1975-07-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on a matter of urgent, pressing and grave necessity.
In view of the extremely high level of unemployment in the Cape Breton area of Nova Scotia which has been aggravated by a series of layoffs at the Sysco steel operations at Sydney, amounting to over 800 employees, which will in all probability be followed by additional layoffs as a result of a massive breakdown in the rail mill, coupled with the fact that cheap foreign reinforcing steel is entering Nova Scotia while Sysco has a stockpile of such material, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cumber-land-Colchester North (Mr. Coates):
That the Department of Regional Economic Expansion combine with the Departments of Labour and Manpower and Immigration to form a task force of experts from these departments to immediately go to Sydney to determine what urgent actions can be initiated, both technically and financially, to overcome the terrible economic crisis that has beset the total community and the impending possible collapse of the present operation, with no concrete indication by the federal and provincial governments that Cape Breton Island will definitely be the site of the proposed and promised new steel complex.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should point out that as the indicated order of business for today, which is in fact a motion that the House do now adjourn for a period of time, is such that its subject matter would permit a very wide range of subjects to be discussed, including ones of the nature raised by the hon. member, it is difficult to see how it is possible to ask that this subject matter be set aside in order to debate something else when in fact under the umbrella of that subject matter it is possible to debate almost anything. However, in the moments remaining I will simply put the motion to hon. members, having expressed that reservation.
The motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion dealing with a matter of urgency to which I hope the government will give attention during the recess. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the government, in its preparations for the portion of the present session that is to be resumed in October, to give serious and earnest consideration to the introduction of legislation to provide for a substantial increase in the amount of the basic pension under the Old Age Security Act and to provide for corresponding increases in veterans' pensions and allowances and in all social benefits.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With a second reservation as to whether this is a matter of urgency, and in celebration of the occasion by not differing with hon. members, I will simply bring to the attention of members that the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It could have been passed without debate.


SUGGESTED MAINTENANCE OF DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME TO CONSERVE ENERGY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an extremely urgent issue. In view of the fact that our national economy is eroded by an ever growing inflation, that we are trying by every possible means to fight that evil and that the government has levied a 10 per cent tax on gas, to improve economic conditions in the country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That this House take the necessary steps to pass a bill to keep daylight saving time and thus really help the consumer to save energy without having to spend a cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.

July 30, 1975
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


MANPOWER
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that $4 billion will be paid out during 1975-76 in unemployment insurance benefits, that this money will serve to support people doing nothing, while a mere $150 million will be used to create jobs under the LIP program, taking into account the great advertising campaign on the radio to invite people to submit projects, and the fact that a great many projects may be turned down for lack of funds, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne):
That the House recommend to the Treasury Board to transfer part of the $4 billion of credits to be spent by the Unemployment Insurance Commission to the Department of Manpower, so that the minister may accept a larger number of LIP projects and thus create more jobs, which would certainly give greater satisfaction to the serious-minded people of our country.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Arising out of the knuckle-rapping delivered to the government by the UN Committee on Conferences yesterday, I wonder whether the minister would tell the House what instructions have been given to our representatives in New York with regard to the reported plan of the Committee on Conferences to ask Canada to pay the

cost of switching the site of the crime conference from Toronto to either Vienna or Geneva.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I understand one of the delegates made that comment in passing yesterday. It has not been transmitted to us nor have we considered such a possibility.


REPRESENTATIONS ON EFFECT OF POSTPONEMENT OF UNITED NATIONS CRIME CONFERENCE IN TORONTO- GOVERNMENT ACTION
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government has received representations from the Metro Toronto Hotel Association, among others, stating that cancellation of the crime conference will cost these hotels $1.9 million and will result in the laying off of some 500 hotel employees as well as other groups including student groups and asking government assistance to meet this serious situation. Have such representations been received and what is the government's position in this regard?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: I can
confirm that such representations have been received. They have not been given any consideration as yet. There has been no opportunity to do so, but I do not want to encourage anyone to think we would accept them.


HUMAN SETTLEMENTS CONFERENCE IN VANCOUVER- INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT PLANS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On Friday last, in answer to a question concerning the Human Settlements Conference in Vancouver, the minister assured the House that it would be going ahead as planned. In view of developments over the past few days, particularly the information given by my colleague the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, I should like to ask the minister this week whether his government has made any alternative plans in view of the information which has been coming to the government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. The statement which I made I believe last Friday in respect of this question still stands. Canada proposes to continue its plans and has the clear intention of hosting this conference next June.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Following his and other cabinet ministers' meeting yesterday with their counterparts in the government of Ontario on the question of the Pickering airport, is he now in a position to inform the House in a clear, precise and
July 30, 1975

unequivocal way what are the government's plans for the Pickering airport now?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I read a report in the Globe and Mail this morning about the meeting I had yesterday with the Ontario ministers and I think it contains only one inaccuracy. The cabinet asked me to report on the meeting, and that is all, but if I read the Globe and Mail article correctly, it states that a new decision is supposed to be made about Pickering airport. This is not what the cabinet asked me to do. I was just asked by the cabinet to make a report.


John Edward Broadbent: But I am asking the minister.


Jean Marchand: The hon. member will have to wait until the cabinet has met.


PICKERING-GOVERNMENT PLANS BEYOND 1977
John Edward Broadbent: It is even worse than I had expected.


An hon. Member:: That is impossible.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the uncertainty, not only for the people in Ontario as a whole, but in particular for the people who live in the municipalities directly affected by the Pickering airport decision in terms of the zoning plans for the years ahead, can the minister tell us now what the government's intention is because of the new uncertainty that had arisen about building up until 1977, and then what precisely does he plan to do beyond 1977? Does he have a full scale airport in mind beyond 1977?


Jean Marchand: If the
hon. gentleman read the whole article he would have seen that I will recommend to cabinet that we stick to our decision and that nothing be changed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: Of course, cabinet has the authority to change the whole thing. This is the Government of Canada and they can say no. But this will not be my recommendation. My recommendation is to the effect that we should stick to the decision we made to construct first a mini-airport to be completed by 1977, and only then will we decide whether we want to go all the way.


John Edward Broadbent: We will not be entirely surprised if the cabinet does change its mind. But if the minister is saying to the House that in 1977 the government will make another decision on what will happen beyond 1977, I would like to ask him what he meant in his letter to Premier Davis dated June 12 and tabled in the Ontario legislature on July 11, when he said that federal plans were proceeding for a "subsequent phase of development for Pickering for implementation by 1981". The implication is that the plans are already made for beyond 1977. Elsewhere in the letter the clear indication is of a full scale airport. If so, can the minister tell the House now whether that is the federal government's intention now?


Jean Marchand: What I have said to the
House and in public still holds true. This means that we
Oral Questions
will build a mini-airport with one runway and a terminal, of course, and in 1977, if new facts come up, we will reassess the situation because technology in that field can bring something new and perhaps Canadians might feel that the time has come for the situation to be reassessed. So, we will keep the liberty to decide then. However, our decision is to build a completely new airport in Pickering with the proviso that in 1977 there will be a reassessment in case new facts are brought to light.


PICKERING-SUGGESTED MORATORIUM ON CONSTRUCTION UNTIL COST-SHARING WITH ONTARIO SETTLED
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, following on the questions asked by the Leader of the New Democratic Party I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Because of the fact that Dorval airport has not as yet reached full saturation, and it is expected that Mirabel will operate at less than its capacity well into the 1980's indicating a levelling off in the prediction of air travel, will the minister in this day of economic restraint and in accordance with the wishes of the majority of Toronto's population, including the city council, place a moratorium on the construction of Pickering airport with a view to resolving first the cost-sharing situation between Ottawa and the Ontario government, which is now estimated at a minimum of $516 million?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker. Any government which has the responsibility for building airports or this kind of facility provides not only for the needs which are established or foreseen, but also for a certain expansion. Airports are not built for needs defined at this very moment, and this is what is happening in Dorval. We have known that for a long time. We knew, at the beginning that it would take time before the transfer of companies from Dorval to Mirabel, and that it would take a certain time before there is a full use of Mirabel. It will be the same thing in Pickering.


Otto John Jelinek: In his earlier reply the minister mentioned new technology. Could he explain, therefore, the discrepancy existing between his statement that an airport is needed at Pickering to offset the noise pollution at Malton airport and the statement in a Ministry of Transport pamphlet noting that a major breakthrough in new technology has in fact made airplane engines quieter which makes-


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


PETROLEUM PRODUCTS-FEDERAL DELEGATES TO PETROLEUM SEMINAR IN QUEBEC
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The second international seminar on petroleum economy will be held at the beginning of October next in
8066

July 30, 1975
Oral Questions
Quebec City. Would the minister be in a position to tell the House whether he and the officials of his department have been invited to attend or to participate in this important international seminar on petroleum economy or whether persons who are not necessarily working in his department but are involved in energy will also attend?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not attend personally the seminar referred to by the hon. member. However, I shall make inquiries among the officials of my department to find out if any of them will attend.


REFERENCE TO ALLEGATIONS BY MEMBER FOR BERTHIER-MASKINONGE CONCERNING ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES OF SOME MEMBERS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Has the Acting Prime Minister taken note of press statements attributed to the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge to the effect that several other members of the House have engaged in activities similar to those of which he has been accused, and has the Acting Prime Minister taken any action to identify those members and the activities to which the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge was referring?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen these comments, and I am sure the hon. member will agree that the hon. member to whom he referred has not been found guilty of the offence with which he has been charged.


CHARGES AGAINST MEMBER FOR BERTHIER-MASKINONGE- POSSIBILITY OF ACTION UNDER SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Allan Bruce McKinnon: I do not ask these questions with any gladness in my heart.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: You would be cutting us up in pieces if it were one of ours.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I believe the institution we all serve demands that these things be clarified if possible. My supplementary question is to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister examined the evidence put forth in regard to the charges laid against the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge to see whether this evidence warrants any action under the Senate and House of Commons Act? If so, what conclusion has the minister and his officials reached in this regard.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have not examined the question in quite that context. The matter is one that is properly in the hands of the provincial attorneys general.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could the minister tell the House whether he has had any reports from the Canadian observer at the OAS meetings, in San Jose, Costa Rica and in particular if the Canadian government was given any reason in these reports to press for closer ties with that organization- such as full membership?


Mr. Prud'homme:: No way!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not been pressed at this point, nor has the government of Canada, to undertake full membership at OAS or within the organization. I welcome, however, the decisions which have been taken at this meeting, particularly the support of the United States government, for such a decision. This does pave the way for a resolution of the difficulties we have been experiencing in our trade with Cuba.


EFFECT OF DECISION OF ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES TO LOWER TRADE BARRIERS WITH CUBA- POSSIBILITY OF SUGAR AGREEMENT
Donald W. Munro: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his reply and for his very convenient lead into my second question which is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Could the minister tell us whether the decisions taken in Costa Rica this week to lower the trade barriers with Cuba have prompted the minister to bring out any contingency plan he may have to enter into conversations with Cuba and other Caribbean countries with a view to concluding long term sugar agreements?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the information I have received indicates that the Organization of American States has decided to conclude, to finish, to turn off the embargo of Cuba. That is, from our point of view a very welcome development. The other part of the hon. member's question about sugar was not part of any report I have seen emanating from San Jose.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Denis Ethier (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. As the minister is no doubt aware, the producers of manufacturing milk are highly concerned about the recent increase in the levy that they are required to pay to offset losses on
July 30, 1975

exports of skimmed milk powder through the Canadian Dairy Commission. This levy was raised from 15 cents per hundredweight in March to 90 cents per hundredweight of milk at the beginning of this month. Does the government have any plans to iron out the fluctuations in the size of this levy through the establishment of some sort of fund, that would serve to iron out the ups and downs of producers' contributions and allow them to plan their operations on a long term basis?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This sounds to my unpractised ear to be very similar to a question put to the minister yesterday but perhaps he may still care to reply.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion has been made to us by the dairy producers and we are considering it.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and I am glad to see him back in the House today. In view of the minister's evasions with respect to questions I have asked in this House regarding the existence of extended warranties placed on certain models of automobiles by automobile companies and his obstinate refusal to make consumers aware of their rights, I wish to ask if the minister is now prepared to publicize, through Box 99, all extended warranties which have existed, now exist and may be found to exist in the future?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure everyone that the information made public by the Automobile Protection Association will be distributed on request by the officials of my department, but obviously that information is the exclusive responsibility of the association concerned and not that of my department.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. In view of the fact that this matter cuts across federal and provincial responsibilities legislatively, will the minister advise the House if he is prepared to meet with provincial ministers of consumer affairs in order to devise legislation which would provide consumers with all information regarding warranties, regular or extended? Since he has until October before Bill C-2 comes back to the House, would he reconsider his previous position and bring in an amendment which would provide for class actions as this is clearly what is needed in cases like these? Would he also inform the House how he intends to proceed to ensure that all consumers who have been ripped off as a result of not having the knowledge of the extended warranties, and so paid for repairs unnecessarily out of their own pockets, are compensated?
Oral Questions


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the hon. member seems to take it for granted that there were irregularities committed by some companies. I beg to disagree. Secondly, what matters most to me is to guarantee the consumer maximum protection and not to make irrational and foolish statements such as the hon. member has just done. I am willing to consider and discuss possible legislation with my provincial counterparts, if such discussions are deemed important and likely to afford greater advantages to car users.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Prime Minister or the Solicitor General, whichever is competent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: It arises from reports broadcast in Vancouver this morning that a senior minister of the British Columbia government, the Hon. Bob Williams, stated yesterday that the government of British Columbia has sent to the government of Canada documented evidence that the CIA is working in British Columbia to undermine the authority of the government of that province. Can we be advised whether the government of Canada has received such information and, if so, what action has been taken or is contemplated?


