1975-03-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (D) with regard to sums required for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1975 and, pursuant to the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, recommending those estimates to the House of Commons, was presented by Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 59, I wish to move a motion to refer to committees the supplementary estimates which have just been tabled by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien). It is a long motion which basically refers to the various standing committees the same type of items that were referred to the standing committees in connection with the main estimates. There is one exception, and that is that no items are referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs because that committee is overloaded. Estimates which might have been referred to that standing committee are referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. I would ask if the motion could be considered as if read. It is in the hands of the leaders of the various parties.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is there general agreement in that regard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, is the minister going to continue his statement? Have we just heard the first instalment, or will he complete his statement on motions? If he is going to continue, I will wait before commenting.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I was going to make one or two other announcements about the business of the House, if that is in order. Then perhaps the motion could be put for referring the supplementary estimates.
There are seven allotted days remaining in this period, and I have suggested to the House leaders of the other parties that those days should be March 7, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19 and 20. v


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) for his statement, and I thank the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) for tabling this latest illustration of the practice by this government of the art of restraint amounting to further expenditures totalling $1.9 billion. I wonder if the government House leader would consider a departure from accepted practice, that is, dealing with supplementary estimates first and bringing in the main estimates at the end. That might be a more acceptable and far more informative way of proceeding.
It really is fascinating. We go from 1973-74 with a total of $20 billion, to 1974-75 with a total of $27 billion, some 17 per cent increase-no, Mr. Speaker, it will be far more than that. I was contemplating that even this government, acting at its best, would have kept these supplementary estimates down to some $600 million, but the President of the Treasury Board says this is it. It is $1,917 billion. No matter how you slice it, that is the total amount. That would then be some $27 billion, and if you relate that to the 1975-76 main estimates of $28 billion with a comparable increase, you are looking at a total of some $36 billion or $37 billion for a total of the main estimates of-


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I tabled the estimates without making any comment. If the hon. member wants me to comment, I will have something to say. The procedure is that when we table the estimates, no comments are made. If the hon. member wants me to reply to him, I will be delighted to give him the details, but that is something that should be done in committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) raises an interesting point of order. The supplementary estimates were tabled by him without comment. That, of course, precluded the possibility of comment by opposition parties on the estimates themselves. However, the President of the Treasury Board was followed by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) who simply moved the referral, but in so doing he made a brief comment about the business of the House and the allotment of opposition days. I think that opens up some commentary about the scheduling of business of that nature. However, in fairness, that commentary ought not to be directed toward the substance of the estimates, but to the business of the House. The President of the Treasury Board is absolutely right, no statement was made about the substance of the estimates. Something was said by the President of the Privy Council about the business of the House, and perhaps any comment should be confined to that.
3696

March 3, 1975
Supplementary Estimates (D)


Gerald William Baldwin: I appreciate the point, Mr. Speaker. I can understand why the President of the Treasury Board would not want to make any comment about these estimates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: What I had to say was just preliminary to the proposition by the President of the Privy Council in recommending an innovation, which we accept, that the estimates be sent to the standing committees which are related to the particular items in question. That is a very good idea. It is particularly necessary because of the size and complexity of these supplementary estimates. That is the only reason I was making the comment.


An hon. Member:: You are out of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: If I can, without being out of order, use a comment made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), when the main 1975-76 estimates were tabled. He spoke about the price of civilization; I have to say, "by gosh, the price isn't right here." The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), like Horatius at the bridge, restraining his impetuous colleagues in their desire to spend money worked wonders.
We will facilitate the passage of this motion. It is an excellent idea to get these estimates into the hands of the committees so they can do a better job. It is about time we did something to minimize the farce which takes place in this parliament in connection with the examination of estimates. This is not a partisan issue; there are feelings on the other side of the House too. I know the President of the Privy Council agrees with me, as does the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. A proposal has now been made before the committee on procedure which would allow members of the House, in their capacity as members of the committee of the whole, an opportunity to make a meaningful examination of the estimates. I hope not too many days will elapse before this proposition becomes part of the interim orders which will be proposed to this House.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the supplementary estimates were tabled without any statement being made, so it is not in order to make a statement in response to a non-statement. It is also clear that the motion to refer the estimates to the various standing committees is made under Standing Order 59 which, similarly, permits no debate. However, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) did make a brief statement having to do with the business of the House, so perhaps I might comment briefly on that aspect.
We welcome the fact that the estimates are going to the same committees as the main estimates and we are pleased that the minister has now given us information as to which days in the balance of this semester will be opposition days. As the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has pointed out, it is common knowledge that discussions are taking place regarding a change in our supply procedure, at least on a trial basis. One of the advantages of the change we shall probably make is that it would keep the government on notice-it will not know which of the departments will be called back to the House for examina-

tion here either in place of or in addition to the examination in committee. We shall do our part in the committees. We shall do our part here on the floor, as well.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, in a few words I should like to say that I am very pleased to see, not only that nature is awakening but that winter is finally coming to an end. From the motions introduced today by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), I see that the government has also come out of its sleep and really wants Parliament to work very arduously during the month of March.
A while ago, it was announced that there would be seven opposition days before the Easter break, and that in addition we would study supplementary estimates (D). Copy of it was just handed to me. I have not had a chance to even thumb through it. I see that several departments are concerned in these estimates. We will have the opportunity of studying them. In any event, I trust that we will not limit ourselves to the figures but that we will look in depth at the legislation so that the people can benefit from the advantages expected from these supplementary estimates as well as from other budgets previously introduced in this House.
For our part, we will co-operate wholeheartedly so that the business of the House can make quick progress, and we can give the people the impression not only that we want to manage the country seriously, but also that we want to do it in all honesty, and as efficiently and quickly as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion of referral which has been described by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) was not formally read by the President of the Privy Council. May I take it that the House is agreeable to accepting the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council and that the motion will be printed in Hansard as if it had been read? Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
[Editor's Note: The motion above referred to is as follows:]
That the Supplementary Estimates (D), 1974-1975, tabled this day, be referred to the several Standing Committees of the House as follows:
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture:
Agriculture Votes 5d, 20d, 25d, L26d, L27d and 55d
March 3, 1975

To the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts:
Labour Vote lOd
Secretary of State Votes 15d, 20d, 35d, 60d, 70d, 74d, 80d, 85d and 90d To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence: External Affairs Votes Id, lOd, L17d, L18d, L19d and 26d National Defence Vote Id
To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry:
Environment Votes Id, 5d, 15d, L17d, 20d and 30d To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs: Consumer and Corporate Affairs Votes Id, 5d, 15d, 25d and 30d National Health and Welfare Votes 25d, 35d, 45d and 46d Urban Affairs Votes 20d and L30d To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs:
Justice Votes lOd, 15d and 25d Solicitor General Votes 5d, L16d, 20d, 25d and L30d To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration: Labour Vote Id
Manpower and Immigration Votes 5d, lOd and 15d To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates:
Finances Votes Id, 16d, 17d, L18d and 20d Governor General and Lieutenant Governors Vote Id Parliament Vote 5d Privy Council Votes 5d and 20d
Supply and Services Votes Id, 4d, L5d, L6d, 15d and 20d Treasury Board Vote 5d
Industry, Trade and Commerce Votes Id, L26d and L27d National Revenue Votes Id and 5d
To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works: Energy, Mines and Resources Votes Id, 5d, L12d, 15d and 47d Public Works Votes Id, L3d, 5d, 20d and 25d To the Standing Committee on Regional Development:
Regional Economic Expansion Votes Id, L12d and 30d To the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications:
Post Office Votes Id and 5d
Transport Votes 5d, 15d, 20d, L30d, 35d, 45d, 55d, 60d, 68d, 75d, 80d, 85d and L125d
To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs:
Veterans Affairs Votes Id, 5d, lOd, 20d, 30d, 35d and 45d To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development:
Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 5d, L16d, L24d, 30d, 35d, 40d and 80d.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I move, under the terms of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
The House requests the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the Solicitor General to make available complete Department of Immigration and RCMP files on the Branko Milosic case with particular reference to any details that may be contained therein in regard to any connections with this case on the part of the hon. member for Hamilton East, and an explanation as to whether or not as a result of investigations made there was a recommendation made in regard to charges against said member and, if so, the reasons why this matter was never proceeded with.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion which is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent to debate the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* * +


TERRITORIAL LANDS ACT
Mitchell William Sharp: the first reading of Bill S-20 (from the Senate), to amend the Territorial Lands Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


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: 41, 378, 534, 700, 767, 804, 891, 908, 1,044, 1,120, 1,131, 1,132, 1,133, 1,134, 1,142, 1,181, 1,219, 1,222, 1,238, 1,250, 1,270, 1,286, 1,306, 1,323, 1,342, 1,454, 1,466, 1,522, 1,555, 1,561 and 1,608.
Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 157, 617, 619, 712, 905 and 1,451 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 1,531?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Coates: 1.	What has been the total cost to the taxpayers for renovations and the refurnishing of offices and residences that are available to the Prime Minister since the present Prime Minister assumed that office?
2.	What have been the specific expenditures on renovations and refurnishing carried out at these various establishments?
3.	Have other costs been involved in the renovations and refurnishing of these establishments and, if so (a) what are such costs (h) to which particular undertaking do they apply?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: 1. The
total cost paid by Public Works Capital Region for renovations and the refurnishing of offices and residences of the Prime Minister, since April 1, 1968, is $403,048.
2.	Prime Minister's residence at 24 Sussex Drive:
28996-29%

March 3, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Renovations	Refurnishings	Total*	$	S1968-69	3,142	1,159	4,3011969-70	1,873	2,153	4,0261970-71	27,256	1,994	29,2501971-72	10,942	5,047	15,9801972-73	14,629	10,433	25,0621973-74	122,341	65,684	188,0251974-75*	18,963	887	19,850199,146	87,357	286,503
'Expenditures to September 30, 197 .
Prime Minister's summer residence at Harrington Lake
Renovations	Refurnishings	Total*	*	$1968-69	20,000	3,105	23,1051969-70	-	271	2711970-71	-	-	-1971-72	-	369	3691972-73	-	803	8031973-74	953	60	1,0131974-75*	-	-	20,953 4,608 'Expenditures to September 30th, 1974. Prime Minister's Centre Block Office	25,561Renovations $	Refurnishings ?	Total $1968-69	1969-70	-	-	-1970-71	1,042	-	1,0421971-72	28,319	41,733	70,0521972-73	11,353	105	11,4581973-74	5,193	-	5,1931974-75*	-	-	-45,907	41,838	87,745Prime Minister's East Block Office Renovations Refurnishings $ $	Total 81968-69	468	-	4681969-70	-	-	-1970-71	2,228	-	2,2281971-72	483	-	4831972-73	60	-	601973-74	-	-	-1974-75*	3,239	3,239
'Expenditures to September 30, 1974. 
3.	The Department of Public Works is not aware of other costs involved in the renovations and refurnishing of these establishments.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	With reference to Triangle Pacific Forest Products Ltd., in Slocan, British Columbia, has this lumber mill ever received a DREE grant for a salvage mill and, if so (a) for how much (b) on what date was the grant awarded (c) how many new jobs were to be created under this grant?
2.	With reference to DREE grants, has any time limit been established on how long new men must be employed under the terms of grants that are awarded?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The
answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. Yes: (a) The grant offered was for $127,779 and represented 15% of the new capital costs of the total project; (b) The offer of assistance was accepted by Triangle Pacific Forest Products Ltd. on July 4, 1972 for the expansion of their Slocan, British Columbia operations, which in part (approximately 38 per cent was related to a salvage mill; (c) The estimated number of on-site jobs which would be created by the expansion was 64.
2.	Assistance offered for the establishment of new facilities or for new product expansion can in part be based on the new employment to be created. As the final payments on such assistance cannot be before 36 months or after 42 months of the commencement of commercial production, and as the amount of assistance on jobs is based on the average number of jobs, or the average wage bill, during years two and three after the commencement of commercial production, some control is maintained over the new employment during this period.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are all details of LIP projects known as Research Anti-Poverty and Project Aldergrove including (a) a full description of the nature of such projects (b) the amounts granted by the government (c) the dates projects were applied for (d) the names and addresses of all persons or groups appearing on applications (e) the names and addresses of all persons or groups recommending acceptance of applications?
2.	Has the government investigated or been investigating these projects since April or May 1972 and, if so, what are all details of these investigations including (a) the reasons for same (b) the results of same (c) the present status of the situation (d) any connection by the Department of Justice with the situation and for what reason?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. (a) Please see Appendix A (attached); (b) Funds committed-Project Aldergrove, $34,381.00;- Research Anti-Poverty, $51,635.00; Total $86,016.00; (c) Project Aldergrove, November 26,1971; Research Anti-Poverty, December 8, 1971; (d) Project Aldergrove: 1. Michael Carson 12 Aldergrove, Toronto; 2. Margaret Brow 46 Aldergrove, Toronto; 3. Jacqueline Young 35 Aldergrove,

Toronto; Research Anti-Poverty: 1. Michael Carson 12 Aldergrove, Toronto; 2. Loretta Newell 375 Bleecker Street Apt. 104, Toronto; (e) The Department of Manpower and Immigration regards as confidential the names and content of all representations made to the minister of the department. Appendix A-Project	Descriptions: I
Research Anti-Poverty:-provided support services by; (i) establishing a secretariat for the use of poverty self-help groups throughout Ontario; (ii) organizing "Poor People's Conference" (January, 1972); (iii) researching governe-mental programs affecting the poor; (iv) preparing "Manual for Organizers" which provided advice on the formation of self-help groups and information on government programs; (v) producing an Ontario newsletter as an information link poverty group across Ontario; provided Community Education Services through a report on "Poverty in Ontario" prepared by low-income people from 18 communities throughout Ontario in which they analysed their own situation. II Project Aldergrove: alleviated unemployment of low-income persons or persons receiving social assistance; assisted these persons to participate in training programs which increased their knowledge of government; assisted these persons to participate in their own community affairs by providing information services and resources to the community; employed these persons in the community on projects such as day care, a free store, a community winter recreation program, a furniture refurnishing program, a small appliance repair program and a community organizing program.
2.	Yes (a) Both projects were suspended when suspicion of financial irregularities arose. An investigation of the projects was initiated thereafter; (b) The irregularities were traced to totally inadequate bookkeeping. There was no evidence of illegal activity but the projects did not live up to the terms of their contracts which stipulated that adequate financial records must be kept; (c) After careful investigation of the matter, it was discovered that there was no evidence of criminal activity. The matter is now closed; (d) Yes. The Department of Justice provides the department with legal advice and advised regarding these cases.


[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
2.	All.
Mr. Paproski: 1.	On what date will the report on non-official languages, a study commissioned by the Secretary of State in November 1972, be made public?
2.	Would the Minister name the 70 recommendations made by the former Minister of State for Multiculturalism?
3.	What recommendations have been implemented?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: 1. A
second draft of the final report on non-official languages has been received very recently. It is now being evaluated by the officials of the Department of the Secretary of State and its release is pending.
2.	There is no record of the former Minister of State for Multiculturalism having made 70 recommendations. However, the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism has recently presented the minister responsible for multiculturalism with a report containing some 70 recommendations. When that report is published, in the near future, the recommendations will be included.
3.	The government's response to the report will be indicated at the time the report is published.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by the National Arts Centre (b) what would have been their aggregate salaries if all were employed for a full year (c) how many had salary levels of (i) $20,000 or more (ii) $35,000 or more (iii) $50,000 or more?
2.	What was the salary or the salary range for each of the five highest paid employees of the Corporation?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the National Arts Centre as follows: 1.


Mr. Jelinek: 1. What is the mother tongue of all officials in the senior executive				As of March 31, 1968		As of March 31, 1970	
category (equivalent to the SX category in the Public Service) in the							
Armed Forces?							
2. How many of the officials in the	senior executive category make	(a) 30	(b) $344,214 (c) (i)	5	(a) 75 (b) $706,281 (c) (i)	7over $25,000 per year?	(ii)	0	44 331,167 (ii)	0(iii)	0	(iii)	0Hon. James Richardson	(Minister	of National	Defence): 1.	As of March 31, 1972	As of March 31, 1974	Rank	No.	Mother Tongue	(a) 187	(b) $1,536,651 (c) (i)	8	(a) 226 (b) $2,174,174 (c) (i)	14General	1	French	* 46	558,141 (ii)	1	* 48 657,220 (ii)	2Lieutenant General	6	English	(iii)	0	(iii)	0Major General	22	English	3	French	2_	As of March 31, 1968	As of March 31, 1970	1	German	Brigadier General	61	English	4 $20,000	1 $17,750-$22,500	13	French	1 $19,000-$24,840	2 $19,750-$24,750	1	German	1 $24,000-$30,000	1	Ukrainian	1 Contract $30,000	
March 3, 1975
Order Paper Questions
As of March 31, 1072
1	*20,000 $25,000
2	*25,500 *29,000
1	*23,000-*35,000
I Contract, *30,300
*NA( 'O Musicians on 44 w<
As of March 31, 1974 3 *20,800 *31,000 I *30,250-*38,250
1 Contract *44,000 ;s contracl.
purpose of carrying one or more members of Cabinet to and from Ottawa (b) how many of these trips were taken by each member of Cabinet (c) how many miles were logged in each year (i) for all of these trips (ii) by each member of Cabinet?


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For 1973 to November 15, 1974 (a) how many separate trips were made on Department of Transport aircraft within Canada for the


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1. (a)
Separate trips, 1228; (b) See attached list; (c) (i) 1973, 811,450; (ii) 1974, 623,565.
Name
Right Hon. P. 10. Trudeau
Hon. M. Sharp
Hon. A. J. MacEachen
Hon. C. M. Drury
Hon. J. Marchand
Hon. J. Turner
Hon. J. Chretien
Hon. B. S. Mackasey
Hon. D. S. Macdonald
Hon. J. Munro
Hon. G. Pelletier
Hon. S. R. Bastard
Hon. D. Jamieson
Hon. R. Andras
Hon. J. A. Richardson
Hon. O. Lang
Hon. J.-P. Goyer
Hon. A. Gillespie
Hon. E. Whelan
Hon. W. Allmand
Hon. If. Faulkner
Hon. A. Ouellet
Hon. D. J. MacDonald
Hon. M. Lalonde
Hon. J. Sauvft
Hon. B. J. Danson
Hon. J. J. Buchanan
Hon. R. LeBlanc
Hon. J.-E. Dube
Hon. H. Gray
Hon. P. Martin
Hon. S. Haidasz
Hon. It. Stanbury
Hon. J. Davis


Mr. Herbert: In reference to the answer to Question No. 142, how many of the 147 public servants in the Department of Veterans Affairs with a gross remuneration in 1973 in excess of $20,000 list (a) English (b) French (c) other as their mother tongue?

1973	1974
Trips	Miles	T rips	Miles32	29,45(1	13	7,952to	5,020	4	93832	20,185	20	12,43011	4,305	4	3,98061	38,830	49	19,97419	15,750	11	14,23355	34,985	37	20,585-	1	41040	38,840	10	0,44151	16,3.35	41	37,20518	10,315	9	13,85433	52,315	17	30,11549	01,985	28	30,00529	25,965	20	15,8971	920	-30	51,380	29	40,12910	8,485	9	11,74119	17,135	18	14,82507	49,330	40	37,55424	24,290	23	25,31239	22,900	27	15,310.35	25,175	18	13,89028	15,805	12	13,03118	25,400	28	28,35318	10,800	10	7,957-	-	7	10,200-	-	0	8,309-	-	2	4,88019	12,005	5	3,70029	17,790	18	9,98517	0,430	12	4,69027	22,0,50	9	10,54914	10,180	1	2050	9,250	3	5,880


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: (a) English, 110; (b) French, 23; (c) Other, 6; Struck off strength, 8.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the Local Initiatives Programme, what was meant by Mr. J. M. DesRoches, Deputy Minister of Manpower and Immigration in a confidential memo of January 30, 1973 to the Minister

of Manpower and Immigration, when he referred to the transfer of certain funds of the LIP programme in the following words "...funds to be transferred from training on the job or the ten million dollars set aside for private and entrepreneurial LIP"?
2.	Were these specifically mentioned funds to be transferred to the regular LIP budget in order to help meet the cost of LIP projects approved for political reasons by or on behalf of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration?
3.	(a) What was the exact amount of each transfer of the money made (b) on what date was it transferred (c) from what fund to what fund was it made (d) what were all the reasons for each transfer (e) who specifically authorized each transfer?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. The Department of Manpower and Immigration has no record of a memorandum written on January 30, 1973 by Mr. J. M. DesRoches to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to this effect.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	What was the cause of the accident near Bridgetown, Nova Scotia on November 30 in which a militia vehicle was demolished and seven soldiers sent to hospital?
2.	What is the condition of the seven soldiers at this time?
3.	How old and of what type were the tires on the vehicle?
4.	How old was the vehicle and had it received proper safety inspections prior to the accident?
5.	How many tires were purchased for military vehicles during each year 1966 to 1974 to date?
6.	What was the cost of replacement tires for each of these years?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. According to preliminary investigation, and subject to a final joint RCMP/DND Inquiry, the cause of the accident was poor road conditions. Snow and sleet were falling at the time.
2.	Five of the seven soldiers were released from hospital after receiving treatment of cuts, bruises and abrasions. The other two soldiers were hospitalized with broken pelvises. One has also been released and the other is expected to be released in the near future.
3.	The tires on the vehicle were standards 2'/z ton "Standard Military Pattern" snow and mud tires and preliminary police investigation has revealed that the tires were not a factor in the accident.
4.	The vehicle was a 1956 model 2 Vi ton "Standard Military Pattern" which had last been safety inspected on October 10, 1974 and there were no outstanding repairs.
5.	The number of tires purchased for the years in question is as follows:
Fiscal Year
Quantity Purchased
1965/66
1966/67
1967/68
1968/69
1969/70
1970/71
1971/72
8,083
Nil
5,464
6,973
4,424
4,696
7,385
Order Paper Questions
1972/73	3,843
1973/74	3,858
1974/75	3,350
6.	The cost of replacement of tires for the years in question is as follows:
Fiscal Year	Quantity Purchased
1965/66	$ 357,822
1966/67	Nil
1967/68	266,345
1968/69	302,877
1969/70	158,124
1970/71	225,235
1971/72	1,063,654
1972/73	168,591
1973/74	226,727
1974/75	262,260


Mr. Forrestall: How many ships would be required to accommodate the movement (a) out of Canadian ports to foreign destinations (b) into Canadian ports from foreign destinations of 40 per cent of the present liner conference rated cargo?


