1975-04-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the report that the commissioner of the Northwest Territories was responsible for a dinner for the Prince of Wales at which only 22 of 350 guests were natives, and in view of the further report that the only other Indians in attendance were there as entertainers and were left sitting on a hall floor between washrooms when not performing, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That upon confirmation of the accuracy of this report that this House repudiates such discriminatory behaviour and calls upon the government to request the resignation of commissioner Hodgson.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: There is the abominable "no man" again.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the renewed interest in the reinstatement of capital punishment, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker):
That this House instruct the Solicitor General to refer his recent brief by the police association of Nova Scotia and other Atlantic provinces supported by all police associations throughout Canada be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for immediate study.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSED REFERENDUM ON REINSTATEMENT OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the great increase in crimes since the beginning of 1975, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton-Went-worth (Mr. Kempling):
That this House instruct the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to look into the urgent need to introduce a measure allowing a national referendum on the reinstatement of capital punishment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST SOLICITOR GENERAL INTRODUCE PROMISED MEASURES TO CURB MURDER-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the growing concern about the increase of crimes in this country and the possible need for the reinstatement of capital punishment, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis):
That this House instruct the Solicitor General to introduce immediately his long promised measures to curb murder and other serious
crimes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

April 30, 1975
Oral Questions


HOUSING
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given the current drastic shortage of mortgage moneys with the resulting upward pressure on interest rates and given the prediction by the Assistant General Manager of the Royal Bank that prices of Canadian houses will rise by 15 per cent by the end of the current year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That the government immediately introduce new measures to alleviate the housing crisis.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 cannot be accepted without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; there is not unanimous consent.
secure compliance on the part of the employees' associations. In our view the facts supporting the order had to be established and, thereafter, appropriate notice has to be given to the parties involved. That is now in process.


Mr. Stanfield:: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Who are the parties involved? I do not mean, by name, but by description.


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking particularly about the five unions involved.


STRIKE OF LONGSHOREMEN IN QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT VIEW OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH BACK-TO-WORK LEGISLATION
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister? As parliament last week passed legislation ordering the members of these unions back to work immediately, is it the opinion of the government that when parliament passes such legislation and union members are ordered to return to work, that it is satisfactory if they do not return to work?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Justice has outlined the steps the government has taken to see that the Act is complied with.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Justice, or to the Acting Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Labour? Could we be given further information about the situation concerning the longshoremen in the St. Lawrence ports following the meeting yesterday between representatives of the unions and the Minister of Labour?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is continuing a series of meetings in connection with the longshoring operations of the ports. At the same time we are taking steps to proceed with applications under the special Act of parliament adopted last week, to obtain an order to ensure compliance with that Act.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister be more specific as to what measures he and his associates are proceeding with to ensure compliance with the Act?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the application to which I referred is an application for an order under the Act to


INDIAN AFFAIRS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the report that appeared originally on television last night, and was repeated in the newspapers this morning, to the effect that among the 350 guests invited for a banquet organized for the Prince of Wales by the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories there were only 22 native people, and as native peoples constitute some two-thirds of the total population of the Northwest Territories, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether the government has conducted an investigation into the accuracy of this report?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have not conducted any particular investigation. I expect that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will be back in Ottawa shortly. He has been meeting with native peoples in the north. All I saw, of course, was what was on television. Everyone, including the native peoples, seemed to be having a good time celebrating the visit of the Prince of Wales.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As usual, the Acting Prime Minister seems to have missed the point. Is it the government's view that such a representation of native peoples of the Northwest Territories was adequate? Does the minister think that 22 members of the native community can be considered as a fair
April 30, 1975

and adequate representation of the population of that part of our country?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I was saying that from what I had seen on television, it showed the Indians, both in the audience and those performing, were having a good time. I am not aware of the actual numbers who were invited in various capacities. I am sure the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will be here and will give adequate answers. If necessary, the government will have an inquiry made.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Acting Prime Minister to have confirmed by investigation if the principal role of the native peoples was to provide entertainment for the white population? Even so, the entertainers were kept in a hall, sitting on the floor between two washrooms. Is this the general approach or attitude with which the guests were invited and the entertainers treated? If that is confirmed, will the Acting Prime Minister assure the House the government will take steps to remove the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories from his position?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my acquaintance with the Commissioner when I made a visit to the north confirmed that he was treating all citizens and all of the native peoples in a non-discriminatory way. However, if it were discovered that he had been acting in some different manner, appropriate steps would be taken. I cannot accept the statements that have been made by the hon. member without investigation. I was not there. The minister will be here and he will give a reply.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Is he aware that the Robin Brothers Clothiers Co. Ltd., and Utex Corporation textile companies at Victoriaville are in the process of moving their plant equipment and setting up new plants in Rumania and Colombia, thus endangering employment at Victoriaville even in the textile industry? Is his department aware of that extremely dramatic situation, and is it doing anything to prevent the loss of stable jobs in the textile industry at Victoriaville?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that particular situation. I will look into it immediately.


POSSIBILITY OF PROCESSING ASBESTOS IN QUEBEC- GOVERNMENT POSITION
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Oral Questions
I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether his department had made any studies on the possibilities of processing asbestos in the province of Quebec and, if so, can he tell the House about those studies?


Alastair William Gillespie: 
FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Finance. It is clear government policy that, as the Prime Minister stated on April 19, and I quote:
-the dollar respond to market forces and that any intervention ... would be only to assure that the float does not have any dirt in it.
It is also clear that the Bank of Canada's recent interventions in support of the Canadian dollar include the selling of securities, which has had the effect of driving up our interest rate levels. Can the minister advise whether such a rise in domestic interest rates is viewed by the government as an acceptable market force at the present time in relation to stabilizing our Canadian dollar exchange level with the American dollar?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, as the Acting Prime Minister pointed out yesterday in response to a question, rising interest rates are not regarded with favour, as a favourable symptom or a favourable response to our general actions. However, it does reflect the competition for available capital in an expanding active economy.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As the minister has confirmed that the interest rate levels are rising, will he now advise if the government has any plans to relieve high interest rate charges against borrowers in Canada, particularly those who have mortgage funds they are now carrying or seek to carry? Are there any plans to ensure that the trade deficit method of financing or high interest rates in Canada will not be carried on the backs of Canadian borrowers?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure whose interest the hon. member is advocating, whether it is the borrowers who must be protected or the lenders. As I say, in this instance the rise in interest rates reflects a greater demand for capital-hence, greater economic activity- than there is capital available. There are ways of providing additional capital: it can be imported, or the money supply can be increased with consequent adverse inflationary effects. Or money could be provided, as has been frequently suggested by the opposition, through some form of government subsidy. We believe at the moment that it is not unreasonable to hope for a suitable accommodation by balancing all these forces. This is a question to which the Minister of Finance is presently addressing
5328

April 30, 1975
Oral Questions
himself and undoubtedly he will have some comment to make at the time of the presentation of the budget.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Acting Minister of Finance has indicated that subsidization is at least part of the government's thinking. Bearing in mind that current interest rates on mortgages in the United States are running at approximately 8.5 per cent whereas in Canada even the NHA rate is more than 10.5 per cent, will the minister tell us whether the government has any plan in mind to subsidize interest rates on behalf of borrowers in Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The government would be remiss if it did not explore all possibilities including some which have been suggested and which, on the face of it, appear to be rather impracticable. We are engaged in this assessment and given the usual practice of governments in Canada not to announcing budgetary plans and intentions prior to the presentation of the budget, the hon. member will have to be patient.


HARBOURS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the Minister of Labour but in his absence perhaps I might direct it to the Minister of Transport or the Acting Prime Minister. It relates to the government's guarantee of certain loans secured by the Maritime Employers' Association in respect of programs initiated at Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec. Can the Minister of Transport tell us whether there have been any discussions between his department- perhaps the Acting Prime Minister will deal with that aspect-between the government and the Maritime Employers' Association with respect to the ability of the MEA to meet its commitments to the two principal banks where these loans have been secured and in respect of which the government has given certain guarantees?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
question has been addressed to me: I will have to take it as notice and give an answer tomorrow.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now that the war in Viet Nam has ended, will the hon. gentleman tell the House how many Canadians, including media men, embassy staff, missionaries and aid officials are still in South Viet Nam? How many Vietnamese relatives granted Canadian visas are

still there and what measures is the government taking to ensure the safety of these Canadians and relatives?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The information I have is a day or so old and possibly out of date, but on April 24 there were known to be 31 Canadians still in Saigon. This group included a number of journalists and a number of Canadians who planned to leave within a short time. There were 13 Canadians who intended to remain in the country indefinitely, and of these 13, 11 were missionaries. With respect to their safety, it is probable that the territory in which they live is now under PRG control. The PRG has stated that once these foreigners are identified they will be allowed to leave the country if they wish. My hon. friend knows that all Canadians who were in the area were repeatedly warned and given an opportunity to leave before the events culminated yesterday.


Claude Wagner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister tell the House whether the government plans to recognize the new regime in South Viet Nam, and when?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is really not yet clear exactly who the new regime is. Once it becomes clear, then there will be an opportunity for the government to decide what action to take. But it is much too early to know exactly what the political situation is to justify recognition.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would the minister grant refugee status to some of the thousands of Vietnamese who are now in camps in U.S. staging areas in the Pacific and permit them to come to Canada and, if so, how many?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, my current information, which is still somewhat obscure obviously because of the situation, indicates that between 50 and 100 relatives of Canadians who will sponsor them may have reached Guam. Some others are apparently showing up in places like Bangkok. We are in communication with the Americans in order to get the most current information as to names of people who are on the list that we supplied to them, and I think that later this day, and certainly later this week, we will have a clearer picture and will be proceeding with all reasonable measures to clear their passage to Canada.
With regard to people from Viet Nam who are not relatives but might be claiming refugee status, we will deal with these, as I said the other day, on an individual basis. We have been in touch with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, but there has been no declaration or decision by that agency to declare a mass
April 30, 1975

refugee situation. I think the situation will clarify itself a bit within the next few days when we know where people are gathering and what their status is.


NATURAL GAS-ALBERTA AWARD OF PRICE INCREASE TO TRANS-CANADA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in regard to the report that an Alberta arbitration award has been handed down in a dispute between Gulf Oil and Trans-Canada setting a price for natural gas of $1.15 per thousand cubic feet. Has the minister been in touch with the premier of Alberta as to whether or not this price is now going to be the price for all gas exported from Alberta to Canadian consumers, or what steps does the government propose to take to deal with an increase of from 60 cents per thousand cubic feet to $1.15?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The hon. gentleman will recall that this decision was not unanticipated, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, it was referred to by me in the debate on the Petroleum Administration Act. It would be the government's view that an increase to $1.15 at the wellhead should not take place at this time. Indeed, officials of my department have already met with the Albertan officials to talk about some agreement on an increase, but to a much lower level than that proposed by the arbitration board. I am anticipating meeting the Alberta minister of energy this coming week to have further discussions along this line, and we hope that this will lead to an agreement on a price for natural gas, as of November 1 this year, which could then be made subject to orders in council as provided for in the Petroleum Administration Act, assuming, of course, that that bill comes into law.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of this decision whether it stands or not, in regard to the domestic price of natural gas, may I ask the minister what effect it will have on setting the export price of gas? In view of the fact that it is generally conceded that the minister has in mind a price of $1.60, allowing for transportation, a price of $1.15 would mean that Canadian consumers would be paying a higher price for gas than American consumers. Will the minister be making an announcement within the next few days on the export price, and can he give us any idea whether the action in Alberta will have any effect on the federal government's decision in respect of the export price for natural gas?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Strictly speaking, Mr. Speaker, it would not have a direct effect on the determination of the export price. I anticipate being able to make an announcement within the next several days in respect of the next step upwards in the export price of gas, but I just confirm again that my efforts will be directed toward
Oral Questions
keeping down the price of gas to the Canadian consumer very much below the $1.15 level.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the important medical facts pointed out in a letter dated April 7 from Dr. Lise Fortier to the vice-president of the Canadian Airlines Flight Attendants Association, will the Minister of Transport assure this House that if his department does succumb to the chauvinistic pressure of the pilots' association and refuses pregnant flight attendants the right to fly it will also legislate due monetary compensation in line with the benefits enjoyed by their pregnant sisters in every other branch of industry?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have asked Mr. McLeish, the Director General of Civil Aeronautics, to meet with the association of the stewardesses and flight attendants in order to have a new look at this problem. They are supposed to meet on May 12 and have discussions about the new regulations which are not going to be adopted before we reach some kind of an agreement with this association.


Mr. Fairweather:: And with your own low.


Jean Marchand: Of course, at the same time we have a joint commitment with labour so we have to reconcile our own regulations with the labour standards of the Minister of Labour.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs advise the House whether Australia recently cancelled a United Nations meeting to be held in Australia because it would have involved the attendance of representatives of the PLO and, if so, did such action jeopardize the membership of Australia in the UN?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have no information on this subject.


UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE IN TORONTO-CONSISTENCY OF ATTENDANCE OF PLO REPRESENTATIVES WITH CANADIAN ATTITUDE TOWARDS TERRORISM
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to look into that. Could he advise whether the decision to go ahead with the hosting of the UN congress on crime in this country was taken after
29557-621/2

April 30, 1975
Oral Questions
consideration of whether the presence of PLO representatives in Canada is consistent with the official position of Canada regarding terrorist methods?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the decision of Canada to host this particular conference was taken some time before the PLO was granted observer status at the United Nations. Of course, as my hon. friend knows, Canada voted against granting the PLO observer status at the United Nations.


