1975-12-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) statement yesterday indicating that his government intends to proceed with major relocations of various departments across Canada, and in view of the tremendous costs of such a program of relocation, operationally, in terms of capital cost and in terms of operational inefficiencies in service to the public, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence):
That the government forthwith freeze the program of relocation on the grounds of necessity for fiscal restraint and until the concept has been discussed and determined by the Parliament of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: No.


AIRPORTS
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Mr. James Snow, Ontario's minister responsible for transportation and communications, has recently stated that the Pickering airport is an option open to the federal government and he and the federal Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) are setting up a committee to study the transportation needs of southern Ontario. Since, according to officials, the federal government has no intention of selling or using in another manner the land it accumulated for the purpose of building an international airport in the Pickering area, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin):
That the Minister of Transport be instructed by this House to clearly state his intention vis-a-vis the land accumulated for the purpose of building an airport at Pickering and whether or not he, officials of his
department or other cabinet ministers are actively engaged in attempts or intend to engage in attempts to have the Ontario government change its decision on providing access routes to the Pickering site suitable for an airport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an urgent and important matter.
Owing to the glaring injustice done to two employees of the Dorval airport who have been suspended for having spoken in French at work, since there are two official languages in this country and that in addition, French has the priority in Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the Minister of Transport immediately order the cancellation of the suspension imposed on both employees.


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



REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE STUDY OF DIRECTIVES ON BILINGUAL AIR-TO-GROUND COMMUNICATIONS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.

Company of Young Canadians
Considering that two Quebec air traffic controllers were suspended on Monday, December 8, 1975, for carrying out their duties in French, that the Official Languages Act, which Parliament adopted in 1969, grants equal rights and status to the French and English languages within all parliamentary institutions and the government of Canada and, finally, that Section 508 of Air Regulations and Air Navigation Order No. 15, Series V, prohibit the use of French in all air traffic control operations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe):
That the question whether Section 508 of Air Regulations and Air Navigation Order No. 15, Series V, violates the Official Languages Act of Canada be referred to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, with instruction to report to the House on or before Friday, December 19,1975.


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.



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the apparent decision by cabinet to phase out the Company of Young Canadians, and in view of the fact that since its reorganization the company has been doing very positive community development work in isolated and poverty stricken communities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That the Secretary of State or some other responsible minister explain to the House on motions the reason for this action and what alternative assistance to these communities in need is being contemplated.


Mr. Speaker:: The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I wish to ask the right hon. gentleman whether the AntiInflation Board has indicated to the government its view that the contract recently negotiated between the Postmaster General and the inside workers in the post office exceeds the government's anti-inflationary guidelines.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: As I
indicated to the House yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we have some knowledge of the feeling of the Anti-Inflation Board. They have, as is their duty, spoken to the employer side, the government, as well as to the employee side, the union. Therefore, it is fair to say that we know what their thinking is. We discussed a possible response this morning in cabinet, but I called a cabinet meeting for tonight because I am told that, having consulted both sides, they are going to issue a written directive to us, and presumably to the union, to which both sides will have to respond. I am told that we will receive it some time in the course of the afternoon. Cabinet is meeting in the early evening. If we have received this by then and if we can give a written response in time, I will certainly agree to any minister, if the House so desires, making a statement on our response in the House this evening. If not, we will gladly do so tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I take it from what the Prime Minister says that discussions are no longer continuing between the Anti-Inflation Board and members of the government about the government moderating the contract but rather that the Anti-Inflation Board has made a decision, although the Prime Minister says it has not yet been indicated formally to him. Is that correct?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Insofar as I know, but I would not want this answer to preclude any further communication. If the Anti-Inflation Board wants to talk with us again we would, of course, be happy to respond. But my understanding is that they have communicated with both sides and are in the process of preparing some statement which will be made public, or communicated to us and to the union.


POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO DECISION OF BOARD ON POSTAL WORKERS' CONTRACT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the government decided that it will accept the ruling of the Anti-Inflation Board with respect to this contract to which the government is an interested party? Is the government prepared to accept the ruling of this Board established to define and apply the guidelines or does the government reserve the right to take a special position in cases in which it is itself involved in a dispute?
December 11, 1975


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member is asking about the situation in practice, I would say we would have to see what the Board says. If he is asking for guidance on what the law and the white paper asserts, I can tell him that when questions of this kind are referred to us the cabinet is not bound automatically by the statement of the AIB. This is the spirit of the law which was discussed in the House. There is provision for a final reference to the government of such questions and, of course, if there is such a reference the intention is that the government should examine the question and make a decision in the national interest.


DATE OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH BOARD ON POSTAL WORKERS' CONTRACT-NAME OF GOVERNMENT NEGOTIATOR
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: May I ask the Prime Minister whether in accordance with the terms of the order in council negotiations did take place between the Board and both parties in order to achieve satisfactory changes and, if so, when these negotiations took place and who acted on behalf of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the past few days, members of the Anti-Inflation Board have communicated with members of the government.


NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN POSTMASTER GENERAL AND BOARD ON POSTAL WORKERS' CONTRACT
James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the
Postmaster General whether he has had any communication with the Anti-Inflation Board since this statement was made, or leaked, as the case may be? If so, could he tell the House the nature of those discussions and could he also inform us at what time the government referred its final wage offer to the Anti-Inflation Board which, under the law, is the final adjudicator of what is, or what is not, within the guidelines?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: I believe I answered this question to some degree yesterday. The employer of record is the Treasury Board. The collective agreement, if requested by the Anti-Inflation Board would be requested of the employer, namely the Treasury Board, and I am not authorized to speak with authority on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board. I did, however, negotiate on his behalf and at his request; I was delegated by him to do so, as is his right. But in relation to any discussions, formal or otherwise, with the Anti-Inflation Board, I may say that these would properly be conducted through the Treasury Board.


NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN BOARD AND PRESIDENT OF THE TREASURY BOARD ON POSTAL WORKERS' CONTRACT
James Aloysius McGrath: In the
absence of the President of the Treasury Board, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the President of the Treasury Board has negotiated with the Anti-Inflation Board on behalf of the government? If so, perhaps the right hon.
Oral Questions
gentleman would also tell the House why the Postmaster General was not included in those discussions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter for the government which minister is to communicate with the Anti-Inflation Board. As the House knows, one minister is responsible for the board, another is responsible for the administrator. We will always make sure that the Anti-Inflation Board can contact a senior and responsible minister.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON POSTAL WORKERS CONTRACT IN VIEW OF IMPLIED DECISION OF BOARD
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister has indicated that the government has not heard formally from the Anti-Inflation Board and for that reason has made the decision to have a meeting later tonight, that point notwithstanding, Mr. Pepin, the president of the board, stated on CBC Radio yesterday, as quoted in the press today, that "the gap is too wide between the basic first year raise of 10 per cent permitted under the federal the program and the 30 month award", and so on. In other words, whatever communication the government will receive formally, Mr. Pepin has already publicly declared on behalf of the Board that the Board has decided-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Edward Broadbent: -that the offer of the government to the postal workers is too high. I should like to ask the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: -since that is the case, will the government stand by its own contractual agreement that it entered into with the postal workers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I learned not later than last week that it is not safe to make decisions on the basis of quotations, right or otherwise, of Mr. Pepin's statements. I think the House would think it only fair that we see the position in writing. We are told that we will get it this afternoon or that the Board is going to communicate with us. I think it would be not only unethical but contrary to the spirit of the law and the Inquiries Act if the government were to make a response on the basis of a quote by the hon. member of something that might have been said last night or some other time.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister knows full well that the quote I referred to last week-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Edward Broadbent: -was accurate. The question I will put to him is this. Given the government's own decision about what an appropriate offer is or ought to be for the postal workers, and given the existence of Bill C-73 which, when it becomes law, will make it possible for the government to make a decision that goes against the Anti-Inflation Board,

December 11, 1975
Oral Questions
may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government, as an employer in this instance, will not stand by its original offer to the postal workers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as an employer we will, of course, stand by the original offer, but under the law that has been adopted by this House and which I hope will be proclaimed very soon by this parliament we also have a mandate to speak, not only as an employer, but in terms of the total national interest, and we will not shirk either of those duties.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON COMMUNIQUE ISSUED BY CHAIRMAN CONCERNING HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Having it both ways is certainly Liberalism in action-
Some hort. Members: Question.


John Edward Broadbent: May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Since the origin of this dispute can be pinned to the communique-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Ask your question.


John Edward Broadbent: Will you shut up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby will realize that on more than one occasion in the past I have invited the co-operation of the House in respect of preambles to questions. On one acca-sion, I specifically indicated that not only should preambles to principal questions be short but, particularly in the case of supplementary questions, ought to be avoided altogether or, if used at all, restricted to only one line. The hon. member has today used a rather extensive preamble to his first two questions and he is now in the process of using another to his third question. I wonder whether he would just put his supplementary question.


John Edward Broadbent: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I had just got about seven words out-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Edward Broadbent: Since the communique issued by Mr. Pepin on November 7 with reference to maintaining the historical relationship specifically was contrary to the white paper which stated that once a decision is made about the historical relationship a settlement should be reached that would maintain the relationship, and the Board ruled that out, I should like to ask the minister if it is the government's view that the communique issued by Mr. Pepin contradicts the spirit of the law and the legislation as introduced by the government?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Just to reply briefly to the hon. gentleman-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -it would seem his observation or his question is in the nature of a representation, and I will consider it in the preparation-


John Edward Broadbent: Forget it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -of the regulations.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board, I put my question the the right hon. Prime Minister.
It seems that during the month of August this year, the Treasury Board and the bilingualism committee in Montreal jointly set December 31, 1975, as the deadline with regard to the granting of the bilingualism bonus. As the government has not yet taken a final decision and there is a risk the civil servants concerned in Montreal and elsewhere in Quebec will stop giving service in the English language, as indicated in a telegram I received today, could the Prime Minister say how the discussions of the government are progressing in that regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I shall be pleased to inquire, Mr. Speaker. I see the President of the Treasury Board is back in the House. He might be prepared to reply, otherwise he will take the question as notice and answer it tomorrow.


Léonel Beaudoin: I see he has arrived, thank you. Last August the Treasury Board and the bilingualism committee in Montreal chose December 31, 1975, as the deadline of the schedule for the implementation of the bilingualism bonus. Since the government has not taken a final decision on this question as yet, as indicated in the telegram I received this morning, could the minister tell the House at what stage discussions stand on that matter now and what the government intends to do?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: If I understand correctly, Mr. Speaker, we have not been able to reach a decision on that matter because my officials and the unions representing the employees who raised the question last spring are now discussing it.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the leader of the government.
Considering that one of the corner stones of the policy of the leader of the government is the equality between both official languages and that the Commissioner of Official Languages states in his fourth report for the year 1973-1974 that Canadian administration of air transport should as

soon as possible authorize legally what has been the practice for a long time, namely the use of French where it is possible both by pilots and air controllers and considering that-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a question, he should ask it now.


Pierre De Bané: Agreed, Mr. Speaker. Considering that the Commissioner of Official Languages states that the Air Transport Association of Canada always reacted with slackness to criticism, I would like to ask-


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD APPEALS TO CABINET FROM DECISIONS OF BOARD-REASON FOR FAILURE TO HEAR GROUPS OTHER THAN POSTAL WORKERS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to get back to the box into which the government has built itself.


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: In view of the growing impression throughout the country that the restraint program is being administered in a very unfair way-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Welcome back to the House.


An hon. Member:: Did you have a nice holiday?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has already said this afternoon-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is the fourth time during the question period we have had difficulty with preambles. If hon. members wish, we can have a dozen members with long preambles and few questioners. That is not the spirit of the question period. I will once again ask all hon. members to please respect the notion that the question ought to be put directly. This is the question period and is not the time to make any kind of a speech by way of a preamble. Would the hon. member please put the question.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Then, obviously-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Will you let me get it out?


An hon. Member:: Get it out.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Obviously, the question period would be shorter if there were not so many interruptions. My ques-
Oral Questions
tion is directed to the Prime Minister. Sir, I cannot even get the question out.


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: My question is for the Prime Minister. Sir, this is about the fourth time I have tried and cannot get it out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have no difficulty hearing the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Perhaps, Sir, the Throne should be moved down to this end. My question to the Prime Minister is simply this: if special consideration is being given by the cabinet to an appeal in respect of the postal workers, why cannot it be given to other groups which are affected by the decision of the Anti-Inflation Board.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman referred to the law which has been discussed at some length in this House-


Allan Frederick Lawrence: It is not yet the law.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -he will see that the whole tenor of the law is that the cabinet has some final say in cases which are referred to it. The hon. member refers to this as putting the government in a box. This perhaps shows his own mentality. In our case, we find that as a practice the government frequently has to reconcile the divergent interests of one sector of the economy and try to measure them against the necessity of guaranteeing the pursuance of the common interest.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is simply this: will the Prime Minister and his cabinet immediately entertain an appeal on behalf of the dispute of the Metro Toronto teachers-that is what is being done in respect of the postal strike-and if not, why not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must correct the hon. member. We are aware of statements which have been made in both these instances. I made it quite clear in an earlier answer to the hon. member's leader that the cabinet was not considering the position of the Anti-Inflation Board but that it would if a reference were made to us in the proper form which is foreseen either under the law or under the Inquiries Act in the present state. Of course, we will do this in other cases where reference is made to us in the proper way.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. On November 25 I directed a number of questions to the Solicitor General with regard to escapees from the peniten-

Oral Questions
tiaries in Fraser Valley East. I wonder if he could now answer the question.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I did ask for information on that question. I was told that despite some recent escapes, the total escape rate now in British Columbia from penitentiaries is down over the last few previous years. We are taking further steps to reduce it. Despite some escapes, the rate of escapes is down considerably over the last few years.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could indicate in respect of the instances to which I alluded if those men have been recaptured yet?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have detailed statistics of the escapes from the penitentiaries in British Columbia, the recaptures and so on, but I do not know whether I should give this information during the question period. I would be pleased to send the information to the hon. member.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister advise the House whether the government has exceeded its borrowing power under the limit placed on it under the Financial Administration Act and by how much. If so, what does the government propose to do in view of the House decision in respect of Bill C-79 of the other night?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to confirm whether there is an actual excess at the moment, taking into account the authority which exists for refunding. With regard to our intentions, we would hope to introduce a bill for early adoption which would in effect enable the House to enact the provisions which were struck out the other evening.


TROPICAL DISEASES-NEW QUARANTINE PROVISIONS- TRANSPORTING OF INFECTED PERSONS
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the introduction of the new measures concerning quarantine for lassa fever, will they contain a provision for a period of 20 days, which is the incubation period, and will there be a sterile chamber provided and developed for transportation of an infected person.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member an answer concerning the number of days of quarantine. I will inquire. However, I can tell him that the isolation

facilities group to which I referred yesterday which is studying this whole question is actively studying the question of the necessity and feasability of developing separate and new isolation facilities for treatment of diseases such as lassa fever. I am quite confident they will likely come up with a positive recommendation in this respect.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The latest consumer price index figures show that in the month of November prices rose .9 per cent on the whole, with food costs rising .6 per cent. In view of the Bank of Montreal's recent newsletter stating that some companies increased consumer prices before October 13 and that the November consumer price index might also reflect moves by companies to beat the controls, would the minister or his government now ask the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board to request all food distribution chains to submit to the board their price lists for the two weeks prior to and following October 13 to ascertain the accuracy of the charges in the bank's newsletter, and would the minister also instruct the Anti-Inflation Board to make this information available to the public.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated in response to a question by the hon. member for Edmonton West last week, I have drawn to the attention of the Anti-Inflation Board the allegations made in the document referred to by the hon. gentleman. I will draw to the attention of the board the hon. member's suggestion for further dealing with the question.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR ACTION IN AREAS OF ENERGY, FOOD AND HOUSING
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of a speech last night by Jean-Luc Pepin, chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, to the National Press Club in which on page two of the written text of the speech he said that the government needs a positive program to supplement the present anti-inflation program and quoted the third element of such a program as being structural policies to deal with the special problems of energy, food and housing, exactly the policy my party has been calling for, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether his government intends to take steps to implement such structural policies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, without being unkind I would suggest that the hon. member pay the same diligence to reading the white paper of early October that he has paid to the comments of Mr. Pepin. He would find that we, much before Pepin and much before his own party, had singled out three areas for
December 11, 1975

structural reform, one of them being housing, the second being food, the third being energy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Has the minister had the opportunity of checking and examining, as he promised my colleague from Gloucester last Tuesday that he would, the nature of the documents from his department which were tabled in the New Brunswick legislative assembly by the premier of that province and, if so, can he explain the purpose of those documents in order to clarify once and for all a situation that does not seem to be clear?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, I have had the opportunity of obtaining specific information on the decision of the New Brunswick premier to table certain documents in the legislative assembly at Fredericton some time ago. In fact, the first document is a plan covering all New Brunswick government highway projects for the next five years. The second he tabled, and to which he refers as a proposal from the federal government, that is, from my department, is not in fact a proposal but at the very most a working paper in which we asked the New Brunswick government for additional information which we needed to pursue further our meetings and negotiations with the New Brunswick government. I must say I deplore the fact that those documents should have been made public since that in no way helps the progress of our negotiations in an objective way.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the Outlook Conference next week, will the minister be raising with the provincial ministers of agriculture the same arguments used in this House for betraying the cow-calf operator and only stabilizing the price of finished cattle?
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


REPORT OF RAILWAYS ON PASSENGER SERVICE-DATE OF PUBLICATION
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On March 11 I asked the then minister of transport a question regarding the CN-CP report on passenger rail service and the minister was questioned in committee recently. Can he tell us when he will present the CN-CP report on passenger rail travel and when we might hear his comments?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to specifically present the CN-CP report on passenger travel. We are working on specific proposals for passenger travel on a variety of fronts throughout the country at the moment, and we will probably be into the new year before I can make a definitive statement on it.


