1975-11-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['No.']
Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise to propose a motion for immediate and serious consideration. Because of the fact that strikes and walkouts, particularly in essential services, continue to have an adverse effect on our economy, and as a result are a major factor in the continuing escalation of inflation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds):
That this House instruct the government to incorporate into its anti-inflationary legislative program an immediate back-to-work rule for any striking groups or individuals within the essential services of our economy, and at the same time prohibit any further strikes or walkouts in the essential services for the duration of the controls period.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *
*


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the many serious problems facing the thousands of Indian and Metis people who are now moving into our large cities, and in view of the fact that in 1972 the then Secretary of State, Mr. Gerard Pelletier, committed the government to a five-year program of $25 million for migrating native people, and in view of the fact that a large part of this program has not yet been delivered, including $11 'A million allocated for administration projects, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urge the government to act on this matter without delay.
* *
*
[DOT] <mo)


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of a report by the prestigious Conference Board of Canada that in 1968 when the Prime Minister first assumed office Canada had the second highest standard of living in the world, and that in 1975 Canada had slipped to eighth position and the prediction that by 1985 Canada will have become seventeenth in the world in this regard, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That the Prime Minister, at the earliest opportunity in the House and while he is on his current tour explaining why he reversed his 1974 position on controls, give an accounting to the Canadian people of the circumstances involving his presiding over our country's steadily eroding position and the basis for this lamentable state of affairs, and whether or not he is prepared as our Prime Minister to accept any of the responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week the Prime Minister said in the House that the apparent success of the Postmaster General would hopefully relieve parliament of the responsibility of acting to end the Post Office shutdown. Since there is no prompt

November 7, 1975
Oral Questions
settlement in sight and the shutdown is now three weeks old, will the government now introduce legislation to restore the postal service to Canadians which will provide a further period for resumption of negotiations?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Not now, Mr. Speaker.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: On Tuesday the Prime Minister said:
At some time the right of free collective bargaining has to give way to intervention by parliament when we judge that the public disservice caused by a strike outweighs the freedom of the right to strike itself.
How long will the country have to wait before the Prime Minister and the government decides that the public disservice outweighs the freedom of the right to strike?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is a matter of judgment.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-REASON FOR PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES ON STRIKE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the House why, after threatening the union and the country with a long strike, the government has arranged to have workers paid for work they did not do, and will this practice continue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into the question put by the hon. member.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON BACK TO WORK LEGISLATION IN VIEW OF FAILURE OF UNION TO CONSULT MEMBERS ON SETTLEMENT OFFER
John Allen Fraser: I did address that question to the right hon. Prime Minister, and now I will address another question to him. Last night the union's executive decided against putting the government offer to the membership, thus effectively precluding any way of accurately knowing whether the membership wants the strike to continue. Under such circumstances, is it still government policy to let the strike continue indefinitely?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the word "indefinitely" was used by the hon. member as it was used by his colleague a moment ago, I told the House it would be a matter of judgment when parliament will be asked to bring in legislation to have the postmen return to work.


John Allen Fraser: Is the right hon. Prime Minister advising the House that the government has not precluded from its options the possibility of back to work legislation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is obvious from what I said a few days ago.


FINANCE
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that 60 per cent of the increase in the consumer price index for October was attributable to housing, and in view of the fact that Mr. John Boyd, the president of the Canadian Real Estate Association, stated yesterday that the government's new anti-inflation program will sharply reduce sales activity in the housing industry and that the present give-away program under the guise of stimulating housing demands is totally impracticable, and if you want people to buy a house, lower the price, what steps will the Minister of Finance take to meet these two important problems of increasing the housing starts and lowering the price of homes?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Actually, Mr. Speaker, I notice in the CPI statistics that the higher home ownership charges are largely attributable to an average rise of over 13 per cent in residential property taxes, one of the prime contributors to the increase in all items of CPI. I would remark to the hon. gentleman that these are some of the consequences of the very high settlements in the public sector which are coming home to roost with us in the higher taxes that the whole community has to pay. It really was for the purpose of restraining those kinds of settlements in the public sector, as well as others in the private sector, and increases in rents, prices and profits that we brought in the over-all control program.


POSSIBILITY OF MEASURES TO COMPEL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO DIRECT FUNDS INTO MORTGAGES
John Gilbert: The Minister of State for Urban Affairs has said that he expects the financial institutions to co-operate with the government and to allocate an additional $750 million into the mortgage market in 1976. In view of the fact that this spring the same minister in committee gave assurances that he had persuaded the financial institutions to put an additional $1 billion into the mortgage market this year, and in view of the fact that according to the minister's officials only $300 million of this amount was achieved, does the Minister of Finance intend to introduce measures to compel the financial institutions to direct more funds into mortgages, or does the minister share the naive hopes of his colleague?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we think that effective persuasion can be brought to bear on the lending institutions, bearing in mind of course that we also seek from the same institutions support for provincial and municipal financing as well, and there has to be a balancing of financing activities in Canada.
November 7, 1975


HOUSING
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the statement in this morning's Globe and Mail by A. E. Diamond, chairman of Cadillac Fairview Corporation, in which he predicted very little new rental apartment construction will be undertaken as a result of Ontario's rent control legislation, and that less fortunate people will be the sufferers as a result of this legislation, will the minister assure us that he will increase the new capital budget of CMHC for 1976-77 and that CMHC will build rental apartment units, if necessary, to ensure that there will be a sufficient number of rental units to take care of this serious problem?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not completely agree with Mr. Diamond's statement, or at least the Globe and Mail's interpretation of it. I met with builders and lenders last night, and have every assurance we are going to have the support we need in bringing on more rental accommodation. However, in addition to that, because much of the money will be coming from the private sector, we are allocating some half a billion dollars specially for increased rental accommodation, low income accommodation, non-profit and cooperative housing, senior citizens, native people and all Canadians who are socially deprived.


AIRPORTS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the questions raised about the awarding of the concession at Mirabel to Sky Shops Export Limited, and in order that the people of Canada may be assured that they and their government have received the best possible return for this very valuable franchise, will the minister table in the House the calculations on which he says the interdepartmental committee awarded the franchise to Sky Shops?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will examine what material is available and determine whether that would be the best technique or whether at the committee on estimates we can thoroughly go into the matter. I will certainly look at what is available.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I urge that the minister seriously consider this request, and if he does not table them, I think it will be taken that these calculations cannot stand up to scrutiny by any reasonable persons-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: -for reasons which would transcend any departmental meditation.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the consumer price index today indicated that food as well as housing were the major factors in the upward increase of almost a full percentage point in the cost of living figures for October, and in view of the fact that the present legislation embodying the government's anti-inflation program contains no provisions for controlling either food prices or housing prices, I ask the minister what steps the government is taking in the interim, while the bill is before committee and subject to amendment, to have the Anti-Inflation Board monitor price movements in food and to establish whether these prices are in fact justified?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if I could correct the hon. gentleman, I draw his attention to Bill C-73 and point out that the construction industry is in fact subject to the provisions of the antiinflation program. With regard to food prices, my understanding is that the board, and particularly the vice-chairman of the board, retains an active interest in and attention to these particular increases.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON IMPOSITION OF PRICE FREEZE
James Aloysius McGrath: In order to gain the consensus of Canadian people on this program, which is so essential to its success, is the government considering imposing an immediate freeze, based on the experience of British Columbia, which would make the program at least appear to be just and equitable, not only to wage earners, but to everyone else?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, of course what is involved in food prices as in other things, and as has been indicated by the study of the Food Prices Review Board, which has been supported by the hon. member opposite, food prices increases have been the result of real costs coming through farm production in Canada and imports. In that sense, a freeze now would only postpone for several months for the consumers in Canada, additional costs they will have to meet. As I understand it, higher beef prices and pork prices contribute to this. The fact of the matter is that these commodities have in short supply, and while we have every hope this will be recovered in the months to come, there does exist the fact that prices are under pressure at the moment.

November 7, 1975
Oral Questions


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-SUGGESTED SUBSIDIES FOR ESSENTIAL FOOD ITEMS
James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that some of the major increases in the area of food are within our power to control, for example, dairy products and bread, as well as beef, pork and milk, would the government consider restoring some of the consumer subsidies for some of these essential food items in view of the fact that the present program will not in any way control these prices?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the hon. gentleman to the statements of many of his colleagues insisting that government expenditures be reduced. It seems to me there is a balance in this and that we could of course drastically reduce prices through a very substantial payment from the public treasury. The question is whether we should increase government expenditures for the purpose of doing so. We have decided they should not be increased beyond those at the present time.


MANPOWER
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and results from the decision by the Department of Manpower and Immigration to issue nearly 1,000 work permits to United States residents to fill construction jobs in the Sarnia area. Can the minister assure this House that all Canadian manpower centres and construction unions in Sarnia, London, Windsor, Hamilton and Toronto were notified by manpower officials of those job opportunities before the work permits in question were issued so that unemployed construction workers in Canada qualified to fill these vacancies were not overlooked?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Sarnia project is a sizeable one. We do estimate a shortfall from Canadian sources between now and next spring of about 970 workers. The estimate is based on thorough consultation with the unions in Sarnia and with the industry. There is strong concurrence by all the parties to whom we have talked. There is a close and continuous liaison between manpower officials and union representatives at the national level regarding this and other such major construction projects to ensure that there is continuous dissemination of job vacancy information across the country. I am informed that the Sarnia locals of the principal unions concerned also send continuous and up-to-date information on job opportunities to their counterparts through their hiring hall system. All CMCs are continually seeking workers, through the national network with the skills concerned. In this particular case, we did concur after being advised by both union and management that temporarily there was no other solution. I want to check with a more direct contact with the

Toronto and Hamilton unions as to just what more can be done.


An hon. Member:: Keep it for tonight.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Finance. It is now some three weeks since the Prime Minister outlined to the provincial premiers the government's so-called antiinflation program and two weeks since the Minister of Finance met with provincial ministers of finance. Has the government yet received a specific response from each of the ten provinces on the very fundamental question which provinces are now committed to join the federal program or to adopt parallel guidelines to the federal program? I am referring specifically to those areas peculiarly within provincial jurisdiction.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have received definitive responses from Ontario and Quebec. I think it is fair to say that other provinces have indicated their willingness to participate in the program in general. Several of them have reserved for further consideration some of the problems to be met. We hope to have from them at an early date the sort of firm confirmation we have had from Ontario and Quebec so that we may go ahead with the plan on this basis. Officials propose to meet on the 19th and 20th of this month for the purpose of discussing the program. I shall suggest a ministers' meeting after that. We hope that the provinces then can indicate to us definitively their willingness to participate, either with a proposal such as Quebec's, that is, with their own programs for the public sector, or by opting in to our program, as Ontario proposes.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-COMMITMENT OF QUEBEC TO FEDERAL GUIDELINES-POSSIBILITY OF VARIATION BETWEEN PROVINCES IN GUIDELINES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister indicated that he received a firm response from the province of Quebec, can he tell the House if Quebec has given the commitment that it will follow the federal guidelines, or is the province reserving its position to establish its own guidelines within jurisdiction it is reserving unto itself?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would want to examine the exact terms of the Quebec bill, which was introduced, I think, the day before yesterday. Generally, I understand that the Quebec system would follow the federal guidelines in this respect. They recognize and indicated at the federal-provincial conference that, so far as possible, disparities between the Quebec system and that of any other province should be kept to a minimum.
November 7, 1975


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a pointed question to the Minister of Finance, who said he received a commitment of some sort from Quebec. Is the minister asking this House and the country to support a system of controls which is to be uniform across the country, or is it to be one which may well vary from province to province, not only in Quebec but in other provinces as well?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman asked me a precise question, and I would want to make certain of the wording of the bill before giving a precise answer. If, indeed, he wanted the answer this morning, he might have given me notice of his intention to ask the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What an excuse.


Mr. Baldwin:: You should not have been so glib with your first answer, then.

Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. As the Solicitor General indicated more than seven months ago in a committee of this House that the government was considering participating in a federal-provincial conference on crime and policing, can the minister tell the House if a date has been set for the conference?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: No, Mr. Speaker. Preliminary discussions have been held with the provinces but, so far, there is no agreement to go ahead with such a conference. On the other hand, at a recent meeting with attorneys general and other provincial ministers we discussed other ways of combating organized crime.


POST OFFICE
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. As the Postmaster General stated that he has in the offer he made to the postal workers exhausted his mandate from Treasury Board, which the union has now rejected, will the President of the Treasury Board agree to take over the negotiations, as the Treasury Board is legally responsible for collective bargaining with all federal public servants?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: No change is necessary, Mr. Speaker. We are quite satisfied with the Postmaster General's performance.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON OFFERING FULL COST OF LIVING CLAUSE
David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the government is confident that its anti-inflation program will slow inflation, will the minister consider, in order to facilitate a settlement and resumption of work by postal workers, offering to postal workers a full cost of living and productivity increase for the second year of their contract in order to revive negotiations?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we feel that offering postal workers the Moisan report was most generous. I feel also it is an extremely adequate offer which would warrant their return to work and provide them with highly satisfactory living conditions.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Would the minister be good enough to tell us whether a formal meeting of that nature would be held before the introduction of the government's peace and security legislation package.