An hon. Member:: You abstained.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take it that the minister's answer is that this is inconsistent with our policy, but is the minister satisfied that such a decision is in the best interest of this country, in view of the fact that our people overwhelmingly condemn terrorist activity?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that is not a question related to policy, it is a way by which the hon. member is expressing his own opinion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FINANCE
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the serious drop in our automotive and automotive parts trade, will the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce recommend to his Cabinet colleague, the Minister of Finance, that he consider reducing or eliminating the federal sales tax on automobiles and light trucks in his forthcoming budget?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to place that representation before the Minister of Finance. While I am on my feet, it might be of interest to the hon. member to know that investment in the parts industry in Canada has not been as depressed as it has been in recent years. Indeed, there is now a trend indicating some pickup, and the investment in 1974 was the third highest on record.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, will the minister consider recommending that where Canadian companies are willing to give their employees a bonus for purchasing a new automobile, that bonus will be allowed as a tax deductible expense?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and arises from an

answer he gave yesterday concerning the status of beef, in which he stated that Canada was in a deficit position. How can the minister reconcile this deficit position with the low price of beef, and when does he expect that beef producers can recover the cost of production?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the fact is well known that we do not produce all the beef we eat in Canada. We have normal exporters to this country that we allow to ship beef on a quota system based on 100 per cent of a five-year average. These include Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Argentina. The stabilization price we have established may not provide all beef farmers with an adequate return, but it does give most of them an adequate return on their productivity. This is a "stop loss" program and is something the beef industry requested.


NATURAL GAS-POSSIBILITY OF FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN APPLICATIONS OF ARCTIC GAS AND FOOTHILLS PIPELINE COMPANIES
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice, and it relates to the line of questioning in regard to the cost of natural gas. Is it the minister's intention to have his department intervene at the pipeline hearing before the National Energy Board with reference to the applications of Canadian Arctic Gas Pipeline and Foothills Pipeline Companies? If that is the case, what is the reason for that intervention? Before the minister answers I might mention that the deputy minister of his department has suggested there will be an intervention in a communication with the Canadian Consumers' Association.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the Deputy Attorney General indicated that the question of an intervention was being considered, and that consideration is still continuing. The point of that intervention which is being discussed involves the matter of putting before the board a view concerning the public interest.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the phrase "public interest" could cover a lot of good things and a lot of sins. What public interest in the minister referring to? We are dealing with the law of supply and demand and with pipelines to bring gas out of the Arctic. Does the public interest have relation to considerations of the Department of the Environment or the Department of Indian Affairs? Just what is the public interest?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the consideration would involve all these departments and the questions that have to be resolved in deciding whether we should intervene, as well as the kind of approach we can properly take before the National Energy Board, and the position we might be in when putting that approach before the National Energy Board in view of the other role the government plays in connection with National Energy Board decisions.
April 30, 1975


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and it arises from his announcement a few days ago that the federal subsidy on potatoes was being extended to those potatoes destined for the livestock feeding industry, particularly cattle feeding. I should like to ask the minister whether he was aware, when this announcement was made, that these potatoes, particularly in western Ontario, are not in cold storage? Was he also aware of the fact that large quantities are either green, rotting or sprouting, which could result in the production of the toxin solamine, which according to the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, the veterinary branch, is a serious hazard to livestock?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are fully aware of that. There are publications probably in every agricultural affice which tell the farmers how to feed them to make sure that there are no sprouts and so on on them. I want to make it pretty clear that we offered this program in the first instance to all the provinces but, because of the normal marketing conditions and the normal supply situation in Quebec and Ontario at this time of the year, they did not think that they would have any to feed the livestock. We have said they should be cautious in feeding cattle to make sure that if there are a tremendous number of sprouts these are removed. The potatoes should be introduced gradually into a feeding program, and the livestock should not be put on a complete diet of potatoes all at once. In addition for swine they should be cooked.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the fact that the cattle producers, particularly in western Ontario, have not been feeding potatoes over the last few years to their cattle would the minister, rather than rely simply on the government publication which I believe is No. 1527, issue a press release or some kind of information bulletin so that these producers are aware of the dangers and are also aware of the availability of this information, either through their provincial or federal Department of Agriculture offices.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, most of the cattle producers I know-and I am sure the hon. member would not want to insinuate that cattle producers in Ontario do not know how to feed cattle-are amongst the most expert in the cattle industry in all of Canada. I will check with my officials to see whether we think it is necessary to do this, but the people I spoke to who want to feed this are expert cattle feeders.
Oral Questions AIR CANADA


SUGGESTED ENLARGEMENT OF TERMS OF REFERENCE OF ESTEY INQUIRY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. During the adjournment debate on Monday, April 28 I requested that Judge Estey's inquiry cover the Air Canada finance branch in Winnipeg. The parliamentary secretary, in answer to me, stated that nothing prevents Judge Estey investigating the financial activities of Air Canada. Will the minister now direct the judge to investigate the billing and labour problems at the finance branch in Winnipeg.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I stated in the House that before the terms of reference were finalized we met with the judge and asked him if he had all the powers to do what he intends to do and what we wanted him to do and he said he had. So, he will decide. I will not tell him to do anything. He is a free man. I think he is intelligent and strong and I do not see how I could decently tell him to go here and there or do this and that.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept all the explanation of the minister. In light of the serious mechanical problems Air Canada is having with its aircraft, such as depressurization problems, engine failures on DC-9's and L10-ll's and recent emergency landings, will the minister have Judge Estey inquire into these serious mechanical breakdowns before there is a major fatality.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is in accordance with the facts to infer that the safety of Air Canada aircraft is weaker than that of the aircraft of other companies. I think sometimes some of these things are probably for the better. For example, it has been said I think in the House, I do not know whether or not by the hon. gentleman, that there was an engine explosion over Ottawa. This was not true at all. It was a reverter which fell down and this happens very often. I do not think there is any need to do what the hon. member asks. I invite the hon. gentleman to visit Air Canada with all the technicians he wishes and visit the repair maintenance shops, so that once and for all he will be either satisfied or dissatisfied with the work.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
As the minister is responsible for false, deceitful, misleading and fraudulent advertising, could he tell this House what steps his department intends to take against the National Citizens Coalition Inc. for a false, deceitful and misleading advertisement published today on page 13 of the Globe and Mail concerning Bill C-44?

April 30, 1975
Oral Questions


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I saw the advertisement. That organization has no commercial interest and cannot be prosecuted for misleading advertising. However, it could be examined by the officials of the Department of Justice to see whether it violates Criminal Code provisions on hate propaganda. Such advertising, Mr. Speaker, is closely related to the comments made by a CBC reporter in Ottawa whose professional ethics and qualifications should be checked, because for the second time in a few weeks, he made a report last night on the salaries of federal members which was also misleading, unfair and hateful.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Since the minister was supposed to meet yesterday with the representatives of the International Longshoremen's Association, can he tell us whether the meeting has taken place and if so, can he explain to the House the results of the meeting?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, I can, Mr. Speaker. I can advise the hon. member that I did meet with the union leadership of the longshoremen yesterday. I indicated to them that before any meaningful discussion could take place with regard to any of the grievances they had against their employers or with regard to the legislation they would have to desist in defying the law, obey the law and go back to work; then such discussions could take place in the normal course of events.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Would the minister outline for the House the way in which he is personally attempting to recover the more than $37 million invested by the Canadian government in Microsystems. Also in view of the fact that Northern Electric will, as it turns out, not lose a penny on its investment in Microsystems, will the minister tell the House how much of the more than $37 million the government expects to recover from Northern Electric.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is aware that he cannot ask a question worded in that manner.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I should like to ask the minister when he proposes to appoint a judge to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, considering that vacancy has been in existence for almost seven months, is causing a severe workload on the three judges and making it very difficult for this court to sit in on appeals against one of its members judgments.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the possibility of doing this very soon.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister if he can explain the delay and, secondly, tell the House when he intends to proceed with the legislation which has been on the order paper for sometime now to create an appellate court for the province of Newfoundland.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, part of the delay relates to the reorganization of the courts and the impact this might have upon appointments. However, as usual the search for well qualified persons to receive these appointments is a significant matter and not one taken lightly and adds to the over-all delay.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The minister today advised the House that the PRG had given the Canadian government assurance that Canadians held captive in Viet Nam would be freed as soon as they were identified. As the acting minister last week advised that Norman and Joan Johnson, two missionaries from Hamilton, had been located in a POW camp, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us why these Canadians have not been given their freedom and what specific action the government is taking to ensure that the communist forces do not make that assurance another of their broken promises?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are making representations through channels which are available to us, and we will continue to do that with respect to the missionaries to whom the hon. member refers. My latest information is that both persons are in good health and that Mr. Johnson himself is permitted to conduct missionary activity within a certain area.
April 30, 1975


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, on April 28 I raised the question of the possible danger to the air travelling public as a result of other than the English language being used in air to ground communications in Quebec, and the Acting Prime Minister at that time promised an answer yesterday, which I did not receive. Today, I would like to ask him or the Minister of Transport, in light of the fact that the Ministry of Transport has itself investigated and reported on two recent Canadian aircraft accidents in which English-French language usage and confusion were contributing factors to the accidents, when we can expect the report of the federal government's task force outlining definite regulations concerning this important matter.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I know that people in my department, and certainly those in charge of security, are supposed to meet with the pilot association, CALPA. They have produced a brief, and immediately after this we tried to reach some conclusion.


USE OF FRENCH BY AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS IN QUEBEC- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that last week, if I am correct, a meeting was held between representatives of the Quebec Air Traffic Controllers's Association and officers in charge of air communications within his department, could he give us some idea as to what extent French will be used in different areas of the province of Quebec and tell us the results of the meeting?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the department and a group from Quebec had agreed that on a temporary, transitional and experimental basis, French could be used in some airports. However, this did not apply to Montreal and was valid only with French-speaking pilots. Now the whole situation will be subject to an overall review as a result of the meeting to be held with the national pilots' association.


SERVICE FOR SOUTHWESTERN MANITOBA AND SOUTHEASTERN SASKATCHEWAN-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Southwestern Manitoba and southeastern Saskatchewan communities have been without air service for over a year now. Can the Minister of Transport inform the House, and the people of this particular area when air service will be provided?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I could be mistaken, but I think I wrote to Mr. Evans of the government of Manitoba yesterday saying
Oral Questions
that we are ready to buy two Saunders aircraft and to pay part of the maintenance and operation costs of a line between Brandon, Yorkton and all the other cities. There is agreement. There was disagreement on the share of each government. I am not sure, but I think this point has been settled.


POSSIBILITY AIR CANADA WILL PROVIDE SERVICE TO BRANDON-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Arising from the minister's statement on March 10, as recorded in Hansard page 3964, that one month from that date Air Canada, at the request of the government of Saskatchewan, was going to produce a plan for a regional air carrier which would include Brandon airport, and also in view of the fact that the third level carrier the minister has just referred to will be quite uneconomic until it is supplemented by this proposed regional jet service, when will the report be available, and will it indicate that Air Canada will be the designated carrier to provide this additional service?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, Air Canada is not the carrier which will deliver this service. The government of Manitoba will decide which carrier will provide the service in that particular case. This is part of our transportation policy. We know that we have many things to correct in the field of regional services, and I hope that I can soon be in a position to inform the House what this policy is.


INFORMATION
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Does the minister still intend to introduce enabling legislation which will allow the government to regulate federal computerized data banks to ensure the preservation of the civil liberties of Canadians on whom the federal government has computerized files, and if so, when?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the intention of the government is to deal with information it has on citizens in connection with a bill dealing with the Human Rights and Interests Commission.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Is it consistent with government policy that the Canadian police information centre computer has at present some 6,556 files on Canadians who are under surveillance but who have not been charged with any offence, that these files can remain open indefinitely until the local police decide to close them, that no provision is made at all for notifying a person on whom a file was opened and who is ultimately not charged with any offence and that these computerized files can be assessed by any one of 668 terminals across Canada and the United States?

April 30, 1975
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: I understand the representation by the hon. member, and I will also discuss this matter with my colleague the Solicitor General in the context of forthcoming bills.


HOUSING
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. The banks increased their mortgage lending rates last week, which will have a serious effect on the housing market this year. In view of the fact that the minister and his officials have contacted bank officials regarding the effects of the increase, will the minister report the results of his consultations and assure the House that the banks will roll back the rate increase?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly cannot give the hon. member such an assurance. Discussions with lenders, builders and client groups is a regular process on my part and the part of my officials. We are watching the situation very carefully and doing everything possible to make certain that a stable mortgage market exists and that housing is available for Canadians.


John Gilbert: Peter Carter, the assistant general manager of the Royal Bank, in a speech yesterday said that mortgage interest rates are probably at their lowest level right now and that they will rise sharply during the year. He estimated there would be about 180,000 starts this year. What does the minister intend to do with regard to controlling interest rates and increasing housing starts?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I do not control interest rates. We respond to the money markets as they are, and we make it possible for Canadians to buy housing. We are trying to do that and to find rental accommodation under extremely difficult circumstances and in an uncertain economic climate, but I can assure the hon. member that, in a situation which might be relatively short-term in its consequences, I will not panic by introducing long-term measures.


