1975-02-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
e (1410)

Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek permission to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity, particularly to the area which I represent in this House, and arising out of the failure of the government to conclude vital and important negotiations involving the international crossing between Canada and the United States, known as the Thousand Islands bridge at Landsdowne, Ontario. I would ask permission to move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That in view of the absolute necessity for the Thousand Islands Bridge Authority to know whether or not the Government of Canada will agree to extension of the life of the Authority to 1981, and in view of the fact that lack of such a decision has seriously delayed construction of maintenance projects related to this international crossing, despite the full co-operation offered at all times by United States officials involved, the House requests the government to instruct the interdepartmental committee on international bridges to take immediate steps to resolve this entire situation as quickly as possible.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
sis *	*


STUDIES RESPECTING EFFECT ON CANADA OF WORLD
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the statement made in the House yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) that an agreement has been concluded between the federal government and the principals of the Syncrude consortium for the exploitation of the tar sands, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce be instructed to table immediately copies of all studies in his possession relating to the effect on Canadian manufacturers and the Canadian manufacturing industry of an internationally oriented oil price.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. It cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-SUGGESTION BANK OF CANADA FINANCE PROJECT-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the decision of the federal government to invest more than $600 million in the Syncrude project and that the money, in the present system, will come from taxes paid by taxpayers, and in view of the fact that the situation deprives taxpayers of the money they need to face high prices of consumer goods, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That this House consider the possibility of financing the Syncrude project as well as all other public development projects supported by the federal government by way of interest free loans provided by the bank of Canada, those loans being guaranteed by the natural resources of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under the provisions of 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 being no unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the

February 5, 1975
Tar Sands
provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the statement made in the House yesterday that the agreement entered into between the federal government and the principals of the Syncrude consortium will result in the creation of a large number of jobs for Canadian workers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources be instructed to table immediately all studies in his possession concerning the actual number of jobs to be created by this project and all correspondence in his possession concerning guarantees that a substantial number of these jobs will be reserved for Canadian workers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is the third motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 relating to the Syncrude subject. I do not want to interfere unnecessarily with the desires of hon. members; on the other hand, I must recognize that the House has expressed itself twice on suggestions pursuant to Standing Order 43 to set aside the regular business of the House and debate the Syncrude statement made yesterday. Considering the lack of unanimous agreement to go ahead with this matter, I find it difficult to take any other approach except that the House having expressed the view on two occasions that it would continue to withhold consent, I have to reject further motions moved pursuant to Standing Order 43 on the same subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Peters:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I must draw to your attention the fact that it is the habit of the House to agree to a motion under Standing Order 43 only if there is unanimous consent, and that such motions require unanimous consent. Therefore I would think that the intention of parliament when passing Standing Order 43 was not that we should ascertain the wish of the House on a general subject, but on a specific matter. The fact that specific motions are negatived should not make much difference.


GOVERNMENT'S FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT IN SYNCRUDE TAR SANDS PROJECT-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to exercise my right as a member under the provisions of Standing Order 43.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In light of the fact that the federal government has concluded an agreement with the principals of the Syncrude consortium-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Fairweather:: Order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -that will involve the investment of some $300 million in public funds, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):

That the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources be instructed to table immediately copies of all correspondence between their departments and the principals of Imperial Oil, Gulf Oil and Cities Service Ltd. concerning the financial aspects of federal government involvement in this venture.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. For the reasons I have just outlined, I decline to put that motion to the House. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a different matter.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) has the floor.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) is no doubt aware of the fact that the Chair has recognized the hon. member for New Westminster. If the hon. member has a point of order, I think it ought to come after the hon. member for New Westminster has completed his remarks.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent, pressing and recent necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that one of the first strikes in the commercial broadcasting industry commenced at radio station CKLC in Vancouver last Saturday, in view of the fact that 38 separate charges of intimidation and blacklisting have been laid before the Canadian Labour Relations Board against the employer, and in view of the fact that there is now evidence that news reports concerning the dispute are not being released until they have been cleared through the head office of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That this House requests the Minister of Labour to immediately intercede in this dispute to effect a settlement, and further that this House requests the Minister of Communications to investigate the allegations of censorship against the Canadian Association of Broadcasters or their affiliates.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 5, 1975


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


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning your ruling on the motion moved under Standing Order 43 by the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville (Mr. Nystrom). If I understood your ruling correctly, Your Honour said that because of what had been said earlier with reference to other motions on the Syncrude project you had decided not to put the motion. I should like Your Honour to clarify that ruling because, according to my understanding of the rules, just because the House says no to one motion on a general subject, that does not mean, logically or in any other way, that it will be negative on another motion which is on the same general subject but the particular details of which are different. With respect, I urge that the motion of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville be put.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday).


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oxford.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. This House is, of course, aware that Canadian farmers producing tobacco, tomatoes, sugar beets, fruits and similar crops rely on offshore and Mexican labour in harvesting these crops due to the reluctance of Canadians to take this type of employment. In the past the government has permitted the seasonal entry of such labour. Due to the depressing unemployment forecast for 1975, there are reports that the government will prohibit such seasonal immigration this year. Our farmers who produce these crops are presently in a state of uncertainty in planning the size of their crops for the spring planting which will shortly be upon them. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with consent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration assure this House that the government will continue in 1975 the policy of permitting the entry into Canada of offshore and Mexican labour as seasonal farm labour in order that the farmer-producers of tobacco, tomatoes, sugar beets, fruits and similar crops may make a full contribution to the national economy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Tar Sands


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43,1 seek the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a very urgent and important matter.
In view of the fact that the spiralling costs of farm products will certainly cause a great many farmers to go bankrupt in the near future, since there will be, according to the Minister of Agriculture's estimation, a 12 per cent reduction in their net income, also that the government will immediately have to do the utmost, at least to meet the demand of consumers for the next few years and maintain farm production at its current level, and finally that inflation is also driving farmers into bankruptcy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That the House of Commons may discuss the problem with which farmers are faced due to exorbitant production costs, so that steps may be taken to help farmers obtain supplies at reasonable prices.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 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.



AGREEMENT REACHED ON SYNCRUDE TAR SANDS PROJECT-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the fact that the federal government has concluded an agreement with the principals of the Syncrude consortium that will involve the expenditure of some $300 million of public funds, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources be instructed to table immediately a copy of the agreement that was reached at the recent Winnipeg meeting of the Syncrude principals and the federal government.

February 5, 1975
Tar Sands


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the right of my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow), to present the motion which he has just presented to the Chair. Citation 194(1), which begins on page 164 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, is very clear. It reads:
A motion or amendment cannot be brought forward which is the same in substance as a question which has already been decided, because a proposition being once submitted and carried in the affirmative or negative cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: The same in substance.


An hon. Member:: Shut up, Joe.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) feels he has not been sufficiently answered, I would emphasize that the citation I have just read does not say "on the same subject" but "the same in substance". That rule makes it very clear that if a member were to seek to move under Standing Order 43 a motion which was the same in substance as one which had already been decided, Your Honour would be quite correct in declining to ask the House whether there was consent to that motion. However, I submit to you that although the several motions under Standing Order 43 which have been proposed today are on the same subject in that they are in the general area of Syncrude, they are different in substance.
I submit that the rule I have just read, and which I think Your Honour has been using, does not apply when the proposed motions are different in substance. I also think it is unfair to the members of the government majority to infer that because they said no to one motion, they will necessarily say no to the next.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I will.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It does not follow automatically that because they have always said no they will always continue to do so. Every motion under Standing Order 43 is a new one, and the fact that the record is poor on the government side is of no relevance as long as the motion is different in substance. I submit that the motion submitted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, though on the subject of Syncrude, is different in substance from those presented earlier, and that Your Honour should put it to the House.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is very seldom I say no; but if the motion is put, this time I will.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the House to Standing Order 12(1) which reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order. In deciding a point of order or practice, he shall state the standing order or other authority applicable to the case. No debate shall be permitted on any such decision, and no such decision shall be subject to an appeal to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: With respect to the possibility of interpreting the hon. member's remarks as an appeal, I am sure it is not without significance that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) chose the occasion just before the making of a decision rather than just afterward, thus avoiding that very connotation. In dealing with the point he raised, perhaps I ought to join in apologizing to hon. members on the government side if my actions are precipitous enough to deprive them of a privilege which they may wish to enjoy, that of turning down any motion: in that respect I extend my apologies to hon. members on my right.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Be that as it may, I hold it as my responsibility to interpret the rules not only in the strict legal sense but also in such a way as to constitute a common sense interpretation of what is taking place. I must take into account the fact that, after all, there are two points relevant to any decision under Standing Order 43: first, the subject matter itself and, second, the question whether or not the ordinary business of the day ought to be set aside for a debate.
Since there has been an expression of opinion that the ordinary business should not be and will not be set aside by unanimous consent in order to debate the government's announcement on the Syncrude agreement, I have to consider that other motions based on the same general subject seeking, instead, the tabling of different documents or the tabling of some other agreement or the taking of some other course of action, are nevertheless motions that the ordinary business be set aside to debate the Syncrude agreement.
I would, therefore, hold that this is in fact a motion which in substance is precisely the same as those which have already been refused, and therefore I cannot put it.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have no wish to argue Your Honour's ruling, but I should like to ask Your Honour for some clarification of the point you have just made. Is the House to understand that if a member moves that, for instance, the Minister of Finance should give certain information regarding a certain subject and the House turns it down, Your Honour would take the position that another motion asking another minister, say the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, for data regarding the same topic is automatically out of order and Your Honour would not accept it? I hope Your Honour will clarify this. I read Standing Order 43 to mean that the House makes the decision, not Your Honour. With great respect, I think this is a matter for the House, not Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member realizes that the Chair would be reluctant to get into a discussion of hypothetical questions of that sort. What I have said is simply this, that in the circumstances of this afternoon, with the motions that have been presented, all on the same subject, I hold that the House has already expressed its view on the setting aside of the business for
February 5, 1975

today to discuss the Syncrude problem, and therefore there should be no subsequent motions. I do not go beyond that to make a future ruling on situations of the sort the hon. member has described.
* # *



PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDER 43-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, since the NDP is having today the same difficulties we had the other day with regard to Standing Order 43, and since its application is causing some trouble to the Chair, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau):
That the application of Standing Order 43 be immediately suspended in view of its use and interpretation, and be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Organization for study and report to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has not included in the text of his motion that it is made pursuant to Standing Order 43. However, I have to assume that that would be his authority for doing this at this time. I can hardly be taken to disagree that there is a matter of some necessity in the subject matter of the motion.

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 not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) will be making another statement tomorrow. We have had some discussions among the House leaders as to the best procedure that would give an opportunity for a full discussion and questioning of the minister, and therefore I should like to put forward an order in the following terms:
That at 8 p.m. on Thursday, February 6, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources shall make a statement, and after the said statement a spokesman for each of the parties in opposition shall comment upon the statement,
Interpretation Act
and after the comments of the said spokesmen members may question the minister on the said statement until the ordinary hour of adjournment.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I understand from conversations with my colleague the government House leader that this is to be a rather extensive statement. Before I give consent on behalf of the official opposition in respect to this matter, I should like to be assured by the government House leader that under reasonable circumstances, which he and I could discuss, ample opportunity will be given all opposition parties to review the statement the minister is about to make, in view of its length. For this reason, I wonder whether Your Honour would put this matter over until a little later in the afternoon, and perhaps my hon. friend and I could discuss this matter further.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Who is your friend?


Walter David Baker: The government House leader is always my friend.


Mr. Speaker:: The question has been put forward at the present time. It can become an order of the House at this moment only by unanimous consent. If unanimous consent is not forthcoming at this time, I cannot put it. [Translation]
Does the hon. member for Bellechasse raise the question of privilege?


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A number of workers from the textile industry are now in front of the Parliament buildings to claim some of their rights, seeking to protect their jobs.
I had earlier the opportunity to meet some of the workers from Montmagny. They would very much like to meet government authorities. I would therefore ask the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), if he would authorize a member of the cabinet to meet these workers to reassure them on their requests, and thus prevent that they remain here too long. This is wintertime, some consideration should be shown.


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Speaker I rise on a point of order. To clarify the situation, I would say that on the request of our caucus, I will me^t the delegation when the question period is over.


Mr. Speaker:: My impression is that is well understood.



INTERPRETATION ACT


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-376, to amend the Interpretation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.

February 5, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to amend the Interpretation Act to end the implied "men only" eligibility for executive jobs in Crown corporations. Throughout the history of Canada's parliament masculine pronouns have been used in all bills. For example, in the Federal Business Development Bank bill continual reference is made to various boards of directors and presidents and to "his duties" and to a person to replace "him". I should like the act changed by amending section 26 of Part VI of the Interpretation Act, which says that words importing male persons include female persons. I might advise the House that this dates back to 1848, the first session of the third provincial parliament of Canada, in which it was stated that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect may I say that I believe the hon. member, having indicated her intention of changing the Interpretation Act so that the masculine pronoun will no longer be imputed to mean
also the feminine, and that certain other changes will be made, it should be considered to be a fairly adequate explanation of the purpose of the bill.


Simma Holt: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Temper.


An hon. Member:: Be a lady.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. ]ohn M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 370, 524, 669, 763, 775, 808, 816, 960, 971, 1,043, 1,107 and 1,155.
Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 1,033, 1,106, 1,201, 1,202 and 1,203 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
[Text]	,

Mr. Dick: 1.	Have the jobs of Postmaster and Assistant Postmaster in the following communities in the Province of Ontario been designated as bilingual positions (a) Perth (b) Carleton Place (c) Almonte (d) Kanata (e) Lanark Village (f) Carp (g) Arnprior (h) Renfrew (i) Foresters Falls (j) Beachburg (k) Cobden (1) Douglas?
2.	Have any other positions at those Post Offices been declared as bilingual positions?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. (a), (b) and (c) No bilingual positions.

(d) Postmaster's position is bilingual. Designation date is March 31, 1977. Assistant postmaster's position is bilingual. Designation date is March 31, 1978. (e) to (1) No bilingual positions.
2. No.


AGE LIMIT FOR STUDENTS UNDER TRAVEL AND EXCHANGE PROGRAM
Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government reconsidering its decision to raise the age limit from 12 to 14 years for students for grant purposes under the Cultural Exchange Program?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: This matter is under consideration.


DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION-CONTRACTS WITH LAPOINTE TRANSPORT LTD.
Mr. Grafftey: 1.	What transport contracts have been awarded by the Department of Manpower and Immigration to Lapointe Transport Ltd., 105 Industriel Blvd., Longueuil, Quebec, since January 1, 1972?
2.	What was the amount of the contract in each case?
3.	Were public tenders called in each case and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Nil.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.


CBC-POLICY CONCERNING COMMUNITY ACCESS TO TRANSMITTERS
Mr. Reid: 1.	Has CBC Board of Directors approved a policy paper concerning community access to CBC transmitters for broadcasting?
2.	Is the name of this document "CBC Policy on Community Broadcasting in Remote or Isolated Communities" and, if not, what is the correct title?
3.	Has this policy been implemented and, if so (a) on what date (b) have many applications been received?
4.	How many requests were made for this programme before CBC Board of Directors made their decision on community access to CBC transmitters?
5.	Was there an application or request from the Sioux Lookout-Hudson region of Ontario and what has been the result of then-requests?
6.	(a) On what date does CBC plan to announce the existence of this policy on community access to CBC transmitters (b) for what reason has there been such a long delay in making available to the public the contents of this decision on community access to CBC transmitters?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	The name of the document approved by the CBC board of directors is "CBC Policy on Community Broadcasting in Remote or Isolated Northern Communities".
3.	(a) Only partially and only in a few communities, on an experimental basis. The policy involves, for the most
February 5, 1975

part, communities which fall under the Northern Broadcasting Plan. This latter plan, which includes provision for community access, is under consideration by the government. (b) Approximately 50 requests for assistance have so far been received from communities across the country wishing such service.
4.	Same answer as 3(b) since the same 50 communities remain interested in such a service if the policy is implemented.
5.	We have received a request from Sioux Lookout, and negotiations are under way for a possible experiment in that community.
6.	No general implementation of the policy is possible until the Northern Broadcasting Plan is approved.


