1975-04-28

WELCOME TO MEMBER FOR PRINCE ALBERT ON RETURN TO HOUSE FOLLOWING ILLNESS

Mr. Speaker:: I know that despite our haste to demonstrate our willingness to see the new procedures remain effective, hon. members would not begrudge one moment out of the time set aside for motions pursuant to Standing Order 43 to make note of the return to active service amongst us this afternoon of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Despite the reforms and the efficiency, with which we now conduct our question period, there has been something missing of late which, I am sure, we will see promptly return to the question period.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the deplorable stance assumed by the Canadian government in its refusal to expedite the evacuation of the Vietnamese employed by its embassy in Saigon on the premise that exit visas were unobtainable. In light of the successful efforts on the parts of both Pan-American airways and the British embassy in Saigon to evacuate Vietnamese members of their staffs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That the government order an immediate parliamentary inquiry into the failure of the Canadian Embassy to evacuate its Vietnamese staff.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This motion, 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.


HOUSING
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the recent increase in mortgage interest rates, an increase which can only have the effect of further depressing housing starts as we enter the peak of the building season, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That the House instruct the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and the Minister of Finance to immediately reduce mortgage interest rates to increase funding for the Assisted Home Ownership Program, non-profit and public housing programs of CMHC and having a target of 400,000 starts in housing for 1975.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This motion, 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.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I am prompted to do so by Neil Overend's statement in Committee on April 24 that some $2.7 million of CIDA's money has been sitting in a non-interest account in a Kenyan bank for over five months, which is either an under-handed way of granting Kenya hard foreign currency or a matter of gross incompetence. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That the government order an immediate inquiry into the banking procedures of CIDA and other government agencies to see what other sums of Canadian taxpayers' money have not been earning interest over long stretches of time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This motion, 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.
29557-56'/2

April 28, 1975
Air Canada Inquiry BROADCASTING


REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF APPROVAL OF TAKEOVER OF BUSHNELL COMMUNICATIONS BY STANDARD BROADCASTING-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity which relates to a meeting that is planned for three o'clock this afternoon. In view of the announcement over the weekend of the acquisition of a substantial ownership by Power Corporation in Argus Corporation, and in view of the previous approval granted by CRTC for the acquisition of a controlling interest in Bushnell Communications by Standard Broadcasting, a subsidiary of Argus Corporation, I move:
That the Minister of Communications request the CRTC to review the approval given to Standard Broadcasting to determine whether or not the takeover of Bushnell Communications is in the public interest.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This motion, 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.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43 respecting the recently announced inquiry into certain aspects of Air Canada's management and operations. Since the order in council P.C. 1975-963 appears deficient in that it does not authorize Commissioner Estey to make recommendations arising out of his fact finding powers, as is usually the case under the Inquiries Act, and since this defect could seriously curtail the effectiveness of the commission, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That this House urges the governor in council to amend order in council P.C. 1975-963 by adding to the specific powers of the commissioner the following additional power, as paragraph (d): "(d) to make recommendations to the government as to possible measures to be taken in respect of and arising out of the findings of the commissioner".


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion on a matter of extreme concern to my constituency of Leeds, and to other constituencies along the St. Lawrence River area. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That in regard to the recently announced dockage fees for the St. Lawrence Islands National Parks located in the Thousand Islands region, in view of the fact that such application is impractical and collection costs in manpower and boats would likely exceed the amount collected, and in view of the heavy costs such tolls will place on residents in the area, the House requests the government to take steps to withdraw the announced charges.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity, and the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister, who told the House on Friday last that the government had no information to confirm reports that when the embassy was closed in Saigon there were left behind Vietnamese who had permission from the Vietnamese government to leave the country. Has the Acting Prime Minister yet been able to check this situation out? If so, what is it?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the inquiries made by the Department of External Affairs confirm that we took out of Saigon all those who had permission to leave. We have no reason to believe that there were any others who could have come aboard. Indeed, when the ambassador was going to the airport, five Vietnamese were removed from the car because they did not have permission.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Acting Prime Minister has directed his response to the time at which that flight took place. My question really deals with whether there are Vietnamese there now who have such permission and, specifi-
April 28, 1975

cally, how does the Canadian government obtain reliable information now from South Viet Nam since the embassy has been closed and all diplomatic and immigration personnel are withdrawn?


Mitchell William Sharp: We put a question to the government of the United States, which still has a mission in Viet Nam, and the information we received was that up to the time we had made the inquiry, which was yesterday, there had been no change. Permission was still being denied.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So, the government of Canada is now dependent on the United States government for information from South Viet Nam?


Mr. Woolliams:: It always has been.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The embassy of Great Britain has made strenuous and apparently successful efforts to obtain permission for members of their staff who are Vietnamese citizens to leave the country. Has the Acting Prime Minister any explanation for this in view of the apparent failure of the government of Canada to obtain similar permission?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, our embassy has made very strong representations to Vietnamese authorities and had been doing so over a period of many days before the withdrawal. I understand that the British government has a different arrangement with respect to their locally employed staff: after the locally employed staff has been working some time with the British government, they are provided passports. That is not possible under Canadian law.


VIET NAM-.GOVERNMENT ACTION TO AID VIETNAMESE WISHING TO COME TO CANADA
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, according to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration some 1,908 Vietnamese families have authority to come to Canada. My question to the Acting Prime Minister is: what is the government doing at the present time to find out exactly how many of these people are now in receipt of permission from whatever is left of the Saigon authority to leave the country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Before the Canadian embassy was withdrawn, we had made representations on innumerable occasions on behalf of relatives of Canadian Vietnamese in Canada or who are here on landed immigrant status, to such a point that Vietnamese authorities asked us not to issue authority for these individuals to come to Canada because the Vietnamese authorities said that we were just raising false expectations. They did not intend to give exit permits.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question. In view of what now appears to be the total breakdown of what is left of the government of South Viet Nam and in view of the fact that there are almost 2,000 Vietnamese with permits to come to Canada, is the government going to use its good offices in Hanoi and with the PRG-by virtue of our experience with the truce commission-to make an appeal to have these people come to Canada in anticipation of the total collapse of the South Vietnamese government?
Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in these circumstances I think we would have a greater chance of success if we could establish relations with whatever government takes power in South Viet Nam. One of the great problems we face, and I am sure this will be understood by members of the opposition, is that we have to conduct ourselves in such a way that if and when a change of government takes place we will be in a position to make successful representations.


James Aloysius McGrath: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister if during the interim the Canadian government has made any attempt whatsoever to have a Canadian immigration officer attached to either the United States legation in Saigon or the French legation in Saigon to process the papers of those South Vietnamese who may very well have permits to come to Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we made representations to the American government some days ago. We said that if any of these people to whom we have given letters or visas, and we provided the Americans with a list of them, did manage to get out of Viet Nam in any evacuation that the Americans may be able to enforce, we would be responsible for them financially, for their passage and so forth. It seemed to us that this was the most effective thing we could do on behalf of these people if they managed to get out.


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and concerns mortgage interest rates. Considering that mortgage payments for the average family are now in the neighbourhood of $350 to $400 per month, and considering that the legislation which the House passed about a month ago had the effect, through its indirect subsidy to the banks, of driving up the interest rates which is what the New Democratic Party said would happen, can the minister tell the House what steps he intends to take, other than moral suasion, to get the banks to bring down the mortgage interest rate?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would consult an economist and see the relationship of the subsidy to low income people who are buying housing under the existing scheme which is affected by the entire interest rate. This rate has not had any effect in increasing rates. There are many other factors at work which are being examined and discussed. We are doing everything possible to make sure that rates are kept as low as possible to enable those Canadians who need low cost housing to get it.


John Edward Broadbent: In short, nothing new. Considering that housing starts for 1975 are down by almost 50 per cent over last year and will run at an annual rate which is

April 28, 1975
Oral Questions
probably the lowest for ten years, will the minister tell the House if he has some new program that will significantly increase housing starts for the rest of the year, particularly as we are approaching the busiest time of the year for house construction?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, when I have new programs to announce, I will announce them. I think it would be unreasonable to announce what we intend to do and have it held up by parliamentary committees as the last legislation was, thus creating uncertainty. When the market drops we expect to see an improvement and we will announce it at the appropriate time.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question. Considering the serious need for housing in the country and the high and increasing unemployment, could the minister assure the House that whatever is done-and preferably before budget time-will have as its objective for 1975 not 210,000 housing starts but a minimum of 400,000?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, we are going to work within the realm of reality and realism.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
As the Quebec Minister of Social Affairs is in the process of revising the standards to be used in determining the amount of assistance to be paid monthly in the future to the needy in that province, and as the federal government pays part of this payment, can the minister tell us whether he has had consultations with his opposite number in Quebec in this regard, and can he give the House some information on the whole matter?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it may be that my officials have had consultations, but I have not had any personal exchanges with my Quebec colleague. However, a federal-provincial conference of welfare ministers is scheduled for next Wednesday and Thursday, at which time I may have the opportunity of discussing the matter with him.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. As members of the Canadian news media have had the courage and ability to remain in the South Vietnamese capital and are now our only link with that capital, and as other

countries have left their embassy staffs in Saigon, and these staffs are doing their job-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Harris Hees: My question is, why did the Canadian government find it necessary to order our embassy staff to evacuate from that capital so early.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we took the decision for the two reasons which have already been announced. They are: There was nothing the embassy could now do, if it had remained; secondly, there was the increasing danger to personnel. My hon. friend should bear in mind we would not want either of two things to happen. We would not want to have our evacuation dependent on the Americans. Secondly, we would not want to have our employees held hostage while we complied with the regulations of the new government.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I understand the embassy staff of Australia are still in that country. If it is possible for the courageous members of the Canadian news media to remain in that country and have confidence in their ability to get out, why would there be any greater difficulty in evacuating the members of the Canadian embassy staff?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the situation is quite different because, as may be the case, members of the Canadian media are dependent upon the Americans for their evacuation plans; but I, as the acting foreign minister of Canada, would not want to have Canadian officials in that position.


VIET NAM-REQUEST FOR ACTION TO AID VIETNAMESE MEMBERS OF CANADIAN EMBASSY STAFF
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: It's nice to have you back.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I need not to say how deeply touched I was by the message you sent to me on behalf of the members of this House, and the many letters and messages I received from all parts of the House. This shows me, once more, what wonderful comradeship the House of Commons always exemplifies. From the bottom of my heart I thank all hon. members who got in touch with me. It meant a great deal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Having said that by way of preliminary, I now wish to ask a question about something which is being discussed, namely, those members of the Canadian mission in Saigon who are South Vietnamese. One, two, or possibly three, come from the north and are North Vietnamese. Unless something is done on their behalf, they face almost certain extermination. Although there was plenty of notice that the situation was worsening, and although it was known that action would have to be taken, it was not. I now suggest that the Canadian
April 28, 1975

government should get in touch with the American government, even though the minister displays an aversion to having the Americans look after our interests, ask it to get in touch with the American embassy and have the American embassy communicate with those South Vietnamese who stood with us in the dark hours.
I have seen them there. Months ago they feared an ultimate victory of the North. Will the government request the United States embassy to get in touch with these several employees of the Canadian embassy and endeavour to arrange for exit permits for them? The conscience of Canada is asking for action. Press reports to the effect that these people were denied transportation while two automobiles and some vases were loaded in their place, is something that ought to be clarified. The government should now get in touch with the United States and ask for its co-operation in bringing about the preservation of the lives of those who gave their all for Canada by remaining on duty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, I would express my delight at seeing the right hon. member for Prince Albert back in his seat in his usual form and, more than that, in such good health.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I will now attempt to deal with the questions that have been put by the right hon. member. We made many efforts to get exit permits granted to the staff of our embassy in Saigon. I should first make it clear that not all of them want to leave. I rather regret the implication of the right hon. member's question that association with Canada is going to put their lives in jeopardy because I do not think that is so. Canada has always acted in Viet Nam in a very objective way. We were members of the International Control Commission. I do not believe it can be said that we became involved, as did the United States, in the war between the North and the South.
On the second point, as evidence of the problem that we face, I said in reply to a previous question that our ambassador did attempt to take to the airport five Vietnamese who were relatives of Vietnamese in Canada. They were taken out of the car and refused permission to proceed. I do not think the House quite realizes it is not that we want a piece of paper. That is not our problem. The problem is that Vietnamese who wanted to get to the airport without a permit from the Vietnamese government were denied access. Their progress was impeded. We had no armed forces. We had no way of running such a blockade.
I say to my right hon. friend that we did as much as we could do under the circumstances. We have provided the American government with lists of relatives of Vietnamese in Canada. We were successful to a limited extent. On the plane that came out, we brought some dependants of Vietnamese. I forget the number. There were not many. However, we brought as many at that time as were given permission to leave.
Oral Questions
We are doing what we can to help in the situation. However, as I said previously, we have to act in a way that we can be successful. Even though we get some out now, there are going to be a great many who will remain. We want to be able to act on their behalf in affecting reunification of families in the future.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was not dealing with the general group in South Viet Nam. I was speaking specifically of the six or eight in the Canadian mission there. I am not speaking of the larger group. I asked whether the minister would reconsider and get in touch with the Americans. After all, these people who were employed there have some diplomatic rights. They should be entitled to leave. If the Americans get in touch and are successful, will the government of Canada provide a plane to bring to Canada these people who, despite the minister's optimistic statement as to their future, face almost certain death?


Mitchell William Sharp: May I deal with just one of those cases? The driver of the automobile which took the Charge d'Affaires out to the airport for the evacuation got through, of course, because he was driving the car. He boarded the plane and it was then discovered he was the father of nine children; he was persuaded it would be better if he did not abandon them in Viet Nam. So, he left. We do have a responsibility toward these people, but I want to say to the right hon. gentleman that not all of them want to leave Viet Nam. I believe we have more of a responsibility for the dependants and relatives of Vietnamese in Canada than we have for these people, because they have no special ties with Canada and it does not necessarily follow they would wish to come to Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: A most evasive answer.


HOUSING
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs; it arises out of the statement made on Friday by the hon. gentleman to the effect that there are still funds available for the AHOP program. In view of the high demand in my area for funding under this program-no doubt there is a similar demand in other areas of rural Canada where people live in small communities-and in view of the fact that under present policy the program is not available to them, would the minister consider amending government policy so as to make land serviced by septic tanks eligible under the program?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Hpn. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs): I am pleased my hon. friend has noted the success of the program, as hon. members opposite have always done. I would point out that 40,000 NHA loans have been made in rural areas, mostly in respect of property

April 28, 1975
Oral Questions
served by septic tanks. Nevertheless, the regulations may be overly rigid in some areas, and I am in the process of studying the policy at the present time to make certain it is realistic and that while maintaining the high standard which I am sure all members wish to maintain, it results in a little more freedom of action.


Mr. Blais:: While it is good to learn the minister is reviewing the policy, can we encourage him to reach a decision before May 31?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I hope a decision will be made well before May 31.


TRANSPORT
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister arising out of the 20 per cent across-the-board increase in class freight rates filed by the Canadian railways and due to come into effect on May 5? In view of the fact that on February 24 the Minister of Transport, along with four western provincial ministers of transport, announced that there had been a break-through with respect to this matter and that he-the federal minister- was opposed to this increase in rates, what action is the government taking to ensure that the commitment made by the federal Minister of Transport is carried out and that this increase in freight rates will not come into effect on May 5?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker, and get a reply for the hon. member.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the minister is not here, and since the Acting Prime Minister is not able to make any statement on government policy, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he will assure the House that either he or the Minister of Transport will make a statement to the House within the next few days before this increase in freight rates comes into effect so that we may have some idea of what the policy of the government is, and whether or not the commitment made by the minister on February 24 is to be carried out?


Mitchell William Sharp: The
Minister of Transport will be here tomorrow and I hope the hon. member will direct this inquiry to him. I am sure he will be prepared to answer it.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, the House has been informed of the considerable damage being done by the continuation of the strike in the Port of Montreal. My question to the Minister of Labour is this: since only two of the 2500 Quebec longshoremen ordered back to work have decided to go back, thus disobeying the back-to-work legislation, is the government taking immediate action to make sure that the law is complied with in this instance?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, we are having officials of the Department of Justice examine the entire situation with a view to taking appropriate legal action.


William Heward Grafftey: Because of the gravity of the situation, will the minister inform the House precisely what action is contemplated? Will it be taken immediately? What specific action is contemplated to help the Quebec farmer whose supply of feedstuff is being shut off?


An hon. Member:: You were not here when we discussed this.


John Carr Munro: As to the question about the supply of grain, there is no doubt this is a grave situation; we intend to do whatever we can in that particular area. As to the first part of the hon. gentleman's question, legal action will be taken just as soon as we can.


William Heward Grafftey: Will the Minister of Justice elaborate on this aspect and tell the House what immediate action we can expect in an effort to remedy the situation?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: As hon. members may appreciate, in a case like this we will be investigating the facts and the application of the law to those facts with the object of taking whatever action we can to carry out the intention of the House as expressed in its recent enactment and, more particularly, to make sure that feed grains are made available to those who desire access to them in the terminal facilities.


STRIKE OF LONGSHOREMEN IN QUEBEC-INQUIRY WHETHER BACK-TO-WORK ORDERS ISSUED
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Has
the government yet taken steps to seek a compliance order under the terms of the act which was passed the other night? While he is on his feet to reply, would the minister also tell us whether, to his knowledge, back-to-work orders by the companies or by MEA have, or have not, been issued?


John Carr Munro: These dispatch orders were sent out last night in Montreal. The basis of the investigation is to determine whether or not there has been disobedience to the order. It is precisely the factual situation we are looking into now. Having established the fact, we intend to take the appropriate legal
April 28, 1975

action as I and the Minister of Justice have already indicated.


PROPOSAL THAT AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE TRAVEL TO OBTAIN VIEWS OF FARMERS ON BILL C-141
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Because of widespread confusion in western Canada with regard to Bill C-141, the grain stabilization bill, introduced into the House not long ago, can the hon. gentleman assure us that the Agriculture Committee, if it wishes to do so upon completion of second reading, will be allowed to travel into western Canada to hear the views of farmers directly in the three prairie provinces?


Otto Emil Lang: I do not think I would accede to that request on the basis that there was any confusion, but I would be glad to discuss the matter with the leader of the House on the basis of more general principles.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Acting Prime Minister. According to the International Air Agreement, English is the universal language of communication between ground and air in takeoffs and landings. In view of the fact that the Canadian Air Pilots Association has issued a statement condemning the use of French in air-ground communications in Quebec as being dangerous to the travelling public, leading to potential disaster, why has this practice been permitted? Will the Acting Prime Minister take steps to ensure that this policy is discontinued?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take this serious question as notice and try to provide an answer tomorrow.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. It is related to the SIU and charges imputing violence, intimidation, black-listing and so on. Last Monday the Prime Minister indicated that the Department of Justice was considering whether a broad, sweeping inquiry should be invoked. My question is: has the minister reached a decision as to whether the Ontario government, its police and the municipal government, are able to
Oral Questions
conduct this inquiry themselves or whether it is an area where the federal government should step in? If the government has reached a decision, what is it?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, some further information related to this question has come into my hands and I will be having discussions with some of my colleagues in the very near future with a view to seeing what further steps should be taken.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. The minister knows that under section 196 he can take initiatives in order to instigate an inquiry to bring about industrial peace, which I think we can all appreciate is required at this time. Would the minister advise whether under the Canada Labour Code he and the Minister of Justice will look into the possibility of such an inquiry and, if so, is he personally involved in an attempt to reach a decision with the Minister of Justice?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Justice was referring to his colleagues when he said that he would undertake certain consultations on the basis of information he has now received. This type of consultative process has not yet taken place. If it should indicate, in a hypothetical situation, that further action is required-I cannot say whether it is required at this stage-I think the Labour Code is one option to which we can resort.



EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Will the government have the Export Development Corporation immediately stop guaranteeing or otherwise financing contracts involving sales to Arab countries by certain Canadian firms, knowing that these contracts contain terms whereby these firms agree to abide by provisions of the Arab boycott and not trade with Israel? Does he realize that if this is not done it could appear that an agency of the federal government is condoning the acceptance of the Arab boycott by certain Canadian firms, which would mar the generally constructive record of achievement by the Export Development Corporation over the years?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I begin by saying to my hon. friend that the government is extremely concerned about this matter. My

April 28, 1975
Oral Questions
colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has instructed the Export Development Corporation, in the context of its legislative mandate, to review the Arab boycott clause as it applies to both insurance and direct lending operations.



HOUSING


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that the price of homes has moved beyond the reach of most families, would the Minister of State for Urban Affairs increase by at least 50 per cent the direct lending allowance of CMHC for AHOP non-profit and public housing to at least provide housing for people of low or moderate income at a reasonable price?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I will consider any suggestion the hon. member makes.


John Gilbert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and his officials have been in touch with the financial institutions concerning the recent increase in mortgage rates by the banks, has the minister persuaded the banks to roll back the interest increase by accepting their social responsibility to solve the housing crisis?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, we make regular contacts to keep tuned in to the mortgage situation. I am not at all satisfied yet that mortgage rates have stabilized and I am continuing to watch them carefully. I am not so much concerned whether the banks are aware of their responsibility in this regard; I am more concerned at the moment that mortgage money comes onto the market at the lowest possible level in view of the cost of money, and that it is coming in sufficient quantity to provide housing that Canadians can afford.



SUGGESTION CMHC PREPARING NEW MEASURES TO DEAL WITH EMERGENCY SITUATION-REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES

Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of reports over the week end that CMHC is proposing new measures prior to the budget to deal with the emergency situation in housing, would the minister say whether these reports are indeed correct and whether they form part of the consensus program that the Minister of Finance has been seeking?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, without evading the question, which I appreciate is a frank one, I would rather not comment on newspaper reports that are speculating on what I might do, which might unnecessarily cause more uncertainty and confusion.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister assure the House that prior to the announcement of any such proposal these measures would include consultations with his provincial counterparts to allocate more funds to the provinces for socially assisted housing?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I have assured my provincial counterparts that there will be consultations-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You had
not as of this morning.


Barnett Jerome Danson: I have been in touch with them as recently as the last two weeks to give that indication, and that will be the case.



FARM CREDIT CORPORATION


Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the ministers directly responsible I therefore direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the fact that many farmers are experiencing difficulty in having their applications processed through the Farm Credit Corporation, and in view of the fact that many farmers' plans for spring work have come to a complete stop until these applications are processed, would the Acting Prime Minister inform the House whether or not a directive has been sent to all farm credit offices to alleviate this serious situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the question directly, but I know my colleague the Minister of Agriculture will give very sympathetic consideration to that representation.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: If I have enough energy left in my voice, I should like to ask a question to the Minister of Environment.
Considering her reply Friday to a question asked by my colleague for Vancouver South concerning the routing of tankers from Alaska, and especially her satisfaction with regard to the alternative destination of such tankers, could the minister explain how construction of a pipeline from the town of Port Angeles, located at the south east extremity of the Juan de Fuca Strait, at Cherry Point, could avoid the possibly disastrous effects of an enormous spill of hydrocarbons from a 150,000-ton tanker into the Juan de Fuca Strait prior to the arrival of the tanker at Port Angeles?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, these super-tankers are capable of navigating
April 28, 1975

in the waters of the Pacific, which, by the way, are international waters. I firmly hope that in our negotiations with the Americans, we shall be able to establish routes that are adequately distant from the coasts involved, so that the magnificent coasts of British Columbia are properly protected. However, to guarantee such new routes a greater degree of security, the solution that would consist in setting up a port for the delivery of oil to Port Angeles would be, in my view, the most amenable one.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Is the minister satisfied with the progress the Minister of Transport has made in the development of a guided navigational system for the dangerous Juan de Fuca and Georgia Straits waters, and what has her own department done, if anything, to stock the cleaning material which would be necessary in case of a possible oil spill in such rich waters?


