1975-03-26

THE ROYAL ASSENT

["Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party, I would like to join the spokesmen for the other parties to congratulate the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).\nWhen we were elected in this House in 1962, he was the Prime Minister. I remember quite well that he was always a keen champion of parliamentarians' rights. I have always admired him for that and I think that he was one of the best defenders of the rights of the Social Credit Party of Canada and the right of its members to sit in the House.\nI wish him a speedy recovery and hope that he will soon return to resume his career, because he is still young. I\n4496", "March 26, 1975\nPrime Minister's Swimming Pool\nthink that we have much to learn from him and that young parliamentarians should take him as a model."]
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House Ottawa, March 26, 1975
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Wishart F. Spence, O.B.E., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 26th March, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Andre Garneau Brigadier General Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, today is the thirty-fifth anniversary of the election to this House of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I am sure the right hon. gentleman must be very disappointed not to be able to be in this House today. Certainly we are disappointed he is not here so that we could salute him in person on this occasion.
The right hon. gentleman is unable to be here because of some minor repairs he has undergone, but we certainly look forward to his early return to the House in top form.
His accomplishments in the 35 years of his service in parliament are, of course, legion. His human principles and his talents have always earned him the respect of both allies and adversaries in this House of Commons.
On behalf of my colleagues and myself I wish to congratulate the right hon. gentleman on his anniversary, and extend our best wishes to him and to Mrs. Diefenbaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, one of the joys of celebrating this anniversary annually is that we can sit back and listen to the right hon. gentleman respond and tell us of his love for Canada, which is very deep; his belief in parliament, which is very important, and his respect for the monarchy, which is very true. Today we will not have that pleasure, so I will not challenge him to make any speech on these subjects. I reserve that right for his golden anniversary, when we shall both be sitting in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary leader, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), suggested that I might say a few words on behalf of our party. This request has been made of me because I had the honour of coming into the first parliament to which the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was elected. I might add that my colleague to my left, the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), was already here to greet the right hon. member for Prince Albert when he first arrived.
It is indeed an accomplishment for one to have served in parliament for 35 years. We salute the right hon. member not only for his length of service to this House but also for his accomplishments. Although he is not here with us in physical presence, he is always very much with us one way or another. We are as disappointed as he is at his not being here for this important occasion. We wish him an early recovery to full health. I believe the House would also want to express to Mrs. Diefenbaker the hope that her health will soon be fully restored.
On behalf of all my colleagues I extend warmest greetings on this occasion to John and Olive Diefenbaker.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party, I would like to join the spokesmen for the other parties to congratulate the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).
When we were elected in this House in 1962, he was the Prime Minister. I remember quite well that he was always a keen champion of parliamentarians' rights. I have always admired him for that and I think that he was one of the best defenders of the rights of the Social Credit Party of Canada and the right of its members to sit in the House.
I wish him a speedy recovery and hope that he will soon return to resume his career, because he is still young. I
4496

March 26, 1975
Prime Minister's Swimming Pool
think that we have much to learn from him and that young parliamentarians should take him as a model.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to table in the House the fourth report of the Commissioner of Official Languages for the period between April 1, 1973 and December 31, 1974.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform this House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-46, an act to amend the National Housing Act, without any amendment.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek permission of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity, particularly as after this day the House will not meet for a while and the information requested in the motion should have been provided, I suggest, long ago. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That in view of the failure of the Prime Minister to make public details concerning the $200,000 swimming pool being constructed on public property at 24 Sussex Drive-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: If the trained seals can contain themselves, Mr. Speaker, I will read my motion. I know this bothers them, but in order to put my motion there must be some semblance of order.
That in view of the failure of the Prime Minister to make public details concerning the $200,000 swimming pool being constructed on public property at 24 Sussex Drive and particularly the names of the 25 donors being permitted to deduct the full amount of donations for income tax purposes, the House requests the Prime Minister to make public all details on this matter immediately and at the same time the House expresses agreement with the front page article on government secrecy in today's Globe and Mail which states in part that the refusal to reveal the names of the 25 persons paying for the swimming pool is "blatantly political".


Mr. Speaker:: The subject matter dealt with in the proposed motion is, of course, of importance, and may be blatantly political. Nevertheless, I cannot accept it as a matter of urgent and pressing necessity within the terms of the Standing Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



TRANSPORT


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that my motion is non-political. I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to Standing Order 43. Whereas there has now been a loss of 11 herring seining boats and a tragic waste of 13 lives on the west coast of B.C. in the last ten days in the herring fishery, and whereas there is some evidence that Department of Transport standards with regard to safety as well bulkhead standards are inadequate to protect the lives of the herring fishermen, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That the Minister of Transport and his officials immediately travel to the west coast of British Columbia for a meeting with fishermen as well as an on-site inspection of herring seiners, and that the minister immediately review the Department of Transport standards so that further tragedies can be prevented.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that family allowance, old age security pension and veteran pension recipients are being victimized by the delay in delivery of their cheques whenever postal employees go on strike, which is greatly detrimental to these recipients, and considering also the large number of cheques which are stolen, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House request without debate the Minister of Finance to consider the possibilities and advantages of making use of banks and caisses populaires by depositing the amount in question in a special
March 26, 1975

credit account in the recipient's name, on condition that the recipient be free to choose his or her own bank or caisse populaire.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to ask unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of vital importance to the economy of this country, namely a possible imminent general strike of postal employees.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That a committee of this House be requested to consider immediately the opportunity of appointing a permanent labour court with enforceable power in order to eliminate civil service strikes that may eventually bring the Canadian economy to a standstill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to paragraph 41(2) of Standing Orders, I wish to table, in both official languages, copies of a report entitled: "Price Effects-Removal of Federal Sales Tax on Clothing and Footwear".
Order Paper Questions



AGRICULTURE


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to paragraph 21(2) of Standing Orders I wish to table in both official languages the breakdown of cost of fertilizer production referred to in my recent address to the Canadian Fertilizer Institute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before we leave Motions, I rise on a point of order which certainly affects the operation of one of our standing committees. As the government House leader knows, several of us have asked on a number of occasions that there be a reference of the Hermann Report to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. We have been assured that this will be forthcoming. The committee is now planning to deal with this matter the day after we return from the recess. I wonder whether the House leader could arrange for the motion of reference to be made available later this day so that we might have the report in our hands when we return in April.


Mr. Sharp:: I have no objection. I will try to comply with the hon. member's wish.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-386, to amend the Canada Labour Code.
He said: The purpose of the bill, in view of the continuing unrest in the labour scene, is to amend the industrial relations part of the Canada Labour Code to provide that where a strike or lockout is against the national or public interest the government may appoint an industrial inquiry commission to make a final and binding settlement, subject to government variation and adoption.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an
asterisk.)
['1. See the\nanswer to Question No. 242 answered December 18, 1974, Hansard No. 56, page 2354. See also the answers to Questions No. 409 answered February 7, 1973, Hansard No. 25, page 1039; No. 2,287 (by the Hon. Member for Leeds) answered July 4, 1973, Hansard No. 115, page 5283 and No. 3,260 answered December 12, 1973, Hansard No. 190, page 8664.\n2.\tOn several occasions prior to September 22, 1973 the Prime Minister has referred to Mr. Head as "Henry". These and other light-hearted Prime Ministerial references to Mr. Head have not so far been made the subject of an official government record indexed according to date, place or reason.']
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 182, 183, 186, 531, 532, 533, 989, 1,112, 1,187, 1,223, 1,343, 1,598, 1,603, 1,723, 1,726, 1,728, 1,744, 1,756, 1,767, 1,783, 1,802, and 1,812.
2 95 5 7-lOVi

March 26, 1975
Order Paper Questions
If questions Nos. 42, 61, 610, 621, 622, and 635, 1,208 and 1,721 could be made orders for return these returns will be tabled immediately.
I ask that questions Nos. 151, 552 and 897 be made orders for return, and I also ask the consent of the House to table immediately the information which has already been submitted, some of which is in one of the official languages only. The balance of the information will follow along with the translations as soon as they are submitted to me.
Would you be so kind as to call starred Questions Nos. 1,674 and 1,790?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



Mr. Orlikow: What was the comparison between book profit before taxes and taxable income by selected industries for each year since 1968 by millions of dollars as shown in Calura Reports for the following industries (a) metal mining (b) mineral fuels (c) other mining (d) manufacturing (e) construction (f) wholesale trade (g) retail trade?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Information on book profit before taxes and taxable income of corporations in Canada for year 1968 to 1971, (the latest year available), as provided in "Corporation Taxation Statistics", is as follows:
Book Profit 11}
Before Income
Taxable
	1968
(a) Metal mining	560
(b) Mineral fuels	34.1
(c) Other mining	125
(d) Manufacturing	3,227
(e) Construction	299
(f) Wholesale trade	624
(g) Retail trade	489
Taxes	(Net)	Income C)	1969	1970	1971 1968 $'000,000	1969	1970	1971653	883	521	93	133	218	91315	257	327	75	52	62	78105	87	110	65	66	63	533,680	2,878	3,688	2,564	2,809	2,378	2,804300	239	372	304	296	265	347669	622	843	004	632	646	799494	512	561	469	500	511	553
UlExcludes cooperatives, crown corporations and tax exempt corporations.


BOOK PROFITS AND TAXABLE INCOME
Mr. Orlikow: What was the comparison in percentages between the book profits and taxable income by size of corporation in each year since 1968 for corporations doing (a) less than $1 million business (b) between $1 to $5 million business (c) over $25 million business?


Gaston Clermont: Information on book profit and taxable income of corporation by sales size is not available, however data by asset size of corporation are available for years 1968 to 1971, the latest year available, on the attached table:
	Book profit		Taxable
	before		income as a
Income	Taxable	percentage ofAsset size	Taxes (net)1	Income	Book profit$'000,000	per cent$5,000,000 and over	1968	6,543	3,807	581969	7,262	4,103	561970	0,478	3,877	601971	7,739	4,327	56w Excludes insurance	carriers, cooperatives, crown	corporations and
tax exempt corporations.

	Book profit		Taxable
	before		income as a
Income	Taxable	percentage ofAsset size	Taxes (net)1	Income	Book profit*'000,000	per centUnder $1,000,000 1968	1,406	1,223	871969	1,705	1,555	911970	1,304	1,546	1191971	1,494	1,701	114*1,000,000-4,999,999	1968	1,101	859	781969	984	986	1001970	1,003	947	941971	1,372	1,132	83


CORPORATION PROFIT BEFORE TAXES
Mr. Orlikow: What was the book profit before taxes, the taxable income of dollars and the percentage of taxable incomes to book profit for all corporations since 1968 as reported to the Department of National Revenue or to Statistics Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned: In 1965 under an amendment to the Corporations and Labour Union Returns Act, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics assumed responsibility for extraction, aggregation and publication of statistics concerning corporations. At the same time, the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, terminated the publication of "Taxation Statistics" for corporations and correspondingly, terminated the extraction of the necessary data.

March 26, 1975

In so far as Statistics Canada is concerned: Information on book profit before taxes and taxable income of corporations in Canada (excluding insurance carriers, co-operatives, Crown corporations and tax exempt corporations) for year 1968 to 1971, the latest year available, as contained in "Corporation Taxation Statistics", is as follows:
1968	1969	1970	1971Book profit before income taxes (net) $'000,000	9,050	9,951	8,785	10,605Taxable income $'000,000	5,889	6,644	6,370	7,160Taxable income as per cent of book profit per cent	65	67	73	08per cent	per cent	per cent	per cent


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE-DUTIES OF MR. IVAN HEAD
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) What is a complete and detailed description of the work performed by Mr. Ivan Head in the Prime Minister's Office (b) what are all the assignments, duties and connections of any kind whatsoever that he has with foreign affairs?
2.	Has the Prime Minister at any time referred to Mr. Ivan Head as Canada's Henry Kissinger or has he ever made a somewhat similar remark and, if so (a) on what date (b) at what place (c) for what reason (d) exactly what were the words used by the Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. See the
answer to Question No. 242 answered December 18, 1974, Hansard No. 56, page 2354. See also the answers to Questions No. 409 answered February 7, 1973, Hansard No. 25, page 1039; No. 2,287 (by the Hon. Member for Leeds) answered July 4, 1973, Hansard No. 115, page 5283 and No. 3,260 answered December 12, 1973, Hansard No. 190, page 8664.
2.	On several occasions prior to September 22, 1973 the Prime Minister has referred to Mr. Head as "Henry". These and other light-hearted Prime Ministerial references to Mr. Head have not so far been made the subject of an official government record indexed according to date, place or reason.



PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE-MR. HEAD CONFERENCES WITH SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many times and on what dates, if any, has Mr. Ivan Head conferred with the Secretary of State for External Affairs since the present Minister took office?
2.	What is the working relationship, if any, between Mr. Head and the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
3.	In advance of his press interviews and briefings of September 25, 1974 and October 15, 1974 did Mr. Head (a) advise (b) consult (c) receive approval from the Secretary of State for External Affairs in regard to statements subsequently made on those occasions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. Mr. Head is answerable to the Prime Minister in the discharge of his duties. He does, however, confer frequently with the
Order Paper Questions
Secretary of State for External Affairs and has done so since 1968. No cumulative record is kept of these occasions. 2 and 3. See answer to Part 1.



PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE-MR. IVAN HEAD

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On whose instructions did Mr. Ivan Head brief newsmen on October 15, 1974 in regard to the Prime Minister's current European trip and did the Prime Minister approve in advance all statements or announcements made by Mr. Head on that occasion?
2.	For what reason was there some sort of requirement that Mr. Head should not be quoted directly on anything he said and (a) what is the identity of all persons responsible for such a requirement (b) what did the Prime Minister have to do with deciding upon or arranging in any way such a requirement?
3.	Is one of the functions of Mr. Head to, in any way whatsoever, attempt management of the news or manipulation of the news media on behalf of the Prime Minister?
4.	Is one of the functions of Mr. Head to, in any way whatsoever, promote the public image of the Prime Minister?
5.	Has Mr. Head had anything whatsoever to do with preparation of any speeches, public utterances or statements made by the Prime Minister since May 1, 1974 and, if so, on what date and what are the specific items involved?
6.	What is Mr. Head's exact annual salary in dollars and what is the total of all expenses of any kind paid for by the taxpayers that he has incurred since the date he joined the Prime Minister's staff?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. One of
Mr. Head's functions is to respond to inquiries of journalists in respect of those aspects of Canada's foreign relations in which the Prime Minister is involved. For convenience, such inquiries are often dealt with in a briefing context prior to and during official travel undertaken by the Prime Minister. The press briefing held on October 15, 1974 at which Mr. Head replied to questions from newsmen was one such occasion.
2.	Responsibility to the parliament and people of Canada for the formulation of Canadian foreign policy lies with the Government, and that policy is implemented principally by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The government does not consider it appropriate, having regard to the parliamentary system as it operates in Canada, for non-elected officials to bear, or appear to bear, such responsibility. For that reason, explanations by officials of government policies and activities in this and in other areas are normally made on a non-attributable basis.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	Yes. There is no record of the dates and items involved.
6.	See answer to Question No. 242 answered December 18, 1974, Hansard No. 56, page 2354.



EXPORT SALES TO CUBA

Mr. Kempling: 1.	How many export sales were made to Cuba during each fiscal period 1971-72,1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 to date?
2.	What were the dollar amounts of these export sales?
3.	Were these sales financed through the Export Development Corporation?

March 26, 1975
Order Paper Questions
4.	Were any such sales to Cuba financed through any other government agency and, if so (a) through which ones (b) how many sales did each agency handle (c) what were their dollar values?
5.	What were the terms of sale of each transaction for the fiscal periods, including length of financing terms and rate of interest charged?
6.	Are any of these export sales in default at the present time and, if so, which ones and what is the nature of the default?
7.	Have any of the contracts between EDC and Cuba been written off since 1968 and, if so, which ones and what is the dollar amount of each?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as Statistics Canada is concerned: 1 and 2.
Year	Number of Items	Value ($'000)1971	209	58,8221972	195	58,7301973	238	81.8711974	246	144,652
In so far as Export Development Corporation is concerned: 3. It has signed agreements to finance two sales to Cuba: (a) on April 25, 1974, up to Canadian $17.91 million, representing 90 p. cent of the sale price on a sale of 30 locomotives, spare parts and tools, by MLW Worthington Limited, Montreal, and of railroad track construction and maintenance equipment, spare parts and services by Canron Limited, Montreal, and (b) on December 13, 1974, up to Canadian, $24 million, representing 80 p. cent of the sale price of a sale of three 10,000 DWT tankers by Marine Industries Limited, Montreal.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	In the case of the sale described (i) in subparagraph (a) of the answer to Part 3, the terms were 10 p. cent cash and the balance of 90 per cent in 20 semi-annual instalments; and (ii) in subparagraph (b) of the answer to Part 3, the terms were 20 per cent cash and the balance of 80 per cent in 16 semi-annual instalments. With regard to the rate of interest charged in each case, it is not in the public interest to publish information on EDC lending rates. The rates vary according to such factors as the need to match international competition and the credit risks involved. To publish an average rate would be to disclose to certain borrowers that the EDC rate to them is above the average and this would militate against the possibility of repeat business for Canadian exporters.
6.	No.
7.	No.



DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE-TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENTS

Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What documents of any and all description (such as any type of form, records, stationery, employee directives, etc.) within the entire Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce have to be translated into the French language?
2.	Retroactive to what date will all past records of the Department have to be translated?
3.	At what date must all of these translations be completed?
4.	What amount of money was spent in the years 1973 and 1974 for translating such documents?

5.	What will be the total cost of translating all existing documents, forms, stationery, records, etc. within the Department's entire operation?
6.	What is the total additional yearly cost of ordering all new forms, stationery, etc. in two languages compared to the cost in one language?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Secretary of State are concerned: 1. All publications, forms, folders, brochures, trade reviews, booklets, manuals, books, circulars and documents of a general application or of an administrative nature which are intended for employees within the Department at large, other government departments and agencies, or for the Canadian public have to be made available in both official languages.
2.	Past records of the Department are not being translated.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	It is difficult to provide a precise answer to the question in terms of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, since, in order to achieve greater efficiency, the Government of Canada has consolidated all translation, interpretation and terminology services under a single administration, designed to serve all the departments and public bodies which depend on them. Cost are not apportioned according to the types of activities mentioned above. However, the total demand for translation as represented by the number of words is available for the years 1972-1973 and 1973-1974. The production in words for 1972-1973 was 3,120,006; for 1973-1974 it was 3,312,796. On the basis of an analysis of operating costs for the Translation Bureau, the total operating costs are estimated at about ten cents per word for the two years in question.
5.	Information no available.
6.	Approximately $33,300.



DEMURRAGE CHARGES

Mr. Korchinski: From the beginning of the crop year to date (a) what was the amount of demurrage charges on grain levied (b) which ports were involved?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Demurrage paid by the Canadian Wheat Board from beginning of 1974/75 crop year to December 17: (a) Wheat (not including durum), $1,967,718; Durum, $9,214; Barley, $1,495,628; total, $3,472,560. (b) West Coast Ports: Wheat (not including durum), $1,859,305; Durum, $9,214; Barley, $1,495,628; total, $3,364,148. East Coast Ports: Wheat (not including durum), $108,412; Durum, $ nil; Barley, $ nil; total $108,412.



RELEASE OF INMATES

Mr. Schumacher: 1.	By institution, how many prisoners were released in each month commencing January 1974 to date?
2.	In each case, what was (a) the length of sentence given at the time of incarceration (b) the nature of the crime for which sentence was imposed (c) the actual length of sentence served?
3.	How many of those released since January 1, 1974 (a) were receiving psychiatric assistance during incarceration (b) continued to
March 26, 1975

receive psychiatric help after release (c) were considered to be of sound mental condition upon release?
4.	(a) How many of those released since January 1, 1974 have become repeat offenders and, of these, how many are (i) serving sentences in maximum, medium and minimum security institutions (ii) are on parole (b) in each case, what was the nature of the repeat offence and length of sentence imposed?
5.	By institution, how many prisoners were incarcerated for crimes of (a) murder (b) armed violence <c) unarmed violence (d) rape?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1, 2, 3, 4 and
5.	While the information required to answer the question will be available, unfortunately, the Ministry's Correctional Services are still in the process of catching up and changing from a system of historical statistics, always a year or two out-of-date, to a current data system with information no more than a month after events. Our current estimate is that the required information on 1974 will be available some time in May 1975. The alternative to awaiting completion on the inmates records system is the manual search, by special task force, of some 15,000 parole and penitentiary case files, a large number of which are held at the various regional headquarters locations across Canada, and the Ministry of the Solicitor General does not have available the staff nor the funds to undertake such a project. It is regretted that the information cannot be provided at this time.



DISCUSSIONS RELATING TO SOULANGES CANAL

Mr. Herbert: Does the government have any interest in or have there been any recent discussions with the Government of Quebec concerning the Soulanges Canal?


Mrs. Iona Campagnoio (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: There have been no recent discussions with the Government of Quebec on the Soulanges Canal and Parks Canada has no plans for its development.



CHILEAN REFUGEES

Mr. Epp: 1.	How many Chilean refugees entered Canada since 1972?
2.	What is the nationality of the people who were accepted under the "Chilean Refugee" provisions?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Between September 11, 1973 and February 28, 1975, 1,188 persons were landed in Canada as a result of the special movement from Chile. An additional 348 persons have entered Canada as a result of events in Chile and are in the process of being landed.
2.	The citizenship of the 1,188 persons landed is shown below. Citizenship of those in the process of being landed has not yet been tabulated. Citizenship: Argentina, 3; Australia, 1; Austria, 3; Bolivia, 4; Brazil, 16; Chile, 1,125; Colombia, 1; Czechoslovakia, 2; Ecuador, 1; France, 1 Haiti, 1; Hungary, 2; India, 1; Italy, 1; Kenya, 1; Mexico, 1; Nicaragua, 1; Peru, 1; Paraguay, 1; Poland, 1; Tanzania, 1; U.K., 3; U.S.A., 1; Uruguay, 8; Vietnam, 1; Yugoslavia, 5; Zaire, 1; Total, 1,188.
Order Paper Questions	[DOT]



AGREEMENT BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND CANADA ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

Mr. Beatty: With reference to the memorandum of understanding between Canada and the United States signed June 18, 1970, does the agreement give the Americans access to all new developments with respect to transportation policy in the private sector and, if not, what categories of information are exempted from such agreement?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Transportation of the United States and the Ministry of Transport of Canada dated June 18, 1970, and concerning research and development cooperation in transportation is an inter-agency agreement and as such does not apply to the private sector. The Memorandum was signed in order to promote cooperation between the two agencies in the field of technical transportation research and development. As a result of this agreement, the Canadian Government has been able to obtain very useful information on government transportation research that has been and is taking place in the U.S.A.



TRAVELLING REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC SERVICE MEMBERS

Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): 1.	What are the Treasury Board regulations, if any, requiring members of the Public Service, the Canadian Defence Forces or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to use a Canadian flag carrier when travelling abroad from or returning to Canada?
2.	When may exemptions from such regulations be granted and by whom?
3.	(a) Is it possible to ascertain or to approximate the number of exemptions so granted in the calendar year 1974 (b) what was the principal reason given to support the exemption?
4.	What were the three leading foreign airlines for whom exemptions were granted during the period?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Supply and Services as follows: 1. The government's policy is stated in the Treasury Board travel directive and reads as follows: "... Except where considered impractical by the employer, travel on official business shall be by Canadian carrier". The Canadian Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to whom the travel directive does not apply, have similar policies.
2.	Exemptions may be granted by departments. There are no formal criteria established. Exemptions are commonly made when: (a) the foreign centre to be visited is not served by a Canadian carrier; (b) the Canadian carriers are fully booked, and advancing or delaying an individual's departure is not acceptable; (c) the timetable of the Canadian carrier would lead to an uneconomic use of an employee's time.
3.	(a) No. (b) Not applicable.
4.	Not known.

March 26, 1975
Order Paper Questions



WHITESHELL NUCLEAR RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT

Mr. Francis: Was the Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment in Manitoba declared a protected place in June, 1974 and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: The Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment in Manitoba was declared a protected place by Order of the Atomic Energy Control Board dated December 18, 1962. A new designating order was made in June, 1974 to comply with Section 14 of the Atomic Energy Control Regulations which came into effect on June 4, 1974. The purpose of a protected place is as stated in subsection 14(1) of the Atomic Energy Control Regulations.



ISSUANCE OF INSURANCE POLICIES TO NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS

Mr. Francis: Have Canadian insurance companies refused to offer the $75 million insurance policy to licenced nuclear power stations in Canada to cover them for indemnity against nuclear accidents and, if so, will the government cover any claims in the event of such an accident?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: The Nuclear Insurance Association of Canada is prepared to provide $75 million of insurance to operators of nuclear power stations in Canada. Until the Nuclear Liability Act is proclaimed in force, operators are not obligated to carry this insurance. At present, nuclear power stations not owned by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited are indemnified by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited against liability to third parties arising from a nuclear incident.



PERMISSIBLE LEVELS OF RADIATION EXPOSURE

Mr. Francis: Did the Director of the Radiation Protection Branch say that the safe level of radiation is a matter of opinion only and not a matter of scientific research and, if so, will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tell the Canadian people how permissible levels of radiation exposure were arrived at by the Atomic Energy Control Board?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: It is generally accepted by international experts that scientific research has been unable to establish a level of radiation below which the risk to health can be said to be zero. Quoting from the Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, "Any exposure to radiation is assumed to entail a risk of deleterious effects. However, unless man wishes to dispense with activities involving exposures to ionizing radiations he must recognize that there is a degree of risk and must limit the radiation dose to a level at which the assumed risk is deemed to be acceptable to the individual and to society in view of the benefits derived from such activities". These recommendations have been accepted by the Atomic Energy Control Board in setting permissible levels of radiation exposure.



WHARFAGE ACCOUNTS

Mr. Forrestall: With reference to the answer to Question No. 455, does the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs consider that the annual rate on over-due wharfage accounts due the National Harbours Board of 120 per cent is a good example for government to hold to the private sector in terms of interest rates it should charge consumers on consumer over-due accounts and (a) if so, for what reason (b) if not, for what reason?


André Ouellet: As stated by the Minister of Transport in response to question 455, the wharfage charge in question is a penalty to prevent abuse of a privilege. It is a commercial transaction. Quite different considerations arise in consumer transactions where the seller is frequently trying to encourage rather than discourage, the use of credit.



CANADA COUNCIL AWARD TO STUDY REPORTS OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS

Mr. Halliday: 1.	Did the Canada Council award $6,000 to study Canadian reports of Unidentified Flying Objects and, if so, was the Council aware that the United States Government spent over half a million dollars between 1966 and 1968 to have competent scientists conduct an intensive study of such reports, including Canadian reports, and that their conclusion was that there was no evidence to warrant any further scientific investigation (the Condon Report)?
2.	Did the Council consult with officers of the National Research Council about the advisability of funding such study?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. Yes. Under the Council's Explorations program, Mr. John B. Musgrave has been awarded $6,000 to catalogue old sightings of strange aerial phenomena as reported in Canadian newspapers, journals and local histories, and to interview people who have witnessed such phenomena, especially prior to 1947. The Council's decision was based on an independent appraisal by four scientifically qualified people who were undoubtedly aware of the Condon Report: the Chairman of the Department of Astronomy in an American university, the director of the Mutual U.F.O. Network in the United States, a biologist, and the editor of the Canadian U.F.O. Report.
2.	No. This was not felt necessary for the following reasons: (a) the candidate has a solid background in the history of science and particularly of astronomy, having studied these subjects at two major United States universities, and is now involved in scientific work while teaching at Athabaska University, Edmonton; (b) the focus of his project is historical rather than scientific.



COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT STRATEGY

Mr. Epp: 1.	What new programmes are identified as community employment programmes?
2.	What percentage of people who will be employed in the development phase will be Canadians now unemployed?
March 26, 1975

3.	What areas in each province have been chosen as locations for implementation of the development phase of the community employment programmes?
4.	What is the projected cost of the development phase for 1975-76?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. None as such. However, there will be already established government programmes which will participate and form a part of a community employment strategy.
2.	Approximately 100 per cent, since C.E.S. is aimed at those people who are continuously unemployed and who rely on welfare or unemployment benefits for income.
3.	British Columbia: Nanaimo and Kamloops; Saskatchewan: Target group of about 1,500 people within the province who are considered employable welfare recipients. Agreements with other provinces are still being negotiated.
4.	$15 million.



LIST OF CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): Is there a list available of the incorporated causes or institutions deemed, for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, to be charitable institutions and, in consequence thereof, authorized to issue receipts for income tax purposes enabling donors or contributors to claim contributions as deductible expenditures and (a) if so, where is it to be found (b) if not, would it be provided?


Hon.   Ron. Basford@Minister of National Revenue: Yes. The Department prepares an annual computer listing of all registered Canadian charitable organizations, corporations and trusts, donations to which are deductible for income tax purposes. Listings of additions and deletions are prepared quarterly, (a) These listings which are approximately four inches in thickness are not distributed to the public although they are made available in the District Taxation Offices for public perusal during normal working hours, (b) Not applicable.



ELECTRONIC MEDIA COVERAGE IN HOUSE OF COMMONS

Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): 1.	To the knowledge of the government did the British House of Commons have a free vote on the electronic media coverage of their debates?
2.	When the resolution to allow some form of electronic media coverage is moved in the Canadian House, will the government allow a free vote on this most important question?


John Mercer Reid: 1. The proceedings of the British House of Commons do not come within the administrative responsibility of the government of Canada.
2.	A decision will be made when the resolution is before the House.
Order Paper Questions



LAWSUIT BETWEEN MR. ROBERT McGALL, CBC, VANCOUVER AND MS. LISA HOBBS, &quot;VANCOUVER SUN&quot;

Mr. Reynolds: 1.	With respect to the law suit between Mr. Robert McGall, head of CBC in Vancouver and Ms. Lisa Hobbs of the Vancouver Sun, did CBC pay any or all of Mr. McGall's costs?
2.	Were Mr. L. Picard, President of CBC and Mr. Knowlton Nash, Director of Public Affairs subpoenaed to appear at the trial or did they volunteer their service?
3.	Were Mr. L. Picard or Mr. Knowlton Nash on leave of absence or on corporate time while attending the trial?
4.	Did Mr. Picard have any other staff or legal counsel present at the trial who were being paid by CBC?
5.	As a result of the court award of $1 only in damages, has the President of CBC or the Minister advised employees of CBC to refrain from suits against writers in newspapers, magazines, radio and television who are critical of CBC and of the actions of its employees so that the media will feel free to attack the Crown corporation whenever it feels it is warranted?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. No, the trial judge has reserved judgment with respect to the awarding of costs; however, if the amount of costs awarded to Mr. McGall is less than the expenses incurred by him, the Corporation has undertaken to reimburse him.
2.	They appeared as witnesses at the request of the plaintiff's solicitor, the formality of the issue of a subpoena having been dispensed with by agreement.
3.	They were in the performance of their duties.
4.	Yes.
5.	No.



DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES-EMPLOYEES

Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	What were the number of employees attached to the Department of Supply and Services for the years (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973
(e)	1974 (f) 1975 to date?
2.	Are there any internal security groups located within the Department and, if so (a) which ones (b) how many employees are attached to each such group?


Hon. Jean Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. (a) 8,791; (b) 8,597; (c) 8,963; (d) 9,934; (e) 10,010;
(f)	10,131 to February 1975.
2.	No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Coates: 1.	What are the names, salaries, positions and dates of appointment of each of the persons on the personal staff of each Cabinet Minister?
2.	Is there any limit as to the number of persons or the budget that governs employee appointments and salaries for Cabinet Ministers and, if so, what are the limitations and how are they determined?

March 26, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Return tabled.



LIP-PROJECTS IN CONSTITUENCY OF MOUNT ROYAL, QUEBEC

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 46 of the Second Session of the 29th Parliament, which states in part that a total of $615,102 was allocated under the Local Initiatives Programme for 1972-73 in the constituency of Mount Royal, Quebec (a) what are the names of all projects involved along with their addresses and the names and addresses of those signing the applications (b) in each case what is a detailed description of the actual project, specifically including the functions performed under the project?
2.	What are the names and addresses of all persons or organizations who recommended each project in any manner whatsoever to the Department?
Return tabled.



PUBLIC SERVICE-NUMBER OF CONSULTANTS ENGAGED AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1974

Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	As of October 1, 1974, how many consultants were engaged by (a) the Privy Council Office (b) the Prime Minister's Office (c) the Department of External Affairs (d) the Treasury Board (e) the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (f) the Department of Finance (g) the Department of Transport (h) the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources (i) the Department of Labour (j) the Department of Communications (k) the Department of the Environment (1) the Department of Public Works (m) the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (n) the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to) the Department of Manpower and Immigration (p) the Department of National Defence (q) the Department of Justice (r) the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (s) the Department of National Revenue (t) the Department of Supply and Services (u) the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce (v) the Department of Agriculture (w) the Solicitor General of Canada (x) the Secretary of State of Canada (y) the Post Office Department (z) the Department of Veterans Affairs (aa) the Department of National Health and Welfare (bb) the Minister of State responsible for Fisheries?
2.	In each case, what was (a) the specific purpose for which the consultant is engaged (b) the duration of the engagement (c) the contracted compensation or remuneration?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT-RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

Mr. Symes: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 by the Department of the Environment on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
Return tabled.



CONSUMPTION OF SUGAR IN CANADA

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	How much sugar was consumed in Canada (a) in 1972 (b) in 1973?
2.	What is the volume of Canadian production?

3.	(a) From what countries did Canada import sugar (i) in 1972 (ii) in 1973 (b) what amount was imported from each of these countries (c) at what price per pound?
Return tabled.



PUBLIC SERVICE-PERSONAL DATA SYSTEM

Mr. Beatty: By organization, for every department, agency or Crown corporation of the government maintaining an automated personal data system used exclusively for statistical report or research, for each system, what is (a) the name of the system (b) the nature and purpose of the system (c) the category and number of persons on whom data are (to be) maintained (d) the category of data (to be) maintained, indicating which category is (to be) stored in computer-accessible files (e) the organization's policies and practices regarding data storage, duration of retention of data and disposal thereof (f) the category of data sources (g) a description of all types of use (to be) made of data, indicating those involving computer-accessible files, and including all classes of users and the organizational relationships among them (h) the procedure whereby an individual, group or organization can gain access to data for independent analysis (i) the title, name and address of the person immediately responsible for the system (j) a statement of the system's provisions for data confidentiality and the legal basis for them?
Return tabled.