CHILEAN IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Reynolds: With reference to the answer to Question No. 6, of the 1,098 Chileans who arrived in Canada out of an approved amount of 2,697 (a) how many declared Chile as their place of birth (b) how many of the 2,697 have now arrived in Canada?


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister oi Manpower and Immigration: (a) Particulars of the country of birth of those persons whose country of last permanent residence was Chile and who arrived in Canada between September
Order Paper Questions
11, 1973 and September 16, 1974 have not yet been tabulated. A sampling has been taken however which indicates that 93.8 per cent were born in Chile, (b) between September 11, 1973 and October 31, 1974, landed immigrant status was granted to 1,510 persons whose country of last permanent residence was recorded as Chile. This figure includes both special program immigrants and those who came forward under the normal immigrant movement from that country. A further 397 persons from Chile are in Canada on special permits and are at various stages of the landing process.


EDC PERSONNEL
Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by the Export Development Corporation (b) what would have been their aggregate salaries if all were employed for a full year (c) how many had salary levels of (i) $20,000 or more (ii) $35,000 or more (iii) $50,000 or more?
2.	What was the salary or the salary range for each of the five highest paid employees of the Corporation?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Export Development Corporation states: 1. As of March 31 in each of the years 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974:
1908	1970	1972	1974a. The number it employed was,	83	116	151	188b. The aggregate of the salaries if all employed for full year would been,	were have $645,213.90	$1,109,013.60	$1,554,984.00	$2,235,755c. The number with salary levels (i) $20,000 or more were,	2	10	12	24(ii) $35,000 or more were,	N/A	N/A	N/A	3(iii) $50,000 or more were,	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A2. The salary ranges for eaeli of its five highest paid employees were, for	1908	1970	1972	1974$	$	$	$20,500	28,000-33,000	34,000-40,000	35,750-43,75021,000-26,250	24,000-30,000	28,000-35,000	30,250-38,25019,000-24,000	24,000-30,000	28,000-35,000	30,250-38,25017,000-21,750	22,000-27,000	25,000-31,000	20,750-33,75017,000 21,750	20,000 - 25,000	22,000 - 28,000	23,500 30,000


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD PERSONNEL
Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by the Canadian Wheat Board (b) what would have been their aggregate salaries if all were employed for a full year (c) how many had salary levels of (i) $20,000 or more (ii) $35,000 or more (iii) $50,000 or more?
2.	What was the salary or the salary range for each of the five highest paid employees of the Board?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of lustics):: 1.
	1907 68*	1969-70	1971-72	1973-74
Permanent				
Employees	480	550	724	595
Temporary				
Employees	86	124	84	67
				*						- 		
	506	080	808	062
(b) Aggregate salaries (including Board
members) $2,707,076 $3,227,008 $4,087,433 $5,352,509
(e) Salary information with regard to individual Board employees is regarded as confidential. Although the Canadian Wheat Board is operating under a federal statute, the salaries paid to its employees do not constitute an expense to the Government. Board employees are not covered by the Public Service Employment Act nor classified as public servants.
The Canadian Wheat Board operates on a crop year basis, August 1 to July 31. Its employment records are also maintained on this basis.
2. See 1(c) above.

February 5, 1975
Order Paper Questions


EXTENSION OF SERVICES OF PENSIONS ADVOCATE SECTION TO HANDLE APPEALS
Mr. Jones: 1.	What studies and/or considerations have been given to extend the services of the Pensions Advocate Section of the Department of Veterans Affairs to handle appeals under the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act and other such appeals under similar Acts and regulations?
2.	Have studies and/or consideration been given to set up a service similar to that of the Pensions Advocate Section of DVA for appeals to review committees, administrative tribunals and pension boards under the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act and other similar Acts and regulations?


Mitchell William Sharp: In
so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: 1. There have been no studies or consideration made within the Canada Pension Plan Administration to extend the services of the Pensions Advocate Section of the Department of Veterans Affairs to handle appeals under the Canada Pension Plan.
2. No studies or consideration have been made within the Canada Pension Plan Administration to set up a service similar to that of the Pensions Advocate Section of the Department of Veterans Affairs for appeals to Review Committees. (Under the Plan, any applicant or beneficiary has the right to appeal decisions with which he is dissatisfied by appealing first to the Minister of National Health and Welfare; secondly, to a local tribunal, or Review Committee; and finally, to the Pension Appeals Board. Provision has been made in Bill C-22, which was proclaimed January 1,	1975, for payment of legal
expenses of the parties required to appear before the Pension Appeals Board made by the Minister against the decision of a Review Committee).
In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. None.
2. Yes, but the studies have not yet been completed.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-JOB POSITIONS FOR WOMEN
Mr. Forrestall: With reference to the announcement by the Minister of Defence that the ceiling on the number of women in the Forces will be removed and that they will be eligible for 82 of the total of 121 job positions, what are the 39 exclusions?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Women are eligible for all trades except sea going duties, isolated postings, and combat roles. The categories excluded for women are as follows: Officer Classifications: Armour, Artillery, Infantry, Air Navigator, Pilot, Maritime Engineering, Flight Engineer, Chaplain (Roman Catholic), Maritime Surface and Sub-surface. Other Ranks Trades: Crewman (Armour), Artilleryman, Infantryman, Field Engineer, Lineman (Signals), Weaponman Surface, Weaponman Underwater, Weapons Surface Technician, Weapons Underwater Technician, Firecon-trolman, Firecontrol Technician, Observer, Flight Engineer, Intelligence Operator, Meteorological Technician (Operational), Topographical Surveyor, Map Reproduction Technician (Operational), Boatswain, Radioman (Sea), Communications Technician (Sea), Signalman (Sea), Radar Plotter (Sea), Radar Technician (Sea), Communications Research (Northern posting), Marine Engineering Technician, Hull Technician, Electrical Technician, Clearance Diver, Sonarman (Sea), Sonar Technician (Sea).


IMPORTS OF EXOTIC CATTLE
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	During each of the past three years for which statistics are available, by province, how many (a) applications were received (b) permits were granted for importation of exotic breeds of cattle to (i) private individuals (ii) artificial insemination units?
2.	What are all the factors taken into account in accepting or rejecting applications for such import permits?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.
1972-73 Importation Year	Permits Issued
Province	Received	A.I. Units	Private Parties	T otalNewfoundland	!)	-	-	-Prince Edward Island	20	-	1	1Nova Scotia	24	-	2	2New Brunswick	21	-	5	5Quebec	49	(i	7	13Ontario	125	7	40	47Manitoba	138	2	78	80Saskatchewan	267	-	136	136Alberta	769	9	328	337British Columbia	60	3	29	32T otal	1,482	27	626	653
[Mr. Lang.J
February 5, 1975

Order Paper Questions
1973-74 Importation Year Province	Applications Received	A.I. Units	Permits Issued Private Parties	TotalNewfoundland	1	-	1	1Prince Edward Island	20	-	6	6Nova Scotia	39	1	9	10New Brunswick	27	2	4	6Quebec	34	4	15	19Ontario	146	5	58	63Manitoba	248	-	66	66Saskatchewan	512	-	187	187Alberta	1,128	5	370	375British Columbia	68	3	30	33T otal	2,223	20	746	7661974-75 Importation Year Province	Applications Received	A.I. Units	Permits Issued Private Parties	TotalNewfoundland	-	-	-Prince Edward Island	14	-	7	7Nova Scotia	23	2	11	13New Brunswick	31	2	8	10Quebec	53	3	20	23Ontario	259	3	75	78Manitoba	348	-	63	63Saskatchewan	1,007	2	218	220Alberta	2,160	1	412	413British Columbia	143	1	26	27Total	4,038	14	840	854
2. Project proposals are assessed and rated anonymously by an Advisory Genetic Review Committee (consisting of two departmental and two university members) which takes into consideration the applicant's cattle inventory, his past, present and future breeding program commitments, the probability of achieving his stated objectives and the genetic merit of his proposal in terms of potential for viable herd development leading to improvmeent to the breed and the cattle industry.


NUMBER OF FEEDER CATTLE SHIPPED TO ONTARIO FROM WESTERN CANADA
Mr. Mitges: What was the number of feeder cattle shipped to Ontario from Western Canada in (a) 1971 (b) 1972 (c) 1973 (d) 1974 to date and, of these, how many died en route in each year?


Eugene Whelan: 


POLLUTION-RAW SEWAGE, ST. LAWRENCE AND THE GREAT LAKES
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What steps is the government taking to prevent large vessels (other than private pleasure craft) from dumping their raw sewage in the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes?
2.	Will the government take immediate steps to make such vessels, including foreign ships using the water system, install containment tanks for sewage and (a) if so, when and by what date will such equipment be mandatory (b) if not, what are all the reasons for such government dealy?
3.	(a) What is the result of all talks held on this subject with the Ontario Government (b) did the province propose a two year period for installation of containment equipment and, if the government has not accepted this proposal, what are all the reasons for non-acceptance?
4.	Did the Minister of the Environment discuss this matter with her provincial counterpart and, if so, on what date and with what results?
Year	Cattle
1971	50,904
1972	80,177
1973	62,682
1974	98,901
Deaths of feeder cattle in transit
are not recorded.


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Departments of Transport and of the Environment as follows: 1. A fourth draft of a proposed ship's sewage pollution prevention regulation for the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River as far as the St. Lambert Lock will be circulated to all interested parties for comment early in 1975. It is anticipated that it will be possible to promulgate this regulation late in 1975.

February 5, 1975
Order Paper Questions
2.	(a) The proposed regulation, which will require the fitting of either containment tanks or treatment systems, will apply to new ships two years after the coming into force of the regulation and five years after that date for existing ships. However, ships will not necessarily be required to install containment tanks, (b) The two and five-year periods referred to above are to allow the industry time to order, manufacture and install the required containment or treatment systems.
3.	(a) The proposed regulation referred to in the answer to Question 1 has been discussed with representatives of the Ontario Government and has been accepted in principle. (b) The province did not propose the two and five-year periods but has accepted these provisions in the proposed regulation.
4.	On December 4, 1974, discussions were held between the federal and Ontario Ministers of the Environment. It was recognized that there are potential problems associated with either total containment or the use of flow through treatment devices on large ships. It was agreed, however, that the proposed Canadian regulations represent a significant advance in meeting obligations under the agreement. It was indicated that the Department of the Environment was generally satisfied with the proposed regulations and that the departmental officials would continue to work closely with officials from both the Province and the Ministry of Transport on this matter.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. lelinek: 1.	As of December 1, 1974, how many applications for LIP grants (a) were received (b) were approved from (i) Toronto, Broadview, Davenport, Don Valley, Eglinton, Etobicoke, Greenwood, High Park-Humber Valley, Toronto-Lakeshore, Parkdale, Rosedale, St. Paul's, Scarborough East, Scarborough West, Spadi-na, Trinity, York Centre, York East, York-Scarborough, York South and York West (ii) Montreal, Ahuntsic, Montreal-Bourassa, Dollard, Duvernay, Gamelin, Hochelaga, Lachine-Lakeshore, Lafontaine, LaSalle-Ernard-Cote Saint-Paul, Laurier, Laval, Mai-sonneuve-Rosemont, Mercier, Mount Royal, Notre-Dame-de-Grace, Outremont, Papineau, Saint-Denis, Saint-Henri, Saint-Jacques, Sainte-Marie, Saint-Michel, Vaudreuil, Verdun and West-mount (iii) Province of Ontario (iv) Province of Quebec?
2.	What was the total dollar value of the projects approved?
3.	Was the LIP grant for the Polish-Canadian Centre in the constituency of Parkdale renewed for the 1973-74 LIP program?
4.	How was the $100,000 granted the project under the 1972-73 LIP program budgeted?
5.	Are there any other projects which did not meet LIP standards that have or are receiving money in the form of LIP grants?
Return tabled.


ABATTOIRS
Mr. Mitges: 1.	(a) How many abattoirs are under federal jurisdiction (b) where are they located?
2.	(a) How many are engaged in the slaughter and processing of horses for human consumption (b) where are they located?

Return tabled.


CHARGES LAID BY DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS AS A RESULT OF INVESTIGATION
Mr. Reynolds: Were convictions obtained against the following companies or persons (a) Fellinger's Meat Market, 11th Avenue and Quebec Street, Regina, Saskatchewan (b) Temiskaming Dairies Limited, 525 Ferguson Ave., Haileybury, Ontario (c) Glen Rae Dairy Ltd., 98 King Street West, Bowmanville, Ontario (d) Community Dairy of Kapuskasing Limited, 37 Riverside Drive, Kapuskasing, Ontario (e) Shamrock Food Services, Richmond Hill, Ontario (f) Bailey's Meat Market Limited, 195 McDougall Street, Windsor, Ontario (g) Matteo Gattuso Limitee, 190 ouest, rue Sauve, Montreal, Que. (h) Marche O. St-Fran?ois Incorporated, R.R. No. 1, Kateville, Que. (i) Service Pause Cafe (Trans-Quebec) Limitee, 181 ouest, rue Cremazie, Quebec, Que. (j) La Laiterie Sept-lies Limi-tde, 302, avenue Laure, Sept-Iles, Que. (k) Morningside Meat Market Limited, 255 Morningside Ave., Scarborough, Ontario (1) Springhill Farms Ltd., 944 Kingston Road, Toronto, Ontario (m) Brothers Colangelo Fruit Market, 2387 Midland Ave., Agincourt, Ontario (n) Sterling Teas & Coffees Limited, 2346, rue Galvini, Parc Colbert, Ste-Foy, Que. (o) Canada Safeway Limited, No. 325, 249-2nd Avenue North, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (p) Duvernay Auto Centre, (Dominic Sciscente), 2725, boul. de la Concorde, Laval, Que. (q) Marche I.G.A. Arbour, (Claude and Rene Trepa-nier) 260, rue St-Gabriel, St-Gabriel, St-Gabriel-de-Brandon, Cte Berthier, Que. (r) Ronlen Supermarket Limited, (Golden I.G.A.) Golden, British Columbia (s) Steinberg's Ltd., Points Road Plaza, Petawawa, Ontario (t) Albert's Meat Market Limited, 71 William Street, Ottawa, Ontario (u) Steinberg's Ltd., 2299 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Ontario (v) Canadian Propane Gas & Oil Limited 9765- 63 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta (w) Marche Richard, (Rolland Nantel), 5119, rue Papineau, Montreal, Que. (x) Chenoy's Delicatessen (Mortimer Chenoy) 4231, boul. Samson Chomedey, Laval, Que. (y) Joseph's Meat & Delicatessen Reg'd., (Joseph Blattman), 5, 3*m. Avenue, Roxboro, Que. (z) Epicerie Piedmont Grocery, (Camille Morin) 735, rue Principale, Piedmont, Que. (aa) Metro Station de Service Enregistre, (Robert Kavanagh, Gerard Dai-gneault), 4545, boul. Lavoie, Laval, Que. (bb) Gastown Farmers' Market, (Mr. Bela Docza), R.R. 1, Oliver, British Columbia (cc) Gastown Farmers' Market, (Mr. Rene von Pander), R.R. 1, Oliver, British Columbia as a result of charges laid by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs between July and September of 1974 and, if so (i) who were the legal firms employed by the Department (ii) what were their direct legal fees (iii) what was the estimated cost of the investigation, including legal fees?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS-NAMES OF LEGAL FIRMS CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Reynolds: With reference to the judgments relating to the following companies or persons (a) Yetman's Ltd., Winnipeg (b) Gondola Pizza Ltd., Winnipeg (c) Dominion Stores Limited, Toronto (d) Allan Richard Golden (Academy Cartage and Transfer), Winnipeg (e) Armand Cote Ltee, Gatineau, Que. (f) Murray Viger, Burlington (g) Stanley Weinstein (Au Repos Motel), Laval, Que. (h) Hancock's T.V. and Appliances Limited, (Trader Hancock), Toronto (i) Joseph JeBailey, Halifax (j) Tom Burt alias Steve Coin and Grace Burt alias Grace Butch, Toronto (k) Westown Ford Sales Ltd, Edmonton (1) Allarco Developments Ltd. (Crosstown Motor City), Edmonton (m) Vintan Limited, Montreal (n) Op6ra Diamond Ltee, Montreal (o) Charles Menard (C.M. Distributor), Manotick, Ontario (p) Steintron International Electronics Ltd., Winnipeg (q) Lloyd Robert MacKay (Mac Leasing Ltd.), Winnipeg (r) Langelier & Valiquette Ltee, Montreal (s) Susan Kelly and Neil Atkinson (A and K Food Supply) and George Kelly, Scarborough, Ontario (t)
February 5, 1975