HYDROELECTRIC POWER-APPLICATION OF MANITOBA FOR EXPORT PERMIT-POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF ENERGY BOARD ACT-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On December 4, 1975, as recorded on page 9711 of Hansard I asked the minister if Manitoba Hydro had violated section 40 of the National Energy Board Act in starting construction of a hydroelectric line from Ridgeway, Manitoba to Sprague, Manitoba, the purpose of which is exportation of hydro-electric power to the midwest United States. In view of the assurances which the minister and the Minister of Justice gave me that officials of the government would be examining this problem in the next days, can he indicate to me whether that examination has taken place and whether an charges against Manitoba Hydro are being contemplated at this time?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give the hon. member a legal opinion. I know this matter is under consideration. I can tell him, however, that the hearing before the National Energy Board will take place on Monday, to the best of my knowledge.


MANPOWER
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it involves two government programs, Opportunities for Youth and the Company of Young Canadians. In view of reports that the government is seriously considering dispensing with either or both of these programs and in light of the fact that the unemployment rate among young people is running at double the national average-some 317,000 young people

December 11, 1975
Oral Questions
are unemployed this month-can the Prime Minister indicate whether in fact the government is considering cutting back its programs to assist the young people in terms of employment or what measures it may be considering to alleviate this serious situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is pointing out the importance in our fight against inflation not to forget the other evil in the economy, namely, high unemployment. I can only say that the government is very conscious of these two dangers and will try to do its best to meet the desires of everyone in this country, of the government and of certain members on the other side to cut expenditures. But in doing so we will do our best to make sure not to cut them in such a way as to affect the unemployment situation adversely.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Can the Prime Minister indicate whether, in view of the consideration that was given some time ago to the establishment of an interdepartmental committee on youth employment and participation, and in view of the continuing increase in the youth participation rate, which amounts to 52.6 per cent now, almost equal to the national average, steps are being taken to develop special programs which might increase further activity with respect to the serious and continuing social situation of the extremely high rate of youth unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat that this is a problem of serious concern to the government. I am not clear-and I say so in a serious way-if the hon. member is suggesting that we find new ways of dealing with this problem and set aside OFY or if he is suggesting that we keep OFY and the other program he mentioned, the Company of Young Canadians, and add other programs. I can assure him that the problem is being seriously considered. The difficulty in all these decisions is that we do not want to increase government expenditures at a rate which all members of the House would find undesirable.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-EFFECT OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF ALLOCATION OF FUNDS ON PROJECTS NEXT YEAR
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St.-George's-St.-Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the restraints and in view of the announcement on job creation that $135 million would be made available to LIP next year besides the $150 million this year, would the minister indicate if that amount is included in the estimates and what will be the result of this announcement on LIP projects for next year?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The estimates will be available for perusal without much further delay, and I believe all the answers regarding our decisions will be given then.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH AND COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PROGRAMS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and

Immigration whether he can advise the House, after having consulted with his front bench colleagues, whether in fact the Company of Young Canadians and the Opportunities for Youth Program have been efficient and viable in his view?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the Company of Young Canadians does not come under the responsibilities of my portfolio but rather under that of the Secretary of State. I think that OFY has been an extremely good program and we will weigh its validity and contribution in relation to other programs of this nature when we make any decisions.


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the widespread feeling that the large increase in the money supply has contributed greatly to the domestic inflationary process of the past few years, why does the Bank of Canada continue to keep the rate at the present high level of approximately 15 per cent when the federal reserves are down to 5 per cent or a little more for the coming year?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: would remind the hon. gentleman of the statements made by the governor in which he indicated that 15 per cent was at the upper end of the range and would not be acceptable to him. The hon. gentleman might like to read the governor's testimony in the standing committee.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Since we have an alert Auditor General noted for his vigilance with regard to government accounts, is the minister's department keeping a record of the number of recipients of unemployment insurance and the amounts of their cheques being sent to those Canadians today reported to be seeking employment on the beaches of Hawaii in the luxury of tropical salubrity?


Robert Knight Andras: Not specifically, Mr. Speaker, but I would be glad to volunteer to go to check the situation personally, on the beaches.
December 11, 1975


TRANSPORT
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. During preliminary discussions in respect of the Maritime Code a commitment was given by the former minister of transport to consult with the Maritime premiers in this regard. Has the minister consulted with the Maritime Council of Premiers in respect of the act itself and the regulations associated with it?


Otto Emil Lang: Since the draft act almost exactly in its present form was on the order paper for a long time, I presume this was indeed done at meetings between the Minister of Transport and the Maritime ministers of transport, but I will check into it. Certainly, there has been ample opportunity for them to comment and I know of no specific objections on their part.


Fred Alward McCain: There was a commitment to agree to the regulations in advance of the act, as I understood the news report of which, I am sure, the minister has a copy. Have consultations taken place between the minister himself and the provincial premiers to determine whether or not they are in fact satisfactory as the act exists today?


Otto Emil Lang: There have been no such discussions with me. Perhaps there were some earlier. In addition, I would like to check whatever promises might have been made.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister received a copy of the letter that went to the Prime Minister from the president of the Union of Nova Scotia Indians? If so, is he willing to accede to the request of Mr. Denny that the government cease implementation of any new policy guidelines until such time as the aboriginal rights claims of the Nova Scotia Micmacs have been negotiated?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the copy of the letter to which the hon. member makes reference. Basically, our stance on the guidelines is that they were accepted and have been implemented over the past year. We are prepared to change or modify that stance as required but there is no relationship to any aboriginal claim.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question; in view of the Micmac position is it the intention of the minister and the government to continue to implement the 1969 white paper
Oral Questions
on Indians without full consultation and acceptance by the people it affects?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, indication has been given on several occasions to the Indian people that we will not be implementing the 1969 policy statement.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Considering that newsletters from his department and other departments of the federal government announcing that some departmental decisions would be the responsibility of another minister have reached us, can the minister tell the House why the newsletters from his ministry concerning the allottment of certain subsidies are initiated now by the Minister of Environment, now by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and now by his own authority? Is it a matter of administrative process or an advertising policy aimed at reaching a larger audience?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that this is a long established policy according to which members of the Cabinet participate in the decisions being made which, in many instances, affect several provinces in the country. That is why this policy has been established for many years and I do not see any reason why it should be changed.


POSSIBILITY OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBVENTIONS TO QUEBEC AND INCOME TAX COLLECTED FROM THAT PROVINCE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Quite objectively, I would like the minister to understand the appropriateness of my question, because Canadian taxpayers sometimes ask us-


An hon. Member:: Question!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Who is the Speaker? You or them?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Sometimes people get all mixed up and we try to help them out. Mr. Speaker, I seriously wish to ask my question to the minister, for whom I have much respect, incidentally. When a minister announces a decision made by another department, I would like to know if this is really good and effective administration by which Canadians from the province of Quebec know that those subventions are given back to Quebec for the taxes paid by the people from Quebec to the federal government.

December 11, 1975
Oral Questions


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that the hon. member seeks to know whether I did understand his question, namely if the money returned to the provinces through the grants made by the different departments comes from the taxes levied in these provinces. There is no direct specific relation. Naturally, the money returned to the provinces through all the federal programs is indeed a kind of proportional return of the money levied across Canada. I do not see any reason why the hon. member is opposed to this. In my view, this has always been very clear to and so perceived by all the people of all the provinces of Canada.

\ English]


AIRPORTS
Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that according to the terms of reference of the airport expansion citizen's committee in Hamilton, it was to report directly to him with minority and majority reports but a press release yesterday implied that it would report to a federal-provincial committee? Can the minister assure the House that the committee will be entitled to its right to report directly to him?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to give that assurance. Of course, certain studies we receive may be fitted into broader ranging studies over the whole of Ontario, but it was made clear during our discussions with the Ontario minister that we would have to be free to act on specific recommendations to avoid a buildup of problems, even while other studies were being conducted.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Could the hon. gentleman indicate if he received any recommendations from the government of Nova Scotia with respect to the potential loss of jobs in that province arising out of the Lockheed Orion project? Could he also indicate, if he has received representations, whether he would be prepared to indicate the nature of his response, particularly in light of the serious impact of the transfer of some 400 jobs from Nova Scotia to Montreal on the very high unemployment rate in the Atlantic region?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no recollection of having seen such representations. I shall certainly check in my office to see if some such representations have arrived. I will also see if other

departments or other ministers have received some communication.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Referring to the final offer that forced the longest postal strike in our history, on November 19 the Prime Minister said: "We have interpreted the guidelines in a way which has permitted the Postmaster General to make an offer to the unions." Could the Postmaster General advise this House whether at any time prior to or during the strike the Anti-Inflation Board was formally consulted on the government's final monetary offer and if so, was the position as stated by the Prime Minister taken after such consultation with the board?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I frankly have no intention of satisfying the hon. gentleman's curiosity. My statement is in Hansard for him to read and interpret.
sjt *	*


AGRICULTURE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister tell us whether, following his investigation yesterday, the two million pounds of buckwheat imported into Manitoba in October from the United States is destined for a port elsewhere in Canada?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we are conducting an investigation. As I said yesterday, if any buckwheat was imported into Manitoba illegally by any elevator company, they know that it is illegal to put it in a government licensed elevator. We are checking with our legal advisers to see what action will be taken if they find there was a contravention of our laws. The investigation is not complete.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question. Since it is my information that Canadian customs informed the Department of Agriculture in Manitoba that such importation did take place, can the minister make sure that all the penalties under Canadian law are brought to bear in this situation?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with importing buckwheat if the proper procedure is followed, that is if it is not put in a licensed elevator and the importers do not try to use the Crowsnest Pass shipping rates to ship it to an authorized port. That is what we are checking.
December 11, 1975



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, with great pleasure I draw to the attention of the House the presence in your gallery of Dr. Enrique Penalosa, Secretary General of Habitat, the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before we deal with routine business, may I ask the government House leader to indicate what the business is to be for today, tomorrow, and for as much of next week as the government can foresee?


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for all hon. members when I express the hope that we can adjourn by the end of next week. This is still our objective and I know I shall have the co-operation of all hon. members to that end. The government is prepared to postpone consideration of some measures until we resume our sitting in the new year. On the other hand, some measures are urgent and must be disposed of before the end of the current year. They include, particularly, Bill C-69, the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. In order to clear the way for this and other major urgent measures, I propose to call as government business for today and tomorrow the final disposition of certain bills which have been discussed for some time and been through committee, namely, Bills C-41, C-28, C-75 and C-78, which is a minor housekeeping bill.
These will be followed by second reading of Bill C-20. That bill has been debated at the second reading stage for some days. May I add that after Bill C-20 is referred to the standing committee, it will not be called again, even if the committee reports, either at the report stage or for third reading until the resumption of the session in the new year. On Monday, as the first order of business we shall take Bill C-69.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the question the hon. member for Edmonton West asked about Bill C-79 during the question period, the possibility of a government overrun with respect to borrowing and the necessity for legislation, will the government House leader tell us if it has been decided to bring in a bill before Christmas or early in the new session if a new session is to proceed soon?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Finance intends to bring in' a bill for first reading as soon as one can be prepared, but I do not think he is yet in a position to
Public Service
know if it must be dealt with before Christmas; that depends on what happens to be in the treasury.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, for six or seven Thursdays in a row the government House leader has told us that the government is considering a bill to implement the report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs concerning Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war. Can he now say if it has been decided to introduce that bill before Christmas?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I raised the question again in cabinet today but the government has not made up its mind.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed the list of legislation the minister mentioned a few moments ago but do not see any reference to Bill C-58. Is that bill now classed among items which it is essential to consider before the Christmas adjournment, or has it been reclassified? Is its status somewhat lower than essential, or not essential at all?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, that is a measure we want to bring before the House with the intention of having the House of Commons, at least, deal with it before Christmas.


Walter David Baker: And a happy Christmas to you, too, Mitch!


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, since the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) introduced a new bill, for instance the one on the Halifax Relief Commission, and that he wants several bills to be passed-eight bills within five days from tomorrow-can he tell us if the date for the House to be from vacation has been set, because it is clear that those bills will not be passed before going on vacation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when we are able to adjourn will depend to a great extent on whether we can achieve our objective by the end of next week. If we can reach that objective and adjourn by the end of next week, we hope to return either on January 19 or 26. A final decision has not yet been made.


PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS ACT
J. Michael Forrestall: for leave to introduce Bill C-420, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, this measure would provide an opportunity for the orderly identification of the sentiments and wishes of union members after the bringing down of a Conciliation Board report, so that the government and people of Canada will know the wishes of the membership of the union involved.
9928

December 11, 1975
Order Paper Questions


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordred to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As was indicated earlier, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) intends to proceed today with the motion appearing in his name on the order paper, the motion having been stood on several previous occasions. Obviously, after the motion is moved there will be discussion and the hon. member will enter into debate. As there is, really, but one more item under Motions on the order paper, I wonder if it might not be tidier, with the consent of hon. members, of course, to complete routine proceedings, deal with questions on the order paper and other related matters, and then revert to motions in order to permit the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to make his comments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,276, 3,295, 3,334, 3,465, 3,583, 3,603 and 3,652.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Caouette (Villeneuve): 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion subsidized industries established in the Constituency of Villeneuve since the establishment of the Department and, if so, what was the annual amount?
2.	For each of the grants allowed to industries in the Constituency, what is the (a) name of the subsidized industry (b) amount of the grant received (c) year the grant was paid (d) number of jobs created?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
1.	Yes. Under the authority of the Regional Development Incentives Act (RDIA), the estimated total amounts offered were: 1969, None; 1970, $717,825; 1971, $779,105; 1972, $594,249; 1973, $350,484; 1974, $3,630,649; $199,400.
Grants allowed to industries are as follows:
(a) Name of Industry	(b) Estimated Amount of Incentive Grants	(C) Year	(d) Expected Direct New JobsLaiterie Senneterre	$ 13,864	1972	9Abiex Inc.	58,650	1972	15Abiex Inc.	586,125	1970	53Alex Julien Ltee	14,900	1971	25Arlipo Planning Mill Inc.	40,050	1952	14Forex Inc.	668,000	1971	121Forex Inc.	3,448,500	1974	167J. J. Cossette Inc.	71,630	1971	18J. J. Cossette Inc.	150,345	1972	45J. J. Cossette Inc.	44,817	1974	7J. J. Cossette Inc.	97,080	1975	6Lavoie et Freres Inc.	175,340	1972	46Les Maisons Quebco Inc.	264,000	1973	98Paradis & Sons Ltd.	131,700	1970	16Price Sawmill	156,000	1972	36Scierie Bell Ltee	102,320	1975	35Placements Chatre Inc.	14,550	1973	12Imprimerie J. E. Bernard	24,575	1971	6Metal Struc Inc.	71,934	1973	15Concrete Products	22,309	1974	3Jouets Iris Ltee	49,023	1974	18Toubex Inc.	66,000	1974	14


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many announcements concerning funding were made by the Ministers of Regional Economic Expansion in Ottawa (a) alone (b) jointly with others between September 30, 1973 and September 30, 1975?
2.	For the same period, how many such announcements were made by (a) Cabinet Ministers (b) other Members of Parliament?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
1.	(a) 217. (b) 113 (i.e., in conjunction with federal cabinet ministers, provincial premiers, provincial cabinet ministers and municipal officials).
2.	(a) (33) (11) on behalf of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


Mr. Marshall: Under the two million dollar purchase programme for canned mackerel, would the minister give a list of the producers in the Atlantic Region from whom the mackerel was purchased and the total amount purchased from each producer?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: Under the "Bridging" Program designed to assist the Canadian fishing industry during 1975, the Fisheries Prices Support Board was authorized to purchase canned mackerel from the 1975 pack for use in international food aid and development programs of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the World Food Program (WFP). Due to extremely low mackerel landings in 1975 however, no canned mackerel was delivered to the Fisheries Prices Support Board.

December 11, 1975


Mr. Howie: Since June 1, 1975, has G.W.O.-B.I.D. Construction Company Ltd., Fredericton, New Brunswick, been employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: G.W.O.-B.I.D. Construction Company Ltd., Fredericton has not been employed by the department since June 1, 1975.


Mr. Forrestall: What is the Department of Transport's best estimate of the cost of icebreaking services for (a) the Gulf of St. Lawrence (b) Newfoundland (c) the Arctic for each annual period from 1969-70 to the most recent available?


Otto Emil Lang: (a)	(b) Newfound-	(c)Gulf of St. Lawrence	land	Arctic1969/70	$3,232,000	$ 671,500	$2,570,3001970/71	3,402,000	706,800	2,705,5001971/72	3,698,000	768,300	2,940,8001972/73	4,108,000	1,153,600	3,267,6001973/74	4,669,300	970,000	3,713,2001974/75	5,367,000	1,115,000	4,268,100
Dollars are represented in value for each year. There has been no attempt to escalate historical figures to reflect the inflation factors.


Mr. Forrestall: What is the Department of Transport's best estimate of the reduction, if any, in the rail rates for TEU containers from Halifax to Toronto if the present long term funded debt of the CNR were reduced by (a) 50 per cent (b) 100 per cent?


Otto Emil Lang: If the long term funded debt of the CNR was reduced, there would not be any reduction in the above rail rates. One of the bases which is used, besides competition and service requirements to establish or revise rate levels, is the long term variable cost. The long term variable cost would not be affected by a new assumed CNR debt level, as the long term variable cost only includes charges for the level of investment necessary to move a container from Halifax to Toronto in this specific instance.


Mr. Matte: 1. How many claimants received unemployment insurance benefits in 1973, 1974 and 1975?
Order Paper Questions
2.	What was the annual rate of unemployment in Canada in 1973, 1974 and 1975?
3.	How much has been spent for benefits in 1973, 1974 and 1975?