Jean Marchand: Under Section 12 of the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act the Minister of Transport reports annually to parliament on liner conference operations. The latest report covered the calendar year 1973 and was tabled March 28, 1974. (Sessional Paper No. 292-1/367). As indicated in that report statistics collected demonstrated the necessity for closer control at the reporting source and for a refinement of interpretation. Appropriate means of satisfying these requirements are being developed with the cooperation of Statistics Canada. In the meantime, satisfactory statistics are not available on the liner conference rated cargo carried in conference vessels.


Mr. Forrestall: How many merchant seamen would be required to accommodate the staffing of the number of ships required to accommodate the movement (a) out of Canadian ports to foreign destinations (b) into Canadian ports from foreign destinations of 40 per cent of the present liner conference rated cargo?


Jean Marchand: Satisfactory statistics are not available on the liner conference rated cargo carried in conference vessels: (see reply to Question 1,131).

March 3, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Forrestall: How many (a) general cargo (including passenger-cargo) (b) container type vessels were employed in the liner conference rated international inbound or outbound seaborne shipping to serve Canadian ports within the most recent 12-month period?


Jean Marchand: A statistical breakdown of Canadian port activity for the calendar year 1972 indicated that 452 different ships had worked within conferences during that 12 month period. Of these; (a) 394 ships could be classed as general cargo or conventional, although many of them would also carry containers; and, (b) 46 could be classed as specialized container ships, and another 12 as Roll on-Roll off (Ro-Ro) ships.


Mr. Forrestall: Is the government aware of the nationality of the registry of those vessels serving Canada under liner conferences referred to and overseen by the Canadian Transport Commission according to the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, within the most recent reported period, what was the percentage and number of these vessels registered in (i) Canada (ii) Japan (iii) Liberia (iv) Greece (v) Great Britain (vi) United States (vii) Norway (viii) Sweden (ix) Italy (x) Australia (xi) France (xii) other countries and, for each, what number and percentage were built in Canada?


Jean Marchand: A statistical breakdown of this type, made for the calendar year 1972, revealed the following information:
Flag	No. of Vessels	PercentageCanadian	nil	nilJapan	31	6.9Liberia	19	4.2Greece	9	2.0Great Britain	52	11.5United States	29	6.4Norway	48	10.6Sweden	11	2.4Italy	16	3.5Australia	nil	nilFrance	4	0.9Other Countries	233	51.6Total	452	100.0


Mr. Jones: What steps are being taken to provide for free authorization to record CBC broadcasts "off the air" by a teacher or pupil for instructional purposes?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: A very detailed study has been completed and it will be possible to make certain arrangements for the distribution of some CBC braodcasts for use in schools and in other non-profit organizations. Some final arrange-
(Mr. Marchand (Langelier).]
ments have yet to be made, but CBC expects to be able to make an announcement in the near future.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) What were all the details of Local Initiatives Programme Project No. 311872 (b) what were the names and addresses of all those appearing on the application and of all those who endorsed or recommended this project in any way?
2.	(a) Was this project located in the constituency of London West (b) was it approved in the amount of $53,000 on February 15, 1972?
3.	(a) Was the construction firm on this project Ellis Don Construction Limited (b) was the Department or the Minister aware as to whether or not this was the same Ellis Don Construction Limited mentioned in the London Free Press on or about July, 1973 as publicly stating that it had donated more than $10,000 in five years to the Liberal Party?
4.	(a) In what ways did this project not meet the criteria of the Local Initiatives Programme (b) what were the names and job designations of all LIP personnel who pointed this out (c) what was the identity and job designation of the individual making the final decision to accept this project?
5.	What was the name of the designated Regional Cabinet Minister under the Local Initiatives Programme under whose jurisdiction approval or disapproval of this project fell?


Robert Knight Andras: 1.	(a) YMCA-YWCA-Bob Hayward
Branch, Project No. 311872. Project Description:-Addition of a swimming pool and related facilities to the YMCA-YWCA branch building constructed in 1963. - The swimming pool was to be available to all, including handicapped people, at very moderate fees. - man-weeks -454; (b) Name of Sponsors: Mrs. Dorothy Dewar, President, London YMCA-YWCA, 56 Victoria Street, London, Ontario; Dr. Douglas Booking, Dean of Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario; Mr. John J. Hal-crow, General Manager, London YMCA-YWCA, 433 Wellington Street, London 12, Ontario. The Department of Manpower and Immigration regards as confidential the names and content of all representations made to the minister or the department.
2.	(a) No. (London East); (b) This project was approved for $53,001.00 on February 8, 1972.
3.	(a) Yes; (b) No.
4.	(a) This project met the basic criteria of the Local Initiatives Program; (b) Not applicable; (c) The final approval of all projects rested with the then Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the Hon. Bryce Mackasey.
5.	Not applicable.


Mr. Hogan: What was the total cost of CBC's new logo including (a) design costs (b) advertising and publicity (c) change-over of stationery, etc.?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: Parts (a) (b) and (c). It has not been customary to require the CBC to supply such details of its internal management and administration.
March 3, 1975


Mr. Beatty: 1.	For what reason was the Village of St. Clements, Ontario, reclassified with respect to the provision of postal facilities?
2.	Was a survey of future needs in the St. Clements area conducted and, if so, has this survey been made available for comment by the mayor and council of the Township of Wellesley?
3.	How many new locations for a facility were considered before a decision was made concerning site selection?
4.	On what date will a new building be opened replacing the temporary facility?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. A post office is classified according to the volume of work performed in that office. From time to time a volume of work survey is conducted. Such a survey indicated an increase in the workload of the St. Clements, Ontario, post office warranting a reclassification from group to grade status.
2.	A survey of future needs was made and the matter was discussed with township council and township officials on several occasions.
3.	The Department of Public Works provides the accommodation for "Grade" post offices. Three leasing possibilities and two trailer sites for temporary accommodation were considered. A permanent site has not yet been selected. Township council and township officials will be consulted.
4.	Not known at this time.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	How many OFY projects were approved in Newfoundland in 1974?
Order Paper Questions
2.	What was the average cost per OFY project for the approval process in 1974?
3.	What was the total cost of the OFY Programme in 1974 for Newfoundland?
4.	How many jobs were created by the OFY Programme in 1974 in N ewf oundland ?
5.	In 1974, how many (a) students (b) non-students were hired by OFY projects in Newfoundland?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1.	202.
2.	10 per cent of the total program budget, which was in the amount of $29.5 million, was allotted to administrative costs for the 1974 Opportunities for Youth Program. Administrative costs for the approval process alone are impossible to calculate either per project or for the total program.
3.	$1,010,550.
4.	1,340.
5.	(a) 1276. (b) 64.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What was (a) the total annual budget (b) the total expenditure for the Canadian International Development Agency in each of the past five fiscal years?
2.	What was the total expenditure for CIDA, in each of the past five fiscal years (a) for outright grants (b) for loans to underdeveloped countries and developing countries?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Canadian International Development Agency
1969-70	1970-71	1971-72	1972-73	1973-74Appropria- tion	Expendi- ture	Appropria- tion	Expendi- ture	Appropria- tion	Expendi- ture	Appropria- tion	Expendi- ture	Appropria- tion	Expendi- tureAdministration	5,705,400	5,730,301	8.204.0(H)	8,039,640	9,158,305	9,150,737	12,205,007	12,189,770	10,222,800	15,892,231Statutory vote -Pensions and Other Benefits	089,000	853,000	853,000
3. Grants and Contributions
173,204,000 164,459,757 197,955,265*204,146,105 226,971,000 200,813,678 250,634,000*256,299,630 284,484,000 278,982,295
4. Loans
137,000,000 81,124,746 150,000,000 113,944,396 145,000,000 143,096,539 173,066,000 165,379,593 201,184,000*226,739,799
5.	CIDA Annual Pledge to International Financial
Institutions	1,081,080	1,081,080	738,608	738,608	791,688	791,687 16,800,000 15,299,450 19,361,000**20,569,000
Total	317,050,480 252,401,884 356,897,873 320,868,749 381,921,053 353,858,641 452,765,607 449,857,449 522,104,800 593,036,325
Note:	*I)ue to the non-lapsing nature of a portion of CIDA'S appropriations, the expenditures may exceed the appropriations in any given year.
[DOT][DOT]There is authority to exceed the appropriaiton on account of maintenance of value as well as exchange.
CBC-DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION OF LOGO	What was the total expenditure by the Canadian Broadcasting Cor-

Question No. 1,270-Mr. Hnatyshyn:	poration in the development and production of the new television logo?
3704

March 3, 1975
Order Paper Questions


James Hugh Faulkner: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: It has not been customary to require the CBC to supply such details of its internal management and administration.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What is the total cost to the taxpayer of the current radio advertising campaign by the Secretary of State announcing his opposition to prejudice and discrimination in Canada?
2.	Is the Secretary of State considering a similar advertising campaign to express his opposition to (a) murder (b) treason (c) childbeating (d) larceny?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1.
Nil, provided as public service announcement by radio stations.
2. No.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of National Health and Welfare on (a) January 1, 1974 (b) January 1, 1975?
2.	How many people in each of these years received salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) between $20,000 and $30,000 (d) over $30,000?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1.
	1974	1975
1 (a) and (b) January 1	7637	80942 a	5116	4566b	1960	2735c	389	503d	172	290


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Will the donors of the swimming pool at 24 Sussex Drive be eligible under Section 110(1) (b) of the Income Tax Act to make a deduction in respect of the full amount of the donation?
2.	Is the amount deductible in respect of such a gift exempted from the 20 per cent of the taxpayer's income limitation, which applies to charitable donations?


Hon. Hon Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
Yes. If a donation is made to 24 Sussex Drive that falls within Section 110 (l)(b) and a properly documented tax return is filed.
2. Gifts to Her Majesty in right of Canada are not subject to the limitation to 20 per cent of the taxpayer's income. This limitation applies only to those charitable donations which are deductible pursuant to paragraph 110 (l)(a) of the Act.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Will a report be made public of the meeting of officials of provincial Departments of Education convened on November 25, 1974 by the Department of the Secretary of State?
2.	What were the reasons for or the objectives of this meeting?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. No,
it is not intended that a public report of this exploratory meeting be made.
2. The reason for the meeting, attended mainly by representatives from provincial curriculum departments was to examine the question of the availability of French language textbooks and materials at the elementary and secondary levels, and to make recommendations concerning the courses of action that might be followed to provide a more adequate supply of French language educational materials in situations where French is the minority official language and is the language of instruction for academic subjects.


Mr. Allard: 1.	Since 1968, how many anglophone public servants have taken French courses?
2.	Since 1968, how many francophone public servants have taken English courses?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows:
		English	French
		Training	Training
1969-70	818	4,206Academic years,	1970-71	765	5,798September 1 to	August 31	1971-72	1,118	7,1331972-73	1,634	8,713September 1, 1973	to December 31, 1974*	1,544	9,414'The Language Bureau changed its reporting	base in 1973-	-74, in part
to accommodate the advent of continuous/intensive language training.
Note: It should be noted that these statistics refer to those who took English or French training, not whether the participants were anglophone or francophone. Statistics are not kept on racial origins of the participants.


Mr. Howie: Are there any plans to expand the inter-provincial ferry service with new modern ferries for Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, and to replace the Yarmouth ferry, Bluenose?
March 3, 1975


Jean Marchand: For the
Prince Edward Island and Yarmouth-Bar Harbor services, studies are being conducted as part of the development of long-term plans but no definite courses of action have yet been approved. For the Newfoundland service, Cabinet approval has been given for the construction of two large fast passenger auto-truck ferries.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	As of April 20, 1968, what was the total number of persons employed by or in any way connected with (a) the Privy Council Office (b) the Prime Minister's Office and what were the total annual salaries for such persons?
2.	As of the date this question is answered, what is the total number of persons employed by or in any way connected with (a) the Privy Council Office (b) the Prime Minister's Office and what are the total annual salaries of such persons?
3.	As of April 20, 1968, what was the actual or estimated cost of all operations of (a) the Privy Council Office (b) the Prime Minister's Office?
4.	As of the date this question is answered, what is the actual or estimated cost of all operations of (a) the Privy Council Office (b) the Prime Minister's Office?
5.	As of April 20, 1968, how many square feet of office space was occupied by (a) the Privy Council Office (b) the Prime Minister's Office?
6.	As of the date this question is answered, what is the total number of square feet used by (a) the Privy Council Office (b) the Prime Minister's Office and what is the total number of square feet involved in any contemplated, planned or arranged expansion of each office?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1. (a) and
(b) See reply to question 3073, Hansard No. 200, page 9084 of January 7, 1974. For salaries see Public Accounts of Canada 1968-69, pages 18-3 and 18-4.
2.	(a) 352, (b) 98. See Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975, pages 20-8 and 20-9.
3.	See reply to question 3073, Hansard No. 200, page 9084 of January 7, 1974. For actual costs see Public Accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969, pages 18-2 to 18-4.
4.	See Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975, pages 20-2 to 20-11.
5.	(a) 54,351 sq. ft. (b) 8,772 sq. ft.
6.	(a) Privy Council Office, 64,534 sq. ft.; Federal/Pro-vincial Relations Office, 17,408 sq. ft.; (b) Prime Minister's Office, 22,132 sq. ft.
Note: No plans for increase in square feet.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Is it intended to stretch the carferries Holiday Island and Vacation-land and, if so, on what date is the extension to be made?
2.	How many additional vehicles will this allow these ships to carry?
3.	Are there any current plans to provide greater convenience to handicapped persons on the boats by the installations of escalators, elevators or other technical improvements and, if so, what is the nature of such improvements?
4.	Are similar corrective and remedial measures planned for the ferry Confederation?
Order Paper Questions


Jean Marchand: 1. No
decision has yet been made to stretch the car ferries, Holiday Island and Vacationland.
2.	Assuming that it is technically feasible to stretch the vessels and if a decision is made to do so, the maximum number of additional vehicles which could be carried in each ship would be approximately 50.
3.	If a decision is made to stretch the vessels, consideration will be given to improving access to the upper decks. The nature of such improvements cannot however be indicated at this time.
4.	No.


Mr. Andre: 1.	How many man months of effort went into the preparation of the statement on energy conservation delivered to the House of Commons by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on Thursday, February 6, 1975?
2.	How many officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and other departments were associated with the preparation of these materials?
3.	What are the salary ranges of these officials?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1 and 2. It is not possible to provide the specific information requested with regard to the preparation of the material relating to the energy conservation program. In one sense, only a couple of man months went into the preparation of the final document; in another, all of the work of the Office of Energy Conservation since its inception has gone into it. Also numerous officials in other departments have worked on portions of the material presented, particularly the intra-government program.
3. From ES-1 ($8,240-$17,763) to SX-2 ($29,000-$37,000).


Mr. Marshall: Are any of the following recommendations made by Dr. Douglas Hermann being favourably considered by the government (a) that appropriate compensation on a continuing basis, over and above any disability pensions awarded, be paid to all Dieppe Prisoners of War (b) that provision be made to compensate similarly other former Prisoners of War who, because of extraordinary stress and trauma related to capture and imprisonment, also suffer from significant physiological and psychological disadvantages (c) that because the difference in widows' benefits for those whose husbands were pensioned above and below 48 per cent is too extreme, the widows of those pensioned below 48 per cent should be awarded a pension that is the same percentage of the widow's pension as the assessment of her deceased husband's disability, including any additional compensation awarded as a result of this study (d) that the mortality survey initiated for this study be established on a continuing basis so that the information will be available for future studies involving veterans?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: All recommendations contained in the report made by Dr. Hermann are under study. Final consideration will be given to these recommendations by the government after the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs has completed its study of the report.
28996 -30/6

March 3, 1975
Order Paper Questions



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	In the period March 18 to April 20, 1974, what was the total value of advertising placed by the government in the newspapers (a) La Presse (b) Le Devoir (c) Le Jour (d) Montreal-Matin (e) The Montreal Gazette (f) The Montreal Star?
2.	(a) Is there a policy against advertising in any of the aforementioned newspapers and, if so, what newspapers and for what reasons (b) what criteria determine whether and how much federal advertising is inserted in each of the aforementioned newspapers?
3.	Are there any newspapers published in Canada in which, as a matter of policy, the government does not place advertisements and, if so, what are those newspapers, and, in each case, what is the reason for the policy?
4.	In what newspapers published outside Canada does the government regularly insert advertisements and, in each case, what is the reason for the selection of that newspaper?
Return tabled.



LIP-ALLOCATION OF FUNDS IN THE CONSTITUENCY OF LANGELIER, QUEBEC

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total amount of money allocated under the Local Initiatives Programme for 1973-74 in the constituency of Langelier, Quebec (a) what are the names of all projects involved along with their addresses and the names and addresses of those signing the applications (b) in each case what is a detailed description of the actual project, specifically including the functions performed under the project?
2.	What are the names and addresses of all persons or organizations who recommended each project in any manner whatsoever to the Department?
Return tabled.



LIP-ALLOCATION OF FUNDS IN CONSTITUENCY OF DOLLARD, QUEBEC

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total amount of money allocated under the Local Initiatives Programme for 1973-74 in the constituency of Dollard, Quebec (a) what are the names of all projects involved along with their addresses and the names and addresses of those signing the applications (b) in each case what is a detailed description of the actual project, specifically including the functions performed under the project?
2.	What are the names and addresses of all persons or organizations who recommended each project in any manner whatsoever to the Department?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS- TRAVEL EXPENSES

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 Consumer and Corporate Affairs for travel abroad by (a) the Minister of Consumer and Corporate 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.



NUMBER OF FOREIGN NATIONALS GIVEN INSTRUCTION IN CANADA

Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	During the past five years, how many foreign nationals were given instruction in Canada in military establishments?
2.	What countries, and how many persons from each country, were involved?
3.	Under what conditions (invitation, international agreement or other arrangements) did they come to Canada?
4.	What was the nature of the instruction they were or are being given?
5.	What sums were disbursed by the government for their instruction and what items were covered by these disbursements?
Return tabled.



IMMIGRATION-ADMISSION TO CANADA OF DOCTORS AS LANDED IMMIGRANTS

Mr. Hnatyshyn: During the years 1972 to 1974 inclusive, how many medical doctors were admitted to Canada as landed immigrants and what were their respective countries of origin?
Return tabled.