COMBINES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Could he tell the House whether the Prime Minister was expressing government policy regarding the proposed takeover of Argus Corporation by Power Corporation when he said he did not know whether it was a good thing, or whether the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was expressing government policy when he told his constituents that he was against it? Does the

government pay any attention to the views of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the second part of the question, the Minister of Industry, Trade of Commerce is a valuable minister who contributes greatly to the strength and stability of the Canadian economy.
On the first part of the question, because there is some difference of opinion and some uncertainty, we have appointed a royal commission to investigate the general subject.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on capital punishment on behalf of over 200,000 concerned people across Canada-a very small percentage of the over-all majority who are in favour of capital punishment. May I say the petitions forms were made available in both official languages across Canada.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 705, 1,224, 1,457, 1,557, 1,563, 1,584, 1,588, 1,669, 1,925, 1,926, 1,930, 1,952, 2,012, 2,019, 2,078, 2,141, 2,192, 2,210 and 2,217.
Mr. Speaker, if question No. 704 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. Stevens: 1.	In each fiscal year ending March 31, 1972, 1973 and 1974, and for the six month period ending September 30, 1974, what was the aggregate expenditure by the Department of Manpower and Immigration for travel abroad by (a) the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and his immediate staff (b) departmental staff (c) the staff of boards, commissions, tribunals, Crown corporations or other similar agencies reporting to the Minister (d) others whose expenses were paid in part or in whole directly or indirectly by the government?
April 30, 1975

2.	In the case of an expenditure in excess of $200 (a) what was the purpose of the foreign trip (b) what was the furthest destination (c) what is the name of the person(s) who took the trip (d) how long was the person(s) outside the country (e) what was the nature of the expenditure (f) how many others were in the party making the trip?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. The aggregate expenditure by the Department of Manpower and Immigration for travel abroad by: (a) The minister and his immediate staff for
Order Paper Questions
the fiscal year: 1971-72, $7,214.75; 1972-73, $2,667.52; 1973-74, $8,494.87; and 1974-75, for period ending Sept. 30/74, $3,051.80; (b), (c) and (d): Requested information is not readily available. To provide an accurate reply would entail a lengthy and costly examination of departmental records at all offices in Canada and at headquarters, as well as the hiring of additional staff to carry out the research.
2.	See below.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Name of
(d)
(e)
(f)
Number
Purpose of Trip	Furthest Destination	took Trip	Time Outside Canada	Nature of Expenditure	in Party	AmountOn Minister's Request	Sydney, Australia	D. Clark	Nov. 18-30/71	Travel accommodation food & miscellaneous	2	$ 5,802.75Official Business	Sydney, Australia	O. Lang	Nov. 18-30/71	Travel accommodation food & miscellaneous	2	1,412.00On Minister's Request	Providence, U.S.A.	D. Coates	Mar. 1-17/73	Travel accommodation food & miscellaneous	1	672.37On Minister's Request	Mexico City, Mexico	M. Gravelle	Nov. 14/72	Travel accommodation food & miscellaneous	1	217.15To represent Minister-	Kampala, Uganda	Z. Levine	Jul. 2-7/72	Travel accommodation food & miscellaneous	1	1,672.00Official Business	Madrid, Spain	R. Andras	Apr. 18-May 30/73	Travel accommodation food & miscellaneous	2	2,908.86Travelling with Minister	Madrid, Spain	M. Gravelle	Apr. 30-May 11/73	Travel accommodation food & miscellaneous	2	1,111.00Official Business	London, England	R. Andras	Aug. 2-9/73	Travel accommodation food & miscellaneous	2	1,015.34Accompany Minister	London, England	D. Coates	Aug. 2-9/73	Travel accommodation food & miscellaneous	2	1,145.95On Minister's Request	Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.	D. Coates	Apr. 5-7/73	Travel accommodation food & miscellaneous	1	339.83On Minister's Behalf	Boston, U.S.A.	D. Coates	Jul. 18-21/73	Travel accommodation food & miscellaneous	1	517.80On Minister's Request	Boston, U.S.A.	D. Coates	Aug. 16-17/73	Travel accommodation food & miscellaneous	1	347.84On Minister's Request	Boston, U.S.A.	D. Coates	Sept. 14-18/73	Travel accommodation food & miscellaneous	1	342.64On Minister's Behalf	New York, U.S.A.	V. Glickman	Feb. 21-74/74	Travel accommodation food & miscellaneous	1	462.00On Minister's Behalf	Budapest, Hungary	V. Glickman	Aug. 18-Sept. 1/74	Travel accommodation food & miscellaneous	1	2,168.86On Minister's Behalf	London, England	W. G. Tamblyn	Apr. 25-May 3/74	Travel accommodation food & miscellaneous	i	831.77


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) In how many votes has Canada participated at the United Nations since April 30, 1968 (b) how many times did it vote (i) in the affirmative (ii) in the negative (c) how many times did it abstain?
2.	In the case of each abstention, what was (a) the specific question involved (b) the reason Canada abstained (c) the name and job designation of the highest authority in the government deciding upon such abstention?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: It would be a task of considerable magnitude to reply in full to the Hon. member's question. As he will be aware, there are literally
thousands of issues that have been dealt with by the various institutions, committees, organs and agencies of the United Nations system in the period in question. In the belief, however, that the main thrust of the question has to do with voting in Plenary meetings of the annual General Assembly, the focus of the response set out below is upon resolutions coming before that body for discussion and voting. 1. (a) Number of votes Canada has participated in since the April 30th, 1968 (excluding all resolutions etc., adopted without vote), 725; (b) (i) affirmative votes, 496; (ii) negative votes, 49; (iii) abstentions, 180.
2.	(a) The titles or a text of each of the above 180 resolutions on which Canada abstained can be provided to the Hon. member if he so wishes, (b) Many of the 180

April 30, 1975
Order Paper Questions
resolutions are long and complicated, and to provide a meaningful explanation of every abstention would require a substantial examination of each in its proper context. The important point, however, is that an abstention does not represent failure to take a position. Like a positive or negative vote, it reflects a decision to take this particular position that has been arrived at by the government after consideration of all the relevant factors. Among the circumstances which can influence the government to register an abstention are the following: the government may favour a resolution generally but cannot support a particular part of it; it may wish to express dissatisfaction with a proposal rather than outright opposition; it may not wish to appear to be favouring one party or another so as not to prejudice the possibility of playing an eventual mediating role, (c) Under the authority of the minister or the cabinet as appropriate.


Mr. Hogan: How much money has the government supplied since 1968 to a company variously known as Judy Linda Four, then Continental Sea Foods and now called Sable Fish Packing and situated in Shelburne County, Nova Scotia?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the Department of the Environment came into existence in June, 1971, the information is limited to: 1971-72, Nil; 1972-73, Nil; 1973-74, $9,244.51; 1974-75, $34,397.80. Under the regulations of the Area Development Incentives Act, payments amounting to $132,687 have been made to a firm with a name similar to one of those in the question, Sable Fish Packers Limited.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	What was the subsidy paid to the operator of the ferry icebreaker Camille Marcoux for the construction of that vessel?
2.	Who is the operator of the service to which the Camille Marcoux has been supplied?
3.	For what reason was no mention made of such subsidy in the answer to Question No. 1,128?
4.	Has the government had a request from the Government of British Columbia for financial subsidies in support of the ferry service forming part of the Trans Canada Highway, namely the Nanaimo-Horse-shoe Bay service and, if so, will the government Table the exchange of correspondence?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Department of Transport and the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices as follows: 1. None.
2.	Societe des Traversiers de Quebec, 25 Place Marche Champlain, Quebec, Quebec.
3.	No subsidy was paid.
4.	The government of British Columbia has requested the federal government to provide financial support for the ferry service between Nanaimo and Horseshoe Bay. The federal government would be prepared to table correspondence dealing with the provincial request for assistance to this ferry service provided the government of British Columbia agrees.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Since 1968, how many non-Canadian university professors from developing countries have been awarded regular teaching fellowships by CIDA at Canadian universities?
2.	To which universities were they assigned?
3.	How many of these are now attached to Canadian universities?
4.	From what disciplines was the selection made?


Herb Breau: 1. None.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Is the government considering financial or other assistance such as stockpiling raw materials to promote farm machinery manufacturing in the West?
2.	Is the government considering setting up emergency repair parts depots in major centres so that farm machinery repair parts may be available within 72 hours?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows:
1.	The Department of Regional Economic Expansion continues to support actively the establishment of new farm machinery manufacturing facilities and the expansion of existing operations in designated regions of the West under the authority of the Regional Development Incentives Act. The department is also undertaking new initiatives in both Saskatchewan and Manitoba to investigate problems and opportunities existing in the industry. In Manitoba, a joint federal-provincial committee has been established to identify areas where joint action between the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and Manitoba could lead to new initiatives in the manufacturing and servicing sectors of the farm machinery industry. Under a Canada-Saskatchewan Subsidiary Agreement on Iron, Steel and Other Related Metal Industries, Canada and the provinces are actively supporting and promoting the establishment of new farm machinery manufacturing facilities as well as the expansion and diversification of the existing industry base.
2.	The federal government is not considering the establishment of emergency parts depots for farm machinery. In this regard, it should be noted that the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta already have legislation in place intended to ensure that spare parts for farm machinery are available within a reasonable time period and that no additional measures are considered appropriate at this time.
April 30, 1975


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is it intended that announced changes to the regulations concerning magazine advertising, to be effective January 1, 1976, contain regulations affecting the Canadian subsidiaries of those foreign parent companies that advertise in foreign magazines distributed in Canada?
2.	Does the advertising of the foreign parent effectively give the subsidiaries a Canadian advertising presence?
3.	Will any changes be proposed to tax regulations affecting the advertising for trade purposes of Canadian companies which advertise in foreign magazines that are also circulated in Canada?
4.	Will tourist agencies and tourist attractions be permitted deductible expense advertising after January 1, 1976 in American magazines that also have a Canadian circulation?
5.	Will Canadian merchandising outlets be permitted deductible expense advertising on American television outlets after January 1, 1976 if their advertising is directed at the American market for export purposes?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: The
answers to this question will depend upon any changes in regulations concerning advertising expense which will be determined by the nature of amendments to section 19 of the Income Tax Act approved by parliament.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the total annual salary of Mr. J. M. Morin, Deputy Commissioner of Official Languages?
2.	What was the total cost to taxpayers of French language lessons received by Mrs. Morin?
3.	(a) On what dates did Mrs. Morin take such lessons (b) who authorized such lessons and on what date?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	The Commissioner of Official Languages reports directly to parliament and not through a minister. Questions can be made directly to him privately. In so far as the Public Service Commission is concerned:
2.	No individual costing is maintained because the students attend courses for various lengths of time. (See also answer to question No. 24 (3) (Tabled January 22, 1975).
3.	(a) Mrs. J. M. Morin did not receive French language lessons. She undertook English language training under the arrangements in effect with the language bureau during 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75. Classes were normally held two times a week. Individual dates cannot be verified, (b) Authorization is obtained for each course year through the personnel division of the department or agency in which the candidate's husband is employed.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total cost for all aspects of the Prime Minister's summer residence at Harrington Lake for the fiscal year 1974-75 up to and including the last month for which figures are available, including a breakdown of the total showing (a) insofar as the National Capital Commission is concerned (b) insofar as the Department of Public Works is concerned (c) insofar as the Prime Minister's and the Privy Council Offices are concerned?
2.	For each, what is the breakdown of costs under all possible headings including (a) salaries and wages (b) contract services (c) supplies (d) sundries and entertainment (e) construction and alterations (f) maintenance?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the National Capital Commission, the Department of Public Works and the Prime Minister's and
Privy	Council Offices as	follows: 1.	1. (a)	$24,132	(b) $20,022 (c)	$3,5952. (a)	15,504	234	3,595 plus official residence Ottawa staff as required(b)	5,023	17,300	Nil(O	1,239	2,254	(c) and (d) expenditure included in operation of official residence Ottawa(d)	1,021	234	(e)	1,345	234	Nil(f)	Broken down under (a)to (d)	234	Nil


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


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Public Service Commission as follows:
1.	$29,000-$37,000.
2.	No individual costing is maintained because the students attend courses for various lengths of time. (See also answer to question No. 24 (3) (Tabled January 22, 1975).
3.	(a) Mrs. B. C. Hofley did not receive French language lessons. She undertook English language training under the arrangements in effect with the language bureau during 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74. Classes were normally held two times a week. Individual dates cannot be verified. (b) Authorization is obtained for each course year through the personnel division of the department or agency in which the candidate's husband is employed.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the total annual salary of Mr. F. Pageau, Director of International Postal Affairs Branch in the Post Office Department?
2.	What was the total cost to taxpayers of French language lessons received by Mrs. Pageau?