Robert Knight Andras: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1 and 3. See Statistics Canada Publication 73-001 entitled Statistical Report on the Operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
2.	See Statistics Canada Publication 71-001 entitled The
Labor Force.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 3,559?


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	What is the level of mercury contamination in the lower St. John River and how was it discovered?
2.	What is meant by the description "lower reaches of the St. John River"?
3.	Is the research report by the Department of the Environment biologist who found that several species of fish had levels of mercury exceeding the maximum considered safe by the government, a public document?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, may I answer starred question No. 3,559? The answer to the first part, what is the level of mercury contamination in the lower St. John River and how was it discovered, is as follows: 1. Environment Canada has been operating regularly a water quality sampling network in the St. John River since 1974. That year, the average level for the whole river basin, including the major tributaries, was ten times higher than the normal background level in other areas of New Brunswick. These results were based on less than 10 samples for any one site in any one year. The 1975 data analyzed to date does not show the same pattern as in 1974. The mercury levels in water in July and August were much lower this year than last year, and it appears that the 1974 data may have been excessive.
The answer to the second part is:
2.	The stretch of river between Fredericton and St. John which is estuarine is usually referred to as the lower reaches of the St. John River.
The answer to the third part to do with the matter of a public document is:
3.	The research report by Dr. Michael Dadswell was given at a meeting in Fredericton in early November, 1975. A copy of this report can be obtained in writing Dr. Dadswell, Department of the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service, Biological Station, St. Andrew, N.B.
21130-7>/2

December 11, 1975
Veterans Affairs


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to question No. 69, which is the first question on the order paper. It has been outstanding since a year ago last September 30. When a question becomes so outstanding that it appears all by itself as the only question remaining from 1974, its loneliness on the order paper ought to be settled by a government answer. The question is very simple. It asks, basically, how many trips the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has made outside Ottawa at public expense for the purpose of holidaying, attending Liberal party functions and that sort of thing. Why does the government not see fit, after a year and three months, to bring in an answer which should be simple?
I would also refer to question No. 1,521, the second question remaining on the order paper, which concerns one specific trip made by the Prime Minister to the city of Montreal. The trip was made last January. I would have thought that by now they would have been able to figure out the answer. I realize the Prime Minister makes hundreds of trips at public expense, but surely with the hundred flunkies in his office, and the high salaries they are receiving, it is about time they were put to work and told to figure out these answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Stanley Howard Knowles: that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, presented to the House on Thursday, June 12, 1975, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as Your Honour is aware, the seconder of this motion is my friend, the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles). I might add that if our rules permitted more than one member to be listed as a seconder, there would be a fairly lengthy list. I mention in particular the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) who would like to have been listed as seconder. I deliberately did not ask any of my friends on the Liberal side of the House because I did not want to embarrass them. However, I am satisfied that there are a number over there who would like to be associated with this motion.
The motion, as the House is aware, calls for concurrence in the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs which was presented to the House by the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) on Thursday, June 12 of this year.
May I say at the outset that during my years in this place I have had the privilege of serving on a good many committees. Frankly, I know of no committee that I have enjoyed serving on more than the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. It is true there are times when we have our differences. There have been times when we have had to decide issues by recorded votes. In the main, however, it

is a committee all the members of which are concerned for the welfare of our veterans, and most of the decisions reached in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs are unanimous decisions. I am sure that I speak for all who are on that committee in this session, and for all who have served on the committee, when I say it is a privilege to participate in the work of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
The result of this pleasure that we have in being members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is that we are reluctant to bring its reports to the kind of debate that could lead to a vote on the floor of the House of Commons. We prefer that the validity of the reports that we make persuade the government to meet the requests and the proposals of the committee. However, in this case it will be six months tomorrow since this committee's report was tabled, and as yet no action has been taken on it.
As hon. members are aware, I have asked the government House leader literally every Thursday this fall when we might expect legislation to implement this report. We continue to get the answer that the matter is under consideration but that no decision has been taken. I am sure that members in all parts of this House, particularly those who are members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, are deeply disappointed by the delay in dealing with the matter which is set out in the seventh report of our committee.
In general terms, it deals with the question of doing some thing special for Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war. On one hand, it deals with those who were prisoners of war of the Japanese, mostly at Hong Kong, and calls for an improvement in the pension arrangements for those veterans; on the other hand, it calls for something new, namely, the instituting of a limited pension for those who were prisoners of war in Europe. In addition to the proposals that the report makes about prisoners of war, it makes a very important and long-awaited proposal regarding widows of veterans who were on disability pensions. I shall get into the details of that in a moment. In fact, I think I should read the report into the record so that it will be part of today's proceedings.
I wish to make it clear that we are not discussing the whole range of veterans affairs. Rather, we are discussing something very specific, namely, pensions for Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war under two headings, Hong Kong and Europe. We are also discussing the question of what is being done for widows of veterans where the veterans were on disability pension.
I want to emphasize the fact that the report that we tabled on June 12 of this year was a completely unanimous report on the part of the committee. Those present when the report was adopted included some very important personages on the other side of the House. On this side of the House, of course, we are all important. However, we had extremely important persons, namely, the chief government whip, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), and the present Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) who was then a private member. He actually made the motion for the adoption of this report. We also had with us the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner) who has since been promoted and is now Assistant Deputy Speaker
December 11, 1975

of this House. All of them joined in making this a unanimous report.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) is not a member of the committee but he was present and took part in the discussion. I think I am being fair to him when I say he was happy with the outcome of our discussions. We did not recommend everything the organizations which appeared before us requested. We did some scaling down, some compromising, but we produced a unanimous report which had the support of the 20 members of the committee and which certainly appeared to have the support that day of the Minister of Veterans Affairs himself. I should like to pay a tribute, in passing, to the hon. member for Mercier who does an excellent job chairing that committee. Although his capacity for being impartial is such that he did not take part in the debate, there is no doubt that he, too, was pleased with the outcome of those proceedings. Indeed, I remember that on June 12, when he presented the report in the House, he did so with a great deal of pleasure and pride.
So we have before us proposals which received widespread, indeed unanimous, support. But we also have to consider the issue of the importance of parliament. What is the point of talking about the work of members of parliament, backbenchers, and so on? What is the point of talking about the committee system and matters being referred to a committee for detailed study if, after all this is done and a thoroughly researched report is tabled, the government takes no action?
I would point out that the report we tabled on June 12, 1975, was not the first time in this very session that we had made a recommendation with respect to one of the aspects of this matter. On October 22, 1974, early in the course of this session, as will be found by reference to page 77 of Votes and Proceedings for that day, we tabled a report having to do with Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war in Hong Kong; we had not yet dealt with those who were prisoners of war in Europe because the J. D. Hermann commission was studying the matter. However, as a result of representations made to us by the Hong Kong Veterans Association we made a report which reads as follows:
Your committee recommends that the government consider the advisability of introducing legislation to provide for full pensions to all Hong Kong veterans forced out of the labour market.
If I recall correctly, the hon. member for St. Boniface moved that recommendation in committee, even as it was the present Minister of National Revenue who moved the report which was presented on June 12. I am making the point, Mr. Speaker, that twice in six months the veterans affairs committee has reported on the question of prisoners of war.
While I am referring to the number of times our committee had dealt with these matters, may I jump ahead to that part of our June 12 report which deals with the position of widows, especially those whose husbands had been receiving pensions of less than 48 per cent. The recommendation concerning them is in the report of June 12, concurrence in which we are now seeking. May I say that the recommendation that something be done to improve the position of
Veterans Affairs
widows of veterans who were receiving less than 48 per cent was contained in the Woods report, one of the finest documents ever produced in relation to veterans' legislation.
At least twice-it might have been three times, but certainly it was at least twice-during our consideration of the Woods report, the government's white paper based on that report and the legislation brought forward subsequently, there were majority votes in the standing committee calling for the acceptance of the Woods committee recommendation that there be a pro rata pension for such widows. I submit, therefore, that what we are talking about today is not something which has been produced from the top of our heads, but something which has been considered and studied for a long time, and that the various elements of this report are elements which have received the endorsation of members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs over a long period of time.
I am not only pleading, as I know others will, the cause of veterans; I am pleading for parliament to be listened to by the government. When you get all these committees making recommendations and presenting them thoughtfully to the government, and when you find the government saying no, not just to us on the opposition side but to an entire committee such as the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, the majority of whose members are supporters of the government, I suggest it is very hard for us to feel there is any great merit in the committee system and that it is pretty hard to believe we have a parliamentary system which is operating as it should. I seems to us, rather, that we have a government which runs the entire show in its own way.
It is time now to put on the record what we recommended in our report of June 12, tabled by the hon. member for Mercier. It can be found in Votes and Proceedings of that day at pages 627 and 628. After reciting the kind of work we had done, making use of the Hermann report, and so on, we set out our recommendations as follows:
Your committee recommends: That the House give consideration to the following:
1)	That a new act of parliament be enacted to provide compensation to all former prisoners of war.
The effect of this would be to retain the principle in the Pension Act that payment of wartime disability pension be restricted to those instances where the injury or disease or aggravation thereof was attributable to or incurred during military service, and that special compensation for the maltreatment, indignities and residual disabilities resulting from prisoner of war incarceration which cannot be recognized or identified would be payable under a separate act.
2)	That the formula for compensation payable to former prisoners of war of the Japanese be changed to provide that each such former prisoner of war will receive compensation equivalent to 50 per cent pension to which will be added the amount of pension payable under the Pension Act on account of his assessed disability to a maximum total of 100 per cent.
The effect of this would be to ensure that those who are the most seriously disabled will receive the greatest benefit. At the present time the least seriously disabled of the former prisoners of war of the Japanese derive the greatest benefit from the special provisions made for these former prisoners of war.
3)	That prisoners of war of other powers of World War II or who were captured by hostile forces subsequent to World War II be

December 11, 1975
Veterans Affairs
awarded compensation in accordance with the following schedule: Incarcerated 0-11A years-10 per cent Incarcerated l'A-2'/i years-15 percent Incarcerated 2Vi years or over-20 per cent To this compensation would be added the amount of pension payable under the Pension Act on account of an assessed pensionable disability to a maximum total of 100 per cent. Escapees and evaders should also be considered under this paragraph.
Your committee also recommends to the House that consideration be given to amending the Pension Act to provide that a widow's pension be awarded on a sliding scale as follows:
When at the time of death of the prisoner he was, or would have been in receipt of a pension assessed at 47 per cent or less, that pension be paid to the widow in double proportion to the assessed degree of the prisoner's disability as it relates to the basic pension granted to widows.
At the present time a full widow's pension is paid when the pensioner's death was attributable to or was incurred during wartime military service, or in the case of peacetime forces if it arose out of or was directly connected with service; or when the pensioner's disability was assessed at 48 per cent or more at the time of death. The effect of this would be that because 100 per cent widow's pension is payable when the disability pensioner was paid pension at the 50 per cent rate, a double proportion would be payable if his disability was assessed at a lesser rate, so that, for example, the widow of a 40 per cent pensioner would be awarded 80 per cent of the normal widow's pension.
That is the end of the text of the report that we presented on June 12, and I suggest it is a very good report. I believe its resolution of what we should do about the Hong Kong prisoners is a very wise and acceptable one.
But the time is long overdue for this parliament to do something about those who were prisoners of war in Europe. If hon. members were listening to my reading of the text of the report, they would have noticed that we are concerned not only for those who were prisoners of war and were actually incarcerated but also for those who were shot down over Europe and wandered about from place to place, like one of the distinguished members of this House. They were known as evaders or escapees.
I believe the committee has come up with an excellent proposal in both cases. It comes about because of the Hermann report which was commissioned by the government following a request by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in June of 1972, 3 Vi years ago. In addition to the Hermann report, which took a long time coming but which was of great benefit to us, we had a number of organizations appear before us. As I have said, we did a great deal of what I think was responsible thinking about this problem and we came up with this very excellent report regarding prisoners of war.
I also think that what the report proposes in regard to widows is responsible and long overdue. As I have indicated, the Woods report dealt with this issue. We were in favour of carrying out the Woods report recommendations when the committee met on the Woods report a few years ago, but the government turned us down. I still think it is most unfair that although in a case where a veteran is on a 50 per cent pension or more his widow will get the full widow's pension, in the case of a veteran drawing a pension of, say, 45 per cent, his widow will get nothing at all. Surely the least we should do is to prorate that pension.

That is what the Woods report recommended and it is what is now recommended in our report to the House.
I would be happy, as I am sure my colleagues on the veterans affairs committee would, to talk about the whole broad range of veterans affairs and the other improvements that still need to be made respecting the War Veterans Allowance Act, and so on. But procedurally we must stay with what is before us, and what is before us is the June 12 report of the committee and I urge very strongly that it be implemented without further delay.
As is always the case, I am reluctant to talk about what delay does to certain people, but it has to be said, Mr. Speaker, that every month that goes by means that more and more Hong Kong veterans die off and that still more are not able to stay in the labour market. Statistics are not quite this severe in regard to the prisoners of war in Europe. We have one of them sitting not far from me, a distinguished member of this House, who seems to be doing very well, but there are many others who find it difficult to keep up with the rat race of modern industrial activity. The traumatic experience that they went through of being incarcerated is something that stays with them all their lives.
It is not proposed that we put them on some magnanimous pension. All we are proposing is that the pensions in the schedule that I read out a moment ago be adopted, namely, 10 per cent for incarceration up to a year and a half, 15 per cent for incarceration for 1VS to 2 Vi years, and 20 per cent for incarceration for over 2'/2 years. Sometimes when we talk about pensions and percentages a press man will stop us outside and ask, "Ten percent or 20 per cent of what?" Most of us who are involved in this question know what we are talking about, but perhaps it should be made clear that there is what is known as a 100 per cent disability pension for a war disability when a veteran is 100 per cent unable to earn a living. The amount of that pension is roughly equivalent to the average income of persons in the public service in the five or six lower categories, though it has not been kept at that level as we had hoped. So when a person gets a 10 per cent pension because of a 10 per cent disability, he gets 10 per cent of the total figure.
We are not asking for the moon for these veterans who spent time in prisoner of war camps in Europe during World War II. However, I think all members of the committee felt that the case made by those who came before us was a very strong one. In particular, we had representations from the Dieppe Prisoners of War Association and various organizations representing whose who were prisoners of war. Time is going by. We are not talking about something that happened yesterday, but away back in the forties. Many who should have had the benefit of this legislation have now passed on, but there are many others with us who deserve what the report asks for and I urge very strongly that the government accept this proposal.
In the final analysis, that is what has to happen. In our system we do not make these decisions regarding things costing money; the government has to. All we can do, as a committee and as a parliament, is plead. But surely there comes a time when pleading which is consistent, unanimous and responsible ought to have some effect on the cabinet. I have no doubt that this battle has been fought vigorously inside cabinet and I am sure the Minister of

December 11, 1975
Veterans Affairs is putting up a tremendous case. I suspect he is also strongly supported by the Minister of National Revenue who, after all, moved this very motion when he was in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I hope there are other ministers in the cabinet who are supporting the Minister of Veterans Affairs as well.


An hon. Member:: He asked for this in the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is obvious that there must be a majority on the wrong side, or we would have had it by now. When we got the report last June, I pressed on the minister the possibility of bringing in a bill before we rose for the summer. He was sympathetic but did not think we could get one before we adjourned in July. Then when we came back in the fall-well, the record is there. Every Thursday I have asked for this, and my hon. friend for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand have been up on Standing Order 43 motions and with questions. I suspect that though the Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs have not been on their feet in the House asking for this, they have been putting all kinds of pressure on the government to take action on this matter. To go on week after week and simply be told, as the government House leader said today, that no decision had been taken just is not good enough for the veterans and it is not good enough for the parliamentary system.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs has also answered my questions on this matter on two or three occasions and it has been dealt with in a couple of late shows. I am grateful that he stayed for those late shows to give us a sympathetic answer. For example, on October 27, 1975, as reported at page 8599 of Hansard, when the minister responded to one of my questions he told the story of how the Hermann report had been commissioned, how the committee had made its recommendations, and so on. Then he said:
In the meantime I have held consultations on this very important subject with my colleagues. At the present time this, along with other government proposals, must be examined carefully in the light of the recently announced guidelines. I would hope, as would other members of the House, that the request for compensation for ex-prisoners of war will not become a victim of our financial restrictions.
If there were any way I could underline those words, I would do so thousands of times over. This is exactly the way we feel about it. The minister went on to conclude that short statement by saying:
I hope to have something more definite to announce before too long.
That was on October 27, and here it is, December 11, and we are still not able to get an announcement. I suppose the problem that faces us was contained in that sentence I read in which the minister said that this proposal, along with others, has to be examined carefully in light of the recently announced guidelines. I was glad to hear him say, expressing his view, that he hoped the situation of these former prisoners of war would not become a victim of our financial restrictions, and I want to underline that as strongly as I can. Whatever we may think about Bill C-73, about the
Veterans Affairs
anti-inflation white paper and the government's anti-inflation program, surely there is no case for a doctrinaire position that says: "No, no, no. This is a new program; therefore, we have to say no".
There are references in the white paper to the rights of those who have been treated unfairly to have a catch-up provision, and so on. Even in times of restraint, and even when you may have to cut moneys from some people, surely you have to look at everything in terms of fairness. I submit it is not fair to our veterans who were prisoners of war to say to them, "The committee may have recommended this last June, it may have recommended it in October a year ago, and it may have been recommending it for weeks and months, but in the meantime the Prime Minister made his Thanksgiving day speech so they have to be cut off". I plead that this not happen. Even if there are cuts taking place in other areas of expenditure, surely this is not the place for that. I repeat, with the full endorsation, I am sure, of the whole House, those words of the minister when he said:
I would hope, as would other members of the House, that the request for compensation for ex-prisoners of war will not become a victim of our financial restrictions.
Why have I presented this motion which has been on the order paper for several days, and why am I proceeding with it today? Surely the answer must be obvious. It is difficult to do this, especially when we are approaching Christmas and there is a lot of talk around of when we are going to get out, and so on, for taking a day for this cuts into any such program. But surely when the minister says, week after week, that the matter is still under consideration, and nothing is forthcoming, parliament has to express itself. I hope that is what is happening today. I hope this day's debate, during which I trust there will be participants from all corners of the House, will be a debate that says to the government, "We think this legislation is justified and we want it now". I hope this will be a day when this House says to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, "The next time you go into a meeting of the cabinet you have the wholehearted endorsation of all the members of the House of Commons".
That is our purpose today, and that is one of the reasons I have emphasized the fact that we operate, in the veterans affairs committee, on a basis of such good will and unanimity. It is one of the reasons I hope there will be no potshots or cracks back and forth, or anything of a partisan sort taking place in the debate in this House. We are as one, all of us who are members of the veterans affairs committee, and I am sure we are supported by practically all members of the House in what we are trying to do. We are trying to get the government to see that parliament wants its will respected, that parliament wants what it has suggested should be done for the veterans, and we are not satisfied to listen to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) say week after week that the legislation is not yet ready.
In presenting the motion today, let me add that there is a special request I should like to put to Your Honour. We are operating under a rule and a ruling by Mr. Speaker Lamou-reux that permits this debate to take place because a member has put down the motion, as I have done. It is understood that if tonight a vote has not been taken and

December 11, 1975
Veterans Affairs
the debate is still going, the motion then is transferred to government orders and is not called again unless the government wants to call it. This does not worry me greatly, Mr. Speaker. I think if we can have a full day's debate so members can express themselves on this, it will strengthen our case for these veterans and it will strengthen the hand of the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Let me say quite frankly that there is one thing the government can do, but which I hope with all my heart it will not do.