Jeanne Sauvé: I am very satisfied indeed with current negotiations. The Department of the Environment is also taking part in these negotiations. As I stated last Friday, these negotiations deal with vessel traffic schemes, navigational aids and storage of the equipment we would need in case of possible mishaps.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. With regard to the treasury board's submission concerning airport fire fighters, did the government advocate the implementation of regional pay principles?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter under negotiation with the union at the present time. Of course, as you know, in last year's dispute in Vancouver, where the strike was illegal, there was a great deal of tension within the union. Some parts of Canada are in favour of regional rates while others endorse national rates. As far as we are concerned, to avoid useless pressures on the regions, we prefer the implementation of regional pay rates.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's reply. He said they have not. Would he not agree that any suggestion by the government or any agency of the government in favour of regional pay rates would be a retrogressive step, particularly in areas of regional disparity.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the answer is not as clear as the hon. member would like it to be. A few days ago, for instance, the finance minister of an Atlantic province
Oral Questions
blamed the federal government for paying too high a salary to its employees, so that he was losing provincial employees to the benefit of the federal administration.


An hon. Member:: Which minister?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The finance minister of a Tory province, New Brunswick.



SUGGESTED INCREASE IN REGIONAL PAY RATES IN DISADVANTAGED PROVINCES-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that regional pay rates in have-not provinces are lower than anywhere else in Canada, and in view of the fact that the cost of living is now higher in the Atlantic region than anywhere else in Canada, would the minister consider reversing the basis of regional pay rates because of this fact and increase the regional rates in the have-not provinces where the people are suffering?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely one of the important elements determining why, under certain circumstances, it is much preferable to have a regional rather than a national rate. In certain parts of the country, the cost of living is higher than in others, and I think we should act accordingly.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Has the minister's department been able to come up with a satisfactory solution so that the Minister of Public Works and the Department of Public Works can get on with some dredging in harbours which need it very badly? I ask this because the Goderich Harbour is in immediate need of dredging.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch with the Department of Public Works so that they can take steps where necessary.



GODERICH HARBOUR-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBILITY OF HAVING DREDGING DONE

Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of the Environment. Would the Minister of the Environment have this situation investigated so that her department would be able to give the go-ahead for this harbour to be dredged as soon as the Department of Public Works sees its way clear to hire a dredge to do the job.

April 28, 1975
Oral Questions


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of what dredging the hon. gentleman is speaking about. I was engaged in reading at the time of his question. However, I will look at the question and if it is under my responsibility I will certainly have it looked into.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue my question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that accountants across Canada are still experiencing massive delays in the receipt of T-5's which are still coming into their offices, in view of the fact that many RRSP slips are still coming in over 30 days late, and in view of the enormous backlog of mail in post offices across Canada, will the Acting Prime Minister now indicate to that vital arm of the Revenue Department, Canada's accountants and taxpayers, that the government is prepared to extend the tax deadline beyond April 30.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will not give that undertaking but I will discuss the situation with my colleague. Generally speaking, we find that these reports are exaggerated. I am sure the hon. gentleman would want the government to bring in the revenue to which it is entitled on time.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence, I will put it to his very able parliamentary secretary.
Could he tell us whether the Department of Agriculture intends to correct very soon the different treatment given to Quebec potato growers who cannot take advantage of the subsidies recently announced by the Department of Agriculture with respect to potato sales for animal consumption?


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to elucidate the situation. As the result of various pressures made by government members, the Department of Agriculture has decided to grant what it had already granted to New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island producers. We will announce this afternoon a policy for eastern Canada, that is the same formula available to Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the assurance the minister gave me on Tuesday, March 18, that he would take good note of my request for improvements in the formula in respect of the escalation of pensions of retired public servants, retired RCMP and retired armed forces personnel, and in view of the fact that Bill C-52 is now before the House of Commons, may I ask if the President of the Treasury Board will be prepared to appear before the committee to which this bill is to be referred and come forward with the improvements he has thought out in the meantime?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as all ministers, I am at the disposal of the House and when a committee summons me, I am pleased to appear before it.



OIL-GOVERNMENT ACTION RELATED TO INTERNATIONAL PRICING ARRANGEMENTS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question regarding the Paris Conference which did not exactly work out is directed to the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Now that Canada is becoming a very substantial net importer of oil does the Government of Canada intend to take any initiative concerning international arrangements related to the price of oil? I know the Acting Prime Minister said the opinion he expressed in the House would reverberate around the world, but I wonder beyond that whether the Government of Canada is doing anything more here that it is in respect of South Vietnam?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, if I might answer, the standing committee has of course completed its study of the international energy program agreement and we will be proceeding in the very near future to indicate our participation in the International Energy Agency. I think I would have to concede to the analysis of the Leader of the Opposition about the breakdown in the Paris discussions. One of the initiatives we will be taking will be within the International Energy Agency to see if that particular discussion can be reopened and, as a substantial exporter of a number of primary commodities, to see what agreement there would be on expanding the discussions so that they could find some agreement among the developing countries and other primary exporters.
April 28, 1975



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the Acting Prime Minister stated he has provided selected lists of Vietnamese personnel to the Americans asking the United States to accept these people and divert them to us. If the Acting Prime Minister is to be taken seriously with regard to this plan, why was one of our two Hercules aircraft in Hong Kong withdrawn from that area today?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any contradiction between these two actions. It appears to us to be unlikely that there would be an opportunity to lift the Vietnamese who would be permitted to get to the airport or, alternatively, if the regime had collapsed and there were general chaos of course the airport would be unusable. I believe it was very prudent for us to have done what we could on behalf of these Vietnamese who might be able to get out one way or another by methods that we could not choose because we do not have armed forces to support our particular views in Viet Nam whereas the Americans do, potentially if not actually. So, I do not think there is any contradiction.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance and pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table three copies, in English and in French, of the Economic Review for the year 1974.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,180, 1,765, 1,917, 1,923, 1,924, 1,927, 1,928, 1,929, 1,931, 2,020, 2,072, 2,143, and 2,187.
Mr. Speaker, if question No. 60 and starred question No. 1,475 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What are the names of the corporations and firms which have renewable purchase, service or construction contracts with the Department of Supply and Services that require Treasury Board approval?
2.	What were the names of the corporations and firms which had purchase, service or construction contracts that were renewed over the past five years with the Department of Supply and Services and required Treasury Board approval?
3.	What are the names of corporations and firms which have three year term or longer purchase, service or construction contracts with the Department of Supply and Services that required Treasury Board approval?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Similar information to that requested above was returned in answer to Question No. 1,741 on March 5, Hansard, Page No. 3,801, Sessional Paper No. 301-2/1,741.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	On what date will construction commence for (a) the extension of the Ottawa River Parkway from its present western termination at Carling Avenue in the City of Ottawa to its proposed intersection with Woodroffe Avenue in the Township of Nepean (b) the further extension thereof from Woodroffe Avenue in the Township of Nepean to Merivale Road in the Township of Nepean (c) the further extension thereof from Merivale Road along its proposed route south of the Borden Farm area in the Township of Nepean to its intersection with Provincial Highway 16 (Prescott Highway) (d) the further extension thereof from the Prescott Highway as aforesaid to the Rideau River?
2.	Have any lands for right-of-way been acquired by the National Capital Commission or any other agency or department for the purposes contemplated in Part 1?
3.	What was the cost of the lands acquired as contemplated in Part 2?
4.	Has any provision been made in the Estimates for 1975-1976 for the acquisition of lands required for right-of-way as set forth in Part 1 by any of the agencies or departments mentioned in Part 2?
5.	Have any tenders been called for the construction of any part of the work contemplated in Part 1?


Barnett Jerome Danson: In so far as the National Capital Commission is concerned: 1. (a), (b), (c) and (d)-Planning by the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton suggests that some of the rights-of-way acquired by the National Capital Commission for parkway purposes be used for arterial roads forming part of the regional road network. Without prejudice to the purposes for which these rights-of-way were acquired, NCC planning for the construction of parkways beyond those which already exist, or are currently under construction, is temporarily being held in abeyance pending consideration of proposals by the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. No dates on which construction will commence have been established.
2.	The National Capital Commission has acquired land for right-of-way.
3.	$602,008.
4.	No.
5.	No.

April 28, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Paproski: 1.	In 1974, how many positions were designated under essential services by the Treasury Board?
2.	Was the basis of such designation limited to "safety and security" of the public or was provision made for services deemed essential in the public interest?
3.	What types of positions have been designated under essential services at the present time?
4.	In 1974 (a) how many work stoppages took place involving positions designated as essential (b) how many employees were involved (c) what was the total number of man hours lost?
5.	In 1974, what was the total number of (a) man hours lost (b) employees involved due to strikes, stoppages and disputes in the Public Service?
6.	In 1974 (a) how many requests were there for arbitration of Public Service disputes (b) how many involved services or positions designated as essential?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. None. Section 79(1) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act specifies that employees to be designated must be agreed upon by the parties or determined by the Public Service Staff Relations Board where the parties have not agreed.
2.	Not applicable. Section 79(1) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act specifies that only employees "whose duties consist in whole or in part of duties the performance of which at any particular time or after any specified period of time is or will be necessary in the interest of the safety or security of the public" may be designated.
3.	None.
4.	(a) None, (b) Not applicable, (c) Not applicable.
5.	(a) 1,768,120 (approximately), (b) 39,050 (approximately).
6.	(a) 13. (b) Not applicable. Bargaining units which have opted for the arbitration method of dispute resolution may not lawfully strike, therefore, there are no designated employees in these groups.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the total annual salary of Mr. Ivan Head of the Prime Minister's Office?
2.	What was the total cost to taxpayers of French language lessons received by Mrs. Head?
3.	(a) On what dates did Mrs. Head take such lessons (b) who authorized such lessons and on what date?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Prime Minister's Office and the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. $33,000-$42,000.
2.	No individual costing is maintained because the students attend courses for various lengths of time. (See also answer to question No. 24(3) (Tabled January 22, 1975).
3.	(a) Mrs. Ivan Head undertook language training under the arrangements in effect with 1'Alliance Frangaise during 1973-74. Classes were normally held two times a week. Individual dates cannot be verified, (b) Authorization is obtained for each course year through the personnel division of the department or agency in which the candidate's husband is employed.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the total annual salary of Mr. P. Juneau of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission?
2.	What was the total cost to taxpayers of English language lessons received by Mrs. Juneau?
3.	(a) On what dates did Mrs. Juneau take such lessons (b) who authorized such lessons and on what date?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Department of Communications and the Public Service Commission as follows:	1.


[Stage Direction]
2.	No individual costing is maintained because the students attend courses for various lengths of time. (See also answer to question No. 24(3) (Tabled January 22, 1975).
3.	(a) Mrs. P. Juneau undertook English language training under the arrangements in effect with the Language Bureau during 1971-72. Classes were normally held two times a week. Individual dates cannot be verified, (b) Authorization is obtained for each course year through the personnel division of the department or agency in which the candidate's husband is employed.
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the total annual salary of Mr. G. W. Ainslie, Assistant Deputy Attorney General in the Department of Justice?
2.	What was the total cost to taxpayers of French language lessons received by Mrs. Ainslie?
3.	(a) On what dates did Mrs. Ainslie take such lessons (b) who authorized such lessons and on what date?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Department of Justice and the Public Service Commission as Follows: 1. $27,400-$43,000.
2.	No individual costing is maintained because the students attend courses for various lengths of time. (See also answer to question No. 24 (3) Tabled January 22, 1975.)
3.	(a) Mrs. G. W. Ainslie undertook language training under the arrangements in effect with 1'Alliance frangaise during 1970-71 and 1971-72. Classes were normally held two times a week. Individual dates cannot be verified; (b) Authorization is obtained for each course year through the personnel division of the department or agency in which the candidate's husband is employed.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the total annual salary of Mr. A. C. Boughner, Assistant Deputy Postmaster General in the Post Office Department?
2.	What was the total cost to taxpayers of French language lessons
received by Mrs. Boughner?
3.	(a) On what dates did Mrs. Boughner take such lessons (b) who authorized such lessons and on what date?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Post Office Department and the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. $29,000-$37,000.
April 28, 1975

2.	No individual costing is maintained because the students attend courses for various lengths of time. (See also answer to question No. 24 (3) Tabled January 22, 1975)
3.	(a) Mrs. A. C. Boughner undertook language training under the arrangements in effect with 1'Alliance Franchise during 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73. Classes were normally held two times a week. Individual dates cannot be verified. (b) Authorization is obtained for each course year through the personnel division of the department or agency in which the candidate's husband is employed.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the total annual salary of Commissioners D. H. Jones, R. M. March and J. B. G. Thomson of the Canadian Transport Commission?
2.	In each case, what was the total cost to taxpayers of French language lessons received by Mrs. Thomson, Mrs. March and Mrs. Jones?
3.	(a) On what dates did Mrs. Thomson, Mrs. March and Mrs. Jones take such lessons (b) who authorized such lessons and on what date?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Canadian Transport Commission and the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. The salaries of Commissioners Jones, March and Thomson are within the range SX-2 ($29,000-$37,000); in addition, Commissioners Jones and Thomson, as Chairmen of Committees, receive an additional $3,500 per annum, under Order-in-Council authority.
2.	No individual costing is maintained because the students attend courses for various lengths of time. (See also answer to question No. 24 (3) Tabled January 22, 1975)
3.	(a) Mrs. Thomson registered but did not appear for course. Mrs. R. M. March undertook language training under the arrangements in effect with 1'Alliance frangaise during 1973-74. Mrs. D. H. Jones undertook language training under the arrangements in effect with l'Alliance frangaise during 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. Classes were normally held two times a week. Individual dates cannot be verified, (b) Authorization is obtained for each course year though the personnel division of the department or agency in which the candidate's husband is employed.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the total annual salary of Mr. L. D. Hudon, Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet and Mr. D. R. Stephens, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet?
2.	In each case, what was the total cost to taxpayers of French language lessons received by Mrs. Hudon and Mrs. Stephens?
3.	(a) On what dates did Mrs. Hudon and Mrs. Stephens take such lessons (b) who authorized such lessons and on what date?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Privy Council Office and the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. Mr. Hudon, $38,000-$48,-000; Mr. Stephens, $25,500-$32,500.
Order Paper Questions
2.	No individual costing is maintained because the students attend courses for various lengths of time. (See also answer to question No. 24 (3) Tabled January 22, 1975)
3.	(a) Mrs. L. D. Hudon undertook language training under the arrangements in effect with l'Alliance frangaise during 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74. Mrs. D. R. Stephens undertook language training under the arrangements in effect with l'Allianee frangaise during 1973-74 and 1974-75. Classes were normally held two times a week. Individual dates cannot be verified, (b) Authorization is obtained for each course year through the personnel division of the department or agency in which the candidate's husband is employed.


Mr. Reynolds: What are the established guidelines for minimum safe inventory levels within the Department of Supply and Services' warehouses?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The point at which action is taken to increase inventory levels is based on anticipated usage over the time it will take the supplier to deliver the materiel to the department's warehouses. Due to variations in both the anticipated usage and delivery time, a safety stock is required in addition to the above to ensure that the majority of customer demands can be filled. In so far as DSS is concerned, a safety stock level of 28 days of anticipated sales based on historical usage data is maintained for each stocked item in the inventory.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the total annual salary of Mr. R. B. Bourne, Assistant Deputy Minister in charge of the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group?
2.	What was the total cost to taxpayers of French language lessons received by Mrs. R. B. Bourne?
3.	(a) On what dates did Mrs. Bourne take such lessons (b) who authorized such lessons and on what date?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Public Service Commission as follows:	1.


[Stage Direction]
2.	No individual costing is maintained because the students attend courses for various lengths of time. (See also answer to question No. 24 (3) Tabled January 22, 1975)
3.	(a) Mrs. R. H. Bourne undertook language training under the arrangements in effect with l'Alliance frangaise during 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. Classes were normally held two times a week. Individual dates cannot be verified. (b) Authorization is obtained for each course year through the personnel division of the department or agency in which the candidate's husband is employed.
[Stage Direction]
April 28, 1975
Order Paper Questions POSTAL CODE
Mr. Herbert: 1.	Has consideration been given by the Post Office Department to the use of the Japanese zip code system whereby the digits of the postal code must be written in boxes printed in the appropriate area?
2.	Has consideration been given to the use of optical scanning devices that can read addresses and zip codes?


Mr. Rayrtald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. This system was considered during design and implementation of the Canadian postal code and the associated mechanized processing system which were designed to avoid the extra cost and effort required of the mailer.
2. Optical reading equipment is now operational at Ottawa and is being procured for installation at other major centres.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development aware that his predecessor was described in the September 5, 1974 issue of the Montreal Gazette in an interview with journalist George Radwanski as "having resisted pressure to put a regional office of the Indian Affairs Department in Toronto, having put it instead in Cornwall"?
2.	(a) What are all the reasons that this decision was reversed by the present Minister as contained in the answer to Question No. 1,266 (b) was pressure applied in this regard on the Minister or his Department and, if so (i) on what date (ii) by whom?
Hort. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): 1. Yes.
2. (a) The office will not be relocated to Toronto but rather to a smaller centre closer to the agencies with whom we deal most frequently and more centrally located in the Province. At the time the office was originally created, it served both the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. With the creation of a separate Quebec Regional Office this is no longer the case. The relocation now proposed does not conflict with the previous statement on the subject, (b) No. The need to ultimately relocate was obvious when the Region was split into two separate operations.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


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 $2,823,987 was allocated under the Local Initiatives Programme for 1972-73 in the constituency of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, Nova Scotia (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.



INCOME REDISTRIBUTION

Mr. Herbert: Did the Minister of National Health and Welfare state that, in 1972, the top 20 per cent of Canadians received more of the wealth produced than they did in 1967 and that the bottom 20 per cent received less in 1972 than in 1967 and, if so, what measures are under consideration to augment the programmes of income redistribution so that the trend can be reversed?
Return tabled.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to do this, but would the parliamentary secretary note starred question 2,284 in my name? It has to do with a former parliamentary colleague, in the world sense, who is in jail in the Philippines. I hope that the government will soon respond to my request for action.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary the fact that it is now over two months since starred questions 1,738 and 1,739 were placed on the order paper. In view of the very serious nature of the questions, I think all members of the House would want them answered as soon as possible.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer the parliamentary secretary to questions 1,686 and 1,687 in my name. The only reason I raise this point of order again is not because these questions have not been answered and they are two months overdue, but because the public service gave the answers publicly despite the fact that apparently they have not been given to parliament.
On February 18 I asked for details of the involvement of the president of CMHC, or of CMHC itself, in the construction of a swimming pool at 24 Sussex Drive. This information has been denied to the House, yet last Thursday, William Teron, president of CMHC, stated publicly, when asked by a newsman, the details of this matter. It seems to me to be an affront to parliament that when a member of the House asks a question, whether on this matter or any other, an answer is continually withheld from the House for a period of two months or more, and sometimes as long as six months, yet information is leaked outside the House.
I think I have more than a point of order; I have a question of privilege. I also suggest, with regard to question 1,686 which asks about the involvement of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in the same matter, that this information is also being withheld when it could easily be given. I ask the parliamentary secretary whether I could have some assurance that these questions will be answered forthwith.

April 28, 1975



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, April 25, consideration in committee of Bill C-32, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain petroleum costs and to regulate the price of Canadian crude oil and natural gas in interprovincial and export trade-Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale)- Mr. Penner in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: When the committee rose on April 25, clauses 5, 35, 36, 52 as amended and 53 as amended were allowed to stand. The committee is now considering clause 60.
On clause 60-Continuing offence.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order with regard to the matters we are considering. There have been some discussions across the floor in committee and outside the committee with regard to clauses 35 and 52, and there has been some indication of willingness on our part as well as on the part of the minister to accept a form of amendment which would be agreeable to both sides. The minister might want to comment on that. If it is likely that some arrangement can be worked out, it would permit us to look at the rest of the bill in a more relaxed way, in a less jaundiced way. Also, it might well facilitate the passage of some of the clauses because if, in our view, it is likely that these amendments will be discussed in the committee, it would make us feel somewhat more comfortable about the rest of the bill.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to confirm that indeed there have been discussions about possible amendments to the two clauses with regard to the proclamation. I think it is fair to say that there is some agreement in principle involved here. What we have been doing is taking a look at the specific wording. The legal advisers of the Crown have looked at the wording, a text of which will be available a little later in the afternoon. I wonder if we might proceed with clause 60 and the following clauses, then return to the clauses that have been stood after the new wording has been circulated and agreement to it confirmed.


B. Keith Penner: Is clause 60 agreed to?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 61 agreed to.
On clause 62-Regulations.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest to the committee an amendment to clause 62, a copy of which was circulated previously. Clause 64 provides a regime with regard to the determination which, I am advised by my advisers, would be better adapted to meet the situation. Clause 62 would provide an alternate paragraph (d) which would be consistent with the clause
Oil and Petroleum
as amended. My colleague, the President of the Privy Council, is moving the following amendment:
That Bill C-32 be amended by striking out lines 29 to 36, inclusive, on page 24 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"(d) respecting the approval by the board of prices paid to acquire gas from within its province of production for movement out of that province: and"
The President of the Privy Council has come back specifically because of his firm conviction about this amendment.


Mitchell William Sharp: I so move, Mr. Chairman.
Amendment (Mr. Sharp) agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 63-Conflict.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question about this clause, for my own satisfaction. The clause reads as follows:
In the event of a conflict between any price prescribed under this part and any price established under part IV of the National Energy Board Act, the prescribed price under this act prevails.
I assume that involves an admission that under the National Energy Board Act there is provision for fixing prices of petroleum or natural gas.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, sir.


Gerald William Baldwin: It might be useful in some court action later.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 64-Distributing excess.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, there is a rather lengthy amendment to this clause. It is put forward after some consultation, particularly with transmission companies. We think this amendment will provide a simpler regime for dealing with the question involved under this section.


Mitchell William Sharp: That Bill C-32 be amended by striking out clause 64 on page 25 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"64. (1) Where in any month gas that is purchased or otherwise acquired in or from its province of production is transported and resold by the purchaser thereof in any area or zone in Canada outside its province of production, or at any point on the international boundary of Canada, the purchaser shall, in respect of each such month, distribute to producers, in accordance with such regulations as the Governor in Council may make in that behalf, an amount equal to the excess of
(a)	the total revenues received by the purchaser for the gas so resold in that month;
over
(b)	the purchaser's cost of service, as determined by the Board, in respect of the gas so resold in that month, including the purchaser's cost of gas.
(2)	Where in any month gas that is purchased or otherwise acquired in or from its province of production is transported from that province for delivery in any area or zone in Canada outside its province of production or at any point on the international boundary of Canada by a person other than its purchaser, the purchaser shall, in respect of each such month, distribute to producers, in accordance

April 28, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
with such regulations as the Governor in Council may make in that behalf, an amount equal to the excess of
(a)	the total value, as determined by the Board, of the purchaser's gas delivered in that month in that area or zone outside its province of production or at that point on the international boundary of Canada;
over
(b)	the purchaser's cost, as determined by the Board, in respect of the acquisition and transportation of that gas to its point of delivery in that month.
(3)	For the purposes of this section, "cost of gas" shall be computed, if approved by the Board, by using prices payable at the wellhead to producers of gas or shall be computed by such other means as the Board may prescribe."