April 30,1975
Order Paper Questions
3.	(a) On what dates did Mrs. Pageau take such lessons (b) who authorized such lessons and on what date?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Post Office Department and the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. $25,500-$32,500.
2.	No individual costing is maintained because the students attend courses for various lengths of time. (See also answer to question No. 24 (3) (Tabled January 22, 1975).
3.	(a) Mrs. F. Pageau did not receive French language lessons. She undertook English language training under the arrangements in effect with the language bureau during 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74. Classes were normally held two times a week. Individual dates cannot be verified, (b) Authorization is obtained for each course year through the personnel division of the department or agency in which the candidate's husband is employed.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded in March 1974 to Pierre Desmarais Inc., Saint-Laurent, Quebec for 1,325,000 tourism brochures at a cost of $535,000?
2.	For what department did the Department of Supply and Services procure such booklets?
3.	Are such booklets to be provided on a bon gratis basis?
4.	Where will such brochures be directed in terms of distribution?
5.	Were tenders called on the contract and, if so, what companies tendered?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Supply and Services and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. Yes. The contract was issued February 5, 1974. The News Release of the award of contract was dated March 7, 1974.
2.	Canadian Government Office of Tourism, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
3.	Yes, such booklets are to be provided on a bon gratis basis.
4.	Such brochures will be directed in terms of distribution mainly to the United States; to a lesser extent within Canada; to a very limited extent in Europe.
5.	Thirty-five firms in six provinces were invited to tender of which the following companies submitted tenders: Ashton Potter Ltd., Toronto, Ontario; C. F. Haughton Ltd., Agincourt, Ontario; Rolph-Clark-Stone Limited, Bramalea, Ontario; Graphic Centre Ontario Ltd., Toronto, Ontario; Pierre DesMarais Inc., St. Laurent, Quebec; Ronalds-Federated Ltd., Montreal, Quebec; Gazette Canadian Printing Ltd., Montreal, Quebec; Montreal Lithographing Ltd., Laval, Quebec.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Is there a function within the Department of Supply and Services that advises user departments or agencies how to tailor specifications economically and effectively?
2.	What control does Treasury Board have in this area?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. Advice to user departments and agencies on the

development of specifications in particular subject areas is available from the Department of Supply and Services product centre that has the total supply management responsibility for the subject areas concerned.
2. The Treasury Board has no control nor direct involvement in this area.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Within what parameter does the "revolving fund" operate within the Department of Supply and Services?
2.	How much money is allocated to the fund?
3.	In what instance are amounts of monies exceeded over and above the limited amount?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. The Supply Revolving Fund operates within the duties and powers set out in Section 5 of the Department of Supply and Services Act.
2.	Seventy-five million as of March 31, 1975.
3.	The limited amount is never exceeded.


Mr. McKinnon: With reference to a Department of Supply and Services bulletin indicating that CCGS John Cabot is to undergo repairs under two contracts for a total of $2,399,600, is this 10-year old ship being reengined at this early stage in her life and (a) if so, for what reason (b) if not, what is the nature of the repairs?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: (a) No. (b) The work consists of repairs to propulsion machinery and auxiliary equipment resulting from an Engine Room fire.


Mr. Herbert: What percentage of the 1975-76 total budget of the Post Office Department is for personnel costs and benefits, including all labour and wage related items?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 72.2 per cent.


Mr. Neil: What was the total cost of the renovations recently carried out to Moose Jaw Armouries in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: The total cost of the renovations to the Moose Jaw Armouries is as follows: Replace heating system, $106,126; Washroom renovations, $31,342; Total, $137,468.
April 30, 1975


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Prime Minister aware of the United States legislation making all gifts to a President, over fifty dollars in value, the property of the state?
2.	Will the government introduce similar legislation pertaining to Prime Ministers and Members of the Cabinet and, if so, on what date?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1. Yes.
2. Not at this time. The government might, however, reconsider this decision following the examination of the general question of conflicts of interest of Members of Parliament by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to which I presume the hon. member will submit whatever constructive comments he may have to contribute.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	Has the government established guidelines for the (a) strip mining of coal (b) underground mining of coal (c) liquefaction or other uses of coal in the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories and (i) if so, what are such guidelines (ii) if not, on what date will such guidelines be established?
2.	What agency of the government issues permits for the exploration of coal in the Yukon Territory or Northwest Territories (a) what is the cost and term of each such permit (b) what conditions are attached to each such permit (c) what companies held such permits as of April 1, 1975?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Presently the Territorial Coal Regulations provide for the administration and disposition of coal mining rights in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. A complate revision of this legislation is now being studied and it is hoped that new regulations will be enacted within one and a half to two years. Coal Mining in both Territories is also subject to the Land Use Regulations as well as the Territorial Safety Ordinances. Land reclamation is also being studied and may be included in the proposed coal regulations.
2. The Oil and Minerals Division, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, administers the disposition of coal rights in both Territories. A coal permit to mine a maximum of 100 tons of coal is issued on a yearly basis at a free of $1 and covers an area of one acre. The permit provisions are, more or less, made for individuals, municipalities, educational or religious organizations for the private use of coal. There are no existing permits in good standing in either Territory. Coal Exploratory Licences are issued for a period of three years for a fee of $10.00 on the conditions that the licencee will spend in exploratory work the following amounts: (a) first year-an amount by multiplying the number of acres in the licence area by 5 cents; (b) second year-an amount by multiplying the number of acres in the licence area by 10 cents; (c) third year-an amount by multiplying the number of acres in the licence area by 20 cents. Licences only grant the right to explore for coal within a designated area and production cannot commence until the licence has been granted a lease of a portion of the area (640 acres maximum). The following companies held permits as of April 1, 1975: Luscar Ltd.; Atlas Explorations Limited; Arjay Kirker
Motion to Adjourn Under S.O. 26 Resources Ltd.; Master Explorations Ltd. (Manalta Coal); Arthur J. Sharpe (Manalta Coal); E. J. Panchysyn (Manalta Coal); Manalta Coal Ltd.; Welcome North Mines Ltd.; Ponjo Petroleum Ltd.; John S. Brock (Welcome North Mines); Echo Bay Mines Ltd.; John Zigarlick Jr. (Echo Bay Mines); Bert Savage; Jack Edgar (Bert Savage); Resoursex Ltd.; Guy B. Allen (Resoursex Ltd.).



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Stevens: 1.	In each fiscal year ending March 31, 1972, 1973 and 1974, and for the six month period ending September 30, 1974, what was the aggregate expenditure by the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs for travel abroad by (a) the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and his immediate staff (b) departmental staff (c) the staff of boards, commissions, tribunals, Crown corporations or other similar agencies reporting to the Minister (d) others whose expenses were paid in part or in whole directly or indirectly by the government?
2.	In the case of an expenditure in excess of $200 (a) what was the purpose of the foreign trip (b) what was the furthest destination (c) what is the name of the person(s) who took the trip (d) how long was the person(s) outside the country (e) what was the nature of the expenditure (f) how many others were in the party making the trip?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

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



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   CAPITAL PUNISHMENT CABINET COMMUTATION OF COURT SENTENCES

Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of debating a matter of grave concern requiring immediate and urgent consideration, namely:
1.	That several convicted murderers have been sentenced to hang very shortly;
2.	That, in certain defined circumstances, the Governor in Council has power to commute the death penalty;
3.	That the application of this power may be exercised, as in the past decade;

April 30, 1975
Members' Salaries
4.	That the Canadian Police Association and other police associations oppose the commutation of the death penalty, particularly where clemency has not been recommended;
5.	That a recent study in the United States has proven that capital punishment is a deterrent;
6.	That this matter is a grave and urgent matter because the Governor in Council must make a decision on at least one case tomorrow, and others soon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In accordance with Standing Order 26 the hon. member has given the Chair notice of his intention to seek, under the emergency provisions of that order, to set aside a specific time for debate beyond the regular hours of the sitting of the House of Commons.
I have said before, on virtually the same subject on other occasions, that the emergency provisions pursuant to Standing Order 26 ought to be distinguished, or their use ought to be distinguished from those items which, in a regular legislative program of the House of Commons and regular legislative consideration, can come before the House by way of amendments to existing statutes, or in any case will come before it in other ways.
The importance of capital punishment and the timeliness of the topic is not denied. The fact of the matter is, however, that under almost no circumstances can a review of that law be regarded as an emergency provision rather than a continuing legislative concern of this House. In my opinion, therefore, it does not constitute a proper subject for debate under Standing Order 26.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill C-44, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, be read the third time and do pass.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I had expected that the minister would have endeavoured to explain some of the circumlocutions in connection with this matter that he indulged in on the other occasions that he spoke. That is not to be, however.
All the explanations given by him so far have about them an uncertainty that is difficult to comprehend.
I must tell you at once, sir, ho'v I have missed the House. There is something about the drama of the House of Commons that has always had a magnetic influence upon me regardless of whether this institution touches the heights or sometimes the nadir of debate.
I have read Hansard, day by day, and I find after my absence that we are back to about the same place we were when I left which indicates that, despite the changes in the rules, expectation is a long way from achievement. I intend to give my views. I am not carried away by sentimental considerations. I have an affection for this institution that does not dim with the years. I happen to be the only Canadian alive who is a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council, earlier called the Imperial Privy Council and today the Privy Council of the United Kingdom. Mr. Pearson, who passed away, left me as the sole Canadian survivor of an institution that has meant so much through the years to the unity of the commonwealth.
As one who has received an expression of views in respect of this bill I am not going to go into detail, but these views go right down to the schools of the nation which are asking themselves where this parliament is going. I received in the mail yesterday, as did many other members, a message from the Grade 13 students of Nepean High School on a matter which deeply concerns them. They said the real issue is what is happening to Canada. The letter reads in part:
There is a frantic race for enormous increases in salaries and wages which, as the Governor of the Bank of Canada has pointed out, will give only momentary advantage until the resulting increases in costs push prices still higher and the end result is worse than the original condition-
No labour union will stop, even our teachers will not, and now it appears that parliament will not.
The letter goes on to discuss the general situation of the inflationary trend. It reads;
At the present rate the Canadian dollar will be totally wiped out in less than ten years. Is it the intention of the present generation to hand on to us, the rising generation, worthless savings, a wrecked economy and a complete barrier to our making our own start?
In addition to that there have been advertisements. I am going to read them all. There is one which one thinks the minister would answer. It appeared in Saturday's Globe and Mail and is entitled "Ouch." It sets out in detail what will happen in respect of pensions. It speaks of retirement with security for life, at 40. It shows that at the end of year ten after this plan is to come into effect, excluding the amount on which income tax is not payable, a member's salary will be $53,675.95.

April 30, 1975

Many here do not appear to realize that public opinion has been aroused as I have never known it to be aroused before. I am speaking because I am concerned. In the United Kingdom parliaments have been called various names. One such parliament was called the "Breeches Parliament," and another the "Do Nothing Parliament." I only hope that this parliament, because of what is taking place, will not be known in history as the "Golden Fleece Parliament."
I realize that all around me are those who disagree with me. I do not expect others always to be in accord with the views I express, because that is the essence of parliament. Speaking as an ordinary member of parliament having no responsibility or position here, I find it difficult to understand how a political party, which ran an election in May, June, and up to July 8 last on the basis that what was needed to save this nation was a freeze in prices, wages and incomes in general, should now change its position.
Things are much worse today, much worse than they were then. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) advanced that concept, I did not like it. He described it as a price freeze. Speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party I said, on May 8, in the constituency being contested by Mr. Madill, that "if the party stands on this price freeze policy without utilizing the other seven or eight devastating criticisms which can be used against the government, we will freeze out one million votes." I will not say it would have been different, but I do say this: if we were right in April, May, June and July of 1974, are we not right today?
What is the position? Have things improved? Has inflation been controlled? Two and a half years ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced with great bravado- he was in this country-that he had great news for us, "Inflation is no more." Last June he said, "Well, there is some inflation, but if my government is returned, I will wrestle it into the ground." I have not noticed many falls since last July.
Go across this country. Speak to the average Canadian. He is deeply concerned and disturbed over the way things are going. There is loss of confidence in our society. Watergate has contributed to that, even though our system comes under the monarchy. If Nixon had been a prime minister under the monarchy, he would have been out as soon as the earliest revelations were made.
People are asking, what is parliament doing? What has it done? Today we heard the sorts of answers given by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) and one or two other ministers. They say, "We are looking into it." There
Members' Salaries
are strikes in Montreal. The law is being totally defied. And what is the government doing? This is not restricted to Montreal. There are other cases across the country. And what is the government doing? The law is broken. Parliament made an order, and what has been ordered is decried and defied. And the government, in its gutless way, answers, "We are looking into it." The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) looks utterly pious when he says to this House, "We are looking into this." Well, look into it, look into the absolute defiance of the law, and the total disregard of an order of parliament.
Sir, parliament is under suspicion. The use of lewd words in the House nas not added to the dignity of the institution. I suppose this has become part of our way of life. Sir, today I am speaking in a way which is not acceptable to many of my colleagues. I have been in that position before. I think back to 1963, to the condemnation heaped on my government in connection with its devaluation policy and its stand with respect to the propogation and extension of nuclear weapons. Some said that position was heresy. It is not so today. These things today are accepted. Successive Liberal governments have continued that devaluation which greatly increased our trade. They kept it for six or seven years. When they got rid of it, our trade was greatly reduced.
I cannot understand the minister. He is an experienced man. He held a top position in the civil service; possibly that is why he is uncertain. The barrenness of his explanation of the 50 per cent increase proposed originally is almost unbelievable. Public opinion was aroused, and the alternative proposal was brought in. In some ways the alternative is worse than the original. This question has been dealt with; I will not repeat the arguments which have been advanced.
Sir, it strikes me as passing strange that the reason given for this legislation is this: it was felt that members were receiving insufficient reward for their services. When I and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) first came in the House, we had $4,000 a year. I came in during the days of war. We had none of this ancillary assistance which now costs added thousands of dollars. But today there is a demand for more, and the explanation given is this: the government wants to assure the average member a reasonable compensation for his work. I agree with that. I agree to this extent-there must be an addition to meet the increased cost of living. We should not find ourselves discriminated against.
This increase is 33 per cent. Never in our history have we had as many labour strikes as there are now and have been in the past few months. In 1974, 93 million working