CIDA-REALLOCATIONS

Mr. Landers: Has CIDA re-allocated in the present fiscal year a sum of $117 million and, if so, what was the purpose of the re-allocation and for what specific projects and purposes will the re-allocation sums be spent?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, CIDA, as a matter of normal practice, adjusts its spending patterns to reflect changing priorities in the recipient countries and patterns of availability of certain goods and services in Canada which are to be supplied to those developing countries. The $117 million in readjustments were a response to the increased and urgent needs of many developing countries caused by the energy crisis, inflationary factors and shortages of food grains. Projects such as the purchase of rice seedlings, financing of hydro electric and the purchase of fertilizer, etc. were advanced. Seven projects which were already under way, in the amount of $20.1 million, were advanced. In addition, ten projects were considered for early approval to help in off-setting the effects of energy costs and inflation, in the amount of $24.9 million. Finally, at the World Food Conference in Rome, last November, Canada pledged $50 million in food aid to the countries in greatest need. It was considered that six countries were on the priority list for this assistance. This amount of $50 million ($51.4 million to be exact) was in addition to the $20 million previously allocated to Bangladesh, one of the most seriously affected
March 3, 1975

countries, making a total food aid commitment of $71.4 million in addition to the original regular allocation for the 1974-75 fiscal year. These allocations represent $116.4 million in development assistance and food aid.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rarely intrude upon the time of the House in respect of matters of procedure or order, but I am deeply disturbed in reference to question No. 39 which was placed on the order paper on September 30. It is identical to one placed on the order paper during the preceding parliament, on April 8, 1974, and it deals with the sale of munitions by this country to various parts of the world. In light of reports as to vast sales to Viet Nam and to Turkey, and the article in Maclean's which suggests that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) is strongly pro-Turkey on the Cypriot question, I am wondering why there is no way this parliament can find out why this great peacekeeping country of the world, so we are told, sells so many munitions all over the world that it takes a year for the figures to be toted up.
I hope there is nothing worse than ministerial misfeasance here. I believe this is a very serious question affecting the stature of Canada in the international community and I am anxious to have an answer as soon as possible, as, I think, are the people of Canada.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question No. 767 dated November 6 reads:
1.	On what date will the report on non-official languages, a study commissioned by the Secretary of State in November 1972, be made public?
2.	Would the minister name the 70 recommendations made by the former minister of state for multiculturalism?
3.	What recommendations have been implemented?
This question has been on the order paper since the demise of the ministry of multiculturalism and the firing of Dr. Stanley Haidasz. This government has neglected to produce the report and I should like to know when it is going to come before the House.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, with regard to what was said by the hon. member who just spoke, that question was answered today.


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order before we get into the question period. It was made clear during the past week that the opposition is interested in examining contracts relating to dredging and related matters. I am not making anything of the absence from the House of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) for a reasonable period of time, for reasons of health-I say that most sincerely-but it is a striking coincidence that there is also absent today, during the question period, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand).


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It may well be that the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) will be able to show that both these ministers have very urgent public business elsewhere, but it is a striking coincidence which I think requires some
Oral Questions
explanation. We are used to the stonewalling tactics of the government in terms of inquiries of this sort, but as Leader of the Opposition I must protest the absence from the House today, during the question period, of the Minister of Transport and the Solicitor General. In light of the questions before the House, I would insist, if I may within my rights, Mr. Speaker, on receiving some explanation from the Acting Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) is today on a mission that I am sure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) would consider very important. He is attending the graduation of the first RCMP woman constable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Since in this Parliament we are giving increased recognition to the position of women in society, I think it is suitable that the Solicitor General should be there on this occasion. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and the Acting Minister of Labour are both in Montreal having consultations with representatives of the trade unions in Quebec with respect to inflation.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, as I place my first question to the Minister of Finance I would say to the Acting Prime Minister, with no offence to him, that I think the House might have spared him more readily today to attend that ceremony, representing the Government of Canada, than the Solicitor General.
I ask the Minister of Finance whether it is still his position that the alternative to some sort of national consensus on income and inflation restraint is that there will be a period of "prolonged and bitter industrial strife which could leave everyone considerably worse off by substantially reducing the size of the pie that is available to be shared between us". Is that still the position?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, when I linked those two subjects I did not put them in terms of alternatives; I put them in terms of the general scenario. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would like to pinpoint what he is referring to and then I will try to reply.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance was out skating on the canal over the weekend. Perhaps I could put a very blunt question to him. I ask him, now that we have clearly entered a period of pro-

March 3, 1975
Oral Questions
longed and bitter industrial strife, what does he propose to do?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the full ambit of the preamble.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister how he proposes to develop a consensus different from that which is being established, different from the pattern which is being established to reach settlements, since the government has been fooling around with this whole consensus business for some six months.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems this country now faces, of course, which is recognized by those in charge of the various aspects of the economy including leaders of labour, is the fact that labour settlements in Canada in the last quarter of 1974 were running at roughly double the rate of settlements in the United States, jeopardizing our competitive position. Because of our situation, those on all sides of the economy recognize that a consensus is necessary. That is why we have had far from discouraging results in the conversations we have had.


LEVEL OF PRICE INCREASES FOR NEXT TWO YEARS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, in light of that observation, I wonder whether the minister accepts the proposition that inflation and the expectations of continuing high inflation are at the heart of the industrial problems which lie ahead of us. So that this consensus might be developed properly and labour might know where it stands, would the minister be frank with the House and the people of Canada and tell us what level of price increases he and the government expect to see during the next two years-the balance of this year and 1976-so that labour and industry might know what the minister is seeking in terms of guidelines?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the evolving conversations which are being held at the moment succeed, then we will be in a position to set that forth. I set forth the proposition in some detail to the hon. gentleman's leader two weeks ago Thursday, and I would ask him to look at my summary of the state of affairs as of that date.


PUBLIC SERVICE
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might direct this question to the President of the Treasury Board and bring him back into direct contact. I ask the President of the Treasury Board what efforts are being made either by himself or his departmental officials in relation to reopening negotiations concerning the general labour and trades group.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, since last Thursday we have been trying to convince union officials to meet our own conciliators. I do not know whether both parties will be able to get together today. I do hope they will meet as soon as possible.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister regarding the hearings on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline which are taking place today in Yellowknife before the Berger commission. In view of the fact that Mr. Justice Berger has been authorized by the government to consider the social, environmental and economic impact of the proposed Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline and to recommend the terms and conditions which should be imposed on any successful applicant, I ask the Acting Prime Minister the following question: can he assure the House that no authorization to proceed with the project will be granted until the government has received and examined the report of the Berger commission?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I could not give such a categorical assurance. It would depend a great deal on the nature of the report to be presented by Mr. Justice Berger.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Acting Prime Minister misunderstood my question. I was not asking whether the government would agree not to proceed if Mr. Justice Berger's report should be negative. But in view of the fact that the government appointed Mr. Justice Berger to look into the social, environmental and economic aspects of this measure, will the minister undertake to assure the House and the people of Canada that the government will not proceed with the construction of the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline until it has received the report of the commission which the government itself set up for the purpose of looking into this question?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to give a categorical reply to this question. It is our hope that Mr. Justice Berger will bring down his report in time for it to be considered when we receive a recommendation from the National Energy Board. If it should be a recommendation to proceed with the building of the pipeline, I could imagine circumstances under which it might be desirable to have some consultations with Mr. Justice Berger about the nature of his report, if it appeared that the time he was going to take would be so long as to interfere with what was considered to be a very desirable decision.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the National Energy Board will be looking into the engineering aspects and the supply and demand question, but not into the social, envi-
March 3, 1975

ronmental and economic aspects, I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether this means that the government has already made up its mind, as was indicated by the President of the Treasury Board who when Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said at Yellowknife on January 18 that, "this government, after carefully weighing all the factors involved, has come to the conclusion that a gas pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley is in the national interest." Are we to take it from that statement that the government has already decided to act, and that all the other assurances are a sop to the general public in order to pacify the opposition, and the government intends to go ahead without waiting for the Berger report or any other relevant data?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the conclusion one should draw. I think there is a general understanding of urgency in respect of a decision because of the energy situation and the need to know whether in fact there will be access to gas from the Arctic. I believe there is general agreement, also, that the social and environmental factors should be looked at very carefully. From long experience I would rather hesitate to say which of these particular steps must come first in such a process. It is an extremely complicated one. I believe that the government is looking at all aspects of the problem carefully and with all the attention that I think the problem requires. But I would hesitate to say that one particular step has to be completed before a decision can be made, because it might be in the public interest at that time to adopt a somewhat different procedure in order to reach the right decision.


AGRICULTURE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the fact that poultry producers from the St. Damase Co-op in Quebec have, in protest, intercepted an American truck loaded with United States imported chickens, while their own production quotas have been reduced, can the minister advise the House whether the National Farm Products Marketing Council has received an application for the creation of a national marketing agency for poultry and, if so, whether this application will be granted?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: As I have said in the House on many occasions, poultry production is not under a national marketing agency. Public hearings were held last year on whether such a national marketing agency should be established. After the meetings were held, a consensus was reached that they should proceed with negotiations for setting up a national agency for broilers, but this has not been done, mainly because of the controversy in which CEMA was involved at that time. I have no intention of proceeding with it at this time unless
Oral Questions
we have more federal authority for a national marketing board than we have for CEMA at present, which makes it unworkable in my opinion.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell the House whether Canada must now resort to poultry imports, since Canadian production is deficient, in order to meet the internal market needs?


Eugene Whelan: No, Mr. Speaker. There is a great deal of poultry in Canada at present, not as much as there was last year at this time but sufficient to supply the Canadian market. Until procedures are developed for what we call supply management on a national basis, there is not much one can do about imports so long as they are not being dumped in this country.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: My question is supplementary to a previous question and it is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It has to do with a previous question with regard to the Berger commission. Are we to believe that the Department of the Environment will be presenting a brief to the Berger commission outlining the dangers to the ecology of building a gas pipeline, so that the Berger commission may understand completely the whole question of pollution and the degree to which the ecology might be affected by the building of that pipeline?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is my understanding that the Department of the Environment is turning over to the commission all the studies that it has made, and it is also lending some personnel.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I appreciate the answer of the Acting Prime Minister. Will that information be made available to interested groups and people who might well want to submit briefs to the Berger commission with regard to the building of the pipeline? In other words, will the information now known within the Department of the Environment be made available to interested groups as well as to the Berger commission?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will take that question under consideration. I would have thought, however, that if is not necessary for many citizens' groups to know about the government's studies. Presumably they have their own views. If their purpose is simply to try to argue with the government on its studies, that is one thing, but the purpose of the Berger commission is to deal with the problem per se and not to be prejudiced either by the government or by outsiders.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Surely the minister would agree with me that interested people in Canada who might desire permission to submit a brief to the Berger commission are also

Oral Questions
taxpayers, and are therefore entitled to the expertise and knowledge already developed within the Department of the Environment so that they might better judge the situation and present a better brief to the commission.


Mitchell William Sharp: As I said, I am willing to take this request into consideration. I just added the other words because I believe that the important thing about the Berger commission is that it will not be influenced unduly by the government's position and will welcome views from the public.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-BERGER COMMISSION-STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I have a supplementary question along the line of questions put by other hon. members, for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It was my understanding, having heard a number of answers by the minister over the years, that the department was making studies. But having listened to the Acting Prime Minister today I ask the minister whether the Berger commission is to be farce. Why have we had the other studies? Judging from what the Acting Prime Minister said, the project could go ahead without any studies.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do not think the Acting Prime Minister said that. He said, as the government has said on many past occasions in this House and outside it, that any decision on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline could go ahead only after appropriate regulatory proceedings, particularly after a study of land rights.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do I take it unequivocally that the minister and the government will not proceed with this project until a report by Mr. Justice Berger has been received? That is a clearcut question to which I would like to receive a clearcut answer.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Certainly our objective would be to have Mr. Justice Berger's report before us. The government cannot proceed unless there has been a positive decision by the National Energy Board on this particular subject.


TRANSPORT
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Transport. In light of the investigation now taking place into federal dredging contracts, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether there is a freeze on the awarding of new contracts and on the payment of federal funds for these contracts?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such freeze. An investigation is going on by the RCMP into a couple of contracts. These are continuing. As the Minister of Transport said, some payments on the dredging contract in the St. Lawrence have been held back. The government is now being sued for payment. That is how the matter stands; there has been no other action.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact that it took almost two years for the RCMP to extend their inquiry from Hamilton into the dredging contract at He d'Orleans, and in view of the fact that currently in the estimates there are some $10 million worth of federal dredging contracts for the St. Lawrence river ports, is it the intention of the government to order a full-scale inquiry into all dredging contracts in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister of Transport said the other day, I think, inquiries are going ahead on contracts in cases where there is a belief that there might have been conspiracy. These inquiries are continuing. If the hon. member has evidence in other respects, perhaps he would submit it.


HAMILTON-REQUEST BY CITY COUNCIL FOR INQUIRY INTO ACTIVITIES OF HARBOUR COMMISSION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a supplementary question which I should like to direct to the Acting Prime Minister in light of the answers of the Minister of Transport. Is the Acting Prime Minister aware of a letter dated February 26 from the Clerk of the city of Hamilton which in effect indicates that on October 31, 1972, the city passed a resolution petitioning the federal government to conduct a full-scale public inquiry into the activities of the Hamilton Harbour Commission, and members of the council are still most anxious that this inquiry be conducted? Is the Acting Prime Minister aware of that letter and, if so, what answer will he give?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, since I am not aware of the letter I will have to make inquiries.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On behalf of the city council, I would give notice to the government that on October 31, 1972, the city council passed a resolution to the effect that the federal government be petitioned to conduct a full-scale public inquiry into the activities of the Hamilton Harbour Commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor for the purpose of asking another supplementary question. I hope he is going to use it for that purpose.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I was just coming to the end of the resolution. Now that the Acting Prime Minister is advised of that resolution, would he report back to the House as soon as possible on the government's intentions?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, an inquiry is under way. I am sure the hon. gentleman would agree that any inquiry
March 3, 1975

should go to its conclusion before any other action is taken.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that an inquiry has been going on, but the Acting Prime Minister has conveniently forgotten the key point of the resolution, that the city of Hamilton wants the federal government to be involved in a full-scale public inquiry. The Acting Prime Minister has heard the question; now will he give me an answer?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I did give the answer, that is, that we did institute an inquiry. It has brought some people to justice and it may bring others. I am sure the hon. gentleman, who is an experienced man of the law and a very distinguished one, will agree that that procedure should be followed.


FINANCE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Finance? What steps is the government taking to ensure that financial institutions will not seek or handle Arab investment funds on terms involving discrimination against anyone on the basis of their ethnic origin or religion, such discriminatory approach being repugnant to Canadians generally?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if any specific instance were brought to my attention I would deal with it within the limits of the responsibility I have under the Bank Act.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. When the Minister of Finance makes his tour of Middle Eastern countries in a few weeks, will he make clear to the leaders of the countries he visits that it is contrary to the policy of the Canadian government that any investment funds from these countries to Canada be handled or used on terms involving discrimination against anyone on the basis of their ethnic origin or religion?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will be travelling through those countries in my capacity as chairman of the International Monetary Fund committee of 20. As the situation comes up I will be glad to make the point.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the resignation on Friday of Yves Menard, an Air Canada vice-president, following a Southam News Story that there is a possible conflict of interest, and also the statement by Yves Pratte, chairman of the board, that he deeply regretted the circumstances leading to the decision, I ask the
Oral Questions
Acting Prime Minister, without passing judgment on the case, whether he has investigated the matter and, if so, can he report to the House?


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: And who is next?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the president of Air Canada made this decision on his own motion.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I assume the minister means the vice-president.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, the president.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question. Did the president of Air Canada request Mr. Menard's resignation and, if so, under what circumstances? Can the Acting Prime Minister also tell the House whether the conflict of interest legislation now being contemplated by the government for senior civil servants also pertains to high officials of Crown corporations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that Mr. Menard asked to resign for personal reasons and Mr. Pratte accepted his resignation.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A final supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In the conflict of interest legislation pertaining to senior civil servants which is now before the government, is there something that will also apply to high officials in Crown corporations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is one of the questions that should be considered. It is a difficult problem but I think in general the same sort of principle should apply.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but in his absence I would address it to the Acting Prime Minister or the parliamentary secretary. Has the minister received representations from Indian bands in Ontario that the proposed educational budget for the coming year will result in the elimination of existing educational programs?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any information on that matter for the hon. member, but I will inquire and see that it is communicated to him as soon as possible.


John Robert Holmes: A supplementary question. Would the parliamentary secretary undertake to ask the minister if he will reassess the entire educational financing program for Ontario, and if in the interim he would indicate that there

March 3, 1975
Oral Questions
will be no reduction of personnel in the support programs that exist?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to do so.


HOUSING
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the obvious failure of the native and rural housing program in 1974, can the minister tell the House how many units his department intends to construct this year under the 50,000 unit, five-year program?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in this context I do not like to set specific targets or dates. As the hon. member knows perhaps better than any other member of this House, it is a long and painful process. Sometimes I think when gains are made by the native people in housing they may appear small by our standards but they represent an amazing effort and accomplishment for the native people themselves.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for my cold. I expect my leader will advise me to take a couple of days off.


An hon. Member:: We will see you in the Defence hospital.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister how his department intends to communicate the secret native and rural housing program to the native people and members of the House of Commons. That is the program that he announced on March 27 last year. Only 24 homes out of 50,000 were built in one year.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I have been meeting on a continuing basis with several native housing groups across the country, as have my officials who are concentrating on that area. Rather than describe the whole program in the question period and have the hon. gentleman get pneumonia, I would suggest that he attend meetings of the committee on Bill C-46. This committee will be discussing the programs of CMHC and specifically this program. I will be delighted to answer questions in detail at that time as we rush to get the legislation through.


NATIVE AND RURAL HOUSING-ALLOCATION OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS FOR 1975
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question regarding the rural part of the native housing program. Would the minister indicate if he has reached agreement with all provinces with regard to funding to be allocated this year to rural and native housing?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, allocations have been made and discussions held with all provinces. Although some agreements with the provinces have not been completed, it is expected this will be done within a short period.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. On February 6 this year I asked the minister what, if anything, he proposed to do for or about the Canadian cheese processors whose volume of production had dropped 25 per cent to 30 per cent recently because they faced European Common Market import tariffs some 20 to 60 times higher than those European cheeses were facing coming into Canada. At that time the minister said this should be reviewed and that we cannot be the good guys all the time. May I ask if the review is over, and is the minister going to be a good guy or a bad guy? What is going to be done, and when?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am going to be a reasonable person. I have a submission prepared after our study. It will be going before cabinet in the next few days.


William Herbert Jarvis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As all members, I am sure, were relieved last week upon receiving the minister's press release saying that he had solved at least one agricultural crisis, namely, that of the importation to Canada of live turtles, and without implying that the turtle crisis is any less important than the cheese crisis, I wonder if the minister will undertake to act on the cheese crisis with something approaching the same seriousness and concern he exhibited in dealing with the turtle invasion.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the same can be said for cheeses as for turtles; there should be Canadian turtles for Canadians and Canadian cheeses for Canadians. That policy will be followed. The hon. member has made light of turtles, but turtles carry a distinct disease which children handling them can catch. We do not want this to happen in our country. There are, as well, difficulties with cheeses. We have banned the entry of certain cheeses because they contain insecticides and pesticides. We do not want such cheeses to enter Canada. This applies especially to cheeses about which we are talking; we have strong reservations about allowing their entry to Canada. Health comes first and other trade matters later.


Gerald William Baldwin: There are already too many turtles in the cabinet.

March 3, 1975


INDUSTRY
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
My question relates to textiles in Canada. In his present study of the very recent recommendations of the Canadian Textile and Clothing Board, does the minister consider specifically the alarming increase in imports of sweaters, undershirts and underwear, whose increase rate, according to the figures of Penman's Company Limited, has gone from 1970 to 1974 to average figures of 69.7 and 97.2 per cent, according to the articles involved, and, second, does the minister consider the direct relation between those imports and the thousands of temporary layoffs in the country or even on the more than definitive 200 layoffs recently announced at Penman's in Saint-Hyacinthe?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I believe some members of the apparel industry are forming an association and will make representations to the Textile and Clothing Board. I, for one, want to join with the hon. member opposite and participate in any discussions on bathing suits and bikinis.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Very funny.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
I thank the minister for his support. I hope he will act and not merely talk. My supplementary question is as follows, at the request of the member for St. Boniface: the Penman's Co. Limited, where workers have been on strike for nine months, having recently announced that it could only partially reopen its Saint-Hyacinthe factory and that it would close its spinning, felting and dyeing shops and dismiss over 110 employees as a result of market losses, is the minister prepared, without waiting for a demonstration on the hill, to take specific measures in co-operation, if necessary, with his colleagues the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration as well as with the assistance of Quebec authorities in order to encourage Penman's Limited to recover gradually its markets or to adjust to new markets?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, both the hon. member and I are concerned about the solution of the long strike. I hope the strike can be settled soon, because then the company can resume normal operations.
Oral Questions HEALTH


CLOSING DOWN OF ACCOM SERVICES IN OTTAWA REGION-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Since the only crisis referral service for French-speaking youth in the Ottawa region, ACCOM, has been forced to close down its residential services for at least a month, and possibly for good, and since the appeal of the Vanier Centre to regional, provincial and federal officials for immediate financial assistance was refused, can the minister state when financial assistance for this important service will be available?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to examine the matter raised by the hon. member and to see whether the federal government has any responsibility in that field.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister? In view of the fact that the Department of the Environment had planned to appear before the Berger commission to oppose the Mackenzie Valley natural gas pipeline on environmental grounds, and had requested the opportunity to appear, was it government policy to cancel this intervention?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is giving me information of which I was not aware. I doubt its validity, but will make inquiries.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the National Energy Board is considering only the economic and supply aspects of the question, will the Acting Prime Minister look into arrangements which the Department of the Environment had made to bring the environmental aspects of the proposed pipeline out into the open?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I also question the premises of that question. As I explained in relation to an earlier question, the Department of the Environment is co-operating with the Berger commission and making available through that commission all its studies and personnel who may be helpful. Whether, in addition, the department should appear before the commission is a separate question. So far as I know, they have never been refused, and they have not refused to appear.