William Warren Allmand: As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, we discussed some of the peace and security package with the provincial ministers at a recent meeting in Halifax. Next week the Minister of Justice and I will be meeting the great majority of attorneys general at four meetings across the country.


HOUSING
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Could he advise the House whether the five-year loan which is being granted as building incentive to make up the difference for rates 8 per cent and over and which will be added to the mortgage will carry the same rate as the initial mortgage, or whether the minister intends to impose a special rate for the reimbursement of this loan at the end of the five-year period?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I am sure the hon. member knows, repayment begins at the end of the five-year period, starting with the sixth year. The rate of interest will be that rate which is applying at that time. I hope, as does the hon. member, that the rate will be much lower.

November 7, 1975
Oral Questions


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Since he had agreed to finance the activity of the committee on French-speaking minorities outside Quebec, and since this committee has already made its report to the minister, could he tell the House when he will be in a position to say whether he is going to accept the recommendations of this committee?
[ English]


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I do not receive the report until 12:15 today. I would like to read it before indicating whether I will accept the recommendations.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General has publicly announced that the government's peace and security legislation will probably be introduced by the end of this month. Can the minister now state whether this legislation will be in the form of one, two or three bills? More importantly, has there been a decision on whether capital punishment legislation will be a separate bill or included with other amendments?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I believe we said that we would announce the measures, hopefully before the end of this month. With regard to the second question, while there has been no final decision, I must repeat what I said the other day. I said that it is likely the capital punishment measures will be in a bill separate from other matters relating to gun control and other Criminal Code amendments.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF LEASE EXTENSION TO SKY SHOPS AT DORVAL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. As the minister knows, the hon. member for Central Nova sent him some documents on Wednesday with regard to the Giguere matter involving Sky Shops, which the Solicitor General kindly acknowledged. Has the minister had an opportunity to study those documents? What action does he intend to take? In particular, can he tell us today of the conclusions he has reached as a result of the study and investigation with regard to those documents?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, after receiving the documents and looking at them, I referred them to the RCMP to get their opinion as to whether there should be further investigation of this. They
[Mr. Danson.j
are examining the documents and will report to me in due course.


Walter David Baker: In view of the importance of those documents with regard to the whole matter, will the minister undertake to the House that he will speak to the RCMP specifically to have that report as soon as possible? I ask this in view of the circumstances of this particular matter.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, that is what I just said. The very day I received the documents from the hon. member, I referred them to the RCMP and asked for their opinion on them.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. As in approximately one week's time the air force bases at Arctic Bay and Grise Fiord in the Northwest Territories will be closed by an order of the Ministry of Transport in Winnipeg, the order being basically that they will not allow planes to fly in at night, and as there will be total darkness in about one week at these points, which will have a devastating effect on these communities, can the minister assure the House that he will personally intervene to stop the closing of these airports, at least until a better plan can be worked out?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the plan with regard to the airports at Grise Fiord and Arctic Bay was very carefully related to the safety requirements of the area. In the case of Grise Fiord, the landing at night is hazardous because of the hills in the vicinity of the airport. I think that the safety measures quite properly limit that form of landing. Provision is being made for a lighted airstrip on the ice as soon as that is available for landing. The report I received yesterday is that the ice is now 18 inches thick and, therefore, capable of handling planes. The gap, therefore, between the stopping of night flying into the airport and the commencement of night flying on the ice should in fact be very short. It would, of course, be ideal if no delay existed. However, I hope that hon. member will agree that the application of safety measures to the landing of craft, certainly commercial craft, is important and ought not to be lessened.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, we all agree that the application of safety measures is important. Howewer, in talking with people of Resolute Bay, they advise that the safety of the airstrips has never been in question. There has never been any accident in that area. According to the people of Resolute Bay, there will not be any commencement of flying until some time in the first part of January. If this is true, does the minister have a contingency plan to bring in supplies to the more than 500 people in those areas which will be virtually cut off until the planes can land on the ice?
November 7, 1975


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, contingency plans were being looked at in the event that the ice formation was a lot slower this year than is normally the case. However, the report I received yesterday indicates that is unlikely to be true. Our information is that landing on the ice should be indeed possible by about the middle of November. I really think that hon. members ought not to say that conditions are safe when the expert analysis shows there are significant hazards. Already standards are pushed as close to the limit as possible. It is rather strange that if, as a result of permitting flying, accidents occurred, members would be up on their feet with great vigour protesting that we allowed flying under those circumstances.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday I raised a question in the House in which I indicated that prices in supermarkets in the Sudbury basin were going up as much as 50 per cent. Now, we have a report that one of Canada's largest supermarket chains, Loblaws Limited, is engaging in the practice of changing the name of some of its stores in order to jack up prices. Will the minister consider having his department investigate whether, and under what circumstances, the food which was left in the Loblaw's Pickering Farms store at Yonge and Yorkville Streets, Toronto, which closed October 18, was transferred to Ziggy's, another subsidiary of Loblaws, and whether the 20 per cent mark up is justified?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can respond by saying I saw the same report as the hon. member. We reported this to the AntiInflation Board this morning with the request that they investigate it.

MO)


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John R. Rodriguez: A supplementary to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. A Loblaws representative has been cited as saying that as other Loblaw stores became uneconomical they might be converted to Ziggy stores, with resultant higher prices. Under the government's anti-inflation legislation, for the purposes of wage guidelines associated companies are lumped together with respect to the 500 employees. Is this the case, also, with respect to the price part of the guidelines? In other words, do Loblaw's Pickering Farms, Ziggy and Loblaws all have different price-cost and profit structures and will they be considered as one company or as separate entities for the purpose of price guidelines?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It
would depend, as with all corporate entities, on the nature of the operation. With some we will be able to have a cost pass-through test and with others we will not. In the case of the distribution of business we shall be examining the gross profit margin and determining whether there have been unreasonable mark-ups and for that reason, therefore, whether orders should be made requiring them to roll back prices.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he has now had a chance to look into the question I put to him last week in reference to the case to be heard before the federal court concerning some apprehension as to whether Marshall Crowe, the chairman of the National Energy Board, shows any sign of prejudice because of past involvement in other matters?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: I have now had a chance to review the matter with my officials and it is the intention of the Attorney General of Canada to participate in those hearings. My officials have been instructed to prepare submissions to be made on my behalf. But it would be premature to make a final decision as to the nature of the position to be taken until November 13, which is the date on which interested parties can move to put in further evidence on the matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It seems strange to me that the hearings are continuing to proceed. I am sure the Minister of Justice has had experience in court when there has been a challenge to a judge because of prejudice. Is the minister going to allow the hearings to continue while the position of the President of the National Energy Board is being challenged as to possible prejudice?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I do not think it is my role either to start or stop the hearings. My role is to try to assure that the Attorney General is represented in a federal court hearing in a proper way and that we intend to do.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: A question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. Can the hon. gentleman advise the House as to the state of negotiations between the Foreign Investment Review Agency, Westinghouse Canada Limited and General Steel Wares Limited regarding the take-over bid of General

November 7, 1975
Oral Questions
Steel Wares for the major appliance division of Westing-house Canada and use of the Westinghouse name?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have met personally during the last five days with all the major participants in this particular transaction, namely, White Incorporated, Westinghouse Canada and Westinghouse U.S. as well as with GSW. All these meetings were designed to bring about some sort of satisfactory settlement which would be protective of the jobs and the industry in Hamilton. I would ask the hon. member to appreciate that there is a certain degree of confidentiality attached to these matters and I think it would be detrimental if I were to breach it now. But I can say to him that meetings between the parties will be continuing, I believe on Tuesday of next week, and that in the meantime we remain ready to offer our good offices in any way we can. The parties are now talking among themselves, which was not the case a week ago.


William James Kempling: I thank the minister for that reply. I appreciate that the negotiations are confidential and I would not wish to prejudice the outcome. Can the minister advise us whether a further extension of the November 8 closing date has been negotiated with General Steel Wares and Westinghouse Canada if it would assist in bringing the matter to an acceptable conclusion.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I discussed this matter first thing this morning and my answer to the hon. member is this: since the parties have agreed to hold discussions next Tuesday I would regard it as being a natural assumption that there is a continuity of the arrangement.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Mr. Speaker? Can the hon. gentleman, with his stated willingness to negotiate and extinguish native land claims in British Columbia, advise the House whether the government of British Columbia has belatedly realized that any settlement of land claims would require their participation, and, second, can he tell the House whether any concrete progress has been made in negotiations with British Columbia regarding the land settlement problem?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The answer to the first part of the question is, no. The Province of British Columbia has not accepted the fact that it has a role to play. In answer to the second part of the question, I had a good meeting with provincial ministers last May but since then they have been indicating that there is just no movement on the thing and we are making no headway whatsoever.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. When will a deputy minister be appointed to the Department of the Secretary of State and what are the considerations which have led the government to leave this position vacant for up to seven months?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The
answer to the second part of the question is that the acting deputy minister, the assistant deputy ministers, are doing a good job and they know they will be assisted soon by a permanent deputy minister.


FINANCE
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my question two days ago, the Minister of Finance said that prior to presenting a new budget there would be cuts in social programs to fight inflation. I now ask him whether he can assure the House that there will be no cuts in vital social programs until there have been budgetary cuts by eliminating waste, inefficiency and duplication in other programs-


Gerald William Baldwin: And extravagance; don't forget
extravagance.


William Heward Grafftey: -and cancelling such services as Information Canada, general information services of the government and consulting fees?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman will find if he looks back that I did not say social programs. I can assure him that the vital social programs which we have put forward, and which from time to time have been supported by hon. gentleman opposite, will be continued.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I shall certainly bear in mind the various programs the hon. gentleman would like to see cut out, though as to his suggestion we might cut out information services, I would remind him that hon. members on the other side have often told us that the government is not giving enough information. However, the hon. member seems to hold an opposite view.


Gerald William Baldwin: We want the truth!


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question. I must say I read the minister's statement of two days ago and it was reported that social programs would be cut.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


William Heward Grafftey: Since there is general agreement at this stage that low income people will be primarily hurt by the restraint program, will the hon. gentleman assure the House that these social programs will not be cut until there is elimination of waste along the lines I have suggested?


Mr. Speaker:: That is exactly the question the hon. member has just asked and which was answered by the minister.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the application Manitoba has made for the funding of approximately $2 million for a whey plant at Selkirk to be known as Crocus Foods, may I ask whether the minister has approved the application, or, if he has not, whether he will make public all the documents related to this project since the milk producers of Manitoba are not in favour of it.


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I must assure the hon. member that we did study this report lately. I think we will be in a position to announce our views on that particular subject in a few weeks.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's answer that the file is presently being studied, will he give an undertaking or an assurance that he will also be consulting with various elected members of this House in respect of the program and the representations they have received from their constituents?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member there has been consultation and that we did indeed receive representations from several hon. members. When we have reached a decision and the hon. member has been advised of it, if he then feels that the decision is unfair, he can then keep on asking questions.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister in view of the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Oral Questions
As the people of 65 and over have just had their pensions increased because of the cost of living indexation, as a result of which their spouses who are on welfare see their old age security benefits decreased, would the Prime Minister tell the House whether the government is willing to discuss that situation with the authorities of the province of Quebec with a view to righting that injustice?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we have always been prepared to discuss any such matters with counterparts in the province of Quebec.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have now had an opportunity to examine closely the replies given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday to questions raised by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, from which it is clear that our ambassador in Paris, the former Minister of Communications, has so far failed to communicate, not on bended knee, as he suggested, but with head erect, stating Canada's case, as our right to attend such a conference. Therefore, my questions are these. Is it now Canada's policy to rely on intermediaries such as the United States, Germany, Britain and Japan, as he mentions here, to state our case, or are we prepared to make our own? Does he not construe from this recent turn of events that this is evidence that the success being claimed by this government in its efforts to improve relations between France and Canada is really pretty much of a failure?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I want to clear up one point. It was not I who suggested the bended knee, it was the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert who introduced that colourful expression to the discussion. We are not relying on others to make the case for us, although we appreciate their assistance. In respect of the representations that have been made by other countries, there is obviously involved a question as to whether the host country has the right to decide the membership of the meeting, quite apart from the wishes of those others who may attend.


Gerald William Baldwin: Like with the PLO.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I suggest there is quite an important issue involved for countries like the United States and the United Kingdom in that point, in addition to the desirability of Canadian representation at the summit conference. We have already made our wishes clear to the French government through our representative in Paris. We believe we are entitled to be present at that summit on our own particular merits and not because other countries want us there. We believe we have a contribution to make.

Oral Questions


Donald W. Munro: Now the second question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We believe that Canada's economic position justifies our presence at that summit.


Donald W. Munro: What about the second question?