Mr. Beatty: By organization, for every department, agency or Crown corporation of the government maintaining an administrative automated personal data system, for each system, what is (a) the name of the system (b) the nature and purpose of the system (c) the category and number of persons on whom data are (to be) maintained (d) the category of data (to be) maintained, indicating which category is (to be) stored in computer-accessible files (e) the organization's policies and practices regarding data storage, duration of retention of data and disposal thereof (f) the category of data sources (g) a description of all types of use (to be) made of data, indicating those involving computer-accessible files, and including all classes of users and the organizational relationships among them (h) the procedure whereby an individual can (i) be informed if he is the subject of data in the system (ii) gain access to such data (iii) contest their accuracy, completeness, pertinence and the necessity for retaining them (i) the title, name and address of the person immediately responsible for the system?
Return tabled.



NAMES OF SHIPS CONTAINING BILGE CLEANING SUBSTANCES

Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Do any ships or vessels operated by any department or agency of the government contain stocks of bilge cleaning substances which are toxic by themselves or in combination with any petrochemical by-products and, if so, which ones?
2.	Has the government made any effort to divert its purchases of bilge cleaning substances from toxic to non-toxic varieties?
3.	What has been the dollar value of purchases of bilge cleaning substances by the government in the last measurable twelve month period?
4.	Does the government view the continued practice of purchasing bilge cleaning substances that are toxic to marine life when non-toxic varieties are available as being fully compatible with Canada's efforts to achieve a pollution-free marine environment?
Return tabled.

March 26, 1975

PUBLIC SERVICE^NUMBER OF CONSULTANTS ENGAGED AS OF NOVEMBER 15, 1974

Question No, 897-Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):
1.	As of November 15, 1974, what consultants were under contract to (a) the Office of the Prime Minister (b) the Privy Council Office (c) the Treasury Board (d) the Department of Agriculture (e) the Department of Communications (f) the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (g) the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources (h) the Department of the Environment (i) the Department of External Affairs (j) the Department of Finance (k) the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (1) the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce (m) the Department of Justice (n) the Department of Labour (o) the Department of Manpower and Immigration (p) the Minister of State (Fisheries) (q) the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs (r) the Department of National Defence (s) the Department of National Health and Welfare (t) the Department of National Revenue
(u)	the Post Office Department (v) the Department of Public Works (w) the Department of Regional Economic Expansion (x) the Department of the Secretary of State (y) the Solicitor General (z) the Department of Supply and Services (aa) the Department of Transport
(bb)	the Department of Veterans Affairs?
2.	In each case, what is the (a) stated purpose (b) estimated cost of the consultation?
Return tabled.



DAIRY PRODUCTS

Mr. Wise: How many pounds, cases, etc. of dairy products did Canada (a) have in storage (b) export (c) import during each year 1970 to 1973 inclusive?
Return tabled.



ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD-RADIATION SAFETY

Mr. Francis: How many people have been appointed to advise the Atomic Energy Control Board on radiation safety and what are their names?
Return tabled.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer the House to question 1,233 which has been on the order paper since the first day of the present session and asks for information concerning the $200,000 swimming pool being constructed at 24 Sussex Drive. Specifically, it asks for the names of the donors, the circumstances surrounding the donations and other details concerning construction. These are matters which could very easily have been answered, yet several months have gone by without an answer being forthcoming.
Surely, it is a simple matter to have the government give this House a list of 25 names. The fact that these names have not been forthcoming can only lead us to the unfortunate assumption, at this stage at any rate, that there is something to hide. If there is no conflict of interest or impropriety involved, I would think that the Prime Minister could today assure the House that he will make public all details concerning the swimming pool immediately, and that failure on his part to do so might well indicate that there must be very good reasons for keeping the truth away from parliament and the public.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yes, there are very good reasons for keeping the facts from the
Order Paper Questions
House. I understand that those who offered to contribute were told that their names would not be made public.


An hon. Member:: What have they to hide?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: For fear that the House would say that I am receiving gifts from certain people and that I would be influenced by those gifts. I think the fact that their names are secret, not only to the House but to myself, certainly makes it very difficult for the House or the country to believe that I am being influenced by any form of gift.
I think the House will have to make up its mind. If the House wants me to be influenced, or to give the appearance of being influenced, by public donors, and the House passes a resolution to this effect, I will have the donors advised of this. If they want to have their names made public, it will be up to them. If they do not, I suspect it would be up to the treasury to foot the bill. This has also been suggested as the proper course.
I will be guided by the House, Mr. Speaker. If hon. members want the funds to come from the public treasury rather than from private and secret donors, that is perfectly acceptable to me except that they will then tell the taxpayers about this added expense that they prefer to see the taxpayers bear rather than have the government accept gifts, as it often does for the benefit of public property.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There appear to be other members who want to pursue the same point of order.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order to which the Prime Minister has just addressed himself. I should like to say on behalf of my colleagues that the line of reasoning the Prime Minister has taken is not one with which we are in agreement. It seems to me there is an important distinction to be made between gifts that are made to a prime minister while he is holding office-


Mitchell William Sharp: It is public property.


John Edward Broadbent: Perhaps the government House leader will hold on for a moment. There is an important distinction to be made between gifts made to a prime minister while holding office which he will take with him when he leaves office, and the kind of situation we have with a swimming pool being added to the official residence of the prime minister of Canada, and that includes prime ministers in general who will come after the present Prime Minister. There is an important point of public policy, which our party holds, that it is wrong in principle to accept private donations in this kind of situation whether the names are revealed or not. If a pool is required for some purpose, it should be government policy to put it in at public expense.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that hon. members realize there is a great danger that with very little difficulty we could slip into a debate on this question rather than dealing with a point of order. The hon. member for

March 26, 1975
Motions for Papers
Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) has raised a point of order, calling to the attention of the House the fact that his question has been on the order paper for some time and has not been answered. That point of order has now been rather fully discussed and I think we should move on to something else.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the Prime Minister said, if I recall his words correctly, "if you want me influenced by this then I would see that these things are revealed". I should think that, in fact, this is an improper thing to be said to this House, and is in effect threatening this House-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: -he should make them public and treat the House with more respect and less arrogance-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member realizes that he is raising a point of discussion or debate and not a question of privilege.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for production of papers No. 31 is acceptable to the government.



COPY OF NAMES OF CONSULTING FIRMS ELIGIBLE TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO CIDA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 31-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a list of names and addresses of consulting firms eligible to provide professional services to CIDA and the total amount of money paid to each firm for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 29-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the press releases relating to the projects (a) Cadastre program in Morocco (b) National Library for Ivory Coast (c) Educational television for Ivory Coast (d) Automated bakery in Tanzania (e) 11 Twin Otter Stol planes for Indonesia (f) Microwave system for Zaire (g) Uplands Sugar Mill, Barbados (h) Hydro Studies, Salto Grenade, Argentina (i) Electric Power, Electrobras, Northeast Distribution, Brazil (j) Earth Satellite Station, Pakistan (k) Cimmyt, Mexico, International Development

Research Centre (1) Cyat, Colombia, International Development Research Centre (m) Derro Tetouan project, Morocco.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for production of papers No. 29 is acceptable in so far as part a, e, i, j, k, 1 and m are concerned. In so far as parts b, c, d, f, g, and h are concerned, no press releases were issued.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 29 is deemed to be adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for production of papers, Nos. 15, 28 and
30?
COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO ABORTION AND/OR SECTION 251, CRIMINAL CODE
Motion No. 15-Mr. Leqgatt:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of Justice and the Attorneys General and Ministers of Health of the provinces dealing with the subject of abortion and/or Section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, correspondence between the department or Minister of Justice and the attorneys general of the provinces concerning abortion and/or Section 251 of the Criminal Code contains confidential communications. I would, therefore, ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, may that be transferred for
debate?


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH CBC PERTAINING TO PROGRAMME &quot;BAPTIZING&quot;

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 28-Mr. Dinsdale:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence with CBC pertaining to the programme "Baptizing", presented on the CBC national TV network on Sunday evening, January 19, 1975.
Mr. Gustave Blouin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by the CBC
as follows: The correspondence in question is confidential as between the correspondents and the CBC. The CBC welcomes reactions to programs and the effect of publication of the correspondence would be to create a reluctance on the part of interested parties to comment in writing to the CBC about its programs.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Gustave Blouin: Under the circumstances, the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.
March 26, 1975


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
COPIES OF AREA PROGRAMME SUMMARIES FOR 1972-75 Motion No. 30-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the Area Pro-gremme Summaries for the years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75, covering such areas as Commonwealth Africa, South America, Francophone Africa, and any other area breakdowns for which Area Programmes have been prepared.


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 30 is not acceptable because there is in the documents we are asked to table some parts dealing with international relations the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of Canadian foreign relations. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
Transferred for debate.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the other notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr.   De Bane@: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) on a point of order.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Speaker, earlier the parliamentary secretary has asked for authorization to be relieved of the obligation to table a document in the two official languages. You have asked if there was unanimous agreement to have the documents tabled in only one of the two official languages. Personally, I objected. I do not want to come back on what has been done but I would like to inform the parliamentary secretary or any minister that from now on I will object to having a document tabled in only one of the two official languages.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I missed the objection of the hon. member because I could not hear it. After the parliamentary secretary made his suggestion to the House I put the question in respect of agreement, and it was so ordered. I did not hear any dissenting voice, and perhaps that is a weakness of my right ear.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, now that we are probably approaching an
Oral Questions
Easter break, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can assure us that the House will be informed during the first week of our return after Easter of the specifics of the government's so-called consensus program and any other contingency plans it may have on the shelf to deal with the very serious social and economic stresses in the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to the kind of statement I will be making publicly to the First Ministers Conference, of course I will be prepared to discuss that in the House and answer questions relating to it. If he is asking for a further statement, I cannot give that assurance.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman must recognize, in view of our pursuit of this information for a number of months, that his answer is totally unsatisfactory. Does the Prime Minister not realize that this attitude is bound to cause a spirit of hostility and non-cooperation to exist in this chamber after we return? If that is the way things are to be, Sir, that is the way they will be.


INFLATION-POSSIBLE DISCUSSION OF CONSENSUS PROGRAM AT FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a couple of questions to the Prime Minister in an attempt to change, this apparent secrecy which seems to permeate the House regarding the consensus program. The Prime Minister told the House last Thursday that the first day of the First Ministers' Conference might well be open. Would he tell the House what items will be discussed on the first day and, specifically, will the consensus program be discussed in the open at that time? I think we are entitled to know what the thinking of the government is in this regard. Will that be an open meeting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the agenda will be as follows: there will be a statement by the eleven First Ministers, and then there will be two items on the agenda, the first being the question of oil and gas pricing, distribution and so on, and the second being the economic situation. I cannot say for certain how much time will be taken on the first item or whether the second item will be reached on the first day. I would think it fair to guess that it is not too likely the second item will be reached on the first day, and it is possible that the first item will continue into the second day. Whether at that time the First Ministers will or will not want to make any part of their discussions public is something I cannot decide for them.
I have taken a stand, which I have made public in this House, that the federal government will not take any lead in making meetings private, but if the desire of the committee of First Ministers is that they be private we will respect that desire and support them.

Oral Questions


INFLATION-GOVERNMENT VIEW OF LEVEL WHICH MIGHT BE ACHIEVED THROUGH CO-OPERATION
[Stage Direction]
March 26, 1975
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister would indicate then to the First Ministers that this matter is of some prime concern and the meeting should be open to determine perhaps what role the Canadian people can play in that regard. On March 12 the Minister of Finance said:
What is dangerous is that current settlements are anticipating rates of inflation which project the rate effective in 1974, and if this continues to happen, it will become a self-fulfilling prophesy...
I am sure the Prime Minister must be very concerned at least with the prediction of the Canadian Labour Congress that inflation in fact will run around 12 per cent in 1975. Would the Prime Minister tell the House whether during the consensus talks the government has argued that a substantially reduced inflation rate is possible for this year, and if that is the case I am sure the Prime Minister would now be most anxious to tell the House what reduced level a program of co-operation could achieve?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I take the first part of the question as a representation and will convey the feeling of the hon. member for Hamilton West to the first ministers, his feeling about how important it is for the public to assist in the debates on the second day or whatever his expression was. On the latter part of the question, I think this is a good illustration of the inadvisability of the government making a complete statement on what it is doing in the consensus process at this time because the hon. gentleman chose as an example the labour movement. I feel it is very important to not ask any sacrifice by the labour movement if that sacrifice is not met by other sectors of the economy. It would be very unwise for me to answer, even in part, the kind of question put by the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, surely the Prime Minister must know that so long as there is no indication from the government concerning what the inflationary rate will be, labour will have no leadership in this regard and will continue to make statements about what wage levels should be and wage settlements will be geared accordingly. Surely, the Prime Minister knows there should be leadership in this regard. Will he not give this leadership and indicate what this co-operation will do in terms of reducing the rate of inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that leadership is required, but what the hon. member seems to be arguing is that every stage of our consultation must be made public in order to prove our leadership to the hon. member. I say, Mr. Speaker, that our leadership can be made evident without that.


COMBINES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Considering that the Royal Bank has made it known to the Power Corporation that if it should succeed with a takeover bid in respect of the Argus Corporation it, the Royal Bank, would put up the almost $150 million in capital that would be necessary, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, considering that such a take-over and the investment associated with it would not represent an investment that would lead to increased productivity in the economy, whether the government in this particular case would take steps to ensure that this is not proceeded with and, second, would the government take the necessary steps to ensure that it would have the authority over investment patterns of this scale in the economy as a whole in the future.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot, of course, comment on the preamble to the question. The hon. member seems to know more about what is going on in respect of the Royal Bank and the Power Corporation than I do.


John Edward Broadbent: I have my doubts about the Power Corporation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously, he has access to information I do not have. The concern he seems to imply by his question certainly is one I have expressed. I am looking into this matter. I do not think it would necessarily follow for the reasons alleged by the hon. member, but there is a question of the degree to which competition in Canada might be reduced by such a take-over and I am having the matter looked at. I might mention that if the House would co-operate with regard to the passage of Part I of the competition bill, then perhaps we could get on with Part II and perhaps deal with the matter raised by the hon. member.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow up the answer given by the Prime Minister and ask him, if in the course of investigations the government reaches the conclusion that some of the benefits that come from the alleged competition which now takes place would be removed by such a take-over, whether he would assure the House that the government would take the necessary steps to stop it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, the question is hypothetical in its form, but it would seem to me if the hon. member would look at the first part of my answer he would understand that that, indeed, is part of my concern. My reference to stage two of the competition bill is that in the government's mind further steps would be taken beyond those which now exist in our law to give the government power to look into this kind of thing.
March 26, 1975


NATIONAL SECURITY
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General, I shall put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
As today is Easter's eve for the Jewish community and also because the Solicitor General has received over 30 telegrams from them with regard to an Interpol inquiry as well as a brief proving ties between the Nazis and Interpol, does he consider that the time has come to order an in-depth inquiry into the connections between the Nazis, Interpol and the Jews?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know absolutely nothing about the telegrams mentioned by the hon. member; in addition, I doubt that Interpol, the Nazis or the Jews fall under the jurisdiction of the department of the minister concerned. As for the Jewish community, which might be interested in this matter, I take this opportunity to say to it, "Shalom".


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister.
Because Canada is a member of Interpol, and because Jews have on many occasions complained about Nazi control over Interpol, would the right hon. Prime Minister look into this matter in depth, in view of the absence of the Solicitor General of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the question; if the hon. member gets in touch with the minister, he will get information on which to launch his study.


COMBINES
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. First of all, would the Prime Minister assure me that he will re-read Bill C-2 about which he is so proud and agree that the provisions of that bill in no way would touch the Power Corporation-Argus Company so far as the existing clauses of the bill are concerned? Would the Prime Minister agree to do that for us at least?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that would appear to be a rhetorical question. The only reason for it is that the hon. member did not listen to my reply. I was talking about step two of the competition bill which we would reach only if stage one is accepted by the House with some expedition.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister and this country would be prepared to accept Bill C-2. But in any event, I wonder whether the Prime Minister has asked the Secretary of State and the
Oral Questions
Minister of Communications to look into particular aspects with regard to communications and the effect there might be if this takeover bid was successful.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to the Secretary of State, but this is one of the aspects which did catch my attention and that is why I drew it to the attention of my officials and asked them to look into the matter in consultation with other departments.


ESTIMATES
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the disclosure by the Minister of State for Science and Technology that a number of security items are listed under unrelated headings in the annual estimates, will the minister tell the House which of the estimates are not accurate?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Science and Technology and of Public Works offered hon. members of the opposition to meet them and give them some explanations. I think they should benefit from this opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am prepared to see the hon. member for Calgary Centre on a supplementary question. However, questions about the estimates and their content really ought to be directed to ministers in the standing committees when the estimates are being examined.


Harvie Andre: I certainly do not want to challenge the judgment of the Chair, but I feel that this goes beyond the usual interrogation conducted in committees into the details of the estimates, in that in committee we were informed that certain votes in the estimates could, in fact, include items dealing with security matters and therefore the accuracy of the estimates could be questioned. This opened the question of whether, in fact, the House can be asked to judge. Would the minister consider including such security items in the annual estimates if they could be isolated from the main estimates as, for example, miscellaneous votes.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister gave an explanation that I think is very good. It would not be in the interest of Canada to give any more details than we are giving now.