COMMON'S DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
April 30, 1975
Members' Salaries
days were lost in Canada, three and a half million more than in 1973. We have the highest labour strike situation of any country in the world with the exception of Italy.
Wage demands go up and up. I can understand that as living costs go up. On the other hand there are corporations that are making unconscienable profits. There is open season on the Canadian consumer. The Combines Investigation Act is only touched. There has been no action by this government that was going to wrestle the problem.
This is supposed to benefit the private members. Most of them are having difficulty here with their families. I then ask why this bill provides the most terrific increases for the Prime Minister and the ministers of the Crown. This is their own legislation which they have introduced. It is a bill for which the government is responsible.
Surely ministers of the Crown have a solicitude for the average Canadian. Charity begins at home. Why, in addition to the regular increase in indemnities, have they added an extra $15,000 a year for themselves? Why that? Is that to benefit the Canadian people? Is it because the various ministers who constitute this government are irreplaceable at present rates? I have only to ask the question to get the reply.
Is this participatory democracy? It certainly is participation in a grab by the ministers, from the Prime Minister on down. I can just see them sitting there saying, "If we can get some kind of agreement with the opposition, find out what they think, we can bring it in and slide in an extra allowance for ourselves."
I think this is a wonderful government. I think any government is wonderful that has members connected with some departments for which they are totally unqualified, and I would have no difficulty in filling those names in. They will receive $15,000 or more a year in addition to the increased indemnity.
I was away when this legislation was brought in, but I made my position very clear the next day. The minister who is responsible smiles. I do not blame him. I can just see his eyes brightening as he sees this additional amount which is retroactive to July 8. What an example for the Canadian people. There was no inflation. There is now. The government said it would wrestle it, but nothing whatsoever has been done to bring about any restoration of a reasonable price in our country.
What about the Conservative party? As a Conservative I find it hard to understand. This party raised the standard all over the country, "Inflation is destroying us." The leader was right. A few months later this party, with the exception of a few I am going to refer to, joined together with the government and other members in the House to bring about a situation that can only add to the fires of inflation.
Everywhere across this country the working man will say, "You complain when we ask for a 35, 40 or 50 per cent increase. What about the parliament of Canada, the custodian of the Canadian conscience?" What about it? How they rushed in order to secure the benefits and emoluments of a vast increase in indemnity!
I mentioned the freeze policy a moment ago. This salaries' policy means that gasoline will be added to the fires of inflation everywhere in this nation, for what parliament does, why should labour be denied? I simply ask it.
Is the parliament of Canada to become the pacesetter of salaries? The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), who has done very well in his position, said the other day that the government must not become the pacesetter of salaries. He said Canada will not go bankrupt as a result of pay raises for civil servants, but the government must avoid becoming a pacesetter for industry. To me, it is beyond anything that this party would permit itself to support. It will simply add to the fires of inflation everywhere in the nation.
This legislation is * inflationary. It is also imitationary. Unlike other Prime Ministers who preceded me, and I am not speaking of them in any disrespectful way, I have no wealth. When I pass away, no part ever having been removed and no assistance having been given at any time to me by any fund, it will amount to about 12 per cent of the lowest of the amounts of the last three Prime Ministers.
Provision was made that former Prime Ministers should be entitled to a pension. That was brought in by the Pearson government. Then there was a little addendum. Every other country in the world said a pension is paid no matter where its out going Prime Minister goes. In Canada provision was made that it should not be paid so long as a person remained in politics or in public life. Isn't that a strange situation?
Members of parliament are in a secondary position with regard to the Order of Canada. I will never have that order, so I am not speaking as one who will be included. The only people who are excluded, with the exception of a very limited number, are members of parliament. They do not have that practice in the United Kingdom. Why do they have it here? Civil servants have said that those who contribute to their country in the House of Commons or the Senate shall be denied any award. There is discrimination on every hand.
I followed the debates here. I built up great admiration for many who sit in opposition. I know it may be unusual to say so, but I am thinking of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He came to parliament in 1942, I think it was in December. After the election of 1958 there was a hiatus-he was out for a period of almost five years. The stand he has taken in this House on this issue will live for a very long while.

April 30, 1975
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I say that with deep admiration for those who stand, and sometimes with a feeling of deep compassion for those who don't. It was his greatest hour. I was very surprised, when he brought up the question about those amendments which were made in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, that any of our people would argue that those amendments could be made in derogation of every principle of parliamentary government.
I cannot go further than to say that the ruling made by Your Honour adds lustre to the Speakership in this country.
I shall not get applause for saying these things, but there is a day coming. Do not say the people of Canada will forget. To me, it is difficult to understand.
I look over the vote. Everyone is entitled to vote as he pleases. I do not think sufficient attention has been given to those who stood. While I was abroad I endeavoured to find out through the press which members stood against the bill. All I could find was that some 17 members did so.
I think honour should be done to those members in my party who took their stand.
I am told there was consultation. Mr. Speaker, they never came near me-they would not take the chance. Never a word! I have been in parliament for 35 years and I love the institution. Not once was any suggestion made to me that the party would take the stand it ultimately did. Every honour should be given to those who opposed this bill, for example, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden), the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty), the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt), the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga), the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen), the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies)-one of the greatest economists in the country. I continue: the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn), the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan), the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan).
Isn't it interesting that the two youngest members of the House should have taken that stand-the members for Hamilton-Wentworth and for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo? Then there was the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), and the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker).
I shall not stop there. I shall refer to others. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) showed he had courage; he does not run away from things; when there are difficulties he does not go to Europe; when his party is in difficulties he does not disappear as some did in 1963. Then there were the NDP members-the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), the hon. member tor Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), the hon. member for
Members' Salaries
Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes). Sir they stood.
Now I go back to 1963 when Mr. Pearson, following the election, decided to get support from the other parties and bring in a measure to increase the indemnity. I have made it clear that I would have no objection to an increase equivalent to the rise in the cost of living-none whatever. But I would stand to the end against back-dating it to election day, months and months before. Just imagine the grab-bag. Thousands of sheckels! How many of you were conscripted? How many of you said there should be an increase in the indemnity? There was not a word said by the Prime Minister of Canada on that subject. Things are worse today than they were then. The first thing I say is this: whatever the increase might be, it should not apply until the next election so that the people might have a word to say regarding it.
Now I shall quote from a statement I made in the House of Commons on July 29, 1963. The person to whom I was referring said:
My position, in a word, is this: I think the indemnities should be increased, and that the salaries of the ministers and of the leader of the government and the allowance to the Leader of the Opposition should be increased. I express myself more freely in this because what I say in regard to the salaries of the ministers, I wish to apply equally to the salary of the Leader of the Opposition. I think that while these increases are justifiable on the merits of the case, they should not take effect during this parliament but should come into effect after a general election, when the country has had an opportunity to return to parliament members in whom it has confidence under the new legislation as passed.
Do you know who said that? It was William Lyon Mackenzie King who, until recent years, was regarded in Liberal circles as worthy of credence and worthy to be followed. He said that on June 29, in the year 1920.1 adopt his views. It is nothing new to accept them. They represent a principle which must be accepted. Otherwise, what does it mean? We go through an election. We raise our standard, endeavouring to change the government because of inflation and the failure of the government to act. Then, lo and behold, the negatives of May, June and July become the affirmatives of today. To me, that is difficult to understand.
Naturally people ask: what about yourself? Well, I have never accepted the old age pension because the contribution made by me at the time I became eligible was so out of proportion to the amount I would receive that I refused to take it.
Second, in 1963 I returned over $12,000, being the amount of the increase which would be in effect until the next election. Because I believe in this institution, I suggest to the members of the government party that they follow the same course, even though the Prime Minister and his cabinet made the recommendation that these vast
ncreases should be given to them.
I do not want to take very much longer; I simply ask,

April 30, 1975
Members' Salaries
where are we going? I have studied this bill, and the Prime Minister will get about $79,000. That is not peanuts even for a millionaire.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: It is $69,000.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, $69,000. Then we are to be given a 7 per cent increase each year to cover inflation. This means that the government believes that we will be in this inflationary trend for some time, and we will as long as this government is in power. In a period of ten years, according to the estimates of economists, under this plan the Prime Minister will be securing $156,585. Where is the government wrestling inflation? There is no answer.
Let me go back to the days when I was Prime Minister. We had to pay $5,000 a year rent for 24 Sussex Drive; that is to say, Mr. St. Laurent did, I did when I followed him, and Mr. Pearson did after me. This rental payment has been done away with. Neither did we have any armoured dreadnoughts; we supplied our own cars and received the same amount that all members of the cabinet received- $2,000 a year. We had to pay part of the chauffeur's fees and allowances, because part of the time he did some work around 24 Sussex Drive. When I went on holidays the Government of Canada and the people did not pay the expenses. I suppose that was wrong, but that was our idea of responsibility. We kept the expense of operating 24 Sussex Drive down to a few hundred dollars.
This government is profligate with the Canadian taxpayers' money. I need only recite some figures that have come out to tell the story clearly. There have been fabulous expenditures to make the Prime Minister's office attractive so that a person with artistic taste will feel at home. In 1970-71 the total expenditure on the Centre Block office was $1,042. It was one of the finest offices in Canada. The President of the United States came here and said what an attractive office it was. But in 1971-72 renovations cost $28,319 and refurnishings $41,733, for a total of $70,000.
Just what is going on? Whose money is this? By 1974-75 the total amount spent on renovations was $45,907 and on refurnishings $41,838, for a total of $87,745. What does this mean? When the cabinet spends in this way, there is encouragement to all parts of Canada to do the same. As far as the East Block is concerned, very little has been spent; total expenditures from 1968 to 1975 amount to only $6,000 odd.	J
I come now to 24 Sussex Drive. I am told that some would like 24 Sussex Drive to have all the attractiveness of an Arab sheik's home. The total amount spent on renovations and refurnishings between 1968 and 1975 is $286,503, comprising $199,146 for renovations and $87,357 for refurnishings. Were these expenditures ever discussed in the House? They were not, because there is no control today on the part of the House of Commons over expenditures-though there is some hope in some of the changes that you, Sir, have in mind.
I now come to Harrington Lake, the summer place. During my period of office we saved it, and I think total expenditure was about $50. But since 1968 the amount spent on renovations has been $20,953 and on refurnish-