An hon. Member:: Don't say it, or they will.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government could put someone up to move the adjournment of the debate and, of course, with its majority it would carry that motion and thus cut off the discussion. I hope the government will not do that. I am sure the discussion on Bill C-41, which was slated as the first item of government business today and which has been around for several years, can wait for another day.


Mitchell William Sharp: We will make a deal right now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government House leader is offering a deal. What is it?


Mitchell William Sharp: We will put both things through tonight. We will give you the day, if you will give us Bill C-41 without debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, no.


Walter David Baker: What a shameful play on the backs of the veterans.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I realize that remarks made by a member from his seat are not supposed to be put in Hansard, but I hope those remarks are. The President of the Privy Council is prepared to hold the veterans at bay, depending on what we do with Bill C-41. Surely this motion stands on its own feet. The minister says they are prepared to give us the day, but that is not giving us the bill. I plead that the government have the decency to let parliament debate this all day. In case the government is not willing to do so, I would make this request to you, sir. I have already communicated to the Speaker, as has been indicated, that the seconder of this motion is the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand, one of the members of the Conservative party with a very good name.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope you will see that hon. member next so that his case can be made, and I would hope that you might also see the hon. member for Rimouski, so the entire opposition case can be heard before the government could be in a position to move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Boulanger:: How do you know they are going to do that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Mercier asks me how I know they are going to do that. I do not know that and I hope my friend's question implies that the government will not do that. I appeal to the government to have the decency to let this debate go all day so that members in all parts of the House can express their views. That is the purpose of this procedure. This is what parliament is all about. Parliament cannot spend money and cannot enact legislation on its own initiative. Parliament is at the will of the government. But parliament can speak, and parliament can debate, and that is what we are doing today.
I plead, sir, that the government allow this debate to go all day so the views of all members can be expressed. Once again I thank the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand for seconding the motion. I thank my friend, the hon. member for Rimouski, for his offer to support it as well, and I am grateful to those unnamed members on the other side who I know agree with us. I am sure they are just as keen as I am that this legislation be brought in. We have waited far too long. We are talking about persons who have been suffering for decades because of their experience as prisoners of war. We have a responsible proposal before us and the restraint program should not touch it at all. I call for action right away to bring on the legislation to provide pensions for these former prisoners of war that are proposed in our report, and also to enact the improvements in widows' pensions set out in our report of June 12. It is an excellent report. It has the unanimous support of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and it deserves the unanimous support of this House and immediate action by the government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before I call upon another hon. member, I want the House to know that I do not wish to leave the impression, by recognizing that hon. member, that the Chair is taking any direction from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I wish to advise hon. members that the matter was considered by the Chair this morning. The possibility of the minister rising at this time has been considered.
I have looked at the Standing Orders and also the written precedents concerning the recognition of alternate speakers on one side or the other. On February 17, 1975, there was a motion by the hon. member for St. John s East (Mr. McGrath). There was another motion on April 11, 1973, by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), and on September 17, 1973, again a motion by the hon. member for St. John's East. In such cases it has been the decision of the Chair to give an opportunity first to the seconder of the motion to participate in the debate, and then if anyone from the other parties seeks the floor, to recognize that member.
Of course, this might bring some disappointment to the minister who might wish to express his view early in the debate. I know this report of the committee is a unanimous report and the minister might be anxious perhaps to support the report, I do not know, before any other member rises in criticism of him or the government. I understand
December 11, 1975

his point of view, but in fairness I think I have to recognize, first, the seconder of the motion. If I do so, I do not think I can forget the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) if he should seek the floor.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to commend Your Honour for your fairness in the ruling just made. I feel honoured to be able to second this motion, not because I support the principles of the New Democratic Party necessarily but because on this particular occasion I support the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). As he has already stated, all members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs treat matters such as this in a completely non-partisan way, so it is not strange that I should be seconding this motion. I also seconded the motion because ever since June 12, members from all opposition parties have pursued the same objective, namely, to have these recommendations of the standing committee placed in legislative form and put before this House at least for first reading and printing of the bill so that we can see what action the government intends to take.
I am pleased to participate, also, because I follow in the footsteps of another member of our party, my colleague the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), who has made a contribution to veterans affairs second to none in this House. In addition, on many occasions he has lent a hand in assisting, in a very personal way, veterans from all across the country. Also, he has spoken many times on veterans affairs matters in this House.
Our main purpose today is to get the cabinet to reach some decision. We want the government to accept the recommendations and present a bill to the House. We feel new legislation is required. We do not believe it is good enough simply to incorporate a recommendation in the Pension Act, because in that way these people would not receive the benefit of the recommendations of the committee; the benefit would be lumped in with the disability pension which they now receive and they would not benefit in the way members of the committee intended. The intent of the report is that ex-prisoners of war receive a benefit in addition to whatever disability payment they may now receive.
I wish to make it quite clear, also, that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), who was here for the opening of the debate and has momentarily left the House, is not personally the object of our criticism; he is not in any way under attack. The only possible way we could fault him is for inability to convince his cabinet colleagues to do what the committee asks. We know where the minister stands. He is a veteran who carries the permanent scars of war, a reminder of the hellishness of war, if you like, and the stresses experienced by men who participated in war either in action or as prisoner of war camps.
I think he is symbolic of veterans across this land and of the crying need for the government and every Canadian to do a little bit to make the lot of the veteran more worth while so that he might be given some relief in his time of suffering. We believe the minister not only because of what I have said but also because of his forthright remarks in respect of these recommendations. I shall deal with that matter further in my remarks. What we are concerned
Veterans Affairs
about is lack of positive action by the cabinet. There is a long list of evasive and non-answers by the government House leader and, on occasion, by the minister.
I am sure that in cabinet the minister has the support of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen). Surely he supports the minister, because he was a very valued member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. It was he who was able to bring about consensus in the committee. Members of the opposition perhaps wanted a little more than was granted, but they accepted what he proposed. The chairman of the standing committee, the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger), has performed yeoman service in the committee. I know that if he had the opportunity to express his opinion he would support this recommendation. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. Rail-ton) has always been a staunch supporter of the causes of veterans, as well as the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), the government whip. The hon. member for St. Boniface should use his whip on the backs of some of the recalcitrant cabinet ministers so that we might have some action.
This is more than merely an effort to persuade cabinet. I think what we are saying is that the will of parliament should prevail, and not necessarily the will or the power of government. The will of parliament in a democratic way, as represented by all members from all sides of the House, should prevail. If the democratic process is to mean anything at all, the government must listen when members speak with one voice.
I wish to review very briefly some of the background in respect of veterans over the years. On Remembrance Day we repeat over and over again the words "we will remember". I ask whether this pledge has been kept. I ask, also, whether the words "veneration" or "valour" figure very largely in today's vocabulary. When we remember that a quarter of a century has elapsed between today and the last great war, and that more than half a century has elapsed between today and the first great war, one can realize that some people are a little prone to forget what we are talking about when we say "we remember". Some members on the government side also seem to have forgotten this.
How have we dealt with the human cost of war? In the case of men who died, have we given adequate pensions to their widows and children? One of the recommendations we are asking the government to implement indicates that we are not satisfied with the treatment accorded to widows. Have we been fair to the thousands who served and came back alive, to the prisoners of war? Many returned with wounds and disabilities which constitute lifelong handicaps; others accepted risks and bore their share of hardship and deprivation which is inseparable from war. As citizens of the Canadian nation, they gave much. How have they been paid? How did they expect to be paid? Here we have an opportunity to make up for some of the sins of omission of which perhaps we have been guilty. I do not say that the government is totally to blame for that; I think that citizens in all parts of the country are prone to forget the great debt we owe to our veterans.
9936

December 11, 1975
Veterans Affairs
What does that demand? It demands, first, and without any thought of any limits, generous care of the disabled. This has always been given; our hospitals show that. It was recognized following the first great war and a measure of help was given to all the returning men. By the end of the second world war a changing nation and a changing world had assumed new dimensions. Rehabilitation, as the national obligation, and a sound national policy have come to mean helping veterans to establish themselves in civil life in a situation at least as good as they would have had if they had not gone to war. Many of these things have come to pass. Over the years there has grown up a series of principles or guidelines, axioms or truisms-whatever you would like to call them-which have been put together and are known as the veterans' charter. I do not have to read them; we are familiar with them and many of them have been implemented. Credit is due to successive governments which have been in a position to implement legislation for the assistance of veterans. The Minister of Veterans Affairs has performed his part in doing these things.
The present recommendations are another step toward improvement in what is known as the veterans' charter. The report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs was tabled on November 18, 1974-here I am referring to the Hermann report, not to the final report-on the occasion of which the Minister of Veterans Affairs said the following:
On the whole, the government considers that these recommendations should not be accepted, but is withholding its final decision until it receives the report of the standing committee.
One might ask, in all fairness, is the governement's present reluctance to introduce legislation due to a decision taken a long time ago that the recommendations in the report were unacceptable? Was sending the report to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs only a form of window-dressing? Surely not. I would not accuse the Minister of Veterans Affairs of being such a hypocrite, but one has the right to raise such a question. The Hermann report was referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on March 26, 1975, and between April 8 and June 10 six meetings were held to consider the report. Testimony was heard from various veterans and POW associations. The minister attended almost all these meetings and made it clear where his sympathies lay. He told witnesses from the National Prisoners of War Association that he expected one day a recommendation would come to him from the committee which it would be his duty to bring to the government, and I am sure he is doing just that. At that time he said:
And you need not leave here with any fear that I will not bring the recommendation to government, because I am interested in prisoners of war and I am interested in veterans. That is my job, and do not feel one damn bit worried about me supporting you.
We know where the minister stands. It is certainly not the minister we are criticizing but, rather, his cabinet colleagues who will not listen to sweet reason. At the meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on June 10, the committee unanimously adopted a report on the subject of compensation for ex-prisoners of war which the chairman was instructed to present to the House as the committee's seventh report. It was tabled in the House on June 12. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has

put it on the record so it is unnecessary for me to do that.
I want the record to show exactly what it is we are asking, which is certainly not too much. What has happened since then? The subject has been raised many times and each time the reply has been that the matter is under consideration. More recently there have been indications that the government's program of economic restraints is responsible for the lack of legislation on the subject. Surely that is the height of hypocrisy, when we look at some of the frivolous and extravagant spending of this government. It has been brought into sharp focus in the last day or two in the Auditor General's report. Let me quote one or two examples of the type of spending of money which, had it been saved, would have paid for what we are asking.
Statistics Canada paid $210,000 to a language training school for courses given to selected personnel. Of this amount, $36,000 was paid under contract guarantee for which no services were received as personnel attendance was below the guaranteed minimum. It was wasted money. The Auditor General goes on to say that in November, 1973, Customs and Excise decided to discontinue supplying excise duty stamps to tobacco manufacturers, with a target date of September 30, 1974. In February, 1974, DSS entered into a contract, on behalf of Customs and Excise, to supply tobacco stamps for six months, with flexibility provided. Customs and Excise purchased $112,000 worth of stamps over and above the contract amount without the involvement of DSS. That is another example of waste. I could go on and on. Maclean's magazine, in its December issue, had some glaring examples of government waste.
I say that it is hypocrisy for the government to say that they have not brought forth this legislation because of the program of restraint. As I have said, I could mention many other examples of government waste but I will not take the time of the House to do that. I should mention the many times we received the evasive answers to which I referred from the government House leader and the Minister of Veterans Affairs, saying it would be brought forward soon, it was under consideration, and so on. All these replies have been documented and I am sure my colleagues will be speaking about that matter further if they have the opportunity to participate in this debate.
1	think the big argument here is the restraint program on which the government is embarking, and the fact that it is using that program as an excuse, or a red herring, not to implement the very reasonable provisions for which we are asking. I think I should put on the record, also, exactly what the National Prisoners of War Association had to say in their brief before the standing committee. I shall read from issue No. 16 of the Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs of Tuesday, April 15, 1975, page 16:14. It reads as follows:
The National Prisoners of War Association proposes, in order to implement recommendations 1 and 2 of Dr. Hermann's report that:
By new legislation or by amendments to the Pension Act, special compensation be paid to those members of the armed forces and the merchant marine who were prisoners of war in Europe. These awards would be based on the number of years of incarceration as follows:
2	Vz years or more-50 per cent
December 11, 1975

1 Vi years to 2years-40 per cent
X Vi years or less-20 per cent
These awards be over and above any existing pension and we agree with Hermann recommmendation No. 3 in principle and we agree with Hermann recommendation No. 4
In conclusion, we wish to thank you for the privilege of presenting our brief-
The percentages which the standing committee placed before this House were a little less than that, but I know from speaking to and corresponding with these groups that they are pleased with what has been suggested to the government for inclusion in the legislation.
Death is taking its toll, Mr. Speaker. If we delay this bill much longer, these men will not be here to enjoy the benefit of any increase in the disability pension that might be forthcoming. The Grim Reaper will come. We plead, on humanitarian grounds, for the government to be generous and do something to help these people while the breath of life is still in them.
If the debate is allowed to continue, I am sure my colleagues will bring forward other points in an attempt to persuade the government to introduce the legislation we seek. If the government should move adjournment of the debate-which I hope will not happen-it will mean they are not prepared to give our veterans what is due to them. Hon. members who are veterans and sat on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs know precisely what we are talking about and I am sure they will support us. They must do their utmost-I am sure they will-to persuade the government not to cut off discussion of this legislation.
Members on all sides should have an opportunity to express their views, so that it is not just the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and myself as seconder, placing this matter before the House for proper disposition. The disposition will be, I hope, that debate will be allowed, and not cut off peremptorily. The minister has indicated that he wishes to speak. I hope he will tell us that he has been able to convince his cabinet colleagues that a date will be set for legislation to be brought before the House. I am sure members on all sides would be happy with that.
With all the sincerity I can muster, Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to do something to help these people whom the standing committee unanimously recommended should be rewarded for their suffering as prisoners of war in World War II in the prison camps of western Europe or wherever they may have been incarcerated.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, before I enter the crux of the subject, I would like first to say that I was very happy to see your wisdom in making your ruling with respect to the consideration of this report. I would like now to point out that you said in your remarks that you did not want to leave the impression that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was imposing his dictates on the House but I think on several occasions it would be wise to accept the proposals of that hon. member who has the wisdom and the experience of many years spent in this House, and I would like to congratulate him for all the positions or at least part of the
Veterans Affairs
positions he takes in standing up for those who are in distress.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as well as the hon. member who seconded him, the hon. member who preceded me, for introducing a bill which I think deserves very special attention. In any event, I pointed out to him on behalf of my party that we welcome deeply the proposals of this bill to provide allowances for all former prisoners of war.
Furthermore, it gives me pleasure to see that the steps called for in this committee report show beyond a doubt that former prisoners of war are entitled to the gratitude and respect of the whole country. In any case, there is no doubt that in the present economic context marked by higher prices affecting all walks of society the passage of those measures is going to help them. Indeed, one cannot ignore the needs of the veteran who must face like all of us and any other citizen the rising cost of living. For that matter, we see from day to day the gradual erosion of the real value of the benefits now being paid by the federal government to veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I would like at this point in my speech to quote a few excerpts from the report by Dr. J. Douglas Hermann which I think are excellent and of very great value. If I may I will quote a few excerpts to sum up the conclusions of that report. First of all, in connection with the number of known deaths among veterans.
Based on known deaths, the death rate since repatriation among Dieppe POW is slightly higher than for the control group and substantially higher than for other POW groups.
Based on known deaths, former prisoners of war showed a significantly higher death rate at an earlier age than control veterans who had not experienced incarceration.
All this, Mr. Speaker, to show that veterans who are former POW suffered a lot more than those who fought on battlefields, because they were deprived of many things, separated from and sometimes forgotten by their own.
The Hermann report says:
On a sub-group basis this tendency was most pronounced for Air Force POW.
Based on known deaths, the Dieppe POW experienced a significantly higher mortality rate from cardiovascular disease in general and ischemic heart disease in particular than any other study group.
As regards pensions:
(a)	As a percentage of the original numbers of POW, the Dieppe group at 36 per cent has the highest percentage of any of the study groups on pension. The other groups are fairly uniform, with approximately 22 per cent on pension.
(b)	As a percentage of POW groups included in the study, the Dieppe group at 54 per cent has the highest proportion of all study groups on pension.The other groups are close to the Dieppe group with 50 per cent of their numbers on pension.
(c)	All POW groups examined show that approximately 80 per cent of their numbers who are pensioned receive pensions below the 48 per cent rate.
As a group, the Dieppe POW were incarcerated longer than any other of the study groups surveyed.
The martial status profile of POW and Controls is approximately the same. Both groups slightly exceed the general population rate with respect to broken families.
21130-81/2