Gerald William Baldwin: While I am sure that the President of the Privy Council has grasped in an instant the interpretation of this amendment, there may be some hon. members to whom it is not quite so plain. Would the minister be willing to explain the purpose behind the amendment?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Chairman. As indicated, believe it or not, from having read the terminology, the considered opinion is that this is a simpler mechanism for determining the flowback of certain moneys to the producer of gas. Clause 64(1) deals with the case in which the pipeline is the owner of the gas transported from the producer to the consuming province. Much of the gas transported by TransCanada PipeLines is in that category. Gas transported and sold in the consuming province is, of course, sold at the prescribed price. The total revenue is computed and from this is deducted the purchaser's cost of service as determined by the board. The difference is then distributed, in accordance with such regulations as the governor in council may make, among the producers.
The intention is that it prescribes prices more closely approximating commodity value, that is, the equivalent value of petroleum, to improve the return to producers and so provide a means for encouraging exploration and development of gas. The distribution will be made in the manner best calculated to achieve this, which would not necessarily be on a pro rata basis.
Clause 64(2) provides for the case in which the pipeline, as opposed to being the owners, is only a carrier of the gas. A similar calculation is carried out mutatis mutandis and a similar flowback would occur.
In Clause 64(3) the expression "cost of gas" is defined in terms of prices payable at the wellhead to producers of gas or by such other means as the board may prescribe. This is necessary to cover the situation for a company like West-coast Transmission. Westcoast Transmission does not itself buy from producers. The purchases are made by the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation which, having bought from the producers, immediately transfers it to Westcoast Transmission which in turn pays BCPC according to a formula by which the price is determined ex post facto. It is necessary for purposes of calculation to use the price paid by BCPC and not the calculated price paid by Westcoast.
I hope that is helpful as an explanation. It is obviously a rather complicated regime.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have the general idea.
Amendment (Mr. Sharp) agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 65 to 69 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 70-Reports.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This may not be the best place to deal with the matter, and if the minister prefers to leave it until his report to the energy committee, I would be perfectly satisfied. But since we are dealing with cost compensation in part IV of the bill, I wonder if the minister would like to make any statement with respect to the basis upon which these cost compensation payments have been made. Some newspaper reports have indicated that in the past 12 months there has been a switch by the oil importing companies from Venezuelan oil to Middle East oil.
Prior to the cost compensation program coming into effect, my recollection is that about 60 per cent of our imported oil came from Venezuela and about 40 per cent from the Middle East and Africa, and now it has been reversed. Reports indicate that the reason for this switch is that it is financially advantageous for an oil company to bring in Middle East oil, to the extent of some 95 cents a barrel, and sell their Venezuelan oil in another market. One day in the question period I asked the minister if he would look into the matter, and I am sure he has. I wonder if the minister wants to comment on the steps that are being taken to plug this loophole-if there is a loophole- or to leave it until his report to the energy committee? He may want to deal with it at that time, but we ought to have an explanation reasonably soon.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I could do both. The energy supplies allocation board will be before the committee on Thursday morning and it might be appropriate then to go into this matter at greater length. But perhaps I could make some comments at this point. This has been a matter of some concern in the administration of the provisions of the compensation program. It will be recalled that the program was founded on the oil price costs as they were in November, 1973. The purpose was really to compensate for increases beyond the prices that were established as of that date. There was an adjustment of 90 cents per barrel to reflect the April 1, 1974, Canadian crude oil price increase, the price of imported oil having previously risen by some $2 a barrel while western prices were frozen. As of April 1, 1974, the prices domestically came into balance.
It is quite true, as was pointed out in a number of press stories and in the House, that at the moment Middle East oil does receive more compensation and is cheaper in relation to Venezuelan oil after compensation. This reflects the fact that at the time the November, 1973, provision went into effect, Venezuelan oil was actually ahead in price. Prices were frozen at that time for the base, so compensation has been laid on top of that difference. That reflects the 1973 competitive relationship which has been embodied in the compensation program.
I think it is fair to say that it is now indicated to us that there should be a change to try to make the system neutral as between Venezuelan and Middle East oil. Indeed, the officials of my department and of the Energy Supplies
April 28, 1975

Allocation Board have been attempting to arrive at some amendment in the regulations for the purpose of making the system neutral with respect to the source of oil.
The judgment I am given from the department is that the differential has not so far led to a switch from Venezuelan to eastern hemisphere oil greater than that which would have occurred without the compensation to them. That is not to say that a switch has not occurred from Venezuelan to Middle East oil but, rather, that a switch had been anticipated from Venezuelan to Middle East if the events of a year or so ago had not occurred and if the compensation program had not occurred.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In the
minister's opinion, is that switch due to a lessening of supply in Venezuelan crude? Is that the reason for the switch?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is really a question of production cutbacks in that country which have occurred primarily because of conservation practices by the Venezuelan government. I think one could argue, however, that some of the more recent cutbacks have reflected the general OPEC policy of the desirability of cutting back production.
The amount of Venezuelan oil that is available has declined and Canadian imports are down proportionately. As I have indicated, we are working on this program that we hope will secure a proper balance of equity as between companies and overseas supply sources which could be implemented with minimal impact on the consumer of the product refined from imported crude oil. The Energy Supplies Allocation Board is the primary agency for this purpose. Rather than going further into this at the moment, I think it might be useful for members of the committee to address questions to members of the board, when they are before the committee on Thursday, regarding some of the complicated problems involved in moving from the existing system to what we hope is a more equitable one.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That will be satisfactory, Mr. Chairman.


B. Keith Penner: Shall clause 70 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 71 agreed to.
On clause 72-Application.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment to this clause as well. The amendment would provide for the insertion of the words "in Canada" to qualify the importation of "petroleum into Canada for processing, consumption, sale or other use". This limits compensation to fuel for consumption in Canada and follows both the practice under the import compensation program and the actual wording of Bill C-18. Perhaps the Minister of Communications would move that one. I have another one as well.


Mr. Pelletier (Hochelaga) moved:: That Bill C-32 be amended by striking out line 34 on page 27 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
Oil and Petroleum
"other use in Canada is eligible under this division to"


B. Keith Penner: Shall the amendment to clause 72 carry?
Amendment (Mr. Pelletier, Hochelaga) agreed to.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I have a further amendment to clause 72(2) which is required merely because of the time that has elapsed since the bill came before the House. The amendment is in the following terms:
That Bill C-32 be amended by striking out line 10 on page 28 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"lendar year 1974 and the first half of the calendar year 1975, and has or have given"
Again, the Minister of Communications would move that one.


Gérard Pelletier: I so move.
Amendment (Mr. Pelletier, Hochelaga) agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 73 agreed to.
On clause 74-Time of payment of compensation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to clause 74 further to the one that was previously circulated. It will cover both the substance of the previous amendment and a further amendment. It is as follows:
That Bill C-32 be amended by:
(a)	striking out line 35 on page 28 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"Canada before the occurrence of the later";
(b)	striking out lines 39 to 44, inclusive on page 28 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"leum under the purchase arrangements; and"; and
(c)	striking out line 1 on page 29 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"(b) the date the petroleum was delivered,"


Gérard Pelletier: I so move.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am sure the significance of the amendment will immediately strike all members.
Amendment (Mr. Pelletier, Hochelaga) agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 75 and 76 agreed to.
On clause 77-Regulations.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment which would allow the designation of derivatives of both crude oil and natural gasoline or condensates as petroleum products, much along the lines noted earlier with respect to Canadian source crude in the context of the oil export charge. As hon. members will recall, there are some circumstances in which liquid petroleums are produced in connection with natural gas and used as feedstock. This would permit compensation to be paid for this purpose.
The Minister of Communications, who has much concern about this matter, proposes an amendment as follows:

April 28, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
That Bill C-32 be amended by striking out lines 38 to 42, inclusive, on page 30 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"(k) designating any hydrocarbon or mixture of hydrocarbons resulting from the processing or refining of hydrocarbons described in paragraph (a) or (b) of the"


Gérard Pelletier: I so move, Mr. Chairman. Amendment (Mr. Pelletier, Hochelaga) agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 78-Transitional.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, clause 78 provides statutory authority for compensation payments which are made or authorized by the imported oil products compensation regulations made pursuant to vote 11B of Appropriation Act No. 1, 1974, which applied between January 1 and March 31, 1974; secondly, for the petroleum products compensation program guidelines which were made for the purpose of Governor General's special warrants for the period, April 1 to October 31, 1974; and for the oil import compensation regulations made pursuant to vote 52 of Appropriation Act No. 3, 1974, for imports on or after November 1, 1974.
One of the more important provisions of the bill, which by virtue of the deeming provisions of clause 78(1) and (2) will now apply to earlier compensation, is section 76 which permits the recovery or set-off of overpayment or non-entitled payment. That is to say, if we find that an importer has received an overpayment or a payment to which he is not entitled, the administration will be entitled to recover such payment or set it off against any future payment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is the position with respect to Governor General's special warrants the same as the position with respect to other payments under the act?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes. I have circulated an amendment to the committee. The Minister of Communications moves:
That Bill C-32 be amended by:
(a)	Striking out lines 35 and 36 on page 31 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"Act No. 3, 1974, Statutes of Canada 1974-75;
(c)	pursuant to Energy Supplies Allocation Board vote No. 53c of Appropriation Act No. 5, 1974, Statutes of Canada 1974-75; or
(d)	pursuant to Energy Supplies Allocation Board vote No. 65 of Appropriation Act No. 2, 1975, Statutes of Canada 1974-75"
This is included for the purposes of catching up with elapsed time, as there are now specific statutory references to these particular provisions. I continue reading the amendment:
(b)	striking out line 1 on page 32 thereof and by substituting therefore the following:
"on the day immediately preceding the commencement of this part that is delivered to"; and
(c)	Striking out lines 9 and 10 on page 32 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"tion authorized to be made before that day."


Gérard Pelletier: I so move.
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).1


Mr. Gillies:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question along the lines of one asked earlier by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowiehan-The Islands? If it were discovered-I am not suggesting this has been done-that because of changes in the conditions under which oil is imported from abroad, some organizations had taken advantage of the allocation situation, which is something we will consider in detail next Thursday morning, would this provision allow the recapture for the people of Canada of any overpayments made under those circumstances?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the answer in general terms is yes. If there were found to be an improper diversion of some kind, or if someone had taken advantage of the system, there would be authority to claim back.
Amendment (Mr. Pelletier, Hochelaga) agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 79-1st January, 1975, to 31st March, 1975.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the cornucopia of amendments has produced another unheralded amendment. I am advised that this amendment is necessary because of the effluxion of time since the introduction of the bill. The Minister of Communications brought it to my attention.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-32 be amended by:
(a)	striking out subclauses 79(1) and 79(2) on page 32 thereof;
(b)	renumbering subclause 79(3) on page 32 thereof as clause 79; and
(c)	striking out the figures "1974-75" on line 22 on page 32 thereof
and substituting therefor the figures "1975-76".
Amendment (Mr. Pelletier, Hochelaga) agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 80 to 86 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 87-Regulations.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the amendment to be proposed is similar to previous amendments. It is to include derivatives, that is to say, crude oil, natural gas as condensates in the compensation program. The Minister of Communications will also move this amendment.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-32 be amended by striking out lines 19 to 25, inclusive, on page 35 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"(g) designating any hydrocarbon or mixture of hydrocarbons resulting from the processing or refining of hydrocarbons described in paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition "petroleum" in section 80, as a petroleum product; and"
Amendment (Mr. Pelletier, Hochelaga) agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 88 to 94 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 95-Commencement.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move an amendment, not to amend clause 95 but to add another clause, clause 96. As I have given notice of my intention, perhaps the committee could carry clause 95 and then consider my amendment.
April 28, 1975


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
B. Keith Penner: The hon. member for Peace River is recognized on proposed clause 96.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the Minister of Communications has left the chamber. I was hoping he might move my amendment. However, I suppose I must move it myself. I am not going to go back over the ground that has already been covered. Hon. members ought not to have any doubts concerning the validity of this bill. I have read into the record extracts of some decisions of the Supreme Court and the Privy Council and I have given my interpretation of them. For these reasons, before the bill leaves this place there should be some reference to these matters. I therefore move:
That the bill be amended by adding thereto, immediately following clause 95 on page 39, the following:
"Reference to Supreme Court 96. (1) Forthwith after this Act is assented to in Her Majesty's name, the Governor in Council, under section 55 of the Supreme Court Act, shall refer all questions of law and fact concerning the constitutionality of this Act and every provision thereof other than this section to the Supreme Court.
(2)	Until the Supreme Court has certified to the Governor in Council its opinion upon each such question, no provision of this Act, other, than this section, shall come into force at the time of commencement provided therefor under this Act or the Interpretation Act and then only to the extent, if any, such provision is in the opinion of the Court within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada.
(3)	The attorney general of each province shall be notified of the hearing under this section in order that he may be heard if he thinks fit."


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I would counsel the committee against adopting the amendment, principally on the basis that has been argued all the way through the debate on this bill, that in the judgment of the government and, perhaps more significantly, the legal advisers of the government, the provisions of Bill C-32 are entirely within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. In their opinion, no doubt exists with regard to this jurisdictional question. On this basis, it does not seem appropriate to delay the matter for the time of the Supreme Court reference. Indeed, if there was a delay it might be impossible for the government to act, if there was any threat of a substantial increase in the prices of oil or natural gas.
I should make it clear to the committee that the fact we do not accept this amendment does not in any sense make it any less possible from a legal standpoint for a private person to raise a question with regard to the statute. It would not, of course, oust the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in any way. We feel there is a legal basis under the constitution for the action we are proposing to parliament. For that reason, it does not seem to be necessary to seek this particular amendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I have only one word on the question of timing. If this country can survive this government for a year and a half or an energy crisis, it can survive a few more months waiting for a Supreme Court decision.
Oil and Petroleum


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Thank you for those kind words.


B. Keith Penner: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Amendment (Mr. Baldwin) negatived: Yeas, 11; nays, 30.


B. Keith Penner: By agreement, the committee will revert to clause 35 of Bill C-32.
On clause 35-Proclamation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned to the committee earlier, there have been some discussions about a possible amendment to this clause. I think we might have a form of words which will be found generally acceptable. The essence is that while the bill is to be proclaimed as provided under clause 35, there would be added to the clause, by way of amendment, five subclauses. The amendment is as follows:
That Bill C-32 be amended
(a)	by renumbering clause 35 as subclause 35(1); and
(b)	by adding immediately after the renumbered subclause 35(1) the
following:
"(2) A proclamation under subsection (1) shall be laid before the House of Commons not later than fifteen days after its issue, or, if Parliament is not then sitting, within the first fifteen days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting.
(3)	Where a proclamation has been laid before the House of Commons pursuant to subsection (2), a notice of motion in the House of Commons signed by ten members thereof and made in accordance with the rules of that House within seven days of the day the proclamation was laid before that House praying that the proclamation be revoked, shall be debated in that House at the first convenient opportunity within the four sitting days next after the day the motion in that House was made.
(4)	At fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the second sitting day following the commencement of consideration of a motion of which notice was given under subsection (3), or at such earlier time as the House of Commons is ready for the question, the Speaker shall put the question forthwith without further debate.
(5)	If the House of Commons resolves that the proclamation be revoked, this Division, except this section, shall cease to be in force with effect forthwith but without prejudice to the previous operation of this Division or anything duly done or suffered thereunder or any offence committed or any punishment incurred thereunder and without prejudice to the making of a further proclamation of a like nature to bring this Division into force."
In other words, if for a number of months the proclamation were in operation and subsequently ceased to be operative, any legal rights or obligations created in the interval would not be interfered with thereafter. This division of this part would be brought to an end. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour to move, on my behalf, this amendment to clause 35.


John Carr Munro: I so move.

April 28, 1975
Oil and Petroleum


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I have one question. We had some discussion about this question when dealing with another bill. Subclause (4) reads:
At fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the second sitting day following the commencement of consideration-
I would like it clear in my mind that this means the second sitting day must immediately follow the first day, and within a period of four days. It would not be competent for the government to initiate such a debate and then put it off for six months. Is it the intention that the debate must be concluded forthwith on the second sitting day following the commencement of consideration? If there is any doubt, I would like the word "consecutive" or some such word put in there. It is not that I do not trust the minister.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, it is certainly the intention that we have a two-day debate, or two days back to back. No other item of government business would be called in those two days in between any part of the motion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment is a decided improvement. It will mean that if the government decides to use the mandatory powers it has under clause 36 by virtue of the fact it has not been able to reach an agreement with the producing provinces, the government will be required to file a notice of its proclamation. If ten members wanted a debate, there would be a two-day debate. I think that is a good idea. If the government decides to use mandatory powers to set the price of a commodity as important to the economy as oil and, later, gas under clause 52, there ought to be some opportunity given for the House to express an opinion. Subclause (5) reads:
If the House of Commons resolves that the proclamation be revoked, this division, except this section, shall cease to be in force with effect forthwith but without prejudice to the previous operation of this division or anything duly done or suffered thereunder or any offence committed or any punishment incurred thereunder and without prejudice to the making of a further proclamation of a like nature to bring this division into force.
What about any future application of this division? Let us assume the government brings down a proclamation setting the price at $8.50 and that this proposition is defeated, the general feeling being that it is too high, whereupon the government decides to bring in a new proclamation setting the price at $7.50. Would that still be within the powers of the legislation, should this division have been annulled by virtue of the fact that the proclamation was negatived?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I must say the hon. member has raised a valid point. In effect, the division would have been in operation for a certain period of time, but it would be annulled from that point onward. Since the clause continues to operate, including the provision for proclamation, there could be a subsequent process in this regard which would, of course, then be subject to a further parliamentary decision.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is how I understand it.

Amendment (Mr. Munro, Hamilton East) agreed to. Clause as amended agreed to.


B. Keith Penner: Is it the wish of the committee to revert now to clause 5 which was allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


B. Keith Penner: Shall clause 5 carry?
Clause 5 agreed to.


B. Keith Penner: Is it the wish of the committee to revert to clause 36 which was allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


B. Keith Penner: Shall clause 36 carry?


Gerald William Baldwin: On division.
Clause 36 agreed to.


B. Keith Penner: Is it the wish of the committee to return to clause 52 as amended?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 52-Where no price agreement effective.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest to the committee that an amendment be made here of the same kind as we have just made with respect to clause 35, namely, an amendment to make it possible for the House, provided ten members wish to do so, to review any such proclamation within a stipulated period of time. The amendment is in substantially the same terms as the amendment to clause 35, though there are some slight changes in the wording. My colleague the Minister of Labour will move:
That Bill C-32 be amended
(a) by adding immediately after the renumbered subclause 52(2), the following:
(3)	A proclamation under subsection (2) shall be laid before the House of Commons not later than 15 days after its issue, or, if Parliament is not then sitting, within the first 15 days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting.
(4)	Where a proclamation has been laid before the House of Commons pursuant to subsection (3), a notice of motion in the House of Commons signed by ten members thereof and made in accordance with the rules of that House within seven days of the day the proclamation was laid before that House praying that the proclamation be revoked, shall be debated in that House at the first convenient opportunity within the four sitting days next after the day the motion in that House was made.
(5)	At 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the second sitting day following the commencement of consideration of a motion of which notice was given under subsection (4), or at such earlier time as the House of Commons is ready for the question, the Speaker shall put the question forthwith without further debate.
(6)	If the House of Commons resolves that the proclamation be revoked, this division, except this section, shall cease to be in force with effect forthwith but without prejudice to the previous operation of this division or anything duly done or suffered thereunder or any offence committed or any punishment incurred thereunder and without prejudice to the making of a further proclamation of a like nature to bring this division into force.


John Carr Munro: I so move.
April 28, 1975


B. Keith Penner: Shall the further amendment to clause 52 carry?
Amendment (Mr. Munro, Hamilton East) agreed to.


B. Keith Penner: Shall clause 52 as amended carry?


Gerald William Baldwin: On division.
Clause as amended agreed to.


B. Keith Penner: The committee will now return to the final clause, clause 53, as amended. Shall clause 53 as amended carry?
Clause 53 as amended agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, even those of us who favour this bill must face the fact that a great many amendments have been made to it, and in all fairness to the operation of this House I believe we should see the bill in its reprinted form before third reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: At the next sitting of the House, then.