Oral Questions


INQUIRY WHETHER IMPORTATION OF UNITED STATES POULTRY AUTHORIZED BY GOVERNMENT
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since the Americans export into Canada, live chickens ready to be slaughtered, can the minister tell the House whether Canadian importers must apply for permits from his department to import that live poultry?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to make inquiries and let the hon. member know the answer.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Given the prolonged tie-up of west coast grain shipments, will the government be using the same sort of guidelines for dealing with its employees as it used last fall when it introduced grain handling legislation, namely, that workers working side by side and doing the same job should have parity in pay?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we had the opportunity to face that problem later in the year during the strike of grain inspectors and we found another ground for settlement different from the one provided for in the summer legislation. Therefore, the hon. member's question does not apply in the circumstances.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. As the government the Prime Minister leads has urged all Canadians to use restraint as an anti-inflation device, can the Acting Prime Minister advise the House why the estimates for the fiscal year 1975-76 record an increase of 29.3 per cent in expenditures for the operation of the Prime Minister's office?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Important as that question may be, it surely contains the basic element of the whole process of the examination of estimates in committee.


DELAYS IN EXPORT SHIPMENTS-EFFECT ON CONTRACTS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the almost continuous delays this past summer in the movement of grain for export, can the minister advise the House whether Canada has defaulted on any contracts with the result that customers have had to look to other grain exporting countries for supplies?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, if I may answer, there have been instances in which the board has entered into discussions with people to whom we have sold grain in order to phase deliveries over a longer period of time. That would entail, of course, some inconvenience to our customers.


Douglas Charles Neil: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the minister answered my question. Can he advise the House whether delays in moving grain have resulted in Canada being called on to pay sums of money under penalty clauses in contracts entered into for the sale of grain?


Otto Emil Lang: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will look into the matter on an up to date basis.


DELAYS IN EXPORT SHIPMENTS-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS IN MEETING INCREASED DEMURRAGE COSTS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board? As the grain producers of Canada had to foot a $17 million bill for demurrage costs during the last crop year because of shipping delays, and as it appears that this performance will be repeated during the present crop year, the government apparently not having taken initiatives to restore orderly grain movement, has the minister considered the provision of a mechanism for cushioning farmers from the effects of these huge demurrage costs which can be very serious indeed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There are 40 ships tied up today.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is not correct to suggest that the government is not taking any initiatives to take care of the current situation. It is also true that strikes have an impact on many people in the economy. There is no way within government policy that those impacts can be borne generally.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I realize that the cost of strikes has to be borne by someone. However, in view of the fact that the producers, the farmers, have no way of recovering the cost, and the fact they have been faced with a continuous tie-up in shipments, is the minister taking any initiative, on behalf of the farmers of Canada, to bring forward some sort of program to alleviate these disastrous effects that have been placed on the backs of the farmers?
March 3, 1975


Otto Emil Lang: Exactly the same situation exists for everyone else. While this is not a delightful answer, it is true that even with this kind of cost the farmer is receiving more for his grain in the current year than ever before.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. During the February 17 debate in the House of Commons on CEMA, the minister stated he was glad to see that most provinces had either paid up their debts incurred in 1974 or had made binding agreements to rid themselves of those debts by the end of the year. Can the minister confirm whether the Quebec producer board is paying the differential service charge to CEMA? If not, what action is proposed by CEMA, the council or the minister to acquire this money?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I met the chairman of the Farm Products Marketing Council this morning. He reported that the province of British Columbia had paid their back payments of $139,000. I do not believe Quebec has paid theirs. There were negotiations and discussions going on between the Farm Products Marketing Council and CEMA last Thursday. Discussions will be going on with both Ontario and Quebec this week. That is the latest report which I received about ten o'clock this morning.


Jack Burnett Murta: In view of the minister's statement that he talked to the chairman of the Farm Products Marketing Council recently, can he now indicate which provinces are not paying their levies to CEMA? Also, is CEMA paying to the provinces the amounts owned to them?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to bring in a report on that for the hon. member.


INEQUITY BETWEEN TARIFF ON IMPORTED CHEESE AND CANADIAN CHEESE IMPORTED BY EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET
Eugene Whelan: I might comment on a very important question about cheese asked by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot. I do not want to leave the impression with the House that nothing is being done for these producers. The hon. member would not want that. I am sure he wants the House to know that the Prime Minister was successful in negotiating no duty on cheese going into the Common Market as of April 1. The duty on Cheddar cheese was 67 cents a pound. There will be no duty on our cheese until 1979. As far as we are concerned, this is a major breakthrough for Canadian producers of that cheese.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period has expired. The minister raised a point about which he had been questioned previously. The hon. member for Perth-
Oral Questions
Wilmot feels he is entitled to a further supplementary question. I have recognized the hon. member for York-Simcoe and there is not time for both questions.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of current investigations into the $21 million federal government contract awarded to a group of companies including Marine Industries Ltd. of Quebec, and in view of Marine Industries being the third ranking principal exporter of record receiving the benefit of Export Development financing, having received $104 million in commitments up to September 30, 1974, will the minister indicate if Marine Industries is continuing to receive the benefit of this type of financing? Have any new contracts been signed, or will they be signed involving export financing where Marine Industries will be the principal benefactor?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the detail of existing contracts under negotiation, but I see no connection between the first part of the premise of the hon. member's question and the purposes of the Export Development Corporation.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As federal government claims may arise against Marine Industries as a result of current investigations, has the minister instructed the Export Development Corporation to hold back funds that may accrue to Marine Industries pending the outcome of the investigations?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that I see no connection between the two programs.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in connection with the minister's remarks a few moments ago about cheese producers. I am sure all members of the House welcome the minister's indication that he is treating the matter as one of urgency. I simply point out to him the difficulty faced by processors. On one hand they hear what the minister has said, and on the other hand they hear his officials saying, confident as they are that some accommodation will be worked out with the European Common Market, that it could still take some months to resolve the situation. I point this out because these producers are left in a quandary. On one hand they read that it will take some months, and on the other hand they hear in this House of Commons that it may be worked out this week or next.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that discussions took place for weeks or months with regard to specialty cheeses. Discussions did take place before the final agreement was reached on cheddar cheese. As of April 1 there will be no duty on cheddar cheese going into

Privilege-Mr. Cossitt
the Common Market. The duty was formerly 67 cents a pound. I am very optimistic that we can come to an agreement on specialty cheeses. It is not as large a volume but is still a very important part of our cheese production.


Mr.  J. H. Homer@Crowfoot: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The sole purpose of the question period is to solicit information on subjects of national importance and urgency. When listening to the radio this morning, I heard there had been some sort of settlement or agreement reached with Mint employees involved in the minting of coins. I have been keenly interested in the GLTG with regard to the grain tie-up. During the question period I failed to elicit any information with regard to this. The Minister of Labour is absent from the House, and the President of the Treasury Board has just left. We did not get any information from the government on what they are doing about the strike. They have settled the Mint strike, but at what per cent did they settle? What is the government doing about the 40 boats tied up in Vancouver? Surely we are entitled to this kind of information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has described the purpose of the question period very fully, namely, to solicit information on issues of national importance. However, the hon. member had the floor during the question period and did not put that question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would like to draw to Your Honour's attention that I rose on a supplementary to a previous question. I never at any time had the floor at which time I could have initiated this question. I draw that to Your Honour's attention in view of your remarks with regard to my participation in this question period.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This matter only came to my attention in the last few moments as a result of two questions on the order paper which were answered today. The answers have just been delivered to my desk. I refer to questions Nos. 534 and 1,181 concerning certain LIP projects.
They concern LIP projects known as Project Aldergrove and Research Anti-Poverty, and another project, No. 311872, in London East, involving the award of a $53,000 contract to a contractor who reportedly boasted in the press that he had given $10,000 to the Liberal party.
As part of both these questions I asked for the names of those who recommended the projects or communicated with the minister urging that these applications be granted. I think this is a legitimate question for a member of the House to ask. I feel that in connection with my question of privilege I should read one sentence from the answer:
Both projects were suspended when suspicion of financial irregularities arose. An investigation of the projects was initiated thereafter.
Then the answer goes on to blame the situation on poor bookkeeping and other things. The point is, I asked for the names of those who endorsed these projects, and their government came back with the answer:

The Department of Manpower and Immigration regards as confidential the names and contents of all representations made to the minister or the department.
I think that answer is an insult to all members of the House. It has taken since last October to produce this garbage by way of an answer. I say to the government, why bother to answer a question at all unless there is an intention to give the information which is sought? An answer of this sort is a disgrace and I do not believe that I, or any other member, should have to put up with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. MacGuigan:: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot I wish to point out that I was prepared, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, to give a report to the House on the settlement of the strike at the Mint. If the House wishes, I can give that report now.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Knight Andras: That a special joint committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to consider the green paper on immigration policy tabled by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in the House of Commons on February 3, 1975; and to invite the views of the public on the issues raised therein;
That 15 members of the House of Commons to be designated at a later date be members on the part of this House on the special joint committee;
That the committee have power to appoint from among its members such sub-committees as may be deemed advisable and necessary and to delegate to such sub-committees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within Canada;
That the committee be empowered to retain the services of advisers to assist in its work; and that it also be empowered to retain the professional, clerical and stenographic help as may be required;
That the committee submit their report not later than July 31, 1975;
That the quorum of the committee be 12 members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented and that the joint chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when 6 members are present so long as both Houses are represented; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it to be advisable, members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.


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


An hon. Member:: No!


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry on division?


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Prud'homme:: Did I hear Your Honour say the motion had been carried on division? I did not hear any dissent.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I asked whether it was the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion. There was a clear negative voice. I was looking about for hon. members who might wish to participate in the debate, and I did not see the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), as I should have done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I rise on a point of order? There was a general understanding that there would be a brief debate on this subject, and we were expecting the minister to lead off that debate. Just because he sat back in his seat I do not think he should be excused from leading off. I am sure the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) would be happy to follow him.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the indication given by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), I was not sitting sleeping. I was waiting in anticipation of the surprising possibility that the motion might not be debated, though it was not my understanding that this would be the case.
I appreciate the courtesy of the House in allowing me to lead off. I certainly have a particular interest in the motion to appoint a special committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to consider the green paper on immigration policy. I look forward to following its deliberations and receiving a report from such a committee on a matter which I consider to be of extreme importance.
The conclusions of the committee will be of great assistance in formulating a comprehensive review of policies and programs in the immigration field. The general process of review was embarked upon, when the green paper was tabled on February 3, or even earlier, a year or so ago, when we discussed the possibility that such a green paper might be forthcoming.
As I have said in the House on other occasions, the green paper does not itself make definite recommendations nor does it propose cut and dried solutions to the questions set out therein. Rather, it explores the issues of immigration and population growth, and discusses some of the choices which are open to us. It is a document Canadians may use when considering these or other options in relation to Canada's population future. The green paper is presented as a means of assisting the process of policy formulation and the examination of the new legislation which the government intends to submit to parliament soon. Accordingly, it has been made public in the hope that it will stimulate a country-wide debate upon immigration policy. I might add that this hope or intention appears to be on the way to fulfilment since the green paper was tabled a month ago.
Immigration Green Paper
It is also my hope that the debate will not only embrace such questions as selection procedures and administrative control, in other words, the nuts and bolts of immigration machinery, but that it should also take into consideration the development of a population policy for Canada to which immigration is closely linked.
There is a need to develop a common idea with regard to population growth in Canada and to be clear about its goals if all regions of Canada are to realize their full economic and social potential, avoiding the concentration of too many people in some areas and the presence of an insufficient number of people in others.
I know there are some who say that, because of the sheer physical size of our country and the relatively high standard of living our people enjoy, the population question is an academic one. On the other hand, there is a great deal of concern about the consequences of increasing urbanization, the many problems which accompany that process and which make the question of population growth one of urgent importance right now. At the same time there are other considerations. Alberta may need more workers, while the maritime provinces might be more concerned about internal migration.
There have been a host of world developments, including the population explosion. I am told that the world population is increasing at the rate of some 200,000 people a day. Then again there is the threat of food shortages, both now and in the future. All these events have made us appreciate much more the importance of knowing where we are going in population terms, of making deliberate rather than benign decisions.
While the green paper concentrates mainly on immigration policy, it is also concerned with demographic policy and population policy. We note that immigration based on current trends, of which we are aware, is very likely if those trends continue to replace natural increase as the main source of population growth in this country before the end of the century. Therefore, a sound immigration policy for the future will need to rest squarely on the foundation of some views, and some policy flowing from those views, on population in this country.
If we are to examine population policy and immigration in that context, we must be just as concerned with where people live in Canada as about how many people there are here. We must also recognize that immigration itself is not the only factor. Perhaps quantitatively it will not be the main factor because of the consequence of internal migration trends in this country. So population policies, in short, must deal with the question of distribution as much as with the question of growth. In this regard there is an obviously inherent question for Canadians in the prairie and Atlantic regions.
As I have indicated in my comments, the federal government has begun to study the various aspects of the demographic question and has concluded that we need guidelines for the future. We hope that these guidelines will provide the framework within which to integrate a whole array of interrelated policy measures and ideas affecting population trends, a spectrum of policies that will cover areas such as regional development, urban objectives, na-

March 3, 1975
Immigration Green Paper
tional characteristics, as well as transportation, communications and industrial growth.
We must also recognize in this process that some of the decisions and policies are the responsibility of one level of government. In other areas of endeavour, responsibility and jurisdiction lie between governments or with both the federal and provincial governments. Some are purely provincial and some, in my opinion, in this context, require the input of the municipalities.
It is also our conviction that the formulation and broad acceptance of an over-all set of population goals are very important if the various related policies that are carried out by all these levels of government, plus the private sector, are to yield the maximum results. In this sense the federal government is beginning to foster the widest possible measure of agreement about Canada's population future, and I outlined the consultative machinery when I tabled the green paper in early February.
Speaking of the green paper, Mr. Speaker, I think this is the first time that the government has tried to tell the whole immigration story in detail, and within a really comprehensive framework. It is also the first time that immigration policy has been discussed in relation to these wider economic, demographic, social and cultural concerns. The committee will, of course, be in charge of its own affairs within the terms of reference agreed upon by this House, but I believe that during its work and travels it will provide an extremely valuable stimulus for public debate and, most important, will be the major forum in which Canadians, whether as individuals or through representative organizations, can take part in a debate that will lead to an important decision regarding the future of this country.
I hope that when this joint committee hears Canadians presenting points of view, the variety of hopes and needs of people in all regions of Canada can be related to our decisions about immigration and, in the broader sense, population. In short, I see the committee acting as the paramount vehicle for the recording and transmission of the public's views to the government. In addition to the members of the House and from the other place who will play an active role in the work of the committee, I trust all members of parliament will have a vital role in what I hope will be a constructive national debate on this whole question.
I think the review upon which we have embarked provides a rather unique opportunity for parliamentarians to study all aspects of immigration and to contribute to the best kind of immigration policy that our joint efforts can produce when this debate is concluded. In that context I have already noted, with very considerable appreciation as a matter of fact, that many members of parliament have begun a lively, informed and productive debate among their constituents. Indeed, I am getting many requests from individual members for assistance in providing factual material, and in some cases logistical help.
One has only to pick up a newspaper, or to turn on a television set or radio to realize that the green paper debate is already under way. Generally speaking, the reaction I have had or heard about has been reasonably constructive. Obviously there are some-this is only to be anticipated-who criticize the green paper or question the

government's reason for producing such a document. Having had some experience in this field now, I might say that we should all be concerned about extremist reactions from whatever direction they may come. I have said in this chamber before, as well as said publicly elsewhere, and I repeat it again now, that I believe Canadians will want an immigration policy which has universally applied selection criteria, a policy that is free from discrimination on the basis of race, colour or creed.
If I may go on to try to put this in its proper light, it is false to say that we are flashing a red light on immigration. It has been suggested that Canada might be wise no longer to consider uncontrolled immigration in terms of numbers, that there should be a re-examination of Canada's population future. I do not think anyone is saying that we should do anything less than at least manage the flow of immigrants. By embarking upon this examination quite openly and in public, it is not my intention to slam the door. It is not a red light but perhaps a caution light when the suggestion is made that we should proceed from here forward with more policy consideration than perhaps we had heretofore.
I think that the scope, importance and magnitude of the issues involved in the green paper demand very thoughtful and mature participation on the part of all Canadians. We will all be following closely the activities and deliberations of the special joint committee. This chamber of course will have another significant opportunity to examine immigration policy when, if all goes well, I present a draft bill to parliament in the fall for referral to the appropriate standing committee. I am quite sure that at that stage there will be an opportunity for very intensive scrutiny. That is suggested and planned. I look forward to the completion of this procees with the passage of a new Immigration Act and the accompanying regulations taking place not too far into 1976.
I would hope that the Immigration Act will be sufficiently flexible to accommodate whatever future population policy might emerge after the intensive federal-provincial consultations to which I earlier referred, but in that sense I really do not believe we can afford to wait for these longer term policies before dealing with immigration legislation. Certainly in my view it is essential that our immigration laws be brought up to date as soon as possible, particularly if we are to cope with changing world conditions and if we are to have a legislative framework within which to manage better our own immigration programs.
I appreciate the opportunity of leading off this debate. I look forward to the remarks of hon. members opposite, and to the House giving its approval so that we can get on with the deliberations in the committee on this very important matter.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thought after you put the motion that we were playing musical chairs like, "After you, Alphonse," to settle who was going to be first. I thought an agreement had been reached prior to calling the motion that the minister would lead off with a short statement on his views on how the committee first
March 3, 1975

of all should be struck and what its major functions should be.
It is my intention today, on behalf of the party of which I am a member, to place before the House some of our views on the approach we feel the committee should take, and in respect of some of the questions that we feel must be discussed by the committee. I should also like to point out the manner in which we think these discussions should take place.
Since the motion to create a joint committee was tabled on February 24 we have been very much aware of certain provisions within it which we believe need explanation and clarification. This committee which many of us have been waiting for some time to begin its work, is now to undertake this function. There are certain concerns I should like to place on the record.
On February 3 the minister tabled the green paper, at which time this party called for the creation of a select parliamentary committee to study that document and the questions which flowed from it. I am pleased the minister has seen fit to accept that suggestion by formalizing it into the motion we have before us at this time.
It has been and remains our concern that the main estimates tabled by the government should be studied in detail, just as the estimates of any other department, by the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, regardless of the work to be done by the select committee. We thought the special committee should be struck regardless of the work undertaken by that parliamentary committee. Following the tabling today of the supplementary estimates by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), that caution is even more important than at the time of the tabling of the green paper.
I understand that the powers the committee is to have, as outlined in the motion, are fairly straightforward, and I do not want to deal with them at any length.
Since the tabling of the green paper on February 3 certain questions in the minds of many of us have been accentuated. The first question I want to mention is minor, but I think vital to the success of this exercise. This question relates to the simple fact that the green paper is not available. I hope the minister and the government will take it upon themselves to effect wide distribution of the green paper. If we want public debate we must get this document in the hands of those who are to react and take part in the debate.


An hon. Member:: We can't afford that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In view of the spending estimates, perhaps we cannot afford that. I understand the highlights are available, and that the complete four-volume green paper costs approximately $12. If we want the Canadian public to react, the green paper should be available. I understand that members have asked for a second copy to be placed in their constituency offices where at least people can come and read it, or perhaps take it home for a few days, but even that request has been denied because apparently copies are not available. I want to impress upon the minister that it is vital that this information be placed in the hands of Canadians. I am not trying to be picayune, but I
Immigration Green Paper
think this is a matter that should be looked at with great speed by the minister.
The second matter which has come to my attention since the tabling of the green paper is the impression a number of people have that this is simply a public relations exercise on which we are now embarking in that really the decisions have already been made by the government, and that all the discussion and debate on the green paper are designed to reinforce the tough decisions of the government.


An hon. Member:: Taking the heat off.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, possibly taking the heat off. I was pleased that the minister in his statement today said he wanted to lay before the Canadian people all the facts, and that he wanted to be frank with the people. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) prides himself on his frankness as well.