Andre Benoit, Laval, Gilles Levesque, Laval (u) Rent-Rite Truck Rentals Ltd., (A-A-A Car & Truck Rentals), Calgary (v) Seligman and Latz of Winnipeg, Ltd., Winnipeg (H.O. New York) (w) Robert Shaw, Montreal (x) Black & Decker Manufacturing Company Limited, Brockville (y) Onward Motors Limited, Kitchener (z) 21st Century Health Spas Limited (European Health Spa), Winnipeg (aa) Allan Lyone Limited, Winnipeg (bb) Birchwood Motors Ltd., Winnipeg (cc) Reich Brothers Limited, Montreal (dd) Southland Corporation (Canada) Ltd. (7-Eleven Food Stores), Calgary (ee) Alexanian and Sons Limited, Hamilton (ff) Fenn-Graphic Company Limited, Ottawa (gg) Broadway Clothiers Limited, Vancouver (hh) Paul Clifford Northcott (Chilcotin Outdoor Leisure Ltd.), Vancouver (ii) M. Goldsmith and Company Limited, Montreal (jj) Leo Dandurand, Verdun and Les Magasins d'Appareils LJD Ltee, Montreal (kk) Algonquin Travel Services Limited, Ottawa and Suntours Limited, Don Mills, Ontario (11) Thomas Travers and Mrs. Thomas Travers, Chinguacousy Township, Ontario (mm) Aston Credit Corporation Ltd., Vancouver (nn) Alberto-Culver of Canada, Ltd., Toronto (oo) Don Robertson Chrysler-Dodge Limited, Brampton (pp) Edward John King (Trans Canada Transport Training), Toronto (qq) Dubois Sport Inc., Montreal (rr) Dominion Stores Limited, Toronto (ss) Capital Sewing Centres Limited, Toronto (tt) Eastcan Holdings Limited (Hardwicke Homes), Don Mills (uu) Viceroy Construction Company Limited, Scarborough (w) Castlewood Homes Ltd., Winnipeg (ww) Sabre Industries Ltd., Winnipeg (xx) Lakaire Homes Ltd., Kamloops, British Columbia (yy) Salon Color Labs Ltd. (Camera Salon), Winnipeg (zz) Allan H. Brightman Kalman Schaffran Anne Schaffran (A & K Sales), London (aaa) Richard P. Ross, Thunder Bay, Ontario (bbb) Moncton Chrysler Dodge Ltd., Moncton (ccc) Zehr's Markets Limited, Kitchener (ddd) Ossie Lusthouse Drugs Ltd., Toronto (eee) Frank Flaman Stores Ltd., Regina (fff) Progressive Markets Ltd. (Warehouse Discount Foods No. 3), Edmonton (ggg) Mark Harvey Hel-liwell and Robert Coulter Girdwood (Chemicals: Services & Supplies), Town of Halton Hills, Ontario (hhh) Jesse Joseph Beron, Florida (iii) King's Castle Holdings Ltd. (T.V.I. Sales Ltd.), Edmonton (jjj) Bernard Jolicoeur, L'Assomption, Que. (kkk) Irving Fisher Borough of North York Howard Garr, Toronto (Student Fund Raising Services and Garrish Industries) (111) HOJ Industries Ltd. (formerly Mainway Ford Sales Ltd.), Toronto (mmm) Les Entreprises Roger Pilon Inc., Montreal (nnn) Delisle Auto (1970) Ltee, Montreal (ooo) Jack C. Pape (The Sample of the Month Club), Toronto (ppp) Joseph Daniel Williams, Plymouth, N.S. (qqq) Metropolitan Stores of Canada Limited, Winnipeg (rrr) Japan Camera Centre Limited (Japan Camera Centre and Japan Electronic Centre), Don Mills, Ontario (sss) General Mills Canada, Ltd., Rexdale, Ontario (ttt) Maritime Auto & Trailer Sales Limited, Sydney (uuu) E.M.L. Distributors Limited, Vancouver (vw) Prairie Pride Beef Distributors Limited, Harrow, Ontario (www) Paul Bond, Borough of Scarborough, Ontario (xxx) General Motors of Canada Limited, Oshawa, Ontario (yyy) Tyrolean Village Holdings Limited (Tyrolean Village Resorts), Toronto (zzz) William V. Martinek, Toronto (aaaa) Liliane L. Noel (Noel Gift Shop), Route 9, St-Bernard-de-Lacolle, Que. (bbbb) The Robert Simpson Company Limited, Toronto (cccc) Ameublement Leger Inc. John Di Tomasso, Montreal (dddd) Anna Enterprises Limited, Dartmouth under section 37 of the Combines Investigation Act (i) who was the legal firm conducting the investigation for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (ii) what were the legal fees paid directly to each firm (iii) what was the approximate total cost of the investigation, including legal fees?
Return tabled.


JUDGMENTS UNDER COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Mr. Reynolds: With reference to the judgments relating to the following companies or persons (a) Briske Electric Ltd., Edmonton (b) Andre Lalonde Sports Inc., Montreal (c) Birch Cove Sporting Goods Limited, Halifax (d) The T. Eaton Company Limited, Toronto (e) Andr6 Rivard, St-Leonard, Que. (f) Franklin Arboine (Express Electric Servicentre) Sarnia (g) J. Spadafora & Co. (Canada) Limited, Toronto (h) Arlington Sports Ltd., Montreal (i) J.W.O. Enterprises Ltd. (Oilman's Furniture, Warehouse and Show-
Order Paper Questions
rooms), Winnipeg (j) Atlas Sewing Centres Limited (Trim Gym Enterprises), Weston (k) Galipeau Musique Inc., Montreal (1) Custom Gas Heating Limited (National Heating & Air Conditioning Sales), Toronto (m) Yvon Roy Sports Ltee, Montreal (n) Sew and Sound Inc., Downsview (o) Rollin H. Howes and William Jack Birney (Birney's Sports Centre), Saskatoon (p) Union-Peters Distributors Limited, Trail, British Columbia (q) Dylex Diversified (1967) Ltd. (Fairweather Stores), Toronto (r) Power Town Limited, Winnipeg (s) Atlantic Films & Electronics Limited, St. John's (t) Ameublement Capri Ltee, Jonquiere (u) M.D.E. Accessoires Elec-triques Ltee, Longueuil, Que. (v) Opera Diamond Ltee, Montreal (w) Capilano Homes Furnishings Ltd. operating under the name and style of Hoop's Furniture Land, North Vancouver (x) Harold Pomer, Toronto (y) Mayer Lebovits, Toronto (z) Fred Steiner, Vancouver (aa) A.N.C. Eastern Ltd., (Acme Novelty Company), Winnipeg (bb) McKay's Television and Appliances Limited, (Mak Town Sound), Windsor, Ontario (cc) W.H. Smith & Son (Canada) Ltd., Ottawa (dd) Hudson's Bay Company (Ottawa) Limited ("The Bay"), Ottawa (ee) International Book Limited, Ottawa (ff) Shirley Leishman Books Limited, Ottawa (gg) Stewart Bernard Freedman, Farmington, Michigan, U.S.A. (hh) S.S. Kresge Company Limited (K-Mart), Toronto (ii) Classic Book Shops Ltd., Ottawa (jj) Bernard Schwartz, Jack Mark Rubenstein, Gary Rubenstein, Tom Bycofski, Southfield, Michigan (kk) Max Ezrach, Eugene Stewart Ertz, Sam Eisenberg, Southfield Michigan, Jess Baron, Holland-ale, Florida (11) Jeffrey Stevens Weiss, Oak Park, Michigan, John Pray, Taylor, Michigan (mm) Joe Riccelli, New Kensington, Pa. (nn) Ron Varlotto, Pittsburgh, Pa. (oo) K.T. Lee (Rock Island Tape Centre), Trail, British Columbia (pp) Jess Joseph Beron, Florida (qq) Centre de Musique Boivin Ltee, Anjou, Que. (rr) Merline Grover (Grover's Gas & Oil Sales), Lethbridge (ss) Gary's Give-Aways Incorporated, St. Catharines (tt) Patrick J. McDonnell, Brampton and Edward Seery, Weston (Malton Flowers) (uu) Lum-berland Building Materials Ltd., Vancouver, British Columbia under section 36 of the Combines Investigation Act (i) who was the legal firm conducting the investigation for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (ii) what were the legal fees paid directly to each firm (iii) what was the approximate total cost of the investigation, including legal fees?
Return tabled.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On the last occasion I drew to the attention of the House the increasing habit of the government of asking that certain questions be made orders for returns and that the answers be tabled. I protest on behalf of the members of this House against this practice without stating the reason for it. It used to be and has been the practice for such answers to be tabled only if they were a compilation from several departments or if it was stated that the answer was too long and too detailed to be printed in Hansard. Other than for those reasons, the House should not give its acceptance to the proposal.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I think I should explain to the House the reasons for this practice. The order was put into the standing order because the size of Hansard was getting out of all proportion as the result of the answers that were printed. The general practice we follow now is that all answers that will take over half a page to three quarters of a page in Hansard are made orders for return.
I might say that the original decision to table was not taken by me but one that has grown up over the years since the standing orders were changed to permit the automatic tabling of these answers. We have a very real problem in terms of the production of Hansard and also, because of the type of questions that members are asking, we now find that the type of answers the departments are asked to supply are growing in volume, and hence I

February 5, 1975
Order Paper Questions
believe there is probably a growing proportion of answers that must be dealt with in this way.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise for the purpose of complaining about the length of answers and placing them as it were in mummified form as orders for returns, and I can understand that some questions take a long while to answer. I have three questions on the order paper, about two of which I have no complaints, Nos. 759 and 766, although one would have thought that since November 5 the answers could be given to the questions regarding how many convictions there have been for the crime of kidnapping since 1969. The officials have called up and said that, having looked thoroughly into the matter they find that apparently they do not have the information up to date. The other question was how many convictions for rape have been returned by juries since 1965, and again the answer is that it is a very difficult problem on which to give an answer. I will not argue about that, although it strikes me as passing strange that the government of Canada does not have up to date information regarding these crimes which are so serious to the people of our country.
There is one that I do object to, namely, No. 780. On November 8, I asked a simple question regarding the total amount paid to the sculptors, with respect to names and addresses who produced, (a) the statue of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen; (b) the statue of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent; (c) the design proposal of the statue of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennet. I cannot understand the concealment here of an answer. The government had the answer last October 25 when I asked for it personally. We have waited now three months. This indicates an attitude of mind on the part of this government that shows contempt for members of this House. They answer when they feel like it, or they hide it in orders for returns when they decide to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the point of order raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I noted today, as I have noted on other occasions, the response of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) in which he said that the practice has grown up and that they have decided that answers will be put in Hansard only if they are not over a certain length. This is a practice similar to that with respect to the tabling of documents. The government makes decisions as to what it is going to do, and then acts as though that were the rule of parliament.
The only rules of parliament are to be found either in the Standing Orders or in Beauchesne, to which the hon. member for Edmonton West has already referred, namely, that answers are made orders for return if they are too long to be put in Hansard-"too long" is not defined-or if they require answers from more than one department.
Now, let me draw attention to one of the questions that today is being made an order for return. It is on the order paper as No. 1,106 in the name of the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges). The question asks how many

abattoirs are under federal jurisdiction. The answer will be a figure. It will not be very long. The next part of the question is: where are they located? The answer will be a list, which might be either long or short, but surely not too long. The next part of the question is: how many are engaged in the slaughter and processing of horses for human consumption? That will be another figure-just one figure. The next part of the question is: where are they located? I do not imagine that there are many abattoirs in Canada slaughtering horses for human consumption-unless they are horses on the payroll, if I may make that reference to an incident that occurred some years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit that this is an example of what the hon. member for Edmonton West is complaining about.
I joined in this protest the other day because I have had this experience over the years. Some of the questions I put on the order paper every year-and I admit that I try to keep certain information up to date-were some years answered in Hansard and some years answered by means of orders for return. I think that this unilateral way of making this decision by the Privy Council office is not in keeping with the best traditions of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Munro (Esqulmalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. In listening to the comments of hon. members regarding the delays, for example, in getting answers and in asking for some questions not to be placed as orders for returns, I find, with all due respect, that these matters might very well be brought together because when we hear the number called out, it is so long since we asked the question that we agree supinely that it should become an order for return. We have forgotten it completely, and we do not have the number on the tips of our fingers on Mondays or Wednesdays so as to be able to rise and say: no, I want it in Hansard today. For example, I have an answer here that was provided, and last Monday I agreed that it should be made an order for return. It is not overly long, only three pages of statistics which I think should be available to the Canadian people reading Hansard.
They cannot get this information if they are away from Ottawa without getting in touch with the clerk at the table to have this material copied and sent to them. I wonder if there is not some way of convincing the government House leader of this. During a trip on which I accompanied him to London we learned that as many as 30,000 questions per year are put on the order paper in Britain, and every single one of them gets at least some sort of an answer within seven days. Some questions here remain on the order paper and are never answered; they have to be replaced at the next session.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a different point of order in regard to unanswered question 1,233 concerning
February 5, 1975

the swimming pool at 24 Sussex Drive. I rise also because of the Prime Minister's remark in the House yesterday, and I quote from page 2878 of Hansard:
I feel that the hon. member for Leeds especially will be proud when I win a gold medal for swimming.
I am sure that all hon. members of the House will wish the Prime Minister well in his quest for a gold medal because it at least shows that he is trying to do something as Prime Minister. My point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has some complaint about the failure to answer the question perhaps he will put it.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is simply this: that the Prime Minister has now shown the reason for his haste in acquiring the pool, and surely the House can expect similar haste in making clear the list of donors, the amounts donated, whether tax concessions have been granted and whether, in other words, we can put aside any doubts regarding conflict of interest or impropriety in connection with the pool. I think that the House is entitled to this information, and I wonder if the parliamentary secretary or the Prime Minister could tell the House when this might be expected.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I do understand the interest of the hon. member, and I can understand his interest in investigating the matter. Perhaps the best way to reassure him is to say that if I am interested in a medal for swimming, he might be interested in a medal for diving, and I would invite him over to be the first to dive. He could even come before the water is in the pool.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On the point of order may I just say this: I would like to assure the Prime Minister that I could never equal his feat of walking on the water.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Each side having made an equal contribution to the point of order we have to move on to another one.
The point of order which has been raised has now been raised for the second time, and there is, from my examination of the rules and precedents, no authority in the Chair to decide that the House ought not to accept the suggestion that certain questions be deemed to have been made orders for returns in order that returns could be made. I can only say again, in response to some of the representations which were made on this subject, that I am sure there is a way to bring about a change in this procedure through the regular channels, and there does not seem to me to be any machinery open to the Chair to make that change. If hon. members want to see a change brought about in respect of the handling of these questions, there ought to be a way in which that subject can be discussed.
Order Paper Questions


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions 463, 632 and 1,018.