December 11, 1975
Veterans Affairs
In the area of health:
A significantly lower percentage of Dieppe POW than that of any other study group report that their health has remained unchanged over the past ten years.
Significantly more POW than Controls report premature aging as being responsible for deterioration of their health.
Significantly more Controls than POW report increases or worsening in pensioned disabilities as being responsible for deterioration in their health.
There is little difference between total POW and Controls in reporting the onset of non-pensioned disabilities as being responsible for deterioration in their health. On a sub-group basis, the Dieppe POW report a significantly lower incidence of non-pensioned disabilities than any other sub-group.
The Dieppe POW report a significantly higher incidence than any other group of experiencing a combination of the three factors which in the author's opinion, for the purposes of this study, constitute a general deterioration in health, i.e., premature aging, increase in pensioned disabilities, or onset of non-pensioned disabilities.
A significantly higher percentage of POW than Controls report nervous conditions. On a sub-group basis the Dieppe POW report the highest incidence of nervous conditions.
Approximately the same percentage of POW and Controls report that their nervous conditions have had adverse effects on their wives and children. On a sub-group basis, a higher percentage of Dieppe POW report adverse effects from this source on their families.
There is little difference in percentages between total POW and Controls in reporting whether their families were adversely affected by lack of contact due to incarceration or wartime service. On a sub-group basis, the Dieppe POW report a significantly higher incidence of adverse effects resulting from lack of contact.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that, in any event, examination of the report reveals that the specific study made of the Dieppe POW proves that they suffered more than the others.
Besides, I remember that the Minister for Veterans Affairs had told the House that, broadly speaking, the government had decided that the recommendations Dr. Hermann put forward in his report would not be accepted but that, on the other hand, it would uphold its final decision until such time when the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs would issue its report.
Today we have the long awaited decisions of the committee. Mr. Speaker, I think it can truly be said that the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs has, on many occasions in the past, demonstrated that it was unprejudiced and genuinely eager to improve the lot of the veterans.
The recommendations which are being presented to us today may be regarded as reliable and it is our duty to see ot it that they be passed. For it is a well known fact, Mr. Speaker, that for years veterans have been hoping that the consideration of their case would result in recommendations aiming at the fulfilment of their needs.
We must admit, Mr. Speaker, that the Dieppe prisoners were treated in a very brutal manner. Incidentally, the effects of imprisonment still remain. We are now aware that it is urgent to meet favourably the requests of the Dieppe prisoners as well as those of all the others, because we must admit that World War II prisoners captured during the Dieppe battle have suffered as much, if not more, as any other Canadian veterans.

Unfortunately it seems that those priosners have yet to gain sympathy from the government, considering Dr. Hermann's report which tries to give those war prisoners the same status as that of Hong Kong prisoners which has long since been recognized. Mr. Speaker, why are they refused what they deserve, for they deserve it as much or even more than Hong Kong prisoners.
In my opinion, those men suffered as much as those captured in Hong Kong and, in all fairness, their requests should be granted. If we judge by waht has been said, the recommendations which have been made are not that much exaggerated and meet quite adequately the real needs of former prisoners of war.
Mr. Speaker, it would be normal to treat these people in the same way as all veterans and prisoners who, because of distress or traumatism provoked either by their capture or imprisonment, also suffer physiological troubles.
In fact, if I am not mistaken, the veterans captured at Dieppe in 1942 were interned longer than any other group of Canadians serving overseas.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of course that the Canadian government probably agrees that these proposals are timely in view of the present economic and social conditions. I therefore hope with all my heart that the government will understand the significance of the unanimous decision made by the committee and will also ensure that all necessary action is taken for this proposal to adequately meet the needs of former prisoners of war, because I believe that they must live in honour and dignity, and that if there is a group who deserves a special place in our society, it truly is that of those prisoners of war.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, once again, it is with great pleasure that I support the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I hope that many anonymous members, as was so ably said by the government member, will take their responsibilities and reflect for a few moments on all the suffering that these brave soldiers had to face to defend our freedom. In fact, I have before me the Minister of Veterans Affairs who lost an arm and a leg himself, I believe. I am convinced that if he goes back a few years to the time when he was fighting with his brothers in arms to defend our liberty, he will agree that all these brave soldiers, all these former prisoners, deserve all our understanding. I therefore believe that in all fairness, we should follow up on the report now before the House.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and once again I hope that the minister will be able to bring us good news.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under the Standing Orders of this House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe be now heard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has risen on a point of order under Standing Order 29, at page 24 of our Standing Orders, which reads as follows:
December 11, 1975

When two or more members rise to speak, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who first rose in his place; but a motion may be made that any member who has risen "be now heard", or "do now speak", which motion shall be forthwith put without debate.
I will put the motion.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would point out to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that it is now twenty-five to five and we have private members' business at five o'clock. If we vote on this particular motion he will be depriving the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) of participating in this debate.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais). Perhaps it has escaped his notice that today is Thursday and the House will sit this evening.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 29, I will put the motion at this time.
It is moved by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That the hon. member for Humber-St.		George's-St. Barbe be now
heard.		
It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members. The House divided on the motion (Mr. Baker (Grenville-		
Carleton)) which was negatived on		the following division:
	[Division No. 87]	
	YEAS	
	Messrs.	
Alexander	Ellis	KnowlesAlkenbrack	Epp	(WinnipegAllard	Fairweather	North Centre)Baker	Forrestall	Knowles(Grenville-Carleton)	Fortin	(Norfolk-Haldimand)Bawden	Friesen	LambertBenjamin	Gilbert	(Bellechasse)Brisco	Grafftey	LambertBroadbent	Halliday	(Edmonton West)Cadieu	Hamilton	La SalleCaouette	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	Lavoie(Villeneuve)	Mountain)	LawrenceClarke	Hamilton	MacDonald(Vancouver Quadra)	(Swift Current-	(Egmont)Coates	Maple Creek)	MacLeanCossitt	Hargrave	MaloneCrouse	Hees	MarshallDarling	Howie	MatteDick	Jarvis	MazankowskiDiefenbaker	Jelinek	McCainDionne	Johnston	McGrath(Kamouraska)	Kempling	McKenzie
Adjournment Motion Messrs.
McKinley	Paproski	StanfieldMitges	Patterson	StewartMuir	Peters	(Marquette)Murta	Ritchie	SymesNeil	Rynard	TowersNystrom	Schellenberger	WhitewayOberle	Scott	WiseOrlikow	Smith	Yewchuk-76O'Sullivan	(Churchill)
NAYS Messrs.	Abbott	Duquet	MarchandAllmand	Fleming	(Kamloops-CariAndras	Flynn	Martin(Port Arthur)	Foster	MclsaacAppolloni (Mrs.)	Fox	McRaeBaker	Francis	Milne(Gander-Twillingate)	Gauthier	MunroBasford	(Ottawa-Vanier)	(Hamilton East)Bee hard	Gendron	Nicholson (Miss)Begin (Miss)	Gillespie	O'ConnellBlais	Goodale	OuelletBlouin	Goyer	PearsallBoulanger	Guay	PelletierBuchanan	(St. Boniface)	PennerBussieres	Guilbault	Phil brookCaccia	Haidasz	PortelanceCampagnolo (Mrs.)	Harquail	PoulinCampbell (Miss)	Herbert	Railton(South Western Nova)	Holt (Mrs.)	RainesCampbell	Hopkins	Roberts(LaSalle-Emard-Cote	Isabelle	RompkeySaint-Paul)	Joyal	RooneyCaron	Lachance	RoyChretien	Lajoie	(Timmins)Clermont	Lalonde	RoyCollenette	Landers	(Laval)Comtois	Lang	SharpCorbin	Langlois	SmithCorriveau	Lapointe	(Saint-Jean)Cote	LeBlanc	StolleryCyr	(Westmorland-Kent)	TessierDanson	Lefebvre	TrudeauDaudlin	Lessard	TrudelDe Bane	Loiselle	TurnerDemers	(Saint-Henri)	(London East)Dionne	Lumley	Turner(Northumberland-	MacDonald	(Ottawa-CarletorMiramichi)	(Cardigan)	WatsonDouglas	Macdonald	Whelan(Bruce-Grey)	(Rosedale)	YanakisDrury DuprasMacFarlane	Young-103


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It being after five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek)-Olympic Games-Criteria used in awarding contract for stamp medallion to Jacques Cartier mint; the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise)- Agriculture-Surplus of skim milk powder-suggested use in food aid programs; the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot

December 11, 1975
Amalgamation of Loan and Trust Companies (Mr. Jarvis)-Agriculture-Comprehensive milk marketing plan-inquiry whether agreement amended to permit increased cheese imports.
It being after five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills, public bills.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) was seeking the floor to be recognized so that he could commence the debate at eight o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I only wanted to indicate to the House that, it being after five o'clock, on this day the House must proceed immediately to the consideration of private members' business. In my view, the House is not able to address itself in any way to the subject matter of the orders of the day, the matter of motions, because we are now in private members' hour.


Jean-Jacques Blais: On a fresh point of order, Mr. Speaker, dealing with private members' business, I would move that all notices of motion be allowed to stand at this time so that we might proceed with Bill S-29 in the name of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau).


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais). It is agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
[English]	.

Mr.   J.-J. Blais@for Mr. Breau: that Bill S-29, to enable the Eastern Canada Savings and Loan Company and Central and Nova Scotia Trust Company to amalgamate, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the mover intends to make a statement at this time. If not, some of us on this side would like to participate. I think, however, the mover should probably speak first to enlighten us in respect of some of the questions we might ask.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to amalgamate the Central and Nova Scotia Trust Company and the Eastern Canada Savings and Loan Company. Through an anomaly it is impossible to do that either under the Loan Companies Act or the Trust Companies Act without this particular legislation being enacted. The Eastern Canada Savings and Loan Company was incorporated in 1887 and has carried on business since that time. It is a loan company subject to the Loan Companies Act of

Canada. Its head office is in Halifax. It has 11 branches in various towns and cities throughout the Atlantic provinces. On December 31, 1974, its assets were $368 million and its shareholders' equity was $18 million.
Central and Nova Scotia Trust Company was formed on January 1, 1974, on the amalgamation of Central Trust Company of Canada and the Nova Scotia Trust Company. It is subject to the Trust Companies Act. Its head office is in Halifax and its executive office is in Moncton. It has 23 branches in the Atlantic provinces and none in Saskatchewan. Its assets on December 31, 1974, were $378 million. Its shareholders' equity was $19 million.
As I have indicated, Bill S-29 would permit amalgamation of the two companies. However, the bill is permissive, not mandatory, and prior to amalgamation being permitted certain steps would have to be taken. The amalgamation agreement would have to be completed by the directors in such a way as to conform with the provisions of the Trust Companies Act under which it would take place. As well, there would have to be ratification of the agreement by the shareholders. I might point out that the shareholders of both companies have authorized the bill to proceed. There would also have to be a recommendation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) on the report of the Superintendent of Insurance and the approval of the amalgamation agreement by the governor in council. So, effectively, before amalgamation can take place all these matters must be dealt with, including order in council approval of the amalgamation agreement.
It is not a complex bill but it is required because there is an anomaly in the situation, there being two separate statutes governing these two companies. In effect, had they sought amalgamation under either the Loan Companies Act or the Trust Companies Act it could have taken place if the two applicants had been either loan companies or trust companies. So I suggest that indeed this is not a controversial matter. It was before the Senate Committee on Banking where it received a complete hearing. The matter now must proceed to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and I suggest that the House should see fit to pass the bill with due dispatch.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what some of my colleagues across the way might expect, I will not raise any points of order with regard to this bill, I will be perfectly amenable and say that I also share the mover's support for this bill, as I am sure my colleagues do. As explained by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais), it is the result of an anomaly. I have not seen a transcript of the hearings in the other place, but I am sure that explanations will be furnished to members of the committee.
There is one thing that I find somewhat unfortunate. Among those who are the sponsors of bills of this kind, or among their legal advisers, there are some who do not take cognizance of the parliamentary calendar. We have reached the point where a bill of this nature can be considered in the House on alternate Thursdays, but even today a number of matters had to be put aside in order to give this bill priority. I think the parliamentary secretary will agree with me that this situation almost resembles the
December 11, 1975

scheduling that must take place before launching a satellite. There must be some sort of atmospheric window or aperture which is open for only a short time every two weeks when such a bill may be discussed in the House, and everyone is rushed in order to get it to the committee. The committee sometimes goes through a rather precipitate discussion or examination in order to push the bill through so that it can return to the House and be considered at report stage and third reading on one of these extremely rare occasions.
If I may say so, with regard to this session of parliament, today may be the second last of the Thursdays on which a bill of this nature may be considered. I do not think that is quite fair to those people who rely upon a very serious and important business decision, because the history of these two companies will show that certainly one of them is the principal lender of mortgages for construction of residences in rural areas in Nova Scotia, an area which is rather neglected by other lending institutions.
Each of these organizations, as is the case with many things coming from Nova Scotia-here I am not trying to polish an apple for my leader-have a good reputation and have demonstrated a care which commends itself to financial administration in the rest of the country as an example of how an organization put together by people in rural areas, small towns, etc., gathers the savings of thrifty people rather than from the wealthy, mobilizes those savings and invests them in the development of the community. This is something that should be encouraged in this country and I hope we will see more such examples.
If we have to take time out when we could be discussing some other most important matters, certainly I do not begrudge that time and I do not think any member of the House should. I hope the House will see fit to give this bill second reading and send it to the committee. As a member of the committee, I can assure hon. members that it will receive careful consideration at the earliest opportunity and be back in the House once the committee has had an opportunity to discuss it.
My only reservation, and I think I have made these views known, is with regard to the timing of these bills. In some cases it is due to circumstances beyond the control of the sponsors, but all too often it is not. It is only salutary to talk to the solicitors on behalf of the principals in matters of this kind, or in the incorporation of a bank, because one thing that has given us a great deal of trouble, unfortunately, is the fact that bills have had to be put forward to the next session of parliament. This causes a great deal of unnecessary cost and uses up a lot of unnecessary time in order to achieve a relatively simple end. With that note, I commend the bill to the House for second reading.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, as I understand it, is neither fish nor fowl. As I understand the legislation, two trust companies want to amalgamate. They can get permission from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) to amalgamate, without coming to parliament, under section 82 of the Trust Companies Act. However, today we have one trust company and one loan company which wants to amalgamate. It is rather like a case of marrying a horse to an elephant.
Amalgamation of Loan and Trust Companies
If we are going to do something like this, for all I know it might be a good move. I wish the hon. member sponsoring the bill were here, or the hon. member seconding the bill. They should be here to explain what is involved and why these two companies want to amalgamate. I have a great deal of respect for the parliamentary secretary. He may know more about these companies than I do. He is not from the Atlantic provinces, which this bill affects, so he probably does not know very much more than me. These companies are in operation only in the Atlantic provinces. I want to know more about them. I want to know the record of these two companies and how they are treating the ordinary people in the province of Nova Scotia. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) or someone else could enlighten the House in this regard. Do they lend out mortgage money at decent rates?