Mitchell William Sharp: I, too, heard this report, Mr. Speaker. I made inquiries but as far as I have been able to learn no such evidence has been provided. I understand the Solicitor General also had his office searched and that he has not been able to find any such evidence.


POSSIBLE DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN CANADIAN OFFICIALS AND CIA CONCERNING ACTIVITIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Charles Joseph Clark: My supplementary is directed to whichever minister is responsible for security matters. I should like to know whether there has been any discussion between the CIA and Canadian security officials relative to activities of the CIA in British Columbia which might lead to the events reportedly complained of by a minister of the B.C. government.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: No, Mr. Speaker. Nobody has ever complained to us about any such activities in British Columbia, and I have been in touch recently on several occasions with ministers in British Columbia. We heard about this report late yesterday or early today. We are investigating. There is no correspondence in the Prime Minister's office to substantiate this
29 669 -2 7(/2

July 30, 1975
Oral Questions
allegation but we would be willing to discuss the matter if any were brought forward.


Charles Joseph Clark: My supplementary sought to ascertain whether there had been any discussions, any advice given by the CIA to security counterparts in Canada, which would indicate that there might be the kind of activity going on in British Columbia about which a Minister of the Crown in that province has apparently complained. Has there been any consultation of this kind between the CIA and Canadian security officials?


William Warren Allmand: Before the question period we checked with certain security officials in our department and they told us that this matter had never been raised either from British Columbia or from Washington.


Mr. Baldwin:: Why don't you monitor their phones?


CRIMINAL CODE
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. Children are citizens and should receive all the rights and protection of a person, a citizen, within the law. However, throughout Canada children are being kidnapped by a parent in defiance of court orders on custody. One appalling case is the kidnap more than a year ago of five children of tender age-13 months to six years-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Simma Holt: -of Mildred Watson of Mission, B.C., by Eduardo Antonio Gomez. The children were taken to the Philippines.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Simma Holt: In view of the fact that when a criminal flees to another province or country, that criminal is pursued and returned, will the Minister of Justice consider bringing in amendments to the Criminal Code to ensure that parent-kidnappers will be pursued, arrested and returned to the jurisdiction in the same way as any other dangerous criminal?


Otto Emil Lang: I thank the hon. lady for drawing this problem to our attention. I will certainly look at the social and legal implications of the change suggested and comment further in due course.


DISASTERS
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime

Minister. It arises from my belief that, primarily, Canadians should help Canadians in times of need. Will the government be giving appropriate assistance to the stricken village of St. Bonaventure following the damage caused there recently by a tornado, the extent of the disaster being now estimated at $3 million?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the
Prime Minister said when he was asked a similar question, the government of Canada does stand ready to assist the provinces on application in cases of disaster. We have a formula which applies generally and which does not discriminate on the basis of particular cases-only on the basis of whether a province itself shares part of the cost. If the Province of Quebec makes an application, it will be considered on its merits.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I would direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. Bearing in mind the fact that the minister and his department are trustees of land reserved for the Indian people, how is it that the minister funds an independent group of citizens to the tune of $800,000? Does this group have the right to lay charges against a provincial government-I have in mind the case of Nelson House and the Manitoba hydro development? Or does the minister retain the right to do so, in which case what was his purpose in financing an independent private group to the extent I have mentioned?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The minister has indicated that legal action in Manitoba is only one of the options to be considered. I think the hon. member has overstated his case somewhat. However, I will bring his question to the attention of the minister and I am sure he will reply.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Perhaps the parliamentary secretary misunderstood my question. I did not ask whether or not the minister intended to take legal action. I asked whether he had given the authority to take legal action to an independent committee. If so, has he forfeited his rights and duties as minister to be trustee over this land; alternatively, if he has not given the right to this committee, why has he funded it to such a large extent?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not forfeited his right as minister. I shall be happy to bring this matter to his attention for further discussion.
July 30, 1975


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Does the government have under consideration the total reorganization of Canada's armed forces in such a way as to bring about a distinctive separation between the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, in view of the fact that the attempt to convince others that unification of the forces has merit and value has been a miserable failure? Is it the government's intention to reestablish our forces on the same basis as those of our NATO partners and other forces with which we come into contact in the course of our international functions?


Mitchell William Sharp: I know of no such plan. I am surprised that the hon. member should repudiate the views of a former member of his caucus.


Robert Carman Coates: When this measure came before us I voted against it as did all the members of my party at that time. Regardless of what might have happened subsequently, I should like to suggest to the Acting Prime Minister that with a view to re-establishing a degree of morale in our armed forces and ensuring the best use of the limited number of personnel we appear to be able to afford at this time, the government accept the fact that unification has been a miserable failure?


Mitchell William Sharp: I thank the hon. member for reiterating his well-known views on this subject, but the government has no intention of changing its policy.


MANPOWER
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration or, in his absence, to the Acting Prime Minister or to the parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that a member of parliament knows more about his constituency than does a special assistant to a minister of the Crown, may I ask what right a special assistant to a minister has to question, on an alleged language basis, the adequacy of the nominations made by a member of parliament in all sincerity under the Local Initiatives Program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making an inquiry in a specific case which I am sure ought to be done in another way and, alternatively, asks for the rendering of an opinion as to the capacity of a person to check something in a member's office. The question fails on both grounds.
Oral Questions HOUSING


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO INTERFERENCE WITH INSTALLATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE TO SERVICE DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHWEST PART OF CITY
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the chronic shortage of housing in the Ottawa area and in view of the statement, and indeed the financial commitment, of the Ontario government with regard to the commencement of construction in the southwest quadrant of the Ottawa area which is in accordance with local municipal, regional and provincial planning principles, can the minister assure the House that neither he, his representatives nor the government will permit any interference with municipal or regional officials with regard to the installation of the infrastructure on federal lands to service development in that part of the national capital area?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I did not get the last part of the hon. member's question.


Walter David Baker: My basic question is this: in view of the position taken by the Ontario government, the regional government and local municipal governments in the Ottawa-Carleton area with regard to development in the southwest quadrant of the national capital area, will the minister assure the House that neither he, anyone under his jurisdiction nor the government will refuse access across federal lands for the infrastructure to service development there, particularly in view of the fact that that land is available now, long in advance of any other area for development in the national capital area on the Ontario side?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member and I are quite in agreement about what land is available for immediate development. It is not our intention to frustrate local plans. Indeed, we are trying to work out an amicable arrangement. There is a legitimate difference of opinion at this time. My meeting yesterday with the provincial and municipal officials was helpful. I hope we can resolve this. I can assure the hon. member we certainly will not be obstructive in any draconian sense.


INCOME TAX
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue.
During the last session of the 29th Parliament, a law was passed which aimed at enabling Canadians to contribute to the funds of any political party they wish, and which provided for part of those contributions to be claimed as income tax rebates when returns are filed. Can the minister inform the House of the guidelines pursuant to which officials of his department can afford to ignore the receipts enclosed with the returns of a taxpayer who has

July 30, 1975
Oral Questions
contributed to the funds of a political party, without due regard for the receipt which was issued under the law?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, under the authority of provisions in the Income Tax Act and also with regard to the specific cases to which the hon. member has referred, which have been the subject of questions in this House, and as a result of discussions with financial representatives of his party, certain tax returns will be processed without the tax credit for political contributions until that matter is settled.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister.
Since the Department of National Revenue is very cautious, I wish to ask the minister whether or not this same caution is applied to officials who travel across Canada and produce receipts for expenses authorized under the law? Do those receipts receive the same scrutiny, as far as checking is concerned, as the receipts from taxpayers who have contributed to political parties?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, they are all processed in the same way. That process is that assessments and audits are applied to them.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that representatives of Canadian longshoremen have voted to refuse to load grain for the Soviet Union, what action will be taken against the longshoremen if they go on strike? Also, what plans does the minister have to ensure that our grain commitment to the Soviet Union is met?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the government, like many trade union leaders over the past few days, does not approve of American interference in Canadian trade union affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: It should be noted that some outstanding leaders in the longshoremen unions in various bigger ports have stated they have no intention of obeying this type of order from the United States.


URANIUM-POSSIBILITY OF INVOLVING PROVINCES IN DEVELOPMENT OF EXPORT POLICY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Does the minister have any plans to involve or has he been involving the provinces in order to get some input with regard to the development of a federal export uranium review policy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I responded to questions in this vein in recent weeks. I pointed out that the guidelines which have now been set down for uranium export were extensively discussed, both with users such as Ontario Hydro and the Ontario officials, as well as with producers in Ontario and the province of Saskatchewan. The standards we have now set for uranium export were indeed the subject of discussion before their implementation and since, with both the producing and consuming sides of the industry.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, my question is more directly whether the provincial governments per se are going to be asked to have some input into this policy.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: They already have, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING COUNCIL
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister check into the very serious allegations made by the appointed consumer representative of the National Farm Products Marketing Council, namely that decisions are made on a majority vote and the consumer representative is of a minority and information is not given in time to provide for an informed decision? I might say these are the same allegations the representative made when she was the volunteer member of the board during the hearing of the special committee on egg marketing.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, knowing the capabilities of the person the hon. member speaks about, I am sure it will take some time for her to adjust to board procedures. I am sure the hon. member is not suggesting that a minority should rule the board.


SUGGESTED ACTION BY MINISTER OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS TO PROTECT CONSUMER INTERESTS IN COUNCIL
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the responsibility which is his to protect the consumer interests and in view
July 30, 1975

of the serious nature of this allegation, will the minister check into these charges with a view to recommending to his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, what action can be taken to resolve the problem from the consumer point of view and to ensure that consumer interests are protected in the National Farm Products Marketing Council?


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


PROPOSED REFERENCE OF REPORT OF ECONOMIC COUNCIL TO STANDING COMMITTEE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. While recognizing the difficulty that a genuine believer in free trade has in the House regard to making progress, is the minister going to cavalierly dismiss the report of the Economic Council of Canada or will he consider referring it to a committee of this House, even if only for the purpose of education?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the report of the Council will be given every consideration by my department in its regular review of trade policy matters. As to the question of referring the particular report of the Economic Council of Canada to a standing committee, I would of course be very pleased to comply with any wishes of the standing committee.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment, I will direct my question to her parliamentary secretary. What is the policy of the department as regards the specific citing of an industry as a major contributor to water pollution in a given area? Would the minister or his parliamentary secretary make firm representations to those industries cited in the report of the International Joint Commission's water quality board?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to take this question as notice. There is a lot involved in the question. The Ministry of the Environment is always very concerned about the location of various industries, especially if that involves places which would be detrimental to wildlife or to anything else under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Oral Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General arising out of the case of the employees of CN Telecommunications and CP Telecommunications who have been dismissed because they refused to be fingerprinted, despite the fact that one of them at least has 23 years' service and all of them have passed previous security provisions. May I ask the minister whether or not these companies are carrying out this particular program on the instruction of the RCMP or of the Solicitor General of Canada.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such instruction. Maybe the hon. member could get a more complete answer from the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Supply and Services. I can say that in certain cases where telecommunications employees with the railways are dealing with sensitive material they are subject to security checks, and the security check is made by the RCMP at the request of the other department. But the decision with respect to security clearance is left with them after we give a report. As I say, perhaps more details can be had from the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Supply and Services.