An hon. Member:: He is frank.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If that is being frank then I had better go back to my dictionary to find out what the definition really is of that word. Let me impress upon the minister and the government that if we want a candid reaction from the Canadian people, and if this exercise is to be meaningful, then we cannot skirt certain issues. I agree that we should not approach this from an Archie Bunker point of view, but rather from a frank point of view as to how the whole population growth and demographic status will effect us as Canadians.
Among the important aspects I think the committee should look into is the type of population growth we really want. I come back to the statement I made on February 3 when the green paper was tabled, that we are looking for an immigration study as a result of which we will hopefully get into a population study. To me that sounds backwards, but that is the approach we are taking.
We must also study what kind of a country we really want, and in this regard certain things have happened since the points system was introduced in 1967 which have had an effect on the make-up of our Canadian population. I hope the committee will be very frank in its analysis and report to the government on this aspect.
Another aspect the committee must consider involves regional differences. It is true that more than 50 per cent of the immigrants who come here go to our three major cities. There are specific conditions which have resulted in this allocation that the committee must consider. At the same time there are regions in Canada to which immigrants have not gone in great numbers, where today they are still welcome because of the requirement to fill the jobs available. The committee must also consider the whole question of migrant labour.
Yesterday I saw a program televised on the national CTV network called "Inquiry". That program bothered me because of its negative approach to an unusual immigration question. If we are to approach these questions from a negative point of view we will run into trouble as a nation. We are not going to get the candidness and frankness we need in order to make the long term decisions necessary.

March 3, 1975
Immigration Green Paper
Another matter the committee must study is third world immigration, or immigration from those countries from which we traditionally have not received many people. Again may I say that I hope the committee can look at this question frankly and fairly, and that once having received as much information as is available it can then come in with a recommendation that will be acceptable to most Canadians.
Further, there is a question which has been skirted by many people since the tabling of the green paper. I refer to the question of francophone immigration. As the government indicated in its statement of October 22, 1974, the new immigration is to be related directly to job availability. If this is so, then we should look critically at the situation to see whether we are to use immigration as a vehicle to promote the ratio which presently exists between English and French speaking Canadians. I am not trying to be divisive in this regard. However, I feel that often this is a question which lurks in the background of people's minds but is not answered. This is a question which should be looked at fairly, critically and objectively.
More division is created merely by saying this is a question which must be looked at, but once it has been looked at we must arrive at a consensus. I think the government should be looking at this in that spirit. It will be necessary to have public reaction in respect of this and other matters which I cannot mention now because of the time available. I want to impress upon the government very strongly that if it wishes to have the views of the Canadian people it should ask for those views, and then accept them. I say to the government that it should not ignore the views of the public as being unimportant.
There is a third matter which I believe should be placed before this House prior to the establishment of the committee. I refer to the time frame in which the committee is to work. From my understanding of the minister's words and from my reading of the motion it appears that the committee is to complete its work in Ottawa, is to travel to various cities in Canada, and then is to write its report by July 31, 1975.
The second part of the schedule is that the minister hopes he can prepare legislation on the basis of the information received, which is to be presented to the House in the fall of 1975, and he hopes that the immigration legislation will be passed early in 1976. I, and many members of this House know that a new immigration act is desperately needed. The last act, which dates back to 1952, has been amended many times. Unfortunately there have been more regulatory amendments than specific legislative amendments passed by this House.
While I concede the minister's schedule, the time frame concerns me somewhat. It is a massive process we are to undertake. Let us be frank about that. If we are to have large scale public input and dissemination of the information received, the undertaking will be massive. The members of this House who will be members of the special committee have other obligations and responsibilities. So the task is a large one.
[Mr. Epp.)
I fear that the stricture of the July 31 date will create a difficult situation. I fear that there may be a number of groups who will not have an opportunity to react, or that the committee or sub-committees will visit the major centres of Canada and that the smaller centres might not have a visit from the committee or sub-committees. Because of this many people may not have an opportunity to react to the green paper or present their views. As a result there may be complaints from many people that they did not have an opportunity to present their views.
I want to place a caveat on the record on behalf of my party. While we recognize the minister desires this schedule in respect of the study of the green paper, the date of July 31 is of great concern to us. While I do not intend to appear pessimistic or negative, I feel that in the initial stages the process will be agonizing because many of the questions strike at the very fundamental approach and attitude Canadians have taken in respect of this country.
We have welcomed groups of various backgrounds to this country where they can make their own way. After the initial reaction has been received when the committee has started travelling, after the views of Canadians have been received, I wonder whether the time frame is sufficient to provide for a period when Canadians will have a chance to think again, and reach a consensus in respect of this democratic Canadian goodwill. I would hope that the time frame would be such as to provide an immigration policy which recognizes all the population and allows a democratic approach to the question. Therefore I wish to impress upon the minister and the government very clearly that while the July 31 date is embodied in the motion it causes me a great deal of concern.
There is another problem which has come to my mind since the tabling of the green paper. I should like a reaction from the minister in this regard. I have received reports from immigration and customs officers who fear that a large number of people will soon enter Canada illegally because of their fear that restrictions will be imposed on immigration. There is a feeling that amnesty will have to be provided again in the not too distant future because it would be difficult to deport the large number of people who might be involved. I should like to impress upon the minister that it is incumbent on the officials of his department to be very wary in this situation.
In conclusion may I say that this party welcomes the work that is before us even though we see it as a massive undertaking. We are willing to co-operate; we are willing to co-operate on the basis of goodwill and frankness, on the basis that this will be discussed freely and that any information which is needed, which is accessible to the government and to no one else, will be made available to the committee and to members of the public in order that the final result will be that the committee will have travelled across Canada, that public hearings will have been held, and that out of this will have flowed an immigration policy that is fair, one with which most Canadians can identify, and that the result will be beneficial to all of us.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the establishment of this committee. I am opposed not only because it is to be a Senate committee
March 3, 1975

but also on the basis that if we are to look at the whole problem of immigration, which I doubt, then we should do it in as straightforward a manner as possible. If the other place is to be the place of sober second thought, then it should not make the original decision.
I suppose that there have been more changes made in the immigration program since 1952 because of the administration of that program than there have been in most programs. In fact the present immigration program bears little relationship to previous programs because of changes in administration. I would go so far as to say that it does not matter what the committee does, whom it hears and how extensive the opposition is, because officials in the minister's department have already made up their mind on the kind of immigration act they want to have, and the criteria on which it should be based.
I presume that if they wanted to, within two weeks the officials could present us with an amended immigration act. Evidence collected by the committee in its travelling across the country will do absolutely nothing to change their minds even though the committee's travels might stir up a lot of opinions that are under the surface and have not come to light.
It is a fact that in the last few years we have taken precautions not to establish a quota system but to change the regulations so as to establish exactly how many people we can allow into the country. We know how to stall in one area so as not to have more medical doctors coming in, and we know how to handle the situation in other areas where there is a need for doctors. We even know how much money it costs us to advertise to keep the right balance in this regard. All that has been done by the administration of the program, not by policy, not in accordance with the wishes of the Canadian public, and also not necessarily against their wishes. It is my personal opinion that this has been a fairly satisfactory arrangement.
I am aware of the fact that many people have been brought into the country, but it is interesting to remember that the last Immigration Act was brought in less than ten years after we actually established Canadian citizenship. Before that we were all British subjects, so the changes that have been made were drastic changes made in a relatively short period of time.
I am one of those who think that the immigration policy is not a complete mistake. This has never been more apparent than when the public was consulted and asked to accept refugees. This happened after the second world war, and since then from time to time when serious problems have developed throughout the world and certain countries were asked to accept immigrants on a refugee status. Most people will agree that in accepting those refugees we did not upset the balance we had already established, that in fact we maintained it by accepting people from various parts of the world, in spite of heavy immigration from central Europe after the war.
I suggest that the committee in travelling around the country and hearing representations in the short period of time given to it will not provide the public with the opportunity to express itself as to whether or not a defi-
Immigration Green Paper
nite and strong control should be exercised over the type of people we bring into Canada, as to the countries from which we bring those people and, much more important, where we should establish them in Canada.
We are well aware of the fact that in this country we have been plagued with pressure groups which have had a great deal of influence on officials in the Department of Manpower and Immigration. For example, let us consider the problem we have had with the medical profession. We have followed an open door policy with regard to medical people from any part of the country on two or three occasions, but recently we changed that position to one of almost total restriction. Medical associations in Toronto have said repeatedly that they have enough doctors in the province-although they turn out doctors from Ontario medical schools in limited numbers only-that they do not want any more doctors brought in because it will cut down on their incomes.
Almost all of the pressure groups have failed to take into consideration the needs of the population, and that involves the basic problem which the minister has mentioned on a number of occasions, namely, the difference between immigration to urban centres and immigration to the rural areas of Canada. It is true that the medical profession does not want any more doctors in Toronto than already there, and it wants only certain types of doctors or specialists, but it could certainly allow a large number of additional doctors to settle in other parts of Ontario, such as communities in parts of northern Ontario, which covers more than half the province, where doctors in every specialty and in every category are desperately needed.
Immigrant doctors are being prevented from practising there because the number of doctors in the province is restricted, and most are to be found in urban centres. Obviously medical associations are in control of the situa-. tion through hospital boards. The same is true with regard to plumbers and other trades and professions. They have methods of bringing about changes in the administration of the act.
I do not see how that situation can change in six months. I do not see how we will be able, in talking to people, to obtain an unbiased opinion as to whether or not it would be wise to decentralize our population growth, whether it would not be wise to bring in immigrants to rural areas in such a way as to have them stay there. I know that this poses many problems. When displaced persons came to Canada after the second world war they came on condition that they stay for two years in the job which they were originally given. Many of them stayed longer.
However, now we are interested in bringing in people for employment in mining, forestry and all types of development in the mid-Canada corridor where most of our resources are located. Where do most immigrants settle? Obviously they gravitate towards large centres of population, because in most cases, that is where their friends are and where they assimilate best. Also, they can find employment there easiest. In other areas of Canada, efforts will have to be made to find them employment.
In my own area in the last few years a number of people of Dutch origin have arrived and settled. At first they had

March 3, 1975
Immigration Green Paper
much difficulty and put a lot of effort into starting in farming operations in a small way. However, in only eight or ten years most of them have become pretty successful. I think that we were ill advised in placing them in that kind of community and asking them to start at the bottom, because if we provided them with some incentive they could become efficient producers right away because they are mainly well trained and they adapt to the community very well. However, they do not have money, and we do not help them make a go of it.
I am sure the minister will say that it is very hard to make people settle in a certain area, and I think that is true. I have often thought that possibly the Arab-Israeli problem could be solved if we brought either the Israelis or the Arabs-or perhaps even both-and put them somewhere in the sub Arctic region where they would have to make a go of it. Both are very enterprising peoples and would make a go of it, but the difficulty would be in keeping them there. That is an extreme position, however, and I am not really advocating it.
However, I do believe that we will have to bring people from other countries and that they must fit in, not in four or five generations but right away, and help develop the area where they settle. That does not appear to me, as a person from Northern Ontario, to be the city of Toronto. It does not need any more people. As one hon. member said, all that would do is establish a nation of Archie Bunkers. That is already happening, of course. If you ride the streetcar in Toronto you can hear people ask why foreigners are allowed into the country to take their jobs.
Of course one could easily stir up prejudice across the country; this government did that once and found there was more prejudice than it could handle. It is important, however, that the government have some indication of where prejudice exists. It is one thing to ask a man who works in a factory in Toronto what his position is on immigration, but it is another to ask someone who has been laid off his job and then sees someone else get it. The answers are likely to be quite different.
I believe the minister and his department have decided what the bill is to contain, and that this preliminary discussion is just an exercise in futility. His officials have studied the problem firsthand year in and year out. It is not something that developed overnight. We are not going to depopulate the over populated parts of the world and see how many people we can fit into Canada. Of course I do not think the minister is suggesting any such thing, nor is he suggesting that we should decide what the population should be by the year 2000 and work toward that target.
Immigration will be accepted in this country as long as it flows in harmony with our needs and ability to absorb it. We have never had a closed door immigration policy, and we should not start now. If the government wants to develop an immigration policy that is acceptable to the people I think it should first tackle the problem of urbanization.
Immigration officials, and persons connected with the other agencies who have close contact with the people who arrive in Canada daily, will be able to inform the commit-

tee of the problems they encounter. They know the difficulties that an immigration policy must tackle for certain classes and types of immigrants. I am not opposed to allowing the department to make the decision on what direction we want that policy to move. They are the people with the expertise, although certainly the minister must put his foot down every now and again to make sure that they retain a touch of humanity. I have not been unhappy about the flow of immigration, but I have been somewhat unhappy about the distribution and the rush to the major cities.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the minister would do better to introduce his new immigration act today rather than wait the six months he has allocated for this exercise. I listen to the hotline programs, as I am sure the minister does, so we know the prejudices that exist in the country-there are probably as many prejudices as there are citizens. Over the years I think Canadians for the most part have welcomed people from all countries and all ethnic backgrounds, and such people have helped build the Canadian mosaic. In most cases, Canadians felt they were sharing with the newcomers the resources that we have in abundance.
It should always be borne in mind that it does not really matter how poorly the immigrant is educated or from which country he comes. When immigrant children grow up and attend Canadian schools they are assimilated, because they are just as intelligent and have as much ability as anybody else. They have just as good a chance of getting ahead and making a contribution to the nation as the other children. When I worked in the mines many of the people there were almost illiterate, but their children grew up to make a name for themselves across the country and become a credit to the community.
We must be careful not to develop prejudice. We must not tell people that they have to speak French or have to speak English, or if they are Italian that they must go to Toronto, or if they are Greek that they must go to a Greek community. The minister's green paper exercise may well encourage resentment and prejudice. I am sure the minister can avoid this. If he heeds the kinds of recommendations normally made by a committee and by special interest groups, I am sure he can amend the Immigration Act and enable it to do the sort of job it has always done.
I put it to the minister that we are not dissatisfied with the results of immigration. Immigrants to Canada have become a credit to this country. Sure, some objected to Chilean refugees entering on the ground they might be Marxists; others objected, after World War II, to displaced persons from Europe entering, on the ground some of them might be Nazis. I am sure that some of these fears were well founded. All the same, one generation after the entry of these immigrants, what do you find? In almost every community the immigrants and their descendants have made a fine contribution to our national fabric. Yes, some of them are in this House. So do not let us say that we need immigrants only from England, or France, or that we need to keep the Chinese balance, or that we need more Italians and Greek people.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Don't forget the Swedes.
March 3, 1975


William Arnold Peters: We must not forget the Swedes and Norwegians. The Nordic peoples never needed much defending. They always defended themselves. They are not prejudiced, and people are not prejudiced against them. But, Mr. Speaker, we do not want the kind of prejudice I am speaking about stirred up now.
Why does the minister want a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to study this question?
I know that Mr. Dawson called the Senate the place of sober second thoughts, but the minister wants those sober second thoughts at the beginning of the discussion. The members of this House are elected; the members of the Senate are not. I therefore think unless we had a referendum, that if we are to investigate the wishes, aspirations and desires of the Canadian people on immigration, the members of the House of Commons should conduct the investigation. Once we pass a bill the Senate will have the right to amend, or to consider it with sober second thought. Of course, the Senate will do nothing of the kind. It is largely composed of Liberals, and Liberals will dominate the committee. The minister is trying to kill two birds with one stone, and I object.
In any event, Mr. Speaker ruled the other day, in connection with another matter, that co-operation between this House and the other place is not always desirable. I think the standing orders of the other place prohibit it in certain instances. Why ask for the establishment of a joint committee to study immigration?
The minister might be influenced by the fact that the other place is to be covered by CBC television. Probably the minister and other members want to bask in the reflected glory of Senators who may enjoy exposure on national television. I hope that is not what the minister wants.
A new immigration policy will only last for about 20 years; after that, because circumstances change, the policy will change. That being so, the committee in its travels across the country must exercise caution in making sure that it does not bring forward prejudices rather than ideas. As the woman appearing on television the other night in Toronto said, after the green paper has been given a full airing we may become a nation of Archie Bunkers, with every person looking over his shoulder at his neighbour. This has not happened before in this country, and I hope it never will. Canadians are charitable; they know their country is rich and are willing to share its riches.
Canadian immigration policies have worked to the advantage of Canada. Ethnic groups who have entered this country have made their contribution to Canada. Most become Canadians. The second generation, the descendants of immigrants, are pretty nearly indistinguishable from those who welcomed the original immigrants.
The minister's officials no doubt have ready a draft of the legislation which is to be presented some time after July. No doubt it could be introduced in this House within the next two weeks. In any event I suggest that the minister should seek his consensus from the Canadian population without raising the spectre of prejudice. Quite possibly the minister's suggested way of proceeding will not result in harmony being established. Possibly, the information he seeks can be obtained only by a full investigation. In any event I strongly urge the minister to
Immigration Green Paper
appoint a committee of this House only. Let us not make it a joint committee, a committee on which the other place will be represented. A joint committee should not consider the proposed legislation before it is even presented to this House.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the motion of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) for the appointment of a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to collect the views across the country of the citizens concerned about immigration, with a view to reorienting or reviewing the Canadian immigration policy.
Mr. Speaker, this debate need not be lengthy to be useful, this afternoon, since in the final analysis we are asked to decide whether or not a committee will be appointed, and if so, what its powers will be.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk of immigration, when the Minister of Manpower and Immigration launches a debate by publishing a green paper and distributing it across the country-I have here the briefs submitted by our fellow citizens on this important subject-he must expect that the debate will not be limited strictly to immigration as such. Canada is not a closed country, nor can it be. We cannot erect a fence around Canada and say: In the future, no immigrant may enter Canada. Obviously not. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, when immigrants are being recruited for Canada in their native lands, this recruitment must obviously be done in terms of the objectives and interests of Canada.
An immigration policy cannot be formulated that will please all the countries in the world to the detriment of Canada. That immigration policy must respect the objectives and interests of all Canadians from sea to sea. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is what was wrong with our immigration policy in the past. In many cases, immigrants have been required to do what is commonly known as the dirty work, seasonal jobs, as is now the case, for instance, in Quebec in a certain conflict at Louiseville, of which the minister has been informed. Workers are brought in to do a certain job and are then left to fend for themselves in the administrative mess of immigration. This shows, Mr. Speaker, that there is a problem in Canadian manpower as far as certain jobs are concerned, and that the present Immigration Act is often made flexible in the interest of the government but not of the immigrants.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, how are immigrants recruited? How are they selected? What kind of an investigation is made about these immigrants? When they arrive in Canada, how are they received, regardless if their native country? It is important that Canada, since we want and need immigrants, receive them sensibly and in an orderly fashion. Let us imagine a foreigner who arrives in Canada to stay and asks for immigrant status and who is left on his own, very often with language difficulties. What becomes of him? He will depend on the government to survive instead of being able to find for himself.
There are some great Canadians of foreign origin, and we all feel that the majority of immigrants have made a

March 3, 1975
Immigration Green Paper
very important contribution to Canada. We have only to think about the construction of the railroad in the West to realize that without the immigrants, this railroad could never have been built when it was by Mr. Macdonald. This is only one example among hundreds that show the important contribution of these people.
Mr. Speaker, I know personally several immigrants from my constituency in Montreal and in Quebec City. Many of them were faced with enormous difficulties from immigration offices when they tried to obtian their residence permits and Canadian citizenship. They did not receive from government agencies quite the reception they needed to integrate fully into Canadian society. You will hear these immigrants complain that Canadians point the finger of scorn at their children, for Canada is not yet mature enough to accept immigrants who have skins of a different colour and who speak a foreigh language.
Mr. Speaker, there is a humanitarian aspect to immigration which must not be overlooked.
Based on these general considerations, I feel that this committee will have many parts to play and will have an important function, depending on the orientation the minister chooses to give it. First of all, it will have to listen to what Canadians have to say about immigration and immigrants into this country. Then it will have to listen to what immigrants have to say about the current policy which many of them had to stand. Third, we will have to promote an effective dialogue and not merely a monologue between the Canadian people and the immigrants, so that we may establish together an immigration policy serving the interests of both the Canadian people, especially the economic and social interests of manpower, and the immigrants.
Mr. Speaker, such were the few comments I wanted to make in that connection. In conclusion, I would like to point out that Quebec is experiencing a serious decline in its birth rate. Moreover, statistics show without doubt that immigration has not always serve the Quebec interests. God knows that I am not a separatist and I would like to repeat it to the minister, I believe in Canada. I feel that immigration can help Quebec. Mr. Speaker, when establishing a national policy on immigration the distinctive entity of each Canadian province will have to be maintained.
By then, the minister will certainly have taken a step forward. The present Immigration Act is discriminatory in respect to the distribution of immigrants because of the advertising about the provinces of Quebec, Ontario or British Columbia, so that, in the last analysis, this policy has been detrimental to the general interests of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, in many instances, immigrants are not advised that the language spoken in Quebec is French. On his arrival in Canada, the immigrant feels lost in cities like Quebec, Victoriaville, Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivieres or Chicoutimi, because he does not know the language spoken there. He had not been told about it.
I believe the committee will have to consider this matter. Basic data will have to be provided so that the citizens of every province, and particularly the people in