March 26, 1975

Oral Questions NATIONAL SECURITY


RESPONSIBILITY OF COMMUNICATIONS BRANCH OF NRC- ACCEPTABILITY OF MINISTER'S ROLE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, and it arises from the statement of the Minister of State for Science and Technology that he is kept informed as to the activities of the communications branch of the NRC, and I quote, "to the extent that they think I could be useful". Quite apart from the question of parliamentary scrutiny of the nation's security apparatus, I ask the Prime Minister whether the minister's position that it is proper for him to leave the matter strictly in the hands of the communications branch with respect to whether he is made aware of their activities is in his opinion acceptable procedure for the overseeing of the country's security machinery?


Mr. Clark:: I want to return to the security matter and refer again to the testimony of the Minister of State for Science and Technology who said that the communications branch of the NRC, and I quote, "do monitor Hertzian waves emanations." Since that phrase could include microwave communications, including long distance telephone calls, will the Prime Minister tell the House whether the agency is monitoring long distance telephone calls placed in Canada to points in Canada or outside Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know, but I will refer the question to the Minister of Communications or the Minister of State for Science and Technology to see if either of them can give the answer in the public interest.


REASON FOR TRANSFER OF COMMUNICATIONS BRANCH FROM NRC TO NATIONAL DEFENCE-MINISTER TO WHOM BRANCH REPORTS
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to be a matter of administrative convenience. Cabinet ministers, and certainly I, myself, do not ask their officials to report to them on every possible subject which comes before them. They rely on the judgment of their immediate advisors and deputy ministers or directors, and if on some occasions they do not have confidence in or doubt the judgment of those advisors, of course, they will look beyond the advice given, but as a matter of practice I am sure no minister wants to know every detail of everything which happens under his jurisdiction.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Of course, I was not asking that the Minister of State for Science and Technology be informed of every detail of their activities, but is the Prime Minister saying that it is acceptable procedure for a minister of the Crown responsible for one important part of our security apparatus to simply rely upon the judgment of the people involved in the machinery as to whether he should be kept informed of their activities, or does the Prime Minister feel that experiences in other jurisdictions with respect to this matter would justify ministers responsible for the security apparatus taking an active part in overseeing the activities of groups responsible to them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction between the two postures. I am sure every minister oversees every aspect coming under his jurisdiction, but he does not ask his officials to report on every detail of it. He relies on their judgment to bring to his attention matters which are of importance.


POSSIBILITY COMMUNICATIONS BRANCH OF NRC MONITORING LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CALLS
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister who, I presume, is sporting a Pick Nick button because he could not find anyone in Alberta to wear it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I trust that a simple answer as to whether such an activity is being conducted can be divulged to the House of Commons. My supplementary to the Prime Minister deals with whether the transfer of the communications branch of the National Research Council to the Department of National Defence was part of a general transfer of security responsibilities. If not, will the Prime Minister tell us why the communications branch of the NRC was transferred and whether it is the plan of the government to concentrate all security agencies in one ministry so that one minister can exercise the kind of supervision of which my hon. colleague spoke earlier and which, according to the Prime Minister's colleague who is absent today, is necessary in the case of the communications branch.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: My understanding of the reason for the transfer is that the Department of National Defence is the main user of the kind of intelligence which might be gathered by this unit. The Department of National Defence is, of course, interested in intelligence relating to military operations of foreign powers, and that is why it is the main user. As to the other suggestion, the answer is no. The over-all supervision for matters of security and intelligence comes under the cabinet and, more particularly, under the cabinet committee on security and intelligence.


Charles Joseph Clark: Will the Prime Minister advise the House whether the communications branch, now of the Department of National Defence, will report to the Minister of National Defence, or will it report to someone else? If it is someone else, who is that other person, and where is that person located in the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of internal function of the government apparatus. If answers can be given along these lines, they will be given by one minister designated by me. If the answers cannot be given, they will not be given by any minister.
March 26, 1975


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The minister stated in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington concerning the authorization of the first ever tolls on the Rideau-Trent-Severn waterway that he accepted full responsibility. In view of the fact that the CORTS Committee of the Rideau-Trent-Severn waterway made a very strong point of the fact that this is a unique waterway, the only one without usage fees, I would like to ask the minister whether he consulted this committee before taking this action.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the committee was not consulted before taking this action because when the matter was discussed and approved by the Treasury Board, the CORTS Committee was not in existence. This is just a relatively recent development. I think it is three weeks since the committee was formed, so in fact this matter was a fait accompli before the CORTS agreement was signed and before the committee came into existence. I should mention that these fees only represent seven per cent of the operating costs of the canal system. This question was asked by an hon. member the other day.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I would like to ask the minister if it was not on the suggestion of the federal government that the CORTS Committee was set up just for this advice. I think it has been set up longer than the minister suggests.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, the submission and approval of the fee structure antedates the establishment of the CORTS Committee, and the mandate of the CORTS Committee is far broader than simply this narrow aspect as far as its interest in dealing with the operation of the canals involved.


TOLLS ON RIDEAU-TRENT-SEVERN WATERWAY- PERCENTAGE OF TOLLS EXPENDED ON ADMINISTRATION
Philip Bernard Rynard: I would like to ask the minister what percentage of the 15 per cent will be spent in administration and for hiring the necessary people to look after the collection of the fee?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I presume the hon. member means what portion of the 7 per cent of operating costs? In other words, the revenues collected will represent 7 per cent of the operating costs of the canal system. I am sorry that I cannot give that information right now.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi on a point of order.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises from the last supplementary of
Oral Questions
the hon. member for Rocky Mountain. May members on this side of the House ask questions without recognition from the Chair as well?


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


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I notice you looked in our direction. There are also some questions which should be asked by hon. members on this side of the House.
I have a question for the Minister of Labour.
Could he inform the House if and when he intends to raise the minimum wage because the people covered by the legislation on minimum wages need an increase?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the cabinet has approved an increase in the minimum wage from $2.20 as it is now, to $2.60 effective July 23, 1975.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: It was published in the paper yesterday.


John Carr Munro: This is a 40 cent increase, and will put it ahead of that of any other jurisdiction.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I would personally invite the Prime Minister back to his seat. In the absence of the Minister of Finance, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Conference Board has predicted that Canada's unemployment rate will reach 8.5 per cent by the end of this year with very little growth in the economy, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of that, the government is considering bringing a new budget into the House immediately?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is in Washington for the IMF meetings. I will relay the question of the hon. member to him when he returns.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question. Is the Prime
Minister now ready to instruct the Minister of Finance to bring in a new budget in view of the fact that the unemployment rate will be nearly 9 per cent by the end of this
year?

March 26, 1975
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure the hon. member knows that I respect the judgment of the Minister of Finance and that he makes his own decisions.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A final supplementary. In view of the projected high unemployment rate and the massive deficit we have in manufactured goods in this country, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government intends to get tough and require firms to do more processing and manufacturing of raw materials in this country prior to export in order to create more jobs for Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is restating his question. The policy of the government has already been announced.


SUGGESTION MINISTER VISIT OTHER COUNTRIES TO LEARN SUCCESSFUL TRADING PATTERNS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, obviously the tame seals are getting restless for a dive in the new pool at Sussex Drive. My question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the volume of exports of fully manufactured products, which are the ones which produce the jobs, has been declining steadily in the past 18 months and imports of the same products have been rising rapidly, showing that our chief trading partners are more adept exporters of products to Canada than we are at selling abroad and this has had an adverse effect on our employment, would the Prime Minister give serious consideration immediately after the Easter recess to having the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce visit the capitals of some of our more successful trading partners-


An hon. Member:: And stay there.


George Harris Hees: -to study their trading patterns and bring them back to Canada which would have a tremendous effect on production and employment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is agreement between the hon. member and the government view of these things or indeed the view of most responsible economists. If our exports are falling, it is because so many of the economies of our traditional markets, like the United States, are weakening and they are not in as strong a position to buy our goods as before. If imports are increasing, it is because Canadian society and the economy is very strong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question arising from that very interesting answer. In view of the fact that imports from other countries of fully manufactured products are every day displacing a very large volume of Canadian products offered in the Canadian market, how does the Prime Minister conceive that our economy is so much more adept in producing goods at a reasonable price than other economies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Will the hon. member give me some examples, please?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the Prime Minister take the time and trouble to look at the figures produced by Statistics Canada. Mr. Speaker, when one receives an answer like this it shows no regard for the employment and welfare of the Canadian people. Is it any wonder that the Prime Minister has found it necessary to have both of his limousines bullet-proofed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member that I do have high regard for the prosperity of the Canadian people and for the welfare of the hon. member. For that reason I suggest that he remove his head from the buttonhole of his shirt that he put it in this morning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a very entertaining exchange. There are other members, however, who should be called upon.


George Harris Hees: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. As a result of this last answer which I got from the Prime Minister, I should like to ask him if he is suffering severely from headaches from having his head in the sand so much of the time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if I might just borrow a moment from the question period which I will add on at the end. I want to remind hon. members that regardless of when we rise for the Easter break, there is an order of the House which will change the form of the question period. It will take effect upon the first Monday on our return after Easter. That order will have the effect, on an experimental basis, of having the question period begin forthwith after any motions pursuant to Standing Order 43. Question period will begin not later than 2.15 p.m. or earlier if there are no motions, or just a few, pursuant to Standing Order 43 and regardless of interruptions, points of order and questions of privilege, will terminate at three o'clock. Accordingly, one of the effects of the order covering the experiment will be that the question period will become a sort of self-policing thing in regard to interventions.
I wanted to make that known to hon. members now and to add that on the first Monday after our return at the end of the question period that day, at three o'clock, I would propose to put to the House the views I have collected from an examination of the precedents and the collective wisdom on the question period as a point of departure from which we might begin to come to an understanding about those guiding principles which should govern the question period. I hope to do it in such a way as to invite comment from hon. members, whether that comes through meetings of House leaders or of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, which I am always happy to attend, or discussion in the House. It would seem that introduction of that new experimental order would be an opportunity to begin with a most comprehensive statement about the question period, to invite discussion and take it from there.
March 26, 1975


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which pertains to questions that are unanswered on the order paper. Can the Prime Minister or whoever is in charge of administering the funds for the construction of the swimming pool at his official residence assure the House that no donations were received from dredging companies or officials connected with dredging companies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley.


AIRPORTS
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and is with regard to the controversial Pickering airport. Because the minister made a commitment to revise the proposed airport plans if it could be shown that the people of Toronto are opposed to it, and as a recent survey conducted by a reliable market research firm shows that the majority of the people of that city do oppose a second airport, can the minister assure the House that he will now consider the wishes of the people of Toronto and keep his own word, by taking immediate steps to stop any further planning or construction of the project and bring the whole issue back to cabinet and perhaps the House for revision, as promised.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the details of the inquiry referred to by the hon. member. He speaks of metro Toronto; what is metro Toronto, exactly? He speaks of 40 per cent of the people of Toronto being opposed; does that mean that 60 per cent support the airport? I have no details. Surely, he does not expect me to answer a simple question like this, which hides much more than it shows.


Otto John Jelinek: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The poll to which I referred has been made public and shows that not 40 per cent but 54.4 per cent of the people were opposed to the proposed Pickering airport. When I refer to metro Toronto, I am referring to the city of Toronto, as the minister well knows. The minister made a commitment to this House, which is on record.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Otto John Jelinek: May I ask my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In order to avoid the embarrassment of the accusation that he is deliberately trying to mislead the House, could the minister tell us what other information would
Oral Questions
satisfy him and induce him to revise this white elephant project.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no idea of the value of the statistics given. I know we have made our own investigations. I came back from Toronto this morning, where I met the Minister of Transport. There is nobody in all Toronto who complained about the construction of the Pickering airport, and I met several persons.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and concerns certain St. Lawrence Seaway dredging contracts. Is the minister, or are his officials, aware of the dredging contract entered into in the Quebec city area, allegedly for the Golden Eagle refinery? It was entered into even though informed and knowledgeable river and port interests were consulted and advised against such dredging contract. That contract proceeded on the basis of a $10 million bid. When tenders came in, the price was $20 million and already $36 million has been spent on it. Does the minister know anything about that particular contract?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the details of that contract, but will inquire. I do not think I was Minister of Transport at that time.


Mr. Benjamin:: Are you now?


Jean Marchand: I will look into the matter and see if there is anything to report.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As this took place in 1971 or 1972, I concede that the minister was not in charge, although his departmental officials were informed. While looking into the matter-I know he cannot report to the House until after Easter could he determine what prominent Liberals were in favour of the contract, as I understand that one of them is a colleague of his who is now a member of the cabinet but who was not in the cabinet when he made strong representations for this contract to be proceeded with.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

March 26, 1975
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the tragic and deplorable events in Saudi Arabia, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us whether the condolences of the Canadian population have been offered to King Khaled, and whether the Canadian government is officially represented at the funeral of this head of state?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General, the Prime Minister and I sent messages to the new king, King Khaled. In those messages we expressed the shock and grief of the nation at the tragic death of the late king. He was a leader who exerted major influence in world affairs and, particularly, within the Arab world. The Canadian representative at the funeral ceremonies today is our ambassador, Mr. Michael Shenstone.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Communications.
Can the minister tell the House what is the state of the negotiation with the Quebec government as regards the control of cable distribution and whether the respective positions of the federal and the Quebec governments remain relentlessly opposed?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, on the request of the Quebec government itself, it is not a bilateral, but a multilateral consultation between the federal Minister of Communications on the one hand, and on the other hand the ten provincial Ministers of Communications. It would be too long to explain in detail what point we have reached. Therefore, I shall try to be short and say that a letter is being sent today to the president of the Commission of the provincial Ministers of Communications, Mr. Rhodes, the Ontario Minister of Communications. The letter says that the federal Department of Communications is willing to call a conference on an agenda mentioned in the letter, and that the date which would be most suitable for us and which we hope would suit the provinces would be around the middle of May.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice. Dr. Mor-gantaler was acquitted by a jury, but the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the decision reversing the acquittal; three judges, three members of the highest judicial authority in Canada, including the Chief Justice held, however, that the conviction ought to have been quashed. In view of this will the minister look into the case and recommend to the cabinet that it should exercise powers conferred on it on grounds of clemency, as it is obvious that the offence was committed for humanitarian motives.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there will be no such recommendation. I will, of course, as a matter of interest, examine the judgments of the court in this case. I am rather astonished by the hon. member's suggestion that, in some fashion, the minority of the court overrides the majority.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not know that even though a majority of the court has convicted a person, it is the duty of the Governor in Council to consider whether clemency should be exercised. Why is the minister not ready to perform that duty?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the law requires that various powers conferred on the executive shall be exercised only in most exceptional circumstances, indeed, only if there is some indication of the failure of the legal process. In this case, on the contrary, the legal process was carefully pursued to the Supreme Court and, without doubt, with great care in the Supreme Court itself.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and requires consideration. It has been reported that Chapman Transport Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Canadian National Railways, has been sold to Direct Winters Transport Ltd. of Toronto, a wholly owned subsidiary of Fuqua Industries Incorporated of Atlanta, Georgia. Can the minister advise the House if this sale met with his approval and did it receive the approval of the Governor in Council administering the Foreign Investment Review Act.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have no memory of that deal. I shall inquire. If
March 26, 1975

it has been made, it was surely without my knowing it and I would be surprised if the Canadian National had that authority. However, I shall inquire and report to the hon. member.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister aware that Direct Winters Limited has bought Miller Brown Limited, as reported to me yesterday, Chapman Transport Limited, and has approached other provincial carriers in the province of British Columbia in an attempt to create a monopoly of provincial interior carriers that will be wholly-owned by their United States holding company, Fuqua Industries Incorporated?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture when he proposes to make his announcement with regard to subsidies on industrial milk which was promised before the end of March. Second, does the minister intend to reinstate the milk subsidy on fluid milk? If not, does he intend to consult with his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to find some new method of bringing relief to hard pressed Canadian consumers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I made several statements in the House on behalf of the government on the consumer milk subsidy and as to our intentions. The spending of the government has been criticized by members of the opposition and by the public, but over half of our increased spending is to take care of people whose incomes do not allow them to look after themselves in the fashion we want. Therefore, we increased the social benefits. The dairy policy will be announced before the first of April.


POLICY ADOPTED BY GOVERNMENT CONCERNING ADVERTISING-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Considering that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has decided that his department will no longer pay for any advertisement in the newspaper Le Jour, and that the Minister of National Health and Welfare said yesterday that the cabinet had not yet been informed of this matter but that other departments may act in a similar fashion, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime
Oral Questions
Minister if the government plans to apply to all its departments the policy now followed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, each department's advertisement is left entirely at the discretion of the department concerned. The minister has stated publicly that he has made a personal decision and I would like to add that I congratulated him
personally.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette on a question
of privilege.