ARCTIC TRAINING CENTER-CHURCHILL
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the specific increase in allocation of personnel and of funds to Canadian Forces Arctic training as a result of the establishment of an Arctic Training Centre in Churchill for the present fiscal year?
2.	What further steps does the government intend to take towards upgrading our Forces capability for Northern action?
3.	What percentage of those who have undergone Arctic Training since January 1, 1969 are still serving with the Canadian Armed Forces?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is: the specific increase in personnel to the Canadian forces Arctic training centre, CFS Churchill is 15 personnel, and the increase in funds for fiscal year 1974-75 is $102,594. The answer to the second part of the question is that the department, recognizing the need for continued emphasis on a Canadian forces capability in the north, plans to conduct the following: (a) exercises in the north to train specialists for response to possible large air disasters; (b) Maritime navigational and exploratory exercises in Hudsons Bay; (c) continuation of company battalion land group exercises, which provides northern training for several hundred personnel on each exercise; (d) continuation of Arctic instructor courses involving 25 candidates in each course; and (e) continuation of New Viking exercises throughout the year for both regular and reserve force personnel.
The answer to the third part of the question is that this information is not readily available, and the cost of obtaining it would be prohibitive. Approximately 30,500 service personnel have undertaken Arctic training since January, 1969.


LANGUAGE TRAINING CLASSES FOR ANN-MARIE AND RENEE KENNEDY
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence provide entitlement in respect of francophone classes for Ann-Marie and Renee Kennedy, daughters of Mr. John Kennedy of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia and, if so, to what grade level had each reached upon Mr. Kennedy's retirement from the Canadian Armed Forces?
2.	How many years remained to be completed for each of the girls?
3.	How many were in the grade from which the two girls had graduated?
4.	Did the Minister of National Defence review the situation posed above and, if so, what conclusion was made?
5.	Does the decision of the Minister to terminate francophone schooling in the above cases conform with the intent or spirit of the Official Languages Act?
6.	Does the decision made by the Minister to refuse the children the ability to complete their final year in francophone classes define policy of the Department of National Defence with respect to the level of encouragement that French language training will receive from that Department?

February 5, 1975
Order Paper Questions
7.	Will the pertinent Orders in Council that attempt to clarify the Official languages Act be re-drafted to provide remedy for the children of members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have virtually completed second language schooling upon the release or retirement from the CAF of their parents?


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   ENERGY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. ]amea Richardson (Minister of National Defence):
Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is: entitlement in respect of Francophone classes was provided to the Kennedy children from September, 1969 onwards. Both children had completed grade 5 at the time of Mr. Kennedy's retirement from the Canadian armed forces in August, 1974.
The answer to the second part of the question is two years.
The answer to the third part is 14 pupils.
The answer to the fourth part is yes. The matter was reviewed and conforming to policy which applies to attendance at DND dependants schools everywhere in Canada the Dartmouth Municipal School Board was advised that such attendance would be limited to the end of the school year in which the member retired.
The answer to the fifth part is yes.
The answer to the sixth part is that the decision conforms to the responsibility of providing educational facilities for children of members of the Canadian forces. This responsibility ceases when the member leaves the forces.
The answer to the seventh part is no. The schooling of children of released or retired Canadian forces personnel is the responsibility of the province and the municipality where such personnel have elected to reside after their retirement.

Mr. Falrweather: Will the government accept certified federal sales tax remission applications for truck trailers in stock on November 18, 1974 thus avoiding loss due to budgetary provisions on inventory upon which tax has been paid?


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the question is raised by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) and the answer is that on December 2, 1974, the minister issued a press release announcing that it was his intention to ask the government to provide relief from federal sales tax for tax paid inventories of trucks and other transportation equipment affected by the sales tax exemptions proposed in the November 18 budget. The relief, which would be provided by way of an order in council, would apply to inventories of new transportation equipment on which tax has been paid and which were being held for resale.


John Mercer Reid: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


ASSURANCE OF ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF OIL AT REASONABLE PRICES BY SIGNING SYNCRUDE AGREEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the necessity of determining whether the precedent setting nature of the proposed Syncrude agreement on the tar sands will assure for the future an adequate supply of oil at reasonable prices for Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 26 the hon. member, of course, has given the Chair notice of his intention to propose this motion, which therefore has given the Chair an opportunity to consider it carefully. There can be no doubt that the decision to set aside the time of the House for a special debate pursuant to Standing Order 26 is one which ought to be very carefully taken, and certainly the subject matter which has been put forward by the hon. member is of sufficient significance to warrant careful consideration pursuant to that rule.
It is a very clear aspect of that rule in all its applications in the past, however, that a prominent feature of the decision ought to be related to whether the House will consider the subject matter in some other way. Obviously the government, having made a commitment of this sort, must come to parliament for approval in some way or other of that commitment. It is at that time, therefore, that parliament will have the proper opportunity to direct itself to the safeguards involved in the commitments involved in all those questions which are inherent in the motion which the hon. member puts forward.
I might add that if the future proves me to be wrong in that contention, and if it were to be contemplated that that sort of commitment could be made without the matter coming before parliament in some way for approval, I would have no hesitation in regarding that as sufficient grounds for setting aside the regular business of the House pursuant to Standing Order 26.
Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid).


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
(English]
Mr. }ohn M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions be allowed to stand.

February 5, 1975
Mr. Speaker:: Shall notices of motions be allowed to stand?
Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister arising out of the statement made to the House yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where is he?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would ask the Prime Minister whether it is now the position of the government of Canada that no plants, in addition to the Syncrude plant, will be built to exploit the Athabasca tar sands under current and prospective conditions as indicated, by inference at least, by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources yesterday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the minister indicated yesterday, and on previous occasions, that he was dealing with the concrete case of Syncrude and that other cases were hypothetical in so far as there had been no particular project proposed to us. Certainly, the tax measures and the price measures which he announced apply to Syncrude. There is no reason to believe at the present time that they apply to anyone else because there is no one else who has asked to be in that position.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. In view of the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with reference to the Athabasca oil sands as reported at page 2896 of Hansard as follows: Under current and immediate prospective conditions, however, it remains a very high-cost oil and special arrangements are necessary to assure its commercial production.
Was I right or wrong in getting the impression that the minister was stating the government's position to be that the special arrangements about pricing and the arrangements about taxation would not be offered to any other company but to Syncrude alone?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, in a certain sense the question of the Leader of the Opposition is hypothetical; it refers to possible future applications. I would merely say at this time that we would examine any further cases on their own merits. This, certainly, is underlying our approach to this matter, not only the tax measures and price measures but the agreement reached on Monday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the President of the Treasury Board on behalf of the federal government. These arrangements were reached because of the very strong desire of this government to co-operate with the Alberta government, and indeed with
Oral Questions
the Ontario government, in arriving at an arrangement which is advantageous for the future of the oil consumers in Canada. We hope that this will have the support of the opposition who are always anxious to ensure that the government deals fairly with Alberta.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Leader of the Opposition, a final supplementary.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, when the minister said in the House that the arrangements respecting price would be confined to Syncrude he was talking only about companies now in existence and when he was speaking outside the House as reported in today's Globe and Mail, he was saying:
Any other oil sands projects will have to be established on a strictly commercial basis, with no expectation of government participation.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: "Expectation" isn't it?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Participation. I want to find out from the Prime Minister whether the government policy is to confine these arrangements strictly to Syncrude and to leave any other applicant on a purely commercial basis as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources seemed to be indicating in the past, or is the government prepared to consider making special arrangements of a similar sort for companies that may arise in the future? Is that still an open question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the two previous questions were exactly the same as the third one and my answer is exactly the same. If there are other applications we will look at them on their merits. We know of none at this time. Our approach is a commercial approach in the sense that we are participating in equity as Ontario and Alberta are participating in equity. We think that the project will proceed under these conditions. Whether some other projects will be started and whether any concessions will be asked on one or another basis at this time is purely hypothetical.


OIL SANDS-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD FORECAST OF A PLANT EVERY TWO YEARS
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Prime Minister. Is the government committed in any way to the National Energy Board forecast of the oil sands producibility of roughly a plant every two years as a major part of the goal of energy self-sufficiency? This is the prediction of the National Energy Board, that we would require this in order to be self-sufficient. If the government is committed, is it satisfied that future tar sands plants will be constructed at the required rate according to National Energy Board forecasts and will be viable without the application of the Syncrude conditions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, those are merely predictions by the board. Government policy has not been stated to indicate any particular rhythm of construction. We are dealing with this particular case now and there has not been a policy

February 5, 1975
Oral Questions
announcement of any number or timing of future plants that would or might be established.


OIL SANDS-POSSIBLE EXTENSION TO OTHER PLANTS OF AGREEMENT WITH SYNCRUDE ON PRICE
Harvie Andre: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, moving from the general to the specific. With regard to the one condition, the assurance that Syncrude oil will be sold at internationally related prices, will that condition be extended to future tar sands plants? Clearly that is a very significant implication in any planning that may be undertaken now toward the development of those plants which, according to the National Energy Board, will be required.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question for the Leader of the Opposition.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-BASIS UPON WHICH FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION DETERMINED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. Could he tell the House if the $300 million federal share in the Syncrude project is determined by working from a percentage base of 15 per cent of the $2 billion which came out to $300 million or whether it was fixed and independent of whether the costs exceed $2 billion or turn out to be less? My question is, if the costs turn out to be less does this mean that the public will get some of that money back and if they turn out to be more does it mean that the federal government will have to put up more than the $300 million?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understood the question but I will attempt to deal with it. The figure of $300 million was arrived at during the session conducted between the ministers I named, the Alberta officials, the Ontario premier and the private companies, one of which I understand withdrew after the beginning of the negotiations. It was an arrangement put together by all parties each seeking, of course, the interest of the people that they had a particular mandate to represent.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board who took part in the negotiations. I asked the Prime Minister if the federal government had committed itself to 15 per cent of the cost, and the conclusion drawn was that that would be $300 million. My question is this: If the cost goes down, does it mean we will pay less, and if costs go up, does it mean we will pay more?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The President of the Treasury Board was nod-

ding to the first part of my question, from which I conclude that if costs go up the government will pay more. The minister nods to that again.


An hon. Member:: But the Prime Minister shakes his head.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister evidently disagrees. I am not sure what the truth is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, could I have the minister's attention while the cabinet makes up its mind. Will the 15 per cent federal share in the project automatically entail this: That when the oil is produced from Syncrude, 15 per cent of the oil product will also go to the federal government.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have a 15 per cent interest in the project. If the project costs less than $2 billion, we will have less than $300 million to contribute. If the cost is somewhat over $2 billion, we will have to pay somewhat more than $300 million. To the extent of 15 per cent, we are partners as well as the other partners. Clearly, when oil is produced from the tar sands, we will get our interest on 15 per cent. As to whether the oil will belong to us, we are subject to the same rules as the other partners on the question of obtaining oil produced in Alberta. I believe there is, in Alberta, a board for allocating oil. We are subject to the same regulations as the other partners.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-COST ESTIMATE ACCEPTED BY GOVERNMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a final supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. How did the government settle on the $2 billion cost estimate, given the record of Syncrude's escalating estimates during recent months. Did the government accept the $2 billion figure from Syncrude or did the government use its own experts to determine its own estimate?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the government of Alberta has initiated studies on the matter of estimates of the cost of the project. We have contributed to it and we believe that the $2 billion estimate is the most appropriate one at this time. It is on the basis of this estimate that we have dealt with the participants.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
February 5, 1975

Information tells us that a sum of $5 million Canadian is said to have been invested in a certain program in the Ivory Coast, French Africa, where 28 Canadian families are at work. This project consists in a televisual education complex, that is a printing house. Is the minister aware that this $5 million printing house has no permit to operate? Does he also know that the volunteers were leaderless during eight months? Since this is a public expenditure and since all Canadians are willing to help develop needy countries without being their laughing-stock, can the minister tell us today whether he will initiate an inquiry on that matter?

Hon. Allan ). MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to provide the details of this project to my hon. friend, if he would put that question on the order paper. They are not the kinds of details I can provide at this time.


POSSIBLE EXTENSION TO OTHER COMPANIES DEVELOPING OIL SANDS OF ARRANGEMENTS WITH SYNCRUDE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stating government policy in the interview, reported outside this House yesterday, which resulted in the following press report.


Mr. Rondeau:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor. I will hear the hon. member's point of order in a moment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The press report reads as follows:
In answer to a suggestion that special concessions given Syncrude will set a pattern for future oil sands projects, Mr. Macdonald said the special tax concessions, the promise of a world-related selling price and the promise of no prorationing of Syncrude production applies only to the Syncrude project.
Was the minister stating government policy or was the Prime Minister stating policy here, today, when he told me something different?


John Napier Turner: He did not suggest anything different.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If I understand what was read by the Leader of the Opposition, he said that this concession applied only to the Syncrude project. Did I understand the Leader of the Opposition correctly?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is what I have been saying. I said only yesterday that we would look at each project on its own merits.


John Napier Turner: Exactly.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The fact is that this applies to this project and none other. If any other projects are presented to us, we will examine them. That is what I said.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct to the Prime Minister a supplementary question to that asked by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford on a supplementary question.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to ask this supplementary. I no longer have a point of order.
My question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the numerous criticisms levelled against the CIDA administration and since this body has a budget exceeding $750 million, the third largest of the federal budget, does the Prime Minister intend to make a department answerable to the House for the huge sums of money being spent by this organization that never publishes a report?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is already a minister answerable to the House, Mr. Speaker, it is the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the demoralizing effect the government's failure to enforce the law is having on society, the RCMP and other police officers whose function it is to enforce and administer the law, and in view of the tremendous increase in crime, will the minister consider setting up immediately a federal royal commission which is to investigate the cause of the increase in crime, examine the weaknesses of the temporary pass and parole system and determine in what manner crime may be controlled and the parole system improved. It should make sure that the parole system, set up by the Diefenbaker government, is not destroyed.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not want to associate myself with all the premises which the hon. member put forward in his question. The various questions involving appropriate procedures in regard to parole and day passes and rehabilitation of offenders are constantly being given attention and were the subject of a formal study a short time ago. The over-all question of the improvement of our enforcement
28626-S1

February 5, 1975
Oral Questions
procedures and facilitating the way in which our courts are handling matters is before us and before provincial attorneys general, who have a good deal of responsibility in this area. I am confident that we can make progress in improving our legal and rehabilitation processes without taking the easy way out of suggesting that simply being tough and keeping everyone in jail all the time is really the solution to these problems.


REASON FOR COMMUTATION OF SENTENCES FOR CAPITAL MURDER
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I would not want to associate myself with that answer given by the Attorney General of Canada. I only asked for an investigation into the causes of increased crime, because under the Diefen-baker administration crime did not increase. As police morale is low and as shoot-outs by police officers may become a fact of life, as officers want to protect their own lives, will the Minister of Justice tell the House what is the criteria or formula which has enabled the cabinet to commute since 1968 nine sentences of death to life imprisonment. I am speaking of capital murder convictions resulting from the murder of police officers or prison guards. I should like the answer of the Minister of Justice to be different from the verbiage I hear from the Solicitor General, who says that each case is considered on its merits, as nobody accepts such answers as creditable.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's figure is wrong if he is relating it to the period since 1968. There have been four or five commutations in the period to which he refers. This, of course, has been done in accordance with the law which parliament was very conscious of in last approving an extension to the particular form of capital punishment we have in this country. In other words, it very carefully left the obligation to consider mercy on the cabinet. The hon. member knows that each such case is very carefully considered on its own merits, each one individually, as is the obligation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I ask the Minister of Justice to check the figures which were given in Hansard in answer to a written question. If I recall properly, eight of the commutations were for murders of police officers and one of a guard. Those figures are in Hansard. They were supplied by the Solicitor General. In view of the fact we cannot get any facts or honest answers from this government, I ask for a royal commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it that the hon. member is suggesting that the minister has given an incorrect or an inaccurate answer and alternatively suggesting that the minister check the facts and figures. Perhaps the minister can reply to the hon. member at some other time in light of that answer.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a further question of privilege. My friends in the back benches from the province of Quebec only went along with the bill on

capital punishment because they were told there would be capital punishment when people were found guilty of murder of police officers and guards. That is why they are grumbling, yelling and shouting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the Canada Development Corporation was established to assist in the creation of businesses, resource properties and industries in Canada and to provide a vehicle for Canadians to invest in the economic development of Canada, will the minister indicate why the Canada Development Corporation felt it necessary to transfer its 30 per cent interest in Texasgulf to a newly incorporated Netherlands subsidiary for a value $20 million less than the cost of such investment to CDC?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, parliament gave the Canada Development Corporation discretion in its internal management. However, I am advised there is no loss of tax revenue for Canada in the arrangement.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In view of the minister's indication that there is no loss of tax revenue to Canada, and as it is well known that the Netherlands is a country often used in tax avoidance schemes, will the minister indicate if this move was in fact made to avoid tax and, if so, what tax is it hoped CDC will avoid?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the preamble in that the Netherlands has a favourable tax treaty with Canada and there is a friendly relationship with this country.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Whether the minister accepts my preamble or not, will he indicate whether the move was made as part of a tax avoidance scheme?