CN-CP TELECOMMUNICATIONS DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEES FOR REFUSAL TO BE FINGERPRINTED-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If I may pump another dry well for a moment, may I ask the Minister of Transport, who I know is very interested in the rights of employees, if he has not already done so, whether he will look into the case of the three employees who have been dismissed by CN Telecommunications and the one employee dismissed by CP Telecommunications because they refused to be fingerprinted? The Solicitor General is not clear whether the RCMP insisted on this or whether the company insisted, without warning. As I understand it, they were called to the office and told they must be fingerprinted or else be dismissed. Is the minister familiar with the case and has he taken any action; if not, will he look into the matter?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the House a few days ago, these matters were raised as grievances by the union. They are presently proceeding, I do not know whether it is before an arbitrator or a conciliator of some kind, according to the agreement which they signed with CN and CP. I will wait and see what the result is of the proceeding before I make any recommendation to the Solicitor General, or to the cabinet if necessary.

July 30, 1975
Oral Questions FISHERIES


REASON FOR EXPLORATORY FISHING FOR SWORDFISH-POSSIBLE LIFTING OF IMPORT BAN ON SWORDFISH BY UNITED STATES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, on July 18 I addressed the following question to the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Fisheries, as reported at page 7704 of Hansard:
In view of the tender call for the charter of two vessels by the federal fisheries and marine service for exploratory fishing for swordfish during the months of July and August, could the minister indicate the reason for this exploratory work and inform the House if the United States food and drug directorate has lifted the import ban on swordfish as imposed some four years ago?
She promised to take that question up with the Minister of State (Fisheries), and since he is in the House today could he provide me with an answer, for many fishermen in Nova Scotia are eagerly awaiting the minister's report.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, as indicated, the program involving these two ships is very much intended to be experimental. One is to check again the mercury content and certain age levels of swordfish and also, although we are not very hopeful, we are trying to explore the possibility of removing mercury from the flesh. There is really nothing much more than that; it is strictly experimental.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A brief supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that there are ships at the present time from other countries fishing for swordfish off the coast of Nova Scotia, would the minister indicate where these ships are finding a market for swordfish?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, some nations do not seem to mind the mercury content of swordfish at the moment and do use it. We have no prohibition against selling fish if anyone wants to buy it. The problem is to find a market. Some states of the United States-this is a state matter-do allow consumption and selling within the state of swordfish products. We have a prohibition against it here in Canada, because of mercury levels, and there is no way we can export swordfish through the normal avenues if the U.S. government has banned imports.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs; I think he is eager to answer. Would the minister give the House an explanation of the extremely short supply of home canning materials, a shortage that has now extended to the province of Ontario and I expect will be given greater urgency than it has been up to now. What steps are being taken to improve the situation?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the problem exists not only in Canada but also in the United States. Several months ago, we took steps to help the Canadian companies. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce made sure that the two Canadian companies would have enough tin plate to meet the demand. Officials of my department visited those companies to encourage them to produce more of it, to double and even triple their production, which they did. Unfortunately, there was a shortage of the product in some sectors, but I can assure the hon. member that as far as the Canadian companies are concerned, they are producing at full capacity. We can do no more. Attempts will therefore have to be made to import some to make up the shortage. This is becoming increasingly difficult, as a similar shortage exists in the United States. Canadian consumers will therefore be asked to buy only what they need, and refrain from hoarding it for fear the shortage might become even more acute.


SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF ADVISORY BODY ON NUTRITION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of the latest report by the Food Prices Review Board indicating that the average cost of a nutritious diet for a family of four is rising month by month, will the minister accept the recommendation made by the Food Prices Review Board in February, 1975 in their release "What Price Nutrition?" to the effect that the government establish an advisory body, with input from provincial governments and other interested organizations, to make recommendations pertaining to nutrition and health?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I take note of the hon. member's representation and shall consider it carefully.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I will direct to the Postmaster General. I should like some guarantee, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the statue "Olympic" will not be destroyed by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or the Postmaster General of Canada so that the people of Canada will be able to view the $50,000 masterpiece when we get back here in the fall?
July 30, 1975


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, instructions have been given to put the statue on the grounds of the main post office building and we all hope it will be another Henry Moore.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['The government has deferred its plan to proceed with a medium security institution in Stony Mountain, Manitoba, because of a reduced rate of population growth in that locality.']
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from a statement made in the House this afternoon by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in reply to a question of mine, in which he said that I had made unfounded statements with respect to impropriety on the part of automobile manufacturers in keeping their extended warranties secret.
The minister full well knows, or ought to know, that his department's regional offices have been advised to proceed cautiously in handling consumer complaints and inquiries about the auto makers' secret programs so that "good company-customer relations" will not be upset. Furthermore, the statement by spokesmen for GM, Ford and Chrysler was widely reported on Monday, July 21-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect to the hon. member, I suggest he has a very clear point of disagreement with the minister, or the contents of the minister's remarks, which is a matter for debate. Quite clearly, in view of Citation 113 of Beauchesne's, it is a subject which falls outside the narrow confines of a point or question of privilege.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I was unable to give notice as I just received this communication dated today, July 30, 1975, from Germain Laporte, Special Assistant in the office of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I think I must lay out the background of this in order to indicate to you quite clearly what happened.
I submitted my list of nominees for the constituency advisory group under the Local Initiatives Program on July 9. Today I received this letter and I should like to read it so it will be on the record. It is addressed to myself, and states:
I wish to thank you for your list of nominees for the Constituency Advisory Group under the 1975-76 Local Initiatives Program.
Unfortunately this list does not appear to adequately represent the Francophone sector of your constituency.
Would it be possible for you to forward at your earliest convenience further nominees, representative of this particular group?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You had no Liberals on it.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege, I submit, arises from the fact this is an outright interference by a special assistant, who is not an elected representative or a minister of the Crown, with my privileges and rights
Privilege-Mr. Jones
as a member of parliament, and my proper function as a member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard C. Jones: There were Francophones in this group.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the greatest respect for the rights of the hon. member who has just raised this question, as well as of other hon. members, to function freely without interference. The letter the hon. member has put forward, on the face of it at least, seems to me to be no more than correspondence with the hon. member containing an invitation or a suggestion. It may go further, but if the hon. member has any disagreement in that regard he may want to take this up as a matter of discussion with the minister or other officials of his department, other ministers, or the Prime Minister.
However, in order to fall within the category of a question of privilege there would have to be some indication of a step taken which in fact constituted a direct interference with the right of the hon. member to function as a member of parliament. In fact what this seems to be is correspondence about a suggestion of the member, indicating it ought to be discussed further.
The hon. member's right to speak in this House, to function as a member, and to make suggestions has certainly not been restrained or interfered with, but what reception is given might be a matter of disagreement by the hon. member, as it has been by several other members. With all due respect to the hon. member, I do not think this is the right forum or the right guise, under the title of a question of privilege, to get into a debate as to whether the list contained proper and adequate representation of his own constituency or the texture of it at this time. Unless the member is able to show there has been in fact a restriction or hindrance of his right to function as a member, to make suggestions, and to have a part in the decision-making process, I would have to indicate that there is no question of privilege.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to continue. This did not begin just this month. Last fall when I submitted a similar list I got the same response, only it was verbal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard C. Jones: Not only did it come from the minister's office, the Moncton Liberal Association laid a complaint in the local newspaper, unfounded. I am concerned that there is political patronage here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Now he will be called to order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if, in the absence of the minister and his acting minister, I might just simply say for the record that this particular kind of committee is an organization which the minister, in his discretion, thought would be useful and thought could be created
8074

July 30, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Jones
across the country. Of course the minister still retains a certain amount of responsibility for seeing that these committees are in fact useful in the way in which they are formed.


An hon. Member:: Tell the executive assistants.


Otto Emil Lang: I am sure the minister would have no difficulty in taking the responsibility for drawing to the attention of the hon. member for Moncton that the committee will only be useful if it is in fact properly constituted.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order in response to-


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same question of privilege, and the minister is rising on a point of order, and a point of order has never proceeded or taken precedence over a question of privilege in all the 18 years I have been here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry, but I was unable to hear the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I was rising on a matter associated with the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Moncton and the comments by the Minister of Justice. I rose on the same question of privilege when the Minister of Agriculture stood up on a point of order. In the 18 years I have been in this Chamber a point of order has never preceded or interfered with a question of privilege which was in the process of being discussed in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North will have sensed that I had initially rejected the representations of the hon. member for Moncton as a question of privilege, unless there was some clear and distinct interference with his rights. The minister made a comment on this and I did not think it needed a further decision on my part to indicate that, in the final analysis, the hon. member for Moncton was not putting a motion in respect of the proposed question of privilege.
Furthermore, I had some difficulty in that the minister was on his feet prior to that point, and I went back to him by way of recognition. If the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North wants to contribute before I do finalize the question put by the hon. member for Moncton, I would be glad to see him now.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, probably I would not have intervened in this debate except for the fact that, after you had ruled, the Minister of Justice got up and put in his two cents, which is just exactly what his comments are worth, as far as I am concerned.
There is no question but that the rights of a member of parliament in this House are being interfered with when the Minister of Manpower and Immigration writes a letter

requesting that a member place before him a list containing certain people within the constituency he has been elected to represent by the majority of the people. Whether the people in government authority do or do not like the way he was elected, the member is still here because he represents his constituency, having been elected by a majority of the people.
In this case the minister has written the hon. member requesting the member to provide a list of nominees in his constituency he feels would assist the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the people involved with the Local Initiatives Program to produce recommendations, which are not final in any way, in order that the minister and these people in the Local Initiatives Program can make a decision on which projects should be undertaken in that constituency. Following that, in this case some executive assistant, special assistant or somebody else in that department, had the unmitigated gall to write the hon. member saying in effect that he did not like the way the member had made up the list of people, which in the first place he was asked to provide. I think this is getting to be a bit too much. I think it is a rank interference with the rights and privileges of a member of parliament, and I think that you, Sir, should provide some protection.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If there are no other hon. members who wish to speak to the matter, let me make the situation perfectly clear. The hon. member for Moncton has raised a grievance about the administration of a program, and about whether a decision of that sort ought to be handled by the minister or through representations by any hon. member of the House. That may in fact be a legitimate criticism or grievance on the part of the hon. member.
What I am concerned with here is not whether there is a disagreement about the administration of a program of this nature, the texture of the program, or the manner in which the minister deals with members in receiving representations. What I am concerned with here is whether this in fact constitutes a question of privilege within the very narrow confines of the rules of this House, which have recognized in the past, and I think quite rightly so, that only specialized classes of problems come within the confines of a question of privilege. I find that this matter does not. In any case, no motion has been put forward suggesting action by the Chair. Again I say that what may be a very legitimate grievance can be taken up in a number of ways.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because of the question of the hon. member for St. John's East. I do not want to leave the impression with the House-and I hope he was not suggesting either-that the Farm Products Marketing Council was acting beyond the jurisdiction vested in it by the legislation. The person on the board he mentioned says she is optimistic about the new job she is taking on and that there will be public hearings, and so on. She is not as pessimistic as the hon. member tries to make out she is.


