Toronto are engaging in a lawful strike, and have set up picket lines at certain postal installations in Toronto and elsewhere.
Treasury Board has been informed that a number of mail service couriers who work for the Post Office Department have refused to cross the picket lines. This has resulted in internal transportation facilities not being available to the Post Office in Toronto. The ultimate effect is that mail cannot be delivered to or from the postal processing facilities, thus disruption and eventually causing the shut-down of the Post Office in Toronto.
Picket lines are not intended to deny people rightful access to buildings and installations. Employees who do not have the right to strike and who work in buildings picketed by striking GL and T employees have an obligation and a right to report for work and perform their assigned duties.
With respect to claims by employees that they have attempted to cross picket lines but have been unable to do so because of threats or intimidation, an employee should be considered on duty only where it is clear that an attempt was made to cross the picket line, and the employee concerned was either barred from entry or threatened with violence by a member of the picket.
The answer lies not in the solution proposed by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) but in the return to work at the Toronto Post Office of all employees who do not have the lawful right to strike so that the postal service may be restored to the public.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.42 p.m.

Friday, February 28, 1975