Roch La Salle: Since the decision of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources creates a precedent as concerns advertising and since 25,000 Quebecers buy this newspaper and probably from 50,000 to 75,000 people read it, I am wondering if the government does not plan to take the same attitude as concerns certain projects of the Opportunities for Youth Program, of which the sponsors are often not necessarily the greatest of federalists, even though these projects benefit Quebecers.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may ask just another supplementary question, but unfortunately, in spite of the importance of this issue, the oral question period is nearly over and I would like to recognize three or four other members.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Will Air Canada headquarters at Place Ville Marie at Montreal come under the jurisdiction of bill 22-The minister is having difficulty hearing because of the noise on the other side. Will Air Canada headquarters at Place Ville Marie at Montreal come under the jurisdiction of bill 22, making the working language at Air Canada headquarters French?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think both languages are used at Air Canada in Montreal and were used before Bill 22 applied.


A. Daniel McKenzie: My question to the minister was-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

Oral Questions TRANSPORT


TOLLS ON ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY-POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I have an urgent question for the Minister of Transport. I hope his answer will not be kept a secret from the Canadian people. Pursuant to the opening of navigation on the St. Lawrence Seaway, and in the interest of our Canadian trade and the economic industrial production of the heartland of Canada, can the minister assure the House there will be no further increase in tolls and shipping fees on this waterway now or in the foreseeable future?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I stated that we are revising the whole transportation policy. The seaway is part of this. There is the problem of refinancing with regard to the seaway. As the hon. member knows, the present debt of the seaway is approximately $800 million. Therefore, the cabinet will have to address itself to this question. I cannot indicate now what will be the decision of the cabinet.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Given the fact that Canada's agricultural trade with the United States dropped by some $39 million last year over the previous year, and having regard to the fact that only a mere doubling of wheat sales avoided an overall decline in the exports of Canadian agricultural products, can the minister say whether any new initiatives are being considered by the government with regard to a more aggressive and effective marketing policy for Canada's agricultural products?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will want me to put on record that our exports of agricultural products is one reason we did not have a deficit in our trade balance. Our trade with the United States is important. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce spent some time in Cuba and is in Venezuela at the present time. The Prime Minister recently returned from Europe. Agricultural trade was discussed at all these meetings. We gained concessions in our cheddar cheese program with the common market. We are doing all that the hon. member has asked.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot get away with a frivolous answer like that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt at this time, but I did direct a specific question to the Minister of Agriculture concerning

our trade with the United States and a $39 million decline in our overall trade. I asked the minister specifically what steps he has taken in order to restore that trade with the United States, particularly in the beef industry. The minister avoided that question completely.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought I should ask permission to return to motions later today in order to deal with the adjournment motion.


Mr. Speaker:: With that indication, and anticipating what may take place in that regard if discussions are fruitful and some agreement develops out of those discussions, it will be my pleasure, as has been the customary practice on occasions of this sort, to receive hon. members later this day in Room 16.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we agree to this request. At the same time, I hope the minister will bring forward the motion to refer the Hermann report to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is my intention, Mr. Speaker.


Walter David Baker: That is agreeable to us as well, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-13, to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act as reported from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. Speaker:: Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 appear to be acceptable on procedural grounds. Motion No. 4 would appear to introduce a new and substantive provision, not into the amending statute but into the legislation itself. Perhaps when the time arrives further discussion might take place as to its admissibility. In the meantime the Chair will proceed to put motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for the Yukon.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon) moved: motion No. 1:
That Bill C-13, an Act to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 19 and 20 on page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
(2) Subsection 3(7) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
(7) A quorum shall not be properly constituted and shall not conduct business unless four days clear notice of the meeting has been given to each member of the Commission at his ordinary place of residence.
March 26, 1975

He said: Mr. Speaker, I hope this amendment will find acceptance. Perhaps upon reflection the minister might agree with me that consideration of the question of a quorum was omitted as a result of an oversight when the bill was drafted. Under the existing legislation the commission consists of three members and a quorum is two. The bill before us increases the number serving on the commission from three to five and omits the clause in the present act with respect to a quorum. We must therefore rely on a provision in the Interpretation Act which leaves us with a quorum of three.
When this bill passes the Board will consist of five members of whom two will be appointed, one from each of the territories, that is, from the Yukon and from the Northwest Territories. The other three will be government members. The practice could develop-I am not suggesting for a moment that it will be followed-of holding a meeting without any notice being given to either of the two territorial representatives on the commission. It would be a simple matter for the chairman to call the other two government members together and make decisions in the absence of the territorial members.


An hon. Member:: In the absence of a quorum?


Erik Nielsen: No. The quorum, under the terms of the Interpretation Act, is three. Once this bill goes through, the quorum being three out of five, there is a possibility that the commission could meet and reach decisions and that the members from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories would be left out entirely. My amendment proposes that-
A quorum shall not be properly constituted and shall not conduct business unless four days clear notice of the meeting has been given to each member of the Commission at his ordinary place of residence.
I have said "four days" in the amendment but I am certainly not wedded to four days. In the Yukon there is no problem. However, in the Northwest Territories, as I am sure the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) will agree if he is following the debate, an appointed member could live so far away from the place at which a meeting is to be held that it might take four days for a communication to reach him. As I say, I am not suggesting for a moment that the practice will develop under which these meetings will be confined to government members. However, the fact that the door is wide open for such an abuse adds weight to the argument in favour of the amendment I propose.
It might be asserted-and I say this in anticipation of what the minister might tell us in his reply-that there are really three territorial members on the board now because he has recently appointed the Commissioner of the Yukon as Chairman of the Board. But with all due respect to the Commissioner of the Yukon Territory, for some six years now he has been an employee of the government and, again with all due respect to the Commissioner, I might say he has learned very well how to take his instructions from time to time from the minister, and I am certain that this loyalty will follow him into his new position as Chairman of the Power Commission.
Again, with no disrespect to the Commissioner, I say he does have a civil servant's loyalty to the minister, as he should have; he will take instructions from the minister,
Northern Power Commission Act as he should do, just as if he had been a career civil servant for the last 30 years. So I classify him as a government member of the commission, simon-pure. He, together with the two government members, will leave the territories in a minority position.
All I ask is an assurance that all the members of the commission, when its numbers have been extended to five, will be given notice of all the meetings to be held by the commission-a guarantee that the appointed members from each of the territories will attend and take part in the decision-making process. After all, it would be an empty gesture to expand the commission, purporting to include territorial input, and then be able so easily to subvert that laudable intention by having the commission hold its meetings with a quorum of three, as would be allowed under the Interpretation Act, without notifying the other two members of the Commission. This practice could be followed, and it is in order to avert such a danger that I am putting forward this amendment.
The minister could cut debate very short if he would indicate at the outset his intention to accept the amendment. It is one which would entail no expenditure from the public purse. It would cost the government nothing in the way of administrative expenditures, and it would endorse the stated intention of the government to involve the two territories in a meaningful way in the decisionmaking process. If the minister is about to arise to accept the amendment I will stop right now.


Iona Campagnolo: No way.


Erik Nielsen: I do not see the hon. gentleman rising, and the parliamentary secretary to the minister says "no way". I find this rather a pity, because it means in essence that what I fear is exactly the case. The minister and his parliamentary secretary, who appear to be of a single mind, are in effect saying that this business of adding additional members from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories is mere window dressing.
If this amendment does not pass we are not going to destroy the feature of enabling the three government members to hold meetings by themselves and make decisions on their own without there being any input from the two appointed members. It is sheer hypocrisy and sham for the government to be taking such a posture and rejecting a reasonable amendment like this which would ensure that at least the opportunity is given to the two territorial appointees to participate in all commission decisions.
The amendment is not asking for a change in the quorum; it is not asking that the quorum be increased beyond three. It is not asking that the two territorial representatives must be present. All the amendment is asking is that the two territorial representatives, as well as the other members of the commission, be given notice of a meeting, and I cannot for the life of me see what the government finds unreasonable about this kind of amendment.
I see the minister is conferring with a colleague, and perhaps after a second, careful reading of the amendment he will find this reasonableness in its content. Perhaps it

March 26, 1975
Northern Power Commission Act
will commend itself to the government and it will adopt it. Perhaps this conference has produced some fruitful result.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, might I make a couple of comments. There are two or three thoughts here. First, it seems to me that we would be imposing upon the commission what is basically a housekeeping matter that the commision should deal with itself. It seems to me- this is why I was checking with those individuals among our colleagues who possess more legal expertise than I- that there could not be a lawfully constituted meeting unless all members of the commission or board were notified. We are endeavouring to check that point.
The reason I have some apprehension about this is because of the suggestion from my colleague who has had some experience with Ontario Hydro, indicating that often when emergencies arise it would be impossible to give four days' clear notice in advance. For example, you might want to get the group together on a conference telephone in order to try to deal with an immediate problem and you do not want to be tied to a four day mandatory period.
There might be some other way of accomplishing the hon. member's objective by making it mandatory to notify all commission members of all meetings, which would seem to me the logical and natural thing to do. The only question is, what do you do in an emergency if you are locked into a four day time frame and, secondly, are we getting into a housekeeping matter that the commission itself should decide?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, a careful reading of the amendment will assure the minister and all hon. members that I am not at all tampering with the number of the quorum or the lawful constitution of any meeting. All I am suggesting in my amendment is that notice be given of any meeting to all commission members. I also said that I was not wedded to the four days. I only put four days in the amendment because my colleague from the Northwest Territories has a greater communications problem than we have in the Yukon. As far as the Yukon is concerned, 24 hours' notice means our man can get to Edmonton next day; but the situation is different in the Northwest Territories which has vastly greater communications problems than does the Yukon.
In the case of an emergency where a meeting has to be held in a hurry-the example cited by the minister-I am sure that as long as the territorial members were notified of a meeting that was about to be held, then at least the opportunity would be given to each individual member, if for some reason or other he was unable to get to the place of the meeting, which presumably would be in Edmonton, to give his views by telephone. There are some communities in the Northwest Territories without normal telephone services, but even they are able to communicate by means of Anik. In the Yukon territory there is no such problem: we have instant communication with the outside at all times.
I notice my colleague from the Northwest Territories is in his seat. As I say, I am not wedded to the four days; this is really a question of timing for him and the minister. We would be quite happy with 24 hours. Perhaps the hon. member for Northwest Territories might state his views

and the minister could adopt what I feel is a very reasonable request of the government. This amendment including one member from each territory is not mere window dressing. It will ensure that they become meaningfully involved in the decision making process.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, while we are on the two northerners, I did omit to say something in my earlier comments. I feel that the hon. member for Yukon has not given adequate credit. He mentioned we have now moved from the situation that has existed up until recently where the Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was also the Chairman of the Northern Canada Power Commission. We have moved away from this situation, and the chairman is now the Commissioner of the Yukon Territory. This is in line with trying to give northerners a more meaningful and significant say in matters bearing directly upon them and upon their well-being.
Coincidentally, I might mention at the same time that the position of Director of Panarctic Oils was also filled by the deputy minister. The Commissioner of the Northwest Territories now fills that post, again with the idea of giving northerners a more significant say, which is something to which I am committed. The commissioner is interested in the well-being of the north-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, forgive me for interrupting the minister, but I merely resumed my seat in order to permit him to make an interjection and perhaps to accede to my amendment. I do not want it thought for a moment that I am giving up my right to my full time in this debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The Chair might point out to hon. members that we are not in committee of the whole. It is not the practice, at this stage of debate on a bill, when members are speaking to allow ministers to rise and interject. There is a proper way to proceed, which is for a member to make his speech and then for the minister to reply. In the interests of advancing the bill the Chair has been lenient, but I think the proper procedure should be recognized and followed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it has long been the practice of the House for a member who has the floor to take his seat in order to permit an interjection or question. This is what I was doing by way of courtesy to the minister, and if he wishes to continue to do so I would be happy to take my seat so long as it is understood that I can continue.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether some compromise could be reached here. As I was saying, I am concerned about an emergency situation. I do not think the four days is that crucial. We do not want to lock the commission into a situation where it is obligated to wait four days when it has a crisis on its hands. The hon. member might want to address his mind to that point and see whether he can insert a phrase into his amendment to cover that situation. I really do not have that much difficulty with the amendment.


Erik Nielsen: I do have a suggestion in that regard. Again I do not know what my colleague, the hon. member for the Northwest Territories, would consider as a reasonable time, but the four days was inserted on his behalf and not on behalf of my party.
March 26, 1975

The suggestion I would make to the minister in connection with a crisis or an emergency, as he describes it, is that when such a situation does arise which requires a meeting to be held without notice to the members of the commission, then a subsequent meeting should be held to ratify the decisions made by the commission at the meeting of which notice was not given. That is the simple answer to that matter, Mr. Speaker.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I think the 24 hours or something of that order would qualify in the manner suggested by the hon. member. If he would like to direct his mind to that perhaps we could stand this and move to the following motion.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, subject to what my colleague from the Northwest Territories has to say, I am quite happy to have my amendment amended, and I cannot do it myself but perhaps my colleague might, by deleting the words "four days" and substituting therefor "24 hours".


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on this amendment now before us. The power commission bill has been before the committee almost all winter and a lot of time has been spent on it, with a great deal of representation being made. Generally the idea, or the intent of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielson) is good, but, like some aspects of the bill itself, I do not believe it goes far enough.
Keeping that in mind, I would not like to add any more restrictions or make the procedure more cumbersome by putting in regulations such as contained in this amendment. I think it would all depend on the individuals who are members of the commission. I can assure you that the people of the north who may be appointed would not stand for meetings being held without them being present, and you would hear their complaints loud and clear.


Erik Nielsen: Supposing they were not notified?


Walter (Wally) Firth: I think this difficulty can be overcome by setting regular dates for meetings, perhaps the first Monday of every month, so that the date for meetings will be known. The regular meetings could be held at regular places. In addition, I think the amendment would be restrictive in the case of an emergency. Therefore I do not really believe we need this provision. I think it is just plain common sense and good practice to have members notified in time, and certainly the time of meetings would be known if they were held on a regular basis. With improved communications in the north you can get in touch with people within 24 hours. Personally I would not like to see too many restrictions, and for that reason I am not in favour of the amendment.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might speak to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), and my remarks are in response to what the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) has said.
As some members of the House may know, my family connections with the Yukon go back over 70 years, and I
Northern Power Commission Act do have some awareness of the feelings of the people up there in respect of this type of sensitive issue. The sensitivity exists in that no matter what you do in respect of appointing a commission to represent the federal government in the territories, the people there still look at the members as hired men of the minister and of the government here. Whenever you have a situation in which it is possible that they are not invited they will assume they were not invited because they did not belong to that inner group the commission wanted attending the meeting. I think the minister would be well advised to give favourable consideration, as I know he has done, to this amendment proposed by the hon. member for the Yukon. This involves not only the matter of being above suspicion, but also of appearing to be above suspicion.
Knowing the sensitivity of northerners in respect of anything we do down here, there is always the assumption that it is a diminution or restriction by the federal government of their desire to have provincial status, I would not like to see more fuel added to the fire. I think we should avoid that. We can do so by a simple amendment that repeats what was in the original act, that a quorum should be so and so. I think we should put in what a quorum should consist of, and that there should be 24 hours notice. I do not think this would delay the calling of any emergency meeting.
I would conclude by stating that the election in Alberta today is being fought on a very similar issue. It goes back to the time the parliament of Canada in 1905 ratified the decision to establish the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan without giving the people there control over their resources. As a result we have alienation in these two provinces to this day. This would not have been the case if the parliament in 1905 had considered the people who lived in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The situation then is somewhat comparable to the situation that exists today in the north.
I just remind hon. members of this political fact when suggesting that we should not add fuel to the situation that already exists. These people have spent many years in the north waiting for development and the opportunity to form their own provincial government so they can administer their own resources, and the minister must be very careful. I would suggest that any amendment that takes away the suspicion in the minds of northerners that they are being dominated by the government here in Ottawa, or by the minister, would be a helpful amendment. Even though parliament can come back 25 or 30 years later and correct its mistakes, let us not make the mistakes in the first place if we can avoid doing so by a simple amendment now.
I think the minister's response to the hon. member is the correct one. I do not quarrel with the views of the hon. member for the Northwest Territories if you have the ordinary situation, but we are not dealing with the ordinary situation in the north. These people are as sensitive as cats at a certain season of the year, and you have to keep this fact in mind. I think the minister would save a lot of trouble for himself if he took measures now to prevent an inflamatory situation arising, or a situation that I know is always ready to be inflamed.
4520

March 26, 1975
Northern Power Commission Act


Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words "four days" and that the words "twenty-four hours" be substituted therefor.
The amendment is being seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: If the hon. member will direct the motion to the Chair in writing it will be put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion as amended?
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Nielsen), as amended, agreed to.