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services.
Has the government provided for an emergency plan to distribute socio-economic cheques if the postal strike continues?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, for two weeks now my department has made the necessary arrangements to forward the inside mail of the government, and the essential mail all over the country. The plan works satisfactorily.
As for payments to our suppliers, more particularly those who operate a small business, cheques are also distributed satisfactorily.
To answer the question about socio-economic payments, I must say that a plan does exist, but it is not yet in operation.
Concerning more especially the old age security and family allowances, we expect to be able to do the distribution across the country, but as we may not locate all claimants and because the distribution of those cheques does have humane connotations, I intend to invite all hon. members to an information meeting, on a regional basis, in order to make our intentions known, improve our plan and ask for their co-operation.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Justice prepared to announce today the decision on the long delayed and long awaited independent inquiry into the Panarctic air crash?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I said the other day, I have had an opportunity of considering the accident investigation report and the recommendation of the coroner's jury which heard this matter. After consultation with my colleagues, and bearing in mind the importance of aviation in the north, the strong recommendations of the coroner's jury and my responsibility for the administration of justice in the Northwest Territories, I have decided to order a public inquiry under the Inquiries

Act into the circumstances surrounding the crash of the Panarctic Oils Limited aircraft at Rae Point, Northwest Territories on October 30. I am presently engaged in working on the terms of reference and the appointment of a commissioner, and this will be announced later.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that the CPR informed me over four months ago that a bridge would be provided in the Glen-wood-Hill Spring area in order to facilitate the movement of grain, and in light of the fact that this has not even been started, will the minister assure the House that every effort will be made to have this situation corrected immediately?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think there may be a requirement and a role for the Canadian Transport Commission in relation to the bridge on this particular line, but I will look into the matter.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General but he seems to have disappeared.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


John Douglas Reynolds: In view of the fact that we have had a number of people out on parole who have committed crimes in the past year, would the minister be willing to table in this House a list of all the people who have been out on temporary absence passes in the past 12 months who have been classified as habitual criminals or dangerous sexual offenders?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit confused by the question. At first the hon. member asked me about people on parole, and then he asked about dangerous sexual offenders. I can provide him with certain lists and certain information, but I should like to be clear as to what he wants.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, the list I want is a list of all those who have been on temporary absence or parole in the past 12 months who are classified as dangerous sexual offenders or habitual criminals.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Even if the question were-


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, dangerous sexual offenders are not allowed out on temporary absence passes, and they
November 7, 1975

are only paroled after very serious consideration by the Parole Board.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I am sorry to interrupt his discussion with the hon. member. Following the high level meetings of the Public Service Commission held on Monday and Tuesday at Montebello would the hon. gentleman share with this House the interesting and important decisions taken at that conference and conveyed by correspondence to the Prime Minister by Mr. J. J. Carson of the Public Service Commission.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will discuss this with the minister through whom the Public Service Commission is responsible to the House. I have not followed this conference nor have I seen the correspondence to which the hon. member alludes. I thank him for apologizing when I was speaking to a lady.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Speaker, in sharing the right hon. gentleman's esteem for the hon. lady may I pose this question to the minister-


An hon. Member:: Simmer down, Simma.


An hon. Member:: Watch your heart. You will have a stroke.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: I have always admired calm and control. Might I ask the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission if he has discussed with Mr. Carson the decisions taken at this conference and will he now advise the House just what happened at Montebello on Monday and Tuesday.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Public Service Commission reports to the House of Commons through the Secretary of State who is absent from the House at this moment.


Mrs. Holt:: I hardly expected, Mr. Speaker, to be in this House and to see the young gentleman, the handsome man in the grey suit, join the ranks of the front row of Neanderthals. I regret that fact. I am here, gentlemen, as a member of parliament and not as a lady of any description.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the matter should proceed any further. The hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) in fact raises a very valid point of
Remembrance Day
order, that is, it has been a long-standing policy of this House that all members be referred to by their constituency-all members equally-and this is a policy that should not be forgotten.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Presentation of seventh and eighth reports-Mr. Loiselle (Saint-Henri).
With the consent of the House, I intend to move their adoption later today.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, next Tuesday, in cities, towns and villages across Canada, our citizens will stand in hushed silence while a senior veteran utters the words: "They shall not grow old". For more than half a century Canadians have paused at the eleventh hour on November 11 to pay tribute to the Canadian men and women who laid down their lives in the service of our country. This is a very special day dedicated to those who died, not just for us but for all those who will follow us.
I feel it is a hallowed day. It is a day when the guns boom in slow and solemn cadence. It is a day when the muffled drums beat their muted rhythm. In the background we hear the sorrowful strains of the piper's lament. The skies are usually cold and grey, befitting the melancholy spirit of the day. Old veterans and young people lay wreaths and are momentarily united in a mutual tribute of sorrow for all those young Canadians who lie in warriors' graves so far from home. Sometimes, in the silence, a small child cries or a dog barks. The sounds are sad, but somehow in keeping with the mood.
Next Tuesday is November 11. It is Remembrance Day in Ottawa and across Canada. It will be marked as the day that honours and mourns the valiant dead who paid for our freedom. The greying veteran will end his recitation of the act of remembrance with the words: "We will remember them".
Mr. Speaker, may I close my remarks to hon. members of this House with the words of Kipling: "Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet-lest we forget, lest we forget".


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say that we join in the very moving tribute the minister has paid to our fallen in two world wars. We agree with everything the minister has said, because while Remembrance Day is a time for remem-

Remembrance Day
bering, it is also a time for veterans who survived those two world wars, the members of the Royal Canadian Legion, the Navy, Army and Air Force Association, and all veterans organizations, to promote the idea among our young people and all Canadians that today is the time to act. While we remember the past, we must act today so that we may have a peaceful and rewarding future, because so many forces within our society are gnawing at and tearing down the things we cherish most. While we are remembering is the time to act in other to save our future.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, may I say we agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). The minister himself is a reminder of the commitment made by those who served this country in time of war.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: We agree with him that we should ever remember the reason the commitment was made, and those who fell in the wars. This is a time when I believe Canadians want to remember the wars-there have been many, and there may be others-but they should also remember the reasons for that service and the contribution made by those who were so young, many of whom did not return. We in the House have an obligation to the families of fallen veterans and to those veterans who still remain. May we contribute by remembering them and their families at this time.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, in order to commemorate Remembrance Day like other parties in the House, I wish, on behalf of my party, to pay homage to those who have fallen in the last wars. Today we are commemorating the memory of those who were killed in action. I think that all of us here in the House have a very special reason to do so, as I do not believe that there is a single hon. member who has not lost a relative or a friend on the battlefield. As for me, one of my brothers was killed in Germany. Upon hearing the minister say: "Lest We Forget", I felt that we should pledge ourselves to keep their memory alive, to try to uphold the cause of those who have fallen, namely the cause of peace. In my view, this would be the finest token of gratitude towards our late friends, brothers and relatives who have died so that we may live. Thus, something vital would be done to ensure peace for our country. Fortunately, we have been protected and have not known war in our country, but I think we must be watchful if we wish to preserve the peace which we have experienced. I think that we must now increase our vigilance. It is therefore an honour for me to join the previous speakers in pointing out the importance of November 11 in memory of our servicemen killed in action.


MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS AND STANDING ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
Concurrence in seventh and eighth reports of Standing Committee-Mr. Loiselle (Saint-Henri).
[Stage Direction]
The Clerk Assistant (Legal) read the reports.
Mr. Speaker:: The reports referred to in the motion of the hon. member were tabled a moment ago. Such a motion can only be made at this time with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member shall have leave to propose the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am agreeable to the motion being accepted, but in the case of IAC I see absolutely no reason why there should be a return of the penalty which is being imposed. This has always been done in cases where individual hardship has been involved, but in my opinion IAC does not fit into that category. I am therefore opposed and would be prepared to debate the question of the return of the money.


Mr. Loiselle (Saint-Henri):: Mr. Speaker, let me make a clarification. We have imposed the penalty as usual. The hon. member said that we would prevent the company paying the penalty. The situation is otherwise; the penalty has been imposed in order that they be amalgamated.


William Arnold Peters: May I ask the hon. member a question? I understood the Clerk of the House to read that section 91(3) had been applied and that the petition and the acceptance in the other documents, including the provision under section 91(3), had been returned.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like the House to be on the right track so far as our procedures are concerned. We are now on motions and a motion has been presented. It can be adopted now only with the unanimous consent of the House. If there is to be a debate, it will have to be deferred. In any case, the question of the hon. member, which may be a valid one, may be answered after careful examination of the report, in which evidently it is stated that no return of the penalty has been made. Is this understood and agreed?
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[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: Nos. 551, 2,705, 3,063, 3,104, 3,164, 3,249, 3,296, 3,323, 3,324, 3,325, 3,326, 3,355, 3,356, 3,358, 3,359, 3,458, 4,359, 3,460, 3,461, and 3,462.
November 7, 1975

1	ask, Mr, Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Jelinek: 1.	What are the full addresses of Estray and Solar Enterprises, numbered sixth and seventh respectively, in the Postmaster General's First Progress Report to Parliament on the Olympic Coin Programme?
2.	How many coins have been sold thus far to (a) Charlton Numismatics Limited (b) Silver Dollars Reg'd (c) Fred Samuels Limited (d) Unique Art Inc. (e) Canadian Armed Forces Exchange System (CANEX) (f) Estray (g) Solar Enterprises (h) Western Coin Distributors (i) Wenger's Limited (j) Bissell and Bissell Enterprises Inc. (k) J.M. Canada Coin & Stamp Co. Limited (1) Trudel, Robillard, Desrosi-ers Inc.?
3.	What is the numerical breakdown of the coins into the various categories in which these coins are sold?
4.	What was the price charged to these dealers for each and every one of the categories indicating both the unit price and the total charge?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. Estray Limited, P.O. Box 82, LaSalle, P.Q., H8R 3T7; Solar Enterprises, 1707-1420 Crescent Street, Montreal, P.Q., H3C 2B7.
2	and 3. Exact sales figures by each distributor is considered to be confidential commercial information which for competitive reasons cannot be made public. However, it can be stated that 25 per cent of the Sales shown hereunder were made by the distributors mentioned in question No. 2; the rest were made by Chartered Banks, Credit Unions, Caisses Populaires and Trust Companies.
Sales
as at March 31, 1975 (Canada)
Series I
Unencapsulated Coin Encapsulated Coin Standard Cased Coin Custom Cased Coin-75,761 sets x 4 Prestige Cased Coin-51,039 sets x 4 Proof Quality Coin-37,974 sets x 4 Total
Face Value $26,037,360 Series II
Unencapsulated Coin Encapsulated Coin Standard Cased Coin Custom Cased Coin-68,414 sets x 4 Prestige Cased Coin-43,600 sets x 4 Proof Quality Coin-22,195 sets x 4 Total
Face Value $14,090,135 Series III*
Unencapsulated Coin Encapsulated Coin Standard Cased Coin
Order Paper Questions
Series III*
Custom Cased Coin-18,255 sets x 4	73,020	857Prestige Cased Coin-11,418 sets x 4	45,672	559Proof Quality Coin-22 sets x 4	88	2Total	535,320	5,846
Face Value $4,006,900
4. All authorized distributors, including those listed in part 2 of this question, pay the same F.O.B. Ottawa prices listed below. Those distributors who incorporate Olympic coins into premium priced products, such as jewellery, must add to these prices an additional sum as royalties.
Price List (F.O.B. Ottawa)
Product description	Series I	Series II	Series III
Unencapsulated coin			
$ 5 coin	$ 5.50	$ 7.00	$ 7.00$10 coin	11.00	14.00	14.00Complete set (4 coins)	33.00	42.00	42.00Encapsulated coin	$ 5 coin	5.50	7.00	7.00$10 coin	11.00	14.00	14.00Complete set (4 coins)	33.00	42.00	42.00Single-Coin Standard Case	$ 5 coin	6.70	8.20	8.20$10 coin	12.20	15.20	15.20Complete set (4 coins)	37.80	46.80	46.80Custom Case Complete set (4 coins)	35.00	46.00	46.00Prestige Case Complete set (4 coins)	38.00	48.00	48.00Proof Quality Coin Deluxe Case (4 coins)	70.00	70.00	70.00
Notes: * Series III launch, planned for January 16, 1975, was postponed until April 16, because of the lengthy strike at the Royal Canadian Mint.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	Broken down into amounts of $10,000 or more, to whom on a cumulative basis was the $1,128,000 paid for professional services as reflected in Exhibit 5 in the March 31, 1975 report on the Olympic Coin Programme?
2.	In each case (a) what was the name of the recipient (b) their address (c) what was the type of professional service involved?
3.	Where recipients are corporations, who are the principal shareholders and officers of each corporation?