Quebec, may be consulted so that an immigration policy useful to every province may be developed.
I can see the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (Mr. Stanfield) in the House. He once was a provincial Premier and he should be in a position to back what I say. It is important for provincial governments that our immigration policy should be one of help, and should not lead to frustrations, problems or troubles, especially in a province where in some respects the problem for immigrants is of a linguistic nature.
Mr. Speaker, I must add that, unfortunately, a great many Canadians resent the coming of immigrants to Canada. I am not one of them. However, I have to admit that Canadians are right in their often harsh but also positive criticism of immigration. How many Canadian families, they say, are unemployed, how many workers in Canada, in Victoriaville or elsewhere are unemployed, have difficulties with their governments, are the object of disrespect in their relationships with civil servants and public agencies? How many Canadians feel frustrated because of the economical, political or social situation? Mr. Speaker, we shall re-open the door to immigration some way or other to bring in labour in Canada.
According to Chapter 14, page 17 of the Green Paper, with respect to funds alloted to immigration, $41,718,000 are spent for immigration purposes in general. Mr. Speaker, that is a considerable amount of money to bring in manpower, and every time we do so we bring in new problems. Maybe our manpower policy is a negative one. Our present labour policy deters Canadian workers from working in particular areas. It is definitely outdated, definitely not adapted to our automation, modernistic society, and I think neither the Minister nor the Committee should restrict themselves to the only matter of immigration. They will have to agree to broaden the scope of this public debate for the impact of the immigration year on Canadian labour to be studied.
Mr. Speaker, should we heartily welcome in Canada 10,000 perfect immigrants in all respects, serious people, industrious, honest people, if at the same time Canadian workers were denied certain jobs and those immigrants were given preference, I think, Mr. Speaker, that in such a case the immigration policy would not serve the immigrants' interests since they would be put into conflict with Canadians. Neither would the immigration policy serve the Canadians' interests since they would be put into conflict with the immigrants and would be deprived of an eventual job. Finally, this immigration policy would have been a source of frustration and division in our country rather than unification of Canadians.
We will build our country, because immigration policy will contribute to the building of a country, to the extent where before speaking of immigration we will be willing to make good use of our labour, in order that Canadians can work according to their characteristics, their tastes, their personality, their creativity, before providing immigrants with similar jobs or calling in Canada other people.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, on that extremely important issue of the scandal that took place in Louisville-I call that a scandal, it is disgusting-I say those things should not happen in 1975.
March 3, 1975

In Louiseville, a certain company brought in manpower to do a kind of work, and at the end when they ran out of work, before the department and other people saw to it, and especially before those people got going, they wanted to send the immigrants back home. It is a bit like what happened in the case of the Haitians.
Mr. Speaker, I find it scandalous to displace foreigners who are our brothers, humans of other countries, to bring them here, and then get rid of them and send them back. If Canadians do not want to do certain jobs, it proves that our manpower policies-not necessarily Canadians-are wrong. Even if UIC officials, public investigators who run around, instead of looking for cheaters, to catch Canadians, strangle them and make them pay fines because they allegedly cheated the government, I say that efforts should be made to encourage Canadians to work. Then, Mr. Speaker, Canadians would believe a lot more in the future of their country. When that becomes a reality it is sure that with their pride and their nationalism they will be happy to share their national pride with people from other countries. Let us not ask Canadians to accept immigrants, whatever their origin, their language, their race or their religion, without knowing first if Canadians are ill-treated or forgotten. Mr. Speaker, if we want Canadians to really participate in the life of this country, if we want an immigration policy to really be valid and effective Canadians themselves must not apply it at home.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is a bad habit in this House when a special joint committee is set up and travels across the country to examine a question, there is a bad habit of sending such committees to larger centres-Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City sometimes. Indeed, I am quite convinced there are as many people in Victoriaville in my area, in Trois-Rivieres, Drummondville or Saint-Hyacinthe who have as many valuable views as people in Montreal or Toronto. I think that people in Toronto and Montreal did not invent anything. They do not have the monopoly of truth, Mr. Speaker.
If the minister is serious and really logical, if he wishes to raise a public debate at the national level, I think he should manage to convince the members of this committee to hold more than one hearing in the Northwest Territories, in Yukon, in Whitehorse, Saint John, Quebec City, Montreal, Toronto or Ottawa and not say goodbye, our terms of reference were for six months only.
Mr. Speaker, if the minister really wants Canadians to participate and really wants to know their views, I think we should go also in small urban centres and even in rural communities. How many immigrants went to settle in these areas or in small towns like Victoriaville or Drummondville? How many? It could be surprising, but they are many. This is why there are Canadians in Victoriaville, Drummondville, Saint-Hyaeinthe, Trois-Rivieres, who have to welcome immigrants. Those Canadians should be given the opportunity to express their views concerning the formulation of such a policy.
Lastly Mr. Speaker, there is an example I wish to mention. I had a friend from France who was told that he could come to Canada with the teaching degrees he had. He left his position in France and came to Canada in a municipality that I shall not name as it is small and everyone would know who it is.
Grain
Then he came to Canada and the Quebec government never recognized his degrees. He had to go back to France at his own expenses. He had to make a general collect, to beg and return directly to France. Mr. Speaker, he had become my friend and could have made a good Canadian but because he had been misinformed he returned to France with a poor opinion about our country. I feel sorry about it because he could have made an excellent Canadian and because he returned there and will reflect a bad image of Canada. But he talks about what he saw, what he felt, and he has had a bad experience.
Mr. Speaker, I think that if the Minister wants to start a profitable dialogue with the population, he must expect that the discussion will not be restricted to the question of immigration. The whole question of immigration will have to be debated, that is from the leave from the country of origin to the moment of arrival in the host country, and the manpower policy will have to be taken into account. I think the minister must expect, anyway, that the Social Credit party will make representations on the judicious use of Canadian manpower to encourage our families, our workers; then we can speak positively about immigration. Only under those conditions, Mr. Speaker, will an immigration policy serve both the interests of immigrants and those of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-10, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, as reported from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am in a very embarrassing position, something which is unique for me, I believe, in this House.


John Napier Turner: That is the one position you feel comfortable in.


Gerald William Baldwin: I thought, after discussion with members on the government side, that the intention was to proceed with Bill C-43 relating to the Law Reform Commission. We had undertaken that there would be rapid passage of that bill, but the hon. member from our party who had some comments to make, the hon. member for Fundy-Roy-al, is not here at this point-he had intended to be here by six o'clock so that he could speak at eight. I am told he has encountered some difficulties about getting here. I had told members on our side who are concerned about this other legislation now before us that it was doubtful whether it would come on until this evening. That is the position in which we find ourselves.
I can see the hon. member for Timiskaming in his place. I am sure that if he and I were driven to it we could make a number of speeches. Perhaps even a member on the

March 3, 1975
Law Reform Commission
government side might be persuaded to open his mouth for a change. However, since we have done so very well today, as well as doing very well on Friday and Thursday of last week, I hope the House might be flexible enough to permit Your Honour to see that it is now five o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I go along with that suggestion and make a slight addition to it. There are three bills for which report stage is being asked, on none of which there is to be any debate at this point. Why do we not give those three bills their report stage concurrence? We can then post them all for third reading, and have third reading debate on one or more of them tonight. This will get us a little closer to five o'clock, and we can then take the motion of the hon. member for Mackenzie.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, there are times when my hon. friend is apt to be scintillating, and this is one of them.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely on that proposition. If I may be allowed a comment, Bill C-44 might be added.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, it is not at the report stage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The House has heard the suggestion. Is it agreed that the three bills at report stage be given concurrence by the House, and third reading reserved until later this day?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us do them one at a time so that the government does not slip anything in unnoticed.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is right. They might include Bill C-44.


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-10, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, as reported from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


LAW REFORM COMMISSION ACT
Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-43, to amend the Law Reform Commission Act, as reported from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
Otto Emil Lang: that Bill S-6, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, as reported from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner)-Industry-Textiles-Layoffs resulting from imports; the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-Public Service-Stoppage of grain shipments by strike of general labour and trades group; the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Alleged delay in establishing broadcasting station for Okanagan Valley.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to providing old age security pension to all women at age sixty and that the qualifying age for all males be lowered by one year in each successive year to age sixty.
March 3, 1975


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since we have now called it five o'clock, whatever the time is, I trust it is understood that the time allotted to the motion in the name of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) will run until six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I at long last rise to introduce this motion. Having been a member of the House for a few years I have repeatedly placed a motion such as this on the order paper, and hoped that at some time we might give consideration to this problem. I have been concerned about this matter for a good many years, as have many other members of the House, and as I am sure have others outside the House.
When one lives in a rural community one comes to realize that there are many in our society who are underprivileged, and one has the opportunity to meet poverty face to face. Many of us have known people who have struggled in their endeavours to provide a livelihood for themselves in one form or another. Some have 'met with tremendous success. Others in our society have, unfortunately, never tasted success.
There are too many people in this category. Many people in our society point the finger at the advances that have been made in social welfare legislation-and there have been many-but I have become concerned at the direction in which some welfare measures have taken us. It seems to me that our system of priorities has somehow become all mixed up, and perhaps it is because of the attempt by the ruling government of the day to cover as many people as possible and to pass many pieces of legislation that protect us, as the saying goes, from the cradle to the grave.
In recent years an attempt has been made to look after a group of people who, to my way of thinking, have not yet equally earned a right to their share of the wealth in this country as have others. In many cases we find the administration of social assistance schemes in the hands of provincial governments. Each provincial government has its own method of administering a program; some have a different set of priorities from others. Generally speaking they all work toward improving the lot of the individual, but some provide more assistance, or more opportunity for assitance.
Thus we have what appears to be a hodge-podge of plans that do not get to what I consider to be the root of a problem affecting too many people in their later years. Many of the people I am concerned with in this particular motion were, if they were fortunate, employed during the depression years, and if one goes back to those years one will remember that not too many industries had pension plans of any kind. Government pension plans in those days were simply ideas that were just taking root; the public treasury could not sustain an elaborate plan, and so many people today do not receive a pension of any sort when they retire. These people who find themselves in the twilight of their years are unable to retire from their fields of endeavour, but must continue in employment when perhaps their health is not such that would justify society
Old. Age Pension
asking them to continue. Thank God there are many who are in good health and are able to continue working.
I do not wish to place upon society a scheme which would be bureaucratically top heavy. Sometimes I believe the most simple way is the best way. We should be introducing programs through a system of evolution in such a way that we do not penalize those in our society who are paying the taxes, but at the same time look after the needs of others. We should have a system which allows those who are not able to continue actively in employment to retire. These people have surely earned this right.
Many of the schemes which have been in effect are meagre, and here I think of some of the pension plans the railway companies have had over the years. While there has been some form of pension scheme, many will argue that the pensions received in no way take into account the tremendous inflationary pressures we face today. It is time for the government to take into account those who have been employed in industry and who receive meagre pensions. It is also time for the government to take into account the self-employed people who have not contributed, in any way over the years, toward plans.
I think also of the many thousands of Indian people who have lived a very hard life yet have never had the opportunity to earn an appreciable income. There are many people today who are accustomed to working and are still struggling while this society seems bent upon relieving the pressure on other groups, and I think here of the young people. Some of the plans we have come up with may be admirable, and they may meet some need, but too often we hear the complaint that too many young people are on welfare while too many old people are unable to receive assistance.
I wonder why it is that we think it proper to move in areas such as unemployment insurance to relieve the stresses that may be inherent in not being able to earn a living, while at the same time we do not take into account the needs of those people, 60 years and over, who are unable to receive any form of assistance, and here I think of those who have applied for assistance which has been denied because of the invariable regulations that require them to dispose of all the possessions they have in order to qualify.
I have not framed my motion in such a way that we would suddenly be burdened with a huge tax bill in order to accomplish the goals set forth. I have suggested to the government that consideration be given to granting immediate pensions to women 60 years of age and over. In many instances such women have never been employed in industry. It is only in recent years that more and more women have been going into the labour market.
In many cases the men who have been the breadwinners have been employed in industry the nature of which has shortened their life expectancy. I think of those employed in the lumber industry, for example. No longer can those people be expected to go out into the bush and suffer the elements, as they have in the past, in order to continue to provide for themselves and their families. I think also of some of the evidence regarding employment in the mining industry. Very recently we were disturbed about what was
3728

Old Age Pension
taking place in the asbestos mines. These people must continue to work, but they know that by doing so they are shortening their lives. Many of them would like to retire, yet they must continue because under our system a pension is not available until age 65. Our society must take a serious look at situations of this kind.
It is perfectly all right for the government to suggest it is moving in the direction of a guaranteed income plan, but the simple fact is that it will be many years before this is an accomplished fact. Such a scheme involves provincial participation. While there may be a willingness on the part of some provinces to participate in this scheme, the government will have to overcome many obstacles.
There are many people in our society who believe there is something proper about working for a living, and I belong to that group. There are a good many people who feel we have gone too far already with our welfare schemes. I am sure there will be resistance to the government moving in the direction of a guaranteed income plan. There are so many unknown factors involved in the 10 provinces participating in such a plan that it would be unwise for the government to move in that direction in haste. The government has been working on plans to be used as a test in certain areas, but before we get all the answers to our questions time will have moved on; it is this precious time that is of the essence, particularly when one considers that every day that goes by one is closer to the end.
There are many people of age 60 who are no longer capable of carrying on in their traditional employment. I have some statistics which indicate that the average age of a farmer today is 57. I personally know of many who would be prepared to sell off whatever small possessions they might have in order to retire, but because of the uncertainty of the agricultural economy they are obliged to continue working.
I am afraid we may be too late if we should move in the direction indicated by the government, which is the direction of an annual income for everyone. In that case many people may not receive any benefit. I am sure every member of this House is familiar with such cases in many parts of this country. A lot of these people have laid the foundation of our society as we know it today. They have done a good job.
The least amount of criticism one hears about the various plans we have in different welfare categories relates to the area of old age security. I am always dubious concerning plans which involve means tests in order that people may qualify. Many people find it very humiliating to have to announce to the world that, after a period of 60 years, they have failed. So they quietly shrug their shoulders and bury themselves in their little homes or apartments, living on what they have. I do not think this should be necessary.
One remembers the type of criticism we heard in respect of the old age pension being universal. We were given examples of millionaires, and there were a few around us in this House. The suggestion was made that millionaires would receive the benefit. I do not believe that is either a correct or fair approach. At income tax time one could give

a few examples. We must realize that a transfer of payment is involved and that it goes back to the government. One might look at the number of public servants who will be required this coming year. One realizes that it is not in our general interest to build up a bureaucracy, because not only is it a federal bureaucracy that would have to be built up to administer any plan which would take into account any guaranteed income which may be perceived, but there is also the provincial bureaucracy that will be involved. Perhaps this is something we lose sight of, Mr. Speaker.
We must realize that it is not only the salaries of these employees which would be involved but also the cost of offices and general administration. In a sense there are hidden costs. The easiest way is to have a universal payment for those who have reached the age suggested in my motion.
Now I wish to mention another aspect of this matter. Many people will suggest this is a very costly plan.


An hon. Member:: How much will it cost?


Stanley James Korchinski: It will cost something in the area of $600 million a year. If one takes into account the total budgetary estimates of public funds, this represents something like two per cent. We must remember that there are something in the order of 817,000 unemployed persons and that many of these people would not receive assistance from the unemployment insurance plan. We must also realize that because of the assistance plans in many provinces it is difficult to estimate the total cost because one cannot calculate the amount that will come back in the form of income tax payments.
In the initial stages my plan would take into account some 380,000 females. There is a progression so far as males are concerned. Some 750,000 individuals would eventually be encompassed. We might look at the entire budgeted estimates for this year.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, I must interrupt the hon. member because the time allotted to him has expired. Unless there is unanimous consent he will not be allowed to complete his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent that the hon. member may complete his remarks?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Two minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Mackenzie.


Stanley James Korchinski: I thank the House. I shall be very brief.
I certainly do not wish to talk out my own motion. When one thinks of the fact that just over ten years ago our total budget was in the order of approximately $6 billion and now is something in the order of $28 billion, certainly the amount required in this case would be within our means. I ask the House not to talk out this bill but rather to give it careful consideration. In the absence of anything in the way of a guaranteed annual income I ask for this consideration in respect of the people in this particular group.
March 3, 1975


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker,
I am grateful that this issue has been brought up by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski). But I find it is the absolute antithesis of equality. While women for too long have been dominated and controlled by men and by society, and while they have been restricted and without independence even in respect of the right to claim a mortgage, I still feel that a bill of this type would be an expression of national guilt, this would be as discriminatory as the past has been to women.
I favour the right of all people, male or female, to retire on pension at age 60 if this can be handled actuarially. But I also believe people should have the right to continue to work as long as they can be productive, since the period between age 60 and 65 is a period of perhaps highest opportunity and highest income in preparation for the inescapable time when we must all live on a fixed income.
Many men and women who have worked since their teens, for virtually 40 years of their lives, and who have contributed to the building of this country may be tired of existing in the work market and should be allowed to retire on pension. I would hope the Canada Pension Plan will one day be such that it can support such early retirement, so that people who have leisure may be able to travel as the young have been able to do in recent years. I want them to be able to travel and perhaps receive subsidies similar to those the young people have been receiving through various grants, while they are still vigorous and young enough to enjoy it.
However, I object to anything which gives special privileges because one is a woman, because one is an Indian, or because one is a Jew. It is inverse discrimination which is abhorrent to me. I think everyone, whether women or otherwise, should receive benefits on the basis of merit and equality.
I object very strenuously to this because it would give the employer the right to allow women to drift back into the position of being compulsorily retired at age 60. Again I say it is essential that we all have the right of choice to retire at a time when we know we can manage on the fixed income that is inevitable during retirement years.
I object to the motion because it is inverse discrimination which is tacit in this recommendation. It is a matter of concern to me that there are people who lean over backward to prove that they are not discriminating. To me this is the danger of such a well intentioned motion. I think it overcompensates for past omissions and discriminations. Perhaps it is a reflection of the national and industrial guilt that men now feel and are expressing.
I must say, however, that women have come a long, long way in the last five years, but unfortunately there are still men who are unaware of women's rightful place in society. When I sit in committees I always see groups of men in top executive positions, and I wait hopefully for the day when women will have the opportunity to become executives themselves with the attendant pensions that go with those higher offices.
I am opposed to any type of discrimination, no matter how well intentioned. I know I am repeating myself, but I learned as a school girl learning grammar that repetition
Old Age Pension
is great for emphasis. So let me tell every one here who might forget it that inverse discrimination is as destructive to society as is discrimination itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: Over the years there has been too much waste of valuable talent, expertise and experience because of the enforced retirement of people. I do not think retirement should be established according to the calendar-it should be established according to competence. It is vital to Canadians and to Canada that all of us work, and give as long as we are capable of doing so and if we choose to do so.
Perhaps a formula should be worked out between management and employees so that people can work as long as they contribute. Unfortunately, it is always the management's choice when an employee should retire. They can keep people in their employment if they choose to do so, but the employee has no choice. Perhaps some day we will learn not to guide our actions in society by age or by sex but by the worth of the human being.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), I have one or two criticisms to make of the way in which the motion of my friend, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), is worded. But I do not think that that criticism should take us away from the main point of the motion, which is that in one way or another pensions should be made available at the age of 60. In that respect I commend my hon. friend for having put forward a motion that produces a discussion of pensions, and I congratulate him on being lucky enough in the draw to get his motion before the House at this stage of the session. I hope that my motion, which is No. 39, will be reached before the end of the session, and I suspect, by the way the session is going, it will be, Mr. Speaker.
The criticism that has been made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway really is quite valid. Women seek not special privilege; women seek equality. I can understand the feeling of women with respect to a motion that asks for something for them that is not to be made available to women and men alike. That is why I hope that one of these days my motion in this area will be reached, because it calls for pensions under both the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan to be available to all persons at the age of 60 who are out of the labour market or are prepared to leave it.
I have made this reference to my motion because I think it answers both my friend, the hon. member for Mackenzie, and my friend, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. It answers the hon. member for Mackenzie in that it does not discriminate between men and women; it wants the same benefit made available to both. I suggest that my motion answers an argument put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who seems to be afraid of pensions at a certain age carrying the implication that retirement is being forced. No one is seeking forced retirement. What we are seeking is the possibility of retirement, and there is no possibility of retirement unless adequate pensions are available.
28996-3P/2