ings $4,608, for a total of $25,561. Such an orgy of expenditure on the part of the leader of a government leads to a looseness that has no regard to the effect it has on inflation within the country.
If there is any doubt up to now about what I have in mind, let me say I intend to vote against this bill, and to do so proudly. However, I know the bill will carry because of the silence that accompanies my remarks. Truth hurts, Mr. Speaker. It sometimes takes a long while to travel to some minds, but truth does hurt. I hope that at this time there will be a realization of what this bill is going to mean. No one need tell me that the Government of Canada had in mind the interests of private members. In giving them an increase, the increases for ministers of the Crown are out of all proportion, and for the Prime Minister it is totally unjustified.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on third reading in this debate to do two things. One is to pay tribute to one particular member of the House; the second is to state briefly our reasons for opposing this bill and to outline an alternative salary increase which we think would be justified.
Before I do that I want to point out that I deliberately waited in my seat for a few seconds to see whether the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) would get to his feet to reply to an extremely serious and, if it is not inappropriate for me to say so, extremely able speech by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Today we heard a former Prime Minister of this country take part in a very important debate in terms of its real and symbolic significance in the country, yet we have heard no reply on the part of the government to the serious points raised by that right hon. member. Obviously the Acting Prime Minister and other Cabinet ministers have decided to sit the whole issue out.
Yesterday we were at the report stage of the debate, and no minister of the Crown spoke even to the government's own amendments. They were introduced and moved without any speeches to justify the position on what is, after all, a government bill. I hope this afternoon to hear a minister of the Crown, particularly the Acting Prime Minister, outline as best as can be done the government's justification for this bill, and also respond to the serious points raised by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Surely it is an ultimate admission of shame on the part of the government if ministers do not reply to that right hon. member's serious contribution in this House, a contribution, if I may say so again, by a former Prime Minister. If that speech is totally ignored, surely that is the ultimate condemnation of the government's position on this bill.
In the course of my comments at this third reading stage I want to make two points. I want to pay tribute to one of the most distinguished members in the history of the House of Commons, and he does not know I am going to do this. I refer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
I would say this of any member of any party in this House who had provided the kind of parliamentary leadership that has been provided in respect of this issue by the
April 30, 1975______________COMMONS DEBATES_______________________5345
hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The House has rarely witnessed a performance by a member, on any issue, such as that displayed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. That hon. member was deeply moved and deeply committed in respect of this issue, and in respect of which he so ably demonstrated his knowledge of the rules and procedures of this House. His contribution grows out of a basic commitment to equality and a basic sense of redistributing income in our country in an equitable way. Arising from that commitment was an opposition to an unjustified level of increase as provided for in this bill.
The hon. member added to his contribution a profound knowledge of the rules of this House. This combination of commitment and knowledge of procedure enabled him to provide us with what I think is one of the finest contributions ever made to any debate in the history of this House. I want again to pay tribute to that exceptionally fine member of parliament.
The NDP has opposed this bill basically because the amounts of money are simply too much. That is really what is at stake here. If we take the increase for members as a whole we find that we are going to get an additional $8,600 in one shot. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members of the House, to keep in mind that the average income of the average family, not just the poor families in Canada, was below $8,600 last year. Here we are providing ourselves with an increase in one lump sum that exceeds the total income of the vast majority of the population of this country.
Surely this is what is moving the people of our country from coast to coast to a profound opposition to the MPs' salary bill. It is not that the people of Canada object to any increase. The people of Canada at all income levels were quite prepared to say that members of parliament who have not had an increase since 1971 are entitled to some reasonable increase. What they are not prepared to concede, and what my party is not prepared to go along with, is that we are entitled to an increase of $8,600 across the board, an increase which, I repeat, exceeds the total level of income of the vast majority of Canadians.
It is on that general ground of inequity that the NDP in this debate has opposed the bill. We opposed the original proposal before Christmas, the proposal brought back some 48 hours later, and we oppose the final version of this bill we are now debating.
It has been our position that members of parliament should set some kind of example in terms of the distribution of income in Canada. It has also been our position that an increase was justified, but only an increase on that part of our income other than the non-taxable portion. That is, we take the position that an increase is justified in respect of the $18,000 but not in respect of the $8,000. We take that position for two reasons. We want the increase to be a reasonable one which bears directly and exclusively on the increase in the cost of living since 1971.
We have put forward arguments showing that the expenses the $8,000 tax exempt portion was intended to cover have been provided for in recent years by other means at public expense. These means were outlined by myself at earlier stages of the debate, as well as by other
Members' Salaries
members of my party. There is no justification at all for an increase in that $8,000 part of our income. We are prepared to say that an increase of the $18,000, equivalent to the increase in the cost of living, would be justified, but even that, from the point of view of equity, could be argued against.
We believe in the principle, which I think would find acceptance in the country, that the people in Canada who are at the upper income levels, and have been for many years, should be prepared to say they have had enough and will wait for any future increase until the average and the poor of the country catch up. If we apply a cost of living increase only in respect of the people at our income level then at least we will not experience a decline in our standard of living, and we will be able to go on living as well with our families as we have in the past, and the benefits accruing from the increase in our productivity can be passed on to the people in the lower income levels. In this way we can provide an opportunity for the poor to get out of that status of poverty in which so many people are living today.
It is the failure on the part of members in supporting this bill that has caused my party to be most disturbed. We are not indulging in self-denial, but we want to indulge in some self-restraint in the hope of setting an example to the people in private industries and at other government levels. Those of us in the upper income positions who are, relatively speaking, wealthy, ought not to be getting more and more as long as we have so many people living in poverty, and as long as we have an inequitable distribution of income.
The second point that has led us to oppose this bill is related in part to the same point. It relates to the government's incomes policy, or the so-called consensus. This has been labelled differently at different times. We know we are to have a budget before the end of May, and we know the government has been meeting with representatives of the trade union movement, representatives of provincial governments, and representatives of the private sector.
We know the government has made some proposals in respect of some kind of an incomes policy. It has been difficult to obtain details of those proposals, but there are certain basic assumptions one must make about them. I should like to suggest an assumption I made. If there is to be substance to this incomes policy it must set a limit in terms of guidelines in respect of increases in salaries which it thinks will be acceptable to the economy as a whole.
Probably the government will take a certain percentage level of income and tie all future incomes to that percentage and/or it will take some fixed amount. It might say that there may be increases up to a certain level, and place a ceiling on an appropriate dollar figure, or it might even have a floor level and say that no increases should fall below a certain amount. If that kind of policy is to have any relevance at all as a guidelines instrument in Canada, it cannot provide guidelines that would establish within their framework this kind of increase that the members of parliament are now voting for themselves.
The government cannot say to the people of Canada as a

April 30, 1975
Members' Salaries
whole that they are entitled to a 33 'A per cent increase now, with a constant 7 per cent increase on top of that each year indefinitely in the future. If it does that the policy will have no relevance as an anti-inflationary policy, assuming such an approach has validity in the first place. I am saying that we have in this legislation a wage package, a salary proposal, for ourselves as members of parliament, which will far exceed any kind of proposal the government will introduce in the next few weeks and want the rest of the people of Canada to accept. I say that that amounts to a kind of hypocrisy. It really amounts to saying, "Let us provide for ourselves now very abundantly before we tighten the belt for everyone else in the country." I say that kind of policy is not leadership at all, but is just the opposite.
I wish to conclude on that note. My party, I believe, has fought a good fight on this measure. With the exception of one or two members, who in good conscience disagree with us, on the whole our party by an overwhelming majority has been opposed to this measure because we do not think it is equitable or shows the kind of economic leadership required in this country, and which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) have been called upon to give. I think it is a bad bill and will vote against it at third reading.


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to place briefly on the record the reasons why I cannot support this legislation. To me this is not a case, and it should not be a case, of whether members of parliament need an increase in salary. Instead, it should be an occasion for parliament to set an example for the Canadian people. It should be an occasion when parliament, in the interests of the country, and at a time when the cost of living is galloping forward completely unrestrained, puts first and foremost on its agenda the setting of an example in restraint.
If parliament, despite its personal needs, cannot set an example for the Canadian people then, Mr. Speaker, who on earth can do this? If parliament goes to the public till to draw out more funds for itself, then how can we ask others across the country to keep down their demands in the interest of bringing inflation under control? How can one support this bill when old age pensioners are crying out against high prices and their inability to buy some of the ordinary every-day things that so many of us take for granted? How can one support this bill when we know that one of the most important things is for government expenses to be curtailed, and yet parliament is prepared to do just the opposite for itself?
The government has failed utterly in its approach to attacking the problems of inflation, and it has failed utterly in its approach to the curtailment of government expenses. It is essential that first things should come first, to make use of an old saying. By dealing with this legislation we are most certainly not placing first things first. The first thing we should be doing is taking measures to slow down the rapid growth in the cost of living, and when we have progressed well along such a road then, and only then, would be the time for parliament to look at the matter of its own salaries.
I have been surprised to note in the press on several occasions that some members of this House have said they have received no complaints on this legislation from their

constituencies, or perhaps it is the fault of the deteriorating mail service. I have found that this is one subject which concerns the people of this country far more than many other subjects. I have received, on this subject, far more mail and telephone calls than on most other subjects since I was elected a member of this House.
I should like to read for the record some excerpts from letters I have received both from my constituency and elsewhere. One gentleman from Gannanoque included in his letter this most appropriate expression and question:
I ask you how you can conscientiously vote for this pay increase in your salary when there are so many poor in Canada who need help, and will this not contribute to inflation?
From another constituent in the city of Brockville we have these words:
When industry and labour is being asked to exercise restraint, when Canada is in the midst of very serious inflation, how can you seriously consider a one third increase in salaries for Members of Parliament and indexing them for the future in such a way that the increase in the next few years will amount to far more than the original proposal of fifty per cent?	*>.
Another letter I received contained these somewhat emotional words:
Surely to God there is some semblance of decency left in the House of Commons. Surely the aged and the less fortunate should not be forced to suffer in misery and silence while Members of Parliament stick their hands in the public cash register.
Another letter read:
My own personal view is that all members knew the pay structure when they decided to stand for election and it seems like dirty pool to then turn around and look for an increase in pay immediately.
Another letter contains the following paragraph:
I can think of no measure that any government could take that would invite run-away inflation that would be more effective than this legislation on salaries. If this bill is passed and if it receives the support of all parties, then one must reach the conclusion that the whole parliamentary operation is a charade.
There are many other similar phrases in other letters I have received. I am sure they are nothing more than an echo of the letters received by probably everyone on every side in this House.
I should like to read one final quotation from a letter which I think puts the situation quite clearly:
Mitchell Sharp's arguments are full of holes and resemble a sieve. This apparent lack of good judgment on the part of the government is something I protest in the strongest possible terms. The very thought of our elected representatives considering such an increase in these times of economic distress leaves me saddened and disillusioned.
I think the last word in the sentence that I have just quoted says it all. That word is "disillusioned". The people of this country have expected something better from parliament than what has been received. The people of this country expected us to set an example here in Ottawa and to press that example forward across this country by following it up with measures to really fight inflation. The government has not done that. Anything short of this in my opinion is shirking our responsibilities to the Canadian people and abandoning our principles.
Previous speakers have dealt with particular items in this legislation that are disagreeable and, rather than repeat many of the arguments already stated, I would simply like to comment briefly on two particular points.
April 30, 1975______________COMMONS DEBATES_______________________5347
The first is that the retroactive clause seems to be badly out of place. I do not believe that this legislation, when passed, should be made retroactive to last July 8 because we all knew at the time of that election exactly what the salaires would be, and if we did not like those salaries we did not have to become candidates in the last general election. If parliament insists on an increase, I think it should equally insist on applying the increase as of the date the legislation is passed, and not last July.
Another feature of this bill which I find disturbing is the fact that it applies increases to the salaries and expense allowances of members of the Senate. If it is difficult to accept the idea that this is the proper time for members of the House of Commons to increase their salaries, I suggest that it is impossible to consider this an appropriate time for members of the Senate to receive similar treatment.
With the greatest of respect for the dozen or so Senators who actually do a day's work, I must honestly say that the Senate seems to be nothing more than a worn out appendix still attached to the body of government, which has so long escaped necessary surgery. To avoid such surgery, and to go even further and say that we should pay higher salaries and increased expense allowances to the Senate seems to be not only utterly unjustified but completely ridiculous.
The Senate has become a pasture for the sacred cows of the Liberal Party. The present government has followed the practice of appointing to the Senate worn out members of the cabinet, Liberal Party bagmen whose successful collections on behalf of the party must be rewarded for their services, apparently at government expense, and defeated Liberal candidates who, despite the fact that they have been rejected by the voters, must somehow be retained on the public payroll as a reward for services rendered.
Should we really be considering raising salaries and expense allowances of a group composed predominantly of persons in the categories to which I have just referred? What work does the Senate do, for which it is entitled to any raise? Indeed, if one were to measure the work and the importance to this country of the Senate, it would seem that a heavy salary decrease should be applied or, better still, the institution simply should be allowed to fade into history.
Before departing from the subject of the Senate I would like to add that I do not in any way mean to insult or criticize in my remarks those few members of the Senate who do perform some service to that body and to Canada, but that number of Senators is limited. Indeed, since I came to this chamber in 1972, a period now approaching three years, I have found that it is a rare day you actually see a Senator in the flesh. Now and then one or two are visible here and there, but it almost seems to have come to a situation where those who come into the Centre Block on guided tours should specifically ask the guides to point out a living Senator, if they can find one. Indeed, if they do manage to glimpse a Senator passing by, I suggest that they should remember the occasion because they will have seen a species which, for all practical purposes, has
Members' Salaries become almost extinct.
I have heard the argument advanced that this House must include in the bill raises for the Senate; otherwise that chamber will not pass the bill when it clears the House of Commons. Surely this is a very poor excuse, and indeed if the Senate were to turn down such a bill by this House, it would force the logical and inevitable final decision which must some day come. Only the elected representatives of the people should be making the decisions which govern this country, and such decisions should not be subject to the approval of those who are responsible, in most cases, to nobody and, regrettably, in many cases only to their godfather, the Liberal Party of Canada.
I have listened with great respect to the words this afternoon of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). He has spoken out clearly and forthrightly against this legislation, and his voice in many ways has been the conscience of parliament because he has said publicly what so many sitting here think in silence. To speak out is not popular, but surely none of us come here to win popularity contests.


An hon. Member:: You have, Tom.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I recall the words of our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on May 27, 1974, in Etobicoke, Ontario, when he said that he would wrestle inflation to the ground. The wrestling match has never begun, and now it appears that it never will. Perhaps the Prime Minister has revised his statement and now says that we should all raise our salaries first and look at the problem of inflation later.
While the Prime Minister collects fancy $80,000 Cadillacs, thousands and thousands of dollars worth of antiques, and a lavish and luxurious swimming pool at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, the government asks parliament to follow his horrible example by thinking of ourselves first and placing the Canadian people and their serious economic problems last.
A few moments ago the right hon. member for Prince Albert mentioned some of the expenses our Prime Minister has accumulated at taxpayers' cost, and I would like, as a small footnote, to add an answer to an order paper question which I received just this afternoon in regard to Harrington Lake, which shows that the latest expenditures just for this current year by the Prime Minister at taxpayers' expense on his summer cottage total $47,749. There is included a contract of $17,000 for something, and I wonder what. This extravagance, in face of the need for restraint and the need to fight inflation, is typical of the government and something which we should all feel is reprehensible.
In conclusion, as I said a few moments ago, to speak out on this matter is obviously not a popular thing to do, but I believe it is the right thing to do. If the provisions in this legislation were reasonable and this legislation had been brought in for consideration after the problems of the people of Canada had been dealt with, it might be possible to support it, but in all conscience the provisions of this bill are too extravagant, and they resemble too much of the "let them eat cake" attitude of the Prime Minister and the present Government of Canada. They are provisions