John Napier Turner: In so far as the Canadian authorities are concerned, Mr. Speaker, my answer is no.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: of British Columbia and in light of the very special problems faced by that province, will the minister advise today how his negotiations are going with that province and whether it will be designated under the program.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: As to the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the province of British Columbia was not particularly keen on the idea of having special areas within B.C. designated. We, of course, accepted their views in that regard. The alternative was to have been, and I hope still will be, to designate special sectors, for example the northeastern and the northwestern parts of the province about which the hon. member and I have had conversations before. We are making progress in that direction. I can only repeat what I said to the hon. member on earlier occasions. For my part, I am prepared to talk with British Columbia as soon as the details can be worked out. My officials are being very active in trying to achieve that particular goal.


Frank Oberle: In light of the very special problems in the province of British Columbia with respect to the lifting of the freight freeze, in light of the area's problems with unemployment, which in some regions is in excess of 12 per cent, and in light of the government's intention to use the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to cushion the effects of the two problems I have mentioned, will the minister state today whether he will make a special trip to talk to the government of British Columbia, explain the program to them and make it as attractive to them as it is to other provinces?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the one line answer is yes. I will be very glad to go to British Columbia at any time or to welcome any members of that government here. I will make some inquiries as to whether an early trip might prove to be productive in terms of what the government of British Columbia is prepared to do.
* * [DOT]


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact the minister on several occasions outside the House said he will be presenting amendments to the Bail Reform Act, will he advise when he will introduce these amendments?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the bail law which are being contemplated will be contained in the general amendments to the Criminal Code which will come later in this session.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Can the minister confirm that a special study or a special set of statistics has been prepared for him by Statistics Canada in respect of the present operation of the Bail Reform Act? If so, why can we not get copies of that study?
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the study to which the hon. member refers has been received. My first step was to distribute the study to the provincial attorneys general so that they could be made aware of it before further steps are taken to make the substance of the study public.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Will the minister do us the courtesy as well and let us have copies of that study?


Otto Emil Lang: As I indicated in my previous answer, Mr. Speaker, my view was that it was best to first allow the provincial attorneys general to see the nature of the statistics so that they would be in a position to reply to comments that might be made rather hastily about it when the basic information is made available to the public.


MANPOWER
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board, I will direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It relates to Syncrude and has to do with job creation. In view of the fact that in the Syncrude project only 22 per cent of the engineering work is being done by Canadians and that the contractor for Syncrude, namely the American firm Bechtel, is responsible for procuring heavy equipment and components and is doing so from U.S. firms, can the minister explain how the Syncrude project will promote significant investment and job creation in Canada?


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister oi Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take the question as notice. The engineering aspect to which the hon. member is referring is one stage in a long-term approach.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Will the government or the minister table in the House figures to show how many construction and engineering contracts in the Syncrude project will go to Canadian firms compared to American firms, and how many Canadian jobs will be created by the project?


Mr. Andras:: Mr. Speaker, I will give consideration to that and discuss it with the appropriate minister.
* [DOT] *


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Fisheries). Under the International Commission for North Atlantic Fisheries regulations, the government has proposed closing down all fishing operations on La Have, Browns and Georges Banks to all types of fishing by Canadians, with the exception of ships engaged in lobstering, scalloping and
28626-5 iVi

February 5, 1975
Oral Questions
shark fishing from February 1 to approximately the end of June. Will this ruling apply to all ships of other nations fishing these banks and what type of compensation from the federal government will be made available to fishermen on the south shore of Nova Scotia to cover their economic losses due to lost fishing opportunities during this period?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: The
negotiations at the last ICNAF meeting were to the end that this area should be closed to all nations during the period mentioned, the four months of February, March, April and May. As to the matter of compensation, I should like to take that question under advisement.


PRESENCE OF PORTUGUESE AND FRENCH DRAGGERS IN ST. GEORGE'S BAY-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: The
minister has told us he has heard representations concerning the presence of Portuguese and/or French drag-gers in the St. George's Bay area of western Newfoundland. What action has been taken by his department with regard to the entry of these vessels within the 12-mile limit?


Roméo LeBlanc: have not been apprised of this situation. I will look into it and report to the hon. member.
% * #


SELLING PRICE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S SHARE OF OIL FROM SYNCRUDE-MEASURES TO STIMULATE EXPLORATION FOR CONVENTIONAL OIL
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. It arises from the fact that he mentioned consumers when he was referring to the oil sands. Now that the government is participating in the development of expensive oil for Canadian consumers and since it has been indicated that the federal government's 15 per cent share of the crude oil could be taken in kind, would the Prime Minister inform us whether this oil might be sold to Canadians at a price lower than the world price? At the same time, would he tell the House what plans the government has to stimulate meaningful activity in the search for much cheaper conventional oil bearing in mind the disincentives contained in the budget and the fact that exploration is falling off?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question deals with the hypothetical price of oil in Canada and oil production in years to come. I cannot answer that. As the hon. member knows, the price in Canada has been set by agreement among all governments until July 1 next. A conference is scheduled for April at which we shall be discussing the price for the next period. I do not know at this time how long that period will be nor what the price will be; it will

be a matter of negotiation and understanding, as was the last agreement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That was a great understanding.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the second part of the question, I can only repeat the government's policy as stated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources: we are, of course, very anxious that exploration for frontier oil and oil from conventional sources should proceed, and believe that the budgetary measures, combined with the more recent stances of the producing provinces, have made this possible.


Peter Colwell Bawden: The Prime Minister has referred to the importance of frontier oil. Does he realize that most of the conventional reserves do lie under federal land? Does he realize that it is almost five years since any regulations have been issued? Would it not be a good idea for the government to put forward regulations which would encourage people to work on the land, to work on the tar sands, rather than wait for people to come to it with various isolated proposals?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is a representation which I note with great interest.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since last Friday, when I raised the matter, has the hon. gentleman determined whether the United States Central Intelligence Agency intends to go ahead with its plan for a secret study of transportation technology? If so, has a contract already been awarded, and, if so, to whom? Has the minister checked to determine whether similar acts of industrial espionage have been conducted by the United States government affecting Canadian industries in fields other than transportation?
Hon. Allan ]. MacEachen (Secretary oi State ior External Affairs): Whatever description might be given of this type of research, it is directed entirely to publicly available information.


Henry Perrin Beatty: May I specifically ask the minister whether he has read the contract solicitation sent out by Mr. John C. Dougherty of the CIA on November 26? If so, how does he reconcile the statement he has just made with the statement in the letter-
The work contemplated includes utilization of classified information at the top secret compartmented information level. In this connection contractor employees selected for this effort would require appropriate agency access approvals prior to exposure to classified information at those levels.


Mr. MacEachen:: I can only conclude that we must be talking about an entirely different transportation research technology. I have not seen the letter to which
February 5, 1975

the hon. member refers. If I could have a look at it I would be happy to make further inquiries.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might rise on a question of privilege relating to the confrontation between the Minister of Justice and myself?


An hon. Member:: Why don't you sit down?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I don't know why anybody should say: "Why don't you sit down". I would think the Minister of Justice would wish the figures to be correct. I would like them to be correct. It would only take a minute to put them on the record.
On December 11, 1974 I received an answer to a written question, No. 1,008. It asked:
Since 1968, how many convictions for capital murder were there as a result of the killing of police officers . . .
I went on to ask whether all those who had been convicted had received the benefit of commutation of sentences under the Royal prerogative. I talked about the eight, and the one of the prison guard. This was the answer given by the Solicitor General:
Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is ten-nine convicted for the murder of police officers and one for the murder of a prison guard. In five instances the death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment. The remaining five cases are not yet subject to confirmation of sentences or commutation since appeals are still before the courts.
When I referred to nine police officers, I used the proper figure.


Otto Emil Lang: And when I said that five sentences had been commuted, it is clear I used the proper figure.


PROPOSED CONFERENCE OF OIL PRODUCING COUNTRIES ON PRICE AND ALLOCATION OF SUPPLIES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that we are now in the oil business, may I ask whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs has received information from any country concerning a proposed new conference between the oil consumers of the world and the oil producers for the purpose of setting a world price and allocating supplies?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As the hon. member knows, the International Energy Agency is meeting, I think, today. As I understand the proposals which have been made public this week by Dr. Kissinger, proposals which are to be put forward by the United States authorities at this meeting, including the suggestion that there be a floor price for oil, these have not yet been considered by the Government of Canada, nor have we issued instructions to our representative to deal with them at the meeting.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Has the
minister received information from any of Canada's ambassadors around the world, particularly from our
Oral Questions
ambassador in the United States, as to the type of formula which the producing nations will be putting forward for the setting of prices?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, I have no information as to any formula.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-FORMULA FOR SELLING PRICE OF PRODUCT
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the agreement the government, along with the governments of Alberta and Ontario, has reached with the Syncrude consortium? The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has stated that one of the terms of the agreement is that the price to be set for the product of the Syncrude plant will be an internationally-oriented price. In view of the tremendous importance of this decision to the Canadian people, and since it will probably set a pattern for the price of all oil produced in the tar sands, may I ask the right hon. gentleman what the agreement specifies as to the formula by which an internationally-oriented price will be determined?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I personally do not know whether such a formula exists. I will inquire. I would be inclined to believe that it is the type of formula that allows a little flexibility of the sort that permits negotiations between the parties. I will inquire and find out if there is a formula.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since I assumed that the cabinet agreed to this formula, it is difficult for me to understand why the government does not know what kind of price will be levied on the Canadian people for millions of barrels of oil in the future. Does this mean that the Montreal price, plus transportation, say, from Montreal to Toronto, is the price that the Canadian people will be charged, and that this price will be paid to the Syncrude company, or is this the price that will be paid to the partners who take delivery of the oil?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave one example of what I would describe as an internationally oriented price. There are other examples that are possible. I repeat that the hon. member's assumption is wrong. There was no such formula agreed to by cabinet; it was a formulation rather than a formula.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF AGREEMENT WITH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the repercussions that this may have for Canadians in the future and that the price they are to pay is going to depend upon a formulation of words, it is important to know something

February 5, 1975
Oral Questions
about it in more detail than the Prime Minister has been able to give. Therefore, I should like to ask the Prime Minister this. Has a formal agreement yet been signed with the Syncrude consortium, and if so will it be tabled in the House immediately so that we can see this formulation of words, or is it still in the tentative stage and only letters of intent have been given? In addition, when a formal agreement has been signed, would the Prime Minister undertake that it will be tabled immediately in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right in asserting that the people are very interested in the price, but they are more interested in what the international price is than in possible slight variations that the formulation permits. What world prices will be, of course, is something that I do not know and which I do not think the hon. member could assume either.
In reply to the second part of the question, I would have to defer to the minister who will be back in the House. I do not think a formal agreement was signed; I believe it was an exchange of intentions between gentlemen but I will have to find out.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that there has been an unusually high turnover of staff at the executive level of Air Canada since 1968 when Mr. Yves Pratte was first appointed chairman of the air line, and since the time of Mr. Pratte's appointment Air Canada has been plagued with widely publicized staff morale problems, which have adversely affected the operations of the air line to the point where its level of performance is no longer satisfactory to the travelling Canadian public, would the Prime Minister look into this very important matter and consider an inquiry into the operations of this Crown corporation and/or the replacement of Mr. Pratte?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not
agree with the premises of the question, Mr. Speaker.


FINANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the great success of the discounts or reimbursements offered by car manufacturers to help this stagnating industry, could he tell the House whether he intends considering the possibility of establishing such a discount program for various essential consumer prod-

ucts to stimulate the economy while providing Canadian consumers with the available products at more acceptable prices?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the question covers so many factors that a simple answer is impossible during the oral question period. I could perhaps give a more comprehensive reply in writing.
afr #	#


THALIDOMIDE VICTIMS-INQUIRY AS TO SETTLEMENTS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
My question concerns thalidomide victims. Since the minister stated in this House a few months ago that the file was still open, could he tell us if there have been satisfactory settlements between thalidomide victims and the company responsible?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in April 1973, I stated that following discussions with Richardson-Merrell (Canada) Limited, this company had attempted to reach settlements in all cases of thalidomide victims still pending, which involved nearly exclusively people from Quebec. The company had promised settlements and asked the parents concerned to hire a legal adviser to come to agreements on this matter. I understand that some agreements have been made. However a certain number of cases were referred to American courts by the parents concerned. In those cases, there were of course no discussions while the issue was still pending before the American courts. But I read recently that now that the American courts have rejected the requests of Quebec parents, the Richardson-Merrell (Canada) Ltd. Company have agreed to undertake negotiations with the parents if they are interested.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Since, as the minister stated, a Philadelphia court recognized at the end of December that the company was not responsible as concerns the prescribed time allowance which had expired, could the minister say whether he intends communicating with the legal advisers or the parents of the victims to promise them the services necessary to bring about a satisfactory settlement?


Marc Lalonde: I shall be happy to do so, Mr. Speaker, but the company has already stated publicly, and this was reported in the newspapers, that it was even prepared to undertake negotiations with the parents whose cases were rejected by the American courts.


IMMIGRANT MEDICAL STUDENTS-REQUEST FOR DATA ON WILLINGNESS TO SERVE IN GENERAL PRACTICE AND IN REMOTE AREAS
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National
February 5, 1975

Health and Welfare. In view of the imminence of the new immigration policy I should like to ask the minister of health whether there is any new manpower data on applications made by medical students to universities in Canada, first of all indicating their willingness to do general practice for a stated period, and secondly indicating their willingness to go where there is need for medical manpower in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if I understand well the question of the hon. member, he is referring to medical students?


Philip Bernard Rynard: That is right.