OCEAN DUMPING CONTROL ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, April 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp (for the Minister of the Environment) that Bill C-37, to provide for the control of dumping of waste and other substances in the ocean, be read the second time and referred to the standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, while my voice holds out I propose to make a few further comments on this bill without in any way wishing to hold up its passage.
As I mentioned in the course of the debate which took place on April 22, this is legislation for which we have been waiting. It is good legislation. However, there are just a few comments that need to be made about the proposal. I know, for example, that the United States Congress considered a similar measure more than a year ago, in March, 1974. Why have we had to wait so long? The legislation has to do with an act of a United Nations organization, the final act being concluded in London in 1972. Therefore, I think it is appropriate that we ask ourselves here and now why it has taken 2V4 years to implement this enabling legislation. However, it is with us
Dumping at Sea
now; let us pursue it, make our comments on it and get it into committee.
During question period today I raised a question with the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) about the stock of clean-up equipment in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and off the coast of British Columbia. I asked the minister whether she was satisfied with the amount of material in stock and available. I suppose I should not have been surprised by her answer because, after all, she has to be satisfied with, and uncritical of, the work that goes on in her department; but I feel we should push more forcefully for this clean-up material.
In a starred question which I placed on the order paper in February, I asked about the stock of clean-up equipment in this particular area which right now is threatened with spills. There have been spills at Cherry Point. Indeed, my colleague for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) asked a question on Friday about the financial responsibility for a spill that occurred there a year ago. We have had spills further north in the area of my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) who is also concerned about these matters. If I got him outside the House, I fancy he would not be satisfied with the answer to the question which I put on the order paper and which is recorded. Although it was a starred question, it was asked to be reported as an order for return.
I find that in this whole area, through which pass hundreds of thousands of tons of oil each year, we have six skimmers that are designed to lick off the surface any oil that has happened to escape from a ship. There is no stock of absorbent material nearby, though we were assured in the answer that was tabled on March 12, 1975, that the commercial enterprises in the area are holding sufficient inventory. The reply is completely inadequate. The stock is not there; there is not sufficient material to contain a major spill in the area, should it occur in the near future.
Another reply that I received from the minister today upset me. The minister seemed to be satisfied with a decision to offload oil in Port Angeles to avoid a spill in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. I suggest that the minister take a look at a geography book; she would then realize that Port Angeles is at the southeastward end of the strait- away inland from the sea. You have to go through the Strait of Juan de Fuca to get to Port Angeles; so how, by offloading at Port Angeles, you prevent a spill in the Strait of Juan de Fuca I am at a complete loss to understand.
Another matter I want to take up with the minister in a question, but which I will record here, is this: Over the weekend a number of my colleagues from all sides of the House attended a meeting of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group in Quebec City to discuss the problems confronting our two nations. One problem raised was this very matter of a tanker route into the Strait of Juan de Fuca and on into the Strait of Georgia. As all hon. members know, I have been very anxious to keep these ships out at sea.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 28, 1975
Dumping at Sea


Donald W. Munro: I thank hon. members for their support. I shall go on urging this. However, this notion about Port Angeles was given a new and dangerous twist at this meeting, one that I had not known about before and which I want all hon. members of the House to know about. One of the representatives in the American House of Representatives, a member from the state of Washington who is responding in our exchange of views on this question, told me that the offloading facilities that are being proposed for the state of Washington in Port Angeles are to be built only in the event that the facilities at the Cherry Point refinery are increased. Meanwhile, all the oil that the present refinery capacity at Cherry Point can deal with that cannot come overland through the Trans-Mountain pipeline will be brought there by sea; so that we will have ships of Panamanian registry, Liberian registry, a lot of them crocks, coming down the Strait of Juan de Fuca and going up Rosario Strait to feed the refinery at Cherry Point. This is going to continue even when the new United States ships are built.
If the decision is taken-and it is a big "if"-to increase the refining capacity of Cherry Point, new facilities at Port Angeles will be constructed so ships can offload and the oil pipelined from there to the refineries at Cherry Point. I do not think that is satisfactory. I do not know whether the minister has been hoodwinked. Perhaps she has; perhaps all the facts have not been brought out during the course of these negotiations. In any event, I hope she will inquire more deeply into this matter and get it squared away. I hope I am wrong, but this was the clear, straightforward impression that I got from the representative of the House of Representatives last weekend.
The minister also indicated that she was happy about improvement of the guidance facilities being developed by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), and I think that is good. There is a lot more to be done in this area. We should have a starboard in-starboard out system in the straits so we can avoid head-on collisions between ordinary merchantmen. We should keep the tankers out and ordinary merchantmen should be made subject to a guidance system. One does not exist at the moment but one is, happily, in process of being developed. I hope the minister will urge the Minister of Transport to further this particular enterprise.
At page 5099 of Hansard I had something to say about definitions and the competence Canada would have under this law to control, regulate and prevent dumping. I have to use those words because some dumping is permitted under licence. I notice that, basically, page 3 of the bill concerns the territorial seas of Canada, the territorial seas 12 miles off the base line and the internal waters of Canada other than inland waters with the inland waters being defined as waters that are not internal waters. It is very confusing wording, but we must accept it.
One other term cropped up recently which has me puzzled. I am very pleased to see the minister appear for the continuation of this debate. I received a reply, I believe from the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), when we were talking about the strange saga of the ship Answer as it zigzagged its way through the ice from Montreal reaching for the high seas to avoid capture. This took place in

February. Part of the time the RCMP got close, then backed off, and in fact the RCMP went on board and were taken off because there was some question whether the ship was in Canadian waters. I do not believe, and I am sure from the look on the minister's face that she could not believe, it was outside Canadian waters. The term used in that particular instance was "historic waters". This is a good term, but I do not think it has much meaning in law. I think Canadian territorial seas or Canadian territorial waters, and the writ of Canadian law, runs out the St. Lawrence to the straight line, or 12 miles beyond the straight line, joining the southeastern tip of Newfoundland and the tip of Nova Scotia, with the exclusion of one little, strange anomaly off the coast of Newfoundland which centres at Saint Pierre and Miquelon. Those are Canadian territorial waters. This, again, is water within which this dumping legislation will apply.
But I ask myself why there is no specific provision in this bill to extend the jurisdiction into that area which Canada may very well be assigned, or claim-I am not sure which-as a result of the Law of the Sea Conference. In the 188 miles beyond the 12 miles, I hope Canada will have jurisdiction over matters of pollution. I hope that somewhere is this bill there is provision for the extension of these regulations into that area. I suspect there is; perhaps it is cloaked in some sort of vague terminology. I think this provision is probably in the bill, and if it is not I am sure the minister will want to make certain it is put in, because I am as satisfied as I can be that the Minister of the Environment is as keen as I am about this particular law and in ensuring that the regulations under which it will operate will have as broad an application as possible within national and international law in respect of the waters off Canada's shores.
The penalties are mentioned on page 10 of the bill. I think they are good; they are stiff penalties and I like them. They deserve consideration. Perhaps we ought to increase them to make it quite clear that Canada is serious when it imposes regulations governing the dumping of wastes in the territorial seas or any other part of Canada's waters over which Canada has jurisdiction. A fine of $100,000 is the penalty for an offence involving a substance specified in schedule I. A fine of $75,000 is the penalty where the offence involves a substance specified in schedule II. Then there is a fine of $50,000 where the offence involves any substance not specified in schedules I or II.
When speaking of dumping there is another aspect we should look into: this was discussed at Quebec. I refer to sluicing out the tanks of tankers once they have off loaded their cargo. The amount of oil which clings to the sides of the tanks inside a tanker varies, naturally, according to the viscosity of the product being carried. If it should be heavy oil, of course more will be left on the sides of the tanks and on the bottom. If it should be a volatile product, such as one of the refined products, it will probably disappear or there will be very little left.
The tankers involved in international trade which bring oil to our ports must be cleaned. If accounts are to be believed, as much as 2,000 tons of unrefined product can be left behind by a 200,000-ton tanker. This is a great deal of
April 28, 1975

oil. In these energy-poor days, 2,000 tons of oil is worthy of being saved.
Coming as you do, Mr. Speaker, from an inland constituency, you may not be aware that when tankers offload, go to sea and clean out their tanks, the 2,000 tons goes into the sea, whether it be 2,000 tons of petroleum or of crude oil. These are matters that were mentioned by Thor Hey-derdahl. He brought this to our attention years ago, just as Rachel Carson did in her book "The Silent Sea". We are getting close to having a silent sea these days.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is "Silent Spring".


Donald W. Munro: We cannot afford to have the resources of our seas diminished through lack of effort on our part. In my opinion, the sluicing of tankers will have to be arranged at the time of offloading, so that the material will be dumped into a holding or settling tank, the waste recovered, the water used to wash down the walls of the tanks filtered, cleaned and put into the sea as clean water. Not only would we in this way save another 2,000 tons, but we would be preserving the resources of the sea, protecting them from contamination and related dangers which are threatening them.
In my earlier contribution to this debate I think I mentioned some of my recent reading, including the book by Noel Mostert entitled "Super Ship". I cannot speak too highly of that book. It is a frightening and an awakening book. Those of us who are concerned about the world environment and our coastal environment should read it. It presents between its covers a new idea of the dangers and threats which these huge new tankers bring to our seas. It is unbelievable that ships of this size, weight and cargo-carrying capacity should be powered by a single screw. Their manoeuvrability is obviously limited for this reason; their ability to pull up is limited; the momentum that they have once they are under way is almost beyond the calculation of man. These are deep-draught vessels; they do not respond in the same way normal ships do to the buoyancy of the water. Most of an ordinary ship is above water, but most of a tanker is well below water; one sees very little of it. They do not ride out the waves as does a passenger liner.
In addition to all the other things that this bill will do, I hope the minister will ensure that proper rules are enforced to allow the admission of ships in international trade into our ports. She will have to involve the Minister of Transport in this. These ships must be properly built and properly crewed; they must be properly equipped and properly flagged, because one of the problems confronting us in this bill-as I am sure the minister recognizes-is the legal pursuit of the offender. It is the flag state that is responsible. There is one recourse. If the offender happens to belong to a flag line, when the next member of that line comes into your port you can arrest the ship and charge the company by holding it. But if it is an ordinary tramp that makes one call and then is off to the South Seas and you never see it again, there is very little chance of arresting the offender. So flags of convenience have become flags of great inconvenience in these days, and I
Dumping at Sea
would like to see them run out of our waters so that they will not endanger them.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: There are one or two further comments that I should like to make in conclusion. On page 15 of the bill I notice a most extraordinary provision in clause 20 which reads:
The minister may designate any person as an inspector or analyst for the purposes of this act.
I thought that all defeated Liberal candidates had been found employment. Here is a suggestion that if there are some around, the minister is planning to have them named as inspectors or analysts. Surely some qualifications should be required for inspectors or analysts other than "any person". We have people who have been in the pilotage service on our coasts. They would be appropriate persons for these positions. Let us qot have "any person", please. I think we might ask the minister to amend this bill, or perhaps we could bring in an amendment when we come to the committee stage, suggesting that it not be just "any person" but that qualified persons shall be nominated. I think we must be more specific in this respect.
On page 22 of the bill reference is made to regulations. Here again, as is so often the case, we see that the governor in council may make regulations for carrying out, for prescribing the form or for specifying the information required, etc. Since these regulations need not be incorporated in the act, surely another schedule to the bill would be appropriate in which the minima and maxima criteria might be listed for the regulations that will flow from this legislation. We have seen it in a number of committees. I remember that we were trying to obtain a draft of the regulations governing the use of small airports. I am sure they were ready, but we were not allowed to see them. Here we need to see a draft of the criteria that will be used in drawing up these regulations.
In the broadest terms, although I would like to say something about the international act, of which I managed to get a copy, we agree that this is legislation which should be on the statute books. We do not propose to delay it unduly, but merely to comment upon it and see that it gets to committee.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, before this bill is sent to committee I want to say a few words first to congratulate the minister for introducing it.
This bill has been expected and overdue for several years. Since I have been sitting in this House there has been talk of setting up an environment monitoring agency, and the speeches made here, the nice words spoken, never gave results. Today, the purpose of this bill is simply to establish a monitoring agency that will, hopefully, have powers proportionate to today's needs. It will be able to monitor, and impose fines to enforce compliance with the legislation. It is not enough to pass regulations, vote legislation. Compliance with the legislation is primordial, starting with merchant ships, small ships. Reference was made earlier to large cargos, oil tankers. In fact, we have been trying for years to deal with those ships that dump waste, as the hon. member who spoke before me said
5256

April 28, 1975
Dumping at Sea
earlier, as they proceed on their course. Of course, it is difficult to monitor all those ships, particularly when they leave territorial waters. I think it is as serious within as without the 12-mile limit because the effects of that dumping are necessarily felt. I think that agency will have to be able, either under an international agreement or otherwise, to extend its jurisdiction beyond those limits and monitor much further so as to be able, once again, to spot those who will contravene the legislation we are about to vote.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that if we do not take extreme measures to stop pollution which is growing ever worse- and navigation is necessarily on the increase-if we fail to do so to protect our waterways, I think, within a few years it will be the end of our vegetation, or our marine life.
Mr. Speaker, I would again like to draw the attention of the House to our new supercargoes plying our seas. The garbage they dump all along their passage is getting much greater.
When accidents happen to these ships, Canada will need water cleaning systems. The minister indicated that we have a few, but I believe they are not adequate. The government certainly will have to invest in this field. When human lives are involved, the main consideration is not money. We will have to meet today's requirements to protect the sea, animal life and the men who live from the sea.
We were told there are approximately six cleaning rigs to cope with emergencies arising out of shipping accidents. I am totally aware of the protection system extent on the Atlantic coast, but I believe that if the act is really going to be implemented, if it is going to be effective, modern apparatus will have to be constructed. If there is an accident, and accidents will happen in view of the present maritime traffic, up to date, maximum-capacity systems will have to be provided.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to discuss the bill longer than needed, because it is going to be analyzed in committee, and members of the committee will do an adequate job. It is my hope that this will not be an ineffective statute on our books. It is stated the ministry will be entitled to name responsible people on the board. This is the government's responsibility, but I hope those people will be most competent. I hope, as the hon. member said before me, that these nominations will be based on qualification rather than political considerations, in order that the appointees may act directly on any ship and on any offence. I believe this will be the best way to protect the Canadian people.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister for introducing Bill C-37, because I feel that this is one more armament in our arsenal to protect the environment. Perhaps I am jumping the gun, but I must also congratulate the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) on his very reasoned and intelligent remarks regarding the threat of tankers off the west coast of British Columbia. It gives me great pleasure to discuss this matter on a non-partisan basis because I feel that many members of this House are concerned about the environment and especially about the

dumping of waste and other substances into the ocean. I believe the government has gone a long way toward protecting the environment, particularly the ocean, under bills such as C-25 which is now before committee, under the Canada Shipping Act, the Fisheries Act and now with the introduction of Bill C-37.
I am very pleased that besides fines-which I agree are high and which will act as a deterrent, or should act as a deterrent because $100,000 is a large sum of money for a large company, a small company, a large fleet or a small fleet-there are detention, seizure and forfeiture clauses. These clauses bring a double edge to this bill and I feel that the deterrents are adequate. In the past there has been criticism that some legislation has not had enough teeth, but I think hon. members will agree that there are very strong deterrents in this bill both of a financial nature and, as I have said, the detention and seizure clauses.
I am concerned that in the Arctic there are situations where there has been no legislation to cover dumping, not only of waste in the ocean but also on the ice. I would like to congratulate the minister for including in the bill provisions with respect to dumping wastes on the ice. Hon. members realize that the Arctic is a very important part of our country, and because of the delicate ecology, there has to be special legislation such as ice hazard coverage to protect this important part of Canada. I feel that the scheduling of prohibited and restricted substances in Bill C-37 is commendable. There can be no question as to which substances can or cannot be put into the ocean from ships and aircraft because there are schedules laid down and they are there to be followed.
I express only one concern. This is not in regard to Bill C-37 but the shipping of oil from the Prudhoe Bay area in the Alaskan fields to the refineries in Washington. I believe there has been a long, hard fight by hon. members presently in this House as well as by former members to find a means of transporting oil from Alaska to American refineries. I understand the problem with which the United States is faced. Since it is deficient in oil, it is using every means possible to explore for resources in the United States and Alaska, to have them available as soon as possible and to inject them into the economy as soon as possible. In view of the world price of oil the United States is facing a tremendous balance of payments deficit because it is not self-sufficient in oil. Notwithstanding this argument, I feel that there must be some other method of transporting this oil to the American market. We in Canada have suggested several alternatives. We have considered the Mackenzie Valley. The Premier of British Columbia has suggested building railroads to bring oil down from the North Slope through the Northwest Territories and into Alberta.
I suggest that the government should do everything in its power to find an alternative method of bringing this oil down to the American refineries. If it is environmentally better to move it by a landlocked route, then we should do everything in our power to make sure that is the way it moves. I know, as does the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, that if these supertankers go down the coast of British Columbia, one day there will be spills. I do not
April 28, 1975

think there is any doubt about that. The only question is when it will occur, because the ocean off the west coast is known to be treacherous. There are many severe storms in winter and some squalls during the summer, so it is only a question of time until one of the supertankers comes apart. We should try our best to prevent such destruction to the west coast of British Columbia. Our ecology cannot stand this type of damage. I support the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich in his effort to find another way, but the answer is not to extend wharfage at certain Washington ports. We should be trying to keep it out of those ports. It behooves us to find a better environmental path for oil coming from Alaska. A landlocked route would not destroy the ecology for the fishing industry which is so important to British Columbia, nor the beaches which are so important to the pleasure of our citizens. I think Bill C-37 is going in the right direction, Mr. Speaker, and I support it. Let us hope we can find an alternate route for the tankers.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to make a few remarks on the bill now before the House. After studying the bill and reading the comments of members who have spoken, I cannot help but think of a 1,000-year old fish travelling the oceans of the world. Imagine the tales it could tell! It would tell about the advancement of our technology, and the advancement of our ocean pollution. It would probably tell of the agonies of the thousands of fish that have died as a result of the man-made pollution of recent years. Not too long ago, in a statement to the press, Jacques Costeau said that unless the governments of the world took steps immediately, the seas of the world would be dead within 25 years. That is a short span in which to witness the total destruction of marine life. What a long time it has taken to reach the present state of pollution, and what a short time there is left to rectify matters.
I should like to move on to discuss the content of this bill, Mr. Speaker. Basically, it is a good bill. The other day the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) unintentionally made a spoonerism when he referred to something "seeping through a leakhole". I think this is a very accurate description of some of the clauses in this bill. I am particularly concerned about one matter that has been drawn to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) and others, and that is the minister's authority to appoint any person to the duties and responsibilities of an inspector.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is the catch.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Yes, that is the catch. I am almost, but not quite, convinced that this might be an abuse and I think it is incumbent upon the government to alter the clause so that it will not be an abuse. The other matter that gives me considerable concern is the schedules. Schedule I refers to high-level radioactive substances. I think it is up to the government to spell out precisely what a high-level of radioactivity is. I hope the experts can resolve this question in committee. It is not spelled out here, and it should be if the bill is be implemented properly.
Schedule II lists prohibited substances and includes chemicals pertaining to the mining industry and smelting. I know the minister is concerned because provincial laws
Dumping at Sea
are different and some are weak, but as things stand these industries are in a position to dump their wastes from the land into the oceans, rivers, lakes and streams. The purpose of the bill is to control dumping in oceans, lakes, rivers and streams of waste from ships, platforms and aircraft; but there is nothing in Canadian law to control the dumping of these substances from the shore. This could result in calamity. I suggest to the minister that while some provincial laws may pertain to these substances, the control should be federal, it should be all-encompassing and it should spell out the details.
The bill refers to allowance for dumping in times of danger to life, ship or aircraft; but I do not see any reference to accidental dumping. There is no indication of the action the department could take in a situation such as now exists off the coast of British Columbia. In British Columbia there are railway cars loaded with chlorine. Chlorine is stored at a depth of so many thousand feet. That chlorine will seep into the ocean. There is no indication as to how this bill will prevent such an eventuality. Accidents at sea happen, and will continue to happen. This is "after the fact" legislation, Mr. Speaker. This bill ought to deal with problems we shall need to face if there is accidental dumping.
I support the position of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) who is concerned about what will happen on the west coast if oil tankers carry their cargoes down that coast. Nothing frustrates the people of British Columbia, or all of Canada, more than knowing that oil will be carried along the west coast of Canada down to the United States. I have never heard a greater degree of frustration expressed than has been expressed on this issue in recent years by the people of British Columbia. I endorse what the hon. member said: some other way must be found. We can only help our ecology and environment by the establishment of a pipeline to guarantee supplies to the United States. I see the minister nodding her head in agreement. I know, she knows and every member of this House knows that her hands are tied, that she has little to say about the ocean route of these tankers.
Inevitably, despite man's modern technology, despite the efforts of all governments to secure safe passage for ships, catastrophes will occur. Considering the enormous volumes of oil which tankers now carry, any spill may be considered a catastrophe. We may hope that winds and ocean currents will take the oil offshore, but that only solves part of the problem as the pollution will show up somewhere else. Every member of this House will support the minister's efforts to resolve the difficulty. True, I am not speaking precisely on the terms of the bill except in so far as it applies to ocean dumping.
There are those in this House who are concerned about what will happen if a west coast oil tanker route is firmly established. They have voiced their concern in the past and will voice it in future. The bill refers to emergencies, to risks unacceptable to human life and human health, but it provides for no solutions. I find that strange. What are those risks to human life and health which will not lend themselves to solution? Why was such language included in the bill in the first place? When does the department imagine it would be invoked?
29557-57%

April 28, 1975
Adjournment Debate
Some time ago a newspaper article about Great Lakes pollution upset me so much that I put a question on the order paper which asked the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) the following question: What is the estimated tonnage of human waste that will be dumped in the next five years from vessels plying the Great Lakes? The response was that estimated quantity of human sewage, including the usual three gallons of flush-water per person per day, is seven million tons for the next five years. I then asked: To what degree, in percentages, does the dumping of human waste from such vessels contribute to the pollution of the Great Lakes? In other words, how great will be the proportion, in percentage terms, of human pollution dumped from vessels plying the Great Lakes in relation to the total volume of pollution which will be dumped into the Great Lakes in the next five years? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is .3 of 1 per cent.
On that basis we are talking about 2!4 billion tons of pollutants which will be dumped in the Great Lakes in the next five years. The discharge regulations under the legislation may resolve this problem in five years, but I suggest that will be too late. I urge the earlier resolution of this problem; let it be done before five years. Why should we allow this condition to continue? The cost of curing it is really not that great.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is the minister rising on a point of order?


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hn. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Housing-Neighbourhood improvement and residential rehabilitation assistance programs-request for increased funds; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Air Canada-Possible inclusion of Winnipeg finance branch in terms of inquiry; the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie)-Social Security-Suggested increase in old age pensions-government position.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. John Wise (Elgin) moved:: That in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce a measure to entitle self-employed farmers and fishermen, for the purpose of receiving benefits under the Canada Pension Plan, to average their incomes over a five-year period.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to place before the House a motion which I attempted to introduce some time ago in the form of a private member's bill. Upon receipt of some good advice from the House officials that the substance of my desire and concern might be regarded as a money bill, thus contravening the rules and spirit of this institution, I did not proceed in that manner but, rather, elected this opportunity in House business to express my concern.
The motion, which is self-explanatory, would assist a percentage of farmers and fishermen in this country and would remove one of the many difficulties these Canadians suffer because of a frequently fluctuating year by year income. If members will read through the volume of minutes of the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Bill C-136, the Canada Pension Plan bill, 1964 to 1965, on page 1163, appendix A15, they will see an excellent statement on this subject presented to the committee at that time by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The last paragraph in the federation's statement deals with this situation very accurately. It reads:
One other specific point we wish to raise has to do with the calculation of the pensionable income of self-employed persons. Section B of the bill seems to us to define income according to the terms of the Income Tax Act. We take it that this means that when a farmer adopts averaging, then his averaged income will be, also, his income for pension purposes. If this is not so the act should be revised to make it so. With the extreme variability of many farm incomes, there will be many farmers whose income will fluctuate above and below the maximum pensionable earnings figure. If averaging, for pension purposes, is not permitted, the farmer who experiences such fluctuations will certainly end up with a considerably smaller pension.
In the process of preparing this presentation I was advised that considerable assurance was given to the federation, if not publicly then privately, that this inequity would be dealt with. However, if one reads the information booklet for the self-employed produced by the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, by authority of the minister, on page 3 one finds that farmers and fishermen, who are dealt with in like terms in the Income Tax Act, will contribute on their actual self-employed earnings and cannot average their income for Canada Pension Plan purposes. On page 3 of the booklet "Information for the Self-Employed", it reads:
A farmer or fisherman will contribute on his actual self-employed earnings and cannot average his income for Canada Pension Plan purposes. Losses incurred in other years are not deductible in computing self-employed earnings for a year.
April 28, 1975

The Canada Pension Plan which began to operate on January 1, 1966, requiring every self-employed person residing in Canada between the ages of 18 and 70 who has self-employed earnings amounting to $800 during the year, is certainly a milestone in Canada's social security program. I realize there have been a number of amendments and regulatory changes since that time. I have a list of them. However, in order to save time I will not go into them. Perhaps my case might best be presented by an actual illustration of an example I dealt with recently. The particular individual on whose behalf I have been working and will continue to work will be referred to as Mr. X.
In the year 1966, Mr. X's income was $78.17. Consequently, his Canada Pension Plan payment was nil. His income in 1967 was $664.34. Again, his contribution was nil. In 1968, his income was $2,849.74. This qualified him to pay $80.99 into the Canada Pension Plan. His income for 1969 was $3,037.18 and his Canada Pension Plan contribution $87.74. For the year 1970, his income was $5,637.19 and his Canada Pension Plan contribution $169.20. In 1971, his income was $2,355.38 and his contribution to the plan was $60.40. In 1972 he received interest income only of $1,054.48; consequently, he was not permitted to contribute to the plan. In 1973, he received interest income only of $905.65; therefore, he again was not eligible to contribute to the plan.
If you examine the foregoing closely, you will recognize the very real hardship illustrated for Mr. X. Because the averaging provision is not allowed, only four years of contributions were made. It is not the five-year qualifying period that I dispute but, rather, the absence of the averaging provision in the Canada Pension Plan Act. I could not let the opportunity pass while speaking on this particular case without making some reference to another difficulty, namely, that income of an investment nature such as dividends and, in Mr. X's case, interest on bonds, are excluded from self-employed earnings.
In 1971, Mr. X became seriously ill. He relies on a dialysis machine for survival and is confined strictly to a wheel-chair. Consequently, because of the present terms of the Canada Pension Plan he is unable to secure disability benefits from the plan. Numerous examples could be cited, particularly by those engaged in both the farming and fishing industries whose incomes for one year are below the minimum and indeed are above the maximum the very next year. I am certain that much could be said against the Income Tax Act, but that act does recognize this very problem and has a provision for averaging. If the government could develop some incentives, establish some stability and create some effective long-term programs and policies in these two basic and important food producing segments of our economy, this problem would be greatly overcome. Unfortunately, I do not see this happening.
I sincerely appreciate this opportunity to present my motion to the government. I earnestly request that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and his colleagues give equally serious consideration, and some assurance, that at an early opportunity the Canada Pension Plan Act will be amended to overcome this inequity, in an effort to develop and improve the Canada
Canada Pension Plan
Pension Plan to the paramount position that not only the minister but all Canadians desire.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, some might be surprised that a member representing an urban constituency should wish to speak on a motion which appears to relate to the interests of rural and seafaring communities. Nevertheless, I assure the House that those of us who live in urban communities do recognize the difficulties which farmers have had to face. We acknowledge that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was right when he said that Canadians have enjoyed good food at a cost lower than that which people in most of the other nations of the world have to pay.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: The farmers have enjoyed the lowest incomes, too!