March 3, 1975
Old Age Pension
I suggest to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, and to the hon. member for South Western Nova (Miss Campbell), if she enters this debate a little later, that it is not really heresy to be talking in this place about pensions at an age under 65. Right now it is possible for those who are in the RCMP or in the Canadian armed forces to retire at a younger age. Some of them who have done so would want me to remind the House of the fact that their pensions are not escalated by the cost of living until they reach 60, which is an injustice that ought to be corrected. At any rate, retirement at the age of 48, 50 or 52 is possible for certain persons, namely, those whom I have just mentioned.
It is also a fact that public servants generally are free to retire at the age of 60. They can go on working until they are 65, but they may retire at the age of 60, although their pensions could be less than they would be at 65, depending on how many years of service they have had, and also depending on the level of earnings during their best six years.
In addition to the fact that to all public servants the possibility of retiring at the age of 60 is open, it is possible for some public servants to retire at the age of 55. I refer in particular to those who have 30 years of service. A public servant who is 55 years of age or over and has 30 years in the public service, may retire at that point without any penalty factor in his pension. Thus, at 55 years of age a public servant who has 30 years of service gets 30 times 2 or 60 per cent of the average of his best six years as his pension.
There are instances in the public service today, particularly at higher levels, of persons retiring at ages between 55 and 60 because a reasonable pension is available to them. They are not forced to retire. No pensionable age, in terms of public pensions, forces retirement; it simply makes retirement possible.
I feel very strongly that the time has come when we should seriously amend our legislation to make retirement possible at the age of 60. That is what I seek in my motion. If my hon. friend's motion is talked out, I hope the same will not happen to mine. What I seek in my motion No. 39 is that under both the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan persons who are out of the labour market or leave it could get their full pensions at that point.
I want to come back again to the point that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway made about drawing the line between men and women. I am sure that the hon. member for Mackenzie did not mean to do that. He is well intentioned, as the hon. member from across the way said. He wants to get the pensionable age down. I think it is somewhat unfair to lower it to 60 right away for women but to tell men that they have to wait five years in which it would be brought down a year at a time.
The other point I want to make is this, Mr. Speaker. I am very much aware, from my contacts and correspondence, of the great number of women, particularly spinsters and widows, in that age bracket who feel the need of a pension without having to wait until age 65. But I am also conscious of the great number of men, particularly those in

heavy industry who have endured the rat race about as long as they can stand it, who should also be considered for early retirement. Every time we go through an election campaign and I meet thousands of shop workers in my constituency, morning after morning as I greet them the men ask when the pensionable age is going to come down to 60. I often look at a man and think he looks older than I do only to find out he is about 58 and has been working in a foundry or a railway shop or the packing industry or in the needle trades and has been in the rat race for years. It is just as hard for him to keep going to age 65 as it is for a woman.
I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway who says "Let's put this on an equal basis"; but I submit that is no reason for taking the other line that she did, that there is something wrong about discussing 60 as a reasonable retirement age. I think that has to come. I remember how we went all through these arguments when I first came to this House. The pension was then payable at age 70 and when we argued for it at age 65 we heard the same arguments that were used today-"We need to work", "You take away the meaning of life" and "The state cannot afford it". But we brought the pensionable age down from 70 to 65, even if we had to do it a year at a time.
I think the pension should be available for all persons, Mr. Speaker, and I think the best criterion to establish is that those persons should be out of the labour market. That would cover spouses between age 60 and 65, male or female, bachelors, spinsters, widows and widowers, but on the one condition-that they are out of the labour market. This leads me to say again that what I find wrong with the government proposal that is to come forward some time this year is that it would provide pensions to spouses between age 60 and 65 where the other spouse, male or female, is 65 or over and is receiving a pension. One thing wrong with that is the means test, but the fundamental thing that is wrong is that it says to some women "You will qualify because you have a husband; you are a spouse in that age bracket", but to other women, spinsters or widows, the pension will not be available. The same can apply to men. A man between age 60 and 65 with a wife over 65 will qualify for a pension. A man who is a widower or a bachelor in the same age bracket will not qualify.
There is just as much wrong with the government's proposal as there is with my hon. friend's proposal, Mr. Speaker. I think the slight difference is that my hon. friend is willing to listen to reason and change his, but it is difficult to change the government once it has laid down its position.
I welcome the motion before us this afternoon. The more times this subject comes up, the better. I enjoyed being here during the years when we got the pensionable age down from 70 to 65 and got the pension increased. The time to get it reduced from age 65 to 60 for all those people no longer in the labour market, is now, right now, today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) on a point of order.


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 37(1) I take this opportunity with the greatest respect to correct the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He seems to have misunderstood or misquoted
March 3, 1975

me. I did not say that I do not favour retirement at age 60. I favour it deeply and feel it is most important. What I said was that I do not want the possibility of it becoming mandatory as it gradually might. I stress strongly that at age 60, people are vigorous and well enough to enjoy travel and they should have the choice. But I did not want it exclusively for women; I want it for all people who chose that course.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that is a correction of what the hon. member said and not a correction of my remarks.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roherval: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the motion introduced by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski). On reading this motion, I wondered what was really the point of it. The hon. member probably wanted to please women, but I realized, after what the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) retorted to him, that he had defeated his object, because the member for Vancouver-Kings-way actually found in that motion a hidden discrimination against women. All the same, I am sure the hon. member who moved that motion was well-intentioned and wanted to give housewives the opportunity to get their pensions at sixty, even though they would have been ahead of the men for once.
Mr. Speaker, the matter of lowering the pension age to 60 is nothing new. We were the first to advocate here the granting of old age security pension. Pensionable age was first set at 70, and then lowered to 65. During two election campaigns we asked that pensionable age be lowered to 60. Ninety percent of the people favoured that move, although the government has been reluctant to do so until now.
We even forced them, during the last election campaign, to promise pensions at 60. Let me say at this point, to set the record straight, that we proposed pensions be paid at 60 only to those who wished to retire, and not as a compulsory move. During the last election, we heard Liberals promising pensions for 60 years old. We thought that we were finally going to get it. We thought this would be available to all Canadians. It has always been my position in this House that when reforms or amendements are proposed to social legislation, the first feature of the legislation should be universality. As soon as one enters into details, into sections of the act, discrimination starts. If pensions were paid at age 60, it would have to be real pension, not the current "gimmick" under which 60 percent comes from old age security and 40 percent from charity groups. One thing should be avoided, namely that the act require hundreds and thousands of inspectors to investigate pensioners' homes to see if they did not hide $100 or $200. This is simply ridiculous, is deriding the aged.
If a pension is paid, it is a pension, period. There should be no other test than birth date. No two bit inspector or civil servant should get into old people's homes to unsettle them and often make them sick. We asked the government a number of times to lower pensionable age to 60 for everybody, men and women, who would like to have it and we added that it should be given to the wife who is under 60, at least 65 today, when she had been staying home without salary. We then thought about the family salary;
Old Age Pension
since the mother stays home, looks after her children, the father's salary is necessarily considered as a family salary; to supplement this salary we asked that the mother be given the same pension as her hunband when the latter reaches pension age. I think it is only fair. It is not discriminatory at all; it is only fair to the mother, in the absence of a better system; we should have the family salary today, the salary of the mother. There is no such salary and there will not be one immediately, at least not with this government.
To prevent discrimination, particularly in Quebec, where when the hunband reaches 65, the couple has to live four or five years only on the hunband's pension, when the mother is three, four or five years younger. That is what I call discrimination. I regard such laws as antisocial. This is why we were asking in these particular cases that the mother be given a pension similar to that of her husband.
Now the government at least says that next fall a pension will be given to the mother of a family at age sixty, but that in principle such pension becomes available at sixty five. But the mother of a family, probably in the fall-


An hon. Member:: For the spouse!


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: For the spouse, of course. A pension will be given to the spouse at sixty. I agree. But under what conditions? We say; Well, the spouse should not receive an income. He must have only his pension. Good care should be taken to have it that way. There will again be inquiries upon inquiries so that only 10 per cent of mothers will be able to have a pension. These are all little annoyances, little implications which explain why legislation passed here is effective to the extent of 10 or 12 per cent only.
Mr. Speaker, if this legislation is passed let it be passed for all mothers. The person getting an income pays tax at the end of the year. But that will prevent us from having the pension amount eroded by the small inspectors who are on the look-out thoughout Canada for all those women.
It would be so simple to simplify the legislation. But we complicate everything in the law. During my 15 years in this House, I noticed that laws are always made for technocrats, for higher officials. Let us double, triple the number of high-ranking officials, and everything will go smoothly! The pension, finally, is but a pretext to fill offices with high-ranking officials.
It is about time, when we vote a credit, to think that it should go to the one who needs it and that we should not have to spend two thirds of the amount for inspections and regulations which often nullify the laws we vote here so as to give the least possible. This is how things are being done in this House, we vote, it looks good. Whenever a law is passed, people know about it and say: How marvelous. But in the end, there is nothing left. Why? Because we have a government of officials. It exists for officials and not for the needs of the Canadian people.
I congratulate the hon. member who proposed this motion. I should like it to be more universal and I hope with all my heart that this fall, at least, we do not fail. As to the wives younger than their husband, those from 60 to 65 years, all those who want it, and I am not referring here

March 3, 1975
Old Age Pension
to working wives, as the one I was speaking of a while ago, I can understand her point, I hope the government decides once and for all to give them what they need, what they are entitled to.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) strikes me as being manifestly in contradiction to our whole policy as well as the principles of social justice. When governments develop social security policies, and this applies to this government, and are in the process of planning social security changes, the most important consideration they must bear in mind is the equity of the measures they propose to introduce. The hon. member alluded to this government's system of priorities. I think he said something about their being all mixed up. I shall return to that point.
As I said, governments must consider the equity of their measures. By that, I mean they must avoid discrimination in setting varying eligibility conditions and benefits based on artificial distinctions, such as sex, which may be unrelated, or occupation, which may be totally irrelevant. To my mind, the hon. member's proposal for lowering the general pensionable age to 60 is not serious. Personally, I think there is much to be said for lowering the pensionable age to 60; but the economics, the cost, as mentioned by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) last year, is astronomical. I think the minister said that this proposal would cost $1.2 billion per year.
Governments must strive to treat all people equally. Their attempt to do this was demonstrated by the recently entered into federal-provincial agreement for removing from the Canada Pension Plan differences in benefits based on sex. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has spoken about differences in CPP benefits based on sex. As I say, these differences have now been eliminated. The position of the government of Canada is this; Different retirement ages for men and women would constitute discrimination. This discrimination has been eliminated.
If we agree that the principle of a good social security review is valid, we should be wrong in endorsing the sort of motion we are discussing today. The government is committed to removing discriminatory provisions from existing federal legislation and, to this end, has introduced the omnibus bill on the status of women as well as amendments to superannuation legislation and legislation affecting other federal pensions. No one denies the tenuous position of many housewives whom the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Miss Begin) rightly defined as house mistresses. I truly believe that the problem such women face has moved out of the realm of pure biology and into the realm of economics. I wish to consider it from that angle.
Early retirement for women, as for men, may actually be discriminatory. But let us consider for a moment the implications of early retirement within our present inflationary context, a context in which nearly all feel compelled to re-assess lifestyles because of the rapidly deteriorating purchasing power of incomes. A Financial Times survey carried out not long ago, and based on a study by 28

leading Canadian and United States companies, indicated that the great North American dream of early retirement is in trouble, apparently because of inflation and poor planning. In brief, most of these consultants, according to the same study, seem to agree that the best advice to give these people at this time is to keep working.
There is yet another important factor which governments must not overlook, quite apart from the costs such a scheme would incur. I am referring to the question of priorities. There is no doubt, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare himself pointed out, if the state were a limitless reservoir of funds, it would certainly lower the eligibility age to 60. It so happens the government is not an inexhaustible source of funds. Hence, priorities must be established and respected. That in fact, is the responsibility, the burden of governments and indeed a responsibility which lies not only with the federal government but with the provincial governments as well.
Choices must be made and decisions must take into account the total existing requirements. True, our policies must meet the needs of our older citizens and even, if need be, before retirement. However, along with these, we must also cope with the problems facing the disabled and the handicapped. We must supplement the income of the working-poor. We must implement programs to encourage the low-wage earners to remain in the labour forces. For those who can work, but are without a job, we must find ways and means to allow them to do so. Moreover, there is the single mother whose income is either non-existent or unacceptably low. We must remember housing needs, social services, such as day-care centres, and so on. From these various needs a rational list of priorities must be drawn by order of importance.
The question of income naturally leads us to yet another facet of equity in a social security context, income distribution. In this respect, just how equitable would the adoption of a motion such as the one being discussed today be in terms of allowing all income groups in our society to recoup a fair share of the nation's revenue. I find it difficult to see the motion in this context.
Although one could hardly claim to have exhausted the many aspects of the problem, I trust hon. members of the House by now have dismissed the proposed motion as irrational and unwise. By adopting this measure, the government would only commit a recurring mistake, one for which several other governments could be reproached, that is the single-minded pursuit of one overriding policy objective at the expense of all others. That is completely unacceptable at this time. It is the government's duty to demonstrate wisdom in discerning between first and secondary priorities, and quite often the only choice open to us is to compromise between these priorities.
As a last thought, Mr. Speaker, I might add that my Liberal colleagues and I are far from being insensitive to the problems of the elderly. The record of the Liberal government attests to that. I strongly believe we have to weigh the problems pertaining to senior citizens in relation to all the other problems, and the ability of this country to pay for the solution of them.
March 3, 1975

The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) stated that he felt this proposal could justifiably be included in this $28 billion budget. I do not know what part of the budget he would eliminate in order to accommodate this proposal. I do not believe, in view of the sum total of the budget, this measure is justified, at this time, although in years to come possibly it could be if we reduced the pensionable age to 60. This or subsequent governments would not reduce the pensionable age to 60 on a voluntary basis without any compromises.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare stated in this House that the solution to our problems in social security lies, not through bringing about a broad expansion, or a general lowering of pension benefits to those who are 60 or 55, but rather through a system of guaranteed income or income supplementation, which would be available to all, regardless of age, former occupation, present condition, or sex. That is what the social security review is all about.
We recently received a rather extensive document regarding the whole problem of social security review. I know that hon. members are very interested in suggestions put forward by the federal government. I am told that the provinces in general are very co-operative. On the other hand, it is the ability to pay for, not the desire to offer this pension that is the biggest issue. If this government spends too much, the opposition criticizes us for over-spending. We are criticized for our priorities.
Here we are establishing a priority. We said the Canada Pension Plan will be enlarged to include the spouse. In spite of what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, I find this a very progressive move. It will possibly be studied in committee soon and, I hope, come into effect in October 1975.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-43, to amend the Law Reform Commission Act, be read the third time and do pass.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief tonight. I should like to leave one thought with the House on third reading. At the outset, I
Law Reform Commission Act
should like to say that every member of the House of Commons, every lawyer, anyhow, supports the idea of the Law Reform Commission and its work. To illustrate the difficulty of the field in which it is engaged, perhaps I might be allowed to quote from a Russian philosopher. Speaking about the problem of segregating the good from the bad, he had this to say:
Let the reader who expects this book to be a political expose slam its covers shut right now. If only it were so simple! If only there were people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place. Sometimes it is squeezed one way by exuberant evil and sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish. One and the same human being is, at various ages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood. But his name doesn't change and to that name we ascribe the whole lot, good and evil.
I understand well the functions of the Law Reform Commission and I have just done some research on the various reports the Commission has brought out. Up to this point, the Commission has been engaged, it seems to me, in a philosophic approach. On the practical side it has been dealing with the reform of our correctional institutions, and so on. However, it is time, now, for the Law Reform Commission, this parliament and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) in particular to examine the Criminal Code carefully with a view to making necessary changes. I am speaking from memory, but I believe it was Stevens of England who put the Code together in 1887 and except for a few changes it was adopted by Canada in the early 1900's-1906 to be exact. Since then, some changes have been made but there are still sections of it which provide, for example, for a person seven years and older being charged with a criminal offence in certain circumstances; there are still sections dealing with insanity which are more than 100 years old.
This is, of course, International Women's Year the theme of which is equality for the other sex, a concept I certainly endorse. There are certain sections dealing with certain offences; if a male is a certain age and the female is a certain age, the male is subject to a charge of statutory rape. I have brought these sections to the attention of the minister and of the Commission. Dozens of sections are archaic and outdated; it is high time they were changed, especially in the light of the fact that the government has been returned with a big majority and with the endorsa-tion of the Canadian people. This is the time for us to get together and produce a Criminal Code adapted to the situation in 1975 rather than conditions in 1910, 1920, 1930 or even a decade ago. Let us get on with the job. Let us streamline and reform the Criminal Code to meet the changed social climate now.
It seems to me we have lost the track. All the efforts of the Law Reform Commission seem to be directed to the treatment of those who have committed violent crimes-I shall not get into that field now, because I have definite views on it. I have a great deal of respect for the Department of Justice. I think the department can be proud of its record over the years, especially when one compares it with what has been taking place in other countries, including the United States. One can be proud of the men

Grain
who work there and who have worked there over the years. The department has benefitted from the work of good scholars, many of them Rhodes scholars, conscientious workers and fine persons who really believe there should be a new national policy as far as the Criminal Code is concerned.
Having said that, and spoken for less than ten minutes, which is not long for the hon. member for Calgary North, I will simply conclude by asking the minister to get on with the job.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-10, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read the third time and do pass.


Mr.  J. H. Homer@Crowfoot: Mr. Speaker, I am utterly amazed that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) should quickly cry "carried" when you called this bill. The NDP have long professed to be the spokesmen for the wheat farmer of Saskatchewan. One can only assume that they sorely miss the old and tired member of the National Farmers Union who was a member of parliament for a short while; I seem to have forgotten his name but I think he was from Saskatoon-Biggar. He was old and tired, but he always tried to keep the NDP interested in the Saskatchewan farmer. If he were still here he would not have let the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre shout "carried" to a grain marketing bill at a time when the grain marketing situation in Canada is in utter chaos. Any member of the House would be derelict in his duty if he allowed the bill to pass without referring to some of the errors the government has made recently and is making today in the area of grain marketing.
Many members may wonder what Bill C-10 is all about. It is a strange piece of legislation. I well remember around 1957, 1958 or 1959 the government of the day bringing in a bill on cash advances that would allow the farmer to receive money for grain he held in storage but was unable to deliver. The amount was increased from a maximum of $3,000 to $6,000. I know inflation has had a great effect on costs, but Bill C-10 jumps the maximum from $6,000 to $15,000; and if a farmer is operating a farm in partnership with a brother, his mother, sister, or cousin he can jump the maximum to $30,000.
It has commonly been said from time to time that the right hand of government hardly knows what the left hand is doing. That has commonly been said, I suppose, of governments of yesteryear and it probably will continue to be said of governments of the future. The strange thing we see this evening is that the right hand of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board evidently does not know what the minister's left hand is doing.

The other day I read in the Globe and Mail an article which said the minister in charge of the Wheat Board was urging farmers to deliver their grain because he was concerned and worried that the Wheat Board's sales commitments would not be met. The farmers were somewhat reluctant to make deliveries of their grain, as payments had been made to them in January of 1975 on crops that were sold in the 1974 crop year. This bill, in effect, is telling the farmers: "Don't deliver your grain; take a cash advance on it up to $15,000". Did I correctly read the minister's remarks of two weeks ago when he urged farmers to make deliveries? As I say, the bill now before us does the very contrary.
The original purpose of the cash advance legislation was to give money to destitute farmers who were unable to deliver their grain. The government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) introduced this legislation to help the farmers. The wheat farmers on the prairies today received millions of dollars in January of the current calendar year. They do not want to put themselves in a position where they pay too much income tax, so the tendency is not to deliver wheat. We are now being asked to pass a piece of legislation that will encourage them not to deliver their wheat.
According to the latest figures I have seen, there are 189 million bushels of grain and wheat in commercial storage, nearly an all-time low and the lowest amount in commercial storage in the past 20 years. It is low for two reasons. We had a poor crop last fall; the other reason is that farmers are in no rush to deliver because their cash flow position-a common expression today-is relatively good.
When this bill was considered in committee, the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) said, as reported at page 10 of the committee proceedings for Tuesday, February 4, 1975:
I think the necessity for this bill-
He was merely fishing to find out just why the bill was coming forward at this time.
-sort of points up some of the real problems in our grain industry; that if delivery opportunities were available and the grain was moving continually, there would really be no need for this type of legislation.
The hon. member is really saying that, if all things were what they appeared to be, there would be no need for this type of legislation. He then asked the minister whether he agreed, and the minister replied:
No, I do not think we should ever try to build a commercial system-
The minister's motivation in this instance has to do with what is in store for the wheat farmer in the year 1975, since the railways want to abandon some 6,200 miles of track, and all the delivery points along the way. The minister's reply:
No, I do not think we should ever try to build a commercial system that can hold every bushel of grain immediately and therefore allow for the purchase of it. The quota system allows for the phasing over a year of the Wheat Board delivery opportunity, and the bill itself was particularly designed to make it even easier for those farmers who have feed grain, and who want cash, to hold and deliver later to the Canadian Wheat Board rather than be under a cash pressure to deliver it to the open market.
There are two significant points in that paragraph. First of all, the minister readily admits that, so far as commercial grain storage is concerned, we are in for a shock in
March 3, 1975

1975. They are going to be arguing whether 6,200 miles of railway track should be done away with, and a great number of delivery points may well be considered for abandonment in 1975.
The other point which is apparent in that paragraph is found in the last sentence which reads:
-the Wheat Board delivery opportunity ... was particularly designed to make it even easier for those farmers who have feed grain, and who want cash, to hold and deliver later to the Canadian Wheat Board rather than be under a cash pressure to deliver it to the open market.
The minister is concerned, as are many farmers in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and some parts of Alberta, that too much grain is being delivered on the open market and not enough consigned to the Canadian Wheat Board. We all know that the Canadian Wheat Board has made sales commitments in respect of millions of bushels for delivery later on, so the minister wants to be sure that he will have enough delivered to the Wheat Board and not too much to the open market. Those are the two significant parts, the cash advances on the grain in storage on the prairies, and the recognition of the deficiency in the system in that farmers may well sell too much on the open market so that the Wheat Board may not be able to meet its commitments later on this year to deliver the grain already sold.
There are other problems in respect of the grain industry which I think I would be remiss if I did not mention. Before getting into those problems, it is of interest to note that at the recent Agricultural Outlook Conference there were many important statements in respect of farm costs. I would be remiss if I did not point out that it is a recognized fact in the agricultural industry that costs are rising to a much greater extent than prices at this particular time.
Bill C-10 makes no mention of the amount that will be advanced on each bushel the farmer holds in storage. This is a key question. How much is the government going to allow per bushel which will allow the farmer to take up to the maximum of $15,000? Will this put the farmer in an overdraft position before the end of the year if the allowance is too great? The minister got into this trouble in the past when he first tried to amend this bill some years ago.
Let me refer to a news release from the agriculture department following the 1975 Agricultural Outlook Conference on January 20 and 21. It reads in part:
Even though we can expect gross farm receipts to go up by four per cent in 1975, net farm income may nose dive by 12 per cent;
They are being optimistic, and they take a similar viewpoint with regard to gross farm receipts being up 4 per cent. They are certainly optimistic when they suggest that net farm income will only nosedive by 12 per cent. The minister knows this, and I want the members of this House also to know at this time that net farm income may nosedive more than 12 per cent in 1975.1 suggest that if we are not very careful it will nosedive well below 12 per cent. This is obvious from a recent drop of over $1 in the international wheat price in the past three weeks.
This news release continues:
Grain
-the culprit will be input costs-
What is the minister doing about input costs? We have asked from time to time what the government is doing about inflation, and what its answer to inflation may be. What is the great Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), and I say that somewhat facetiously, doing about input costs to the agriculture industry today?