Marc Lalonde: I do not have such data at the present time but I will inquire of my department and see whether such data are available. I do not think any exists but I will check with the provinces and find out whether they have such information.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, February 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-49, to amend the Statute law relating to income tax, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (p. 2914).
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. During yesterday's proceedings on this measure the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) put forward an amendment. The Chair having quite appropriately reserved its decision on the procedural acceptability of a second reading amendment, it was understood in so doing that hon. members would be given an opportunity to discuss the matter and to make representations at this time before the Chair made a final ruling. The hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, and I shall be as commend-ably brief as possible on this point of order. Reasoned amendments in the past, if one wants to look at the record of Hansard, have been relatively rare, and quite so because, I put it to Your Honour, our rules were different then. It was in 1969, when there was a change in the rules of the House, that it started to become more important for the House to be able to put reasoned amendments. This is why I insist that the House must have the opportunity of putting reasoned amendments.
Hitherto on bills of this kind there was a resolution that was debated in the House; it was subject to amendment
Income Tax
and debate. But the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-49, came directly from the adoption of the budget resolutions, the minister having tabled the notice of ways and means and obtained permission for first reading of the bill based upon the ways and means motion on income tax, without debate and without a vote. There must be a joinder of issue. I refer Your Honour to the arguments I made in September of 1971 when I proposed a similar type of motion on a similar occasion on an income tax bill. I refer Your Honour to page 7763 of Hansard of September 13, 1971, from which I will read in a moment.
First of all I will say what I said before. Beauchesne is of little or no use. As a matter of fact, it is a hindrance to us at this time. On second reading there may be an amendment for a six months' hoist: that is perfectly proper. There may be reference of the subject matter of the bill to a committee. However, the motion before us calls for reference of this particular bill to committee of the whole. But the House must be in a position to express an opinion with regard to this bill, and merely to say that it shall be read six months hence or that there should be a vote, yes or no, on the total bill is wrong.
Am I allowed to bring Bill C-49 as a visual exhibit into the House? It is part of the property of the House. It is one inch thick: It covers the Income Tax Act, and there is no more complicated legislation. It goes from soup to nuts, literally: it covers the whole menu. There is no way in which hon. members can properly express themselves by a yes or no vote on this total bill. There are many features in it. It is an omnibus bill. I suppose the minister could bring in four bills, those which are purely of a housekeeping nature arising out of amendments made in 1971, those which deal with personal income tax, those which deal with corporate income tax, and those dealing with natural resources, royalties and the industries concerned.
This bill could be broken up into four bills and the House could possibly arrive at a clearcut opinion with regard to each of those bills. But I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the conditions under which the House is operating today-not in Beauchesne's day. You will note the comments I have made with regard to Beauchesne. My grandfather was not alive at the time of these precedents.


John Napier Turner: This is an unusual argument, that if Beauchesne is not with you it does not apply.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Beauchesne is so out of date that it is a dangerous book. I said so when I occupied the chair that Your Honour now occupies. It is even more dangerous today because of the remarkable changes in rules that have occurred since 1963. Now I should like to read a quotation from Hansard of September 13, 1971, to which I referred a moment ago. This is what I said:
This bill had its origin in a resolution passed before this House without debate or admendment. The provision of rule 60 is such that the minister is empowered to bring forward a bill. That is the motion; it is not the budgetary proposal that antedated it. The motion starts with the ways and means resolutions which were not the subject of debate. This, then, is the first opportunity for debate.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that in order to have debate there must be a joinder of issue; there must be an alternative to the principle . . . We declined to read the bill and from a procedural

February 5, 1975
Income Tax
point of view I find it extraordinary that this type of amendment in this House would not be accepted, whereas in the procedure from which we draw our inspiration or, shall I say, our origin, this type of amendment is a commonplace.
I cite the procedure at Westminster where they have eliminated the committee of supply. A reasoned amendment is a common occurrence, and we know how few were the times when they were actually considered by our Chair. I had one accepted and in 1971 I had another accepted in modified form. In 1972 one was turned down. My colleague the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) had two or three turned down, and our colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) also had a couple turned down.
It is my view that we should face this point squarely and that this new parliament must start out on the right foot. In my opinion this is the first opportunity that presents itself-they are rather rare-to establish the position with respect to and the right to put forward reasoned amendments. If we refer to May's seventeenth edition at page 527, this right is undoubted. Mr. Speaker, you are as much aware as I am of the limitations and points that have to be covered. I submit, without going into detail, that my motion does not offend against any of the essential points outlined in May's seventeenth edition with regard to reasoned amendments. My motion is relevant; it does not introduce any new item; it is opposed in principle to some of the features of the bill in that it declines second reading because of the provisions with regard to the elimination of deductibility of royalties, licences or other fees payable to provincial governments regarding natural resources owned by the provinces. Certainly we do accept that and we have a right to say so. That does not place our disagreement with second reading in jeopardy in any way. My motion does not approbate and then reprobate.
What is the principle of this bill? It is merely that the Income Tax Act shall be amended in several respects. There is no single principle, and May does not insist that there should be a single principle. The motion may be opposed to some of the provisions of the bill. But having said so, I can also say in my motion that we recognize, we accept and we note all of those matters. They in no way derogate from the essence of being opposed to second reading of the bill and particularizing why we are so opposed. We could have recited a number of other particulars.
The House may recall the motion in September of 1971. We cannot be enslaved by form. Mr. Speaker's predecessor, on three occasions that I have witnessed in reviewing this matter, promised rules and guidelines with regard to reasoned amendments. He indicated, and I agree with him, that they are perhaps a little tricky; but that does not mean that they are impossible or that they should not be put. What is a stereotyped form of reasoned amendment? Beauchesne does not even know what a reasoned amendment is. I put it to Your Honour that this amendment is fully within the essential points as outlined in May's as to the requirements, and that its language is not infelicitous. The essence of my motion is that this House declines to give second reading to a bill which contains matters, which I have cited, with regard to natural resources. What else can we ask in a motion? I certainly do not ask for

something beyond this bill or in another field of income tax which, shall we say, touches upon some form of pension or a matter not germane to the bill.
I apologize to the House for having taken perhaps overly long in pleading my argument in regard to this motion, but I consider it a very serious matter. I think Your Honour agrees with me that this is a new beginning for the House under this procedure which had a very chancy and, I may say, unsatisfactory history in the previous parliament because, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker did not lay down the guidelines. Perhaps he found that he had skated out on ice which was too thin.
I apologize to the House for having taken perhaps overly long in pleading my argument in regard to this motion, but I consider it a very serious matter. I think Your Honour agrees with me that this is a new beginning for the House under this procedure which had a very chancy and, I may say, unsatisfactory history in the previous parliament because, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker did not lay down the guidelines. Perhaps he found that he had skated out on ice which was too thin.


John Napier Turner: Anticipation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, Mr. Speaker, it is often said that the House need not express itself at second reading. It can do so with regard to any particular item in committee of the whole and then there can be a vote. But that immediately begs the question. The House having accepted a bill at second reading, how on earth can it then attack it clause by clause in committee and be consistent in logic? To that extent I say that now is the time for us to express ourselves in a reasoned amendment and in fact we should do so. I hope that this practice will commend itself to Your Honour and that we will see the start of a regular practice respecting reasoned amendments.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have listened with great interest to the argument put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I agree that the Chair should give most careful consideration to the question raised by the amendment the hon. member has proposed. I would suggest that the question to be settled is whether the passage of this bill at second reading and its reference to a committee of the whole House precludes the possibility of amendment in committee of the whole. I suggest that it does not.
Moreover, I would like to quote from May who has something to say about reasoned amendments. In his Parliamentary Practice, eighteenth edition, at pages 487 and 488 May lays down rules governing reasoned amendments such as the one which has been proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West. The first rule is the following:
The principle of relevancy in an amendment governs every such motion. The amendment must "strictly relate to the bill which the House, by its order, has resolved upon considering", and must not include in its scope other bills then standing for consideration by the House.
The second rule, which I think is more relevant in this connection, reads:
February 5, 1975

The amendment must not be concerned in detail with the provisions of the bill upon which it is moved, nor anticipate amendments thereto which may be moved in committee; nor is it permissible to propose merely the addition of words to the question, that the bill be now read a second time, as such words must, by implication, attach conditions to the second reading.
The third rule states:
An amendment, which amounts to no more than a direct negation of the principle of the bill, is open to objection.
It seems to me that it is the second rule in respect of which this proposed amendment would be in conflict. Moreoever, it seems to me, in general, that this proposed amendment is anticipatory; in other words, what the hon. member is proposing is that the House should now pass judgment upon particular sections of this bill. I agree with him that this is a very large bill, but it is precisely because it is a large bill and concerned with very complicated matters-and this has always been so on income tax-that the bill is referred to a committe of the whole House rather than to a standing committee. It is for this reason that we have these rules, and I suggest that the amendment proposed by the hon. member does offend certain specific and important principles of our procedure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I feel like starting off by saying, "Here we go again".


John Napier Turner: You will have to throw Beauchesne's away: Marcel doesn't like Beauchesne's.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is nothing about reasoned amendments in Beauchesne's.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) says I must throw Beauchesne's away because the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) does not like it. As a matter of fact, when he started to speak I pulled it out, but after hearing what he said, I put Beauchesne's away and brought out May's. Like the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), I have a copy of the eighteenth edition.
I said earlier that we have been discussing this question of reasoned amendments for a long time. I think this would be a good subject for a graduate student writing a Ph.D. thesis. He would find plenty to write about in terms of the attempts which have been made to get the Chair to accept reasoned amendments. He also might find it interesting to note those which have been allowed and those which have been denied. He might even find some differences in the nature of the rulings which have been given. I must confess that when I have tried reasoned amendments, I have favoured the form which goes something like this, "That Bill No. so-and-so be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved, in the opinion of this House," and so on. Then this same statement of principle follows. I have been prepared to accept, when I have move amendments like that, that it had to be clear that the mover and supporters of a reasoned amendment were against the bill. That ruling has been given from the chair a good many times, that reasoned amendments, especially if they are put in that framework, cannot be amendments in which a member seeks to have it both ways.
Income Tax
If anyone does any research on the things I have said in the past, he will find that I have accepted that proposition. But this little exercise today, the rejection of Beauchesne's by the hon. member for Edmonton West, the picking up of May's, and particularly the kindness of the President of the Privy Council in referring to pages 487 and 488 of May's eighteenth edition, makes me think that we had better take another look at this matter.
The hon. member for Edmonton West has not followed the form of words I would have preferred but, instead, just says in his motion that although this House approves of certain things in the bill, notably the slight reduction in income tax for low income earners, pensioners and so on, this House nevertheless declines to give second reading to a bill which has in it something that we do not like, namely, the taxation provisions regarding royalties.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, that is a different form, and May in his eighteenth edition-hardly his because he was dead long before editions got to such a high number-said something that I think covers the case of the hon. member for Edmonton West. The President of the Privy Council read the sentences that were on his side of the argument and left the others for me to read. At page 487 May says:
Such amendments have tended in modern times to become rather stereotyped and are confined generally to the first two categories; and amendments selected by the Speaker for discussion have commonly included the words, "this House declines to give a second reading," or words of similar import.
Not only does the hon. member for Edmonton West have those words in his amendment, "This House . . . declines to give second reading", but it seems to me that it does fit into the first two categories that May has just indicated. Those first two categories referring to a reasoned amendment appear at the top of page 487 and are as follows:
(1)	It may be declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from the principles, policy or provisions of the bill
(2)	It may express opinions as to any circumstances connected with the introduction or prosecution of the bill or otherwise opposed to its progress
The hon. member for Edmonton West certainly declares a principle adverse to some of the provisions of the bill and does not want its progress to go any further at this point, for the reasons given. I think a case can be made for the amendment, therefore, by reading those portions of page 487 which I have quoted. I find it even more interesting, however, to turn to page 488. The President of the Privy Council read from the top of that page, but I will go to the bottom of it where there is a paragraph with the heading "Effect of carrying a 'Reasoned Amendment' ", which says:
According to modern practice, it would appear to be unlikely that, after a reasoned amendment had been carried on the second or third reading of a bill, any further progress would be made.
I used to think, and I have argued it repeatedly, that that would be the effect of any amendment to second reading of the bill; that it not be read, and that is the end of it. Many times we have been told that if we pushed an amendment, that would be the end of the bill and we might lose something we wanted. But I continue:
2946

February 5, 1975
Income Tax
If it is merely desired to draw attention to a matter incidental to the legislation intended by the bill, or to affirm a principle which could be incorporated in the bill at a later stage, this purpose could probably be better effected by an instruction or an amendment moved in committee.
It must be borne in mind, however, that the amendment, if agreed to, does not necessarily arrest the progress of the bill, the second reading of which may be moved on another occasion. The technical effect of such an amendment-
Mr. Speaker, I submit that these words apply very clearly to the amendment in the form in which the hon. member for Edmonton West has put it.
The technical effect of such an amendment is to supersede the question for now reading the bill a second time; and the bill is left in the same position as if the question for now reading the bill a second time had been simply negatived.
Here is the key sentence:
The House refuses on that particular day to read the bill a second time, and gives its reasons for such refusal; but the bill is not otherwise disposed of.
May is long since dead but that sentence, I suggest, describes perfectly what the effect would be if the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton West were allowed, and particularly if it were passed. The House would refuse on that occasion, on that day, to give second reading to the bill and in doing so would state its reasons. The hon. member for Edmonton West has given those reasons right in the amendment. He says as far as this bill is concerned, some of it is all right, that we like the provisions that reduce taxes in certain cases but in spite of that we do not want to give second reading to it-we decline to give second reading to it, in the language of May-for certain clearly stated reasons, and those reasons are because the bill includes tax provisions regarding royalties that we do not like.
Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that at your prayer meeting this morning you and those at the table went over this backwards and forwards and called on all the gods there are in the procedural hierarchy. Maybe I have just added to the confusion and perhaps you will need to have another prayer meeting on the issue; but I do like the point that the hon. member for Edmonton West is making, that this business of reasoned amendments and amendments on second reading will have to be sorted out at some point.
A few decades ago we seemed to have quite a number of these amendments, but in recent years we have had very few. We have almost reached the point of having to accept, because of rulings from the chair, that there is nothing we can do on second reading but vote yes or no. As I say, I used to be willing to accept the proposition that an amendment at second reading opposing the bill and declaring some other principle should carry with it outright opposition to the bill, and it should be accepted that if the amendment were carried that would be the end of the bill. But the philosophy on pages 487 and 488 of May's eighteenth edition has something to commend it. Maybe what the hon. member for Edmonton West is trying to do is test the right set out on these two pages of May, namely, the right, even if the bill is going to be given second reading at some other time, to decline to give it second reading today or whenever the vote comes, for certain specific reasons. Certainly the reasons are there in the
(Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]
amendment, and certainly the language is "That this House . . . declines to give second reading to the bill".
Mr. Speaker, I hope you will think some more about this matter. I see that the Minister of Finance wishes to do a bit more muddying of the waters.
Hon. ]ohn N. Turner (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am only jumping into the water because it was stirred up in the latter part of the statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He made a very subtle argument to the effect that if this amendment were to be admitted by the Chair and then perchance it were to carry, that could be serious. We could explore some of the subtleties in May's, consider it a defeat of the day and re-present the second reading motion on another occasion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it is the
President of the Privy Council who wants to follow May's.


John Napier Turner: Incidentally, if we
should ever run afoul of numbers in the House, that is to say, supporters, I will dredge up the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and see how it is accepted not only by the Chair but by the country.
I make only one point in expanding on the argument of my House leader and it is this. We submit to Your Honour that this amendment should not be received or admitted because it anticipates the provisions of the bill. It is true, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said in quoting May, that the proposed amendment would seem to be acceptable in that it is declaratory of some principle adverse to or differing from the principle, policy or provisions of the bill. But the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that the amendment merely attacks some of the provisions of the bill. It does not deal with its policy and it does not attack its principle, because the bill is an omnibus bill and it is hard to know what the underlying principle is, except that it is an amendment to the Income Tax Act. But it does declare some principle differing from the provisions of the bill, he suggests.
I submit to Your Honour that instead of considering the general rule of declaratory relevancy, you are entitled to look to the more precise caveat in May's which says that the amendment must not be concerned in detail with the provisions of the bill upon which it is moved, nor anticipate amendments thereto which may be moved in committee. What does the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) do? It approves certain provisions. He blew hot and cold here or, as the Scots used to say, he approbates and reprobates at the same time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But you are entitled to do that in considering a reasoned amendment.