An hon. Member:: They cannot if they are loan companies.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It seems to me that it would be difficult for us as parliamentarians to pass this bill quickly when the mover is not here and no one is explaining it. I should like someone on the other side to provide the answers.
When I look at the trust and loan companies I see them as very powerful institutions, along with the private banks. And when I see two of these companies wanting to amalgamate then I ask why they want to get together. What good is it going to do the people of Nova Scotia? Perhaps it will be good, but I want someone in this House to tell me what benefit there is in this for the people of Cape Breton, Halifax, and Dartmouth.
The Eastern Canada Savings and Loan Company and Central & Nova Scotia Trust Company want to amalgamate, but what will the impact be on the social well-being of the people of Nova Scotia? From what the parliamentary secretary said, both companies are quite large and have considerable assets. How are they going to use their funds? Will they pump money into housing, or help the small communities in Nova Scotia to improve their lot? Are they going to lend money to fishermen, to farmers, to the working people in the province?
As a parliamentarian I cannot agree to pass this bill blindly and let them do whatever they wish. Until I have an answer to some of these questions I cannot facilitate the passage of the bill. I think someone on the other side should be able to tell us the record of these companies, what their involvements are, and what plans they have for the future. Will they help the poor coal miner in Cape Breton or the fisherman in Nova Scotia? If the answers are positive then I see no reason why the bill should not pass, but for God's sake let us not pass something about which we know nothing. Give us the details and tell us why we should spend our time on a bill like this.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues I am curious why this bill was brought in late. From the report of the Senate committee I notice that it was first suggested to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) in June and he gave his approval for the amalgamation of these two institutions. The bill then went to the Senate. The Chairman of the Senate committee was Sena-

December 11, 1975
Amalgamation of Loan and Trust Companies tor Salter A. Hayden and the questions he asked made it sound as if the amalgamation was going through. He is more the bankers' banker than the banking people themselves. It is interesting to note the leading questions asked by the chairman which allowed both companies to put forward their views.
The Central Nova Scotia Trust Company has assets of $378 million, and I gather that the other company has assets of about the same amount. They are about the same size. Some of the questions related to the structure of the new company and the advantages flowing from this bill. It was indicated that the loan company was restricted in the extent of its business, and the advantage would be that of having both companies come under trust legislation.
Both companies appear to be fairly healthy. The loan company stocks are selling in the eastern Canadian market at 1214 and 121/2 on the Toronto and Montreal stock exchanges. The trust company shares are not listed but are selling at approximately 14 or 1414. I gather that this is not a case of distress where one company would support the other through amalgamation, but that both companies are of relatively equal value and are successful.
Apparently one company cannot issue guaranteed investment certificates while the other one can. It seems there is an advantage for the loan company in amalgamating with the trust company and the amalgamation will give them a larger lending capital. I quote the argument of the chairman of the Eastern Canada Savings and Loan Company at the hearings of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce on November 5, when he said as reported at page 7:
We feel that if we were to combine in this way we would be able to reduce our costs of operation. We feel that if we could keep our costs and our charges to the public down, we would strengthen our position as regards competing with other large national trust companies in Canada. I think we would be enabled to employ in and to attract to our organization a better quality of staff than we can as two separate companies of smaller size and strength. We would like to take a look at the possibility of expanding out of the Atlantic provinces, where we have now built a pretty strong base, and possibly become a national company. We do not feel we could do this with the assets that each of us has available now and in the light of the possible likely expansion of those separately over the next few years. This is an attraction.
In the case of The Eastern Canada, which is a loan company, we feel that while in recent years the enlargement of powers of a financial nature has largely been given to the trust companies and banks, the loan companies have been more or less restricted in their ability to provide additional services to the public. This has been a constraint upon us. To the extent, therefore, that The Eastern Savings and Loan Company is part of this concept, we feel that by becoming part of a trust company we will be able to have wider powers than otherwise.
I am not from the maritimes and so am not familiar with the vast operations of these companies. I presume that they have been fairly active in the maritimes and have been long established in many communities there. I am a little concerned, however, that one of the reasons why they want power is so they can expand outside that area. This is really in conflict with some of the arguments made to us in the past, particularly where regionalization has been an aspect of developing institutions. I am referring, of course, to regional banks established either in western Canada or British Columbia in order to serve the people of the
immediate area. The idea is that the people of the region who deposit money should be able to borrow money.
The committee should consider if these two companies, by amalgamating, will better serve the people of the maritimes, or if their intention is merely to operate as another large, national trust company which will compete with the banks for mortgages and savings deposits. I suggest that this House and the people of the maritimes ought to consider this question carefully. Will these amalgamated companies operate nationally, or will they serve the people of the maritimes who are depositing the money and may want to borrow some?
The parliamentary secretary said that the offices of these companies are dispersed throughout the maritimes. I presume that they serve exclusively their particular areas, that is, that money is collected and paid out in the maritimes.
You know, Mr. Speaker, I am always skeptical when I see people like Senator Hayden, a man who has held about 100 directorships in companies engaged in virtually every aspect of finance in this country, asking witnesses questions about finance. The senator was in the chair when the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee of the other place met on Wednesday, November 5, 1975. Allow me to put on record an exchange involving the chairman, Senator Hayden, and Mr. Connor, chairman of the board of The Eastern Canada Savings and Loan Company, as reported on page 56:7 of the proceedings of the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. I quote:


Gérald Laniel: I understand that the trust companies, with the enlargement of their powers, are competitors of yours in the field of lending, which is your prime business.


Mr.   Connor@: That is right.


Gérald Laniel: And yet, as a loan company, you are under such restrictions as render you unable to compete with them in the other varieties of services that they offer.


Mr.   Connor@: That is exactly so, sir.


Gérald Laniel: So what you want to do is put these two companies together as a trust company, which will give you an enlargement of powers.


Mr.   Connor@: That is right.
If those were not leading questions, I do not know what are. If the witness had wanted to answer in that manner of his own volition, he could have done so. The senator, who had been involved, as I said, with close to 100 directorships in the financial field, did not hesitate to lead the witness and elicit the information he wanted. No one asked if the chairman himself was directly involved with those two companies. That is not beyond the realm of possibility either. For all these reasons I cannot look impartially on the machinations of the other place. I do not think that committee investigated thoroughly. I hope our committee will do a better job.
People living in various regions have complained, legitimately I think, that they find it difficult to borrow money locally. That is why this House permitted the establishment of a bank in western Canada and other areas. It was felt that the people who make deposits should also be able to borrow, and that as the bank collects from the local area

December 11, 1975

it should serve the local area where the need for service exists. For this reason I hope that the amalgamated companies will not become merely another large trust company operating on the national market, to the disadvantage of local borrowers. If this happens, if the new company finds it more advantageous to lend money in the Toronto market or the industrial market, I suggest that the maritime people will find it more difficult to borrow. Clearly the companies involved in the larger market will not necessarily serve the needs of the maritimes. If this were to happen, I would oppose this amalgamation.
Already the people of our less fortunate areas, among which I include the maritimes, northern Ontario, and other distressed areas, find it less easy to borrow than do people of other areas. Although people in our less fortunate areas make deposits, they cannot borrow money so readily. Of course if you want to take comparisons to their logical extreme you could say that we all live in a disadvantaged area, when compared to our neighbour to the south.
I hope the committee will look into this matter closely, and determine if the amalgamated company will serve the people who deposit, or whether it will serve the larger market and compete with other large trust companies, like Canada Permanent.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members opposite for their interest in this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. If the parliamentary secretary speaks, he will close the debate.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I commend the two members of the NDP who spoke and indicated their interest in this bill. I am glad the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said he will pay particular attention to this bill in committee. I suggest some of the questions he asked in the House ought to be directed to witnesses who will appear before the committee.
The shares of the two companies seeking amalgamation are widely held and traded both on the Toronto and Montreal exchanges. There are more than 1,000 shareholders in both companies. The hon. member perhaps suggested that shareholders are concentrated in central Ontario. I suggest that this is not correct as historically large numbers of shareholders in these companies have been eastern Canadians.
I suggest there is an advantage to the company's seeking moneys by issuing guaranteed income certificates and obtaining funds from the money markets of central Canada, because that ability would widen its base. The amalgamation will provide roughly $800 million to the newly amalgamated company, which is a substantial increase of the financial base compared with what was available to each individual company previously. The Trust Companies Act will permit the newly amalgamated company to do exactly what was done in the past through the trust sections of the companies involved, namely, lend money on mortgages and act as real estate agent in areas where the people cannot afford to retain their own real estate agents, such as in the small rural areas of Nova Scotia.
Veterans Affairs
I suggest to hon. members opposite that the company will concentrate its operations in eastern Canada, as in the past, as there is need for greater concentration of capital in that area. Of course when we talk of capital concentration we talk of the acquisition of capital through the sale of shares and through normal activity on the money markets. Effectively, with a larger base there is greater opportunity to obtain greater capitalization.
I thank hon. members for their interest in the bill. I am sure the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) are very pleased that the House is willing to let this bill go to committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Walter David Baker: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: The
time allotted for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 5:54 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, presented to the House on Thursday, June 12, 1975, be concurred in.
Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles),

December 11, 1975
Veterans Affairs
and the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) concerning the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
As hon. members are aware, I commissioned a study of the long term effects of imprisonment on Canadian servicemen who were taken prisoners of war in Europe during World War II. This study was carried out by Dr. Douglas Hermann, who is thoroughly experienced in all aspects of veterans' medical care and is himself a veteran. Upon completion, Dr. Hermann's study was presented to me and I, in turn, tabled the report in the House. It was referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs which spent many meetings examining it. Deputations from many veterans' organizations, including the POW Associations, were heard by the committee. Officials of both the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Canadian Pension Commission also attended these meetings and gave evidence when requested.
The statements given by the former POWs before the committee revealed very graphically the conditions of their day to day existence in the prison camps. While some only suffered these experiences for weeks or months, some lived through them for several years.
The unanimous decision of the standing committee was to recommend to this House that certain new legislation be enacted to provide compensation to all former prisoners of war. This decision of the standing committee was presented to the House on June 12, 1975.
The Hermann Report has been before the government and I have discussed it with my cabinet colleagues. I must remind hon. members that all departments have new legislation, or changes in regulations, for which they would like to secure cabinet approval. The successful attainment of these goals is limited by competing priorities and available resources. As all hon. members are aware, the government is committed to a policy of restraint in spending in its campaign to halt and reduce inflation, and no department is immune to this pressure. However, it is important that I make a strong commitment to all members of the House that the matter which hon. members have raised is still before the government for a final decision along with other important programs for my department and many other departments.
I move, seconded by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp):
That the debate be now adjourned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 25 and Standing Order 32 it is my duty to put the question at this time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
[Mr. MacDonald (Cardigan).)
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-41, respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be read the third time and do pass.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.
Some Kon. Members: No.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) on a point of order.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is in the House I should like to refer to proceedings earlier in the day when he indicated he would be willing, or the government would be willing to make a statement in the House concerning the cabinet decision with regard to the postal workers' settlement.
Could we have an indication from the government House leader at this time of what the intention of the government is on this matter? Do we now have to ask for unanimous consent to give the Prime Minister, or another minister an opportunity to make a statement? In our view this would be entirely appropriate. Or is it intended to obtain unanimous consent for the tabling of a statement? This, in our view, would not be appropriate, but it would also require unanimous consent.
If I may elaborate on the point of order, the cabinet decision is of great importance. We feel strongly that the statement should be made in the House, even if that requires unanimous consent to go somewhat beyond ten o'clock. The statement should be made by a responsible minister, and the official opposition and representatives of other parties should be given the opportunity to reply.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, speaking on the point of order, I have discussed this matter with the leaders of the other parties. Unfortunately we in the cabinet have devoted so much time here, to the House-
Grain Stabilization


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: -that we have been unable to devote as much time as we should have liked to this important issue.
I had hopes that we could spend the day more fruitfully than coming down here for votes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: It would have been our intention to have the statement made in the House. I do not know whether it will be possible, and I speak on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when I say this, to complete the decision and put it in the form of an announcement. If we have completed our work by ten o'clock I hope it will be possible for the minister to come here and make a statement in the House. That is our intention and desire. But I hope that such a proceeding will not be of the ordinary kind which involves a long period of questioning.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: I think, if there is unanimous consent for this proceeding, that it will be acceptable to the leaders of the other parties if the minister makes a statement, if there are responses from the other parties, and if we then conclude the proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before recognizing the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) on the point of order I suggest that the question of unanimous consent for some sort of statement and reply will depend on the time when any minister may appear in the House and ask for specific consent. That, of course, will depend on when he reappears and, presumably, for what he seeks unanimous consent. I think we ought to leave the matter until that time rather than speculate on what might be consented to at this time and what might occur between now and ten o'clock.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, as I already told the government House leader, any such statement would relate to a matter of fundamental importance and ought to be made in the House. I conveyed that to him privately. I assume he accepts that, coming from me. I regret that the government has so mismanaged the work of the House today that it has been necessary to go through these proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It has so mismanaged the conduct of the House today that it has been necessary for it to spend a disproportionate amount of time here. It has probably been good for it, even at that.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Bob, you have not changed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, I don't change, Joe.

December 11, 1975
Grain Stabilization


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I ask hon. members who wish to leave to leave quietly and allow the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) to make his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I ask hon. members either to sit down or leave the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If they want to talk, they are supposed to leave.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the lot of the House leader is never happy, particularly near the end of the session or when we are close to adjournment. I am sure the present House leader will long remember this day as one on which the worst fumbles in his experience were committed.
We are debating on third reading Bill C-41, which deals with the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain. As I said on second reading, I think every party in Canada during the last 35 or 40 years has agreed in principle that the incomes of those engaged in an industry subject to such tremendous cyclical fluctuations as grain farming ought to be stabilized. Also as said on second reading, any agricultural policy must adhere to five principles, of which stabilization of income is one.
I wish to make it clear that Her Majesty's loyal opposition supports the principle of stabilization of income not only for western farmers, but for farmers in other parts of Canada. That is the first part of our position.
The second part of the Progressive Conservative position is that we are of the view that farmers' opinions must be considered. In any stabilization scheme to which the farmer contributes, as he should, the farmers' views must be paramount-not the views of civil service experts, or of the minister, or of others. The views of the farmers affected ought to decide the issue. This bill offends that principle.
In the second reading debate members of my party asked that the second reading vote on principle not take place until we had talked to farmers directly and, face to face with them, discovered their views. But the inflexible minister in charge of the Wheat Board refused; hence we were
forced to vote on the principle of this bill before we even knew what the farmers wanted. We said then that you cannot bifurcate responsibility for agriculture between two ministers, that agriculture is a monolithic industry, that one minister ought to be responsible, and that splitting responsibility between two or more ministers leads to trouble.
You cannot have several ministers responsible for policies to do with acceleration of grain sales, the stabilizing of prices, the stabilizing of incomes, the provision of a modern system of farm credit, and the overseeing of regional development programs. Despite these warnings from a party which represents the great majority of Canadian farmers, the government went its own way. As for farmers having some say in their own affairs, well, I can only say that this measure does not meet with their wishes.
Third, it is useless introducing a bill which asks for contributions from farmers, if the farmers do not understand it; because if they do not understand they will not participate, unless you force them and this they will not tolerate. Farmers are willing to participate, willing to pay their money, if they know what the pay-out will be. Good legislation should make that clear. But this proposal, as amended, is so complicated that not even an income tax lawyer can decipher it. I wager that not more than ten of our 250,000-odd grain farmers understand the bill. If more understand it, it will be a miracle.
I read the bill several times. I have gone back through all the clauses. I have difficulty trying to follow it through, even with the best of intentions. How can you ask a farmer to contribute up to $500 a year to this fund when he does not even understand what he will get out of it? On that principle of clarity, this bill is deficient.
As we found out this summer in talking to the farmers they want an individual plan, not complicated by a formula that only benefits the government. They want to contribute to a plan where they know what they are going to get out under certain circumstances or conditions. They are willing to pay into the fund. They are willing to be responsible for paying into that fund, but they want to know what the returns are going to be. I can speak with some knowledge on this point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) is rising on a point of order.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, may I draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Francois Cloutier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in the Quebec government.

December 11, 1975


Mr. Benjamin:: I will put my mother-in-law in the gallery, so I can introduce her too.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, apropos of what just happened, we do not hold you responsible for everything that happens in this House.
I was pointing out that the farmers want an individual plan. I was saying that I speak with some experience in this because I was present when the first crop insurance plan was put through. We found this difficult to sell to the farmer until one government, the government of Manitoba, sent out their field force to sit at the kitchen tables to explain to each individual farmer how he paid in, the government paid in, and the farmer got paid out. Now that crop insurance is widely accepted it is hard to believe it took 15 years before that acceptance came. I simply say that it is a futile use of the time of the members of this House to ask us to accept this bill when we know from experience that, if the farmers do not understand how the pay-out will occur, they will not sign up for it.
As a party you have a choice if you have this situation in front of you. We thought we could move in this House for a six months hoist which would have the effect of removing the bill from the House until the government could reconsider. In considering that you tend to ask yourself what it would accomplish. Will the government realize there has to be some form of cohesion in agricultural policy, and take this type of income stabilization legislation out of the hands of the minister in charge of the wheat board, who is too busy to look after the wheat board let alone look after this? Now that he is Minister of Transport he has no time for anything at all. I would go for a six months hoist if I thought the government would put this bill under the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) so that members of parliament could hold at least one minister responsible for what happens to agriculture.
It would save a lot of time if we showed our feelings by voting against the legislation at third reading. However, that is not very constructive unless you have some alternatives to put forward. What we have decided to do in this debate on third reading is to put forward as a party a series of three or maybe four proposals that are simple, easy to understand, and based on individual responsibility. At the same time they will help the government achieve what it wants.
The interest of the government in stabilization is simple. If farm income rises and falls in great cycles, when farm income is low the income of primary and secondary industry soon falls off and we get into a recession. Therefore from a monetary and fiscal point of view, it helps the government if you can have a stable income in this very valuable industry so that the tax take remains relatively constant.
Grain Stabilization
To give an example of the mathematics, if the government puts $2 into this fund, the farmer puts in $1, and payments out are made of the $3, that $3 goes through the system to the merchant, the transportation system, the manufacturers, and the primary industry. It has a multiplier effect of three. The $3 becomes $9 when you calculate the tax. If governments collect 40 per cent of the gross national product in tax, out of the $2 invested, the government gets back $3.60. That is the arithmetic of why governments want it.
Under the present plan the government will get back its $3.60 for sure, but the individual farmer does not know what he is going to get. He may get it when he does not want it. He may not get it when he needs it. Therefore it does not meet the farmer's test.
The proposals we are going to put forward meet the government's needs as well as the farmer's needs. These proposals will be made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) and, if he gets back, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) will make the third proposal. There is also one that I will make.
My proposal is elementary and simple. It is first that we allow a variable levy. This means that, instead of being a rigid 2 per cent, the farmer is allowed to pay anything up to 2 per cent or at whatever they set the levy. I say this for a reason. From the evidence given by the farmers, they would like to pay a lot more than 2 per cent in the good years so they can have the privilege of paying less in poorer years when they do not have the money.
The principle of a variable levy is workable. If a farmer wanted to contribute more or less than 2 per cent, that would be his business. The government contribution would be a variation, a proportion of what the farmer has paid. That would be a simple principle that the farmer can understand. If it averages out at 2 per cent, as the government calculates is necessary, the farmer will pay his share.
The second principle is that this plan entails individual accounting. With our present type computers we have the ability to record all the money in, the money out, the interest and so on, on an individual basis for every person in Canada. We do it for the Canadian farmer in the grain business through the wheat board on his shipments to the wheat board and the credits to him. We can do it also with this question of income stabilization.
The third principle is the triggering formula. I really do not care so much for this particular item, but if they want to have a triggering formula it has to be based on the individual. The government can get the gross income immediately from the Canadian Wheat Board and its other sources. It is not hard to establish the gross income. The expenses can be obtained from the income tax forms. The income tax people can do this very simply by tagging the forms to be looked at. This is available for every individual. It is entered into the account. If you want to take a figure for triggering and get the average net income over several years, it can be done. On an individual basis the computer can be programmed so there is no time lost.