April 30, 1975
Members' Salaries
which no member in his right mind can seriously support. For that reason I can do no more than, having registered my vote on second reading against this bill, speak against it and vote against it on third reading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I would be something less than human if I were not extremely grateful to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) for their very kind words this afternoon. I extend my very warm thanks to both of them. It was a pleasure for me on Monday to join in the applause when, from the Chair, a welcome back to this House was extended to the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Some of us are happier than others to see him back.
We seem to be just about at the end of this debate, and as one who has spoken a number of times, I do not intend to make extended remarks at this stage. However, I would like to emphasize the point that the issue with respect to this pay raise bill is not whether as members of parliament we need an increase. The issue is not how our incomes compare with the incomes of other persons in Canada, be they in the public or the private sector. The issue at this time is the leadership that parliament gives to a country which is experiencing a time of trouble.
There is no denying the fact that we are in trouble, particularly in the economic sphere. If there is anything that is needed now from the leaders of the country it is leadership in the economic sphere, and we do not give that leadership if even before the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) brings in a budget and makes certain proposals, we protect ourselves by the kind of increase that is set out in Bill C-44.
I say again, Sir, that the issue is not whether we need more salary or more expense money; the issue is the kind of persons we are. Are we here to act on the basis of principle with respect to the needs and the problems of our people, or are we persons who, having come fresh from an election, are prepared to push through a measure that is in our own self-interest? Our job is at least to set an example, and this House is setting a wrong example if it gives final approval today to Bill C-44.
This was an offensive and indecent piece of legislation when it was brought in last December with the proposal for a 50 per cent increase in both our salaries and our allowances. I suggest, as I did yesterday, that in addition to being offensive and indecent this measure is now becoming a piece of dishonesty. The word has gone out that members of parliament were prepared to cut back from a 50 per cent increase to an increase of 33 Vz per cent. But there is added to that 33 Mi per cent increase retroactive to last July a formula under which, starting January 1, 1976, there will be compounding increases of 7 per cent per year, so that by the end of this parliament what we draw will be 63 per cent more than we are receiving at the present time.
This is not setting an example. That is not giving leadership. This is being dishonest with the people who sent us here to represent them.
[Mr. Cossitt.J
I have pointed out that there are a number of things about the legislation, especially in its amended form, that I dislike very much. I refer again in particular to the long battle that some of us have waged for pensions and other benefits, particularly pensions for senior citizens, retired public servants, retired armed forces personnel and RCMP personnel and for veterans generally, to be escalated in accordance with the rise in the standard of living. The best way to do that is to adopt the industrial composite index. But we have been turned down every time, Mr. Speaker.
All of these other groups have to settle for an escalation based on the consumer price index. The escalation is set up in such a way that all of these other groups are always behind-yes, Sir, even behind the rise in the cost of living. What the government is not prepared to give to everyone else, this House is prepared to take for its own members and the members of the other place, for this bill applies to our salaries and expense allowance the benefit of the industrial composite index which pensioners are denied.
Sir, I find this offensive, I find it indecent, I find it degrading to the status of those who were elected to do the business of the country and to meet the needs of our people. Those needs today are great, the problems to which we should be addressing ourselves are many, and I hope that even yet, especially after the appeal made today by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, this House will agree that this matter should be put off at least for a while if hon. members are not prepared to turn it down completely.
I regret that so little has been said on the government side of the House in this debate. All day yesterday we had the report stage debate, and with the exception of the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) who was critical of the bill, there were no speeches from the government side at all. There has been no defence yesterday or today of the terms of this bill. There is no effort even to fight back as we attack it. Is that parliament? Is that leadership? Is that the cut and thrust of debate, trying to decide what is best for the country? No, it is just a case of scores of members sitting and waiting for this extra money to fall into their laps, plus the escalation that will come in the years that lie ahead.
We presented several amendments yesterday. We tried to get the House to consider the retroactive date, the exact amount, the question of the future escalation, but all those amendments were turned down. This House seems to think of only one thing-when can this bill be got through, when are the cheques of hon. members to be fattened by the amounts set out in this legislation?
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that even yet if this House is not prepared to say no to the bill, it will agree to put it off for a little while. That implies that in just a moment or two I am going to move an amendment generally known as the six months hoist. I do that today with particular emphasis because of the fact that the Minister of Finance has announced that he will be bringing down a budget within the next four weeks. Presumably, and I think it is a reasonable presumption, the speech attached to that budget will deal with the problem of inflation and what to do about wage levels and incomes policy.


An hon. Member:: Don't hold your breath.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend
April 30, 1975

says not to hold my breath. He may be right-the Minister of Finance may not come up with much to solve these problems, but I suspect there will be suggestions in that speech as to what Canadians generally should do. If there are going to be proposals to Canadians generally on what they should do regarding their incomes, Mr. Speaker, in all decency, in all honesty, we should wait. I do not think there is any formula for a one month hoist or I would move that, but let us not have any procedural problems at this point. That is why I am going to move the six months hoist.
Before I do so, Mr. Speaker, and I am just at the end of my remarks, I want to say again, as I have tried to say several times, that one of the main reasons some of my colleagues and I have fought so hard about this legislation is that the thing we most dislike about Canadian society is the inequality that there is in it. When we hear of attacks on that inequality by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) overseas, and by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in Toronto, we applaud. Many of us came into this place, came into a political life, because we wanted to do something to lessen inequalities, to create a greater chance for equality of life for all of our people. We do not achieve that when we use our position to put ourselves in the top 2, 3, 4, or even 5 per cent of the income earners of Canada.
This bill runs directly contrary to the social philosophy of this party, and that is the fundamental reason why we have taken our stand against it. That may not be understood by some other members of the House, but the record is clear that over the years we have been here we have fought hard for pensions, housing, health care services and the things that achieve some measure of equality for the people of Canada. We intend to carry on that fight, and we are not going to be sidetracked by supporting something that runs in the opposite direction. So, Mr. Speaker, I state again my unqualified opposition to this bill. I say, on behalf of my party, that the least this House should do is to delay consideration of it for a further period.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin):
That Bill C-44 be not now read a third time, but that it be read a third time this day six months hence.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The question is on the amendment to the main motion, moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Members' Salaries
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: May we proceed with the taking of the vote without calling in the members?
Messrs.
Langlois	Mazankowski	RichardsonLapointe	McCain	RitchieLaprise	McCleave	RobertsLa Salle	McGrath	RobinsonLawrence	Mclsaac	RocheLeblanc	McKenzie	Rompkey(Laurier)	McKinley	RondeauLee	McRae	RoyLefebvre	Milne	(Timmins)Lessard	Mitges	RoyLoiselle	Morin (Mrs.)	(Laval)(Chambly)	Muir	Sauve (Mrs.)Loiselle	Munro	Schellenberger(Saint-Henri)	(Hamilton East)	SchumacherLumley	Murta	SharpMacDonald	Nicholson (Miss)	Stanfield(Egmont)	Oberle	StevensMacdonald	O'Connell	Stewart(Rosedale)	Ouellet	(Marquette)MacEachen	Paproski	StewartMacFarlane	Parent	(Cochrane)MacGuigan	Patterson	TessierMackasey	Pearsall	TrudelMacKay	Pelletier	TurnerMacLean	(Hochelaga)	(London East)Macquarrie	Penner	WagnerMalone	Philbrook	WenmanMarceau	Pinard	WhitewayMarchand	Portelance	Wise(Langelier)	Poulin	WoolliamsMarchand	Prud'homme	Yanakis(Kamloops-Cariboo)	Reid	YewchukMarshall	Reynolds	Young-175.Martin


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried	B
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed	B


Mr. Speaker:: I understand there is some disposition in	I
the House to proceed with the consideration of Bill C-32 at	B
the third reading stage.	B


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.	B

PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION ACT	I
MEASURE RESPECTING THE ADMINISTRATION OF	I
INTERPROVINCIAL, EXPORT AND IMPORT TRADE IN	B
PETROLEUM AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS	B
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines	B
and Resources) moved that Bill C-32, to impose a charge	B
on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products,	B
to provide compensation for certain petroleum costs and to	B
regulate the price of Canadian crude oil and natural gas in	B
interprovincial and export trade, be read the third time	B
and do pass.	B

April 30, 1975


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I will not detain the House very long, but I want to say that this bill was somewhat improved in the committee, which is the function of a committee. We moved some amendments which were accepted, and we moved others which were not. We feel that while there has been some delay, from the time this bill was first a gleam in the minister's eye until the time it becomes law, that time has not been wasted.
We have fought on substance and on the law. This was a fight not tainted by demagoguery. Under the circumstances, and while we feel the bill has been improved and we are not going to force a vote, we still feel it constitutes an intrusion into provincial rights and an unnecessary waste in dealing with a matter in respect of which the provincial and federal governments do have power at the present time. So, as far as we are concerned the bill will go through, but it will be on division at the time the question is put.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party have supported this legislation. We would have liked to have seen some changes. We did move an amendment when the bill was in committee of the whole to ensure that any increase in the price of oil would be used by the federal and provincial governments on the exploration and development of new sources of energy. That was not accepted by the committee but we feel we ought not to hold up this legislation. This is particularly true in view of the announcement by the minister who said today that he intends to see that the price increase which has just been announced of $1.15 per thousand cubic feet for Alberta gas is lower. It could be very serious for the gas consumers of Canada to have such a substantial increase imposed upon them.
I think, therefore, the government requires the power in the event there is no agreement with the producing provinces to set both the price of oil and natural gas. We express the hope, however, that in setting the price the government will keep in mind that the position this party has taken for a long time, and which we emphasize now, is that there is no justification for increasing the price of crude oil on the basis of operating costs or the financial position of the oil industry.
The only possible reason for asking the Canadian people to pay more for oil and gas is to provide funds for the public exploration and public development of the oil and gas resources of this country. Therefore we are prepared to support the bill and see that it receives speedy passage.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Gerald William Baldwin: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.
Western Grain Stabilization WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT


MEASURE RESPECTING THE STABILIZATION OF NET PROCEEDS FROM THE PRODUCTION AND SALE OF WESTERN GRAIN
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-41, respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr- Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre): Mr. Speaker, this bill was called on short notice the other night and the minister made his second reading speech. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) also got his words on the record, and I had the floor at ten o'clock. At this point I am somewhat at a loss concerning where to begin. I suppose one must speak first of the principle of guaranteeing and stabilizing incomes for farmers and, in respect of this legislation, particularly for grain producers.
There has been a demand for some form of guaranteed income program from farm organizations and farmers since the "dirty thirties". My party has been proposing and demanding a system of guaranteed prices relating to the cost of production for some time. This has been the policy of our party, again since the thirties. In the years since then the Government of Canada has brought in various kinds of programs to protect farmers in general, and in many instances the grain producers in particular, from the hazards of weather, the marketplace, prices, and the condition of world markets with their violent fluctuations which on occasion drove farmers by the thousands out of farming. Coupled with that, since the Second World War the costs of farm production have risen repeatedly annually.
With the exception of this last two or two and one half years, prices received by the grain producers did not reflect any increase to compensate them for the increased costs of production. When the minister proposed his original grain stabilization bill in 1971 it received little if any support from the grain producers of western Canada. It was opposed by all the farm organizations.
An hon. Member:: Even with the $100 million carrot.


Mr. Benjamin:: Yes, even with the $100 million carrot which they were going to take away by repealing the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. It was one of the rare cases we have seen when the farm organizations united in their opposition to a program. I believe they are still of two minds concerning this bill. We recognize there have been some significant changes in this legislation compared to the first attempt of the minister, but I want to remind the House that we are now getting this bill at greater cost to the grain producers of western Canada because, when the minister brought in his first bill, there were two or three hookers in it. One was the repeal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act which would save the federal treasury anywhere from $20 million to $60 million a year. He did not succeed on that occasion, but has succeeded since then.
5352

April 30, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
The minister succeeded by requiring the grain trade and the Canadian Wheat Board to make certain that there was less than a certain amount of grain in store in the terminals at the end of the crop year so there would be no pay-out by the federal treasury under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. As a result of that happening, in two successive crop years the act automatically lapsed. So, he found another method to get rid of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act which, with all its inadequacies, at least implemented the principle that the nation as a whole should share in the cost of storing our grain and that this load should not fall just on the backs of the farmers.
The nation as a whole benefits from what is probably our second or third largest export commodity. One of the largest foreign exchange earners we have is the export market for grain. The nation as a whole benefits from that. We say, therefore, that the nation as a whole should share significantly, at least to the tune of 50 per cent, in the cost of storing grain. That was part of the cost the grain producers suffered in arriving at the stage at which we are now in respect of this legislation. The minister also at that time attempted to repeal the provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. He did not succeed at that time. However, he has now succeeded by having the act repealed in recent months.
We did not strongly oppose this in recent months because in this instance the minister came some distance toward meeting our objections of 1971. We insisted at that time that if he were to do away with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, which was a form of crop insurance which protected grain farmers from the hazards of drought and low-crop yields, he must replace it with something as good or better than the PFAA, and to us that meant a substantially larger participation by the national government in a much improved crop insurance program.
The results of those demands and the fight we put up in 1971 are that the government has come round to some significant degree. The additional moneys it was putting into crop insurance meant that premiums for grain farmers in western Canada were cut to a point where something over 60 per cent of them were covered by the crop insurance program.
On this point there is another bill before the House which relates to this one. In the repeal of the Prairies Farm Assistance Act the government wants to take the funds which remain under that legislation, somewhere in the order of $8 million to $10 million, which belongs to the farmers of western Canada and which was largely collected from them compulsorily by deductions from their cash tickets at country elevators. It is their money. It was meant for their use when they had crop failures, drought or low yields, but when the government repealed the PFAA, it wanted to take that $8 to $10 million and put it in trust for the grain stabilization fund.
To me that is another sneaky way of endeavouring to save money. In spite of all the claims of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board about the increased amount of money which has been put into the agriculture, and particularly the grain industry in western Canada, by the federal government, much of that money comes from