Mr. MacKay:: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up much time of the House with my question of privilege of
July 30, 1975

which I have given you notice. It arose out of the question yesterday which I submitted was perfectly proper in the light of what happened in the city of Hamilton. I think it was very pertinent.
My question of privilege relates to an exchange in the House yesterday, as Your Honour is well aware, between myself and the Minister of Labour, as recorded in Hansard at pages 8021 and 8026. During that exchange the minister made some rather serious accusations about myself which I feel I cannot let go unanswered, and which I believe constitute a legitimate question of privilege. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, as recorded at page 8026 of Hansard, the minister accused me of "indecency in casting innuendoes" and of what he terms "disgraceful conduct". Those are serious charges and ones for which I am entitled, I submit, to receive rather more specific allegations or a retraction from the minister.
The minister made these imputations against me in specific reference to questions which were raised during this session by myself and others in respect of the status of two federal appointees to the Hamilton Harbour Commission-Messrs. Lanza and Hickey. I have reviewed the issues of Hansard on this matter and I have no hesitation, Mr. Speaker, in challenging the Minister of Labour as I did yesterday to produce one reference to back up the kind of McCarthy-like charges he made against me yesterday.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Minister of Labour, and I feel compelled to do this, that if he feels aggrieved in this matter over statements made against Messrs. Lanza and Hickey, he might direct his action against the Minister of Transport, for the most serious or damning statements about these gentlemen came not from this side of the House but from the Minister of Transport. I would refer the Minister of Labour in particular to page 3622 of Hansard for February 27, 1975, and this statement by his colleague, the Minister of Transport:
At that time-
The minister was referring to the time at which he declined to reappoint Messrs. Lanza and Hickey to the Commission.
-no trial had taken place-there had been no inquiry but there was suspicion and, since those jobs are given at the discretion of cabinet, nothing binds us to nominating someone who might be suspected of not, say, meeting some ethical standards .. .
Those references to suspicions about ethical standards are not mine; they are those of the Minister of Transport.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is in order for me to raise as a matter of privilege the completely unfounded charges which the Minister of Labour made yesterday against my personal conduct as a member of this House. That was untrue, unkind, and uncalled for, and I believe it might even have been rude. I demand that the minister either make a specific charge against me or withdraw his own version of McCarthyism from the record.
Upon his failure to do so-and I hope the hon. gentleman will do this-I would move that the remarks of the hon. member contained at page 8026 of Hansard for July 29, 1975, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for consideration and report back to the House in due course.
Privilege-Mr. MacKay


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of withdrawing my remarks. In the first place I do not feel you will find too many citations in Beau-chesne which would indicate that remarks of that nature require withdrawal. It was an opinion of mine expressed in this House about the conduct of the member, which I think is fully fortified and justified if one looks at Hansard.
The fact of the matter is that while a trial was in process the hon. member endeavoured, in a McCarthy-like fashion, to raise matters which were going on while the trial was in process. It does not take many learned or fair people in this House, or among the general public, to indicate just how unfair that is.
Of course the reason that no serious objection was taken at the time the hon. member did what I consider to be a deplorable act was that, knowing the manner and the conduct the hon. member resorted to in this particular instance, he probably would have gone right outside to the television cameras and called "cover-up". So I resisted raising that particular area. If the hon. member was serious in raising questions yesterday about the harbour matter and was not interested really in a partisan attack, raising all sorts of innuendoes, he might be prepared to justify to this House why he raised extraneous matters such as the SIU and allegations about reticence to hold inquiries. I think that extraneous matter certainly belies the good intent of the hon. member as expressed today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The exchange yesterday between the hon. member for Central Nova and the Minister of Labour, both in the question period and in what I indicated yesterday was a non-point of order and simply an expansion of their disagreement during the question period, has today expanded into a proposed question of privilege. I think hon. members will agree that it simply is a further development of the basic disagreement between them.
The only question which remains is that raised by the hon. member for Central Nova concerning the language used yesterday by the Minister of Labour, indicating that what I understood to be remarks made by the hon. member, always in the House and always recorded in Hansard, were indecent in their innuendo and disgraceful in the conduct of the hon. member. That is an opinion that has been expressed in this House openly by the minister. The hon. member for Central Nova has taken offence at this. This is the chamber for disagreements. That is a classic case of one of them. It would have to be otherwise, in my opinion, in order to found a prima facie case of privilege, namely, that the language of the Minister of Labour was unparliamentary.
In examining the precedents I am unable to find that the expressions he has used in the way he has used them are in any way unparliamentary. They simply contain and inflame the disagreement between the two hon. members. If we are to adjourn for a prolonged period later this day, or some day soon, perhaps it will be a pity, because the
8076

July 30, 1975
Order Paper Questions
disagreement is becoming quite entertaining. Nevertheless it is still a disagreement and not a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is a motion on the order paper standing in the name of the President of the Privy Council. There is of course provision on today's order paper for both questions and notices of motions for the production of papers. May I take it as agreed that the motion which stands in the name of the President of the Privy Council will be transferred to the subject matter of orders of the day, which would permit taking all questions on the order paper and notices of motion, and then the commencement of the debate? Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



[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: 2,209, 2,553, 2,594, 2,676, 2,721 and 2,893.
Mr. Speaker, if question No. 1,204 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Korchinski: 1.	With reference to the recent West Coast tie-up, what was the maximum number of ships waiting to be loaded?
2.	What was the aggregate number of idle days accumulated by all ships?
3.	How many of these ships were destined to load grain?
4.	What was the total amount of demurrage charges levied?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the National Harbours Board and the Canadian Wheat Board as follows: 1.	100.
2.	1,975.
3.	52.
4.	The Canadian Wheat Board only pays demurrage on the receipt of a demurrage claim and where it feels it has a legal liability. Demurrage claims are frequently not received by the Board nor is settlement reached on claims for many months after demurrage was incurred by delays in the loading of vessels. Accordingly it is not possible at this time to determine what the total amount of demurrage claims will be as a result of the recent West Coast tie-up.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Does the Minister of Transport expect to hear from the Department of Public Works on the extent of damage to the dock in Stephen-ville and, if so (a) on what date (b) on what date will repairs be carried out?
2.	Are there any funds included in the estimates for the 500 foot dock extension in StepHenville and, if not, would the Minister consider including such funds in the next Supplementary Estimates?
3.	Is the Canadian Hydrographic Service in the process of publishing charts of the channel and turning basin in the Port of Stephenville and (a) if so, on what date will they be ready (b) if not, for what reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Transport and the Environment as follows: 1. The Ministry has received a report from the Department of Public Works. Public Works has called tenders, for the repairs, which will close June 25, 1975.
2.	No. The inclusion of funds in the next Supplementary Estimates is being considered.
3.	Yes. (a) April 30, 1976. (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Reynolds: For each year 1971 to 1974, how much money was spent by CBC in the purchase of (a) American films (b) Canadian films (c) foreign films for showing on Canadian television?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: CBC keeps an accurate inventory control of film purchased from all sources, but records have not been kept in such a way as to make it possible to extract readily and without an inordinate amount of work, time and cost the information called for in the manner requested. When rights are purchased by CBC for film from any source, payment for these rights may be made in a variety of ways: by equal monthly instalments, by payment immediately after broadcast, by payment of a percentage of the total price on first telecast, second telecast and third telecast, etc. Since the payments for the purchase of a quantity of feature films, for example, might be spread over a period of years, with a decreasing value in terms of programming and consequently a decreasing percentage in payments, the total value of the purchase agreement would not be correctly reported if its total value were deducted in one fiscal or calendar year. In addition, many packages of film contain films of foreign origin. Given the variety of methods of payment it is a very long and costly process to extract exact figures which distinguish which monies were spent on American as distinguished from other foreign film. Since 1974, however, in the case of Canadian film, a reporting system has been set up within CBC to provide information to its management on expenditures by CBC in the private sector of the Canadian film industry. The first statement to come from this system indicates that during the period January to December 1974 CBC spent in excess of $17.5 million in the private Canadian program production industry. Of this total amount about $9.75 million was spent in acquiring the right to
July 30, 1975

broadcast films produced in Canada. Over $7.5 million was spent with private industry to pay for productions, co-productions, and production services such as processing and printing, directors and producers, film editors, technicians and sound services.


Mr. Robinson: Are banks and insurance companies considered by the government to be the worst offenders when it comes to equal opportunity for women and, if so, what criteria was used to determine this?


Marc Lalonde: The government has never stated that the banks and insurance companies were considered the worst offenders when it comes to equal opportunity for women.
NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND EXCHANGE- ARGENTINA/INDIA


Mr. Francis: Does the government have any knowledge of an agreement between Argentina, a country to whom Canada proposes to sell a CANDU reactor, and India on the exchange of nuclear information and technology?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The government is aware of agreements between India and Argentina on nuclear cooperation, but inasmuch as we have suspended our nuclear aid to India, and that any nuclear supplies to Argentina will be subject to the strictest of safeguards, the government does not anticipate that independent third party transfer of Canadian supplied nuclear material could take place between Argentina and India.


Mr. Masniuk: Does the government intend to build a new medium security penal institution in Stony Mountain, Manitoba, as was announced in the Fall of 1974 and, if so (a) on what date is it expected that construction will commence (b) on what date is it estimated that the new institution will be ready for occupancy?


William Warren Allmand: The government has deferred its plan to proceed with a medium security institution in Stony Mountain, Manitoba, because of a reduced rate of population growth in that locality.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Korchinski: 1.	In the past three years, how many employees did each Minister have on staff?
2.	What are the total salaries of each Minister's staff?
Return tabled.
Summer Recess



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion for the production of papers No. 44?



COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF MICROSYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 44-Mr. Symes:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, minutes of meetings and terms of agreement between the government and Northern Electric concerning the establishment of Microsystems Internationl Limited.
Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the government could accept to produce the three agreements between the Crown and Microsystems. However, the correspondence and the minutes of meetings include confidential documents asked by non government agencies, as well as internal memoranda of the department. Consequently, I ask the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) to withdraw his motion. The government could then table the three agreements as soon as they are translated.


Mr. Symes:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTION RESPECTING SUMMER RECESS

Mitchell William Sharp: That, when the House adjourns this day, it shall stand adjourned until a time to be fixed by Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, when the House may meet for the purpose of dealing with any subsequent proceeding on or the giving of Royal Assent to any bill or bills that, at the time of adjournment this day, have been given third reading in this House but have not yet been given Royal Assent;
That, after giving of Royal Assent to the said bill or bills, or in the event the House does not meet for that purpose, the House shall be adjourned or shall stand adjourned, as the case may be, until October 14, 1975, provided that at any time prior to that date if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time;

July 30, 1975
Summer Recess
And that, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act, owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for the purpose of reconvening the House.


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


Gerald William Baldwin: You will note, Mr. Speaker, that I rose slowly to my feet and looked over to my left on the assumption that this motion could be passed without debate, but now I have every reason to believe that that is not likely, and under those conditions I feel I should make some contribution.
I will start by saying that I suppose ordinary people outside the House will pause and wonder what it is that has driven a group of normally intelligent people back to the House today to seek their own permission to adjourn for two and a half months after the government has indicated that we have completed the tasks which in its opinion should be disposed of prior to that time. A simplistic answer might be that there are two or three members in the House who have been suffering from an unquenchable ambition not to leave here without an unuttered thought, an ambition which some of them were almost successful in achieving yesterday even though, in order to make sure that this was done, they had to repeat some of their thoughts several times to make certain none were forgotten.


John Edward Broadbent: Leave the Social Credit Party out of this, Jed.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am sure that by this afternoon the pitcher of Baucis and Philemon will be refilled and some more thoughts will come. We are waiting for those, Madam Speaker. But that is too simplistic an answer. We may have some cause for unhappiness about being here today and some measure of resentment at the circumstances which brought it about, but it is simply not good enough to attribute the cause to what I have hinted at rather generally so far.
Let us not forget that we will be back here in precisely the same position at the end of November and in December of 1975. Let us take a look at the Order Paper. We see there Bill C-2, the so called competition bill, which has been allotted two days. Then we see the citizenship bill, no doubt a bill which will evoke some considerable debate, possibly heated debate in the House.
Then there is the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act, Bill C-21, and the stabilization bill, C-41. There is no doubt that hon. members who are on the committee which travelled west will know that that bill is sure to take a substantial amount of time and that it will be debated in a substantial way. There are a number of issues which will be raised in the debate, and I think the minister who is responsible for the bill has recognized that fact by indicating publicly that having heard some of the views presented he is prepared to see some amendments made.
Then there is Bill C-52 dealing with changes in pensions and superannuation in a number of cases, there is the bankruptcy act, Bill C-60, and the Canada Shipping Act, almost a completely new code. With all the responsibilities

which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has taken on himself for the next few months, I wonder how he will be able to prepare himself for that.
We see on the Order Paper two income tax bills. There are changes proposed with regard to medical care and, no matter on which side of that thorny issue one may stand, one cannot evade the acceptance of the fact that it will be a very difficult and controversial debate. Then there is Bill C-69, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, two omnibus Criminal Code amendments, and Bill C-72, the Human Rights Commission bill.
Hanging over all this like a spectre is the very strong possibility that the House may be debating the very serious, controversial, and difficult problem of capital punishment, all of this in a period of time when there are six opposition days and two holidays, plus such other emergencies as may arise and need to be disposed of within that period. One does not need to be a prophet to say that under those conditions we will be approaching the possibility of a Christmas recess in exactly the same spot as the one in which we find ourselves now, and in which we have been for the last few weeks.
Under those conditions I do not think it would do any harm for the House to take a brief look at what we can do. Can we avoid this? Is this inevitable? Is this the best and only way in which the House can operate to discharge its responsibilities with respect to the individual members in their own constituencies as well as their duty to the country.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) may well say, and I think with some justice, that the House has eaten its way through a very large number of bills, a fair amount of legislation, and some government motions. True enough, and I do not deny the minister's right to take some pride in that. But I point out through you, Madam Speaker, that these are substantially all matters of a pedestrian and housekeeping nature. The real problems, the serious, hard, difficult and deep rooted problems which this country faces, have not been dealt with to date. Although they have been the subject of discussion in the general debates such as the Speech from the Throne debate and the budget debate, they have not been the subject of any meaningful attack by the government or, to some extent, by members of the House.
There is the question of energy-people are forgetting about it now, but nobody can deny the necessity of taking steps which have to be taken to prepare for the situation which will develop in 8, 10, 12 years, or even sooner. This is our problem. We wait until the difficulty has come upon us and until we are overwhelmed by facts, and then we act too little and too late. Nothing has been done to deal with the problem with regard to energy, the replacement of sources of energy, pricing, and so on. The minister has taken some powers under a statute, but those powers do not contain the answer.
There is the very serious question of the rule of law and order and the extent to which people in this country have become fearful of an inability to walk the streets in safety. There are several facets of this problem, but one cannot
July 30, 1975