Paul Edmund McRae: Parts 1, 2 and 3. Contracted employee working in Canada-A. J. Warwick, Montreal, P.Q., Administrative Services, $38,802.91; Contracted employees working in New York-L. Chapman, Folcroft Pa., Marketing Services, $17,753.50; M. Richards, New York, Marketing Services, $11,679.79; J. Schiller, New York, Marketing Services, $21,985.95; Contracted employees working in Brussels-A. Morin, Montreal, Marketing Services, $52,664.76; F.
Coins Thousands of $
1,066,565
1,434,331
324,133
303,044
204,156
151,896
3,484,125
44,132
1,138,213
166,358
273,656
174,400
88,780
1,885,539
24,132
358,738
33,670
8,111
11,863
3,078
2,784-
2,030
2,708
30,574
12,006
1,960
3,225
2,151
1,794
21,592
3,779
29956-15

November 7, 1975
Order Paper Questions
G. Bonnart, Middlesex, England, Marketing Services, $14,583.31; M. J. Maerten, Ypres, Belgium, Marketing Services, $12,499.98; Contracted employees working in Tokyo-H. W. Hoppener, Toronto, Marketing Services, $61,822.03; K. Moriguchi, Tokyo, Marketing Services, $18,581.92; Y. Ito, Tokyo, Marketing Services, $38,802.91; sub-total: $289,177.06. Other Professional Services-Rourke Bourbonnais and Associates, Montreal, P.Q., Consulting services in the area of organization planning, $25,181.46; Groupe de Gestion P.M. Inc., Montreal, P.Q., Management Services, $102,800.54; Informetrica Ltd., Ottawa, Ont., Development and monitoring of a management information system on production, inventory, sales and shipments, $59,653.43; Stewart and Morrison Ltd., Toronto, Ont., Coin and Case'designers, $23,197.00; Dr. Edgar Schubert, Agent of Public Relations, Frankfurt, Germany, $11,401.83; Intertask Limited, Ottawa, Ontario, Project Management and Logistic Support, $72,535.32; Harshe-Rotman & Druck Inc., New York, N.Y., Counsel on public relations in U.S.A., $128,255.30; Via le monde Inc., Montreal, P.Q., Production of audio/visual tape capsules of Olympic Games for domestic and international marketing, $88,819.00; Programmed Communications Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., Audio/visual or slide program, $18,806.64; Ronald-Reynolds & Co. Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., Design consulting services, $25,000.00; Torreson-Rose Marketing Co. Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., Public Relations Services, $26,175.52; Scott-Atkinson, Vicari, Only International Limited, Public Relations Counsel and Services, $18,334.96; Berger, Tisdall, Clark & Lesly Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., Public Relations Counsel and Services, $10,341.82; Trans-Ocean, Brussels, Travel Agency, $16,845.15; Paul Winner Marketing Communications Ltd., London, England, Public Relations Consultants for Europe, $19,559.35; Admiral Travel Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Travel Agency, $12,068.50; Air Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Travel Agency, $24,484.67; Inter-Image Company, Tokyo, Japan, Public Relations for Pacific and Phil-lipines, $76,509.32; Michael W. Moynihan, New York, N.Y., Public Affairs Consultants for U.S.A & Mexico, $10,006.68; Herbert A. Watts Contests Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Coin Design Competition, $16,618.47; Miscellaneous-$52,227.98. Total: $1,128,000. A number of the Professional Services received were from Corporations as the list of names indicates. We do not have a list of the principal shareholders and officers of these corporations.


Mr. Jelinek: 1.	How many Olympic gold coins will be minted with (a) lA ounce of gold (b) Vi ounce of gold?
2.	What is the proposed date for the coins to be available to the public?
3.	What is to be the duration of this programme?
4.	What will be the surcharge on each coin?
5.	Who will be the official gold coin distributors in (a) Canada (b) United States (c) Europe?
6.	What will be the seignorage from both coins?
7.	What portion of the seignorage will be available to COJO?


Paul Edmund McRae: 1. The number of gold coins to be issued will not exceed 1 million in total. The ratio between Vi oz. and lA oz. has not yet been decided. It is understood that

the face value of the silver and gold coins is not to exceed $450 million face value. It is also understood in accordance with the original Olympic Coin (1976) Act that the profit will not exceed $250 million.
2.	The coins will probably be available to the public on an order basis by April or May 1976.
3.	As per the Coin Act the duration of the program will not go beyond December 31, 1976. This however does not preclude orders being placed in 1976 and fulfillment possibly taking place in 1977. It is not our objective to become involved with this particular timing situation.
4.	Pricing of the gold coin is probably $10 over face value of the uncirculating 14K coin and possibly $50 on the proof 22K coin.
5.	With respect to naming official distributors it is not possible to do so at this particular time. We will probably use the existing network of distributors, but again this has not been finalized as yet.
6.	Seignorage for the coins can only be determined on the basis of the price of gold on the days designated for the costing of the gold. This refers to the last five days in the month of February 1976. When the cost of gold and other factors are determined we would be in a better position to advise of the seignorage.
7.	The portion of the seignorage to be made available to COJO would be the total sales value less marketing and manufacturing costs as is the case with the silver coin program.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): In each of the past three fiscal years, what was the gross revenue derived by the Post Office Department from second-class mail?


Paul Edmund McRae: In thousands of dollars, 1972-73, $14,899; 1973-74, $15,007; 1974-75, $14,968.


Mr. Reynolds: With reference to a contract awarded January 16, 1975 to Magline of Canada Limited, Renfrew, Ontario, for the supply of toboggans at a cost of $215.54 delivered to Lancaster Park, Alberta and $211.65 delivered to Montreal, Quebec, how many were shipped to each location and what was their size and specifications?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as DSS is concerned, a quantity of 1,204 toboggans was to be delivered to Lancaster Park, Alberta of which 356 have been shipped, and 1,500 to Montreal, Quebec of which 304 have been shipped. Regular shipments are continuing. The toboggan is 80 inches long and 22 inches wide and is manufactured in accordance with Department of National Defence Specification CDA/DID/ Unit 5-1-2.
November 7, 1975


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	In the past five years, how many companies have refused to tender with the Department of Supply and Services because they were required to deposit securities by way of certified cheque?
2.	Would the Minister indicate the necessity of security deposits realizing that at times firms have been reluctant to tender because of lengthy holdbacks on the return of security capital?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. As was indicated in the reply to question 1,996, security deposits are seldom required. Therefore, the Department does not record the number of companies who have refused to tender because they were required to deposit securities by way of certified cheque.
2.	Pursuant to Part VI, Section 39 of the Government Contracts Regulations, security deposits are required only when it is considered essential as a means of ensuring that a bidder will accept a contract if he is the successful tenderer.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What progress is being made towards establishing a rail commuter service between Windsor Junction and outlying areas and the metropolitan community of Dartmouth and Halifax?
2.	On what date will a final decision be known?


Otto Emil Lang: 1 and 2. On
July 30, 1975 the government announced a Capital Assistance Program to Commuter Services. Under this program the government of the province and the municipalities concerned after agreeing to an urban development strategy would apply for assistance to implement a commuter service in support of such a strategy. Since the initiative for proposing a commuter service between Windsor Junction and outlying areas and the metropolitan community of Dartmouth and Halifax rests with the province no decision will be made until an appropriate application is received and approved.


Mr. Cossitt: Is the Department of Public Works aware that W.N. Construction Ltd. of 36 Bentley Avenue tendered on the construction of the swimming pool at the Prime Minister's official residence at 24 Sussex Drive and, if so, what was the amount of the tender?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: As mentioned in answer to question No. 1,233, the service of the contractor for the construction of the swimming pool was engaged by the trustee for the donors. Since the costs have been assumed by private donors, information about firms that may have been approached and tenders that may have been submitted, are not of government record.


Mr. Cossitt: Is the Department of Public Works aware that F.E. Cummings Construction Co. Ltd. of 1534 Laperriere Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario tendered on the construction of the swimming pool at the Prime Minister's
Order Paper Questions
official residence at 24 Sussex Drive and, if so, what was the amount of the tender?


Mitchell William Sharp: See answer to question No. 3,323.


Mr. Cossitt: Is the Department of Public Works aware that Ottawa R. & R. Construction Ltd. of 335 Lebreton Street South, Ottawa, Ontario tendered on the construction of the swimming pool at the Prime Minister's official residence at 24 Sussex Drive and, if so, what was the amount of the tender?


Mitchell William Sharp: See answer to question No. 3,323.


Mr. Cossitt: What is the annual estimated cost from public funds of maintaining all aspects of the swimming pool at the Prime Minister's official residence at 24 Sussex Drive?


Mitchell William Sharp: See answer to question No. 3,323.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,233 concerning the swimming pool at the Prime Minister's offical residence, 24 Sussex Drive, which stated in part "The group of donors was concerned that the Prime Minister and his successors have ready access to adequate physical fitness facilities ..(a) specifically to whom did they express such concern (b) on what dates (c) who expressed it?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, Citation 171(c), (d) and (r).


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,233 which says in part "... the Prime Minister agreed to accept from a representative group of Canadians a gift of a swimming pool for the official residence at 24 Sussex Drive'', what are all the facts that enabled him to designate the donors "a representative group of Canadians"?


Mitchell William Sharp: See answer to question No. 3,355.


Mr. Cossitt: Has the Prime Minister met personally or otherwise had discussions in any way whatsoever with Dr. W. H. Fader, 395 Brooks Street, Toronto, Trustee representing the donors to the swimming pool at the Prime Minister's official residence, 24 Sussex Drive on the subject of the swimming pool and, if so (a) on what dates (b) in what locations (c) what points were specifically dealt with?


Mitchell William Sharp: See answer to question No. 3,355.
8960

November 7, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: Since April 20, 1968, what are the details of any government business dealings with William Teron Associates, William Teron Limited, Mr. Teron personally or any other company with which he had any connection in an official capacity and, what amount of public funds are involved in any case that may exist?


Mitchell William Sharp: See answer to question No. 3,355.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,233 which stated that the swimming pool at the Prime Minister's official residence, 24 Sussex Drive, was designed by an architect of the Department of Public Works, is the Department of Public Works, the National Capital Commission or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation aware of the names of the sub-contractors involved with the project and, if so, what are their names and the type of work performed in each case?


Mitchell William Sharp: See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, Citation 171(c), (d) and (r).


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,691 which stated in part "The question of construction of the pool at public expense was raised, but it was considered preferable to accept the offer of anonymous donors", what are all the reasons that this was considered "preferable"?
2.	Was the government at any time concerned about possible improprieties or conflict of interest factors existing as a result of donor anonymity and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, what steps were taken to look into this possibility?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 3,458.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the identity of the person or persons who selected Dr. W. H. Fader, 395 Brooks Street, Toronto, as Trustee for the donors for the swimming pool at the Prime Minister's official residence, 24 Sussex Drive.
2.	On behalf of the government, was the Prime Minister, a Senator or William Teron, President of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation involved in this aspect of the matter and, if so, on what date and in what way?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 3,458.


Mr. Cossitt: What is the total number of private individuals who have donated anonymously to the construction of the swimming pool at the Prime Minister's official residence, 24 Sussex Drive (a) as of January 1, 1975 (b) as of June 1, 1975 (c) from June 1, 1975 to date?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 3,458.


Mr. Cossitt: To the knowledge of the government, were any donors to the swimming pool at the Prime Minister's residence, 24 Sussex Drive companies, corporations, organizations or groups of any kind whatsoever and, if so, what is the number involved?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 3,458.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, November 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Drury (for Mr. Chretien) that Bill C-52, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, the Governor General's Retiring Annuity Act, the Judges Act, the Tax Review Board Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) reminded the House that I had said in the House, and I had also reached agreement with the House leaders, that if possible, and with the agreement of the House, Bill C-52 would not be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates but to the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service. I should like now to ask unanimous consent for that alteration to be made to the reference.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion put forward by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). Is it agreed?


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I raised a query as to whether the terms of reference setting up the initial special committee with regard to employer-employee relations would be sufficiently wide for that committee to receive Bill C-52. I was assured that the matter would be examined and if the House leaders were satisfied that all was in order, I was perfectly satisfied. However, I want to be satisfied that such reference is proper, because it seems to me that when a special committee is set up, it is for a particular purpose, unless that purpose can be broadened. I would like to see it broadened because 1 think it is the right committee. Let us make sure we have the proper motions in position and that procedural difficulties are cleared up.