John Napier Turner: Having approved some of the provisions of the bill, he would decline to give second reading to the bill which includes "provisions which eliminate the deductibility of royalties, licences or other fees payable to provincial governments from operational income in the computation of income tax." That is
February 5, 1975

one of the distinct provisions of the bill or one distinct clause. If the hon. member does not like that particular clause, if he does not like the amendment which renders royalty payments non-deductible so far as federal income tax is concerned, he can attack that clause in committee. I submit to Your Honour, as the House leader has, that the hon. member's amendment does anticipate amendments to the bill which may be moved in committee and is concerned in detail with the provisions of the bill or with one particular provision found in one particular clause.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question for clarification? What is the nature of the amendment which could be moved in committee to carry out that which is anticipated by this motion? There is no way of putting such an amendment, I suggest to the minister, except by voting against the clause.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If it is difficult to move such an amendment at the committee stage, it may be even more difficult to move it at second reading stage. Therefore, that line of argument put forward by the hon. member may not advance that which he proposes.
I am concerned about the use of the time of the House for the remainder of the afternoon. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), both of whom spoke in support of the amendment, introduced a note of convenience in bringing forth the precedents to which they referred. The precedents which they quoted refer to a principle adverse to the provisions of the bill, or adverse to the principles of the bill. Both hon. members, in arguing in support of the amendment, introduced the word "some" into that relevant sentence. I have not seen that word in my examination of the precedents. If it is there, I shall be glad to be told where it is.
These hon. members have taken the wording of the sentence to which they referred to mean that the principle ought to be adverse to some of the provisions of the bill. Having read those precedents, I have not seen that word. It certainly would be of interest if there is a precedent which says that a second reading amendment ought to be declaratory of a principle which is adverse to some of the provisions of the bill. If authority exists for such a proposition, I certainly should like to see it.
In the meantime, what I am concerned about is this: if the House proposes to resolve itself upon this matter some time this afternoon-which seems less and less likely-there will obviously be some pressure on the Chair to come to a conclusion quickly. On the other hand, if it is reasonably certain that the House will continue to discuss the matter today I could give the matter more careful consideration and perhaps come down with a decision tomorrow. May I conclude, unless there is an indication to the contrary, that there will be sufficient discussion of this matter to find the remaining 90 minutes?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, only 30 minutes.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am glad you raised the point relating to "some principle adverse to" because that question disturbed some of us in
Income Tax
the midnight hours last night when we were looking for precedents.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to make certain that the "some" is read in the right place. I am not talking about "some principle adverse to the provisions of the bill." I am talking about "a principle adverse to some of the provisions of the bill." There is quite a difference. If there is authority with respect to the last proposition, I should like to see it.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, you have been referred to May's eighteenth edition. I would refer you to the following words on page 527 of May's seventeenth edition: such amendment-
-may be declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill.
I think that wording covers the argument made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on this point.


Mr. Speaker:: I, of course, am troubled by the interpretation which has been made. That condition is met if the principle which is advanced in the second reading amendment is declaratory of a principle opposed to or different from some of the provisions of the bill but not all of them. I did not notice any authority for such statement. The hon. member has referred to some different wording, wording I should like to consider carefully before rendering judgment. I do not see why I will not be able to do this tomorrow, right after the question period when orders of the day are called.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on November 18 was significant to all Canadians for a variety of different reasons. I would like to deal with the provisions of that budget as they affect resource industries and the impact they will have on future energy supplies for Canadians. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that the impact which resource provisions will have in future has been drawn to the attention of the Canadian people, because the outcry from the people and from the press would have been even greater than it was with regard to proposed increases in the salaries of members of parliament.
The proposals of the Minister of Finance and the resulting retreat from energy self-sufficiency will cost Canada billions of dollars. Indeed, the economic viability of the country is at stake and we could, in time, face bankruptcy in the same way as Britain and Italy are now facing it. They are struggling on the brink. I am afraid that a lot of people in Canada think it could never happen here. I intend to outline the scenario for self-sufficiency and the projections into the 1980s, and speak about the possible condition of our economy in the 1980s.
I would like to deal with the items mentioned by the minister when he addressed the House on January 28. Early in his speech he referred to amendments relating to the taxation of the production income of the petroleum and mining industries as being a major source of controversy. The minister said there has been virtually no discussion whatever over what appears to be the core of the issue. He went on to say that it is simply a matter of
28626-52>/2

February 5, 1975
Income Tax
dollars and how these revenue dollars in petroleum and mining are to be shared between the oil industry, the provinces and the federal government. What the minister has forgotten and this government seems to have forgotten over a long period of time is that there is another ingredient in this mixture. It is the private sector. It is the oil and gas industry which the government expects, hopes and has often stated should continue with aggressive exploration plans and activities to meet Canada's energy needs for the future.
The minister asked the question as to how these revenues are to be shared. I wonder whether he wishes the calculation to include the export tax which is presently yielding from oil exports an amount of over $4 million per day to the federal government to be used for payment of subsidy to eastern provinces. I ask the minister whether this amount is to be included in the calculation of revenue sharing which is referred to, or is it not. I would appreciate if the minister would respond to that question before this debate is over.
It would be interesting if hon. members were to look at this calculation, because they would find that if the export tax was included in the percentage calculation, the federal government would be getting a percentage that is more than twice what is going to the provinces. The minister has an obligation to tell us just what the ground rules are and under what common denominators this calculation is to be made.
In response to his question as to how these revenues are to be divided, I have two suggestions for the minister. I made this proposal to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during the question period last December. The Prime Minister replied that I had given him an interesting suggestion, but nothing was done about it. My proposal was that the Government of Canada permit the deductibility of provincial royalties up to the level where provincial royalties were approximately a year before the November budget. At that time the top oil royalty in the province of Alberta was in the order of 24 per cent. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) told the standing committee at that time he believed that this royalty was too low and that there was considerable room to escalate it.
This being the case, surely there is some level, perhaps between 24 and 30 per cent, which the government would consider as a deductible amount to yield to the provinces a reasonable return for royalty and still provide for the federal government a reasonable share of the proceeds. I am satisfied, as a result of statements made within the industry, that this would also provide for industry sufficient incentive and flow of funds to carry out the urgent exploration programs which are required in this country now. The real question is not, as the minister has said, only a case of dollars. This shows just how blind the government is on the question of resources, because they are merely looking at the short term and the dollars and cents, without regard for the longer term which represents billions of dollars each year and, in fact, a threat to our Canadian way of life.

A look at our oil and gas requirements and potential production is clearly illustrated in the National Energy Board report of October, 1974. This report was prepared over a period of many months prior to October, 1974. Confidence since that time has fallen drastically and activity levels have fallen along with confidence. These reports today might be considered extremely optimistic. The National Energy Board report projects for 1980 a shortfall of 560,000 barrels per day from self-sufficiency for Canada. This means we will be importing one quarter of our oil needs less than five years from now. I hope the Minister of Finance is listening to some of these key points. In 1980, one quarter of Canada's oil needs will have to be imported. We here cannot change that fact. There is no amount of incentive or anything the government can do which will turn that fact around. It is too late. The lead time is too long.
If we look ahead to 1985, just ten years from now, the National Energy Board forecasts a deficiency between Canadian production, including the projected production of the tar sands, and consumption, of 1.5 million barrels a day. The significant fact that I wonder if the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Prime Minister can see is that in this short time, based on a relatively optimistic forecast by the National Energy Board, Canada will have fallen from a level of complete self-sufficiency to a point where over 50 per cent of its oil and gas needs will have to be imported.
To realize the serious threat this imbalance portends, we must look at the concern expressed and the actions being taken in the United States which today imports only about one-third of its needs. It likely cannot now catch up. In five years Canada will be in approximately the same desperate position the United States is in today. Once self-sufficiency is gone and these serious shortfalls exist, it is difficult if not impossible to catch up. The question must be asked of the Minister of Finance who on a shortterm basis has seen fit to impose punitive measures by way of tax to the extent that a viable and vital industry is pulling out of Canada. Last year's Arab boycott of the world, when Canada was able to carry on business as usual, was surely ample evidence for the government and all Canadians of the security importance of oil self-sufficiency.
The minister has at times tried to blame the provinces. I can assure him that in the case of the socialist provinces of British Columbia and Saskatchewan, this is correct. Those provinces have created an atmosphere of despair for the industry within their boundaries. I see the minister laughing.


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not laughing.


Peter Colwell Bawden: It was the NDP, not the minister. The socialist governments in British Columbia and Saskatchewan are contributing in a meaningful way to an outlook of despair for all Canadian people within the next five years. In Saskatchewan at the present time there are two drilling rigs working. Only three, four or five years ago there were up to 50 rigs working in the province of Saskatchewan. Surely that is an indication of what that government has done in that province.
February 5, 1975

Since the Premier of British Columbia changed the ground rules, as he does periodically, this winter something of the order of 55 holes were cancelled in British Columbia. In Saskatchewan, if they are lucky, 150 holes will be drilled in 1975. This would be terribly optimistic forecast. In years gone by, the province of Saskatchewan had something in the order of 1,000 holes drilled each year. There is no question but that these provincial socialist governments are seriously affecting the people in the rest of Canada.
Late in 1974, the Premier of Alberta took positive steps to ease the burden of royalty on Alberta producers. However, in the absence of action by the federal government to do their share, the industry may very well continue to die on the vine even in the province of Alberta. Statistics on the movement of drillings rigs, which indicates a meaningful percentage, have left Canada and are continuing to do so, are only an indication of the far more serious flight of capital to countries which are providing incentives. Most countries of the world are working frantically to improve their balance of oil exports and imports.
We are on a 180-degree course compared to every other country; we are the only country in the world which people, machinery and capital are leaving. Every other country is importing this kind of expertise. I would like to deal briefly with the consequences of this flight of capital and the effect on the balance of payments position in Canada over the long term. This is something which could lead our country to the brink of bankruptcy, and the Minister of Finance is responsible.
The figures I am using are those of the National Energy Board. They indicate sizeable shortfalls and show that Canada will be deficient in oil in the relatively near future, and that imports of oil by 1980 will cost the country more than $2 billion a year. By 1985 the cost will have risen to well over $5 billion a year for oil imports. If we look at deficits other than those involving energy, we find that Canada is facing a deficit in current account in 1975 of some $3.5 billion, $500 million of which will arise as a result of trade deficits; the $3 billion will result from invisibles such as shipping, travel, interest and dividends-this latter amount is growing by approximately 7 per cent a year. If we project over five years the contribution of invisibles to our current account deficit it will be in the order of $4 billion by 1980. I am sorry the minister appears to be leaving; I am getting to some of the crunch figures.


John Napier Turner: I am not leaving.


Peter Colwell Bawden: If we add to this deficit on our current account the deficit incurred through the importation of oil, we arrive at the figure of $6 billion for the annual total deficit in the year 1980.
The figures are even more frightening if we presume that the deficit in invisibles will reach over $5 billion by 1985, in which case the addition of the deficit incurred as a result of oil imports will bring the total to approximately $10 billion. This is based on projections by the National Energy Board which allow for a reasonable number of
Income Tax
new discoveries as well as for the development of the tar sands. This scenario places Canada in virtually the same position as that in which Britain and Italy find themselves today. By 1985 the Canadian economy will likely approach the size of the economy in those two countries, and a deficit in our current account of the magnitude which can presently be estimated would place our country in the same hopeless position.
Canadians have the right to ask what would be the result of the federal government spending billions more than we can afford on oil imports. They have the right to ask how these accounts are to be settled; how the government will deal with the balance of payments position in the years ahead. Hon. members should bear in mind that the situation I envisage is likely to arise as early as 1980, leaving little, if any, time for remedial measures to take effect. The lead time is simply not great enough.
We cannot make any serious dent in the problem by increasing exports. Statistics Canada indicated recently that the volume of Canadian exports declined seriously in 1974. It was also indicated that in the fourth quarter we actually incurred a deficit of $363 million, the first in many years. The outlook is gloomy. In the past, our oil exports placed us in a credit position; we enjoyed a very favourable position in 1974 in relation to other countries because we were not subject to cost escalations arising from oil imports. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in Britain has stated that for Britain the higher oil prices could only mean a lower standard of living and increasing unemployment. Canada is not a bit different: it could happen here. In fact, I suggest this is one of the most serious problems which has ever faced this country.
The Minister of Finance has an obligation to act, since all the measures he proposed in his budget of May 6, and again in his budget of November 18, 1974, were directly contrary to those he should have introduced as a means of dealing with this problem. Perhaps it is fortuitous that he is the chairman of the special committee within the International Monetary Fund which will be doling out assistance to countries who are going broke as a result of their energy imbalance. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that at Canada's level of shortfall by 1985 we would use up in the short space of 2\ years the entire amount of the $30 billion of financing set up by the International Monetary Fund. In the communique tabled in this House by the Minister of Finance on January 16, the hon. gentleman stated:
Participants requesting loans under the new arrangement will be required to show that they are encountering serious balance of payments difficulties and are making the fullest appropriate use of their own reserves and of resources available to them through other channels.
Perhaps the minister could tell us whether failure to develop our natural resources fully might have an adverse effect on Canada's ability to participate in the fund as he envisaged it functioning. The result is apparent. If we could not continue to borrow, our country would be extremely vulnerable; we would be forced to sell land, industry and business in ever-increasing amounts to foreign buyers; our currency would be threatened by serious runs against it, and the upshot could only be devaluation with the most serious economic consequences.

February 5, 1975
Income Tax
This country possesses the resources and there are investors in other nations, as well as in Canada itself, who are ready, willing and able-I stress the word "able"-to search as they have done in the past for new supplies of petroleum. I urge the government not to continue to drive out capital with the result that federal and provincial funds are sucked in to rescue projects whose continuation is in the national interest.
I urge the government to come forward with a longterm plan for increased and meaningful incentives immediately to attract Canadian investors into the resource industries while at the same time making it clear to our friends in the United States that we welcome their investment in our natural resource industries. In the absence of foreign investment there is almost no way in which the tens of billions of dollars required in the years ahead will be forthcoming.
The most tragic feature of this whole scenario is that ever since the late forties Canadians have been urging ministers of finance to provide meaningful and important incentives so that Canadians could invest in the oil industry. We have been chasing out or, through various means, scaring away foreign capital but we have done nothing to attract Canadian capital. This is a risky business, but it should be realized that given the proper incentives Canadians are still ready to invest in the oil industry.
I cannot understand why the minister continues to hesitate about giving Canadians the same encouragement as foreign citizens enjoy when investing in this field of resource development. I urge the Minister of Finance to resist the expenditure of taxpayers' money on such ventures and to provide sufficient incentives by way of clear-cut rules, reasonable royalties and, if necessary, higher prices for crude oil and natural gas to ensure that investment by governments will not be necessary. I would remind the minister, again, that 90 per cent of the potential conventional oil and gas in Canada lies under federal lands. On federal lands there are no rules and no incentives. On federal lands royalties and all control rests with the federal government. There, too, lies our great potential. It is just another tragedy that has been brought upon this country and its citizens by a federal Liberal government.
I recall that in the projection we have seen there are some 10 to 20 plants to be constructed ultimately in the Alberta tar sands, which is one plant every two years. I think we agree, especially having heard the Prime Minister answering questions today, that this level of achievement has gone forever. If governments are to continue taking an interest in these kinds of plants, the annual sums required to match their investment in Syncrude is horrendous. I suggest that the government must figure out how funds from the private sector can be attracted. When projecting 10 to 20 plants over a number of years for synthetic crude alone, quite apart from the billions required to develop conventional crude, governments alone cannot begin to meet the demand for capital.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Are you critical of Davis and Lougheed too?


Peter Colwell Bawden: The hon. member asks me if I am critical of Mr. Davis and Mr. Lougheed. Unfortunately, because of the total scenario in our country the atmosphere of despair and disincentive provided by the federal government, along with inflation which is fully within the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, these last minute rescue operations became absolutely necessary. But I think it was the wrong way to go about it.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would be good enough to let me follow up the question put to him by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). At the time that the Premier of Alberta raised the royalty rate and proposed the other charges as he did 18 months ago, was the hon. member in favour?