David Michael Collenette: In fact, I believe Canadians spend the smallest proportion of their disposable incomes on food. I am glad to speak on this motion for another reason. It has to do with the Canada Pension Plan, and in York East a large segment of the population is made up of people who have retired or who are nearing the age of retirement. Of course, they are interested in anything which has to do with the Canada Pension Plan or old age security.
Essentially, what this motion proposes is that selfemployed farmers and fishermen be allowed to use the Income Tax Act's five-year averaging technique to determine their annual contribution under the Canada Pension Plan. The basic assumption, then, must be that what makes sense for the Income Tax Act also makes sense for the Canada Pension Plan. There are some serious flaws, though, in making such an assumption.
The Income Tax Act works in year-tight compartments and provides that the rate of tax depends directly on the amount of annual income. While the Income Tax Act does provide special averaging arrangements to modify tax inequities created by wide fluctuations in income, the application of the averaging arrangements does not change the one-year time dimension. The Canada Pension Plan, on the other hand, works on a career lifetime basis; that is to say, benefits are based on the contributor's earnings averaged over his entire working lifetime. In other words, the CPP is not based on one year of earnings, as with the Income Tax Act, nor even on a five-year average of income, but is upon earnings through the participant's whole career. This, of course, means a potential 47-year average; that is, from age 18 to age 65.
This averaging feature has been part of the plan since its inception and was specifically designed to smooth out wide differences in annual earnings and to produce a benefit which bears a relationship to career experience. Another significant point of difference between the two acts is that under the CPP fluctuating incomes do not affect the participant's rate of contribution. An example may demonstrate these points more clearly: an individual may have earnings in five successive years of $1,600 in the first year, $7,400 in the second, $4,500 in the third, $1,600 in the fourth and $7,400 in the fifth. Tax payments can be very different if the earnings are taken as the average annual rate of $4,500 rather than as the actual figures.

April 28, 1975
Canada Pension Plan
This, of course, is the very purpose of the special averaging provisions of the Income Tax Act, and presumably why the motion proposes the same technique for the Canada Pension Plan.
However, such an arrangement is not necessary for the CPP: under the plan, the contribution rate is the same whether actual or average earnings are used. Then, for CPP benefit purposes, these five years of earnings will automatically be averaged along with all other years in the contributory period and so, apart from the updating of earnings feature of the benefit formula, the year to year fluctuation in earnings' level will be negated. In order to appreciate just how the CPP benefit formula does affect various earnings patterns, it is useful to examine the formula a little further. The general formula for a retirement pension-which is also the basis for the earnings-related component of a survivor's or disability pension-is 25 per cent of the participant's updated earnings, averaged over the period during which he was required to contribute to the plan. Before taking the percentage, the following steps are performed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


David Michael Collenette: I thank hon. members for their encouragement. It is always nice to be encouraged at this hour. As I was saying, the following steps are performed: First, the individual's contributory period is established; this is generally from January, 1966-or reaching age 18, whichever is later-to the month before the retirement pension begins, (which is age 65 or later); second, the individual's actual contributory earnings for each month in his contributory period are updated. This updating or adjustment operation is designed to give a current value to the actual contributory earnings and involves restating the actual earnings in terms of the average of the maximum earnings levels under the plan for the year of retirement and the two preceding years. Third, the total updated earnings are averaged over the individual's contributory period.
If the fluctuations in an individual's earnings are such that each year's earnings are between the yearly basic exemption-the amount to be earned before contributions can be made-and the yearly earnings ceiling, the averaging and updating processes which are carried out before the benefit is established will smooth out the fluctuations which throughout the career are in this range. Because most people fall into this category, the net effect of the proposal would be a great deal of effort to no real avail.
The plan in its original design also provided for an adjustment in this earnings averaging process to allow for years when earnings would be very low, or even below the basic exemption. The first such special provision applies to the contributory period, where the plan provides that a participant's contributory period is reduced if he receives a disability pension under the Canada or Quebec Pension Plan, that is, the averaging period does not include any month during which the participant received a CPP or QPP disability pension.
There are, in addition, two provisions dealing specifically with periods of low earnings which come into play on January 1, 1976, upon completion of the retirement pen-

sion transition period. First, an individual who continues to work past 65 and continues to contribute to the plan will, if it is to his advantage, have his earnings for the months after he reaches age 65 replace lower earnings for any months before he reached age 65. In other words, high earnings are substituted for low earnings, and this is clearly to the contributors' advantage; it is obviously better to substitute $6,000 for $1,000 than to average the two. In addition, an individual can drop out up to 15 per cent of the remaining months of his contributory period; this drop-out provision is, of course, applied to the months of lowest earnings. An overriding condition attached to both these provisions is that they cannot serve to reduce the contributory period below ten years.
As an example of the combined effect of these two provisions, we can take the case of an individual who comes under the plan in 1966 and retires at the age of 66 in 1977, and who during that 12-year period has experienced two years with no earnings and ten years at maximum earnings. Because he contributed to the plan for a year after reaching the age of 65, thqt year of maximum earnings replaces one of the years of zero earnings. The dropout feature is then applied and this provision serves to eliminate the other year of zero earnings. In this hypothetical example, then, the operation of the over age 65 earnings substitution and the drop-out provision mean that the individual will receive a maximum pension, even though he had two years of nil earnings during his working career. The elimination of low earnings via the dropout provisions means, in the example, a 100 per cent pension rather than an 83 per cent pension; if low earnings were not dropped but diluted via an averaging process, the result would not be a 100 per cent pension.
To summarize this point, the career-long averaging of earnings provided for in the plan and the special earnings adjustment features to provide for years of low or nil earnings mean that by far the majority of different patterns of earnings have already been provided for in the plan. Adoption of the motion would involve the contributor in a great deal of record keeping and complex analysis which would likely result in no real advantage. Indeed, exercise of the option could work to his disadvantage.
One worrisome pattern that became so with the new technique for accelerating increases in the plan's yearly earning ceiling is where the individual has a number of years below the annual basic exemption. That is, up until January 1, 1975, an employee had to earn over 12 per cent of the annual earnings ceiling in order to contribute to the plan in that year. The self-employed contributor had to earn over l'/a times the basic exemption before he could make a CPP contribution for that year. With the earnings ceiling increasing at the rate of 12 V2 per cent a year, these qualifying formulae could well have kept a number of people from contributing to the plan in respect of low income years.
Accordingly, when the new technique for establishing the annual earnings ceiling was introduced, the plan was also changed to have the basic exemption dropped to 10 per cent of the earnings ceiling and the extra one-third threshold for self-employed contributors deleted. Without these changes, a self-employed person would have had to
April 28, 1975

have earnings in excess of $1,000 in order to make valid CPP contributions in 1975. As it is, the 1975 basic exemption for both employee and self-employed contributors is $700. With all these plan design features, it is hard to understand the reason for proposing the further-and, indeed, perhaps unnecessary-linking of two statutes when each on its own is already extremely complex, and particularly when there are fundamental dissimilarities both in the time dimension contemplated and the rate structure.
Even if the desirability of this mixed marriage could be established, the motion does not treat of some very important particulars. For example, under the Income Tax Act all forms of income are included in the averaging formula. The Canada Pension Plan, on the other hand, covers only earnings from employment. What adaptation, if any, is to be made? Another question unanswered is the timing for the exercising of an option in favour of a five-year averaging. The CPP already provides for an averaging period that ranges from 10 to 47 years: at what point in this averaging period should a further averaging be allowed? The best time is obviously at the time the benefit is being calculated, but a proper choice could not be made without a careful examination of up to 47 years of earnings and a full understanding of the way earnings are averaging and adjusted, and then the decision could involve a reconciliation of all the contributions made over those 47 years. On the other hand, any choice made before retirement time would of necessity be a blind choice, and accordingly there would seem to be reason for remedies when an unwise choice resulted in either overpaid benefits or the loss of benefits altogether.
In summary, the proposition contained in the motion is built on a faulty assumption of the empathy between the Income Tax Act and the CPP. It does not take into account the earnings averaging and adjustment provision already in the plan. It would involve a complicated effort on the part of both the individual contributor and the plan administrators. Finally, it would have no real effect in the great majority of cases and indeed could operate to the disadvantage of some. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think I have given just reasons why I oppose this motion.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like very much to compliment the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) for bringing forward this motion today. He did not have to speak very long: he only spoke ten minutes because his presentation was so realistic and logical.


An hon. Member:: Say that with a straight face.


George H. Whittaker: The hon. member asks, can I say that with a straight face? I certainly can say it with a straight face, especially after the presentation we have just heard, lasting a full 20 minutes; a dissertation, you might call it, written almost right out of book by some city slicker and read by the same, not really knowing or understanding the problems of the farmers. There is an old saying that farmers live poor and die rich. But that saying is very fast changing and very fast leaving, because not only are they living poor but they are dying poor, especially when we see the rate of inflation that we have in Canada today, and
Canada Pension Plan
the government opposite doing very little or nothing about
it.
When you talk about averaging for such things as the CPP for farmers, it is realistic. It is realistic when you know and understand what farmers go through, the differences in their earnings year by year, and when you know that they cannot always make a good earning. One year you could be in almost a loss position and the next year you could be doing very well.
There is not much stability in agriculture in Canada today, although I am happy to say that our government in British Columbia is trying to put some stability into the industry-much more than this federal government is doing. It is because of this that we have to ask for such things as averaging for the farmers with respect to CPP.
I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is going to support this motion. Not like he did last Friday, when the government opposite came in and challenged a motion that would allow people who had overseas service to count it as presence in Canada so they could get an old age pension. When this motion was brought into the House it was challenged by the government opposite because it was going to a money bill. Funny money, I say. There was not much to it, but I was very sorry to see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre saw fit to support their challenge. I am sure he will not see anything that will cost the government any money in this motion today. I sit here quite often when private members' motions and bills come up, and listen to the crocodile tears from the members opposite.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


George H. Whittaker: Shame is right. The hon. member speaks of shame. I say "shame" when they cry crocodile tears and then spend the remaining time talking out a bill.


An hon. Member:: Who is talking now?


George H. Whittaker: I shall not take long. I am sure this motion will not be talked out and will pass. I shall not take much more time because I do not want to see too many crocodile tears but rather some action. I want to see the members opposite pass this motion rather than give us dissertations such as the last 20 minute dissertation from the hon. member opposite. These farmers are the backbone of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George H. Whittaker: They are not receiving any help from this government. The hon. member asks about the Stabilization Act. It is a disaster. I suggest that he take a look at what the provinces are contemplating doing about stabilization for farmers. He should understand what is going on because the federal government is not placing the proper base under farming. So, as I said, I support very strongly this motion of the hon. member for Elgin and hope that members opposite will not spend the next 25 minutes or longer talking it out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I did not rise on a point of order when the hon.

April 28, 1975
Canada Pension Plan
member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) was speaking because I realized I could probably get the floor before very long. However, I want to object to his suggestion that because I took a stand on a point of order on Friday I was therefore against the substance of his bill which related to the Old Age Security Act. He knows very well that I support 100 per cent the point he is trying to win, both in his private member's motion and in his private member's bill. I believe there is support on all sides of the House and that we will win the point very soon. I hardly think it is appropriate to say that one's stand on a point of order reflects where he stands on the substance of a measure.
I wish to commend the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) for bringing down this motion and for raising the discussion we are having this afternoon. I must say, however, that the problem is one which calls for a very thorough study. I wish to say also that it is a problem that applies not only to self-employed farmers and fishermen. I hope, therefore, that this debate this afternoon will provoke more study of the whole question of the losses some people can sustain under the Canada Pension Plan because of years of low income or of no income at all. Essentially that is the point raised by the hon. member for Elgin. He has applied it to self-employed farmers and fishermen, but it applies to many others as well, and it raises the whole problem we have not yet solved concerning what to do about women in the home and others who are not in the labour force. The two groups to which the hon. member refers include people who receive incomes in some years and do not receive incomes in other years and who are affected by not being covered by the Canada Pension Plan at certain times, but there are many others as well.
The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary took an appropriate crack at the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette), but I believe the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary, before he goes too far with that, should study the workings of the Canada Pension Plan. It is true that there is an averaging characteristic in it by virtue of the fact that the pension one receives depends upon the level of pensionable income in the last three years before he retires. That level is applied to the percentage of the YMPE one has had through his working years. I suggest it is a fair question to ask which is more beneficial to a self-employed farmer or fisherman, to have an averaging of earnings when he is 35 or 40 years of age, or to have some improvement in the formula with regard to the pension he will receive when he retires at age 65. So I agree with the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary that this is not something to be talked out because I hope the very discussion of this resolution will highlight the fact that, good as the Canada Pension Plan is, there are improvements which need to be made to it.
The hon. member for York East referred to the drop-out provision which, after one has been in the plan for ten years, is 15 per cent of the months or years one is in the plan. I remind the hon. member that when this bill was before the special committee to which it was referred, I believe in 1965, in that committee we made a very strong recommendation that that 15 per cent should be 20 per cent. I think that should be looked at again in the light of experience. Indeed the provision of 20 per cent in respect

of drop-out years instead of 15 per cent might meet this problem in respect of self-employed farmers and selfemployed fishermen even better than the system of averaging their incomes. At any rate I am attempting to outline my contention that, good as the Canada Pension Plan is, there are improvements to be made to it.
The hon. member for Elgin is on the beam when he says an area which must be looked at is the loss suffered by some individuals because they have years of low income. But, as I said a moment ago, this raises almost immediately the whole question of housewives and all persons, male or female, in or out of the home, who have years in which they are not covered by the Canada Pension Plan. I know that quite a bit of thought has been given to this. I know that papers have been presented to various committees and by various committees, but the answer does not yet seem to have been produced.
I have suggested, two or three times in the past year or so, that a closer relationship between the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act might be thought out. Maybe we should provide that for years when contributions are not made to the Canada Pension Plan, there should be a special bonus with respect to old age security. I hope something like this will be considered carefully. I shall keep my promise not to take very long. I think the whole problem has to be thought through, and that we must find ways and means to protect all our people so that they might get the best possible benefit under the Canada Pension Plan. This includes farmers and fishermen, but also many others, married women in particular. In the sense that this motion raises this whole issue this afternoon I commend the hon. member for Elgin for having put it down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Mr. Denis Ethier (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Merci, monsieur l'Orateur. I should like to tell the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) that it will not be a city slicker addressing you. On the contrary it will be one who represents a rural agricultural riding and is very proud of it.

If I am eager to take part in this debate on the motion introduced by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), it is in part because, as the elected representative of a rural riding, I make it a point to intervene whenever the future security of my constituents is at stake, as it is the case with Bill C-33, and in part to indicate the areas of possible injustice which this motion contains.
There is no doubt the hon. member for Elgin moved this motion with the very best intentions, perhaps even for the purpose of helping a limited group of individual fishermen and farmers. If such is the case, I should have liked to hear the hon. member specify the particular groups of farmers and fishermen who are the object of his motion, even to the point of identifying each and every one of them by names.
Mr. Speaker, we are being urged to change the administration of the Canada Pension Plan to benefit all Canadian farmers and fishermen. I am sure most of these are
April 28, 1975

quite satisfied with the Canada Pension Plan as it exists now.
When the plan was first introduced in 1965, the reaction from the Canadian public was generally favourable, as is the case for all legislation submitted under a Liberal administration. As I was saying, the pension plan was very well received, because Canadians were quick to understand that when their age fo retirement will arrive, they will proudly claim their pension.
I said that they will proudly claim their pension, because they will not be asking for social security allowances or financial assistance from their government, they will simply be asking for what is theirs, a pension that they shall have paid for under the Canada Pension Plan. After ten years of existence, it could be, as was expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that some changes might prove necessary, but I am sure that if amendments or changes are made, they will only improve the legislation. Certain changes have been brought to the legislation in recent years, and I must reiterate that this was accomplished once again thanks to the sound administration of a Liberal government.
First of all, the number of Canadians able to contribute to the retirement plan was considerably increased. Second, the amount of monthly benefits was raised and it is estimated that by 1980, upon retirement a citizen will be able to receive as much as $250 a month in addition to his old age security, and even as much as $350 a month by the year 1985. Third, citizens aged 65 to 70 will be able to continue to work, if they so wish, while continuing to receive their retirement pension from the pension plan.
In studying the motion before us one must single out the possible inequities in Bill C-33. For instance, the motion proposes that for the purpose of receiving benefits, selfemployed farmers and fishermen be entitled to average their income over a five-year period. In essence it seems that the proposition is predicated on the belief that it would be to the individual's advantage under the CPP if the plan were to incorporate certain of the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The underlying assumptions then must be that the implications of wide fluctuations of income are the same for both acts, and that the effects of the Income Tax Act provisions would remedy any inequities under the CPP. There are, however, strong reasons for suspecting that neither the implications nor the effects of the remedy are similar, and indeed the reverse can be the case.
For example, because of the way income tax rates are developed, an even pattern of earnings is nearly always more beneficial to the individual taxpayer. The same principle does not apply to the CPP contributor. To illustrate let me point out that the best CPP earnings for the years 1973, 1974 and 1975 are, respectively, $5,600, $6,600 and $7,400, that is, maximum earnings in each year. If we were to consider the average earnings for these years, that is $6,533, the individual's income tax position would be good, but he would not benefit under the CPP at all since his earnings for 1973 would be too high and would fall below the maximum for 1974 and 1975.
Canada Pension Plan
The second way in which identification of the two acts falls down is in the upper limits of each or, rather, the rising annual maximum earnings ceiling under the CPP as compared to the indefinite ceiling for income tax purposes. For the CPP ceiling the absolute amount of earnings in any given year is not as important as the relationship of those earnings to the CPP ceiling for that year. For example, earnings of $5,000 in 1966 have greater value for purposes of a CPP benefit calculation than earnings of $7,300 in 1975, because the $5,000 equals the 1966 earnings ceiling.
Yet another factor in assessing whether adoption of the motion would provide advantages to contributors has to do with the minimum contributory qualifications for some of the plan benefits. That is, just one valid contribution entitles a participant to a retirement pension under the plan. However, in order to provide for the plan's other benefits, an individual must make valid contributions to the plan for a certain minimum period of time. In order for a survivor's pension, orphans' benefits or a lump sum benefit to be paid under the plan, it must be established that the deceased contributor made valid contributions to the plan for a minimum period, which ranges from three to ten years, depending upon when the contributor became subject to the plan.
So far as disability pensions and the disabled contributor's child's benefit are concerned, the minimum period of contributions in order to qualify for these benefits ranges from five to ten years, with a further recency qualification that five of those contribution years must be within the ten years before the onset of the disability.
With these qualifications in mind, consider the situation of a self-employed farmer or fisherman whose annual earnings might be $1,000 in each of the first two years, and who had no further earnings for the next three years. Under present law he would have contributory earnings for two of the five years. However, if his earnings were to be averaged over the five-year period, he could not be considered as having contributory earnings in any of the five years. This loss of contributory years could be critical in terms of qualifying for either disability or survivor benefits.
This is all by way of demonstrating that, for some of the key provisions of the act, it may be crucial to preserve a given year as one in which contributions are made, regardless of the level of the earnings in that year, so long as the figure is higher than the annual basic exemption.
Both the Income Tax Act and the CPP recognize that the most usual earnings curve is one which starts low and ends high, yet both also provide special arrangements for deviations from this usual pattern. There is, however, a necessary distinction to be made in these special arrangements. Because the CPP operates over each participant's whole career, the special provisions for fluctuations in income are applied generally and are not restricted to a given class or classes. Moreover, because the special CPP arrangements serve to ameliorate many different variations in earnings patterns, there may be little use in superimposing the averaging arrangement provided in the Income Tax Act. The superimposing of the five year averaging option would complicate the plan, which is not now known for its simplicity, and would demand the talents of
5264