December 11, 1975
Grain Stabilization
The fourth principle, and this is the important one, is that the individual alone decides when and to what extent he uses his individual fund. If he has had a series of good years and the fund is built up, and then he has a slight reduction below his average net income for five years, he does not have to take it unless he wants to take it. He himself decides what he wants to do with his averaging device. Likewise there might be a very bad year and he might want to take more out of the fund than would be normal if it were run by a regular formula. That is his business because, the fifth principle is when his own fund is exhausted, he draws down too much.
I do not believe the people of Canada should be asked to pay a subsidy to the farmer to stabilize his income. I think the farmer will accept that. He wants government off his back. He just wants a fair break. He wants his products sold. He wants to get an average price, a pool price, as they say, and he would like stability of income. But I do not think he expects the people of Canada to subsidize him in that regard. I would not be opposed, on this fifth principle of the program I am enunciating, to lending money to his fund, but he would have to pay interest on it, that is, if he wants to maintain the fund in a series of bad years.
I have put forward a simple, easily-understood type of proposal. It is actuarially sound. The individual decides how much he needs out of his own fund. If he doesn't take as much out as he needs, it is all his anyway. It is all credited to him. If he quits farming, it is there, available for him. Naturally he will pay income tax when he gets it, but the fact remains that the farmer individually is allowed to stabilize his own income.
Participation by the farmer and by the government is in the same proportion as in the bill before us. The government's interests are protected because if thousands of farmers experience a drop in income, a net drop over the whole area, the money would be paid out and go into circulation, and the government would get its taxes in the same way as usual. The interests of the farmer will be protected too, because he will know at all times that for every dollar he puts in he will get back three dollars. That is why he will buy the scheme.
It is in the interest of every Canadian to help this valuable industry stabilize its income, whether he works in a mine, or in the forest industry, or in a city. I say this because the chief sufferer and the chief beneficiary from variations in farm income is the person in other industries. I well recall in 1961, when we were in the recession of 1959 and 1960, there was a great influx of money from the sale of western wheat which pulled Canada out of the doldrums and set us on the longest period of growth this country has ever known, from 1961 to 1968. This was because the minute the farmer got his money he put it into circulation; it moved through the merchants and through secondary industry, the mines and the forests. As the head of the Bank of Canada at that time and as the minister of finance said at that time, this was the spark which brought Canada out of that recession.
I would like to see legislation of this type brought in. I would like to see a start made with a fund of this type.
This is how you keep the extra cost out of farming and how you protect the consumer against extra cost. If you stabilize a farmer's income you reduce his operating costs.
I put these views forward in very simple form as a bit of evidence that there is a constructive attitude on the part of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. We are not opposed to this legislation. We would just like to see the government pull this legislation out, keep the method of levies the same, keep the principle the same, but make the pay-out individual.
This doesn't mean anything, coming from me alone, unless I can bring evidence to show that this is the viewpoint of the farmers. We held five meetings of the standing committee in western Canada, and I am taking the evidence from two cities alone, Regina, on June 18, 1975, and Saskatoon on June 19, 1975. I am asking the government to note the source of the evidence. I am quoting from the deputy minister of agriculture for the province of Saskatchewan given on June 18, and reported at pages 12 and 13 of the Minutes of Proceedings. My question to Mr. Dalgliesh, the deputy minister, reads as follows:
My first question deals with your brief on page eight, headed off by the statement:
"The plan does not provide individual commodity or regional
income stability."
I would think this is the heart of the principle of this bill. This bill is an attempt on the part of the government to provide area stability to an industry, the whole Wheat Board area. You collect individually from the producers but the pay-out is for an area. My question specifically to you, is: in view of the difficulties we have had over the years with PFAA in trying to plan regions and boundaries, in view of the fact that farmers if they are going to accept this bill and go into it in large numbers and in view of the fact that we have had the experience of the crop insurance approach, whether the area approach or the individual approach is most attractive, would you think it would change this basic principle of the present bill to one of individual approach whereby the individual is allowed to decide whether he wants to go into the plan, and his gross income is easily ascertained, and where his expenses to the National Revenue Department are easily ascertained, we could have much wider acceptance on the part of individual farmers rather than on a complete Board area pay-out or block pay-out?
That is a long and complex question. Mr. Dalgliesh answered in this way:
You are really suggesting that the plan be amended to be on an individual producer basis; if there were 85,000 producers, there would be 85,000 individual programs, one for each individual producer.
At this point I interjected the words, "The same as crop insurance", and Mr. Dalgliesh went on to say:
Certainly, in concept I think the Saskatchewan government would agree that you do want to try to zero in to the individual producer because really that is the unit you are trying to stabilize. So, certainly, with that objective in mind, that would be desirable. I suppose the question would come in, in terms of ensuring that you were not stabilizing uneconomic production, you would want to make sure that that was not a factor and I think that might present some problems in the approach. I think you have to take some account of production in aggregate. If you stabilize the price for the commodities that he was producing and not put up the crop insurance to guarantee that the quantity of production was forthcoming, I would see the program being workable. Yes.
Now to the layman all this means that he is saying that in view of all the experience we have had, the bill before us

December 11, 1975

does not provide individual commodity or regional stability. He goes on to say that the best thing would be to work with the producers.
Now on the next page, page 13, I am quoting myself again, I was reported as saying:
That really winds up what I wanted to suggest. If we have crop insurance on an individual basis where you have a chance to insure up to a certain amount against the vicissitudes of weather, this gives us a chance on an individual basis, on a voluntary basis, to provide that same type of income protection or market protection, if you like, and with the other qualifications you have here, you have no objection.


Mr.   Dalgliesh@: Right.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In your view, speaking for the minister as well as you are able ...


Mr.   Dalgliesh@: Right.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: ... would you see any objection by the province of Saskatchewan to going into one of these joint deals like we did with crop insurance?


Mr.   Dalgliesh@: No. Certainly Saskatchewan would be agreed to explore any program that seemed to be feasible and administratively workable.
That is evidence from the government of Saskatchewan, and those of us who were there were very impressed with the clarity of Mr. Dalgliesh's evidence. Some hon. members might say that a deputy minister is hardly a farmer, and I would agree, but let me go to the Saskatoon meeting on June 19 when a representative of the farm union local by the name of Mr. Lemon, addressed the committee. As reported at page 53 of the committee report I said:
Your brief hits on the essential weakness of this legislation: that the pay-out will be made on an aggregate basis.
I now go to the final part of my question on page 54:
My final question is very simple: Do you feel that you have given us an honest expression of the views of those people, when you recommend the individual approach as the most acceptable way to get those farmers to participate?


Mr.   Lemon@: As president of local 611, I am representing those people and nobody else. The membership of local 611 endorsed my views. They elected me president, and each year I come up for re-election. If they do not feel I have done the proper thing for them, it is their duty to say so.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: On this particular question of Bill C-41, you have consulted these people?


Mr.   Lemon@: I have consulted with these people. I have gathered opinions from these two people and they have gathered opinions from other people. I have talked with various people and they are a bit reluctant to opt for the program as they see it now.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Most of those people of your local would be members of the Saskpool?


Mr.   Lemon@: Yes they would.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is right.
I would conclude with one remark. I think this was the best representation we have had to date, in our four days out here, of an honest expression of farmers without any vested interest pressure on them. Thank you very much.
That was an extract from the final part of my questioning of Mr. Lemon, and all it adds up to, Mr. Speaker, is that the farmers of western Canada-other hon. members may bring additional evidence-spoke on every single occasion, as individuals, as groups, or as a government, in favour of the individual approach.
Grain Stabilization
When we came back to Ottawa to meet the minister, who did not go to the meetings to meet the farmers, I asked him whether he would consider positive, constructive proposals from the opposition. He replied: "No; the government has decided this is the way the bill is, and the only amendments we will accept are on four or five minor points brought in by the Federation of Agriculture". In face of this evidence the minister deliberately turned down the request of the farmers of the west who were willing to pay into the fund if they knew how they would get their money out. But no, the minister said the government had already decided. I do not believe the government as a whole ever decided anything. I think it was the minister who decided that he was not going to change, regardless of what the farmers or the opposition said.
So we are faced, Mr. Speaker, with a bill that (a) is not going to be accepted by the farmers, and (b) is going to be forced on the farmers by the minister in the face of their objections. Because this proposal is essentially voluntary, even though the legislation is complicated, I say here and now that the legislation is not going to be accepted by even 10 per cent of our farmers.
There is one group of farmers for whom I want to put in a plea. I know that the older farmers look forward to retirement in the next ten years and they are not so concerned with stabilizing their incomes between now and then. But the young farmers in their late twenties and early thirties who are operating under a huge debt because they are buying land, equipment, and the livestock needed to make an income, desperately want some form of stabilization of income. The reason I so much wanted this bill altered was that these farmers could have stabilization of income while at the same time a sufficient number of farmers were brought into the fund to create stability, thus achieving what the government wanted, and making more certain that young farmers would be protected by a large and available fund.
I have spoken at great length, Mr. Speaker, on the individual approach to income stabilization, and because this is such a serious matter for the western farmers I want to make it very clear that there are alternatives. I say this bill will not be acceptable. Whether we throw it out tonight on a six months' hoist or we vote it out makes no difference. It all depends on the government. If the government really wants to help the western farmers it can withdraw the legislation, amend it, and bring it in again, incorporating one of these simple alternatives that we are prepared to offer. But if the government wants to ram it through regardless of the feelings of the farmers and the opposition, then it has to be willing to pay the price, and the price it will have to pay is continued antagonism toward the government on the part of the farmers of western Canada.
I do not think it is any secret that the government has tried its level best to make the farmers of western Canada love it. But every move the government makes seems to cause more antagonism. I believe one of the reasons for this is the government's failure to realize that the Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta farmers are not ignorant peasants of the last century. They are young, sophisticated, modern businessmen who know exactly what they are trying to do, and who can figure out the pros and cons

December 11, 1975
Grain Stabilization
of any given program. In general they would like to have income stabilization, but they are not going to take on something when they do not know what the payout is.
If the government is really sincere in trying to put an income stabilization plan into effect, let the government make changes. However, I suggest that so long as the matter is in the hands of the present minister in charge of the Wheat Board we will not get these changes made. He is determined to have his own way regardless of what the farmers or the opposition think. Those who sat on the committee with us during the last three years know that the opposition have made constructive proposals. Over and over again the Minister of Agriculture has accepted our proposals and the result has been better legislation. All members of the standing committee know this to be true. But the minute we meet up with the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, all we get is his black and white inflexibility.
If the government wants a favourable movement among the farmers of the west, for heaven's sakes let it put agriculture under one minister who at least is willing to listen. After all, we are not all bad on this side. As I say, we have put forward positive suggestions. When a minister accepts them, we stand up in the House and support legislation. I stood up and supported the minister on one occasion in this session, but members on this side disagreed with me. However, that is the agreement we made in committee.
We have tried to push things forward on a constructive basis in order to help agriculture. This is not something you kick around from a partisan point of view, and this is why I plead with members who sit on the government side to put pressure on the cabinet if they have any influence at all. How about working for the farmers for once, and get the government to put agriculture under one minister? Then we will try to help the minister achieve a better agricultural industry.
We need agricultural stabilization and stabilization of agricultural incomes, and I should like to see this applied not only in respect of the farmers growing grain in western Canada, but later on in respect of the livestock industry and farmers all across this country. But it will have to be on an individual basis in order to work.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate at third reading with a view to agreeing with much of what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) has said. That should indicate something to the government. In view of the rare occasions the NDP and the Conservatives agree on anything, there must be something to this.
Members of the official opposition and of this party tried without success to get amendments to this legislation accepted in the committee. The government did accept a couple of minor changes which resulted in slight improvements to the bill, but government members were adamant, stubborn, as well as ignorant about accepting some other fundamental changes to the legislation which would not have detracted from or destroyed the principle. They

refused to accept these amendments, and as a result the legislation is still bad and terribly deficient.
Some four years ago the Liberal government had the views of farm organizations, the three western provincial governments, as well as members of the opposition on what a grain stabilization program should be. It was expressed at that time that a grain stabilization program should not only be for the benefit of grain farmers but as well for the livestock producers and the growers of other products, including the farmers of the sea-the fishermen. Four years later the government still remains stubborn and ignorant, and still refuses to produce legislation which conforms with the principles of a stabilization program that will stabilize farm incomes involving a variety of products.
The original program laid before the government four years ago has seen many technical revisions, as in this bill. While I agree that the government did accept two of the submissions of the opposition four years ago, it has not complied with the principle. The government did accept the idea that the bill had to be based on net income rather than gross income. This was a 180 degree turn-around by the government.
The plan we now have before us is as abstract in principle as the original bill. It does not seek to stabilize the price of grain and it does not stabilize or guarantee the incomes of the producers. One of the most exasperating aspects of the bill is that it is next to impossible to detect the rationale behind it, and this lack of rationale, together with the extreme complexity of the bill, is what everyone complains about. Even government members admitted it is difficult to comprehend. This makes any attempt at explaining the bill to the farmers an exercise in frustration.
A paper released by the minister on September 4, 1974, lists four objectives for the grain stabilization plan. I should like to comment on each of them.
The first objective the minister outlined was to protect grain producers in the designated area from uncertainty and variation in returns due to temporary market fluctuations. Further on in his paper the minister used the expression "it transforms uncertainty into insurable risk". On page 10 of the minister's paper it is stated:
-the government has stated that the plan has to operate within a level that is actuarially sound. The level set by the government is 6 per cent of gross receipts from commercial grain production, with the government paying % and producers paying Vi.
It is obvious that the plan is being portrayed in the minister's statement as an income insurance scheme, but in reality it is not. In reality payments will be made by the grain stabilization fund if the proceeds from the sale of a proportion of the prairie grain crop in any year falls below the average proceeds in the previous five-year period, after adjustments have been made for changes in certain, but by no means all, expenses incurred in production and sale of the grain. In that event participating farmers will receive payments proportionate to their contributions. Whether individual farmers actually suffer declines in receipts or income is immaterial under this plan.
It seems to me that the proposed stabilization plan is being portrayed as an insurance scheme and, since it is a contributory plan, farmers should know what insurance
December 11, 1975

they are buying; in other words, the plan must relate to the needs of individuals. It should be possible for individuals to determine what benefits would accrue t( them if the event against which they are insuring themselves should occur. That surely is a cardinal principle of all insurance plans whether they are private, mixed private and social such as crop insurance, or universal social insurance schemes such as workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance, hospital or medical insurance.
A second cardinal principle of all such schemes is that indemnities are paid to those who experience the ill effects of the event against which the plan provides insurance, and not to others. The proposed stabilization act sins against both these principles. In fact the bill completely ignores them.
A farmer who insures his crop with the Manitoba, Saskatchewan, or Alberta crop insurance plans knows what he insures himself for; he knows to what level he is indemnified if his yield falls below the insured level. A worker who pays unemployment insurance knows what he may expect in benefits in the event he loses his job and fails to find another. That is as it should be. In contrast, a person participating in the proposed prairie grain stabilization plan has no way of knowing when he will receive benefits, how much he will receive, or whether he will receive benefits when he really needs them. That is a complete betrayal of the principles enunciated by the minister in his statement.
In the three prairie provinces crop insurance will only indemnify those insured farmers who suffer specified losses, but will make no payments to all insured farmers because the over-all yield in the province may be below the five-year average. Similarly the Unemployment Insurance Commission will pay benefits to insured persons who lose their jobs, but will not make payments to all those making unemployment insurance contributions on the basis that there is a slack in the economy. Yet that is precisely what Bill C-41 proposes to do.
If the Manitoba crop insurance program operated on the same basis, as the minister, his deputy, and the Manitoba Crop Insurance Board told the committee, it could conceivably have taken the $8.2 million paid in indemnities in 1974 and distributed it to the insured farmers on the basis of their premium contributions. It is quite possible then that farmers with very high yields would have received large payments and the farmers with partial or total crop losses would have received far less.
I am sorry the minister is not here since this is his bill. I appreciate why he was not here when the bill was called at the report stage. He had a very important prior commitment to speak to the Alberta Wheat Pool. What I find passing strange is how disorganized that government is over there, shown by the fact that the government House leader would call a bill on a day on which the minister responsible had to be absent. If that is not sloppy handling I have never seen it.
If the minister is at the cabinet meeting advising the government to treat the postal workers in the same way he has advised the government to treat the farmers in this bill, it would be much better if he were in the House for
Grain Stabilization
the debate on this bill. At least then we could keep our eyes on him. If we were to operate the unemployment insurance-Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman across the way who is yelling had got up today to speak on behalf of the veterans, especially since he is the chairman of the committee, he might have made a contribution, but he did not have the guts to do so. He just sat there like a sheep when the vote was being taken.
As an indication of how ridiculous this bill is and how it completely perverts the principle of stabilizing incomes whether in respect of grain or anything else, if the Unemployment Insurance Commission were operated on the same principles as Bill C-41 what would happen is that the Unemployment Insurance Commission would calculate for all of Canada the average annual bill for wages and salaries on which unemployment insurance contributions are made. They would adjust it for the changes in the number of unemployment insurance contributors and for certain changes in the consumer price index, and if the adjusted total wage bill fell below the average of the previous five years, the Unemployment Insurance Commission would make a payment to all wage and salary earners. Each would be paid proportionate to his contributions. Those who had paid the maximum would receive the greatest payment. Those who had paid the lowest premium would receive the lowest payment. The unemployed person who had made little or no contributions would receive little or nothing.
I doubt, and the governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, as well as many farmers doubt that this kind of a proposal to stabilize the net proceeds from wages and salaries in Canada would meet with the approval of the Canadian people. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, trying to operate the UIC on the basis proposed by this bill? If the unemployment insurance program were operated on the basis this bill proposes, the fellow who worked all year around and made UIC contributions would receive the highest payment from the fund, and the fellow who was laid off for four months and did not contribute to the fund during those four months would receive the lowest payment, or no payment at all. That is what this bill proposes.
The bill rewards the fortunate and penalizes the unfortunate. The farmer who makes the highest contribution to the fund in a year of pay-out receives the highest payment. If that is not backward in respect of any kind of insurance or stabilization plan, I do not know what is. If the national hospitalization program were operated on the same basis the people would pay their premiums, the government would compute the total bill for hospital care in the country, and in a year in which hospital care exceeded the previous five-year average everybody who paid a premium would receive a payment whether or not they had been in hospital. That has to be some kind of perversion of any kind of stabilization plan.
The more we deal with this bill the more convinced I am that it is still a bad bill. It is almost as bad as the legislation of 1971, which is saying something. It is obvious so far as the individual farmer is concerned that the plan does not meet the objective of the minister which is contained in his statement to the effect that the plan would transform uncertainty into insurable risk.