Peter Colwell Bawden: The minister asks an interesting question which has been asked many times by many people. I think the important thing is that the Premier of Alberta altered the royalty rates in a meaningful way, and I know it was a way that the Minister of Finance agreed was reasonable during the autumn of 1974. But what Albertans and the people of this country are disappointed in is that the minister did not respond similarly. He made a response by making some reductions in taxes, but this was not enough because it did not bring about the required activity.
If I may just finish, Mr. Speaker, I will then permit another question from the minister. I think that the Minister of Finance has to respond to these serious threats to our economic future. He must tell us now what incentives he proposes to provide, or whether in fact he envisages the federal and provincial governments of this country picking up the tab every time private enterprise pulls out of a project. Will the minister and the Prime Minister urgently call an early meeting of first ministers to resolve this problem? Why should we wait until April? Will the Prime Minister, who is meeting the Premier of Alberta in the early part of February, take the opportunity immediately to seek some permanent and longrange solutions to the energy question? Why do we constantly put this off three, four or five months?
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is too late to correct the energy shortfall in 1980; we cannot change that situation. But we can take steps now to improve the situation, and we must take action to head off the prospects that face Canada in 1985. I would be interested in the minister's response, particularly to the question of Canada's imbalance at that time as a result of oil imports.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) rising for the purpose of asking a question?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) indicated that when he was finished he would be willing to entertain a question, and I put to him a preamble to the effect that the Prime Minister had offered to meet the premiers in February but that the premiers were not able to meet him on that date, for reasons not entirely beyond the hon. member's ken. He will recall that the standard royalty rate in Alberta was 22 per cent. I asked him whether he was in favour of the Premier of Alberta's raising of this
February 5, 1975

royalty, particularly on new oil, by 65 per cent on all oil over $3.80 a barrel. I ask him whether he and other members of the oil industry were happy with that result.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, I would respond to that by saying that at the time of the March 28 accord, at which point in time these higher Alberta royalties were in effect, the industry, the federal government and the Alberta government all went back after the news of the accord had been made known with the feeling and the conclusion that they could in fact operate under those rules.
I will have a further chance in committee to respond to what the minister said in opening debate on the bill, when he had a lot of criticism of the premiers and quite a bit to say about the fact that the Prime Minister had not deceived the premiers at the time of the March 28 accord. However, after the March 28 meeting, the industry, the provinces and the government, as well as people of Canada, thought that an agreement had been reached that was a lasting one.
When we get into the clause by clause study I should like to respond to some of the remarks the minister has made, because it was when the Minister of Finance in May pulled the rug out from under the industry and the provinces that the whole ball game changed. From the period following March 28 prior to the May 8 budget, everyone was satisfied to get on with the job.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I have only about 30 seconds, I should like to call it five o'clock and pursue my speech tomorrow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, pursuant to special order made Tuesday, February 4, 1975, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.
It is my understanding that the House would be ready to proceed directly with Bill C-226, appearing in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. For-restall) and accordingly stand all other items appearing ahead of this item. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East) moved: that Bill C-226, to provide for the constitution of a federal transport commission of inquiry (impartial investigation of transport accidents), be read the second time and
Transport Accidents
referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak again on this matter. As a result of some conversations held through the usual sources on the other side of the House and, if I can get the concurrence I am about to suggest, with the unanimous consent of the House, I would ask leave to withdraw this particular bill in favour of having its subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. If the government is agreeable, I will also move to withdraw from the order paper notice of motion No. 17 standing in my name, which repeats in the appropriate form and in detail the explanation of this bill. I do so inasmuch as this item was first introduced in Bill C-66. It has been on the order paper as Bill C-85, Bill C-33, Bill C-109 and, now, Bill C-226. The House will be aware, therefore, that this matter has been debated and discussed at some length. However, I am quite prepared to withdraw my bill and notice of motion if the government will agree to referral of the subject matter to the standing committee for consideration.
I think there will be agreement to do this inasmuch as the general subject matter of this bill has been accepted in principle by the government and was dealt with in the most recent throne speech. With the leave of the Chair, and if the government is agreeable, I would be prepared to withdraw those motions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that there have been discussions along the lines indicated by the hon. member who has just spoken. Certainly we are prepared to go along with the proposition that the subject matter of the bill and of the resolution be referred to the appropriate standing committee. Even so, we would like to have some discussion on the matter. My fear is that if the House simply agrees at this moment to what the hon. member is asking for, that will be the end of it. What should happen, I think, is that the hon. member should speak on this bill for a few minutes, let one or two others speak, and let it be understood that at the end of the debate, whether it is 20 or 40 minutes from now, the bill and the resolution will be discharged and the subject matter referred to the committee.
Let me repeat, in summary, that we agree to what is being proposed but we think that before that happens there should be a few words said by different members of the House on the matter.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). As I understand it, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) has asked for leave to withdraw his bill and has also moved a motion that we refer the subject matter of the bill to the standing committee. That motion is certainly debatable, as I understand it.


J. Michael Forrestall: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have not moved a motion. I ask for the unani-

February 5, 1975
Transport Accidents
mous consent of the House to withdraw both the bill and the motion. I am prepared to do that now, or I am prepared to address myself to it to accommodate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and others in the House. If that is acceptable, I will take a minute to review the position on this matter.
The subject matter of the bill which I hope the government will agree to refer to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications has to do with the separation from the regulatory body of the responsibility for investigative procedures within the whole ambit of transportation in Canada. As I have indicated, the bill has been on the order paper a number of times. I think this is the fourth or fifth time that I have put this matter before the House.
The bill has the support, in principle, of the Canadian Airline Pilots Association, the Canadian Owners' and Pilots Association, and indeed the support of virtually everyone who has been involved in the process by which accidents are investigated by the federal authorities. It was indeed out of the legitimate concern and indeed the fears of these people that the bill has flowed, and it has been through the input and continued high level of unease within the industry and within the travelling community that I have gained the support needed to continue to place on the order paper this private member's bill.
Admittedly, the bill in front of us-I will try to deal, if I can, with some ofthe reservations of the government with respect to it-has one or two glaring technical deficiencies; that is, in the manner in which the board is to be funded. Here I would direct myself to you, Mr. Speaker, specifically so that you will know that the bill is in order, and so that when hon. members look at the bill they will not immediately jump to the conclusion that it is out of order because of the peculiar way in which the board is to be funded. With the assistance of the legal advisers of the House and others in the community, a device was found by which this bill could remain on the order paper without attracting the legitimate doubts of the Chair.
This bill advocates a principle, that of the separation from the administrative body of the duties of investigation and indirect identification of cause and blame. The bill proposes that the board be funded through donations and contributions. I do this to get around, Mr. Speaker, your very legitimate and quite proper concern about its remaining on the order paper. This is necessary, because to have the board funded through parliamentary appropriations would render it outside the scope of admissibility under the rules of the House.
We cannot, however, Mr. Speaker, lose sight of the very real principle involved. We have in Canada today a situation that is not repeated to the degree or in principle in any other major western nation. The most troubling example of this potential conflict of interest exists within the air administration of the Ministry of Transport. Although the same could be said for virtually every other mode of transport, we have professional, highly skilled civil servants charged with the drafting and promulgation of regulations governing virtually every aspect of domestic aviation in Canada, and we have within the same ministry, within the same administration, and indeed in some cases within the same building, another group of
professional, highly skilled and highly trained people whose task it is to determine cause. What do they do when the cause is or could be related to acts or omissions or deficiencies in the regulatory branch? The temptation there is to look elsewhere for a scapegoat and in so doing to avoid the truth, which is what we seek in determining the causes of accidents. There is sufficient doubt within the community to warrant the changes required in this bill.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, this bill has the support of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) who on April 8, 1974, in answer to a question of mine in the House, as recorded at page 1227 of Hansard, said:
Mr. Speaker, when I spoke in the House a few weeks ago I think I mentioned that I would favour an independent board in such cases, and that whenever a new policy was introduced this would be a part of it.
I would cite the Speech from the Throne, which commenced the present session of the thirtieth parliament, as recorded in Hansard of September 30, 1974, at page 7. It states:
There are a number of new initiatives that the government is prepared to undertake immediately designed to improve transportation services in Canada which will not in any way prejudice the review of basic policy to come . . . establishment of an independent accident investigation board.
I would suggest to this House that this statement indicates that the legislation is not required to be delayed until such time as we are presented with a new national transportation policy. Indeed, while the implementation of the fundamentals of this proposal are vital to Canadian transportation, they are clearly so vital that any further delay would not be in the broad national interest. I am not a partisan member of this House. This proposal may, as it is presently embodied, be deficient in many respects, technical or otherwise. I am not prepared to live or die by the details of my proposal. However, Mr. Speaker, I sense that now the pressures from the industry and from within the ministry are such that we can proceed to have the subject matter of this proposal legislation referred to the Standing Committee on Transportation and Communication.
It has been five years since Bill C-66 was first presented to the House. It was then a skeleton bill, without the detail and expansion contained in this bill. Bill C-66 has had the benefit of input from the industry and from the comments made upon it by several of Canada's leading jurists in the field. It has benefited since its inception from expansion under the guidance of legal advisers retained by this House. It has provoked widespread industry debate. It is fortunate enough to have been fully debated in the House on at least two previous occasions.
Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way since the former minister of transport, now the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), said to the House of Commons on January 22, 1971, as recorded at page 2662 of
Hansard:
However, with respect to the broader question raised, as I have previously stated I have no objection in principle to some other arrangement being made with regard to the investigation of accidents. The difficulty is that there is virtually no unanimity among

February 5, 1975___________________COMMONS DEBATES_____________________________________2953
all the parties concerned on what the technique ought to be. However, the matter is getting ongoing attention, and if a better arrangement can be devised we will be glad to implement it.
I hope that the government and members of this House do not talk out this matter, because I sense that it is time for Canada to move forward in this particular area. Acceptance of my suggestion will afford the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications an opportunity to consider the implications of the principles involved. It will give the government an opportunity to put the final touches to its own bill and at the same time, as I have mentioned, it will provide an opportunity for the committee to go into the subject matter so that when the measure does come from the government, the committee will be in a better position to deal with it.
I thank the government for its consideration in referring this matter to the committee, and at the conclusion of remarks which other hon. members may wish to make, if there is agreement I would be prepared to ask leave of the House to withdraw this bill and the notice of motion standing in my name.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words with respect to this bill. The bill proposes to set up a federal transport commission of inquiry to conduct impartial investigations into transport accidents in Canada. I must say that this step is long overdue. I state unequivocally that I support the principle of this bill. I look at the situation as it exists and see that the transportation commission both regulates and investigates. It regulates transportation in this country, and if there are accidents it investigates them.
I can understand the hon. member's concern about the conflict in such a situation, because in Nickel Belt, where I come from, we experience the same kind of situation, the same kind of conflict. For many years there were accidents in the mines of Inco and Falconbridge, and lo and behold, Inco's security police were called in to investigate the company's accidents. Of course, this neither served the community nor the workers at Inco and Falconbridge. Indeed, it was only after considerable needling by provincial members to the mine safety department of the Conservative provincial government that finally things were changed. So this concern is very well founded.
I confine my remarks specifically to the railways because I have a large segment of railway population in my riding and I have had the opportunity to talk with these workers and to know some of the conditions which prevail on the railroads. When we look at the railroads in this country we find that we are far behind most other countries in relation to legislation which covers, for example, track standards and car equipment. We have no such legislation. The design and construction of freight cars and passenger cars is also not covered by legislation in this country. The design of much of the equipment and the qualifications of employees who operate such equipment are not covered by legislation. It is a well known fact that rail conditions are so poor that engines designed to travel at very high speeds cannot do so. Indeed, there are permanent slow orders on the railroads due to track conditions.
Transport Accidents
It has also been my experience in talking to workers on the railroads that railroad companies have cut back on section men. These are the workers who have specific responsibility for maintaining the railroad. I have found out that since 1950 section men have been put in the position of servicing longer and longer track lengths, and in this way the railway companies have been able to cut back on the number of section men. They may be creating greater profits for themselves, but of course they are placing great hazards on the travelling public and on the communities through which freight trains pass. One can imagine the implications this has on passenger service and movement of freight in this country.
Prior to 1966, the Board of Transport Commissioners published yearly a document setting out all the railway accidents in Canada; but quite mysteriously, since 1966 this has ceased. Indeed, the only such record now is very limited. Since 1966 the commission has produced an annual report of 11 lines, euphemistically entitled "Railway safety program". Prior to 1966 the documentation on railway accidents indicated the railway company concerned, the type of accidents and the number injured or killed on our railways.
It seems to me that this latest, abbreviated report prevents the unions and the workers from zeroing in on particularly hazardous conditions which are repetitive. Unions and workers have been making representations regarding the movement of dangerous commodities, for example propane gas and explosives and, possibly, very shortly nuclear material. The unions are demanding a unified coding system and proper information which should be relayed to the train crews regarding the substances they are transporting and the necessary procedures to be followed in case of emergency situations arising. It seems to me that this matter should not only be of concern to the workers but to every member of this House who is responsible for legislating the safety of Canadians.
To point out that workers are not lax in their desire to ensure safety, and to make sure that they do indeed follow safe procedures, the unions have been demanding safety equipment which would actually travel on the rails. They want the operators of that equipment to be properly qualified and not individuals who have no training in these matters. The railway companies have turned a deaf ear to these most reasonable requests. It is also very obvious that instead of having separate little bureaucratic empires for air, rail and sea, there ought to be one regulatory body which would cover all modes of transportation. It is most disturbing, and it ought to be disturbing to every member of this House, to note that when rail accidents are investigated by the railway transport commission the results are never published and are, in fact, deemed under the Railway Act to be privileged, unlike investigations into air and sea accidents. Reports of air and sea accidents are not considered to be privileged information.
Superimposed on this mess is the latest decision of Mr. Justice Emmett Hall regarding the crew consist under which the companies will be permitted to cut train crews by one. The railway unions have made extensive representations regarding the dangers inherent in this

February 5, 1975
Transport Accidents
proposal. When the lives of workers are at stake, the government should understand that the workers have the right to some say in the matter. That is particularly relevant to the movement of dangerous commodities. It is fine for the minister, with Gallic candour, to continue to say that his department is in a mess, but to allow messes when the welfare of workers, passengers, communities and important freight is at stake is inexcusable. I urge the House to permit this bill to go to committee.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) has repeated the remarks he has made on previous occasions in a general way on the need for some kind of an investigative body. I appreciate his agreement to withdraw this bill and to have its subject matter referred to the standing committee.
I notice in reading previous proceedings on similar bills that the hon. member has had a long and obviously sincere interest in the question. I am sure he is aware that since the bill was introduced in April, 1974, in the throne speech of last September the government made a commitment to implement the concept we are discussing today. The idea of an independent accident investigation board, authority or agency of some sort-I think the word "board" is the best one-will be investigated and eventually such a board will be established. I say "investigated and eventually established" because there is a degree of conflict in existing regulations, provincial and federal. There is the Criminal Code, and the provinces have legislation dealing with motor vehicle accidents, and so on. Some drafting and jurisdictional problems will have to be taken into account in implementing this concept. That is part of the reason that I ask the hon. member to withdraw his bill, because there are two or three clauses in it which might conflict, not with the general direction but with some specific provisions already in existence.
The bill and its clauses could best be discussed in committee. Work is continuing in this department and others, and I believe a memorandum is being prepared for the minister to give to cabinet. I cannot tell my hon. friend the stage it is at, but I can assure him that work is continuing
in the department to develop the kind of legislation he has been seeking.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) covered many of the broader questions of safety in rail operations. While they are appropriate, this bill primarily deals with the question of whether there shall be some kind of over-all investigative body. I am sure the hon. member supports that principle, having indicated his concern for greater safety on the railways and other modes of transportation. I certainly agree, and the government agrees, that Bill C-226 should be withdrawn and its subject matter referred to the standing committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the request of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and the comments of other hon. members. Is it agreed that Bill C-226 be withdrawn and that the order be discharged?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it also agreen that notice of motion No. 17, also in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, be withdrawn from the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By unanimous consent, it has been moved by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, seconded by the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac), that the subject matter of Bill C-226 be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m. tomorrow.
At 5.28 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 6, 1975