April 28, 1975
Canada Pension Plan
an actuarially trained prophet to decide whether or not the individual's best interests would be served if indeed the option were exercised.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this motion would not serve the best interests of our farmers and fishermen mentioned in this motion, but would indeed complicate matters for them. Representing as I do a farming community, I cannot support such a motion.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by commending the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) for raising this very important question. It is important to keep reviewing the very complex Canada Pension Plan to ensure that people are not penalized for periods of low earnings, and that as people age they receive the maximum benefits.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) chose to try to make a distinction between the needs of senior citizens in urban areas and in rural areas. I am sure he is well aware that major changes in the Canada Pension Plan are only made by agreement with the provinces, and that they require the consent of two thirds of the provinces having two thirds of the population before they can be implemented. Experience generally seems to show that what is a problem for one section of the community may also be a problem for another. For example, the change which came into effect January last which deleted a special provision which had applied to self-employed persons, that is, the requirement that they must earn at least one and one third of the Year's Basic Exemption to qualify as a contributor, was an amendment which certainly benefitted fishermen, farmers, and also many other self-employed persons in cities. So I think when one is looking at this legislation one needs to consider the needs of all Canadians, whether they be farmers or city dwellers.
I am very much in agreement with the hon. member for Elgin that one wants to see this plan as inclusive as possible and to see that people get the maximum benefits and are not penalized for periods of low earnings, but I have some difficulty with the technicalities of the motion and whether the five-year averaging would really add anything to the existing provision for a 47 year averaging. In fact I can see some situations where five year averaging might work to the detriment of the contributor.
The motion before us does not deal with the key question of when that option would be exercised, and as one looks at the way the plan is constructed it seems that the best decision can only be made shortly before the pension is received, and that an earlier decision might put a person at a disadvantage.
The beginning phase of the plan is, of course, the paying of contributions and, unlike the Income Tax Act, the level of earnings does not change the contribution rate. As long as the individual's earnings in any given year are over the basic exemption, the participant pays the standard contribution rate on his or her earnings between the basic exemption and the earnings ceiling. The contribution rate in 1975 is 1.8 per cent on all earnings subject to the plan.
A five year averaging of income for CPP contribution purposes, as I see it, works two ways. The averaging of the

earnings can mean that a year or years become contributory years when such was not the case for the actual earnings. However, the reverse can happen with a period interspersed with low earning years and no earning years averaged out, so that none of the years in the average period would be assigned annual earnings in excess of the exemption, and thus all the years would be lost for contributory purposes.
As one considers the way the Canada Pension Plan formula works, a simple statement of this formula is that a retirement pension is equal to 25 per cent of the contributor's average monthly pensionable earnings. However, as previous speakers have said, the simplicity stops there. It is quite a complex formula, and the process involves four steps.
The process used to establish the average monthly pensionable earnings is, first, determining in each individual case the contributory period. There is a basic contributory period of 120 months for payment of the full pension, but this is a basic period. The normal contributing period runs from January 1, 1966, or on reaching age 18, whichever is later, to the month before the contributor begins to receive his retirement pension, which can be no earlier than the month after reaching the age of 65. From this period, however, are deducted any months during which the individual received a disability pension under either the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan.
The second step involves looking at each month of the individual's contributory earnings which are those actual earnings in each month on which he made a valid CPP contribution, and these are updated. All the actual earnings are revalued in accordance with the movement in levels between the plan's earnings ceiling in the year of the earnings and the average of the earnings ceilings for the year of retirement and the two preceding years.
Third, once all the earnings have been revalued, then the special adjustment provisions come into play. These provisions will take effect January 1, 1976. The first deduction allowed is for an individual who contributes to the plan after reaching age 65. Any higher earnings for this period will replace months of lower earnings before reaching 65. The second adjustment is the drop-out provision which allows a participant to drop out at present up to 15 per cent of the number of months in his contributory period. Obviously the drop-out will be applied to delete months of low earnings. For both the over age 65 substitution of earnings provision and the drop-out provision, there is an overriding proviso that the total period cannot fall below the basic 120 months.
Fourth, once all the earnings have been adjusted, the total is averaged over the contributory period as established in step one, and 25 per cent of that average equals the monthly retirement pension.
This is the current method of averaging and adjusting contributory earnings. Considering this structure it seems that the advantage or otherwise of allowing the five year averaging will not be known until the end of the working career, which is the only time when it can be absolutely determined how many months are in the individual's contributory period, how the drop-out provision and the over 65 substitute earnings provisions will work, and how the earnings adjustment feature affects the benefit calcula-
April 28, 1975

tion. One can foresee situations where averaging of income for contribution purposes could have an adverse effect on the pensions paid to many low and middle income earners, if it were done in the shorter period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being six o'clock p.m. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp (for the Minister of the Environment) that Bill C-37, to provide for the control of dumping of waste and other substances in the ocean, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, continuing my remarks of earlier today with reference to Bill C-37, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the last paragraph on the last page of the bill, that is, Schedule III 3.(4). As I read this I am moved to observe that the first should be last and the last should be first because this paragraph provides for earth dumping rather than ocean dumping. I believe that every effort should be made to satisfy the provisions for dumping those substances recorded in Schedules I, II and III in the proper facilities on shore rather than in the ocean.
In reviewing the bill I notice that some concern is expressed for the ocean bottom where the various substances to be disposed of will be dumped. There is an indication that a survey must be done to determine the ecology of the ocean floor at the location of the dump. I take it that the precise location of the ocean fill and its effects on marine organisms, fish and shellfish, will be of particular concern.
I wonder if the departments concerned know where dumping has taken place in the past and how much has been done, for how long, and whether on the Pacific coast, the Atlantic coast, or in inland waters? These questions are directed particularly to Canadian ships because I am sure we have no idea where foreign ships may have dumped garbage in the past. Before the international accord that is implied in the passage of this bill takes
.	Dumping at Sea
effect I think it is important to determine where dumping has occurred, how much, what kind, and with what effect?
We must take into account what has happened in the waters off New York city. A vast section of the ocean there will not sustain life. It is a sea of sludge, a sea of death, a sea totally lacking in oxygen. Some may believe that could not happen here but just a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, we learned about a river in Manitoba where over half a mile of water was found to be totally lacking in oxygen. So we cannot say it could not happen here.
Another question that must be answered, Mr. Speaker, is which department will enforce the bill. It is all very well to say the bill is sponsored by the Department of the Environment and to expect that department to enforce it, but by what means will it do so? RCMP patrol boats? Argus aircraft? Coastguard search and rescue? National Defence? Or is it going to be a rowboat manned by a government appointed inspector?
I cannot help but be facetious when I talk about our coastal patrol, Mr. Speaker. It is a mass of inefficiency, and is inadequate for a maritime nation the size of Canada. It is a disgrace to a country with a maritime history such as ours. It is time the government realized that it has a responsibility to the seamen of the nation in terms of protection of the nation and its coastline. This bill cannot be discussed without reference to the manner in which it is to be enforced. It is the government's duty to tell parliament and the people of Canada how the law is to be enforced. How effectively will it be enforced? If the law is to be only as effective as Maritime Coastal Command, forget it.
I now wish to speak about vessels flying flags of convenience. Such vessels which ply our waters are often ill kept, ill manned, and have an infamous history in all oceans. I hope that such international flags of convenience will become a thing of the past as a result of the work of the international congress.
I am also concerned about the amending of schedules listed on the back of the bill by order in council. There are three schedules. Some of the substances dealt with are highly toxic and dangerous and are now allowed to be dumped. Some substances may be dumped, if certain qualifying conditions are met; other substances may be dumped if permits are obtained. The fact remains that the schedules can be altered. I suggest that any such alteration should be brought to the attention of members of this House by the Ministry of the Environment, which should send each member a written memorandum regarding alterations. We ought to be kept well informed on how the government is carrying out its environmental responsibilities with regard to the ocean.
I will not belabour my concern for this bill. Some of its provisions may be necessary, and others are important. I understand and appreciate the concern of the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve), who wishes this bill to be referred to committee and returned to the House for quick passage. I endorse the basic intent of the bill and echo the concerns of other members regarding the provisions of Bill C-37.
29S57-58!/2
April 28, 1975

Dumping at Sea


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, many years ago Joseph Conrad wrote in his short story "Typhoon" that the sea never changes, and its works, for all the talk of men, are wrapped in mystery. This may well have been true at the beginning of the present century. It most certainly was true when Lord Byron 100 years ago wrote:
Roll on, thou deep and dark blue ocean, roll!
Ten thousand fleets sweep over thee in vain;
Man marks the earth with ruin,-his control
Stops with the shore.
Today we know that the oceans do change; that, like the land, they are vulnerable to ruin at the hand of men. Lord Byron said, "Ten thousand fleets sweep over thee in vain." But today one supertanker can destroy half an ocean. Man's control stops with the shore, said Lord Byron; yet we pollute our rivers, and in turn, the oceans; we desecrate our air, and in turn the seas.
Times have changed. Concern for the environment is widespread. The Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth" suggests that the limits of the world's water resources will be reached long before the land limits become apparent. The World Food Conference received briefs and expressions of concern to do with the impending water shortage. According to these briefs there is to be a 24 per cent increase in water use during the next five years.
The world focused its attention on the Law of the Sea Conference. That conference in Caracas assembled the largest group of ocean scientists ever brought together in one conference, and reports tabled before that conference clearly pointed to the fact that the greatest danger before humanity today is that the oceans of the world are polluted, and the threshold where plankton can be killed by chain reaction of this pollution and never be regenerated is not known. If this threshold is crossed and the ocean plankton dies, then life on this earth as we know it will also die, because it is the plankton in the oceans of the world that provide the major part of the oxigen needed to sustain life.
Questions of the use, abuse and conservation of water resources, both inland and at sea, will be world issues, outgrowing concerns and issues of the past. Our position will move from one of negative concern regarding pollution to one of positive concern for the environment. It will move from concern for the environment to the larger question of consumption and growth; then, from growth, to questions involving energy. The next major concern of the world will be over water resource consumption, contamination, and conservation. Consequently I commend the departmental officials who had the foresight to draw up this legislation. I might even have a small, qualified word of praise for the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve). I am a little hesitant, but I give credit where it is due. Perhaps I ought to give credit to her speech writer who wrote the speech which I am about to quote. Or perhaps she herself wrote it.


Jeanne Sauvé: I wrote it.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Great! I like the part of the speech I am about to quote. I hope the minister meant what she said in her idealistic statement:

To wreck the environment, you need only wreck the sea. And that is not as difficult as it might seem. You need only destroy a milimetre or so of the surface-the aquatic topsoil so to speak-where the plankton, the essential first building-block of aquatic life lives. If we destroy this layer, the sea may continue, but we will not: It will be a dead sea-and as far as we are concerned a dead planet. As the sea goes, so goes mankind.
I should like to see idealistic statements of that kind considered by the Law of the Sea Congress. I commend the minister for the statement. However, let us pause a minute. Under all those frilly words, under all the perfume, flowers and scented similes, I detect something which gives rise for concern. I wonder if the minister's glowing words of concern are little more than a women's year special Don Quixote tilting at European windmills. I wonder is she ignoring the rust in her armour, or was it asbestos in her tea.


An hon. Member:: Or is she catching butterflies with a torn net?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: We shall discover what sort of butterflies she has been chasing when we hear what she has to say in committee. In committee we are not concerned so much with fine speeches; we deal with practical realities. We shall ask the minister just how concerned she is about preserving the quality of our water. Let me quote to the House what she said in answer to my question on November 25, 1974, as recorded at page 1621 of Hansard. My question to the minister, to do with water quality, we recorded in Hansard as follows:
A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister suggested that studies are being undertaken. Can she tell the House under whose authority those studies are undertaken, in order to assure Canadian people that Canadian water supplies are safe and uncontaminated. To which studies was the minister referring?
What did the minister say? Did she say yes, we are undertaking water studies, to assure the people of Canada that their drinking water supplies are safe? She said, in answer to my question, as recorded in Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, numerous studies are undertaken. Water quality and possible harzardous effects on health are looked after by the Department of National Health and Welfare-
I took her at her word and directed my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) at a committee meeting on April 17. What did the minister say? He said, "I am afraid this matter is at the present time more a matter for the Department of the Environment ..." We are back to the environment. When it comes to water policy, where does the minister stand? Where does the minister of National Health and Welfare stand? Where does the government stand?


An hon. Member:: You have not caught her yet.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I caught her in a contradiction. She is passing the buck. Where does it stop?
I want to know what is our overall water policy. While we are espousing these fine words and bringing forth these bills, which are just pieces of paper, virtually raw sewage from British Columbia cities is spewing forth into the Fraser River and on into the Pacific Ocean. It is flowing from Quebec cities into the St. Lawrence and on
April 28, 1975

into the Atlantic Ocean. The sludge runs down the rivers of Manitoba. A couple of weeks ago there was concern about a big slick. There is black oil all over the beaches of White Rock in British Columbia.


An hon. Member:: Black Rock.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: They are now calling it Black Rock. In spite of all this we still have no over all water policy.
I have always wanted to know how all this piecemeal legislation fits into the over all plan. When I questioned the minister in the House about our over all policy and how this all fits together, the minister said there is no over all water policy. Surprisingly, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) agrees. He says it has not yet been decided. It is time the Prime Minister and the minister decided what is to be the over all policy for Canada. They should lead the world in this way. After all the glowing words and magnificent speeches across Canada and throughout the world, they come home to a country which has no water policy.


Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Why don't you stick to the bill?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: The hon. member knows there is no policy and it bothers him. I enjoy his glowing remarks. I also look foward to hearing the minister's response.
The basic weakness of this bill is that it is piecemeal legislation. It does not tie in with an over all policy. I have only been here since last July 8, but since then I have been trying to find out from the minister how this all fits together. She will not tell me.


Len Marchand: Read the Arctic waters pollution bill.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I know the member from British Columbia is concerned. British Columbia has one of the longest coastlines in the world. We have the most to lose. However, we have the most to gain if this bill becomes more than just a paper tiger.
The good member from British Columbia talked about the problem of tanker routes. Is this legislation an admission of defeat with regard to tanker routes on the west coast of Canada? Is it a softening of the resolve of the minister and the government to stop that tanker route along the coast of British Columbia? Have we stopped making representations? Will this be regulated in some other way? I hope not. I hope that this legislation was born out of the resolve and ideals expressed by the minister in the speech from which I quoted. I hope it is this kind of motivation which drives her on, rather than a concern that it falls short. I hope this is more than an expedient sop to those asking the minister for action with regard to the tanker route. I hope the minister's resolve will continue.
The minister heard two members from British Columbia express concern regarding tanker routes. How does that relate to the bill? Will the bill give the minister authority to stop those tanker routes? We want an answer from the minister.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.
Dumping at Sea


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I would be very pleased to answer a question.


Len Marchand: Can the hon. member give us some idea how to stop these tankers from going down the coast in international waters? If he can answer that question, he will be telling us something.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I would say that at the present time we are working for an international law at the Law of the Sea Conference. I hope that will eventually be acceptable. The control will come that way. I like to think the Government of Canada has some impact in the Congress in Washington. Canada will be supplying energy resources, be they coal, oil or whatever, to the United States. We are currently selling, will sell, or will share these with the United States, as expressed in their continentalism policy, which I do not like. As we share those resources, the United States has an obligation and a responsibility. I believe this government has negotiating power to gain what is right for Canada.
There are diplomatic tools. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) should be involved in some way. We need a government policy that goes beyond the piecemeal approach of this legislation and the piecemeal approach of the cabinet. Ministers are not co-ordinated to work together on issues such as the tanker route.
The minister was recently in Washington. What pressure did she bring to bear with regard to these tanker routes? Perhaps she will tell us this evening what she said to the American environmental officials and to the President of the United States. What have the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs had to say about this? It has been too little to satisfy the British Columbia members in this House.
The tanker route question is very significant. The parliamentary secretary stated in his speech that it in some way relates to this bill. I believe it was the parliamentary secretary who said that even when these tankers are unloaded, there are still 2,000 tons of oil in them which have to be flushed or washed out and dumped somewhere.
This kind of legislation is sort of related to sin. Prior to the Reformation people would pay and their sins would be forgiven. This legislation is similar to that. You pay to pollute. You buy the permit and are able to pollute. Another thing wrong with the bill is that there is no authority under international law to enforce this law. Even if we pass this bill it will not have international support. It will not apply to the high seas unless there is some accord. There is no authority for policing at the international level.
If this cannot be policed at the international level, how are we going to police it at the local level? We must rely on our national sovereign authority. However, how can we rely on that when we do not have an adequate force to police the three-mile limit? We cannot protect our own fishermen inside that limit. Therefore, how are we going to protect 12 miles or 200 miles? When we ask the Minister of National Defence about this, we are told that the military is being cut back. This is being done at a time when we should be increasing surveillance.

April 28, 1975
Dumping at Sea
I have talked about some of the limitations of this bill and the concerns I have for it. I commend the authorities who drew up the bill and who are pushing the minister. I have talked to some of the officials in the minister's department. I am impressed with their keenness and desire to do what is right for the environment of Canada. However, the minister is kind of pulling back and saying, whoa, not so fast. She is trying to push the Prime Minister and the cabinet. I suggest the Minister of the Environment should take a leaf out of the book of President Nixon and start kicking a bit instead of pulling and pushing. I support this bill in principle.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I will even put my cynicism aside for a minute and give the minister the benefit of the doubt. I shall assume, at least during second reading, that the bill is a product of idealism rather than merely a convenient sop to those who are concerned about the pollution of the oceans, even though I know the minister does not possess the authority necessary to back up this legislation.
When the time comes for amendments to be made we intend to make sure that this bill is capable of being enforced, unlike the contaminants legislation which could not be enforced. I have not obtained a legal opinion as to whether the bill before us can be enforced, but I am nevertheless concerned about this aspect. So I commend the minister, and accept the measure as being put forward on an idealistic basis at this point. I look forward to examining the bill, clause by clause, during the committee stage, and I hope that in the end we can produce an act which is evidence of some leadership, hopefully something which will bring us closer to the over all water policy which I demand of the minister for Canadians and for the world.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I rise to make a brief intervention in this debate. My interest is mainly in the danger of pollution on the west coast.
First, I would like to make a few comments about the question period this afternoon. I may have missed something in the translation from French into English of a reply by the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve). I attempted, unsuccessfully, to get an early copy of the Hansard report, but it appeared to me that this afternoon the minister indicated she thought the danger of oil spills from oil tankers in the Strait of Juan de Fuca had been eliminated with the projected movement of the harbour from Cherry Point to Port Angeles, where it is presumed they will have an offshore loading point.
Port Angeles is not outside the Strait of Juan de Fuca but is some 50 miles inside the entrance to the strait. While the danger is not as great if the tankers come only to Port Angeles as it would be if they come as far as Cherry Point, there is still considerable danger-there is a danger of collision in the confines of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. So, while it is an improvement over the Cherry Point location, it is not as good as if the harbour were located at Neah Bay or at Gray's Harbour, which would take it outside the restricted waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
I hope the minister will do what she can to see that the movement of the offshore loading point toward the ocean is accelerated. She will then be able to answer truly in the House of Commons that the danger is, to the best of her ability, now removed.
My second reason for rising in debate this evening is to call attention to the difference between the proclamations of the government concerning anti-pollution measures and what happens in practice. For example, the following appeared in the Vancouver Sun on May 4, 1973, quoting a statement made by former environment minister Jack Davis:
"Up to $20 million a year in federal government loans is available to clean up pollution in the Straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca and their tributary waters", Environment Minister Jack Davis said today.
It would appear that such a fund would help out the people on the West Coast without any great strain on the administrative facilities. However, an oil spill occurred a short time later, and at that time there was nothing but confusion in the handling of the clean-up operation, the problem appearing to be who should do the cleaning up. Should it be the Ministry of Transport or the Department of the Environment? They just didn't seem to know who should do it. The view of one spokesman for the federal environmental emergency service was reported in the Vancouver Sun as follows:
Put in what Chris Hatfield, federal environment emergency coordinator, calls simple terms, it goes like this:
"If a spill originates with a ship within the Vancouver harbor
boundaries, the take-charge guys will be the National Harbours
Board.
Outside the harbor, the federal ministry of transport.
From the land into the inlet, the federal environmental
department.
From land to land, the municipality and the province."
As Mr. Hatfield says, this doesn't mean that the level of authority assigned to any specific area is solely responsible for clean-up.
If an oil spill occurs in the middle of the night, a more confusing policy than that set out by the government would be hard to conceive. A few days after the article appeared, the municipality of Oak Bay had the misfortune to be affected by an oil spill which happened during the hours of darkness.
No one knew what ship the spill came from, and for the benefit of the minister I would like to point out here that when a spill does take place speed is of the essence in dealing with pollution caused by oil washing up on beaches. If you wait for as much as a day the problem is multiplied.
The Oak Bay municipality got right to work and cleaned up the oil spill-a very small one. They then sent their bill to the Department of Transport. It was referred back to them and they were told it was somebody else's responsibility. There the runaround started.
On March 4, 1974, as recorded at page 121 of Hansard, I rose in the House and asked the then minister of the environment, he having just completed a long speech on fisheries, if he would mind telling me his policy on the clean-up of oil spills. I asked my question in the following words:
Will the minister assure the House that when oil spills occur from ships and when the federal government, whose responsibility it is, is
[Mr. Wenman.1
April 28, 1975

unable to identify the source, the federal government will at least pay for the cleanup rather than expecting the municipal governments to assume what could be enormous costs?
The minister, Mr. Davis, said:
Mr. Speaker, I think I can assure the hon. member of that. Several years ago amendments were made to the Canada Shipping Act which provided for the collection of large sums of money. That money is available for compensation to those who are affected by oil spills.
MR- McKinnon: Would the minister then explain to the House why the Department of Transport turned down the request of the municipality of Oak Bay for compensation for cleaning up an oil spill there some two months ago on the grounds that they could not identify the ship which spilled the oil?