deny that it is very serious, and many people outside this House are deeply concerned.
There is a continuing problem of unemployment and inflation, and with regard to external affairs there has not been a meaningful debate this session. This party has tried to have such debate through the use of methods such as opposition days, but I think it is shameful that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should go to Helsinki to participate in that glittering galaxy-to be there to make proposals, which he appears to be making today; he appears to be speaking on behalf of Canada without a prior discussion here or-that there can be a situation develop here such as was the case with the PLO without there being an opportunity for this House to have a debate though even only a debate of three or four hours, completed or concluded by a decision of the House, with the question being put. Yet there has been no meaningful debate and no decision along these lines or our foreign relations.
There is the question of the rules under which we operate in this House. Perhaps the answer to the question I first posed is that there should be changes made there. I will certainly not invite an all out debate at this time on the rules and the changes which should be made. There will be an opportunity for that this fall, but I suggest to the members of this House that we cannot go on living in this fool's paradise in this House and attempt to deal meaningfully with these problems the way we have in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: There is bound to be disagreement as to the method.


Gerald William Baldwin: As my hon. friend says, it is quite probable that there will be disagreement as to the method. It depends where one sits. Speaking for myself, over the course of some years I have never hesitated to say that government should be far more free and flexible in using the weapon of closure when in its opinion as a matter of political necessity it takes the hard decision that the debate has gone on long enough.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: That places upon the opposition parties the equal responsibility of deciding to settle down and to fight strenuously and at length legislation which we think is bad or which the people of Canada, when they know about it, will object to, or when we think the people of Canada want us as their representatives to fight, resist, and try to improve legislation. That is a political decision which the opposition has to take, and having taken that decision-and it is a decision which should not be taken lightly but should be taken in the light of all the facts and circumstances of the issues involved and in light of the time-then the opposition digs its heels in and resists to the last moment, and the onus then falls upon the government. Personally speaking, I would have no hesitation in seeing the rules of closure overhauled, sharpened, made more applicable, and used. Closure should not be a dirty word, but when the government uses it, it has to be right. It has to be certain that it is on the right issue, and then ultimately the people will decide.
Summer Recess
Having said that, I would not agree to that unless as a corollary there is the opportunity for members of this House to have restored to them many of the rights which have been pilfered and stolen by the government over the course of the last few years.
We are all private members here, except those who are in the cabinet. The members on the government side have the same responsibility as we do for ensuring that the issues of the day are debated, discussed, and brought to a vote, and I think the reason for the way we have been operating in the past-and this is one of the reasons for the frustration and the anxiety which compelled and drove members of the opposition parties to debate Bill C-66 at length as they did-was the fact that we have had no other remedy. That is the only weapon which is left to hon. members sitting in opposition to the government, and even to hon. members on the government side. In this regard I would like to see them recognized with regard to changes which will permit, encourage, and in fact even demand that members on the government side have an opportunity to bring up issues, compel the government to debate those issues, and compel the House to decide and take a vote on them.
Government members say, and this is the standard rhetoric, that they make their influence felt in caucus and the government listens to them. I have been on both sides of the House, and I know how much garbage that kind of statement is. It is a claim to which a minimum amount of credence can be attached.


Mitchell William Sharp: Our caucus is different.


Mr. Hopkins:: You are in the wrong caucus.


Gerald William Baldwin: The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) says his caucus is different. I know it is disciplined and can be brought to heel much more readily, and that the whip is used more frequently.
The case of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) is before the committee, and I cannot comment. I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I would like to venture a considerable amount that the committtee will decide, among other things, that the parliamentary secretary had great presence and great perceptiveness; that his crystal ball was beautifully polished; that he could examine that crystal ball; listen to the debate and with marvellous anticipation come up with the legislation, and the budget bill were going to be; and that the amendments to the Income Tax Act, and the budget bill were going to be; and that he operated on that basis and not only discharged his duty but is entitled to be decorated for what he did.


Mitchell William Sharp: Just like one of your members.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is the kind of decision which will come out of that committee, and so I reject all suggestions that members on the government side have any more influence in decision making than we do. In fact I sometimes wonder how much influence the government itself has. To a very great extent the members of the cabinet are only the surrogates of the senior civil servants who, speaking figuratively, allow them to come in here and announce decisions which the civil service has brought into effect.

July 30, 1975
Summer Recess
There are a great many people who at one time graced the civil service who know this to be a fact. I am looking at one right now, and I know that he would like to agree with me, although he may not say so.
What we must have here for all parties on all sides of the House is the right at certain times to bring up for discussion, debate, and decision, issues which are current, controversial, and which need to be aired.
This country gives place of residence to many people, and a great many pluralistic groups live here. Their views should be reflected by an opportunity to have votes. I hope my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), will have something to say later on about fishermen. I encourage him to make a speech with regard to their problems, but that is the kind of issue where there should be an opportunity for a two or three hour debate with a certainty that there will be a vote. That is a matter of working things out between the House leaders of all parties so that this may be done.
By the facts of life enough time must be allowed for the government to pursue its own policies, but if what I propose is done then the people of the country will know that vicariously through their representatives in this House their points of view are in fact being put forward, being considered, and even though they may not be accepted, at least they are getting their day in court. If that is not done, I do not really give this parliament too much hope of continuing in a meaningful way. Although I am not one of those who says parliament will vanish, its effectiveness, its usefulness, its capacity to do things for the people of this country, which is now greatly impaired, will suffer to such an extent that the present indifference of people to parliament and its institutions will be heightened. People will dismiss us as being of no use.
I suggest to members of the government that as they exist now-in between elections with a majority-they can become fat, sluggish, and complacent. They know they are going to get their money under the appropriations bill, that the estimates are bound to be deemed to be passed as of a certain date, that they can bring in controversial bills at the tag end of the session and, by a process of exhaustion, as with Bill C-66, the legislation will be passed.
I am looking at the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) who, I am sure, agrees with me. He has been an effective debater both in opposition and in government. He knows the necessity of restoring to this House the cut and thrust of debate on current and controversial issues which need to be ventilated to show the people that we are a force to be reckoned with.
In the limited time available to us this fall there will not be too much opportunity to make changes in the rules of the House. I suggest through you, Madam Speaker, through the government, and through all members, that we must bring ourselves to some form of agreement to have these sorts of debates, coupled with an opportunity to allow the government to use closure from time to time to speed up the process.
I do not suggest agreement in advance as to allocation of time. I would resist strenuously any suggestion that if the government says it wants 60 bills passed we should agree

to devote three hours to one or three hours to another. Not until a bill has been debated on second reading and/or in committee should there by any discussion as to the length of time fixed for debate. I think we are reasonable enough people, however, that if there is opportunity for the kind of debate we ought to have, enough people would agree to a reasonable limit.
Private members have a duty to perform. They represent the people of Canada with all their warts, virtues, and defects. Only by the process of meaningful reasonable debate in this House can we achieve the objective we were sent here to attain.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the motion we are debating today is a motion to adjourn the longest continuous sitting of this House in 11 years. I wish that those of us who are going to take part in the debate could conclude that it has been a productive session that brought about real benefits for the people of Canada; unfortunately the opposite conclusion would have to be reached by anyone looking at the record.
In virtually every crucial area of public concern the government has shown its lack of direction. It has either had no policy or, where policy has been indicated in a general way, it has totally lacked detailed implementation. It has failed in the most fundamental way to live up to the mandate it was given in the election of 1974.
In that victory the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for the first time gained the support of a substantial number of average and low income Canadians on the basis of a specific program. In 1968 he went to the country as a smiling Mackenzie King who liked to dance. At that time in Canadian history he had a personality appeal. We were over the puritan stage and Canadians thought it was appropriate then for a politician to show that he enjoyed life. With this revelation the Prime Minister managed to get a lot of people to support him on the rather unsubstantial basis that a man who enjoyed life could not be all wrong. It turned out between 1968 and 1972 that he was almost all wrong.
He went into the election in 1972 not as a swinging and smiling Mackenzie King but as a retired philosopher from some university department. Yes, as an hon. member suggests, a good third year student assessing his philosophical debates with Canadians in 1972 would have concluded that they were even rubbishy as philosophy. He did not go to the people of Canada on such practical matters which he regarded as mundane, as housing, the cost of living, unemployment, and regional disparity. He used the slogan "The land is strong"; he wanted to have a dialogue with the people in 1972. The people showed him what they thought of his performance from 1968 to 1972, and what they thought of the kind of campaign that he conducted in 1972. The Liberals almost got booted out of office; they hung on only by the skin of their teeth.
In 1974, and I say this in all seriousness, the Prime Minister looked on the average person's concern for the first time in a campaign. We were on his side when he rejected the wage and price freeze policy of the Conservative Party. But I am not going to debate the merits of that now. The point is that the Prime Minister took an unequivocal position on that and told fishermen on the
July 30, 1975

east coast, workers in the industrial cities, and farmers on the prairies, "We reject that policy because we want to do something for the average Canadian". He did not bother with them in 1968 or 1972, but he did in 1974.
Before the election in 1974 he said in Vancouver, "Housing is in a state of crisis" for the average and low income Canadian, and promised that the Liberals would do something about it. He also said the Liberals would do something about Canadian ownership of natural resources, and promised that at last 50 per cent of new investment in the resource sector would be Canadian.
He then got into transportation policy and said that in terms of interurban transportation Canadian cities were in a mess-after about 20 years of Liberal government. He talked about transportation needs as a continental problem, and of redressing the legitimate grievances of the Atlantic provinces and the prairies in regard to the freight rate system. He spoke directly to the ordinary people of Canada and said, "If you elect the Liberal Party we will do something about the transportation system".
Just name the issue, Madam Speaker, and we can document from the Prime Minister's campaign speeches in 1974 the specific commitments he made. I have listed some of the major ones-housing, transportation, foreign ownership and, related to that, job creation and so on, in a Canadian owned economy. Then, preeminently came the question of inflation and unemployment. He said that the Liberals would really do something for ordinary Canadians. It is a record that we now have to assess. He made no such promise in 1968; he just went on the superficial image that he and his party had professionally packaged. In 1972 he attempted to philosophize. In 1974 he came on as addressing himself to the concerns of ordinary people. It is to his record in this field we have to address ourselves, and it is with this in mind we must assess the work of the present session.
What has it done, that marvelous party which promised to improved conditions for the average Canadian? I will tell you, Madam Speaker. This has probably been the most reactionary government we have seen since the Second World War. Indeed, it is probably the most reactionary government of any country in the western world.
I invite the smirking and smiling Liberal backbenchers across the way to assess with some degree of dispassionate honesty the record of the government which was elected to meet the needs of ordinary Canadians. Who has profited from its incomes policy? Has there been a redistribution of income in favour of the poor, in favour of those with average incomes? Who has benefitted from the economic independence program? Has any move been made in this field? Who has benefitted from the housing program? These questions are the real test.
What has the government done in the broad constitutional sphere of federal-provincial relations? Under the Prime Minister we have seen the introduction of the worst set of policies since the Second World War. Unilateral and arbitrary measures have been imposed infringing upon provincial areas of responsibility and undermining the relationship between the federal government and the provinces to an extent not previously known, at least in
Summer Recess
the past decade. I hear an hon. member asking me to be specific. I will oblige him. I refer, first of all, to what appeared in last year's budget-the resource policy of the federal government which was opposed by every province in Canada.


Mr. Breau:: Not true. It was not opposed in every province.