funds which were already paid out in other ways. There have not been, in total, increased costs to the federal treasury. The money the government has been saving on grain storage and the money it wants to use from the PFAA account can be subtracted from any amounts it claims it is putting into the support and assistance of the grains industry in western Canada.
This is one of the most complicated pieces of legislation I have seen in the almost seven years I have been here. I confess that having gone over the bill on a number of occasions and having discussed it with people in farm organizations, researchers, committees and statisticians, I have a great deal of difficulty understanding all the provisions in the bill, how well they will work, how they will be applied, and the reasons for them.
But I do not feel lonely, because some of the statisticians, researchers and committees are also puzzled. This leads me to believe that it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a majority of grain producers to understand the legislation, to appreciate how it will affect them, and what its pluses and minuses are. I think it is essential that before this legislation becomes law the government make the most searching and thorough examination of any legislation we have dealt with in a long time.
It is essential-and this request has come from many farmers individually and farm organizations-that the agricultural committee hold meetings, as I said the other evening, in at least two or three dozen places in the three prairie provinces and the Peace River country of British Columbia, the area under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, in order to hear briefs and submissions from those farmers and organizations, and for the committee and its staff to answer their questions. It will be the responsibility of the committee to obtain the answers to any questions it cannot answer, from the minister and his officials, and relay them to those farmers and organizations. That will take some doing and some time. In dealing with this legislation I think it is a must. I know that there is support for that proposition from many quarters.
This bill attempts to use the principle of stabilization, guaranteeing income or guaranteeing net cash flow in a manner which will be so difficult to administer and to fairly apply that it is an extreme possibility that, after a few years of its being in effect, it will destroy the confidence of grain producers and thereby set back the principle of some form of guaranteed income, guaranteed prices, stabilizing, or whatever term one wishes to use. While we agree with this in principle, there is an easier, better and more simple way of doing it. I think the government, in its effort to make improvements on its first attempt, has complicated it more.
The minister said that the bill is intended to stabilize net cash flow. I submit that there are provisions in the bill which prevent that. We can get into that in more detail when we are in committee, but it is intended to stabilize net cash flow from the sale of western grains through the mechanism of a stabilization fund to which contributions are made by both the producer and the federal government, and that when a net cash flow in the total grain industry of western Canada in any year falls below the last five year average, the shortfall is supposed to be paid out of the stabilization fund. I see some danger in the
April 30, 1975

sense that the payouts, whenever they occur, will be unfairly applied just because of the difficulty of dealing with every farmer fairly.
More serious, there will be many years when there should be payouts in various regions of that wheat board district because of sharp reductions in net cash flow, but there will not be any payouts because the legislation says that can only be done for the total area under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. The plan is compulsory for all, initially. Grain producers will have until January 1 of 1978 to opt out.
My party supports programs such as this, whether they deal with health care, support for the agricultural industry, or marketing boards. This kind of plan should be universal. The opting out provisions can only weaken the program. The larger the participation in such programs, the greater the benefits can be to the people involved. If there is any significant amount of opting out, I submit it will be because of anger and disgust by those who participated in the plan in the way it is being operated.
The levy of 2 per cent which is imposed on the grain producer is on all eligible sales to a maximum of $25,000 in grain sales. This means that they contribute to a maximum of $500. The levy will be a maximum of $500 per year, and the contribution of the federal government is to be 4 per cent. If the stabilization fund is in a surplus position, and if any interest earned for two successive years exceeds one third of the annual levy, the levy drops to llA per cent for the producer and 3lA per cent for the government. I am not sure that that is a good idea. It seems to me that one would want to build the fund up as much as possible, if for no other reason than that in the event of some calamity or disaster in the grain industry, there would be something there to take care of it.
If the surplus position is maintained for four consecutive years the levy drops, and as soon as the fund balance is restored for two consecutive years when interest earned ceases to exceed one third of the annual levy, then the levies return to their normal 2 per cent and 4 per cent levels.
On the other hand if the fund is in a deficit position, if interest paid on loans through the Consolidated Revenue Fund exceeds one third of the annual levies for two consecutive years, the levy increases to 2lA per cent for producers and 4!/2 per cent for the government. I would think that if the government is going to be putting in double what the producer puts in, the levy should be 2'/2 per cent for the producers and 5 per cent for the government. If the deficit remains after an additional year, then the support level under the plan should be reduced to 90 per cent of the five year average of net cash flow.
It should be noted, Madam Speaker, that when the fund is in a deficit position the federal government's contribution is reduced, and after three years of deficit the level of support decreases. When the need is greatest the support is the least. The levy is paid in good years and bad, and the various levels set out may be actuarially sound, but they tend to reduce the stabilization effect of the plan. Perhaps there should be a variable rate level based on variations on
29557-63%
Western Grain Stabilization
grain sales proceeds rather than on the financial balance in the fund. I leave that for the minister's consideration.
The issue of the plan being based on net income rather than gross income was thoroughly fought the first time, the legislation came before us in 1971. One of the main arguments we put up at that time was that it should be based on net income and not gross income, and there should be provision for accounting and for increasing costs of production-some form of escalation to provide for increasing costs of production.
I want to say here that the minister has come around some distance, and this is not usual for him when dealing with this parliament or previous parliaments. He came around to the view that the plan would be better if it were based on net income rather than gross income, and that the matter of costs of production has to be brought in. It is almost a 180 degree turn. As I recall the speeches made on the government side in 1971, we were told that it was impossible and could not be done, etc. I wish the minister had come all the way though, because in arriving at net cash flow, when you look at the eligible expenses that are considered as deductions from the gross cash income, there are some legitimate cash expenses that are excluded from the legislation.
The bill includes only cash expenses incurred in the production and sale of grain as eligible expenses. It excludes depreciation on farm machinery, it excludes interest on equity, and it excludes the labour and management of the producer. I am particularly unhappy to see that interest on indebtedness is excluded because that is a cash expenditure that grain producers have every year. In particular, interest on indebtedness for buildings and farm machinery is a large expenditure for grain producers in western Canada.
I think the minister errs in at least not allowing the interest on indebtedness for things like buildings and farm machinery to be included. The price of farm machinery has reached heights that were not imagined five or ten years ago, and most farm machinery purchases are financed at interest rates of 10 per cent or 15 per cent. The farmer has to make cash payments on that machinery every year, and of course the payments include interest on the loans.
I can see that there might be some argument against allowing interest on land indebtedness since land usually appreciates. There may be temporary drops in land values, but I do not see any significant permanent drop in the near future. An argument could be made that interest on payments for land should be excluded, but I think there is no justification for excluding interest payments on buildings and machinery, both of which are depreciating assets.
The minister has excluded depreciation from the bill. Since the facilities I have mentioned on grain farms are not going to appreciate in the way that land will, surely depreciation on buildings and machinery should be allowed as an expense. I appreciate it is not a cash expense. That would be a departure from one of the main features of the bill which reflects cash income and cash expenses, but I hope the minister will look at it again.
I am happy to see that income received under the crop insurance program will be calculated as part of the total

April 30, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
gross income and that this will allow farmers to contribute more to the fund. I submit there are too many exclusions, however, and the bill should be amended to allow the inclusion of interest on at least farm buildings and machinery, and to allow the depreciation on buildings and machinery.
There are many implications in the aggregate calculations of payouts over the entire Wheat Board region. Because the plan operates on an aggregate basis, all regions and all grains are lumped together in the calculation of aggregate payouts. This offers little or no protection on a regional or on a commodity basis.
For example, Madam Speaker, if rapeseed producers experience a badly depressed market but all other grains do very well, there is no payout for rapeseed producers from the plan if the aggreagate proceeds from all the other grains remain at or above the five year average level. Similarly, an individual producer's share of the aggregate payout when a stabilization payment is made is determined in proportion to his share of contribution through the levies in that year and the immediately preceding two years. In other words, a producer who has had good sales, and therefore has made a relatively substantial contribution to the fund, will receive a proportionately higher payout, whereas a producer who has done less well in sales will receive proportionately less. It seems to me that as the bill stands now it rewards good fortune and penalizes misfortune. The one who needs the most gets the least, and I think that is a fundamental weakness in the legislation.
The minister mentioned on a previous occasion the possibility of paying out on a local or regional basis rather than on the aggregate of the entire grains income over the entire Wheat Board area. Having listened to the minister and read his speech, I am under the impression he will be willing to look at these things until he has had time to become experienced in the administration of the legislation and devise ways, administratively and technically, of paying out on a regional or local basis. I do not think that difficulty is insurmountable. It can be done.
I am thinking of a particular situation. Say that in a large area of northeastern Saskatchewan, northwestern Alberta, or in the Peace River country, farmers raise abundant, but low grade crops in one year. Let us say the demand for high grades of grain is strong, that the demand on domestic and export markets is strong for Nos. 1, 2 and 3 wheat, for example. What will happen? The farmers in a large area where low grades of grain are grown will have low sales; but there will be no payout for them, because if the aggregate of all sales is at or about the five-year average, it means the people in the large area who have raised poor or low grade crops will not get any payout. Again, the ones who need help most will get least. In the circumstances I mentioned they may not get anything at all. I suggest that the minister, his officials, the committee, and other organizations must put their heads together and devise ways to change the legislation so that payouts on a regional or local basis can be made.
The stabilization effect of the plan is reduced by a number of other factors. In a period of decline the five-year average would become progressively lower; net

income would show a progressive decline and producers would continue to contribute the levy. Payouts would occur during periods of relatively high but falling commodity prices, but no payouts would occur during periods of relatively low but rising prices. I submit that the cost of the plan to the federal government is overstated and the stabilization effect reduced, because a portion of federal contributions, around 15 per cent, would be recovered through taxation when a payment is made. What they give with one hand, they take back with the other. At least they take back a good chunk.
Because the stabilized margin, the net cash flow, as the minister puts it, is not indexed to inflation, net income would decline in terms of real dollars at a rate approximately equal to the rate of inflation with no support payments being made.
Stabilization payments themselves are not included as proceeds in calculating the five-year average. This I do not understand. The levy is based on the financial position of the stabilization fund, and not on ability to pay. The levy could actually increase in a bad year. Further, the support level drops to 90 per cent of the five-year average after the fund has been in a deficit position for three years. Surely that is exactly when support should increase. Obviously grain farmers will be in difficulty at that point in time.
The assumption underlying the plan is the continued operation of a free market, which makes one laugh, and the need to protect producers from its fluctuations. That is understandable. Production surpluses and deficits will continue to exist. The government is to play no active role in determining the allocation of productive resources.
I return to what I said at the beginning of my speech. My party thinks there is a simpler and better way of doing this. I admit, without hesitation or sorrow, that our plan would require higher expenditures from the federal treasury than the present plan. I think it is only fair that there should be some contribution by farmers in other ways, such as through crop insurance, and so on. In other words they should pay some kind of premium.
The most effective way of stabilizing income, it seems to me, is to establish a system of guaranteed prices for all grains. These prices should be related to costs of production. As well, an escalating factor should be included to take care of annual increases in production costs. Such guaranteed prices would assure farmers of a certain level of income. There will be years, obviously, when prices will be down and the federal treasury may need to inject up to several hundred millions of dollars into the scheme in order to maintain guaranteed prices for producers. No doubt from time to time commodities other than grain will be affected.
If the guaranteed price imposes hardship on certain segments of the public, on consumers, the government should look at the other side of the coin and come in with a form of consumer subsidy. We are doing this with two-price wheat and there is no reason why this cannot be extended to cover all grains. Frankly I think it should cover all agricultural production. That, surely, would be administratively easier than what is contemplated under this bill. Surely such a scheme would do a better job in providing for farm income security.
April 30, 1975

I know the idea is somewhat socialistic, but this has been done by countries with so-called free enterprise governments, or governments operating under variations of that principle. Surely that would be an easier and better way. Under such a system we could guarantee the farmer a price for his grain, a price that would return to him his full costs of production and a decent living. That guarantee would come from all the people of Canada. That, I think, would be a system far more effective than any system contemplated by this legislation, which is so complicated, so full of legal gobbledygook. I suspect that we shall need to hire quite a few more public servants to administer this legislation. We shall need more than we needed to administer PFAA and other programs like it. I am afraid this will become an administrative nightmare, largely because of the way the minister has chosen to implement the grain stabilization plan.
I repeat, that we think it essential for this bill to receive the most thorough scrutiny by the committee. The committee must hold hearings in two or three dozen places at least in the Wheat Board area. It must receive briefs and submissions from grain producers and organizations representing them. They should be allowed to ask their questions, although I doubt if we will be able to answer them all, because it is still difficult to understand how this bill is to apply. Further, I hope the minister and his officials will use the simplest English possible when giving answers. I am not hopeful on that score, but I hope that his officials will work on this idea.
Western Grain Stabilization
I know my time has all but expired. I fully expect that much more will be said on this bill. I hope the minister will be agreeable to improving it and changing it, or more agreeable to doing this than he was on the previous occasion. I hope more attention will be paid to the views of farm organizations who represent grain producers in western Canada. Again, I hope that more attention will be paid than was paid on the prior occasion, Madam Speaker.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, may I inquire if we are to be told what the business will be tomorrow and on Friday?


John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, we will continue with Bill C-41 tomorrow and, if it is not concluded tomorrow, also on Friday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And if it is?


John Mercer Reid: If it is, there will be discussions through the usual channels to decide what to put forward.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair. This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 1, 1975