November 7, 1975


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), with his great care for seeing that things are done legally and properly-which is very essential in this House with this government-has raised a very valid point. However, so there can be no error, I suggest that the terms of the motion might be extended so that the committee will in any event be considered to be given by this House the authority to receive this particular bill and to consider it. Then there can be no doubt that there will be authority.
I think the hon. member has in mind that the committee might be functus officio. If that were the case, he would be right. We could rectify that if the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) provided in his motion that for the purpose of reference of this particular bill it would be assumed that the committee would receive such authority as might be required to consider the bill.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has, in effect, just said what I had in mind. Is it not a fact that to refer a bill to a committee is in itself to give that committee a term of reference? For example, there is nothing in the set-up of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates which says that it will receive a bill on superannuation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is a standing committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a standing committee to deal with such things as are referred to it. When we refer a bill to a committee, that itself is a term of reference. If the committee did not exist, a problem would face us. But the committee does exist. It seems to me that if the House, particularly by unanimous consent, agrees to this we are in effect giving that committee this bill as a term of reference.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House is obviously of a mind to amend the motion directing this bill to the committee. I could take the concern about the term of reference under review, but my initial reaction is to conclude that the passage of the motion, as amended, with the direction that the bill be sent to an existing committee, does in fact constitute a term of reference by this House that the committee study the bill. However, if I were to conclude differently before a vote is taken on this motion, I would certainly return to the House to say so. In the absence of that, I propose now to ask whether it is the pleasure of the House to adopt the change in the motion of reference, so that the motion will read that the bill be read the second time and referred to the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Ipso facto.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, during the first part of my speech on this bill, which I gave last evening between 9.30 and ten o'clock, I indulged in the nice things which could be said about it,
State Pensions
and there are favourable things to say about this bill. I also spent some time speaking critically in the sense that I was pointing out things not in the bill which ought to be there. These related to improvements in the pensions of public servants and others who come under the aegis of the federal government. Even though in much of what I said last night I was speaking critically, the general feeling of the House was that the changes I was suggesting should be considered, if not immediately then certainly somewhere down the road. In other words, the 30 minutes of my speech last night was the pleasant part. I left for today a part which might not seem so pleasant, at least to some hon. members in this House.
I regret very much, especially at this time when restraint is being proclaimed, that there has been included in this bill a very generous increase in the provision of pensions of members of parliament, members of the Senate, cabinet ministers and others. Some might say to me that all this bill is doing is relating our pensions to the amount of our indemnity, and because our indemnity has been raised, therefore it is appropriate to raise the potential pensions which are payable to members of parliament. However, the fact is that in a potential way this bill is increasing the pensions of members of parliament by 33 V3 per cent. I use the word "potential" because one's pension has to be computed on the six-year average. But that is the general effect of the bill, to increase the pensions of members of parliament by 331/3 per cent.
I said a moment ago that one has to have in mind the six-year average, but it is also a fact that the pay provisions of members of parliament passed earlier this year include escalation of 7 per cent in January, and so on down through the years, so that the total amount of pension which is available to a member of parliament is on the move. It keeps going up. At the present time, the maximum pension a member of parliament can draw is $13,500. That requires 25 years service, of course. That maximum will go up, according to today's pay scale, to $18,000.
I am glad my hon. friend, the member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), is here so that he can put in his objections, just as I did not agree and muttered my objections last evening when he pressed so hard for the right of members of parliament to draw their pensions and also to draw salaries in the public service at the same time. That is in this bill. I do not happen to agree with it, but one has to lose some battles as well as win some. I point out that a 33 'A per cent pension increase is overly generous. I point out, also, that under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, for ten years' service one gets a pension of 35 per cent of the average of his six best years. In the public service, it takes 17 V2 years to get 35 per cent. I point out, likewise, that for 20 years' service in this House one earns a pension equal to 65 per cent of the average of his six best years. It would take 32'A years in the public service to reach that level of 65 per cent.
Finally, I note that in the House, with 25 years' service one reaches a pension equal to 75 per cent of the average of his six best years. Of course, that 75 per cent level is never reached in the public service; the maximum there is 70 per cent for 35 years.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Thirty years.

State Pensions


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, 35 years. In 30 years he gets only 60 per cent. Madam Speaker, I do not think we should ask for it both ways. I do not think hon. members should ask for a generous formula that builds up our pensions faster than all the other pension plans in this bill, and also expect that we should get the full pension advantage of the higher rates of pay that this parliament passed a few months ago. There is no question about what I would do if this proposal stood by itself as a bill to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. That is the way it ought to have been done. As has happened before, it has been put into an omnibus bill which contains many things that we favour, as well as this point that some of us thoroughly oppose.
I would point also that as on a number of occasions after there has been debate on members' pensions, members will admit that there are some things in it that are too generous, particularly the right to draw pensions after six years of service, no matter what one's age. But nothing is ever done to correct such abuses. Let me carry it to the absurd. It would be possible, under the act we now have, for a person to be elected at age 18 and to be here six years, then at age 24 to draw a pension for life based on those six years of service. The likelihood of that happening is slight.


Gerald William Baldwin: He would probably die a lot sooner.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But there are cases of former members who qualified for a pension going out in their late thirties and forties on pensions for life.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, and I can think of the shabby treatment some received, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, there has been shabby treatment, and before this plan came into effect a lot of members of parliament were treated shabbily. We never covered such former members in any bill to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. I remind hon. members that when the Curtis report was presented to us some years ago, it called for the pensions of members of parliament to be deferred to age 55. As a matter of fact, everything in the Curtis report was accepted but that one point. Many members said afterwards that we should not have rejected that recommendation and that the next time this legislation was under review, we could change it. But none of those examples of generosity are being cut back in this legislation. Instead, it accepts all the generosity that is there and provides for this general 33lA per cent pension increase as well.
I submit that in these days, when we are being called upon to accept and to proclaim restraint, when we are asked to give leadership in this area, we should not in the same year, 1975, do the things that we have done, namely, provide substantial increases in our pay and allowances and also improve greatly the pension plans available to us. I accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton West that members of parliament should not be treated shabbily. That used to happen. There is nothing in this plan, however, to which the word "shabby" could apply. It is far too generous, and I hope that in the committee to which this bill is being referred we can take the time to look at its provisions in light of the leadership that the country expects from us at this time.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I was very happy to hear the resolution that this bill is being sent to committee. It is very important that it goes to the committee which is so concerned about other aspects of the public service. In that committee we also considered the superannuation of public servants who have reached the age of retirement. I think it was a very good thing. I was a little concerned, when the debate began this afternoon, about the propriety of the suggestion that we might refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada to decide whether the committee was right. That has been resolved, and I am pleased that was the decision of the committee. I believe the committee is the appropriate place to discuss such matters.
I am prepared to admit the difficulties with respect to the omnibus bill that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has mentioned, but the committee is equipped to discuss the bill rationally. I am certain, since the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a member of that committee, that the matters he has raised will be discussed in great detail. Since its inception, the committee has indicated its willingness to deal with these questions as a matter of balance.
In that committee a few days ago we were speaking about the role of legislators in describing certain matters and rights that have been given to public servants and others by statute. I think it was Senator Robert Stanbury who said that the legislator's role in that context is to balance the equities that exist and the differences that exist. I would suggest it is not fair to equate the position of a public servant, a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or a member of any other group who will benefit from this legislation with the position of a member of parliament. That would be unfair to members of parliament. The roles are different, the life is different, the problems are different, the obligations are different, and the circumstances in which they find themselves at varying periods of time in their professional lives as public servants or members of parliament are different.
As Senator Stanbury said, the job of the committee will be to balance those equities, to look rationally and honestly into the differences in the lives of the people involved. Whether for public servant or member of parliament, those pensions did not come about through avarice; they came about because the decision was made with respect to the different functions they perform. It is the same with the pensions for judges and lieutenant governors. I think consideration is being given to what men and women give up for a public life as opposed to other ways of life.
I say these things in response to the points raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I think that even he will recognize that there are differences. I share his concern about including these matters in an omnibus bill. Perhaps in some instances the practice of legislating omnibus bills is bad. But it has not been done for any improper or unreasonable purpose. This is an omnibus bill because it is convenient to consider these matters in such a bill. This is a busy House, as one can see by looking at the order paper.
November 7, 1975

In the circumstances, I am pleased to see that this matter is to be referred to the committee previously mentioned, where we can deal with the issues raised in this bill, issues concerning the pensions of public servants, members of parliament, judges, senators and others. There will be ample opportunity to debate these matters in committee. Frankly, I want the committee to consider the general question of pensions. What is a pension? We must look at some anomalies involving pensions. For instance, some people can leave one part of the public service and gain employment in another without loss of pension benefit. They carry their pension with them. I understand that if members of the armed services or of the public service, including the diplomatic service, are elected to parliament they receive the benefit of their pension. They have earned that benefit. But others in society are not granted similar benefits. I am thinking of men and women who serve in parliament and who, because of their experience in public life, are offered appointments to the bench. One could say that they can refuse. I suppose everyone has the opportunity to refuse almost anything-except the ability to eat and breathe. People have the opportunity to refuse, but I want to see some consistency in the treatment of pensions.
If the committee concludes that a pension is earned, it should not be lost in any circumstances except death. I know there are provisions governing death benefits. In no circumstances should the pension be taken away if we consider it as earned. If we are prepared to give this idea lip service and pass legislation governing some pension benefits, I suggest we should take a good look at other sorts of pension benefits.
Yesterday evening the hon. member for Winnipeg North Ceptre, in a speech I enjoyed, mentioned the case of members of the armed services who because they do not take advantage of a certain provision within a specified time limit are penalized with respect to pension benefits. In other words, they are deemed by statute not to have a right to something they have earned. The committee will need to examine this kind of provision to see how it affects members of the armed services who take employment with the publjc service of Canada.
We must also consider whether superannuation should not be related to the best years of employment instead of the last years of service. I am thinking, for example, of the men and women employed in the aircraft operations groups of the professional institute. Their work is intense, physical and debilitating and there is the danger that they cannot maintain peak performance throughout their professional careers. I think that is an occupational hazard. I am sure that other groups in the public service are in the same position. I want the committee to consider whether superannuation should not be calculated on the basis of the best years of service instead of the last years.
I am glad to note that the government is attempting to remove differentiations as between salaries paid to men and to women for the same jobs in the public service of Canada. This attempt, being made in International Women's Year, is sound and I support the provisions of the bill which go in that direction. This is a large bill, with 106 clauses.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And 89 pages.
State Pensions


Walter David Baker: The bill is complicated and important. I am glad the government has seen fit to bring it forward now. I hope debate on it will be short; therefore I will say no more. I think much of the debate will take place in committee. I am sure that because we pride ourselves on being fair-minded we shall consider the equities of the matter which are important to hon. members and to certain people whom we represent. As I say, I think the debate should take place in committee and I commend the government for bringing the bill forward at this time.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I was pleased to learn from the exchange earlier this morning that the bill is to be referred to a committee on which I serve. As has been said, this is an omnibus bill. I have always been afraid that omnibus bills are not proper, that there is, shall we say, something the matter 'with them. I am under the impression that the government has introduced this omnibus bill in an attempt to tidy up certain matters which have been left hanging. In short, it is a housekeeping bill, although a complicated one. I am pleased to learn, therefore, that we shall be given the opportunity to examine it more fully in the Standing Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service.
I hope there will not be any need to refer this matter again to that committee if it should happen that because of the committee's present preoccupations it cannot deal with this matter before the end of the present session. I understand that committees, special and otherwise, die at the end of a session and must be revived in a new session. I see several members of the committee present in the House. I hope, therefore, that the reference of this matter to the committee will hold good in the next session and will be continued in the next session, if that should prove necessary, so that we can deal with this particular matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The bill itself is a reference.


Donald W. Munro: This morning I want to deal with two aspects of the bill. As the royal recommendation suggests, the purpose of this bill in part is to provide equality of status for males and females. That may be a tribute to the present year, International Women's Year, but it does not go far enough. I feel it is mere lip service-at a time when "LIP" is not the most pleasant expression to use. I mean that it is merely a verbal accommodation of a principle which we are not really incorporating into law. I maintain, Madam Speaker-and here I enlist your support-that there will be no equality of status in these matters until it is fully recognized that in a case in which a pension is involved, the surviving spouse who may not have been the breadwinner has exactly the same rights as those which would have been enjoyed by the breadwinner if he had survived. They are the same as enjoyed by the breadwinner when he survives.
As hon. members know-I have mentioned this in other debates-if the spouse should die, the breadwinner normally carries on with a 100 per cent pension, whereas the non-breadwinner in a situation of that sort suffers a 50 per

State Pensions
cent reduction in the pension she may draw or the superannuation payments to which she is entitled. I do not think that is equality. One of two things should occur. It stands to reason that at the age when the pension or superannuation falls due normally, whichever spouse survives is in no position to carry on with a reduced pension. The breadwinner can easily carry on with the full pension.
In the traditional situation, the man has been the breadwinner and has made the contributions. If he should be the survivor, he will receive the 100 per cent pension. However, if the breadwinner husband should die, the wife is left with only 50 per cent. She is in a more difficult situation when she has her income reduced in this manner. I suggest that this is not a sincere effort to provide equality of status as between the two sexes.
I would like to see either 100 per cent continued for the surviving spouse or some other figure. I am not prepared to state the figure; I cannot work it out actuarially or in terms of domestic economics. Possibly 75 to 80 per cent should be the proportion of pension left to either surviving spouse whether it be the breadwinner or the non-breadwinner. I suggest this is the equality we should be working toward.
The element of transportability of pension earnings from one area of the public service to another, whether in uniform or not, is good and I welcome it. I am the beneficiary of superannuation payments as a result of my service in the public service to which I managed to add my war service. This totalled 30 years. It may amuse you, Madam Speaker, to learn that if by chance it had not been to the House of Commons that I was called, but to the other place, I should have had to lose the pension I had earned over those 30 years. The reasons are legalistic. It is wrong that that should be the case. As a result of the superannuation benefits to which I contributed during my 30 years of service, I was able to carry on during that period when the salaries and indemnities in this House were not as great as they are at present. Otherwise, I could not have done it. I recognize the advantage I had at that time.
There are other matters in the bill. As I say, transportability is a fundamental principle that we must incorporate. There must be more tidying up than is done in this bill. There are other matters which have not been dealt with at all. I agree it would have involved a longer bill, but I think that the mysterious 85 formula which is used in the armed services and the public service has to be re-examined. I look forward to re-examining it more closely in the committee on which I serve. Naval officers-and that is a proud term-are obliged to resign their commission after 25 years' service. They are deprived of the increments and the full benefits of pension they might have had if they could have continued on to 30 or 35 years to make up this mysterious 85 formula.
As my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) just mentioned, we must define what is a pension. This takes me back to equality. The contributions that the breadwinner makes to his pension are really contributions from the family budget. The whole family suffers to the extent that his contributions reduce the take-home pay in any given week, month of year. They do not object. However, I think they should be considered

as family, rather than individual contributions. That would get us closer to the concept of equality.
I have never been able to get this straight in my mind: does the government make its contributions as the individual or family contributions are made, or are they only made from the consolidated revenue fund at the time withdrawals have to be made for the public servant? I look forward to the discussion we shall have on this particular measure when it reaches our committee.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill C-65, to amend the statute law relating to income tax, be read the third time and do pass.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division. Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT
Marcel Lessard: that Bill C-74, to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members of the House are well aware, the Regional Development Incentives Act first received assent in 1969. Since that time it has been an important element in the regional development policy of
November 7, 1975

the federal government. The purpose of the bill now before parliament is to seek a five year extension of the act; no other changes are being proposed.

Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset that I hope this bill will be passed quickly, since it will help to settle some pratical matters that are relatively urgent. The existing act will expire on December 31, 1976, and although there is more than a year to go, the fact is that the applicants who have accepted offers must by then have reached the stage of business production in order to be entitled to payments. In the case of large projects, it often takes over a year before production can start. The expiry date of the existing act is already being felt and serious potential applicants have some misgivings.
Although most members of this House are quite familiar with the Regional Development Incentives Act and its administration, I should like to outline briefly a few highlights of this act.
The incentives provided by the legislation can take the form of grants, guaranteed loans or refundable grants aimed at promoting investments and creating employment in depressed areas. More specifically, they are designed to encourage companies to establish new plants and extend or modernize existing manufacturing or processing establishments. Their obvious purpose in the long run is evidently to succeed in reducing regional disparities and achieving stabler economic growth in the country.
I should report, Mr. Speaker, that as of last August, the latest period for which complete program statistics are available, the Regional Development Incentives Act had helped to stimulate some $2.4 billion in capital investment in slow growth regions-investment expected to create about 122,000 direct new jobs. To this end, some $507 million in grant offers have been accepted since the inception of the program.
As a result of a major policy review undertaken in 1973 by my predecessor, the Hon. Don Jamieson, certain changes were made in the regulations governing the administration of the act. On the whole, these changes were designed to improve the decision-making process on smaller cases and to establish an administrative framework consistent with the decentralized mode in which my department now operates. There is now good reason to believe that these changes have led to a more smoothly functioning program, one that works even more effectively in concert with other elements of DREE policy.
I want to say, in this regard, Mr. Speaker, that it is important to realize that the RDIA is an integral part of the government's total approach to regional development. As most members are aware, the key element of that approach is found in the general development agreements which have been signed with each of the provinces except Prince Edward Island, which is covered under a similar comprehensive development plan. These agreements carefully spell out a joint federal-provincial strategy for economic development in each region which is aimed at taking full advantage of the inherent economic potential of that particular region. In this context, RDIA serves to
Regional Development Incentives Act
complement industrial development by encouraging general industrial development which supports that broad development strategy.
Mr. Speaker, using RDIA in conjunction with the general development agreements provides, I believe, an effective basis for improving economic and social conditions in Canada's slow growth regions. It is equally important that I stress there are no unique solutions to these problems, no conventional wisdom which serves as an all-purpose guide to economic development in every region. It is for this reason that I stress the paramount importance of the flexibility built into our policy approach, an approach which requires, above all, the creative development of the opportunities at hand in each region.

Mr. Speaker, I do not hesitate to state in this House that, through these amendments, this program is working more smoothly and is better integrated into the department's general policy. I have no doubt that members of the House will make every effort to adopt this legislation without delay so that the implementation of the regional development incentives program will not be interrupted.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the remarks of the minister, and we have no intention of prolonging the time this House will take to consider Bill C-74. We realize we will have the opportunity when it reaches the committee to consider this and other aspects of the DREE program. We understand, of course, that in the usual fashion the minister will be there taking part in the discussions.
I believe the minister is determined to maintain the high priority this government has put on DREE. Certainly, DREE's role is becoming a little more nebulous now and its priorities must be looked at in view of the fact that the whole economy is slipping and we are now in a period in which very shortly we shall be subject to a type of control and ground rules for business which have not previously existed and probably were never foreseen in 1969-70 when the DREE program was in its infancy. We have noted, and I believe it is fair to say that this is partly in response to suggestions we have made from this side of the House, that the minister has taken a more flexible approach. He has decentralized the department and changed the emphasis on growth centres. He has taken steps to avoid some of the worst abuses that DREE suffered in its earlier days, which were criticized severely by many academics and others.
I should like to think the minister will continue to search for new ways to make DREE a more effective and more beneficial program for the disadvantaged areas of the country. It is my hope that he will continue to explore all possibilities of co-ordinating DREE policy with transportation policy and needs, and I hope he will try ot use DREE funds as much as possible to promote long-term, worthwhile projects. One of the most beneficial aspects of the DREE program has been that part which is directed toward the construction of infrastructures because there, at least, we get something for our money and the economic benefits are there to accrue in years to come.
There are a few problems which perhaps are not touched on specifically in the connotation of this bill. What hap-
8966

November 7, 1975
Regional Development Incentives Act
pens, for example, to companies which were granted aid under the old act? Will they have the deadline extended also, or will they still be required to be in commercial production by December 31, 1976? How many such companies are affected? I think we are justified in asking why there is a need to change this deadline from December 31, 1976 to, December 31, 1981. Is there some study or survey which indicates that this particular deadline is advisable, or has this been done more or less on a hit-and-miss basis?
Let me take this opportunity to suggest to the minister and to put on the record that he should seriously look at the possibility of extending the definition of "industry" to include service and tertiary industries and not merely manufacturing and processing industries. This concept bears looking into because it is particularly hard these days, as the minister well knows, for the people who desire to get into business to pay the very high interest rates which exist and to solve the other complications that have been constantly accumulating over the last few years.
There are many areas such as my constituency where we have a heavy industrial base and a lot of service type industries could be brought into existence, but they do not qualify for aid under DREE. Whether or not some of these industries ought to receive assistance is a question that can, of course, be put in the capable hands of the officials in the regions charged with evaluating the practicality of such assistance. On the other hand, if the definition were enlarged to give a slightly wider scope to this type of application, I think there are many industries in which additional jobs would be created and economic benefits would arise therefrom.
Let me say to the minister again that we on this side of the House wish him well as he gradually becomes more familiar with the many details that comprise his very important portfolio. In the Atlantic region of Canada, in particular-of course, not to the exclusion of other areas of the country-we are looking at DREE constantly to see how it can be of positive benefit to us.
We hope the minister, even with a change in economic climate and the new conditions I mentioned earlier, will be constantly urging his colleagues to give DREE a high priority and continue to try to have DREE extended in the most wise and beneficial way. I know that from time to time he will listen to the suggestions we put forward from this side of the House and evaluate them in a constructive and open-minded way.


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, 1 too extend my congratulations to the minister on undertaking his new responsibilities. I assure him of the co-operation of this member and of my colleagues in an attempt to attack the very difficult problem of regional disparity. I wish him well in his new ventures.
When this bill comes before the committee I will have some constructive suggestions to put forward in respect of how we can improve the attack on regional disparity. I would ask the minister to attempt to expedite the answers to some questions I have on the order paper, which would enable me to make a more meaningful contribution to the committee. I have about 12 questions dealing with the

department, and while they are comprehensive I would appreciate any effort he could make to obtain the answers before we go to committee.
My feeling is that the federal government should not simply content itself with giving a department such as DREE a limited degree of authority. It should establish machinery which would produce co-ordinated results and which would, in terms of regional economic development, co-ordinate the policies of all departments and bring into focus all departmental policies on the problem of regional disparity. When I speak of departments I think particularly of the Department of Transport and the Department of Finance following the same policies as DREE.
It is really not enough for us to ask other parts of Canada to spend large amounts of money in our area through DREE and then have other departments work contrary to these policies, be they freight rate policies, fiscal or monetary policies. It is this total focus which I think could make a very valuable contribution as part of Canada's policy to solve the problems v/hich exist in all parts of Canada, particularly in the maritimes and some parts of Quebec.
T cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of coordinating efforts within departments of the federal government. It is also necessary to co-ordinate the efforts of the federal and provincial governments, especially in the Atlantic region. The three maritime provinces have improved their machinery for inter-provincial co-operation, but we are still a long way from a plan of development for the region in which each provincial government and the federal government would play a co-ordinated role.
Let us first go back to May, 1968, and review the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) words on regional inequality, spoken at Moncton when hopes were high and before disillusionment set in. He said:
1 am convinced that the need to strike at the roots of regional economic disparity in Canada is one of the absolutely top priorities of any Canadian government.
He was enthusiastic then, riding the waves of Trudeau-mania. Perhaps he did see all Canadians on the way to becoming full participants in his "just society". But now, almost seven years later, if he still has that vision he possesses far better eyesight than we poor mortals in the Atlantic provinces.
DREE should get away from the idea that its only responsibility is to provide industrial incentives to entrepreneurs who wish to move into the Atlantic area, or to local businessmen who want to expand their present operations. DREE should be doing far more than that. It should be looking hard at the big jobs here crying to be tackled. For example, what has DREE done about the Fundy tidal power project which is linked with the building of the Chignecto Canal? I would wager nothing. It is very convenient for the government, whenever Fundy is seriously mentioned, to be able to pass it off to a study, or a commission, or a committee, which it knows full well can stall the project another year or another decade. Why is DREE not brought into these discussions? Why is not DREE handed the responsibility of correlating these studies? Why is not DREE given the job to do?
DREE was created to lead the attack on regional disparity. Like Uriah the Hittite, it was to be thrust into the
November 7, 1975

forefront of battle, there to do or die. But DREE stayed in the background when the big conflicts raged. It handed out its grants and loans to justify its existence, and failed miserably to take hold of the big projects which the Atlantic provinces have needed for generations. In short, it avoided the massive development undertakings without which the Atlantic provinces will always remain what they are today, the most neglected part of Canada.
I am an infrastructure man. I will always be an infrastructure man. Infrastructures are the only hope of getting Atlantic Canada into a position of parity with the rest of the country, a position from which it can stay caught up. Millions of dollars in piecemeal grants over the years have done nothing but keep us from sliding farther behind. The dole has failed.
It is time to get back to the bold and imaginative policy of regionalism pioneered by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the principle of special aid to the Atlantic provinces on a massive scale. Where mere millions have been parceled out to keep the wolf from the door, billions are needed; billions not in spending but in investment, investment in permanent and lasting projects which will bring the Atlantic provinces to equal partner status with the other six, and which will dispose of the need, once and for all, of the subsidies and handouts which have always been associated with us as a backward area.
I thought at one time that the Prime Minister of Canada was an infrastructure man too. All signs pointed to his involvement in the projects which would form the foundations for a new Atlantic economy. I refer to an exclusive article by the Prime Minister in the Atlantic Advocate of March, 1969. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Advocate is a magazine published in Fredericton, my home, and is one of the great quality magazines of Canada. In it the Prime Minister had this to say about infrastructure:
If there is one main reason why industry has been slow to develop in the Atlantic region, it is distance from the main markets of central Canada. Because there are few industries, the costs of other industries are higher than they would be in central Canada. Those to which transport costs in themselves do not matter much are nevertheless handicapped by the absence of companies producing components or providing technical services; by the lack of industrial experience and the lower educational standards of much of the labour force; by the poorer infrastructure of roads and water supplies and power and so on.
In short, slow economic growth creates a kind of vicious circle that keeps growth slow. The attractiveness of a location to industry depends closely on the quality of many public services: on power, water, roads, railways, port facilities, sewers, schools, universities, research establishments and so on. These are the infrastructure of the economy. Some of them are under federal jurisdiction, but most are provincial and municipal responsibilities.
That is a quotation with which I find myself agreeing very easily. From this it could be gathered that the provision of infrastructure was to be an important part of the operations of DREE which, at that time, was just getting started. One could see in that article a determination of the Prime Minister to separate federal and provincial municipal jurisdictions and to launch a mighty drive to get the federal share of the job done. One could envisage a breakthrough on the part of DREE which was to have the powers to provide assistance by direct action, and by action through the provincial governments to create the necessary infrastructures.
Regional Development Incentives Act
But promises and performances by the Liberals, as always, were entirely different things. DREE was launched with great fanfare as the answer to all of our economic problems. It did not take very long, however, for the Atlantic provinces to realize exactly what DREE was-just another federal agency handing out grants and loans and doles, and shirking the responsibility of getting to the fundamental problems of the area, of spearheading the mighty projects which common sense tell us must be the cornerstones of Atlantic prosperity-the Fundy tidal power project, the development of the ports of Saint John and Halifax, and an Atlantic transportation policy which would include the corridor road, with United States cooperation, and a modern high speed highway between Fredericton and Saint John to transport agricultural products, parts for manufacturing industries and other goods to world markets via the port of Saint John. Not one of these projects came under the aegis of DREE. After five years of DREE the positions of all of these projects are exactly as they were when DREE was created-in limbo.
Well, we are still awaiting the new minister's performance. I believe that new policies should show a willingness to get to the basics of Atlantic economics and to put first things first. There has to be a new set of priorities, and the projects I have mentioned have to be in the top echelons of those priorities.
I am getting more and more support in my campaign for Atlantic infrastructures. Some of my colleagues have joined me. I would hope for the support of more of them. Yes, and for the support of all Atlantic members, as well as that of the minister responsible for DREE. I am not asking for the moon. I am asking for fair treatment of an area whose problems no amount of subsidies and grants can solve if the solid base is not laid down.
Give us the Fundy tidal project and the Maritimes will become the power house of the continent with both Canadian and American-yes, and British and French and Japanese-interests clamoring to invest in us.
Give us the corridor road and, by means of a straight super highway linking Vanceboro in Maine with Sherbrooke in Quebec, the shippers and travellers and tourists of this area will be five hours and 150 miles closer to the markets and attractions of central Canada, and vice versa.
Give us the port developments, and the great tankers and container ships of the world will come to us in armadas of profit.
In short, give us the infrastructures and let them form the foundation. Then, Mr. Speaker, the rest of Canada can forget the subsidies and grants and handouts which they have been forced to provide us, often against their will, for the simple reason that no one has ever had the common sense, foresight, and resolution to face facts squarely and give us the tools with which we can put our own house in order.
I would say that my immediate suggestion is for the minister to focus his attention on the infrastructures I have mentioned, and to focus the attention of all departments of government on the problems of regional dispari-
29956-16>/2