December 11, 1975
Adjournment Debate
The second objective listed by the minister was to:
... ensure that growth and development of the grain sector is consistent with basic market forces and that the grain sector develops in a manner consistent with competitive advantage in world grain markets.
While the relevance of this statement escapes me, I am disturbed over the policy implications that would seem to flow from that kind of philosophy. In effect the statement seems to suggest that there should be no stability if basic market forces dictate that there should be instability. The expression that the grain sector should develop "in a manner consistent with competitive advantage in world grain markets" I submit is entirely out of tune with recent international events, including the efforts by the Government of Canada to arrive at a better planned, more orderly world food distribution system.
Concepts such as world food banks, international commodity agreements, and the new economic order insisted upon by the developing nations are incompatible with the 19th century philosophy of competitive advantage. Moreover, that philosophy is the exact opposite, I remind the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), to the basic competitive advantage and the two-price Wheat Act enacted by the House of Commons recently.
The legislation betrays much of what the government has said, not to mention betraying the grain producer of Canada, the principle of income insurance and income stability, as well as income stabilization, or whatever one might like to call it. Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to bother the postal department at this crucial time of indecision between the department, the government, and the Anti-Inflation Board. However, when I put my question to the Postmaster General (Mr. Mack-asey) on December 2, the question which we have an opportunity to air tonight, it was of course assumed at that time that the postal problems were solved at least for a longer temporary period than the week or so that has elapsed since then.
Be that as it may, the purpose of my question is simply to find the criteria which led the Post Office to award the Olympic stamp medallion contract to the Jacques Cartier Mint, of which Mr. Norton Cooper is the president, and which is a subsidiary of Silver Shield Mines Limited. The reason I feel we have the right to know the department's decision in this regard is the fact that in November of 1972 charges were laid against the same Norton Cooper, president of Silver Shield Mines Incorporated.

Also, officials of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion were charged and subsequently convicted as a result of bribes being offered by Mr. Cooper to DREE employees for the purpose of having Silver Shield Mines Incorporated obtain a federal government grant. The DREE grant in the amount of nearly three-quarters of a million dollars was later withdrawn and the DREE officials in question suspended, because as the then deputy minister in charge of DREE, Mr. J. D. Love, said:
An officer in a responsible federal government position was offered and received improper benefits from a person or persons associated with Silver Shield and its subsidiary Jacques Cartier Mint.
Subsequently Norton Cooper proceeded to plan to take legal action against DREE for withdrawing the grant.
On June 8 the federal government awarded Mr. Cooper a contract, number 69C74, for the purpose of minting stamp medallions. On June 27, 1974, Norton Cooper was convicted. As a result, on January 30, 1975, the Post Office Department decided to rewrite the original contract and awarded the new contract to Jacques Cartier Mint-contract number 108C74.
Regardless of any internal changes within Jacques Cartier Mint regarding its directors, the fact remains that Norton Cooper, who is willing to sue the federal government, who is responsible for the suspension and ultimate conviction of federal government officials-Norton Cooper who himself has been convicted of bribery for the purpose of obtaining federal financial assistance, is the same Norton Cooper who today finds himself with yet another lucrative government contract, not to mention the fact that Joseph Zappia, who is the head of the consortium building the Olympic village-who happens to have under his belt a contract for minting Olympic medallions in Switzerland- who has been the subject of recent RCMP raids on his offices and private dwelling, is the Joseph Zappia who is connected with Norton Cooper by way of having the contract of packaging the medal stamps that Cooper's company is minting.
This is just a small example of the background of yet two more shady characters who continue to be able to deal with the government which, in simple terms, is either naive itself or at least just as shady, to say the least.
In these days of uncertainties and questionable practices within the government and its agencies, whether it be the Post Office, Air Canada, or the countless areas dealing with public funds surfacing as near scandalous, one would assume that the Post Office Department would be far more careful as to how and to whom government contracts are awarded. I do not have to repeat that I am one who supports the Olympic ideal wholeheartedly, but I believe that one of the reasons that financially and otherwise the staging of the Olympics in Montreal is encountering the great difficulties that we are all aware of, is there exists a multitude of unbusiness like, improper, and shady practices.
That is why I believe it is imperative for the Post Office Department to come up with an answer to my original question as to what criteria led them to award yet another non-tendered contract, this time to Jacques Cartier Mint.
December 11, 1975


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's concern about our problem in the Post Office at present but I assure him that the moment of decision has arrived. I hope that we will have an announcement in the next short while about where we are going, certainly by tomorrow.
I would also say that the hon. member is correct in his chronology of events up to a certain point, but he failed to mention that Mr. Norton Cooper is no longer an officer of the Jacques Cartier Mint.
I would like to inform the hon. member that contract No. 108C74 was awarded to Jacques Cartier Mint on January 20, 1975. Of course, as I indicated earlier, Mr. Norton Cooper is no longer a director of the said company. A total of eight companies were asked to submit tenders, but only two responded, and Jacques Cartier Mint was the bid that qualified for the said contract on the basis of a quality product. A qualitative analysis of the bids was made in consultation with the Department of Supply and Services and the Royal Canadian Mint.
We would like to underline the fact that the Department of Justice was consulted on the legal aspects of this matter, and the Post Office Department was advised that nothing could be done but to award the contract to Jacques Cartier Mint, with the proviso that the company be advised that Mr. Norton Cooper could not benefit from the contract.


AGRICULTURE-SURPLUS OF SKIM MILK POWDER-SUGGESTED USE IN FOOD AID PROGRAMS
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate once again in the adjournment debate this evening. I believe it is the second time in as many weeks.
My deep concern tonight is shared by my colleagues, the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis), the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. McKinley), the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), and many others on this side of the House. This deep concern is over the recent reduction of subsidy payments by the government to industrial milk producers.
My concern over the present high level of stocks of skim milk powder that are reported to be triple those of last year, and my awareness of the great need and usefulness of skim milk powder for the world food aid program prompted me to raise the following question on December 3, as reported at page 9680 of Hansard:
As stocks of skim milk powder on hand this year are three times larger than last year's, being 300 million pounds, compared with approximately 100 million pounds, and as CIDA bought less skim milk this year than last, has the Minister of Agriculture made representations to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or to CIDA directly, in the hope that additional volumes of this product will be purchased for world food aid?
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) replied-and in part he said-yes, we have done that, we have asked the head of the Canadian Dairy Commission and our trade officers to explore every possible avenue for the sale of
Adjournment Debate
skim milk powder. He indicated also that the world surpluses of skim milk powder are larger than ever and that the distribution problem is even greater than before. Although I appreciate that information I must point out that I am fully aware of the existence of those conditions. In fact my colleague, the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot, will touch on one of the reasons for this condition later this evening.
The minister had admitted that discussions along these lines have been held, but let us examine the results. CIDA's purchase of skim milk powder for the world food program for the fiscal year 1972-73 was 25.5 million pounds; for 1973-74, it was 23.6 million pounds, and in 1974-75, 23.9 million pounds were purchased. But CIDA's purchase for this fiscal year of 1975-76 is only 14 million pounds.
At a time when our domestic stocks are in a position of extreme surplus it is unacceptable to learn that our commitment has been reduced by almost one half. I am certain that most Canadians would agree that the need for world food aid has drastically increased over the past ten years.
Canada's current commitment of skim milk powder through CIDA for aid is 13A of a million pounds less than our last ten year average.
I do not want to belittle Canada's contribution for indeed in total it is sizeable-4,000 tons of wheat, $5 million in canned beef, $l'/2 million in fish, and $1 million for beans, in addition to the reduced amount of skim milk powder. I do want to make it perfectly clear that what I am asking for is a greater commitment by the government to the world food program by an increased utilization of skim milk powder.
The government dodges the problem by pointing to present world surpluses. It excuses itself for the lack of success in export sales because of our poor comparitive position which results from the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the government does not support certain dairy products to the extent that they are supported by our foreign competitors.
I want to emphasize that shipments of skim milk powder to the world food aid program are not subject to competition in the world market place. Our commitment is a domestic matter-a local decision made by the government. Thus the amount of food that goes into our foreign aid basket is completely under the control of our own authorities.
I ask the government, and particularly the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), and the Minister of Agriculture, at a time when domestic stocks are at their current level, when our present commitment is only about one half that of the previous two years, and at a time when the need for world food aid is urgent and pressing-I ask that they take prompt action to triple the volume of skim milk powder being placed into the world food aid program. I am certain that it would be accepted gratefully and with open arms. A greater percentage of the world's hungry could be fed; Canada would come closer to fulfilling her obligation in this area, and Canadians would experience a greater sense of satisfaction and pride.

December 11, 1975
Adjournment Debate


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answering the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) I wish to make a few corrections to what he just said. He spoke of the deep concern on his side of the House-forgetting my side-for the farmers. I am really shocked if the honourable member suddenly recalls the existence of the third world and thinks about the surplus of skim milk. What is basically wrong, it seems to me, with his line of reasoning is that he has forgotten people. Here we have a surplus of skim milk powder. Is he suggesting that if there is a surplus of fish, we should feed the third world with fish? Does he suggest we should decide what they are to eat? If so, that is an extremely wrong position and no member on any side of the House would subscribe to that selfishness.


J. Michael Forrestall: In the meantime you would have those people starve.


Monique Bégin: I must also correct some other matters. While it is true that food aid shipments of skim milk powder are lower this year, such shipments have varied considerably from year to year and, in fact, the planned shipments this year are about equal-not less, but equal- to the ten-year average of annual shipments.


J. Michael Forrestall: You don't want to feed the hungry people.


Monique Bégin: Listen to the hon. member talking about hungry people. He could lose a few pounds!
Canada has shipped skim milk powder to many countries and organizations around the world. Quantities are allocated regularly to the World Food Program for its use in its food for work and other projects. Other quantities have gone to the United Nations Children's FUND-UNICEF-and to many countries such as those of the Sahel, through the bilateral aid program.
The manner in which these allocatons and those of other food commodities are made is a serious one. Officials must work first from the request actually received from developing countries and from international agencies. They must also consider the availability and the prices of various food commodities in Canada. Between these two poles of demand and supply a decision must be made on how best to meet the need. I emphasize that basically this decision must above all take account of the needs of the poor and hungry,-not of our own little problems-and thus of the need to ensure the maximum nutritional value for each Canadian dollar spent. In the current year-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but her time has expired.


AGRICULTURE-COMPREHENSIVE MILK MARKETING PLAN-INQUIRY WHETHER AGREEMENT AMENDED TO PERMIT INCREASED CHEESE IMPORTS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, recently the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. McKinley), and I have been asking

questions regarding the government's industrial milk policy, and tonight I wish to deal with one aspect of that problem.
For almost five years there has been in existence a written agreement which has been commonly called the comprehensive milk marketing plan It was signed by the Canadian Dairy Commission on behalf of the federal government, and by various provincial government marketing authorities and provincial producer marketing boards. The purpose of the plan is to manage the supply of Canadian milk by means of quotas in order to provide a balance between the domestic supply of butterfat and the requirements of the Canadian market for butterfat in manufactured dairy products, plus commercial exports. It has been made very clear that the purpose of the plan is not to restrict development of our dairy industry. On the contrary, the agreement should operate to promote sales of dairy products at home and abroad. The quotas are designed only to manage the total dairy production, to ensure that there is an effective market for that production.
In April, 1975, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said we may have to continue to import some butter, but then went on to say:
However, domestic consumption will continue to be met predominantly by Canadian production.
This, of course, is consistent with the comprehensive milk marketing plan.
Then came the shock of the Minister of Agriculture's statement of November 4, and I quote the pertinent paragraph:
In accordance with the decision of April 18, 1975, imports will be allowed to increase gradually over the next several years until they reach not less than the equivalent of 10 per cent of manufactured products. The current (cheese) import quota of 50 million pounds represents 5 per cent of total Canadian consumption of manufactured dairy products. The size of the next year's quota will be established shortly.
First, and obviously, the decision to permit an increase to at least 10 per cent of our market was not in accordance with the April, 1975, statement. In my view, and in the opinion of milk producers, it is just the opposite.
Secondly, I submit that this decision is a clear contravention of the federal-provincial agreement. The agreement's purpose is to balance Canadian milk supply with domestic and export demands for our dairy products. How can this possibly be balanced when we give away a minimum of 10 per cent of our domestic market to producers and processors in foreign countries?
I do not know what happened between April and November this year and possibly I will never find out, but I can only conclude that, once again, Canadian agriculture has been sold down the river at the bargaining table for international trade.
This brings me to my third point. I submit that this sell-out constituted another breach of the federal-provincial agreement. There is a clear provision, and I believe it is in Section 13, that no order or regulation bearing on the provisions and purposes of the plan shall be made without, first, prior notification to the other parties, and secondly, concurrence by the other parties that such change does not contravene the purposes and provisions of the plan.
December 11, 1975

Clearly there has been no concurrence by the provincial producer groups and, what is even worse, I believe that there was no notification whatsoever. I specifically asked the minister in the House of Commons on December 9 if he had notified these other groups, and I quote his reply:
We had many discussions with them. I am not sure whether or not that was discussed, but I am sure that they knew and were well aware of the increased importation into Canada of industrial cheese at that time. They made strong representations against this and they are making strong representations against this at present. We are reconsidering the whole situation.
All I can say is that the government darn well better reconsider. It is clear that the minister did not have provincial concurrence; in fact he expressly states he has just the opposite, and secondly I have a written statement form one provincial producer group which says in part as follows:
At no time during the current dairy year have the representatives of the federal government notified the signatory parties to the plan that the federal government wanted the definition of what constitutes Canada's industrial milk requirements changed.
Canadian producers are well able to supply the domestic market. As a matter of fact they are now being penalized because we allegedly have too much milk. 1 remember well just two years ago the government's alarm because milk production was falling. Now the government says we are going to take away at least 10 per cent of your market and give it to foreign producers. How in heaven's name can any milk producer plan intelligently for the future when he is being overwhelmed with almost monthly changes in government policy?
On the one hand we have subsidy reductions which for three of my typical milk producers resulted in reduced incomes for September production of $330.85, $278, and $211 respectively. By year end these losses will range from $1,477 to $2,647.55.
On the other hand we now have an annual cheese import quota of 50 million pounds which costs Canadian producers approximately $18 million, or $360,000 for every million pounds of imported cheese. I also strongly suggest that foreign governments are subsidizing, directly or indirectly, these products which put our Canadian producers in a very difficult, if not impossible, competitive position. Our Canadian cheddar is the best in the world, and we have developed an excellent line of specialty cheeses in recent years, which should be given a fair chance in our domestic market, and hopefully in export markets as well.
The minister has told me he will reconsider this whole problem. I beg him to do so immediately because Canadian farmers, at this very moment, are feeling that again their products have been used as pawns in international trade arrangements.
If the minister wants to know what some farmers are saying let me read a postscript to a letter I recently received from a dairyman:
In fact what farmers are really protesting is a wage decrease while other professions insist on a substantial increase.
Adjournment Debate
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I wish to read a letter that is being forwarded today by my office to the Minister of Agriculture, other ministers who are involved in the problem, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and the Canadian Dairy Commission. It is as follows:
The members of Perth County Milk Committee, who represent the most producers who produce the most milk of any county in Ontario, would like to express deep concern-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is not here. In his absence I have undertaken to answer the hon. member's question. I can sympathize a great deal, I may say, with the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis) and the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise). Tomorrow I have to face a group of dairy farmers who are also very concerned about this matter. The answer I have to make will not be very satisfying to anyone. Nevertheless, I think the hon. member has partly answered the question himself by drawing attention to the tremendous surpluses of skimmed milk powder which are held around the world. I believe the surplus in Europe right now is a million tons.
The comprehensive milk marketing plan is an agreement under which returns from export sales of skimmed milk powder and domestic sales are equalized. This is accomplished by means of a levy against producer market returns which is used by the Canadian Dairy Commission to assist exports of skimmed milk powder.
The second major objective of the plan is to balance supply with the requirements of the market, on a butterfat basis. The balance takes account of exports, primarily cheese and at the time the agreement was made, imports of cheese and butter accounted for a significant percentage of requirements.
The management committee which is composed of the heads of provincial milk marketing agencies, and which is chaired by the Canadian Dairy Commission, has continuously examined demand and supply.
The statistics which have been used by the management committee included the figure for the actual imports of cheese into Canada for each of the past several years. The management committee was aware that under the import policy existing up to the middle of this year, imports were not restricted in terms of quantity but by end-use. The government moved quickly to put quantitative restrictions on the total of cheese imports when it became evident that imports in 1975 would rise more than in the preceding years. The level of this quantitative restriction is now being reviewed by the government.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Friday December 12, 1975