John Edward Broadbent: Then there was the budget of most recent date which undermined the national standard of medicare and hospitalization which had been established in recent decades. Again the government took on virtually every province in the country, except the wealthiest-they are interested, perhaps, in taking over the financing of health and medicare programs provided, of course, that the federal government agrees to transfer some taxation points. As I say, only the wealthiest provinces are interested because they stand to gain. But every poor province in Canada-and that means many poor Canadians-will suffer because of the position the federal government has taken.


Herb Breau: Not true.


John Edward Broadbent: There is the disruption of medicare, unilaterally imposed, that disruption of national standards by the government opposite-


Herb Breau: There are poor Canadians in Oshawa.


John Edward Broadbent: The hon. member says I live in Oshawa. Of course I live in Oshawa, and Oshawa happens to be in Ontario which is a wealthy province. But I, as a member of a socialist party, am concerned about the province from which the hon. member who interrupted me comes, a province which is a lot less wealthy.


Herb Breau: The hon. member did not understand my interjection. I said he should not make the mistaken relationship of calling people in poor provinces poor people. I just don't like that.


John Edward Broadbent: I did not realize the hon. member was so sensitive. I do not believe it does a service to a poor Canadian to say he is not a poor Canadian. The party of which I am a member is interested in dealing with that problem and changing the situation, whereas the government which the hon. member supports is a government which will increase poverty in the province from which he comes.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: If hon. members on the government side of the House wish to participate in the debate they will be given an opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I should like to move on now from the marvelous job the government has done in terms of federal-provincial relationships and consider what this means in terms of increasing regional disparities within the country as opposed to decreasing them. In particular I should like to deal with the economic policies emanating from the government since we were called into session last fall.

July 30, 1975
Summer Recess
Two budgets have been produced, one last fall and one just a month ago. What did these two budgets accomplish? Did they have the effect of reducing inequalities? No. The reverse was the case. In the budget of last fall further tax concessions were made for the benefit of the corporate sector. This amounted to a redistribution of income, taking income from the ordinary Canadian and adding it to the corporate sector. Further, special tax concessions were allowed to upper income Canadians who wished to invest in the apartment construction business. This was all very well for people with disposable income for investment. They would gain advantage both ways; they would own the building later on and, in the meantime, they could collect rent, and the money they invested was taken right off the top of their taxable income.
As I say, the budget of last fall did nothing to reduce inequalities in Canada. On the contrary, it increased them. The budget which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) brought down over a month ago, did exactly the same. I have already mentioned the regressive step taken in the field of medicare and hospitalization. As hon. members are aware, the excise tax was discussed at some length in the debate which has quite properly occupied us for some weeks. This, as many of us have pointed out, is another regressive measure. But I would draw attention now to yet another regressive measure having to do with the funding of the unemployment insurance fund.
Instead of maintaining the principle that the people of Canada, through general revenue, should be responsible for the unemployment insurance fund since it is the government which is ultimately responsible for unemployment, where the level exceeds 3 per cent or 4 per cent, the government having, ultimately, control over monetary and fiscal policy, we find that a new floor level has now been introduced-the level at which the taxpayer will begin to make contributions. Coincidentally, of course, this means no call will be made on general revenue until unemployment reaches certain levels. This year it would have been 5.3 per cent; next year it will be in the region of 6 per cent, and the year after that it may be in the region of 7 per cent.
This means that the average man or woman working in Canada faces a substantial increase in premiums to finance the unemployment insurance scheme. Instead of funds coming out of general revenue which is based on income tax, a relatively progressive tax, and corporation taxes, workers will be called upon to finance their own provision for unemployment although the government, and therefore the community as a whole, should be held generally responsible.
In the resource field the Prime Minister promised that the government would do something about increasing Canadian ownership. In one of his election speeches he declared that 50 per cent Canadian ownership would be mandatory for all new investment in the resource sector. That is great talk at election time. A lot of us, though, were cynical about the depth of the Liberal commitment to following it up, and as soon as we say the implementation of phase II of the Foreign Investment Review Act we found that the greatest justification for our skepticism. It became abundantly clear when phase II was revealed that the government not only was not concerned about dealing

with the existing problem of foreign ownership in Canada, but was also unconcerned about controlling new foreign investment in this country.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) in one of his more candid admissions before the television cameras acknowledged that he did not expect any real decline in foreign investment in the economy. What an admission from a cabinet minister in a party that just a year ago made a commitment to the people of Canada that it would do something serious about the problems of foreign ownership!
What about housing? A crisis was described by the Prime Minister three or four days before the election last year. The crisis has gotten worse since that time, not better. If you look at the housing starts in January, February, March and April of this year, you see that every month there was a substantial decline compared to the year before. With the election of the Liberals last July, the party that said they would do something about housing, rather than the crisis being mitigated, it has been exacerbated. The housing problem has gotten worse, not better.


Mr. Bechard:: Not because of the Liberals.


John Edward Broadbent: Who else is governing? Is it the Conservative Party that is governing?


Albert Béchard: Look at the record.


John Edward Broadbent: It is the Liberal Party that is governing, but they are not responsible?


Albert Béchard: That is not what I said.


John Edward Broadbent: All that we have had with regard to housing is a repetition of the policies that failed before the 1974 election. Before that election we had a bald headed minister responsible for housing. The Prime Minister changed that. Now we have a minister with some hair. Maybe the Prime Minister was acting on the assumption that a little hair means a little brains and that that would result in a change in policy. However, we did not get that. We got a minister from Toronto who is duplicating every error made by the previous minister from Vancouver. Instead of improving, the housing situation has become worse.
We then come to transportation. That is a real gem. In one of those rare moments of candour and insight shown by a cabinet minister, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) said that transportation policy is in a mess. That is what he said prior to the 1974 election campaign. It is now over a year later, and transportation policy is still in a mess.
When members of the Conservative, NDP, and Social Credit parties asked the minister what he was going to do about freight rates, the failure in providing boxcars, and the needs of the people in our cities in terms of an urban transit system, the minister kept saying that the policy was in a mess. We had to agree. He repeatedly asked us to have a little patience as the government would be presenting a grand policy. We waited and waited. Finally we got a general statement of policy. The guidelines that were in
July 30, 1975

the policy we waited for were absurd and contradictory. I will not go into great detail. We got another statement which was equivalent to the election platitudes that we got prior to the election of last July. Not one bill of substance with regard to a transportation policy has been brought before this House since the election.
I have referred to the problems with regard to housing, foreign ownership, and transportation. I do not intend to be too much longer. I am sure the Liberals will not be disappointed to hear that. Before saying something about the general economic policy, however, I cannot ignore two other issues which have been of concern to Canadians and this parliament, and which the government has not dealt with in an adequate way.
The first is the use to be made of the Canadian development of nuclear technology. I refer to the CANDU project. If there has been a solid and persistent bungling of an issue, it has been the government's policy with regard to CANDU. The government is still committed to selling nuclear reactors to Argentina and South Korea, two of the most unstable and reactionary governments in the world.
I could elaborate with respect to members of the Conservative Party who followed that issue-and I give them credit-with immense care, as well as certain of my colleagues, notably the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). I could document in two hours of speeches the bungling and contradictory nature of the government's CANDU policy which will result in our providing the capacity to develop nuclear weapons to the governments of Argentina and South Korea. Surely that is an act of self-condemnation about which it is hard to say anything more.
There is another issue which is of concern to fishermen on the east coast, those from Newfoundland in particular, as well as those on the west coast. I refer to the jurisdictional authority that we are prepared to assume over our coastal waters. We believe in negotiation, but this has been going on for so many years that it is well beyond the time for talk. Our party has argued that the government should unilaterally assert jurisdictional authority over our coastal waters up to 200 miles, or to the continental shelf, whichever is farther. Unless the government begins quickly to move in that direction, and it may be too late already, we are going to lose the invaluable fishing stock off our two coasts, particularly the east coast. Again the government vacillates, does not act, and promises further conferences.
Whether we are talking about housing, transportation policies, Canadian ownership of our resources, fishermen on our east or west coasts or, sensible world-wide use of technology developed in Canada in a nuclear age, the government has been a colossal failure in its first year in office.
I want to conclude my remarks by saying something about the very serious state of the Canadian economy and the equally serious failure of the government to deal with the situation. In July of last year the government was given a mandate on the economic issue above all others, if we are to single out one matter. It took the position that it, and it alone, could deal with the twin problems of inflation and unemployment. If a survey were taken of Canadi-
Summer Recess
ans from coast to coast asking on what issue they voted in the government, my guess is that it would be that twin issue they cited most often.
Let us consider this policy matter and test the government to see whether it has lived up to its mandate, namely, general economic policy. How well has it done in the year since it was elected? In June, 1974, there was 4.9 per cent of the labour force unemployed. One year later, after the leadership and the dynamic policy innovations of the Liberal government, did unemployment drop below the 4.9 level of 1974? No, Mr. Speaker; it rose to 7.2 per cent. Unemployment went up after the election of this majority government, not down.
In actual numbers, which are more meaningful in terms of real life experience, unemployment moved from 465,000 in June, 1974, to 725,000. This number comprises men and women, young and old, in every part of the country. In other words, after one year of this government there was an increase of some 260,000 Canadians on the unemployment rolls.
If we look at the inflation picture the situation is just as dismal and the failure of the government just as great. In June, 1974, the consumer price index stood at 166.7. By June of this year it was 184. As a percentage this works out to 10.4 per cent higher than it was a year ago.
So much for the Liberal's success in coping with inflation. The figures I have just given do not, of course, include the ten cents a gallon excise tax. Nor do they include the effects of the $1.50 a barrel increase in the price of crude oil which the government introduced in the last budget, or the increase in the price of natural gas. All of these added together-and I say this with care-it has been calculated by some responsible experts in and out of political parties, will probably add another 2 per cent or 3 per cent to the cost of living figures in the coming months. In other words, the government has been a failure in dealing with the major issue on which it was elected in the 1974 campaign, namely, the twin problems of inflation and unemployment.
What about the future general economic picture, Mr. Speaker? Unfortunately, the record of increasing unemployment and inflation since June of 1974 is not going to level out and remain constant; it is going to increase in both dimensions. Let me refer my Liberal colleagues opposite to the results of a recent study put out by Wood Gundy, hardly a noted socialist company. I ask the members of the government to consider their forecast. They say that for this year inflation and unemployment will both get worse. They forecast a rate of some 8 per cent unemployment for the end of this year. That, I suggest, is a conservative estimate; certainly it is from a conservative source. So the trend is an unhealthy one, one that is not good for Canadians.
Rather than introducing programs to reduce unemployment, the most recent budget, for reasons that I indicated at the time and which I will not repeat now, and which other commentators advanced, will increase unemployment. The forecast of Wood Gundy regarding inflation is just as negative. In June the consumer price index stood, as I said, at 184. They forecast that by the end of this year