November 7, 1975
Regional Development Incentives Act ty. In closing, again I wish the minister much success in his new ministry.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the new Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) on his appointment. This is the first opportunity I have to do so. I am all the happier as I am one of the promoters who launched him in politics the first year. In his first political campaign, we fought side by side when he ran on behalf of the Social Credit. Today, he was honoured by his party with the responsibility of heading a department, and as a representative of my area and as one of my best friends, I am quite happy.
I realize that the act was first introduced in 1969 to fight regional and economic disparities, not political disparities, as I had the opportunity to point out on occasion before the Committee on Regional Economic Expansion on which I sat, and I hope past mistakes will not be repeated. I would suggest to the new minister so as to help him in his work perhaps-because it is a big job-that it might be a good thing to set up in each region an advisory regional committee to guide the minister, the whole department and the bureaucrats, because I do not feel that the bureaucrats alone are qualified to say whether an industry deserves or will deserve help from the government or will be turned down. We had proof over the years that many industries, in my area in particular should have been helped and were not. Other industries got much more than their share, probably because of underhand favours.
I am convinced that with the new minister, things will be straightened out. And if our area was neglected in the past, the minister this time will not forget it since he lives there. I feel that every precaution has been taken since the minister is from our area. With the unemployment rate between 15 per cent and 18 per cent in our area, I think the minister will certainly have work to do and will have to consider all protects because in the years to come, we will have great projects. Several large and very important projects will be submitted for our area. A uranium mine has just been discovered about 35 miles from my place. We also have major forest projects. I think the minister will have plenty of work in our area. I hope that if he helps big businesses, a fact that I do not decry because they deserve it, he will not forget small ones, the new enterprises that need government assistance to get started. I think this was not provided in our area in the past.
Too much attention was paid some inspectors, and I would even add some political watchdogs, to the detriment of the small businessman who has a hard time getting his business off the ground and who has yet to have attention of the government. I say that because I have proof of it, because it is bad politics. I am sure that is going to stop with the new minister and that our area, and especially the small businessmen-who are waiting for government assistance to support their efforts, who had savings and risked their all hoping that the government would help them through its Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which gives reasonable grants to guarantee reimbursable grants-I am sure, as I say, that on those three scores, they will now get the help they have been waiting for and did not receive for years.

I therefore ask the present minister to kindly look at our area, his area, without overlooking the rights of the other provinces. I am merely asking for plain justice, fair distribution, social justice. I therefore wish the minister the greatest success and ask him once again, on behalf of my whole area, to help all the industries which need that help to get their production under way.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I join my fellow Conservatives who have indicated that it is not their wish to impede the progress of this bill.


An hon. Member:: Good speech.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Don't rush me. At the same time we do have some suggestions and recommendations to make to the new minister, together with congratulations to offer from all members on all sides of the House on his appointment to this new position. In British Columbia we are particularly pleased to see that the minister has decided to recognize the long service provided by Mr. Mair, and has recognized the continuing needs of the province in the appointment of a new member. I believe it is Mr. Marshall from New Brunswick. We are certainly encouraged at this new appointment and pleased that Mr. Mair will be accorded regard for his service in the province of British Columbia.
There are some very serious concerns which must be voiced whenever we discuss DREE. There is no question in my mind that we have to allow this bill quick passage in order not to impede the progress of any development currently under way which otherwise might be affected by the existing time contraints of the act. However, I am concerned about the disparity which exists between the provinces in the usage and implementation of the DREE program. When I read news releases from the minister's department I am concerned when I read about Ontario- Ontario-Quebec-Quebec-Quebec-N ova Scotia-British Columbia-Ontario-Ontario-Quebec, and so on ad infinitum and ad nauseam. There is a need for an appropriate balance and an end to the disparity which exists, and I have every confidence that the new minister is going to pay attention to this regional disparity.
I should also like to comment on the need for a much closer examination of the true intent, purpose, and goal of the DREE program. It is all well and good to say that the purpose of DREE is to encourage employment and to establish new industry in areas of economic depression, but there also must be some consideration, as has already been said, about the infrastructure. There has to be consideration about the social impact of a new industry, the environmental impact, secondary or primary, in any community.
Is it the responsibility of the community and the province, or is it the joint responsibility of the community, the province, and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to address themselves to the problems they themselves generate by the very establishment of new industry without any reference to, or concern for the needs of the community with regard to schools, hospitals, police,
November 7, 1975

sewage disposal, and all other infrastructure problems generated by the establishment of a new industry? These are areas which have not had, in my view, proper attention.
There seems to be some effort on the part of the province of British Columbia to resolve these problems. The effort thus far has proven to be a fiasco, and I refer the minister and this House to what is referred to as the Kootenay task force study. I understand that there is a similar study into the needs of Kootenay West, and this study is based on a study of the Queen Charlotte Islands and Prince Rupert. It is hoped to tailor the needs of those areas to the needs of Kootenay West. That shows that there is not a true grasp of the needs of either area.
I have other concerns with reference to the establishment of new industry which I think the minister would be well advised to consider. Under-capitalization is one of the biggest causes of the failure of any business or new industry established under the DREE program. Too often in its genuine desire to satisfy the need to establish a new business or a new industry in an area of economic depression, DREE does not look closely enough at the final stages and the final impact of the establishment of that business or that industry. The end result is that after a few months in production they are suddenly faced with additional capital expenditures for which there has been no provision made. As a result the taxpayers' investment has frequently either ground to a halt for a period of time until new capital could be raised, or-and in fact on more than one occasion-has simply gone down the tube. What a waste of manpower, tax dollars, and talent! Under-capitalization is too frequently a cause of this failure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: There is need to educate the community ant the provincial government to the entire DREE program. Frequently we will see a new industry strive to establish. Perhaps initial purchases of equipment are made. Then all of a sudden the new industry finds that it is in trouble and wonders where it can go. Someone suggests DREE, and when the industry goes to DREE it is told that DREE might have been able to help if it had not spent that first dollar. The industry is told that it has gone too far down the line, that it is committed and that DREE is sorry but that there is nothing it can do-end of new industry. That is wrong.
The manner in which this problem can be solved, and quite simply so, is through a proper selling program by DREE officials directed to the people who know what the score is in the community and who know what industries are required and what can best be done to establish them. But let us not mislead the public, the business community, and the taxpayer by allowing some fellow to start up a new industry, and then when the industry is going down the tube being told by DREE that he cannot be helped. It is simply a matter of inadequate education. DREE does not have a proper educational program with which to sell its product.
There are one or two other concerns which I must voice. The other day in a B.C. caucus meeting in Castlegar we received a brief from the British Columbia Wildlife Organization. In that brief they asked the following question: is
Regional Development Incentives Act
industry created to resolve unemployment? That caused us to laugh and to look at it in a rather cynical light. However, there is some measure of truth in that particular statement. Perhaps we could cite as an example the electric knife. How badly do we need the electric knife? Did some inventor or manufacturer decide to resolve the unemployment problem by constructing a factory to produce electric knives? Is it really that important to us? I am sure there are other examples that could be quoted but I think we must first look at the need to establish a secondary industry that is geared to the primary industry of the riding.
It has frequently happened that a factory for canning fruit has been established in the heart of a mining area. What purpose is there in establishing a secondary metal fabricating plant in the heart of an agricultural area? In other words DREE is not looking to the problem of creating secondary industry that is tailored to the primary industrial thrust of a specific area or community. If the primary industry is forestry, then let us establish secondary industries geared to that; we should not put in a factory for canning peaches. If the primary industry is smelting, as in my constituency, then put in a metal fabrication plant or something of that nature.
It is a false premise to assume that you can establish an industry that is not related to the basic economy of your riding that is to assure that you are eventually going to lose that industry through the pressures of taxation, competition, or maybe transportation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that when DREE is providing a grant for the establishment of a secondary industry it should address itself to meeting the basic criteria which are set by the federal and provincial departments of the environment before a grant is provided.
In Kootenay West we are faced with a problem regarding an industry that received a DREE grant. It appears that there is a possibility of a creek being polluted, and of the noise level affecting a neighbour whose home is adjacent to the factory. These questions have been directed to environmental groups and organizations interested in the problems affecting the industry, the neighbour, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and departmental officials. I am sure none of them need these additional headaches.
I would urge the minister to realize that environmental concerns must be recognized and perhaps completely resolved even before an industry is established, but I do not say at the expense of industry-I am not one who proposes that industry be put down because of environmental concerns. What I do say is that we have to pay attention and not establish industry that pollutes and is not in harmony with our environment. Those are some of my concerns, Mr. Speaker, and I must express them to the minister on behalf of the people of Kootenay West. I congratulate the minister on his appointment and look forward to working with him at committee level.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I would be less than human if I did not join with the other members who have spoken today in congratulating the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) on his new appointment. I also thank my friends

Regional Development Incentives Act to the right for their humanity in not taking an opportunity that they thought they saw. The fact is that we do commend the minister on the responsibility that has been assigned to him. Some of us have watched his progress-at least his movement-from the Social Credit back benches to the Liberal back benches, to the Liberal middle benches, and now to the Liberal front bench. I suppose the question to ask is: where does he go from here?


An hon. Member:: Across.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes we have room over here. The minister said in his opening remarks with respect to this bill that he was confident members would be happy to give speedy passage to it. I can tell him that he is one of those fortunate ministers who has been assigned a Friday afternoon for his bill. Usually a minister who gets his bill in on Friday afternoon gets it through.
That does not mean it is an open and shut case that grants under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion should be continued for five years beyond the present expiry date without some pretty searching questions being asked. I feel that the glamour and fanfare with which the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was launched have not really been matched in the kind of program that has made a significant attack on disparity amongst the regions of Canada. I would hope the new minister will realize that if he is going to get congratulations from members on the opposite side of the House a year from now he has to make some real improvement in the administration of the DREE program.
As the minister knows there have been assessments of this program, some of them academic as one of the previous speakers noted. One was the Springate assessment of a few years ago in which statistics were adduced to show that very few industries receiving DREE grants chose the place to locate their industry simply on the basis of such a grant. As I say, the evidence is there that in many cases these industries had already decided where they were going to locate, and the grant was just a little assistance. It is still true, as the last speaker pointed out, that when one reads down the list of DREE grants ^he names of the central provinces keep occurring again and again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is just occasionally that the other provinces come into the picture. There are those who have suggested that tax incentives and other such methods would be just as effective, if not more so, in achieving decentralization. Of course it is still true that one of the best ways for the government to achieve decentralization is to see to it that some of its operations get put out into other areas. The hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson), who is also the Minister of National Defence, had some success in getting the Royal Canadian Mint moved to Winnipeg, but there are some other things to be decentralized to Winnipeg.


An hon. Member:: Air Command.


An hon. Member:: That has left.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would not mention the air industry.