Mr. Davis:: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member have a chat with me. Perhaps our departmental people can do something about it.
Surely to goodness, having heard this from a minister of the Crown, one would assume that the government did indeed intend to reimburse the municipality for the costs involved in cleaning up an oil spill which occurred at night on one of its fine beaches. But such was not to be the case. Mr. Davis was approached by the municipality, but their request was turned down. An election ensued and Mr. Davis was turned down. He did not return, and the ministry changed hands.
We tried once again to get payment of this very small sum from the new minister-I think it was only about $463-but it is not the amount of the sum that is of concern. That makes it even more disgraceful, that they would not even consider paying such a small sum. They turned it down on a technicality. First, they said it was because they could not identify the ship. The other objection I will come to in a moment.
I do not rise here because of the smallness of the sum or in the hope they will find it in their petty cash, or make a LIP grant or an OFY grant from sources where money is easy to find. I rise because this kind of occurrence could happen to any municipality with a coastline. Indeed, it is more likely to happen in the future than it has in the past. Next time the sum might not be small but might be rather large.
In any event, on February 6 I had occasion to write to the minister and ask her if she would stand by a commitment made by Mr. Davis, when he was minister, to pay for the clean-up of that oil spill. I received a letter in reply via the mayor of Oak Bay, which disturbed me. It was a complete disavowal of the statement made by the minister's predecessor; indeed it was stated that there would be no payment forthcoming.
At the same time there were some objections taken in the public press to the amount of money that has been collected in this fund to be used presumably to fight oil spills, and I understand shipping companies are no longer willing to pay their contribution, particularly as it appears the money is not going to be spent to clean up oil spills except under very specific circumstances.
I wrote to the minister again and was favoured with a reply dated March 11, some six weeks ago. At this time the minister took advantage of another technicality. It was now agreed that not being able to identify the ship would
Dumping at Sea
not keep you from collecting from the fund. I should like to quote the minister's letter of March 11;
In order to claim against the fund for cleanup costs of an oil spill, "Her Majesty in the right of Canada or a province or the other person that incurred that loss or damage" must first be able to establish that the spill came from a ship-
If there is oil on a beach that has been brought in by the tide you assume that it did come in from a ship, but it is kind of hard to prove. The second reason given, which is the case the minister has made for not paying this just debt, is:
-and secondly, must have obtained authorization by the Governor in Council prior to commencing cleanup (section 734). The claimant may then proceed in Admiralty Court against the administrator of the MPCF.
Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you were mayor of a small municipality and someone told you that a small oil spill was drifting on to one of your beautiful beaches, would you feel like getting authorization by the Governor in Council before you started to clean it up? For one thing, it would be too late; the time to stop an oil spill of that nature is before it gets on to the beach. I think it is outrageous that the minister should hide behind this technicality and avoid paying just dues to clean up this spill, particularly in light of the platitudinous statements that are made at regular intervals by the minister's department to the effect that they are interested and are willing to help in the maintenance of the environment in Canada.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this interesting bill which concerns the whole country, and certainly the province I represent with its long and lovely coastline, and its connection with the greatest of all the oceans. We have come to realize that even the vast scope and size of that ocean are not sufficient to prevent it from damage of all kinds, damage that has become commonplace in recent years.
At first glance the bill seems to cover more than it actually does, and I appreciate the explanatory words of the parliamentary secretary in his address at the commencement of the deliberations on it. It does not apply to most situations one would have thought it would apply to-it does not apply, we learn, to the dumping of garbage or to the kind of dumping that ships do when leaving port, such as discharging various waste oil products into the harbour. That is not the sort of situation we are talking about here.
Some years ago we in this place used to receive notice almost weekly of some vessel that had been fined for discharging oil into a harbour. It was obvious from the fines levied that this was simply a licence to continue the practice because it was cheaper to dump and pay the fine than to dispose of the material in some other way. This is one of the thoughts that strike me as I read the bill, that the penalties laid down as maximum fines, considering the products involved, are not all that great, even if the maximum fine were applied every time.
We are really talking about a limited range of activity involving production of materials which are frequently byproducts of processes that are in themselves very expensive, where the gain from the sale of energy or such products could be very large indeed. Even if there were an insistence on the maximum fine being levied, one wonders

April 28, 1975
Dumping at Sea
whether we would not find a situation where it would be cheaper to commit the offence and pay the fine than to dispose of the material to be dumped through some other system. In this regard a likely offender could be a government department.
The bill provides for the application of a permit before action. Here again one wonders how difficult it would be to obtain a permit, particularly if one of the government's own creations were involved, one of its semi-autonomous organizations that could very well have a real problem of disposal. We also know there are various projects under way involving use of atomic power. There are waste products here that could be very damaging, and which in some instances have been dumped at sea by certain countries. Possibilities of land disposal along the British Columbia coast are somewhat limited by the terrain.
I think there would be a real suspicion in the minds of many people who read this bill that, in one sense, the bill is not so much against dumping but rather is a bill that legitimizes the whole business. It makes dumping permissive. It speaks in terms of the issuance of a permit to dump if it can be established that there is a risk to health or something like that.
There are also escape clauses to prevent loss of life. The west coast of British Columbia is notoriously stormy. If anyone were going to do some dumping, obviously the time to do it would be during the winter season when storms were more severe. It would be a relatively simple matter to file a report stating that the seas were high and the risk to life was great, and that the cargo that was to be disposed of on land had to be dumped overboard. There are extensive possibilities along this line. Then there is the policing aspect. Here again our patrolling is notoriously weak and we have an inadequate coastguard.
In British Columbia through the recent winter we knew how restricted we were in terms of finding lost cars that contained highly volatile substances. These cars were lost off a barge and were not located for some length of time. The whole search machinery on the Pacific coast is not too accurate. One suspects an offence could be committed and the offending ship could return to port without being found at all unless there is considerable contribution by the Department of National Defence, which department, the bill assures us, would be involved. However, knowing the restricted budget in that area and the utter lack of capability by that department to fly over the Arctic any longer, much in the bill about the Arctic Ocean surely is nothing but brave words and a pious hope that in passing this bill we will have accomplished something.
We should realize also that a good deal of the preamble to the remarks of the parliamentary secretary dealt with the fact that this is a convention of the United Nations and that 90 or 92 nations gathered together to debate it. We also know that the powers of this international organization are fading literally by the day and that its powers to intervene in disputes verging on war are very slim indeed. One suspects that the power of the United Nations to intervene for the purpose of preventing a nation which is determined to choose the cheaper way of disposing of its waste would be very slender indeed. The principle of the

bill is one which I think we can welcome, but its application, both to this country and internationally, is something about which I think we could well maintain an extremely healthy skepticism.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. Before recognizing the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) I should remind the House that if the minister speaks now this will close the debate at this stage of the bill.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to all the interventions concerning Bill C-37, an Act to provide for the control of dumping of wastes and other substances in the ocean.
Mr. Speaker, I would like simply to give the reasons for the introduction of this bill. As we all know, the seas are only a single body of water, and coastal countries should not make improper use of the sea in general, or even of their own coastal waters. As the sea goes, so goes mankind, as the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) said in quoting one of my recent speeches at the Law of the Sea Conference.
The sea used to be considered a purifier with unlimited capacities, but today, with a better knowledge of the oceans and the capacity to measure the quality of its waters, we have to question whether the sea will be able to keep forever its purity and its quality. A number of member countries of the United Nations, concerned about sea pollution, tried to develop what has been called the Oslo Convention, which suggests that coastal countries unite to protect the sea.
Wishing as ever to protect the environment, Canada, which, in passing, became one of the fore-runners in this field by creating its Department of Environment and introducing its environment policy, wanted to be among the first 15 countries to sign this convention. But for this, we must pass an act to make our standards and regulations compatible with those of other countries.
This is the basic reason for this bill. We already have in Canada several acts which allows us to protect oceans against pollution, but this legislation had to be added to these acts, to make them compatible with those of the other countries who will sign the convention.
I am very pleased with the co-operation of the House in referring this bill to committee where we can, at leisure, study it in detail. I shall limit myself to answering some of the questions, perhaps the most urgent, brought up by hon. members, notably their concern about the possibility of radioactive substances being disposed of in the oceans. Must I remind then, Madam Speaker, that a Canadian policy forbids categorically the dumping of radioactive substances into the ocean? Disposal of those substances is governed by the Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited, according to extremely severe regulations that are constantly up-dated.
Another hon. member spoke of inspectors or analysts, whom I could appoint and whose appointments could give jobs to all the Liberal candidates who were not elected.
I think, Madam Speaker, we shall have to be more concerned with Progressive Conservative members, for
April 28, 1975

most members on this side of the House were elected. Consequently, there is little to be done to do them a favour. Anyway, I believe it will be realized on closer examination that when I say "every analyst or inspector",
I do mean, Madam Speaker, to provide every government department whose ships are sailing our oceans with the necessary authority to stop and examine ships that might fail to comply with our regulations or statutes.
This bill does not deal with a number of problems which were raised by hon. members opposite. I guess they took this opportunity to raise questions which are of concern to them. I am also concerned about those questions, especially the matters of sailing and supertankers. I tried my best to answer their questions at a different time and I will do so again in the future, but tonight is not the right time to tackle those problems which, although they are not totally unrelated to this bill, are are not exactly the subject of our debate tonight.
This bill bears a certain relationship to the Law of the Sea Conference which was mentioned by some members although the Oslo Convention was initiated a long time before the law of the sea discussions. It even took place before the Stockholm conference, which brought to the attention of the whole world that great problem of ocean pollution which is a due cause for concern for every country.
This bill, the Stockholm conference and other events too, are steps from a total freedom of oceans towards a certain limitation of that freedom and an identification of the interests of countries with a seafront in order to protect and develop oceans, and also towards the necessary development of sea management principles and, in a more significant way, the realization that we have to bring countries with a seafront to exercise that management duty in areas off their coasts which might fall under their jurisdiction.
The necessary protection of environment is one of the strongest and most significant arguments at our disposal to demand that the management authority of maritime countries be extended to a 200-mile limit for instance. Such is the character of the request made by Canada and other countries at the Law of the Sea Conference. That bill, however, goes quite beyond that 200-mile area which could be covered under this new jurisdiction granted to coastal states. It goes quite beyond that, applying as it does to an area where the sea is quite deep, an area which formerly was supposed to belong to everyone.
Grotius who proclaimed total freedom of the seas is severely challenged nowadays. The sea, which is a common heritage of mankind, must henceforth be submitted to regulations governing its use. Consequently, even if it is claimed that oceans are the common heritage of mankind, some countries must take charge of their management so we will not make ill use of them as in the past on the plea that they were entirely free.
This bill deals with the practice of dumping waste in the sea without worrying about the effects of such a practice.
Western Grain Stabilization
As the sea once belonged to everybody, all those who wanted to get rid of their waste, dumped it into the sea.
And it was believed, as I mentioned earlier, that the sea had the ability to purify everything; some substances however cannot be eliminated, and there is a point of no return beyond which the sea might not be able to rejuvenate itself.
A number of the problems which my hon. colleagues have mentioned-need I remind them-are already covered by such other legislation as the Shipping Act and the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. There are also regulations which govern the activities of ships within ports, and prohibit the discharge of waste waters in areas which are in the immediate vicinity of ports. Bill C-37 supplements a number of existing legislative measures in Canada which permit us to administer the oceans. This measure will be characterized by the fact that in so doing, we are joining other countries in the signature of an agreement to protect the oceans of the world.
This act will succeed. Its concept reflects the efforts and reflexion of many countries. It is not, as suggested an hon. member, a licence for polluting the sea. Surely the hon. member is aware that if we make it compulsory that an application for a permit is made before anything is dumped into the sea, it is because we have every intention of checking the nature of the substance to be dumped, the manner in which it will be discharged, and the place where it will be disposed of. The permit is an instrument allowing us to control the activity.
Several countries have expressed their intention of ratifying the convention, but ten countries of the world have already enacted the required legislation for consistency among them. The convention will be effective as soon as fifteen countries will have signed it. We are seeking for Canada the honour of being among the first fifteen signatories to the convention. We should like to be among the first who will co-ordinate their administrative measures for the enforcement of a legislation of this extent.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I support the motion that Bill C-37 be referred to the committee for consideration.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
[Stage Direction]
April 28, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization

Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-41, respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased indeed that the House has now been able to take up the legislation respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain. It is now quite a few years since this government placed a very high priority upon the problems of the grain industry in western Canada. In 1968 and 1969 we recognized that there were grave difficulties which persisted and recurred in the grain industry and that it was time to have a most thoroughgoing examination of the whole range of problems relating to production, marketing, and particularly to the income of farmers throughout the prairie region in connection with their grain operations.
It was necessary for us as well to begin a massive examination of the nature of the handling and transportation systems which showed some problems in terms of cost rather than simply in the capability of marketing or carrying to market of the enormous prairie crops.
In 1969 we put together a new form of administration within the government to try to concentrate the attention of government on the problems relating to grain. We brought together, in the grain, administration, part of the governmental operations which had dealt with grain in the various departments, such as the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the Department of Transport as well as in other departments, according to the type of problem which was being handled. We did that in order to concentrate on this problem, although of course within government there is always the dilemma of keeping the various parts of a problem as a unity in searching for solutions to it without pulling the parts away from other aspects of their own system where they also have significant relevance. In this way we gave the grain problem our concentrated attention.
The stabilization program which is before the House now is one of the several remaining very important measures which we tackled in those days. We recognized that the income of the farmer was our fundamental objective in dealing with the problem in the grain industry. The consumers of this country are of course extremely interested in the production of grain. There has not been much problem in terms of shortage but there have been significant problems in terms of the way the system operated to serve the farmer and the way it managed to obtain income for him.
We have in the years since then moved on many extremely important fronts in ways which have not only improved the lot of the farmer in his production of grain, but which have tended to assure that he will be better
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
served by the apparatus of government and the rest of the structure within the grain industry which is so important to him. Some of our first approaches were to try to make sure that the marketing of his product was improved.
We moved to give the Canadian Wheat Board additional facilities by way of credit and guarantees so that it could market wheat into traditional markets which had been lost and which, therefore, it was able to regain. We encouraged it to enter the feed barley business, where the Canadian producer had really not been before in terms of the export world. We set some targets, and achieved those targets of over 200 million bushels of export barley to help create an environment where, in other years, that market would be sustained to produce good returns for the farmer.
We set up a market development fund with a flexible ability to attempt to support projects of all kinds which might further the sale of Canadian grain products abroad. Some very interesting initiatives in the development of foreign markets have taken* place as a result of that market development.
With these various efforts we obtained some important selling achievements. In years when the world market conditions had not yet changed, and our buyers were not yet much more receptive to the purchase of grain, we set three successive records in the export of grain, rising in 1972-73 to some 831 million bushels of all grain produced in the prairie region.
We also moved into some interesting additional projects in order to improve our ability to sell, projects which are still developing or coming to fruition at the present time, some which were accomplished with improvements in research through the regular program of the Department of Agriculture and with assistance in the creation of a crop science centre at the University of Saskatchewan. Also to be located at that university is a protein oil starch plant, which is a joint effort between government and industry, with the emphasis on industrial participation. It is designed to move research forward into production so that new ways may be found to market our grain and new markets found by having a variety of products with which to gain access.
We did not neglect the cash position of farmers in the interim period. We introduced the two price wheat program at a time when it meant many millions of dollars from the treasury to the western farmer. At that time international prices for wheat were in the order of $1.70 a bushel, and our two price wheat program was based on a domestic price equivalent of $3. For several years, therefore, large sums of money were transferred to supplement the prairie farmer's income when he needed it so very badly.
We have been facing the income problem in other ways as well. The cash advance program has been constantly improved. From the time of our beginning this work to now, a fivefold increase has effectively taken place in the maximum cash advances, to a present limit of $15,000 per permit holder compared to $3,000, which was the figure in 1968.
An hon. member has mentioned the transportation and handling system. That is one of the other major areas which require further attention in the next number of
April 28, 1975

months, in an effort to assure that the large amount of work which has gone into analysing the various costs of the components of the system may be now brought together by those who manage those components, but more particularly, by the community as a whole for the best advantage to prairie farmers and the communities upon which they depend, and which depend upon those farmers.
We did not stand idly by in regard to handling and transportation. The block shipping system assured that we could meet some of the challenges of the export levels which were being achieved.
We are now faced with the major challenge of the new investment which is required in the system. At this point we have ordered a further 4,000 hopper cars; this in recognition of the fact that these cars are an important part of the handling and transportation system, no matter what kind of solution is developed in terms of the total system. It is not the capacity of the existing system which is so much a challenge as the cost of that system as it exists, and as it would exist as labour and capital costs grow, and as so much of the system, which requires replacement, is in fact replaced.
The purchase of hopper cars at a cost of $46 million for the first 2,000, the repair of some additional boxcars and keeping them in the grain service at a cost of $5 million, are other examples of measures taken to assure that we could move the grain with the existing handling and transportation system. Co-ordinators were appointed at the terminals for the same purpose, to make sure that maximum advantage was taken of the available cars in the service of grain.
One of the major other methods which we are using in attempting to put the grain industry of Canada, and therefore particularly the prairies, in sound and solid shape, is this stabilization program which is now again before the House of Commons.
When we began to examine the grain industry and to consult-as we have done so widely with farmers throughout the prairie region-we found that, alongside the income problem, there was constant concern about the problem of stability, about the problem that good years and bad years could follow so closely, and that the bad years which a farmer saw were not necessarily related to his level of production. We were at the same time developing crop insurance programs which could deal with the specific problem of difficulties in production with individual farmers.
But so often on the prairies, because of prices and, more particularly, export opportunities, even when a good crop was being produced, income problems were suffered in days gone by. Because this product is so much more dependent upon export than most of our agricultural products, the ordinary approach of stabilization acts, which were known before that to this House and to this country, in stabilizing by trying to protect the price of the product, seemed to us on examination to be an inadequate technique in the case of grain. Price alone was only one of the factors which affected farm income.
The volume of product which could be moved into international markets could be even more significant. Often the difficulty in moving the product and low prices might
Western Grain Stabilization
accompany each other, but any program attempting to stabilize income had to take both of these factors into consideration. This is what first led us to the conclusion that the right kind of stabilization program for the grain industry was one which tied the level of production to the flow of cash into the grain industry, and in years when that flow of cash declines either because of price, volume, or a combination of the two, there should be support from a stabilization fund.
The bill which is before the House includes a levy from producers on the sale of their grain. This levy is initially and ordinarily set at 2 per cent of the sales value of the grain products. In the ordinary course it will be matched by a payment of twice that size from the federal treasury-in the order, therefore, of 4 per cent of gross sales.
The importance of this, Madam Speaker, is that once again the stabilization program, while aimed at the illness of instability, is at the same time another form of assistance on the income side to the prairie grain farmer. The stabilization fund will receive the levy from the farmers and the 4 per cent, with variations possible, from the federal treasury. As the pattern of past income levels has shown, these amounts will be paid out to the prairie farmer in such a way that he will receive the money he needs in the years he needs it most.
In summary then, on this basis of historical pattern the contribution from the federal treasury will mean an additional 4 per cent compared to what the market would otherwise produce. This is in addition to other programs which have been put in place which add income in one way or another to farm income, such as the program to pay part of the cost of storage of grain which was contained in the feed grains policy. We are prepared to pay up to $40 million for storage of grain in connection with the obvious need of the producer of that grain for security and, therefore, the logical obligation to attempt to have someone other than the producer bear the cost of that security.
If this stabilization plan had been in effect in 1974, for example, the levy would have produced approximately $90 million from the federal treasury on the basis of present estimated gross sales of grain. If the plan had been in effect in some of the difficult years, 1968 to 1971, for example, and if there had been full participation by prairie farmers, there would have been payouts of $97 million in 1968, $237 million in 1969, $230 million in 1970, and $50 million in 1971 when cash positions were beginning to show an improvement in the prairies.
In this bill we have introduced the protection of the prairie region grain farmers on the basis of net cash flow. Net cash flow is the cash remaining when the gross receipts for grain have had substracted from them the cash costs of producing grain in that year. This means that the plan will be sensitive to changes in the cost of production as well as changes in receipts where based on volume. In theory at least, and indeed in fact, if the total receipts from grain remain the same in a good year compared to the previous five year average, when the rise in cash costs of producing grain occurs, the payment out of the stabilization fund could be triggered by that narrowing of net cash as a result of this production cost increase.

April 28, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
The significance of this to the individual farmer may be examined in more detail when the bill is in committee. As an example, however, I should like to take the case of someone who farms a medium sized operation in the black soil zone of the prairies, and who has attributed to him an average of the production for such a size in that area. If the plan set out in the bill had been in effect in the years 1965 to 1975 this farmer would have shared in the payouts made in the years 1968 to 1971. In 1968, when his gross receipts would have amounted to $20,771, the stabilization payment to him out of the prairie total of $97 million would have amounted to $1,939.
In 1969 that same farmer, with gross receipts of $13,254, would have received, out of the prairie stabilization payments of $237 million, a payment of $4,406. Hon. members can see the significance of that kind of payment to someone on a medium sized farm in the black soil zone.
In 1970 his payment would have been $4,137, in a year when his gross receipts had totalled $14,033. In 1971, when his gross receipts would have risen to $18,288, he would have received a stabilization payment of $880. When one considers that this farmer had to try to meet his obligations-or more likely arrange his obligations-with the cash which he had available from his gross receipts, one can see the importance to him of payments like this, particularly in the difficult years 1969 and 1970.
This stabilization plan is based on receipts throughout the prairie region. There will be some who will think it should somehow deal with crop insurance problems as well as the stabilization ones I have described. That is not the case. A good crop insurance plan such as that which my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), is trying to encourage his provincial counterparts to develop, with his financial support being an important part, is still extremely important for individual farmers. We are delighted to see the widespread availability of crop insurance plans throughout the prairie regions now. We believe those plans can still be made to meet the particular needs of individual farmers and reflect more fully the value of grain on their own cash costs of operating.
Crop insurance will still be a desirable feature for individuals to deal with in circumstances where it can affect the individual crop. The stabilization plan deals rather with the over-all problems which can affect the grain industry as well, particularly those international market conditions which have such tremendous effects on volumes and prices.
The only relationship between crop insurance and this stabilization plan lies in the fact that crop insurance benefits may be brought into the plan by the person who receives them as though they are grain receipts, so that the level of his benefits may be maintained through a difficult crop period. The better the crop insurance plan is, the better will that objective be met.
This plan, like its predecessor, is based on a five-year average preceding the year in question. The net cash receipts in this plan, therefore, unlike the simple gross receipts of the previous plan, will be the base upon which the payment out is to be calculated. When payment out is made, it will be made to all participating producers on the
prairie provinces basically in proportion to their recent participation in the grain market. For this purpose this bill uses the current and two preceding years to determine the level of participation of that producer, according to the value of his receipts from grain.
There will be some who will argue that this plan would be more sensitive to the needs of farmers in the prairie provinces if it were calculated and triggered on a regional basis, or an area by area basis, rather than on the figures of the prairie region as a whole. We have given a great deal of thought to the question of whether it would be possible to regionalize the plan in that way at this time. We have accepted the proposition that, in theory, it would be desirable to introduce a certain degree of regionalization, but we found it difficult, indeed I might say a practical impossibility, to obtain cost of production figures in particular on a regional basis at this time. We therefore propose to ask the House to approve the bill on the basis of a prairie-wide calculation, and will attempt to introduce regionalized data as soon as adequate figures based on those regions can be obtained.
We have, in this bill, introduced a further feature, the right of individual producers to opt out. In our many discussions with organizations and the western provinces this, among other features of the stabilization program, has been discussed, and there are still some differences of view as to the desirability of this particular right to opt out. There is some fear on the part of some organizations that those who should least do so may be the ones who will opt out and lose the protection which this stabilization plan will give them.
The protection of the stabilization plan is evident in this calculation: if the plan had been in effect for the 20 years 1954 to 1974, for every dollar of farm payments into the plan, farmers on the prairies would have received from it $3.53. The basic value of the plan as income assistance therefore must be clear. We thought, therefore, that we could count on the assistance of leaders of farm opinion and the provincial governments, as well as on our own discussions about the value of the plan, to persuade those who are eligible to remain in it and, at the same time, give them the right to opt out. The bill as it now stands gives that right to those who are farming at the time the law comes into existence.
There has been some further comment about the extension of this right to new farmers who may be coming into operation hereafter. I am prepared to consider with hon. members in committee whether this opting out feature ought to be extended to them as well.
The bill, Madam Speaker, is a major further form of protection to the grain farmer. It is income assistance in the sense that it involves a contribution from the treasury. It is stabilization in the sense that it will make payments out in those areas where those payments are most likely to be required. It is not stabilizing in the sense of limiting the amount of income which the market may bring to grain producers. It remains a fact that the market, both international and domestic, will provide the chief form of income for our farmers engaged in the production of grain.
We have in this program, and in the others to which I referred earlier, added forms of assistance to those farmers, to help assure them that their incomes may be ade-

April 28, 1975

quate. We have done this as part of the government's over all policy of attempting to make sure that farm incomes are adequate. We want to ensure that the farmer obtains a reasonable return for his labour in agriculture from two sources, from the market place, and from the treasury where required, because we are convinced that our agricultural production is important at home and abroad. It is important for our own needs and is important in terms of our obligation to assist others in the world.
We are convinced, as well, that those who are engaged in the production of agricultural products must have, as a result of provincial and federal government policies, adequate returns so that they will be encouraged to produce as effectively as they can. I therefore commend this bill to the House. I hope it will soon move to committee, where it can be further discussed. Without doubt, some of its provisions are complex.
I should like to see the bill become law in time to be operative in 1975. It can be an extremely important form of protection to our grain farmers. It is one further extremely important building block in the protection and assistance we are creating in order to assure the farmers of this country a reasonable income, so that they can earn the kind of livelihood they and their families want. We want to see as many farms as possible continue their existence in this country.


Mr. Benjamin:: Madam Speaker, will the minister permit a question? I do not think his time has expired.


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, the minister said he hopes this bill will move forward quickly. As it was among the six or seven most important bills before the House just before Christmas, and as we have not heard about it until today-it was brought on at three hours' notice-may I ask the minister, once we finish with the bill this evening, how soon will we see it again? When will it be called again?