July 30, 1975
Summer Recess
it will go up about another five points, surely an undesirable situation.
I will conclude on that pessimistic note. We have ended the longest continuous part of a session since 1964. I think all members on both sides of the House have worked hard in terms of their individual contributions. But let me repeat what I said at the outset. In view of the commitment of the Prime Minister and his government in July of 1974 to the average and working people of Canada, one he did not make in 1972 or 1968, in terms of our legislative output here, this last year must be considered to be a very substantial failure, one that affects in a negative way the real life experience of average and low income Canadians from coast to coast. It is this kind of experience that I hope the government will reflect upon, so that when we come back in the fall we can begin to do something of substance, not of rhetoric, in terms of meeting the housing needs, the transportation needs, and the economic independence needs of the people of Canada.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to make a few points concerning the adjournment motion and take this opportunity to say how ridiculous is the situation on this 30th of July as I rise to speak. This is to remind hon. members of the House that for years we have been urging Parliament and the government to alter the regulations in this connection, in order to have a more serious framework than at the present time. When fully conscious adults who represent the elite of the country are having a good time engaged in a war of attrition to pass a legislation, Mr. Speaker, I think it lacks seriousness.
Who is to blame? The opposition? The government? Of course the government members say: "Well, it is your fault, you should end the debate." And we say: "Well it is your fault, you should withdraw that bill." And so we manage to sit till July 30. I was first elected in 1968, that is seven years ago. I think this is the third time we have been sitting so late in the summer.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, this problem could be solved quite easily. Why not simply set opening and closing dates? It would be so simple to say that the session will open on the second Monday of September and close on the Friday preceeding June 24. Then, it would be possible to plan and co-ordinate our parliamentary work. This, of course, would make it mandatory for the government to arrange its legislative program in a better fashion. And within the set dates we would really accomplish the work the government has deemed should be completed during the year, or session.
The government could then easily solve all kinds of small problems by advising us in advance of its intentions. For instance, we could obtain during the intersession a copy of the proposed bills; the order in which they would be debated could also be given. Consequently, we would have more time for ourselves as representatives to consider these bills, do our research and therefore, introduce in this House more concrete, more specific suggestions.
I think that could be done easily, and we would then be looked upon as people who are a little more serious and

know what they have to do and do their job in a very conscientious way. I shall not linger over all the inconveniences of being in the dark about the opening and closing dates of a session but may I be permitted nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, to say that impossibility to know when we are going to start and when we are going to finish disturbs the family life of everyone of us, prevents us from planning our work during the intersession and consequently results in inconveniences that could be avoided pretty easily. That is why I take the opportunity of this debate on the motion to adjourn to advise the government to come up with a change of rules in that respect.
I would also like to echo the two hon. members who spoke before me and make a few remarks about the business that was submitted to us for consideration during this session. Of course, I will be told that it is easy for a member of the opposition to criticize, that is his role, he must do it and consequently we are talking for nothing. Mr. Speaker, I say that is wrong. I think we are trying to really reflect public opinion and when we opposed even fiercely the last bill which was passed yesterday it was because we knew quite well that people did not want that unwarranted increase in the price of gas with that excise tax.
We saw since the beginning of this session how different it was. We saw once again the tremendous difference there was between a majority government and a minority government. It is all nice to say that a majority government brings with it instability and everything else but a minority government showed, for example, that it was for the people. If Bill C-66 had been introduced in 1972 or 1973, we know quite well that it would not have been passed. That was the advantage of having a minority government which had better chances of being on the taxpayer's side. We saw during this session that the government, under the present Prime Minister, had returned to its attitude of complacency, not to say of arrogance, to simply impose things that nobody wants and forget others that should not be forgotten.
For example, the legislation that we were eager to have before us was the old age security legislation, since during the last electoral campaign, politicians were travelling around, and especially in Quebec, voicing the slogan "Old age pension at 60". We were thus expecting, after all the representations and the efforts which had been made, particularly by the members of the party I represent, that they would bring in a piece of legislation on old age security which would be truly adequate and would meet the needs of the population.
What was introduced, Mr. Speaker? One must admit there is a small improvement, but it is so slight that one can barely speak of an improvement since our suggestions were not even included in the bill. First of all, pensionable age should have been lowered to 60: that would have solved the problem. Secondly, it was to be granted merely to the spouses of those aged 65 who needed it. We agree with that, but then we noticed, which we pointed out to the House, that the case had been overlooked where the person dies. That is normal, natural: it happens. Whoever suddenly becomes a widower or a widow, no matter, will lose the pension. That seems obvious.
July 30, 1975

Let us take the case of a lady of 62 whose husband is 70; she would be entitled to the pension and the income supplement, because they have no other income. Consequently, they would get some $400 a month but because her husband is going to die and the wife will be only 62, she will lose what she was entitled to. It is nonsense. I think that, when something as simple, as obvious as that is underlined, the Minister of National Health and Welfare should understand it and amend the act accordingly. We are going to run into huge difficulties. As my hon. colleague from Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) said, what is going to happen? That 62 year old widow will still have to rely on the welfare benefits to eke out a living, whereas everything could be solved easily. But maybe she will solve her case in a way that is almost suggested in that bill by simply shacking up, as they say. Then she will be entitled to her pension.
It would be so easy to correct all that. Of course, they will always say that inflation should be avoided these days, and therefore, expenses have to be cut down, not increased. Mr. Speaker, we have never accepted that argument and we shall never accept it, for if the slightest attention were paid to the solutions we are suggesting on the economic and financial points of view, we are sure that we would really be fighting inflation. But as long as we have no true solutions, no basic solutions, we shall be plagued with the cancer of inflation, we shall be left with a government that will indulge in stop-gap, temporary solutions, whereas the basic problem is a crucial one.
But the government will simply answer us that if unem-ployemnt keeps rising, if inflation goes on spiralling, if prices keep soaring, there is nothing they can do because it is a world-wide phenomenon. We have heard that for months, especially during the electoral campaign last year, and we still hear it.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, I shall never believe that we in Canada are not able to produce everything we need. And if it were only a matter of money, let us release the funds we need to assist production and meet the needs of all Canadian citizens. It is a basic principle, which should not be questioned. And no one could seriously answer: "Well, it is not our fault, the fault lies with the United States and Europe".
We are now faced with surpluses of powdered milk. Milk producers are being told that they will have to pay 45 per cent more a hundred weight because we have to keep up prices on account of the European Common Market. There again, Mr. Speaker, I say that it is a question of bad reasoning and bad judgment, because absolutely nothing should prevent Canadian dairy farmers from producing milk at a cost that would actually result in reasonable profits and that would at the same time be favourable to all consumers. And if we tried to arrive at a certain equation or balance between consumption and production, such problems would be nonexistent.
But when our government still keeps our doors wide open to commodities we can readily produce ourselves in surplus quantities, I say that if the government pursues such a course of action, nothing will be resolved. Millions of pounds of cheese are entering Canada, whereas are own cheese producers are penalized because they overproduce.
Summer Recess
It's absolutely illogical. Why continue to hang on to such policies when everyone knows they are bad?
That being so, Mr. Speaker, I say we must stop producing and start importing every commodity that costs less than what we produce here. That being so, we will sit down, relax and wait for others to come and feed, dress and house us. That is bad reasoning. The only solution is that if we have the potential and the capacity to produce here what we need, we just have to make it financially possible. Is it as simple as that. And never will I be led to believe anything else.
But it is not so. Policies should be geared to that. The problem will never be solved by waiting for the good "contribution" of the United States, by waiting for milk and butter from New Zealand and Australia and for textile from Japan and Korea. We will never solve our real economic problems by relying on foreign countries. We must not interfere in their internal affairs, and consequently we do not even know whether the competition they offer with their products is real. Whether it is true that they produce cheaper, we do not know. We do not control those countries.
Therefore the government measures should aim at promoting domestic production, which would have the happy effect, Mr. Speaker, of solving our unemployment problem.
What are we doing about manufactures or textiles plants closing down in Quebec when we see ships full of textiles from other countries unloading here? Then we put $4 billion in the unemployment insurance fund to pay those who do not work because government policies prevent them from doing so. If we do not produce everything we need, of course we will have unemployment; it is simple, Mr. Speaker, and I do not understand why we fail to see that.
Of course, this is why we are forced to do negatively the work of the government during this session, since nothing has been proposed to solve the very serious problem we are facing, inflation. Absolutely nothing.
To conclude, there is another point I would like to make. This government does not really try to reach a practical understanding with the provinces. There is now a constitutional problem in Canada. Closing our eyes to the problem will not solve it. The problem is there. There is a current example in the field of communications, with contradictory positions taken by Quebec and the Canadian government.
What does the government do about it? It plays the strong man. It digs in and says: "We are right, that is the end of it, go back to your places." That, Mr. Speaker, is an excellent way of inviting trouble. Instead, the government should ask itself what do Quebecers want. If Quebecers answer they want control over communications, let them have it. That is true democracy. We have no authority to judge. As I indicated to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself, there are times when we must go above the constitution and say: That is that. Mr. Speaker, it is only by chance that the federal government entered the communications field. It is only because the provinces did not move in in the first place. It is simply because an act of the Quebec Legislative Assembly, now the National Assembly,

July 30, 1975
The Royal Assent
was never implemented that control over radio, television and communications in general is now in federal hands. If the provinces had wanted to take it, they would have done so. It is not because an error was committed there at other times that the views of provinces should still be denied.
For that reason, I believe the federal government's attitude in this area would have serious if not disastrous consequences. I must once more blame the government for its attitude in this area. If we are going to have a truly united Canada, it is essential that the provinces be given a fair hearing. It is also essential that we get truly interested in Canada's various regions and their needs. That is important, that is essential. We must not try and solve problems simply by stating they do not exist. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will make only one wish, namely that the next session give us the opportunity to debate bills which are really concrete and aim at helping the Canadian people. I shall then be pleased to give credit to the government for it.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-66, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, without any amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House,
Ottawa, July 30, 1975
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Wilfred Judson, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 30th day of July, at 4.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, R. de C. Nantel
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp:
That, when the House adjourns this day, it shall stand adjourned until a time to be fixed by Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, when the House may meet for the purpose of dealing with any subsequent proceeding on or the giving of Royal Assent to any bill or bills that, at the time of adjournment this day, have been given third reading in this House but have not yet been given Royal Assent;
That, after the giving of Royal Assent to the said bill or bills, or in the event the House does not meet for that purpose, the House shall be adjourned or shall stand adjourned, as the case may be, until October 14, 1975, provided that at any time prior to that date if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time;
And that, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act, owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for the purpose of reconvening the House.
Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, it is not a point of order, but I would like to take part in the debate. I do not intend to speak at length because I do not want to prolong the debate. What I want to do, Mr. Speaker, is to draw the attention of hon. members and, particularly, of the government on the tragic disaster which happened in the Iles-de-la-Madeleine, in my riding, when Hurricane Blanche swept through the area the day before yesterday, July 28.
Even if the damages are not as heavy as at Saint-Bona-venture, the losses suffered by the islanders represent a great trial and will deprive most of them of their means of living for a long time. Hurricane Blanche tore off and blew over the roofs of motels and houses, lit fires which destroyed herring smoke houses in Cap-aux-Meules and many houses, sank many fishing boats and other boats, damaged many others, caused untold damages at the harbour of Millerand, which is being upgraded. One person, Miss Jocelyne LeBlanc, died in a fire during that tragedy. The current assessment of damages which have been reported to me this morning lies between $3.5 million to $4 million. I take this opportunity to extend my condolences to Mr. and Mrs. Fortune LeBlanc, the parents of Jocelyne and to all the members of their family, following the death of their daughter in the fire which also destroyed their home.
I also wish to express my sincere condolences to the people of Iles-de-la-Madeleine tried by this tragic disaster and I want to assure them of my entire cooperation in this sad event. I urge the Canadian government to bring all the help they can give in the circumstances to these people, so that they might recover as soon as possible from this sudden disaster, without unduly mortgaging their future.

July 30, 1975


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I would like to involve myself in this debate for just a few moments, and I would like to associate myself with the remarks which were just made by the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard), as well as with the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard) with regard to the tragic circumstances in recent days in the Drummond constituency where, at St. Bonaventure, a tornado struck, taking the lives and injuring a number of people there, and couple that with the tragic circumstances associated with the town of Spring-hill in my constituency, which fortunately did not involve the loss of any lives, as was the case in the two previous disasters, but did destroy the whole business section of the town of Springhill and, as a result, added a tragedy on top of a number of recent tragedies that have occurred over the last two decades in that community, as many Canadians are aware.
Some members of the House might not be aware of what has happened in Springhill. In 1956 we had a coal mine disaster that took the lives of 39 miners. In 1957 we had a very severe fire that destroyed a good part of the business district of the town, and which was later rebuilt. In 1958 we had another coal mine disaster which took the lives of 79 miners, eliminated the only real industry left in that community and the coal mining operations that were there.
Because of subsequent government actions, both federal and provincial, we were able to rebuild the town of Springhill and give it a new economic base. One of the major contributions towards that was the establishment of two penitentiaries in that community, which gave economic viability and confidence to the business community, allowing them to reinvest in the town and rebuild.
In recent days we have had three very serious and tragic disasters that struck Springhill and two different communities in Quebec. I must say that while this is usually the time to criticize the government and to point out what it has not done, I want to say first of all that I personally appreciated the attitude of all members of the House with regard to the problems that are associated with the Springhill tragedy, and I want to say as well that I have been impressed by the hon. member for Drummond who immediately rose in the House and brought to the attention of the government and the House the tragic event that took place in St. Bonaventure, just as the hon. member for Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine did this afternoon with regard to his constituency.
I was pleased as well to see that the hon. member for Saint Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) also rose in the House and indicated the support of all members in our party in connection with the tragic circumstances associated with the tragedy in Drummond. Today the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack) indicated some concern over the fact that maybe sufficient attention was not being given to the circumstances surrounding the tragedy at Drummond, and indicated his hope that the governments, both federal and provincial, will do anything they can to assist those people and help them to rebuild the town and the homes that were destroyed by the tornado.
Summer Recess
There are times when the public or members, regardless of party, find fault with the government. But in so far as the tragedy at Springhill is concerned, I must say that the government and the ministers who are particularly involved deserve a good deal of credit for the way in which they banded together to try to find what they could do at the federal level to assist in rebuilding the community there.
I think that special credit should be given to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), who acted as liaison between the various cabinet ministers in trying to assist by putting together a group of proposals from the federal government without its having had any specific request from the province of Nova Scotia, trying to use federal programs to restore confidence in the people of Springhill by showing that there are others in this country who are concerned and aware of their problems. This will assist them in setting the town back on the road to recovery, and in giving it an economic base which will make it a viable community once more.
I mentioned the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and I certainly must also mention the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), with whom I often cannot agree. Nor can I always support the policies he purports to stand for in association with his department, but certainly in so far as he was concerned about Springhill and the possibility of locating another penal institution there, his reaction was immediate, and the activities of his department are obvious to the people in that community today.
There is work being done to ascertain whether a new, smaller institution could be established there which would provide additional employment, and additional confidence in the minds of the business community, which would be of material assistance in giving an economic base to those people who must be having difficulty deciding whether to rebuild or to put the insurance cheques in their pockets.
I must also say that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) reacted in a very commendable way by saying that because of the problems that community faces, and because of the very great havoc which has been created by the fire, he is willing to eliminate the possibility of delay in starting new LIP projects, allowing them to move forward quicker so that the town can be cleaned up and look presentable, so that when people come there they may give favourable consideration to undertaking whatever they intend to undertake.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly do not want to restrict the hon. member, or any other hon. members. I do not know if the House is anywhere close too being ready for the question or whether it would prefer, upon returning from the other place where Royal Assent will be given, to resume the debate. Is it preferable to resume the debate?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I prefer to resume the debate after we go to the other place.