An hon. Member:: I did not mention the industry. I said Air Command.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend admits he did not mention the air industry. That is not exactly one of the accomplishments of the Minister of National Defence.
The Manitoba government said some time ago that if the government, instead of giving grants, were to move the government's computer centre to a place like Winnipeg, that would be a real move toward decentralizing industry.
I remember many years ago being part of a group which was having a friendly, informal discussion with Mr. St. Laurent after he had made one of his trips across Canada. Those were days when things were not quite as confused and discouraging as they are now. He found life in Canada pretty good, but the one thing which bothered him greatly was regional disparity. He wanted to do something to correct regional disparities. It bothered him greatly that there were regions of the country, particularly in the Maritimes, where conditions were so much below what they were in the central provinces and other parts of Canada.
I suggest that the minister should not merely regard his job as an appointment, as a job he must fill, as a position which will entitle him to be called "Honourable", and so on. He heads a department which began with a great deal of fanfare. It was to do wonderful things. Now it has become bogged down as an administrative operation and is falling far short of its original goals. Even my friends who wanted to pay the minister all the compliments they could today had to include in their remarks expressions of concern having to do particularly with the maritime provinces; they were concerned about the failure of DREE to do very much for their areas.
There is another criticism which a person whose name is well known across the way, Hon. Eric Kierans, has made. He says that the way DREE grants are handed out means that they will do much more to create capital intensive industry than labour intensive industries. Even today, when the minister said that according to latest reports the things DREE has done are expected to create about 122,000 direct jobs, I notice that the minister had to use the words, "expected to create." No doubt that figure was arrived at by adding up the sum of jobs it was thought would be created by each and every application. The firms concerned have said how many jobs each grant will create, the total adds up to 122,000, and the minister said with a straight face that those DREE grants are expected to create
122,000	direct jobs. I want to know, is it to be 122,000,
100,000,	or 50,000 jobs? This is why I believe Eric Kierans' criticism needs to be considered. He suggested that in all probability we are helping to establish capital intensive activities rather than labour intensive industries.
Although we wish the minister well, we say that the aim is to create jobs. I notice that if you compare the current government telephone directory with one of a few years ago, you will see that some jobs have been created. A couple of years ago we had the minister, deputy minister, and two assistant deputy ministers. Now we have six assistant deputy ministers. Some new jobs have been


created. But what about jobs by the thousands in parts of Canada where they are really needed?
I believe the kinds of speeches which have been made today are significant. The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) made an important point about infrastructure and investment. If my hon. friend from Timiskaming had not had to leave he would have spoken on this topic. He feels that when grants are given some attention to equity should be paid, and that they should not just be handouts.
So, Mr. Speaker, I make my appeal to the minister. No doubt he felt it was a great day when he was called to the cabinet and given all the privileges and perquisites which go with his position. But I suggest to him that his job is not merely one of carrying on a bogged down administration, not one merely to keep the bureaucracy going. His job is to bring about a return to the high ideals and enthusiasm which were so apparent when we decided to establish the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Lessening economic disparities in this country is a tremendous goal. I hope the minister sees that as a challenge he must meet.


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


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to thank my colleagues who have taken part in the debate, more especially for their kind words, their congratulations and their wishes of success in my new work.
I can assure them that I will not delay the debate further. I have taken note of all questions raised by hon. members. For example, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) wonders if the new bill will have some effect on the applications which have already reached the department. Surely not, I can reassure him in that respect. We have taken some commitments and we will comply with them. It is precisely because we think that we will be making some new ones in the next few weeks that we hope the bill will soon be passed.
He mentioned, of course, the present economic issues that have implications on departmental activities. Everyone is aware of this, but our department is not the only one involved since all government activities are affected. The economic conditions are responsible for these difficulties. On the other hand, I am convinced that our department will emerge all the greater from this new experience and will continue as in the past to be most active in the areas where the need for our programs is the greatest.
For instance, the hon. member puts the following question: Why ask for a five-year extension? Because we believe it is necessary. The extension for a five-year period will give the government time to review its program, if need be, but especially will enable the businesses already in touch with the department to continue their research work, their market studies and projects. Then, they can be sure that if they submit a proposal in six, fifteen or eighteen months, the act will be in effect and they may obtain the assistance provided under the act.
The hon. member for York Sunbury (Mr. Howie) is highly interested in infrastructures. He warns me against a tendency I could have of favouring the development of
Regional Development Incentives Act
industries over that of infrastructures. I could simply point out to him that infrastructures and their development represent a very important area and it goes without saying that the department committed itself in general agreements on present development to further expansion and it established infrastructures. I want to make very clear, however, that infrastructures, as important as they may be in slow growth areas where we would like to see expansion, will be justified only to the extent there is hope for ensuing industrial development to create new jobs, generally improve the standard of living and stabilize if not increase the population in those areas.
There are certainly a score of projects the department could take into consideration. That of the Bay of Fundy is an obvious one. We know that this is a very extensive project which has been on the planning board for several years. He suggests that the department which I head ought to be the foreman for this great project. He suggests also that we should forget about all other projects to concentrate our operation and financial resources on the development of large scale projects, such as building a tidal power plant at the Bay of Fundy.
If we were to accept his suggestion, if we were to concentrate our efforts on these great projects as a priority and turn down all opportunities for action which are being offered to us during our bargaining sessions with provincial governments-especially those of the Atlantic coast-I think that we should miss a great many fine occasions to improve the social and economic conditions of these regions, to help establish new plants and create new jobs.
Of course, such a project is important and will have to go through further developments. However, he has mentioned that the good years of the Diefenbaker government's regime had given rise to great expectations for the Atlantic region with the setting up of the Atlantic Development Council.
Without wanting to pass judgment on nor criticize the proposal of the time, I must say that I was a member of the House when the Diefenbaker government brought in this proposal in 1962 and that when that agency was set up it sounded all right in principle, but it had in fact no power at all and particularly no budget to work with; it is only with the advent of the Liberal government in 1963 and on the instigation of the then member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate, the hon. Mr. Pickersgill, that that agency has been modified in order to be provided with very substantial funds allowing it to work in the areas which had been assigned to it by the previous government. Thus, I think that the Liberal government has been more generous than the Progressive Conservative government of the time in this area.
As regards the other criticism on that question of cooperation between the two departments, I must say here that when policies were revised, it was agreed that we would try to better coordinate our activities with those of other federal and provincial departments. And that is something we achieved to a high degree in the last years. The auxiliary agreements we reached with the provinces clearly indicate that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is involved with two, three-four in one case recently

November 7, 1975
Regional development Incentives Act
in Saskatchewan-or five different federal departments in development programs. I can name the project of Qu'Ap-pelle River, which is very important for the province of Saskatchewan.
Mr. Speaker, I could raise many other points. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) brought up some very interesting points of which I am very much aware; the department is very conscious of some of the difficulties we have in British Columbia, of some positive experiences, and some less positive we have had. We recognize it but hope those problems are only temporary, that we will solve them.
I thank the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), my colleague, for the support he graciously gives me as a neighbour in the province of Quebec and more specifically in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area. I can assure him that my concern for that area goes without saying, but he must not forget, as he said himself, that I am a federal minister and that I can in no way favour my area to the detriment of other regions. Anyway, as he said, he does not want my area to benefit from undue privileges; but it does need federal assistance. I can assure him that I shall discharge all my responsibilities to ensure that the projects put forward by my area are given prompt attention by the officials of my department, with the hope that we will be able to contribute to alleviate unemployment; the unemployment rate we both have in our constituencies is 30 per cent, which is very high. I think nobody in this House will resent me if we succeed in supporting some projects in our areas to alleviate the great difficulties we are in.
As to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) he is an experienced man in this House. Indeed, I have known him ever since I came here in 1962 and I can assure him that the decentralisation of the department that took place 18 months ago, barely two years after a revision of our policy, was certainly not done with a view to creating jobs. If we wanted to have those regional offices headed by assistant deputy ministers it is precisely to indicate the seriousness we were attaching to that decentralisation and the power given to those officers a decision making power.
Decisions can be made on the spot on a very large number of applications submitted. That is why we have assistant deputy ministers in our four regions to be sure that the greatest number of projects possible can be rapidly dealt with and a decision made in the shortest period of time possible. We gave those people a high level of responsibility and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that that level of responsibility produced a lot of effect up to now, and I could only quote the number of related agreements that were signed in the last 12 months. Indeed, it was just 18 months ago when we signed the general agreement with the provinces. We signed a very large number of related agreements, particularly in the maritime provinces, of course, but also in the prairie provinces, Saskatchewan being the one with the greatest number now in effect. We hone soon to sign several others with the province of Manitoba. Indeed, I am supposed to go out to uiat province in the weeks to come to meet with provincial authorities.
Of course, it is always relatively easy to criticize the activities of a department. A department like the one I head, of course, has no precedents on which it can base its action. It must innovate. It must acquire experience. It
must work with provincial governments, local institutions. And that is what we did, that is what we tried to do more with provincial governments by identifying priorities both at the industrial and infrastructural levels, ascertaining with the provincial governments the best use possible for the amounts that are made available to us.
In answer to a criticism which has been directed at the department, namely that we give multinational corporations, companies and industries in general too much help while not giving enough for provincial and municipal infrastructures, I would like to point out to hon. members that out of a budget of roughly $500 million, $70 only are allotted to help industry in general and the balance to infrastructure development and the implementation of programs which are proposed to us by provincial governments. This shows a large part-I should say a very large part of the departmental monies are earmarked for infrastructure development in the hope and trust that this is consistent with the priorities not only of the provinces but also of the townships and their people, as our action is geared, of course, to improving the standards of living of people who live in the areas said to be of slow expansion rate or underprivileged.
We would like their living standards to be such that people will appreciate living there, and above all that those who have deserted those areas to go and make a living in big cities such as Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg, for example, will be enticed to go back home.
But, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the department's activities, because of its objectives, necessarily give rise to conflicts with the large centres of the country which probably see our department as a group trying to impede the development of the large centres like Montreal. Toronto, Vancouver or Winnipeg. I would like to conclude my remarks on this particular point: I think it is in the interest of the large centres, in both the short and especially the long run, that we preserve in the bordering areas of Canada, the peripheral areas, those described as disadvantaged, a very strong percentage of people to prevent this phenomenon of Canadians concentrating in large centres, with all the attendant effects and problems, namely overpopulation, pollution and, particularly, the very high cost of housing, for instance.
If we manage somehow to slow down that exodus of people towards large cities through department activities, we shall be and we are serving the interest of great Canadian cities. I insist on that: If we want natural resources supplies to remain adequate for great cities, if we in this country want to have people in distant areas where those resources are to be found, if we want them to stay there, the quality of life in those parts must be adequate enough to prompt them to stay, and young people must be provided the prospect of employment and a rewarding future.
Only if we are prepared to transfer funds from the federal treasury to those regions to upgrade, develop and maintain them, will we accomplish something, because it is not enough to say that those regions will supply great cities with raw natural resources, it is not good enough, it is far from being good enough. We should do more than that and make sure the processing of those raw materials will take place in those areas to a degree which will ensure

November 7, 1975

their development, in order to give young people the assurance that they will find jobs and that Canada as a whole will benefit from that situation, so that the strength of the provinces which constitute our nation will make each and everyone of us stronger.
The House will refer this bill to the committee for other considerations. I took note of all representations made up to now by hon. members who took part in the debate, and I am confident that when we all sit in the regional economic expansion committee we will be in a position to dig deeper in the various suggestions, and I will of course take that opportunity to provide members with further information and to answer some of the questions which were put. May I conclude by thanking my hon. colleagues for their cooperation in that respect.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that all the orders preceding notice of motion No. 3 be allowed to stand, and that the House proceed with that order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: First we had better call it four o'clock.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: May I call it four o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
November 18, 1974-Resuming debate on the motion of Mr. Reynolds, seconded by Mr. McKinley:
Income Tax Act
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act to provide for deductions for volunteer services provided by a taxpayer on behalf of either a charitable organization or a federal, provincial or municipal agency.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: The
hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rose on a point of order a moment ago and may I repeat it. May I suggest that all the orders preceding notice of motion No. 3 be allowed to stand and that the House proceed with that order?


Gerald William Baldwin: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, there have been the usual discussions between certain people here. We have been considering whether or not, in light of certain special circumstances, the hon. member, who is a very conscientious member and has brought forward this very important motion-he might want to supplement what I say-would be prepared to allow the matter to be discussed two weeks from now at an appropriate time. This is on the understanding that the government look very seriously at the content of the motion to see whether it can be referred to a committee, so there can be a very careful study made of the matter in committee. If that is the case I think we would be prepared to agree that this be done at the present time, and perhaps the House might want to consider adjourning at an earlier time.
I understand there are a lot of ministers with some very important questions to answer and who need time to prepare themselves to answer these questions at a later time. Furthermore, I am told there is one Liberal here from Alberta, and I want to take several hours to see if I can find him to verify his presence.
Order stands.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is it
agreed that we call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: This House stands adjourned until Wednesday, November 12, 1975, at 2 p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, November 5, 1975.
At 3.28 p.m. the House adjourned until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, November 12, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Wednesday, November 12, 1975