Otto Emil Lang: Madam Speaker, the exact ordering of business in this House depends on a number of things. Matters as important as this are sometimes drawn aside by the rather lengthy list of speakers from the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: They are members of the party supported by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), and members of the official opposition. Questions concerning the order of House business should be directed to the government House leader, who is concerned about items which must be dealt with by the House. I am also sure that the agricultural committee is occupied at the moment with the other important stabilization bill before it. I hope this one can soon join the work of that committee, for the good of the prairie region.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Madam Speaker, I can certainly agree with the minister that this is a complex bill. There is no way that it can be rushed through the House even though an N.D.P. member
Western Grain Stabilization
says we have been waiting for this bill since last Christmas.
The minister gave us the whole load tonight. He placed a lot of stress on everything that has been done to help the marketing situation as far as western grain is concerned. All I can say is that the minister is making the best of a bad situation because we now have the lowest export position of the past five years. We are some 150 million bushels below two years ago.
The Western Producer of April 17, in a black border on the front page, headlines "Grain Marketing at Five-year Low". I quote from the article.
For the crop year to date both the marketings of grain and oil-seeds by Canadian farmers as well as the total exports stand at the lowest levels since the 1969-1970 crop year, according to official notices.
Latest reports from the Canadian Grain Commission indicate farmers marketings at 388.3 million bushels for the crop year to date, the lowest for this 35-week period since 1969-70.
Likewise, total exports to date in this crop year-314.1 million bushels-represent the lowest volume for this period since 1969-70.
One of the first things we must question is why the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board is introducing this bill rather than the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). The Canadian Wheat Board Act stipulates that the objectives and powers of the wheat board are confined to only that of a marketing role. This bill deals with six principal grains, three of-which are not under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The purpose of Bill C-41 is to provide for stabilization of the net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain, and to protect the producer from the ups and downs of the prices and the quantities that move into commercial market.
It is generally conceded that by confining ourselves to practical farming methods already used by the good farmers in different parts of the world, the world's cultivated and pasture lands could feed something like ten times our present population; not at a subsistence level but on a Canadian style of diet. They can do this if the profit incentive for farmers to take the risk inherent in agriculture and to increase their output and productivity is not limited by the actions of government.
To be very certain that we have a clearer understanding of the effects of this bill, it will be necessary to look at all aspects of it. The hope is to find ways for improvement, so the first question we have to ask is: do we really need this new scheme for western grain at this time, or is there some alternative course that we should take?
The concept may be valid and it may be needed for products such as eggs, fruit, and Ontario corn, and potatoes, but will it be administrable for grain without creating a bureaucratic structure that could overwhelm us? Will the existing PFAA group be the base upon which stabilization will rise? It is not the concept of the grain stabilization plan that is complex and unattractive. It is the operational and administrative features that require understanding.
In its notes on the western grain stabilization working paper put out by the government, it seems that the main selection criteria used was the cheapest plan for a given level of stability, and a plan that is actuarially sound. It is stated on page 11 of that booklet that the net cash flow

April 28, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
plan gave the most significant increase in stability over the base plan per dollar of incremental cost to the government.
This, however, in no way argues that it is an optimun plan to either government or producers. The key question becomes: what stability is really provided to commercial western grain producers, and at what cost? That is, what are the costs and benefits from such a program compared to alternatives?
From the latest figures I have looked at, we can expect that about one half of the commercial grain sales in western Canada will be covered by the $25,000 gross sales limitation. There is no evidence that farms with sales of $25,000 or less are in greater need of grain stabilization as opposed to larger grain farmers. Clearly, under a continued inflationary environment it is unlikely that the degree of coverage would rise from depressed prices. Rather, one can only expect that the volume of grain output covered would decline by 5 to 10 per cent per year. Therefore, the statement that the "$25,000 limit is subject to change so that it accommodates trends in price levels and in farm development" on page 14 of the government working paper is vitally important to confirm.
The bill appears to take the narrow view that the government is giving out money benevolently to provide some stabilization, and the level of the gift is the key focus. There are, however, direct and indirect benefits that the government receives, as well as the farmers. For example, if a stabilizing net cash flow payment occurs, there is likely to be a four to five times multiplier effect on the prairie economy.
Assuming standard tax levels, it would seem that the federal government would get back anywhere from $1 to $1.50 for every dollar it pays out, and that the federal financial authorities might attempt or be able to deduct such payment from federal transfer payments to the provinces.
The point is that the program is unlikely to have a net cost to government at all. Therefore, why have the $25,000 gross sales limit? Larger farm spending could be expected to have similar multiplier effects, so the question becomes; is the middle-size farmer the appropriate structural objective for western grain stabilization?
There will be lots of questions raised about entry, reentry and getting out later. Who administers the program, and who pays the administrative costs? There is also the question about the three-year system of calculating individual pay-out that penalizes those producers who are expanding outputs as compared with those who are stable or who are reducing output. Hence the plan would seem to be biased against young farmers.
We go back to the first question: do we need this scheme, this whole new ball game for grain now, and will it be administrable? It seems that the economists who worked up this plan may have been looking backwards too much. Certainly this scheme was needed 20 years ago. When we look to the future, I am not so sure. We need a list of priorities, and right now. I suggest labour disputes, transportation, high taxation and high interest costs should be right at the top. What alternative is there to this plan? We have the basis for a good crop insurance program 
administered by each of the western provinces. I would much prefer to see more stress placed on improving the crop insurance program at this time.
We need a plan to take account of regional differences in the Canadian Wheat Board area, such as climate and soil type. Bill C-41 deals with the prairie economy as a whole. One of the dangers to a plan such as Bill C-41 is that it tends to shelter the farmer from the marketplace. It is another block between the producer and the realities of the marketplace. The government could be doing much more to bring about a meaningful international grains agreement.
There should be some means of reassessing this program after it has been in operation for four or five years. It seems to me it will reward those whose production is declining, but do nothing for those whose production is expanding. We might ask if farm to farm sales are to be excluded. What about the eastern grain growers? Are they not interested in this scheme? Should they not be treated in the same way as western grain growers? What about grain used for feeding on the farm?
If, as I suspect, this scheme is based on the experience of the last 25 years, surely we may reasonably expect the next 25 years to be better for agriculture. Thus, I very much question the actuarial basis which has been used, especially when the two key factors are mother nature and people.
I hope the administration of the bill will be looked after as a separate entity, and that it will be kept completely outside the Department of Agriculture. There is one thing the bill will do: it will serve as a perfect red herring to cool the whole transportation and grain situation for the government. Farmers will be kept busy all year trying to figure it out.
Grain exports are presently at their lowest point in the past five years. This stabilization plan will be understood by perhaps one out of every 1,000 producers. It ought not to be rushed through parliament. I am not aware of any producer pressure for it. We seem to be beset by any number of pressing problems affecting the grain industry. Let me mention some of them-grain transportation, rail line abandonment, the need for improved facilities at Churchill and the Pacific seaboard, a system for payment on the basis of protein content, the need to develop a soft white wheat for export, the need for a government grain storage program, the need for a measure of tax relief, the increase in labour strife and industrial disputes, the importance of developing an effective chemical designed for insect and wild oat control-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Hear, hear!


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Measures are needed to arrest the decline of the rural population. Surely the government should consider using the taxation system for this purpose. When we consider the magnitude of past errors in judgment affecting the western grain industry, there is room for a lot of research here.
Great advantages may attach to the stabilizing of other products but I question the need with respect to grain at
April 28, 1975

this time. We need to continue to improve crop insurance schemes in co-operation with the provinces. If not properly understood and carefully administered, Bill C-41 could displace the centre of gravity of the whole western grain industry. If the government wants to stabilize income out there, the taxation system might be used to that end. I hope the agricultural committee intends to hold meetings in the wheat board region to hear evidence in connection with this measure, since the bill before us is a complicated and important one.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your patience in waiting a few moments until I had arrived in my place. I shall endeavour to mind the store until ten o'clock so that on another occasion we may consider this bill at greater length.
We were told at about 5.15 this afternoon that this bill would likely be called today. I am mindful, too, that in mid-December we were told by the government House leader that it was among five or six bills which were to be given top priority and that it would be dealt with on an urgent basis. It seems to have got lost in the shuffle since then. I do not know whether the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is bringing it in now because it is my birthday-at least it will be tomorrow-but I cannot think of any other reason for the length of the delay.
The minister, in the course of his speech, went over the history of grain stabilization. I shall not review what he said because I do not wish to revive certain sore points or refer to what happened in days when the hon. gentleman's skin was somewhat thinner than it is today. I would only remind hon. members that the history of grain income stabilization proposals shows us that while all parties could probably agree on the principle that some form of income stabilization or guaranteed prices is desirable, the government has never been able to come forward with legislation which the opposition was capable of understanding or supporting, or both.
As we have already heard, this is an extremely confused piece of legislation. One has only to read pages 9, 10 and 11 to realize that no farmer, certainly no member of this House with the possible exception of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, will be able to understand how the bill will operate or how it will be applied. That is why we should like to spend some time on it during second reading.
We believe the legislation to be sufficiently important as to justify the Standing Committee on Agriculture holding hearings in two or three dozen places in the region of Canada covered by the Wheat Board, in order that farmers may appear, both as individuals and through their organizations, ask their questions, and obtain a thorough understanding of these proposals. Close examination of the legislation suggests to me that the government will put less into this program than into others, in fact that in most years it will take more away from western farming than it will put into it.
May I call it ten o'clock?
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jack Marshall: see we are honoured to have the minister himself here. The question which I am again debating tonight has to do with the residential rehabilitation program, a subject which I have sought to bring to the minister's attention many times before. I can only repeat in the interests of the part of Canada I represent, that the program is ideally suited to my district, one which unfortunately includes thousands of low income families to whom such a program should be directed.
The program is divided into two areas-the neighbourhood improvement program, and the rural and native housing program-under which citizens receiving incomes of $6,000 or less can borrow up to $5,000 to bring their homes up to a reasonable standard while taking advantage of a forgiveness factor of $2,500 which they would not have to repay. It is almost two years since these programs were announced, and yet at this moment little or nothing has been done to direct the advantages to those who would benefit.
All I seem to get in reply to the many representations that I have made is a reiteration of the answer that it is up to the various provinces to designate the areas that would qualify under neighbourhood improvement, or rural and native housing programs; or, to further aggravate the situation, it is said in turn that the various municipalities have to declare occupancy standards. The other aggravating answer that I continually receive is the notion of a great decision that has to be made over the matter of declaring areas of designation as to population on some basis of priority.
The simple solution to the problem, in so far as my district is concerned, is that the whole of the province of Newfoundland should be designated, because statistics support the fact that the condition of accepted standards for homes is far below the national norm, when taking into account the numbers of homes lacking the most basic services in the province of Newfoundland.
In taking advantage of the opportunity afforded me tonight to make a plea again to the minister, since it becomes increasingly obvious, after the length of time that the programs have been in effect, that something is wrong in the thrust to initiate such a worth-while program which would help so many Canadians and most particularly those living in rural Canada, and rather than criticize the minister for the apparent lack of attention, I offer an alternative as a responsible idea to give Canadians the opportunity to take advantage of the relief features which could be to the advantage of low income Canadians. I

April 28, 1975
Adjournment Debate
suggest that on a national basis a program exists which can be directed directly to the low income Canadian under the home improvement loans plan, whereby homeowners can apply for loans of up to $4,000 for home improvements.
I suggest to the minister that, rather than having to go through the provinces and the municipalities, the home improvement program be extended to Canadians under the following conditions. First, that homeowners be given the opportunity to apply for home improvement loans directly to CMHC under present conditions. Second, that the present program be amended to raise the amount to $5,000. Third, that in addition the program be amended to provide the forgiveness factor under present conditions of rehabilitation, commensurate with the national code. Fourth, that the staff at CMHC offices across Canada be enlarged to take care of the added workload, and that the present capability be decentralized to take in the provision of service to rural populations.
It is obvious that the minister is having some difficulty in providing relief to low income Canadians who require decent and acceptable accommodation, and I offer that with such a thrust thousands of Canadians would be afforded the opportunity to continue to live in decent and upgraded accommodation and shelter in the locality they wish, thereby relieving the housing crisis which exists in Canada today. I would appreciate a sympathetic response from the minister, and I know I can expect some sympathetic consideration.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Madam Speaker, I have been impressed by the continued interest of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) in the NIP and RRAP programs. I was particularly interested in his reference to the home improvement loans program and the specific suggestions that he made, suggestions which I can assure him I will take into consideration in reviewing the programs as I promised the provincial housing ministers I would, and as we look for new ways to assist the hon. member's constituents and other low income Canadians across the country.
The hon. member suggested that there have been undue delays in the implementation of NIP and RRAP, the neighbourhood improvement program and the residential rehabilitation assistance program. We have made tremendous headway in bringing in these new programs.
First of all, with respect to the Neighbourhood Improvement Program, we signed the necessary agreements with all ten provinces for 1974 and are in the process of negotiating the 1975 agreements now. In 1974, $481/2 million was allocated for grants to municipalities, and $50 Vi million has been budgeted for 1975. So, we are seeing increases as it comes on stream.
Following the signing of the 1974 agreements, the provinces designated 86 municipalities in which neighbourhood improvement areas were to be selected. These municipalities have selected 87 neighbourhoods, and activity has proceeded to the implementation stage in 34. The other 53 are at the planning stage. The selection of an additional 20 neighbourhoods is in process. The people who reside in these neighbourhoods are actively engaged in determining the needs of the neighbourhoods for assistance under the
(Mr. Marshall.]
legislation. I think we can be proud of these achievements. I am delighted with the support we have had from the provinces and municipalities and I am sure, as we move through 1975, that this program will show further very positive results.
We must not overlook that it was this House that passed the legislation that required municipalities to adopt bylaws of minimum maintenance and occupancy standards. All the municipalities participating in the program have had to enact these bylaws, and this in itself is a most important achievement.
Turning next to the implementation of the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, as hon. members know, the legislation prescribes that grants and loans for the rehabilitation of substandard property can be made available in NIP areas or in areas especially designated by Order-in-Council. Now that we have 87 areas designated under the NIP program, it is possible for CMHC to apply the benefits of RRAP, and I am very happy to be able to inform the House that rehabilitation loans and grants have been made in 22 municipalities, and a similar number of municipalities will shortly be in a position to benefit from this program. I should mention that it would be inappropriate for me to take all the credit for these programs since this more properly belongs to my predecessor, and to the provinces and municipalities which have so wholeheartedly co-operated with us.
It has been suggested that the rural and native housing program announced last year by the federal government has been slow in getting started. No one is more anxious than I to get this program moving. I would like to assure the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, and other members of this House, that we are proceeding as quickly as possible with the delivery of homes and the rehabilitation of dwellings under this program. Under agreements which we signed some years ago with the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba we have provided 848 units for low income residents in remote northern areas. Agreements have been signed with Newfoundland, P.E.I., New Brunswick, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia, and signings with other provinces are expected shortly.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister, but the time allotted to him has expired.


AIR CANADA-POSSIBLE INCLUSION OF WINNIPEG FINANCE BRANCH IN TERMS OF INQUIRY
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by commending the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), through you and the parliamentary secretary, for initiating a public inquiry into Air Canada's management with regard to the pay-,/ ment of $100,000 to McGregor Travel Agency of Montreal. The Minister looked objectively at the situation, saw the problem, and made an appropriate and accurate response. Now he must extend his objectivity and sincerity to the equally serious problems at the Air Canada finance branch in Winnipeg. There are a number of reasons why this situation is even more serious and in much more desperate need of a full public airing of the facts.

April 28, 1975
The labour-management dispute at the finance branch has been going on for almost two years. Winnipeg members of parliament have received countless telegrams and letters from employees during that period, pleading for some help in resolving the dispute.
During the last session of the twenty-ninth parliament and up to this point in the thirtieth parliament, this issue has been raised 28 times in the House of Commons, by members from both sides of the floor. The fact that this has resulted in no government action is in itself ridiculous.
The employees of Air Canada in Winnipeg cannot reasonably be expected to work in the present atmosphere. The general manager of the Winnipeg finance division, in a circular to all employees two months ago, stated that he hoped to "return the Air Canada work place to a satisfying and efficient place of employment". By his own admission it is not that now. From the company's point of view also it is imperative that the situation be resolved.
As of late 1974 the accounting service division had over 100 man years of work backlog. The billing schedule is presently eight weeks in arrears, amounting to a sum of $127 million. The manager of Air Canada audit services estimated the cost of the late billing to be in excess of $1 million as of November, 1974. This cost has risen since then, and this is money from lost interest charges, which is actual lost revenue for the airline. Can Air Canada afford this? Its 1974 deficit was blamed on rising fuel costs. How can this contention be justified when millions of dollars in bills go uncollected?
There is another major cause for concern as a result of the present situation. Air Canada's flight performance quality control recording is done in Winnipeg, and with an eight week backlog in billing one might reasonably suspect that this is being neglected as well. Several recent events have supplied potential evidence for this suspicion, such as the emergency landing of a DC-9 at the Ottawa airport on April 22 after one of the plane's two engines suddenly reversed thrust and, according to newspaper reports, blew up.
On March 25, flight 154 from Edmonton to Toronto taxied out to take off, only to have the aircraft rocked by the right engine following a compressor failure, after which it stalled. After this happened a second time, another Lockheed 1011 was flown in from Calgary to transport the passengers. The second aircraft taxied out, only to have the same malfunction repeat itself. By this time people were telling the pilot to let them off at the end of the runway and they would walk back. Two successive aircraft suffered the same flight-stopping engine malfunction.
It has been reported that on February 11, 1975, there were two cases of accidental depressurization aboard Air Canada DC-9s. These happened on aircrafts 732 and 735, and are added to a number in 1974 that Air Canada management claims not to know about, even though the airline's own maintenance documents prove the events.
You have probably noticed, Mr. Speaker, that I have not mentioned the facts in the actual dispute in Winnipeg. I do
Adjournment Debate
not pretend to know who is right or wrong on the various bargaining points. But I know of no one else who can give an objective critique of the situation or offer any solutions to the dilemma. That is the reason why an independent, objective group must be assigned the job before the situation becomes completely hopeless and the airline is permanently damaged.
A group of MPs in a committtee meeting questioning two or three witnesses cannot possibly ascertain the underlying feelings that have prevented a settlement in almost two years of negotiations, or hope to offer a solution.
The facts that I have outlined show very clearly that a solution must be found and the Winnipeg finance branch must be made efficient once more. I submit that the most effective way of doing that is to include the finance branch in the terms of the management inquiry as well as the Dorval maintenance base.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) has brought forward several very important questions, and I will try to deal with them as best as I can in the short time allotted to me.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) pointed out to the hon. member on April 22, in response to his question, that:
Anyhow, I think we will carry out that inquiry, see its results and whether it would be advisable to go further and take further action. I am not going to launch three or four inquiries on Air Canada one after the other.
As the hon. member is aware, the terms of reference for the inquiry into the financial administration of Air Canada were tabled last Friday. As I understand it, nothing prevents Judge Estey from investigating the financial activities of Air Canada in Winnipeg, if he decides that this is necessary.
I believe that the labour-management relations question in Winnipeg is a valid one but should be dealt with by the proper forum, namely, the labour-management negotiation process. It is true that the job reclassification issue for Air Canada employees in the financial branch has yet to be resolved. However, since the old contract expires in August of this year and some of the union demands would require changes in the collective agreement over and above reclassification, both parties decided to reopen negotiations early on a new contract. The Canadian Airlines Employees' Association and Air Canada management started negotiations for a new contract on April 8.
In closing I would like to comment briefly on the construction of the Air Canada Winnipeg hangar facility. I think it is important to point out that the facility will be built as quickly as possible and will be of great value to Winnipeg and Air Canada, and that delays in such a major undertaking can be expected. The promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson), and the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) prior to the election will become a reality.

April 28, 1975
Adjournment Debate


SOCIAL SECURITY-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN OLD AGE PENSIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, many years ago Robert Browning wrote these lines:
Grow old along with me,
The best is yet to be,
The last of life for which the first was made.
He could not truthfully have written that the best is yet to be for elderly people in Canada today, where so many of our senior citizens are subsisting at a level of income well below the poverty line.
Because of a weak and vacillating attitude toward inflation and recession, dodging important issues behind the guise of a so-called consensus, the government will now and then shyly approach the vital issues of today and then back away. In all this indecisiveness those who suffer the most and those who deserve most of our concern are receiving the totally inadequate old age security pension.
The government has been told by its advisers that the poverty line is an income of $4,898 per year for families in Atlantic Canada. Despite this fact, it is paying those retired people, whose efforts helped build the present economy, the niggardly sum of $123.42 per month plus, in certain cases, a guaranteed income supplement which averages $66.48 per month.
To say that this paltry sum is reasonable because it is indexed to the cost of living is a pious hypocrisy. The cost of living index covers a broad spectrum of living costs, related to the average family of four. It cannot be realistically compared to the cost of subsistence incurred by senior citizens forced to live on such a limited income where the first and essential expenses of food and shelter are subject to the highest individual increases.
Additionally, the index is published after the changes occur, and the increase in pension, paid quarterly, does not reach the recipient for at least a month after that. It is not made retroactive, although retroactive payments are not unknown to this government.
The people of whom I speak, all 1,892,454 of them, have passed the age of 65 years. This means that they have lived through the hungry thirties as employable adults and in the years of prosperity which followed. In their productive years they made a great contribution to the prosperity and growth of this country. They toiled and paid their full share of taxes. Now we treat them as second class members of society they helped to create.
The old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement must be raised to a level which will enable these people to live their lives in decency and self respect.
In my view a tax free old age security pension of $200 per month now would be a giant step forward in recognizing the need of our senior citizens, and it cannot wait until
the minister develops a new system or scheme. It is indeed an imperative element of any structure of social justice.
I conclude with a quotation which I am sure is familiar to most of my hon. colleagues. They would do well to keep it in mind when this issue comes up for debate, as it most assuredly must in the name of common decency and in the fullness of time: "Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land."


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, one cannot look at the proposal of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) to increase old age pensions, in isolation. It must be examined in the context of the whole set of economic relationships.
There are at the present time approximately 1.9 million persons in receipt of old age security pensions. Any substantial increase in the basic pension would add significantly to the approximately $4 billion we are now spending annually on the Old age security and guaranteed income supplement programs.
The federal-provincial review of social security in Canada has been examining the needs and incomes of all disadvantaged groups in our society. We must be equally concerned about pensioners, the spouses of pensioners, the disabled, single parent families, as well as persons working whose incomes are inadequate to look after their family needs. At the present time many of these groups have incomes which are much lower than the incomes of the elderly. We must correct this inequitable situation by bringing these groups at the bottom up to the higher level.
The federal government is concerned about the financial needs of our elderly population and over the past several years has increased pension benefits substantially. In the last three years the old age security pension has increased by $60 per month. As well, this government has introduced the guaranteed income supplement for pensioners.
I should also like to point out that the old age security pension is now fully escalated every quarter according to increases in the consumer price index, to protect pensioners' purchasing power. This also applies to the guaranteed income supplement.
Today a married couple, both over age 65, are guaranteed an income under OAS and, if in receipt of the guaranteed income supplement, of $4,807. These improvements together with the recent amendments to the Income Tax Act providing more generous treatment to elderly persons, show this government's commitment to the financial security of our senior citizens.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Tuesday, April 29, 1975