Erik Nielsen: motion No. 2:
That Bill C-13, an act to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, be amended by striking out Clause 3, lines 10 and 11 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
3. Subsection 6(2) of the said Act is repealed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid this motion will be more controversial than the last one. The existing legislation limits the power of the commission with regard to entering into any contract, undertaking, or project for maintenance of repairs, construction and so on, to $50,000. If the commission should wish to enter into a project exceeding that sum then it must have the approval of the cabinet or the Governor in Council. By the amendment of the government-and I am speaking now of existing subsection 3 of section 6-subsection 2 with which I have no quarrel is removed, but subsection 3 is also removed and not replaced by anything.
This means in essence that the commission will not be required to seek and obtain approval of the Governor in Council in respect of any project, any construction, or anything it should decide to do. In other words, if this amendment should pass in its present form as contained in the bill, the commission could decide to embark in the Northwest Territories on the development of any hydroelectric scheme it so desired without the approval of anyone.
Having regard to the position taken by my colleague, the hon. member for the Northwest Territories, it would seem to me that this would be in opposition to the wishes of all the people in the Northwest Territories, and not merely the native organizations in that area. It would be in opposition to the wishes of the whole population, who are upset enough as it is now concerning the operations of the commission, particularly in the Mackenzie area. But that is what the amendment would do.
The amendment would give the commission carte blanche if it should proceed with the development of the Tulsequa Taku scheme which was investigated in the early 1950's by Montreal Engineering Ventures Limited and Quebec Metallurgical, a scheme which would envisage the expenditure of some $3 billion, and which would he comparable in terms of hydro-electric power generation to

twice the existing production of the St. Lawrence Seaway project. What this amendment in the bill means is that the commission could, on its own, make a decision to go ahead with a project of this magnitude without a by-your-leave.
I would have liked to have seen parliamentary control at some level over the commission in respect of expenditures. However, not being able to anticipate that kind of control of expenditure, at least I would have liked to have seen that kind of control exercised by the cabinet. That, however, is not to be. The deletion of subsection 3 from the existing legislation removes any control whatsoever from the commission with regard to any project it wishes to undertake.
I realize the argument will be made immediately that it can operate only within its existing resources and that it would not have sufficient funds to embark upon this kind of scheme painted by way of example by me just now. But the fact is that the power is there. In reading this bill I wonder whether the cabinet committee that was responsible for considering the legislation even had in mind that this extensive power would be given to the commission. I think not. Dealing as the amendment does with such mundane items as maintenance, repairs, construction, excavation and so on, I believe these words perhaps lulled into a sense of false security the cabinet committee which had the responsibility to consider this legislation.
It may be that my reading of the amendment and its effect is incorrect, but subsection 3 of the existing legislation sets forth quite clearly that the commission shall not, with respect to any project, undertake or enter into any contract, other than for maintenance or repairs, for the construction, making, erection purchase or installation of any works, excavations undertakings, equipment or facilities, involving a total estimated expenditure exceeding $50,000 unless the undertaking of the project by the commission has been approved by the Governor in Council.
That is the way the section now reads. It was put in there, as explained in the debates of 1948 and 1956 when the act was originally passed and amended for the first time, for the specific purpose of cabinet having some kind of control over the activities of the commission. Now the government, by this amendment, wants to say in effect that the commission shall have, with respect to any project, the power to enter into any contract, the power to enter into any construction, and the power of making, erecting, purchasing or installing any work, any excavation, or any undertaking or any equipment or facility. That is the effect of the amendment in the bill. I do not think for a moment that any responsible cabinet, let alone parliament, would want to transfer that kind of wide and sweeping power to any agency of government without any parliamentary control.
It may be that parliamentary control exists in the fact that the commission must report to parliament through the minister. But what sort of control is that, because the financial operations of the commission are so altered by other amendments to this act that they permit it to compete actively on the money markets and raise any capital required in order to embark on any project?
It seems to me that we go far in excess of the limitations in respect of the parliament of Canada when we provide, by legislation such as this, for an agency of government,
March 26, 1975

this commission, to be treated in the same fashion as any Crown corporation by giving such wide and sweeping powers to it without any control.
It would be different if parliament had to be asked to approve estimates to keep this kind of commission operating, but even that is not the case. We do not exercise any control in the estimates because once the commission has the powers which will be extended to it-if the government's bill goes through as it stands now-there will be no need to make provisions for estimates for the operation of this commission. The decision making process is complete in the commission in whatever it wishes to do.
Speaking as a member interested in the welfare of Canada as a whole, that is not the kind of power parliament would want to pass to an agency of the government, but speaking now as a Yukoner I find it even more offensive because that clause opens the door wide to an agency of the government here in Ottawa to do exactly what it pleases. Apart from the input of the member from the Yukon on the commission there is no legislative control whatsoever. That control does not reside in the cabinet, unless of course this provision is revoked at some time, and if the commission gets out of line it is not required to refer any such project to either of the commissioners in council of the territories. I think such reference would be a very desirable control to impose upon the activities of the commission. It would also be a very desirable step toward meaningful consultation with the people of each of the territories.
Even if this amendment were to say that the commission shall not undertake this specified list of things which it is authorized to undertake in subsection 3 of section 6 now, and even if it were to say that it is not authorized to do that until it has consulted with the respective commiss-sioners in council of the two territories-not again making their approval mandatory-it would perhaps mean something. But here we are not only abolishing the requirement of the commission to account to cabinet, and through cabinet to parliament; we are abolishing the requirement of the commission to account at all except by way of an annual return.
That to me, as a Yukoner, is an extremely undesirable state of affairs. It would appear that the hon. member for Northwest Territories takes an entirely different view of things. He does not seem to believe that people in the Northwest Territories have any interest in being involved in the decision making process. But then, of course, he has aligned himself with the socialist group in this House, and perhaps this degree of state control to him is desirable. It certainly is not desirable in my western neck of the woods.
I am sure that upon a closer analysis the minister will see the dangers which are inherent. Perhaps he will not. He used to see all sorts of dangers when he was a member of parliament, but now that he is a minister perhaps he has blinkers on, and perhaps with his new responsibilities he cannot see the dangers any longer. He certainly saw the reasonableness of the last amendment, and perhaps after hearing what I have to say he will see some scintilla of a danger in what this amendment in the bill proposes. Even though he is new at his duties, perhaps he is so fed up with
Northern Power Commission Act the idea that he should have any responsibility for the Northern Canada Power Commission that this is a very easy and quick way to get rid of it. His first step in that direction has been a laudable one.
For quite some time we on this side of the House have been saying that the idea of having his deputy minister as the chairman of the commission was extremely repugnant and should be abandoned. He has done that now, but I must say that he has not moved very far away from the position which existed when his deputy was the commission chairman, because he substituted for his deputy in that position an individual who is not qua individual but a person whose position is such that he might as well still be the deputy minister.
The real solution will not be found until the commission is separated from the department entirely and becomes truly a Crown Corporation. Then perhaps there might be some justification for an amendment such as the one we now have before us. If the commission were a separate entity, such as Air Canada, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or the one which has been lost in limbo somewhere, Polymer Corporation, neither fish nor fowl, not really a part of CDC, or at least not at the moment- maybe the government will be getting around to curing that situation one of these days-one might be able to see some justification in this amendment, but here where the commission theoretically is still responsible to parliament through the minister, it ill behooves the government to wipe out any responsibility of the commission to report to parliament through the minister with respect to its fiscal operations.
The cabinet should at least retain some control over decisions which would involve not only northerners but all Canadians, and which could involve them substantially in terms of expenditure of public funds. After all, that is what they are-when the commission incurs an indebtedness, it is in the long run the Canadian government which is responsible for it.
As it now stands the amendment would permit the commission to embark upon a James Bay project if it so desired, with no power in the cabinet to veto it, if this bill goes through in its present form.


Walter David Baker: You wouldn't want that, Judd.


Erik Nielsen: Of course the minister could say that if the chairman of the commission and the two government appointed members did that, they would be fired. There is control there, but I do not believe that that is the kind of control parliament is entitled to, Mr. Speaker. Parliament is entitled to have the government, through the cabinet, account to the people of Canada for the activities of its agencies. This amendment would wipe all that out. The purpose of my amendment is to retain it.
It is my view that this $50,000 figure in the existing legislation is perhaps too small. Certainly in today's atmosphere of inflation not very much can be accomplished with $50,000. I would be quite amenable to having that figure raised substantially, to a quarter of a million dollars or even half a million dollars, to permit sufficient fiscal flexibility in the commission and to enable it to accomplish the task parliament expects it to do under the
29557- 11V4

March 26, 1975
Northern Power Commission Act
legislation. But I do not believe it was the serious intention to wipe out any limitation. I will be extremely surprised if it is so. I cannot agree with wiping out any accountability or any control by government, or by cabinet, over the economic decisions of the commission.
As a responsible parliamentarian in the opposition I would have to oppose this vigorously. I am not usually one to argue that power should reside in the cabinet, but I am doing so now because I am frightened of the decisions that could be made by the commission on its own if the cabinet does not retain the control it now has under section 6(3). I would have to vote against the deletion of subsection (3) from the legislation for that reason. I hope that the minister would consider that feature of the bill in the light of the remarks I have made, and perhaps give favourable consideration to the retention of subsection (3). That is all that my amendment in motion No. 2 seeks to accomplish, to retain cabinet control over the financial decisions of the commission.
I am not wedded to the $50,000 figure. That could be increased in keeping with the desire to enable the commission to make decisions in today's economic over-all fabric without stultifying the responsibilities imposed on it under the legislation. I would urge that upon the minister for favourable consideration.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, the remarks just made by the hon. member for Yukon sound like a speech in favour of colonialism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter (Wally) Firth: I am sure the Northwest Territories would not be in favour of his motion. We are asking for more autonomy, not more restrictions. I should therefore like to address my few remarks to this motion and say that I do not like it. I think the commission should have the right to generate and distribute electrical power for the people of the Northwest Territories, and I do not think the bill goes far enough. The hon. member for Yukon is correct in saying that I am in favour of a Crown corporation to perform this public service. I am therefore not in favour of his amendment, Mr. Speaker, as it is too cumbersome and places too much restriction on the commission.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks in rebutal of the remarks of the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), who accuses the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) of supporting colonialism. I am afraid his memory is somewhat faulty.
When this bill was before committee there was discussion on the question of autonomy for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. It was pointed out to the minister and his officials that we would propose to increase the size of the commission to seven members, four of them to come from the northern territories. I suggest that the hon. member for the Northwest Territories was not at that meeting. The reluctance of the minister to allow us to make changes that would place the burden of responsibility for this important service in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon in the hands of northerners has given rise

to suspicion. I want to defend my colleague from the Yukon.


Iona Campagnolo: He can defend himself.


Frank Oberle: No, I want to say something in his favour, if you will allow me. He is under a lot of pressure on this matter and has had to take a lonely stand. He represents a constituency of some 207,000 square miles, and it is natural for him to be suspicious because the government and the Canadian people have not previously worried too much about those frozen plains up there. At times, and particularly during committee discussion of this subject, he did not receive much support from the other northern territory.
The hon. member said that he wanted four days for the transmission of telegrams and telephone calls and for travel when the two people from the north came down to meet with the commission. An interesting situation came up in committee and I should like to refer to it. I may be a little sarcastic, but it shows why northerners are suspicious.
There was one person who represented municipalities in the Yukon and the northern territories, and there were others who represented chambers of commerce and other concerned citizens. At one time a telex was presented to the committee which stated that Yukon municipalities were upset by a certain clause in the bill. At the next meeting of the committee one of the members in the party opposite asked an official of the power commission if he had confirmed the validity of the telex. Mr. Speaker, I want you to listen to this carefully. We had a telegram from someone in the Yukon stating that he represented municipalities in that territory and, because a member of the government requested it, it was necessary to confirm the validity of the telegram by phoning the people he claimed to represent.


Iona Campagnolo: What did he say?


Frank Oberle: If the hon. member wants me to I will gladly read into the record what she said. However, I am a gentleman and I will not do it.
It is for the reason that I have just outlined that northerners are suspicious, Mr. Speaker. If northerners were as suspicious as southerners, then as soon as a member of the power commission received a telegram or a phone call, he would have to find out if the document or call was valid. Not until he had done this could he make an arrangement to travel to the head office in Edmonton. It is not a foregone conclusion that such person would live in Whitehorse or Dawson City, where there are air connections.
Of course northerners are suspicious. They know that if the minister wanted to create an emergency situation- this has been done but I know the present minister would not do it-but if he wanted to he could call the commission together and the northern members could not get to the meeting. Decisions could then be made in their absence, and the northerners would have even less control than they have now.

I agree with my colleague on another point. We discussed the $50,000 limit in committee and agreed that it is too low. The replacement of a few telephone poles, or a machinery bearing in a power unit, could easily eat up that $50,000. As my colleague said, we do not oppose increasing that amount.
Although we want the commission to be given adequate powers, we are concerned because, apparently, neither parliament nor the cabinet will be empowered to keep a close eye on the commission, which is not a Crown corporation. I think the situation is unique and this departure represents a colonial type of administrative policy. My colleague was quite right. The people of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories exercise little enough power as it is over their own affairs. Parliament is the only tribunal in which the elected representatives of the people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon can be heard. Is it not strange that only one member represents the Yukon, an area encompassing 207,000 square miles and containing a population of 20,000, and another hon. member represents the Northwest Territories, an area ten times larger?
These northern parts are the resource storehouse of our country. The people of the north are involved too little in governing their own part of this country. We do not serve the interests of Canadians if we take from the people of the north some of their already limited powers, some of their remaining rights. One hears talk about development in the Mackenzie Valley, about the development of northern resources. The north is our storehouse. Resource development in the Yukon and Northwest Territories will increase in the future. We must protect the rights of the people of the area and their interests. We are not doing this adequately.
Personally, I should prefer to see the number of commission members increased to seven, although we are prepared to accept the number suggested. We think more northerners should serve on the commission and be involved in the government of the north.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, we insist that parliament, or the cabinet, should exercise control over the actions of civil servants or appointees, in some cases political appointees, who will make serious, far-reaching and all encompassing decisions about the provision of energy and power to the peoples of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to make some brief remarks on the motion before the House. I had the opportunity of attending the committee meetings when Northern Canada Power Commission representatives appeared before the committee with representatives of the government. The committee was told that the purposes of the bill were twofold. First, the number of commission members is to be increased from three to five. We agreed with this proposal, although we would have preferred the number of commissioners to be increased to seven. Second, there is to be a change in the rate zones. We agreed with this proposal, although we have some reservations about how the rate zone changes will be administered. We understood that the balance of the amendments
Northern Power Commission Act were simple, house-keeping amendments. However, having examined the particular clause with which we are now dealing, it strikes me that we were taken.
The limit of $50,000 included in the original legislation is to be removed and the commission is to be given unlimited power to incur expenditures for maintenance and capital projects. I suggest that this is wrong. There must be some control. At present, good people are serving on the commission. All the same, there must be some limitation to their powers. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) said he would be agreeable to increasing the amount from $50,000 to $250,000. I agree. In this day and age, $50,000 will buy little enough. It is only fair to increase the amount, provided there is some limitation. Also, the commission should be responsible to the Governor in Council or to parliament.
I urge the minister to consider amending subsection 6(3). I want the limitation contained in the subsection to remain, but I want the amount of $50,000 mentioned to be increased to some higher figure. That would be only fair and would leave control vested in the Governor in Council. We, on my side of the House, cannot move such an amendment, for technical reasons. Our previous attempts in this regard were outflanked. For that reason I urge the minister to consider moving an amendment of which most members on my side of the House approve.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in an unusual position, opposing the motion of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I oppose suggested amendments to the bill before us, on two grounds. They relate to our reasons for representing our people as members of parliament. We must ask two questions. First, how much control should parliament maintain over the running of the affairs of this country? Second, how can we expedite the transfer of powers by which people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon can control their own affairs?
In my view the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Yukon avoid the economic issue. Apparently the hon. member prefers to let the Governor in Council retain economic control over the affairs of the Northern Canada Power Commission. I say that in considering this we should consider fundamentals.
The first question we must consider is the extent to which this House, or this government, controls Crown agencies. Federal governments of the day have established 59 Crown agencies and Crown corporations. These agencies and corporations are given delegated powers and are empowered to carry out certain functions. These bodies have been established in such a way that parliament finds it difficult to control the powers, delegated and otherwise, given to them. The result is that when ministers have attempted to tell the truth in this House, they have been destroyed. I cite what has happened to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand).
Despite warnings by members on my side of the House, parliament in 1967 delegated complete powers over transportation to an independent commission known as the Canadian Transport Commission.


Erik Nielsen: Of which Jack Pickersgill was the first chairman.

March 26, 1975
Northern Power Commission Act


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: When the minister said in this House last year that he had no control over the Canadian Transport Commission, he was telling the truth. When he said there was a mess, he was telling the truth. Over the past year I sat in this House and watched my colleagues on this side attack the minister because he had no power. That is the fault. Parliament took away the power of the minister to control transportation in the National Transportation Act of 1967. Here we are doing the same thing. We have a new minister whom we are putting up on the wall, ready to pluck, because he will have no power when he is finished.
This is a matter of great seriousness. This whole tendency to turn the power of the legislative body over to independent boards does not have to be stopped. That is not the way to do it. It has to be made more sophisticated so that we can give them the authority we want them to have without interfering with their efficiency and, at the same time, maintain our democratic control as representatives of the people over the actions of those independent boards.
There are sophisticated ways of doing this. We have the precedents of the province of Saskatchewan and the government of Australia. All governments have this problem. In 1967 a motion was moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), seconded by myself, pleading with the government of that day to not take away the control of parliament over the Canadian Transport Commission. The government, with the support of the NDP, turned down our amendment. The acting leader of the NDP at that time was a man called David Lewis. He held the view that parliament was not competent to deal with the details of transportation and that we should turn the power over to an independent board, leaving it completely independent of Parliament. That was the way to get efficiency in the modern state.
The point is that we do not have Superman or God to head these boards and agencies. We have ordinary mortals. We have had Mr. Pickersgill and Mr. Benson. The others will be the same. These men make mistakes. They know as much about transportation as most of us, which is as about as close to zero as you can get.
When this power is turned over to them with no way of checking by parliament, parliament gets the blast from the people when the failures and the mess occur. All parliament can do is throw the mess back at the minister, who is condemned in this House because he says there is a mess. He is an honest minister. He says there is nothing he can do about it because of the power of the Canadian Transport Commission.
I am not here to defend the Minister of Transport. I use this only as an example. I could say the same about the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, the minister who reports for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or the minister who reports on northern transportation. I could do it for every one of the 59 agencies and boards to which we have turned over this power. We have destroyed a little more of the democratic power that should rest with the people.