An hon. Member:: Take your few minutes now.

July 30, 1975
Summer Recess


Robert Carman Coates: If I happen to be the only other person who wants to be involved in this debate, I would be quite happy to finish in two or three minutes, and we could go to the other place, if that is agreeable to hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There seems to be a consensus that the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) be allowed to bring his remarks to a conclusion and thereafter the House would be ready for the question. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is another speaker after the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North, I think that necessitates our returning after Royal Assent.
Before leaving for the other place I would just like to mention to hon. members that, as has been indicated, the debate on the adjournment motion is drawing near a conclusion, and if in fact it turns out to be the case that the debate does come to a point of resolution, it would be my distinct pleasure to receive hon. members in room 16 at the conclusion of the debate and after the point of decision.



ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-8, An Act to establish a national petroleum company.-Chapter No. 61.
Bill C-66, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act.-Chapter No. 62.
Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act.- Chapter No. 63.
Bill C-53, An Act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, No. 2.-Chapter No. 6.
Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1972.-Chapter No. 65.
Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain statutes to provide equality of status thereunder for male and female persons.-Chapter No. 66.
Bill C-70, An Act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act.- Chapter No. 67.
Bill C-63, An Act to amend the Olympic (1976) Act.-Chapter No. 68.

Bill S-25, An Act to amend the Privileges and Immunities (International Organizations) Act.-Chapter No. 69.
Bill C-67, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff, (No. 3).-Chapter No. 70.
Bill C-1,001, An Act to provide an exception from the general law relating to marriage in the case of Richard Fritz and Marianne Strass.
Bill S-24, An Act to incorporate the Canadian Commercial and Industrial Bank.
Bill S-26, An Act respecting Alliance Security & Investigation, Ltd. Bill S-28, An Act respecting The Royal Canadian Legion.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp:
That, when the House adjourns this day, it shall stand adjourned until a time to be fixed by Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the Government, when the House may meet for the purpose of dealing with any subsequent proceeding on or the giving of Royal Assent to any bill or bills that, at the time of adjournment this day, have been given third reading in this House but have not yet been given Royal Assent;
That, after the giving of Royal Assent to the said bill or bills, or in the event the House does not meet for that purpose, the House shall be adjourned or shall stand adjourned, as the case may be, until October 14, 1975, provided that at any time prior to that date if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time;
And that, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act, owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for the purpose of reconvening the House.
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not hold proceedings up very much longer at this point. I did want to point out, however, ways and means by which the federal government can participate and be of assistance in a constituency struck by disaster, without the provincial government having to make application under the disaster relief formula. This formula makes it very difficult for a provincial government to seek support at the federal level because of the heavy involvement that might be useful when a disaster is province-wide and involves expenditure of millions of dollars. In specific areas the formula does not work. The federal and provincial governments have to work together to try to overcome the disabilities faced by the stricken communities.
Some people may be concerned about the constituency of Drummond and the fact that the government of Quebec does not wish to apply to the federal government for disaster relief under the federal-provincial formula. At the same time there are ways in which the federal and provin-
July 30, 1975

cial governments can work together. I believe they are doing so very effectively in Nova Scotia now to overcome the disabilities which face the community of Springhill.
I have mentioned a number of programs, but to be fair to the other ministers involved I think I should mention them also. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) is looking into the possibility of setting up a textile industry in the community. He has expressed his willingness, too, to involve himself in efforts by the provincial government to establish an industrial park in that area to help attract the new industries which are needed. Moreover, he has indicated to me that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) is undertaking certain plans in cooperation with the government of Nova Scotia to provide housing for people who have lost their homes as a result of the fire.
These programs, which are in addition to those I mentioned earlier, will go a long way toward restoring confidence among the inhabitants and giving an incentive to the people in the Springhill area to take this tragedy in their stride and build a new town.
Another idea has been mentioned to me-in fact, it came from Senator Graham from Nova Scotia. So complete was the destruction caused by the fire that an opportunity presents itself to build a completely new downtown district, an endeavour in which the federal government might be able to involve itself through various programs already under way. Ideas of this sort emanate not only from all quarters of this House but, as I have mentioned, from members of the other place, even though the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) believes that very little emanates from there that is of any value to anyone.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well said.


Robert Carman Coates: To the other two hon. members who have experienced the same kind of tragic situation associated with disasters, I would say there are many ways in which they could work with the federal government and provincial governments to see that their communities are brought back to viable economic life.
The other point I wish to bring up concerns a responsibility of the CRTC. It relates to television coverage in my constituency. My constituency happens to border on New Brunswick, and everything we get on television comes from either New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island. There is nothing from Nova Scotia. We are almost led to believe we are in a different province when we turn on our television sets because nothing associated with Nova Scotia ever gets to us.
I have brought up this subject previously. I have appeared before the CRTC and I have made representations concerning it, but I have never been able to get any satisfaction. Along with this, we have a cablevision operator in the town of Truro who operates a cablevision service for both Truro and Bible Hill. He insists on giving the people of that area nothing that they ought not to be able to get without cablevision. In other words, they can only get two television stations which they should, in any case, be able to get without cablevision. However, because of "holes" in reception, the only way people can get a good picture is by purchasing cable. The cablevision operator
Summer Recess
will not provide any of the inducements offered by other cablevision operators in Nova Scotia. Incidentally, I notice that the CRTC recently allowed him to increase his rates.
I have had the CRTC carry out a special investigation into this matter. They gave me a report which, as far as I am concerned, was just a whitewash. Something should be done to see that this cablevision operator either produces an inducement for people to pay special rates at least equivalent to those provided, for example, by the cablevision operation in Amherst-the channels in the area plus two American channels-or that somebody else takes over the operation in the Truro-Bible Hill area.
I wish to thank hon. members for their patience in listening to these remarks, and to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and to wish you a very enjoyable recess.


Robert Muir: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should apologise to hon. members for detaining them at this late hour close to the adjournment of the session. However, I regret I cannot extend such an apology because the matter I have to raise is one of such serious consequence that I would not be doing my duty if I did not bring it before the chamber this afternoon.
Earlier today, under Standing Order 43,1 sought leave to move a motion with reference to the serious situation at the Sydney steel plant where 500 workers have been laid off since March. Apparently in the last few days difficulties have arisen in connection with the rail bill and it would appear that we will now see a few hundred more laid off.
The federal government has involved itself with the affairs of the steel plant on several occasions, providing assistance for which we are very grateful, and which was forthcoming despite the fact that this was a Crown corporation operated by the province.
My purpose in seeking to move a motion under Standing Order 43 was that I felt that this was a situation which should be looked into by the federal government. The motion was that, in view of the problem, the government should check with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Department of Labour, and the Department of Manpower and Immigration to get from those departments a team of experts who would go to Sydney immediately in order to determine what assistance could be rendered, either technical or financial.
I had hoped to ask a question, but the question period today was quite busy. This is the reason why I bring it to the attention of the House at this time. I feel the team of experts could do something to assist that operation. All parties in the House agreed to the motion, with the exception of a Liberal member. That was very unfortunate because this is a very serious situation, coming on top of an announcement a few weeks ago that we are going to lose the Toyota assembly plant of Canadian Motor Industries. We will suddenly lose jobs there.
Not too many months ago we lost the General Instruments Corporation plant which assembled electronic devices, automobile turners, and so on. This resulted in 1,000 people losing their jobs. I raised this with the Minis-

July 30, 1975
Summer Recess
ter of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), but nothing was done. Those people are still out of work.
We also have the coal mine in Cape Breton which, at the moment, is in danger of being sealed off because of a mine gas explosion. Several hundred employees are not working there, with the exception of the draggermen and what we call the bareface miners. They are risking their lives to put this mine back into condition so that work can again commerce. I must commend the Cape Breton Development Corporation and its president, Mr. Tom Kent, for the extreme effort being made to rehabilitate that mine. I also commend the workers, who on occasion worked around the clock with heavy equipment and gas masks and, of course, the bareface miners who are risking their lives.
I want to bring this problem to the attention of the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp), who should take it upon himself, if for no other reason than out of the goodness of his heart, to bring the problem to the attention of the cabinet and have it put high on the priority list.
I am happy that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) is here. He is a former labour leader who knows the problems of the workers involved in steel and many other industries. I hope that both ministers will use their good offices to bring this to the attention of the cabinet. It is funny that no matter how loud I raise my voice, both cabinet ministers do not seem to be listening. They are conversing, I hope about the problem we are confronted with on Cape Breton Island.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Robert Muir: If the hon. member who made the interjection would like to identify himself, I will take him to Sydney to explain why he opposed my motion this afternoon which probably would have helped the industry. I will be pleased to escort him to the city of Sydney where he can talk to the steel workers, the businessmen, and others involved in the industry.


Mr. MacFarlane:: I did not make the interjection, but I would love to visit there.


Robert Muir: Coming from a steel city, the hon. member knows the problems we face. In any event, I will not detain the House any longer. I know it is unfair to the members who are here. They have received an invitation from Mr. Speaker to attend a reception which they justly deserve.
I implore the Acting Prime Minister to ascertain what can be done with the expertise that is available in the three departments I mentioned, and to assure us that in conjunction with other cabinet ministers he will do his utmost to have every possible assistance rendered to the premier of Nova Scotia, who is on the board. This is a Crown corporation operated by the provincial government.
At the same time I ask him to bring to the attention of the cabinet the new steel complex that was promised for
Cape Breton Island prior to July 8, 1974, something over a year ago. I ask him to ascertain whether that is still in the mill, and I do not mean the steel mill, as to future projections. I want him to assure us that when that complex comes about, it will not be built in some other part of the country. The Liberal candidate in my area assured my people that the steel complex proposed as a result of a study by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion would definitely be in the Cape Breton area.
We now hear the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) issuing other sounds. I hope and pray that the day does not come when such a complex comes about that it will be located anywhere other than Cape Breton Island where we have expertise and the work force. God knows we have enough unemployment, ranging between 15 per cent and 20 per cent.
In conclusion, we have heard the slogans of the government during campaigns. "The land is strong". "We have the answers" and a great many others. Unfortunately in our area the land is not strong, and we have found that the government does not have the answers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like some others I had a speech I could make at this time, but I have filed it. Rather, as one of the oldtim-ers around here, I want to start the process of the appropriate greetings for the occasion. On behalf on my party, and we are unanimous, I extend greetings for a very useful and happy break to all members of the House, to the staff, to those at the table, to Your Honour and all those who occupy the chair.
While I am on my feet may I express the hope that when we come back in the fall the government will present to us the kind of legislation that will enable us to do a better job for the rest of the session. But my main purpose in rising now is to extend greetings to one and all.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, following the example of my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I shall not make a speech. I wanted, for once, a member on this side to have the last say over our good friend, so I simply echo all his good wishes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House stands adjourned until Tuesday, October 14, 1975, at two o'clock p.m.
At 5.33 p.m. the House adjourned until 2 p.m. October 14, 1975, pursuant to special order made this day.

Tuesday, October 14, 1975