There is a democratic and sophisticated way to maintain the correct amount of power needed to touch base and control these delegated powers. It is not yet the law of this land, but please God it will be before too long. I say to the minister that the minute you set up these amendments, you turn over the power of running the power operations of the north to an independent body. No matter how much you respect the chairman and the members of that power commission who will be appointed, the fact is that they are not God. There has to be a check by some democratic body over their actions or we will continue the mistakes we have making for the past 25 years.
On the broad general principle of the control of independent boards and commissions by a representative body, I think that this amendment moved by the government striking out 6(2) and (3) is completely undemocratic. It is completely against the interest of the people of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. It is certainly repeating the same mistake that has been made for the past 25 years.
I now come to my second point. This is what I am appalled by with respect to the hon. member for Yukon. For all the years I have known him he has fought, as a tiger has fought, to try to get more control into the hands of the legislatures of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Yet here he is asking us to retain power in the hands of the Governor in Council, in the hands of the cabinet. I cannot understand that. What he is really trying to do is head off the dangers of one thing to get us back into the dangers of another.
I suggest to the minister a very simple amendment that will solve most of my problems and, I am sure, the problems of the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth). I simply suggest that we leave in subsection 6(3) and change one phrase. That phrase is that the Governor in Council is the executive of the territorial legislature. That is all. In this way we would at least have some people with some democratic control over this independent board.
We know from practice that this is not going to put a great economic load on the Government of Canada. We know as a fact that the operations of this power commission are paid for by the people who pay the rates, and why shouldn't they? Through their elected representatives, and appointed representatives in the legislatures in the territories, they have the right to make this independent board touch base with them. This would meet the proposition of trying to get the authority out of the hands of politicians and into the hands of an independent board to make bigger decisions, but leaving a sophisticated way for them to touch base with the democratically elected authorities. I believe that would meet the position of the hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: We'll never get it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member says we will never get it. We have a new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan). He wants to avoid the mistakes of other ministers who turned over their powers to independent boards and then had to accept all the blame for their actions.
I suggest we can do two things with one stroke. I suggest that we leave subsection (3) in the act and simply

put in the words "the executive council of the respective legislatures of the territories". If we did that, we would have economic control. You just have to touch base with the executive committees of the legislatures. You would keep your hand on them to that degree without interfering with their efficiency. I do not apologize for taking the time of the House because this is a very important question of principle.
I now want to discuss subsection 6(2). Once again I am horrified at the thought that this should be taken out. With all the publicity, squealing, yelling and uproar we have had over James Bay, the MacKenzie Valley pipeline, and the development of the Churchill River in Manitoba, where in each case independent bodies have moved without considering the whole picture, I thought the government would have started to learn. What am I talking about? Subsection 6(2) is one of the great defences the people have over the use of water in Canada. It ensures that water is not abused, spoiled or misused by anybody. I am referring to the powers of the Dominion Water Power Act.
Every province has a water act. We would not expect the British Columbia Hydro Corporation, an independent Crown corporation in B.C., to dam a river as it saw fit just to generate power. It has to go before a water licensing board in the province and get the authority, and this means considering the interests of all the people who use the water of that river.
Here we are dealing with one of the oldest rights in the history of man. The history of the law concerning water use goes back beyond 2,000 years. These ancient riparian laws never fail to provide for the protection of all those who live on the banks of a river. Yet here is an infringement of one of the oldest laws in history, a law going back more than 2,000 years before Christ, observed in the Middle East, brought to Europe and codified first in Roman law and then in Frankish law. Yet today parliament is being asked to throw out water legislation and transfer authority to those who are interested only in the powei which can be generated from river flows.
One does not abandon these controls simply to make one aspect of our lives more efficient. After all, they are designed to protect the public interest. Until this parliament can put a territorial water act in place which makes it necessary for every commercial enterprise, whether owned by a private company or a Crown corporation, to go before a board and ask for a licence to use water, I think we should hang on to every shred of control we have over power corporations.
Power corporations in every province over and over again have forgotten the interests of the people on the banks of the rivers they utilize. A power man tends to think only in terms of power while ignoring all the other uses-recreation, flood control, timber production, the whole ecology of the region-as well as less material aspects. Such considerations do not enter the mind of a power man. He only wants to know how cheaply he can build a dam to get the amount of power out of a river that he requires. After all, that is all he is supposed to do. I
Northern Power Commission Act
wonder how many hon. members have seen the logs floating on Lake Bennett.
I think every member of the House should be ashamed to support this type of amendment, an amendment which asks parliament to get rid of one of the control mechanisms used to safeguard the rivers of the Northwest Territories and of the Yukon.
I hope the minister will reconsider the clause in this bill which says that these subsections (2) and (3) of the act should be repealed. I suggest we leave them as they are until the territorial governments can enact their own legislation to protect water rights in the territories. I suggest that in 6(3) the minister simply put in the words "executive committee of the respective territorial governments" by way of amendment. This would achieve what the hon. member for the Yukon and what the hon. member for the Northwest Territories are seeking to do. At the same time such a decision would be in harmony with a principle which I believe every hon. member supports, namely, that parliament should not be reduced to nothing, that we should possess some means of controlling these corporations while, at the same time, giving a little more authority to the people who live in the territories concerned.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the eloquence and the wisdom of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). If I can do anything in the time available to me now I should like to support the suggestion he made with respect to where the residual influence ought to lie in the area covered by this amendment, namely, that it should rest with territorial governments.
I share the concern expressed by my hon. friend. It is one which is felt by a great many members of parliament, as well as by those who are observers of the parliamentary process with respect to a process which is taking place to a greater and greater extent. To anyone who shares the conviction that there is an innate wisdom in our parliamentary system, the proliferation of commissions, boards and agencies which are independent of parliament must be a matter for great regret. I do not speak this afternoon in any partisan way; I do not think this aspect of the bill is a partisan matter. It is a parliamentary matter.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) whose anniversary we celebrate today, have devoted a great part of their lives to the preservation and enhancement of parliament. If there is anything which is unique with respect to the parliamentary system, apart from the whole issue of responsible government, it is the authority parliament ought to exercise over decisions affecting the people of the country.
Every time the House moves to satisfy the appetite of efficiency, every time it sets aside its rights to control, the parliamentary system suffers. A few moments ago the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain drew attention to the difficulty this can create for ministers. One of those ministers is in the House today.
Every time a minister has to get up and say parliament saw fit to give this responsibility to such and such a

March 26, 1975
Northern Power Commission Act
committee or commission he is confessing that he, as a minister, as a member of the cabinet, who is supposed to be responsible to parliament and hence to the people, has in fact no such control or authority. Each time this occurs the parliamentary process suffers. We saw an instance of this today, following another example yesterday of the problem parliament encounters in terms of control over public funds-control over the estimates. There was an admission by a minister of the Crown that the estimates which come before parliament may not be true, at least in terms of dealing with the objectives of different expenditures. Yet this is all part of the process of examining estimates, the process of examining the programs which are undertaken.
For the first time a minister of the Crown yesterday indicated that some of the estimates are wrong. This was done in the interests of national security, and I think that is a legitimate interest for this parliament to be concerned with, Mr. Speaker.
However, the system suffers as a result of failure to disclose, and I am happy that at least some movement has been made by the Minister of Science and Technology (Mr. Drury) to afford an opportunity of some kind-not perhaps the kind he spoke of on the floor of the House, but at least of some kind-to review those estimates. I think there was in that the recognition that albeit national security is important there must be weighed against that the importance of parliament knowing, parliament disclosing, and parliament dealing with the affairs of people, rather than have such matters hived off somewhere where no one could reach them even through the estimates.
The amendment we are dealing with expresses more than anything else the concern of many members of this institution, regardless from what party they come, that gradually and surely our powers as members of parliament are being eroded, and that parliament itself is suffering.
The present House leader of the government deserves a tremendous amount of credit for taking up the cudgels in regard to the return to this chamber of consideration of the estimates. This has been argued for by many parliamentarians over the years. Just recently we have approved a system that will give this parliament for the first time a new kind of look into the estimates. This is a temporary arrangement, but I hope it will be the beginning of some new procedure.
I think it is in that direction that all statute law ought to turn. It is in the direction of the strengthening of parliament that the attention of the government ought to be turned so as to make the institution of parliament truly representative of the people. Then members of parliament, as representatives of the people, will have the opportunity to deal in this place with the operations of government in every department.
I think the proposal of the government in regard to this particular bill does not do this, and basically that is the concern of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) as well as of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. It should be the concern of all of us that when we are tempted from time to time to answer problems in a sophis-

ticated society by forming another board or commission, instead of leaving them within the parliamentary process, we should resist that temptation. This is an opportunity for this chamber to resist a similar temptation.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, earlier this day I undertook to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to introduce a motion to refer the Hermann commission report to the committee on veterans affairs. I therefore ask permission of the House to revert to motions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the House revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mitchell William Sharp: That the report to the Minister of Veterans Affairs on Canadians who were prisoners of war in Europe during World War II by Douglas Hermann, M.D. be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, while we are still on motions, I should like to call the motion standing in my name regarding the adjournment of the House.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mitchell William Sharp: That when the House adjourns on Wednesday, March 26, 1975, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, April 7, 1975, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for all purposes of this order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree to adopt the motion?


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that I would not be on my feet for this debate, which is normally one that all members hope will be
March 26, 1975

relatively brief. Indeed, I hope it will not be a debate, but I feel it necessary to speak on this proposition to adjourn because I think the members of this House are owed an explanation by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) regarding a matter that I raised yesterday afternoon and which he indicated at that time he would reply to, in his own words, as quickly as possible.
Instead of the appearance of the minister this afternoon in response to the document that I had asked to be tabled and to explain the interrogation techniques of the RCMP, we had a press release from the RCMP. The minister did not even come to the House or arrange through another minister, one acting in his stead, to offer an explanation for the highly derogatory, superficial, and I would say silly document presently in use by the RCMP.
This is not the first time that there has been, instead of a statement or some clarification by the minister in the House, the issuance, in this case late this afternoon, of a press release by the RCMP, which is an attempt to make some kind of self-serving explanation of the exact nature of the document about which I raised a question in the House yesterday, and to which I asked the minister to respond today.
In the explanation the RCMP does not try to deny the existence of this document. Indeed, it would be foolish in the extreme to deny that it exists. As I indicated yesterday, I already have coming to Ottawa a copy of an affidavit indicating the existence of this document and its current use by the RCMP. It is shocking that the minister should feel, for reasons that have not yet been explained by any government representative, that he should not come clean with this House and with the general public.
I know, from the reaction that I have had during the last 24 hours, that there is a considerable amount of shock among people generally not only at the techniques I mentioned yesterday in just a descriptive sense which are being practised, but also at the fact that they are included in a document issued by the RCMP entitled "Interrogation Techniques", by Chief Inspector A. R. Roberts of the Calgary City Police. This document is presently in use and is authorized, according to the frontispiece, for use in the training and development branch, headquarters, Ottawa.
It might be interesting for members of the House to hear some parts of this document so as to give members an idea of the current level of instruction which, according to the press release made late this afternoon by the RCMP, is part of a course that is offered senior investigators with between five and 15 years of experience.
This is not a document that is used in some introductory sense for students who are training at the main RCMP training centre in Regina but, as confirmed by the RCMP themselves late this afternoon, a document in use by senior investigators. We are not talking here about some peripheral document of which some individuals may be aware; we are talking about a document that is accepted in current practice by the more important investigators in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
If that be the case, then it is absolutely unacceptable that this House should be asked to adjourn this afternoon for a period of some 10 days to two weeks without being given a proper explanation by the Solicitor General of the
Easter Adjournment
basis on which this kind of document has been authorized and accepted for use.
I hope that before we come to the hour of adjournment either the government House leader or the minister who responds on behalf of the Solicitor General will be able to offer a satisfactory explanation to this House and the Canadian people. If that does not happen I for one will be most reluctant to see this House adjourn today. I would want to have an opportunity for the minister to come to this House tomorrow, or at the earliest possible moment, to indicate, first of all, how any justification can be given for this most illiberal document to be used as a regular training manual for the RCMP, and whether he in fact is aware of it. It would seem clear from his short answer yesterday that he was not aware of it, and I would hope that during the time that has elapsed he has had an opportunity to study it and is now taking action to withdraw it and replace it with one that is acceptable to the Canadian people as being just and fair.
Members may wonder at the kind of document this is, and I am going to take a few minutes to give hon. members an idea of what is in the context of it, and I am sure the House will be most tolerant and interested to know ...


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope the hon. member will not open a full debate on the subject matter he is raising. Actually what is before the House at this time is a motion to adjourn for a definite period of time, and I do not think I can really allow the hon. member to take this opportunity to debate the basis of the point he is trying to make, or points relating to his complaint about answers or the fact that he did not receive answers from the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) or the government.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this is not, as I hope to clarify, just a question of asking for information. This is a question that involves the basic protection of civil rights in this country and the methods being participated in at the moment by the national police force of this country, the RCMP. If in fact any individual member could feel that it is fair or is justified to his constituents that we press for an early adjournment before we have this matter sensibly resolved and settled, I for one would be most willing to hear from him.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if hon. members want to interrupt it will just take me longer to get through the material I want to present to the House as an argument against adjourning until such time as either the government House leader or the Solicitor General, or a spokesman on their behalf, clarifies this situation.
I do not like to stand during this period which is normally the pro forma ritual of adjourning the House. Knowing the Solicitor General and respecting him as I do, I had felt from the outset that he would be more than willing to resolve this matter immediately. Since the document is available, and not in some far outpost but here in
4528

March 26, 1975
Easter Adjournment
the city of Ottawa, in present use by N Division, this is not a matter that will take some days to resolve, but in fact a matter that could have been resolved in hours yesterday.
Instead of the appearance in the House this afternoon by the minister we have had, as I said, a self-serving press release a few minutes ago by the RCMP. It not only does not explain this remarkable document, it in fact makes it more urgent that a government spokesman clarify and remove what I can only describe as a basic infringement on the basic civil liberties of the population of this country.
As I said a moment ago, there are two or three examples I want to give because I think members on all sides of the House would be most anxious to know just what kind of document is presently being used as a training manual for senior officers in the RCMP. Let me quote first from page 2. It states:
The techniques outlined hereunder do employ a battery of "hsi nao" (brainwashing) techniques to influence the emotional attitudes of the subject or suspect-
That is one word that I have never run into before. The document then goes on to say, and I will read the whole quotation because I want it in context:
Certainly, to begin with, in any interrogation we are going to do everything that is legal and right. We will attempt to get a confession that is free and voluntary and that may be admissible in court and will stand the test of cross-examination. We will employ no tricks which could be considered as illegal tactics.
But, there is a point which is reached in every interrogation when you still may not have that statement and you know if you go any further in the specific technique that you are employing that your statement will be ruled inadmissible. It is at this point that the interrogator must make a decision: does he now leave the interrogation room without the statement or does he now proceed with other techniques which he knows will not allow the statement in, but may give him information which will lead to the securing of other evidence which, he thinks, may be admissible. I suggest that, at this point, the Marquis of Queensbury Rules go out the window and the interrogator must open up his bag of tricks and go for the recovery of the weapon or the stolen property or the names of accomplices or any evidence which may be placed in court, regardless of the method employed to secure that evidence.
If any member of this House can justify that as acceptable and authorized police procedure in this country, I do hope he will stand and indicate that position.
I want to go on and quote two or three sections that refer to interrogation in respect of sexual offences or suspected sex offenders. The interrogator is urged to say as follows:
Don't think for one moment that you are the only one that has had these thoughts. We just simply haven't the guts to do anything about it. Girls are the same way. You don't mean to tell me that they are not thinking of it when they see a good looking fellow on the street. It is just human nature, that's all, and anyway, this broad was probably asking for it.
That is one kind of questioning that is recommended. Another kind which is headed "Technique No. V: Blame the Victim or Employer Technique" includes this suggested wording for the interrogator:
They are just asking for it, and in your case with your old lady hot on your neck, you can't get anything at home. I don't blame you. Hell, when I spoke to this girl, she even sort of looked like a prostitute to me. You just can't tell nowadays about these women . ..
Hell, even I had ideas when I was talking to her. She's just that type that would give anybody ideas.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that a quotation?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: That is a quotation from technique No. V. I thought my hon. friend might-


An hon. Member:: It is gross.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It is gross, and it gets more gross. Let me refer to technique No. IX which is headed "Face-Saving or Justification Technique". It states:
There is no doubt in my mind that she was asking for it though. Nine times out of ten, they are to blame.
Again I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if this is the kind of acceptable procedure we are permitting and expecting to be used by the RCMP in interrogations across this country? Not only is it filled with that kind of sexist slander, the document is full of stereotyping as well. Let me give you an example of the stereotyping in this document. It states:
Short and fat physique: These people are usually the happy type. Eat, drink and be merry. When interrogating this type, humour them ...
Tall and slender: These types are usually withdrawn and introverted. They are the thinkers, poets and writers. They may be withdrawn and the interrogator must attempt to pull them out by appealing to their intellect. The interrogator must train himself to take advantage of every facet of human nature.
If the Solicitor General had been here I would have asked him about this next quotation, because I think he himself may be in jeopardy if he is ever interrogated by the RCMP. The quotation is as follows:
If we think for a moment how many small men have become dictators: Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin. All were men of relatively small stature. Think back to your days on the beat. It was always the little guy who caused the trouble and started the fight.
I should think the Solicitor General should look at that part very seriously because he certainly would not be in very good order if he were interrogated by one of these officers trained with the use of this manual.
I would like to have thought that some professions had been excluded in terms of stereotyping, but let me quote from technique No. XI under the heading "Suggestibility Technique":
Ministers and politicians have long used the power of suggestions to their audiences. John Wesley, the great evangelist, used the power of suggestions to convert people to your faith. Adolf Hitler used the power of suggestions, accompanied by music and crowds, to gain popular support. Today, the great evangelist, Billy Graham, uses props, one of them being the Bible in his right hand, as he speaks in a great emotional voice to you, his audience, and suggests that they come to Christ and be forgiven.
Then it goes on to say:
This technique is adapted from the brain-washing or religious
technique.
Here we have an elaborate description of what is known as "The Heaven and Hell Technique." I continue the quotation:
In this approach, we let the subject have a look at hell, but also offer him heaven in exchange or as an alternative ...
Certainly, a man who is guilty of the crime will grab at the alternative, which of course, is heaven. In the brainwashing technique, the subject is interrogated at all hours, day or night, he has been kept in
March 26, 1975

isolation and has had most of his clothes taken away from him. He is dressed in a sloppy pair of coveralls. He does not use his own shoes but instead is given a pair of shoes too large for him so that they slop about. There are no shoe laces in the shoe. He has no belt to hold up his pants. In the brainwashing technique, this is an assault on his dignity. By the very fact of his being stripped of his own clothing, it is an assault upon his own identity. He now feels forsaken and forgotten due to the lack of familiar surroundings, and the refusal by his custodians to allow him any contact with his loved ones or friends.
The author, I believe for a third time, repeats:
He feels completely forsaken and forgotten and is at the lowest depths of despair. It is at this state the interrogator offers him a glimpse of heaven or a reward in the way of a cigarette, coffee, more comfortable quarters and an offer to speak to his loved ones or friends, or at least another prisoner. The isolation is taken away. As one can readily see, in this technique, the subject has something to gain on the one hand, and everything to lose on the other.
There are many quotations here which make this such an outstanding and disturbing document. If it were possible, and I know this is not possible for a private member to do, I would table the document so that it would be available to all hon. members to read so that they would become aware of its contents. Then I think members would begin to obtain some glimpse of the attitudes, concepts and methods that are being taught, as the RCMP said this afternoon, to senior investigators who have between five and 15 years of services.
We are not dealing with something to which students are exposed simply on a first-time basis but rather with a training document in the RCMP to be used by people who are providing leadership in investigations and a whole host of interrogation procedures across the country. We are not dealing with an isolated instance or something that is on the periphery, as I hoped the minister would have been able to tell us this afternoon. I hope members realize that this document definitely is harmful to the respect normally held for the RCMP in this country.
It would seem to me that if hon. members on any side of this House were to willingly allow this House to adjourn and allow the substance of this document to stand without refutation by the Solicitor General, this would be doing very great harm to the country and the importance of the RCMP in this country. I believe, because I have many friends presently serving as RCMP officers, that members of the RCMP also would not want the House to adjourn without some kind of clarifying statement being made on this subject. Certainly the statement by the RCMP this afternoon is no clarification in this regard.
I think perhaps the most reprehensible part of the document is the attitude it displays toward women. It is perhaps a cruel irony that in 1975, when there are so many gestures, symbolic or otherwise, toward the equality of women in this country, the RCMP should use a document which does much to degrade the status of women in this country. I should like to read one more example. I cannot interpret the Roman numerals, but it appears on page 33 and is headed "Interrogation of Families". It states:
Find out whether the woman has children. After this has been discovered, praise the child. Tell her how good looking the child is. Tell her it looks like her. Speak of her love for the child. Reiterate that the prime function in life is to reproduce; that is what God placed her on earth for. It makes no difference whether or not the women we are speaking to are prostitutes or ordinary thieves employed by a bank. Women are emotional and an emotional approach is the best approach to use on women. We use the emotion of love, jealously and fear. Love
Easter Adjournment
for her child, love for her parents. Jealously of the husband or boyfriend. How he will be enjoying himself if she goes to jail. Fear of jail. The cotton dresses that they wear in jail made out of jute cloth, and sloppy shoes. She is no longer an individual, but is classed as a unit. We then slip into the 'Heaven and Hell' technique.
The irony of ironies is that not only is this document sick and shabby, it is also ultimately contradictory because in the final four lines of this document the author writes as follows:
We, as police officers, must constantly remind ourselves that we are servants of the public and not its minister, and we must never overstep the boundaries pertaining to the human dignity of man.
How anyone in his right mind could accept that document would have to be explained to me over a very long period of time. As I said a few moments ago, it would be impossible for me to consider accepting the adjournment motion of the government House leader unless we have some explanation. I sat here dutifully today because I had been informed that the minister would make a statement and that there would be some remarks from him clarifying, removing and, if necessary, applying discipline to those who could have given such misdirection to the training of senior officers in the RCMP. Instead we are faced with the absence of the Solicitor General without explanation, in addition to which late this afternoon, and I think in defiance not only of the rights of parliament which are important but of the rights of the people to have a clear exoneration of the RCMP in this regard, there is no action on the part of the government to deal with this matter in the House. All we have is this press release by the RCMP.
If hon. members have any idea that this clarifies the situation in respect of the RCMP and its training procedures and interrogation techniques, let me quote a part of this press release so that members will know that the RCMP has in no way solved this problem but has exacerbated it.
The following is a United Press press release under the byline of Claude Henault:
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police said Wednesday only senior officers are taught from a manual of interrogation techniques which has been criticized as a sexist document on the use of brainwashing, lies and deceit.
A 39-page manual used in an Ottawa RCMP course for five to fifteen-year veterans from across the country states that interrogations should start off 'Legal and right' but suggests that if normal methods fail it is time to resort to a 'Bag of Tricks'.
A spokesman for the RCMP-
Unfortunately the spokesman is not identified.
-said in an official statement-
This is about the only official statement we have had on this matter and is apparently some kind of attempt to explain away what to us must be definitely unexplainable, at least to my mind. It states that a spokesman for the RCMP said in an official statement:
As one aid to an investigation there is a duty upon our members to seek relevant information by interview and our investigators do not necessarily terminate a conversation because a suspect or witness denies a crime or knowledge of a crime.
I do not know what document this anonymous spokesman in the RCMP is replying to, but he is obviously not replying to or describing the document which I read from
29557-12H

March 26, 1975
Easter Adjournment
this afternoon, or questioned the Solicitor General about yesterday afternoon. That was not a document which simply said that in the course of investigation one does not terminate a conversation because other information may be forthcoming. This is a suggested list of something like fifty different techniques, many of which are described by the author himself as brainwashing, techniques which, as indicated in the quotation, are in many ways a complete distortion of people, and certainly the labelling of people by their size or their shapes to me is so degrading as to be almost nonsensical.
This anonymous spokesman then went on to say, and I quote:
... the manual is used as part of a course offered at ECMP N Division in Ottawa's Rockcliffe area but does not represent official policy.
That will have to be explained to me, Mr. Speaker. I do not know how there can be a course offered at one of the main training divisions here in Ottawa, "N" Division, which does not represent official policy. It has already been referred to by a spokesman on behalf of the force. The cover page of this document very clearly shows the crest of the RCMP, and underneath it is written "Maintains le Droit" so there is no doubt. The fact that this document came into my possession, not here in Ottawa but as far afield as Prince Edward Island, would be the clearest indication possible that it is in wide circulation, and if this anonymous spokesman has indicated that it is used for training officers not just locally, but from all across the country, I just do not understand how it can be that this is not, to use the spokesman's language, official policy.
Obviously the minister may not be able to explain it either. If he were able to explain it, I assume he would have been in his place this afternoon. He would have been prepared either to speak to the matter on motions or at least to answer questions which hon. members on this side would have put to him. Neither took place, and we are faced with this most unhappy situation of leaving a considerable cloud over the functioning and procedures of the RCMP.
We already have had a fair bit of discussion in this House in the past couple of days about secrecy in government. There has been a certain amount of willingness on the part of the ministry to try to overcome the structural problems with regard to undue secrecy, but this is not just a question of secrecy. This is a question of recommended practice for the force all across the country, and in that light I think there is very great need for the fullest possible explanation.
I will go on to quote from this unnamed spokesman:
"It is used by the RCMP in a course offered to senior investigators with between five and fifteen years of service and does not represent RCMP policy," the spokesman said.
Again he emphasizes that it. does nor represent policy even though this is used as a manual in the training of senior investigators all across the country. In the official statement the RCMP said of the document-and I am not quoting this exactly because I think there may be something missing from the reprint of it from the wire service-that there was a lecture which usually accompanied the document. I hope that we will not only get the full

tabling of this document and an explanation of it by the minister, but some explanation as to the kind of lecture which accompanied this document. If there is a lecture which accompanies it, I shudder to think of the kind of training, the kind of suggestions, the kind of methods used by the RCMP above and beyond this shocking document we have before us this afternoon.


Mr. Peters:: Maybe we should have a display of the artifacts used.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I think that may be quite useful. There is no reference to it having been mentioned, but it is interesting that the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) should raise it because there is mention made of some of the more ghastly-if I can use that word- torture methods adopted by other countries and other police forces, but it does mention the fact that it does not recommend these-. I cannot say what kind of suggestions or instructions are being given by the lecturer himself. The RCMP spokesman said, however, and I quote:
"It is part of the broader body of literature on the subject of interrogation techniques which is only one segment of the entire course which includes other topics ..."
And the other topics are apparently human behaviour, the Canada Evidence Act-I wonder how seriously they grapple with the Canada Evidence Act in light of the manual we have before us-conspiracy, sexually motivated crime and crime scene investigations.
Certainly, if they are dealing in other ways with sexually motivated crime, given the kind of attitudes, stereotypes and concepts in this document about those who have either been victims of or possible suspects with regard to sex offences, I shudder to think of the attitudes and the understanding being conveyed in this advanced course to senior investigators here in 'N' division, Ottawa.
It may well be that we have really just taken the lid off Pandora's box, and I do not mean to make a pun by that because I think we are looking at a very serious situation with respect to the just and sensible training procedures being used for senior investigators in this country.


William Arnold Peters: I didn't know that was attached to the RCMP.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I will go on:
"For this course as in many other courses offered by the RCMP, resource people from various fields such as lawyers, psychiatrists, judges and social scientists in the role of instructor present a variety of
views."
That is the concluding part of this particular document. The press release goes on to say:
The RCMP spokesman said copies of the manual were handed out to students as "this was easier than taking notes of a lecture." He said he did not know how many investigators had taken the course.
We have apparently something which has grown up without much serious questioning of a document which may have started innocently enough, and I do not know whether I should use the word "innocent" to describe this document. It has found itself consolidated into a booklet entitled "Interrogation Techniques" by Chief Inspector A. R. Roberts of the Calgary city police, and it is issued and
March 26, 1975

authorized by the training and development branch of the RCMP here in Ottawa.
It is incredible to think that all of this could have happened in light of the growing concern and awareness we have in this country. One thinks, for instance, of the investigations going on in the city of Toronto at the present time with respect to the methods by which the police obtain evidence for use in possible prosecutions. In light of that fact I was flabbergasted to discover that not only could a document such as this be obtained, but that the professor in question and his students at the University of Prince Edward Island were able to obtain from the RCMP in Prince Edward Island documentation to the effect that this particular booklet is still in common usage.
I had hoped to have by this afternoon-but unfortunately the mail service is not operating quite as efficiently as it might-an actual copy of the affidavit sworn by Professor Frederick P. Von Dreeger of the political science department of the University of Prince Edward Island.
In that affidavit Professor Von Dreeger says that on March 20 he had several conferences with Inspector M. R. De Kouchay of 'La' division, Charlottetown. On that date he was informed by Inspector De Kouchay that he had been in conference with Superintendent Moffatt of the training and development branch of headquarters, Ottawa, and he was advised that the said document was published for the use of the RCMP and, he said that document is used as a training manual in the subject area of interrogation procedures, and it was duly notarized. The affidavit to that effect is now in the hands of Mr. Alan Borowy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Union in Toronto.
This is not a situation where just one individual or a few police officers from time to time resort to techniques that would not be acceptable to the general public and would not stand up in a court of law.
Some people have suggested that in raising this matter yesterday I should not be surprised that these sort of techniques are advocated or practised and that, after all, sometimes unusual and rather bizarre methods must be resorted to in order to gain evidence for prosecution and conviction. I am quick to reply to such people that a basic principle of English law is that individuals are considered innocent until proven guilty, not the reverse. The latter seems to be an attitude taken with respect not only to the authorization and writing of this document but to its general approval and use by senior officers.
The minister has not appeared so I am not sure that he has a legitimate explanation for what has taken place. I do not think it is just or right that this House should adjourn until April 6 or 7 not knowing whether, even at that time, the minister will be present. In the next ten days or two weeks hundreds of people will be interrogated or questioned. This is the normal and daily procedure of our national police forces. When any individual in this country now hears a knock at the door, or is stopped on the highway, or questioned on the street corner, or invited by telephone to come to the police station for a discussion or, even more sinister perhaps, an interrogation, will he go with the apprehension that the kind of techniques and attitudes outlined in this booklet are going to be used?
Easter Adjournment
That is a situation which many Canadians will face unless there is a complete clarification of the issue.
I would hope that it is not possible for us to accept the adjournment of this House at this time until either the minister or the government House leader-


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I hope I am not just speaking for myself. If the hon. member feels that way, I feel sorry for him. It seems to me that means he is happy to throw away many of the basic civil liberties we have come to cherish in this country, and for which we fought two world wars in this century. If the hon. member is one who takes the attitude that this is justifiable and that the public is prepared to accept it, I hope he will stand and debate the matter. I hope he will read the document and come into this House, later today or tomorrow, and tell us that this is the kind of procedure he would expect the RCMP to exercise in their interrogation techniques. I would think that the hon. member, and others who share his view, would be more than surprised by the reaction of Canadians generally who do not expect from the RCMP the kind of intimidation, manipulation and brainwashing that are spelled out very clearly in this document.
I do not apologize for raising this issue because I think it is a fundamental and crucial one, and without a full explanation from the Solicitor General or the government House leader I do not think the Canadian people would find it acceptable that we should go home for an Easter break when a matter of such great consequence is before us. This affects the civil liberties of every individual in the country, and more especially those who in the course of the next week or two may find themselves being interrogated not only by the RCMP but also, since they often set standards for the rest of the country, by other police forces as well. The implication of acceptance of this document by the government would open the door to all kinds of mischief to be directed toward a person's civil, political and legal rights.
I think it is the responsibility of the government House leader, or someone representing the Solicitor General, to give clarification and an assurance to this House that this document will be withdrawn forthwith. There should also be an assurance that there will be an investigation of the training program used with regard to interrogation techniques. As was stated in the press release issued by the RCMP this afternoon, this document is merely part of a course. There is apparently an accompanying lecture. The document is bad enough, but one can imagine the lecture! I would hope we would not adjourn until the government House leader is able to give some kind of clarifying statement.
I think it is also important to remember that an undertaking was given to this House by the Solicitor General. Members may recall this, but I will repeat the exchange that took place between the minister and myself in this House yesterday afternoon. I asked the Solicitor General the following question:
. .. regarding the publication today by "The Cadre", a newspaper of the University of Prince Edward Island, of the information that a booklet on interrogation techniques of the RCMP, written by Chief Inspector A. R. Roberts-

March 26, 1975
Easter Adjournment


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time alloted to him has expired. Before I call upon the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), I would remind hon. members that if he speaks at this time he will be closing the debate.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I listened with very great interest to the hon. member who has raised this very serious question. I want to assure him that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) is not absent because he did not want to deal with these matters but because he was attending to other business. I can express on his behalf his regret that he is unable to be here.
I believe that in order for this matter to be settled satisfactorily it would be necessary for the Solicitor General to be interrogated at some length-


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Not by the RCMP! He will be in great trouble if that happens.


Mitchell William Sharp: -before a committee of the House. I can certainly undertake on his behalf that when we resume, after what I hope will be an Easter break beginning this evening, he will be ready to deal with the very serious questions that have been raised. In saying this, I do not say this is not a serious matter; it is, and I agree with the hon. gentleman and can understand why he raised it on this occasion, but I can assure him that we take it seriously and that the Solicitor General will deal with it at an appropriate time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: No. On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order relating to the business of the House. Earlier this afternoon there were some discussions about the possibility of dealing with Bill C-34 and disposing of it today. Did these discussions get anywhere?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that they did not.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Housing Act.-Chapter No.
38.
Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the order made earlier today, this House stands adjourned until Monday, April 7, 1975, at two o'clock in the afternoon.
At 6.03 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Monday, April 7, 1975