An hon. Member:: Consulting Beryl.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He is consulting Beryl, and he is talking about turtles and cheese at the same time, not knowing that one carries disease and the other does not.
This same press release goes on to say:
Farmers can expect to pay more for nearly every major farm input,-
The minister noted that farm machinery may account for 21 per cent of total farm operating costs and that steel prices will be higher than ever in 1975. So much for farm costs and the projected farm net income. I suggest it is going to be lower in 1975.
Why did the minister not explain this bill in relation to cash income for farmers? What is he doing about marketing? We have this neat little booklet which was sent to every grain producer in western Canada, and it is interesting to note that this report got to the producers quicker than the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board on the crop year 1973-74 got to members of parliament. It is lucky that I happen to be both. This little booklet does not have any page numbers so I cannot quote the exact page, but I guess it is two pages past the centre of the book to which I wish to refer. I do not know whether that is to the right or the left, but it spells out pretty clearly that demurrage charges for the crop year 1973-74 amounted to $13 million which comes out of the farmers' pockets.
I dealt at some length with the fact that input costs are supposed to be the culprit in relation to farm problems, but what does that charge of $13 million do to them? It comes out of their pockets, and I hope there is no member in this House who does not fully realize that demurrage charges paid on ships come out of the farmers' pockets. Is the minister and this government attempting to help the farmer when they allow strikes to go on and on and on, or when they deliberately interfere as they did in the grain handlers' strike on the west coast last May? This government told the grain handlers to cease all meaningful negotiations as it knew the grain companies were the culprits, and after the election it intended to make the grain companies pay. That is what the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board said. I was not in any position to judge who the culprit was, but I fully believe that meaningful negotiations between management and labour should have been allowed to continue.
Everybody in western Canada today knows who the culprit was in those negotiations. They know it was the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, that itinerant lawyer. Let any neutral person who knows nothing about wheat travel anywhere on the prairies and ask the simple question; what was the problem, and how did the government handle labour negotiations last year with the grain handlers? I am sure he will find that every man, woman and child in western Canada knows now that the
3736

March 3, 1975
Grain
problems resulted from the interference of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board.
I have the utmost respect for the Canadian Wheat Board. The men in charge are doing the very best they can, but they are continually being interfered with by this minister for political purposes. I will have more to say about that when Bill S-6 comes before the House, because that is an example of what I have just said, that the minister is continually interfering. The $13 million demurrage charges should have been picked up by this government because this government deliberately interfered in that labour negotiation. The government destroyed meaningful negotiations for two months, from May 8 to July 8. Then, two months were added just for good measure. The government waited until sometime in September and then called Parliament to introduce a bill to suggest that the workers and the grain companies should meet, negotiate and settle. Grain was tied up for four months. It is no wonder the demurrage charges amounted to $13 million in the crop year 1973-74. There are additional freight charges totalling $1,600 million. The divisional handling charges amounted to $1,200,000. This is related directly to the interference by this minister in the grain marketing system.
Now, let me move on and bring this situation up to today's conditions. What do we have now? We have the GLT workers of the Public Service on strike. They have been on strike for 16 days. What is the situation at Vancouver? Over 40 ships are tied up at that port. Nobody seems to worry about that. The government is not appointing a mediator to deal with that problem. From time to time in this House there is a good deal of discussion about the poor in the world who are crying out for food. We have the Minister of Agriculture who goes to a conference on world population and food problems and who offers 36 million bushels of wheat. This was a great gesture. Yet there is a ship waiting in Vancouver harbour which is supposed to take five million bushels of wheat to Bangladesh. I do not have to tell members of this House how badly protein is needed in that country. This ship can carry five million bushels of grain. This ship was scheduled to dock to be loaded. We will be lucky if it is loaded in 30 days. In fact the people of Bangladesh and the western farmers will be lucky if it is loaded before the grain inspectors are back to work.
This government has not seriously concerned itself with the farmers and the delivery of their products. We can imagine the amount of the demurrage charges on a ship which can carry five million bushels of grain. That ship has been there for more than nine days and was scheduled to be loaded in four days. Once a ship is at the dock, the demurrage charges are rated according to its capacity.


Walter David Baker: What about the capacity of the farmer?


Mr.  J. H. Homer@Crowfoot: My friend asks about the capacity of the farmer. I know that the capacity of the farmer to bear up under this minister is at a low ebb. If the election of July 8 had been held one or two months after July 8 in the Saskatoon-Humboldt area this minister would not be here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Now, we have a reaction from members opposite.


Walter David Baker: They are wide awake.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I say to these learning backbenchers of the government that they should go to Saskatchewan and talk to the farmers. Let them go to the Humboldt area.


An hon. Member:: And Gus MacFarlane.


Walter David Baker: The hon. mountain member for Hamilton Mountain.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The people know all about the direct interference of the minister in the grain marketing trade. He has not done them a service. In fact, he has done them a disservice. What has the minister done to correct this image he has created? He is playing a neat game of tricks. He is advertising widely throughout the Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta area saying that he will have an election in respect of an advisory body to the Canadian Wheat Board. A month ago the farmers were asking what this was all about. It became obvious that it was not an election. It was a gimmick the minister was using in an attempt to pacify the angry people in Saskatchewan and on the prairies. It is a gimmick. The President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the President of the Manitoba Wheat Pool, the President of the National Farmers Union, the President of the Alberta Wheat Pool and the President of Uni-Farm of Alberta are running. They are all running for the positions to which they were appointed. They may or may not be elected. Mr. Runciman, a knowledgeable and respected man in the grain trade offered his name in respect of the advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board. Does anyone in this House seriously expect that he will not win that election? He was on the appointed advisory board prior to this great charade.
The minister is attempting to improve his political health on the prairies. This is merely a charade to improve the minister's political health on the prairies. The minister has some other fences to mend which stretch back as far as that great program called LIFT, which meant lower inventory for tomorrow while to most of the farmers it meant lower cash for tomorrow. We know what happened. That was in 1969 and 1970. Some farmers were overpaid. The farmers were notified they were overpaid but the matter was dropped. Now, after July 8, they are proceeding to collect the overpayments. All of a sudden some farmers have been hit with bills which now appear to them to be bills which are three or four years old. The farmers do not think this is very fair. They thought it was a forgotten issue. The minister now, realizing he has some fence-mending to do, is attempting to do this.
This cash advance legislation which is before the House of Commons will accomplish absolutely nothing. This is a perfect example-and I shall end on this note-of good legislation passed in 1978-I hear some remark by the former President of the Treasury Board.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Did you say 1978?
March 3, 1975

Mr. Homer I said 1978 but I meant to say 1957. Thank you for correcting me. This legislation was passed in 1957 to solve a problem at that particular time. The problem of 1957 has long since disappeared. Farmers could not market their grain. Now, the minister is begging them to market their grain. What is the problem? In a speech I made before Christmas, sometime in the month of November, I showed the minister how he could encourage the farmers to market their grain. I told him that he would have difficulty in getting farmers to market their grain in the new calendar year. I advised him to bring forward a registered savings plan which would benefit the agricultural industry. The $4,000 allowed per person in any one year to go into a registered savings plan is of no benefit to farmers. It can be of tremendous benefit to the lunch pail workers, to people on salary, but it will not benefit the agricultural industry.
I advised the minister to allow the farmers of Saskatchewan to take the surplus money from their final payments on their grain and put it into a registered savings plan. I spoke of $50,000, but that may be too large an amount. Let them put more than $4,000 in a registered savings plan so that they can market their wheat without fear of paying an unduly large amount of income tax to the government in any one year. The government should allow farmers to spread their expenses over a more extended period of time. However, the minister did not pay particular attention to my advice. But the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) did. I spoke to him privately on the subject and I have learned some things about him. The Minister of Finance might have a bigger heart for the wheat farmers of Saskatchewan than the former dean of law of Saskatoon, the little boy who left the farmers of Saskatchewan because he hated agriculture. Now he has to administer a certain portion of the cash rewards for the agricultural industry. He is administering them in a picayune manner which is best described by the program LIFT, lower inventory for tomorrow. Otto needs a lift somewhere outside the House of Commons. There is no question about it.
The minister has failed to pay any attention to the demurrage charges that piled up last year and are continuing to pile up. He knows that the input costs in the agriculture industry are well over 12 per cent. In fact, in the past year they went up by nearly 14 per cent. That is the cost of goods that farmers have to buy in order to grow wheat. The minister is well aware of that, but he does not do a thing about it. He does not attempt to curb the demurrage charges. When he interferes directly in a labour strike, he should attempt to curb those costs with which the farmer will be faced in 1975.
The minister brought forward a piece of legislation which has long outlived its purpose. He said that it has two main purposes. I may be repeating myself but I want to make sure that members of the House know what the purpose of this legislation is. The minister says that about 6,000 miles of railway tracks in the prairies will be up for abandonment in 1975. There will be a great debate staged throughout the prairies regarding which sections of those railway tracks are to be abandoned. The minister knows that with the abandonment of that trackage, commercial storage will be reduced, but he says, "don't worry about it,
Grain
we will give you cash advances. Save your wheat, keep it for the wheat board." He knows also that there is a tendency on the part of some farmers who have not been as fortunate as others to sell their grain for cash on the open market, which he permitted under the feed grains proposal, and he is saying to those farmers, "don't sell on the open market, take this cash advance and eventually we will take your wheat". That is the second purpose of this legislation.
This bill will not solve the problems facing the agriculture industry in 1975. I do not agree with the minister that 6,000 miles of tracks will be abandoned in 1975. I think only a small portion of those 6,000 miles will be abandoned, and therefore I question the real need for this legislation. However, perhaps the minister wishes to take up the time of this House so that he will be able to say that he piloted six pieces of farm legislation through the House in the early part of 1975. By the fall of 1975, farmers will be scratching their heads wondering what the legislation was because they will not have benefited from it.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) that I and other members of this party are also interested in the problems of the wheat farmer in western Canada. I, for one, enjoyed hearing the remarks he made because I think he described fairly accurately the situation as it affects farmers. I am sure that there is no one who opposes the idea of increasing the cash advance to farmers from $6,000 to $12,000, but I think that the country should pay some attention to what is happening in the grain industry and to the fact that farmers producing wheat have had only one exceptionally good year in the last ten or twelve years. Since that time farmers' incomes have decreased sharply, as the hon. member for Crowfoot said, partly because of high inputs, partly because of the changes that are taking place in the handling of grain, and also partly because of the desire of Canadian producers in other fields to handle grain.
Previously, it has been easy for farmers to maintain at least an adequate supply of wheat. Normally, at least a one year's supply of wheat was held either in the elevator or on the farms in western Canada. This amount has been earmarked for our international grain trade and has provided Canada with a reputation across the world as a country which can be relied upon to meet its commitments and is able to make large sales of wheat.
I am really concerned if, in amending this act as proposed in the legislation before us, we should not be asking ourselves why Bill C-10 is in the form in which it has been put forward, while a bill closely related to it in the same field, Bill S-6, comes from the other place. Both these bills affect payments, one deals with advance cash payments and the other one with final payments. However, both of them are related to the amount of money the farmer will obtain which he can consider as his year's income.
I think the changes that are being made in both cases are worthwhile and are certainly supported by most of the farmers. However, it is a fact, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Crowfoot, that we in this parliament have done absolutely nothing, less than nothing, in fact have been detrimental in many ways, in reducing the cost of the farmers' input as against the price that he gets for
28996-32'/2

March 3, 1975
Grain
the goods that he sells. We have done nothing about the railway system, or about the distribution system. We have done nothing in conjunction with farm organizations to improve the structure on which the farmer depends to move his grain at the right time and when he wants to move it. The farmer will have no control over the wheat in inland terminals nor, in my opinion, will the Wheat Board.
The question of labour disputes comes into this, too. In the current one I expect the cabinet will have to hold a meeting and decide whether or not they are going to pay up. Obviously, if they do not, there will not be a settlement. Any settlement will only affect a small number of people in the grain trade, namely, the inspectors on the west coast, but it will have far reaching effects and may determine whether there will be a postal strike or some other major strikes in a few weeks time.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the farmer and the Wheat Board, as well as all those connected with the grain trade, have an interest in this matter but the government does not allow them any input, so they have no control over their own situation. I have seen the minister on television telling the farmer that he will sell all the grain he can produce this year but, Mr. Speaker, the farmer has always been hurt when he has followed the advice of the government about planting. The price of wheat dropped a dollar on the futures market in the last few weeks, so the farmer is going to be turning to the open market to sell wheat, oats, barley and feed in the hope of more stability. The farmers may not be willing, cash advance or not, to commit the same amount of wheat to the Wheat Board for sales abroad as they did previously. It depends too much on the pressures of the Chicago futures market and the ability of the purchasing countries to pay in a currency acceptable to Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is one of two which affect payments to the farmer in western Canada. He must decide whether he can trust this government to provide a lucrative external grain market or whether he will depend on the market at home, which appears to be more stable and to which he may divert some of the feed grains. If that happens, then Canada will not be meeting the commitments we have made and this will have an effect on our export markets for many years.
There are some things this government could do. It could provide some impetus, through the CDC or by putting money into some of the small farm machinery companies, to help reduce input costs. Canada produces some of the basic ingredients for fertilizer, yet the price of fertilizer is considerably higher here than it is in the United States. A lot of fertilizer is exported to the United States when it would be to our advantage to provide a wider distribution in this country at reduced prices.
We have never had as small a holdover of wheat as we appear to have now, Mr. Speaker. It has always been my hope that one day we would provide the farmer with enough stability so that we could hold over one winter's supply of wheat in storage for external markets. Wheat is a commodity that can be stored for a considerable length of time. Indeed, we had some wheat stored in fields for years.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: We might starve in the meantime.


William Arnold Peters: That is the point. If we do not provide the farmer with the initiative to produce sufficient wheat to meet our commitments, somebody is going to starve- those who rely on the domestic market or the international market. We fought hard and spent a lot of money to win the markets we have. None have been acquired easily, except perhaps those in the last two or three years-they have been established by barter, by good faith and in countries to which we had to lend money. If we want the western farmer to stay in production we must provide him with the machinery that will allow him to produce for a fair and reasonable return.
Just the other day the minister suggested to farmers that instead of having the normal summer fallow they should put that land into wheat. That is a very curious thing for this minister to say. He is the one who engineered the LIFT program to take acreage out of production and put it into forage crops and summer fallow. Now, he is telling the farmers the reverse. The minister was dead wrong then, and he is probably dead wrong now. His track record has been dismal in this field as well as in other fields.
Canadians are vitally interested in seeing western grain producers lower their production costs and maintain viable operations. If prices drop, as seems very likely, and if input costs do not fall correspondingly, farmers will be in a difficult position. Farm production will not expand. It has often been said that this country can increase the production of almost any agricultural commodity, if the price is right. For the farmer the price has seldom been right; often it has been wrong.
I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Crowfoot suggest that the minister responsible for the Wheat Board had caused farmers to be overpaid during the election campaign and that he is trying to recover overpayments now, when farm input costs are rising and the price of produce dropping.
This bill will provide cash advances of $15,000 to the single farmer; of $30,000 to two partners who are over 18, and of $45,000 to more than two partners. But, Mr. Speaker, do not forget that money advanced must be repaid. The advance is an advance against the final amount received for production. The success of this legislation depends on the co-operation of the entire industry. It will only work if we can meet the commitments we have made, if the farmer decides not to sell on the open market and not to the feed grain industry which is offering alltime high prices for feed grains. If it does not work, the nation will suffer.
This bill will not provide the safeguards to the farmer which it should provide. It can only provide safeguards if we are willing to look at input costs of farm production and at such areas as fertilizer costs. As I said, farm production costs are rising. The farmer must worry about the weather, about grasshoppers-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: And about the Liberals.


William Arnold Peters: As the hon. member says, farmers must also worry about the domination of a Liberal cabinet minister.
March 3, 1975

Cash advances will bring advantage only if parliament stabilizes farmers' incomes. Farmers will produce more only if they can be sure of recovering at least their cost of production. They will heed government calls for increased production only if a little remains in their pockets after they have paid input costs and cash advances. The government might consider some form of indexing in connection with cash advances.
Very seldom in the last 30 years have western producers prospered. All too often farmers have carried on their own shoulders the burden of export markets. If we want farmers to make the commitment for which we are asking, we are obliged to help them keep input costs down so that they need not carry the burden of high input costs and low returns from markets.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to contribute very briefly to the debate before we pass Bill C-10 providing for an increase in the payments made to prairie grain producers.
In my opinion, the inflation period we are going through will not come to an end; at least I think it will never stop by itself unless Parliament really sets its mind to check it and avoid disaster.
When the law was passed 17 or 18 years ago of course the fixed rate was then consistent with the value of the Canadian dollar. But in 1975 at a time when it is worth 44 per cent less, I do not think that to raise the advance from $6,000 to $15,000 is exaggerated. Prairie grain producers have had to invest considerably to update their equipment to be able to do their tasks at the appropriate time because of a shortage of manpower. It is not that there are not enough workers in the country, but there are not enough people interested in agriculture. Farmers must take the necessary measures to produce. They make every effort to reach their aim.
Of course, they had to borrow additional capital to buy new machinery. It takes much more income to pay the interest on those loans; finally, they end up in a difficult situation.
Agriculture is an industry with many problems. One can never depend on the stability of the industry. One year the crops will be good, the next, bad. Many factors enter the picture. There is the weather, over which one has no control. There are the markets, supply and demand, domestic and foreign markets, as many questions marks, as many causes of uncertainty. This, Mr. Speaker, applies to both eastern and western producers. The farmers must always struggle along, day after day, and ask the governments to pass laws that will ensure a certain production, a certain income, that they might be able to meet their obligations.
But what surprises me in all this, Mr. Speaker, is that during the second half of the 20th century, our problem is not that of knowing how to produce. If we let the farmers, those who are interested in farm production, do as much as they can, farm production will progress enormously. This is so true that in many areas of agriculture in our country, there are measures aimed at slowing down pro-
Grain
duction. In many areas of Canadian agriculture, there are quota systems. The bill aims at stopping production, not because too much is produced through out the world, since there obviously is not enough, but in the hope of ensuring to farm producers that their products will be sold at a price which will give them a certain income. But here again, we know that there is disorder. Some people like to play tricks and hide-and-seek. They like to misuse legislation and they do so to legislation that parliamentarians pass in good faith to protect this class of workers. We saw this again recently. I talked about it in the House today. Canada now imports poultry while it can produce sufficient quantities to meet the needs of all Canadians, and even more, since poultry producers follow a quota system. They recently had to reduce their quotas so as not to flood the market. At the same time, some people import poultry and this angers the producers. We read recently in the newspapers that poultry producers took over a truck which was bringing American chickens to a Quebec slaughterhouse. They had a barbecue in the streets while there are families in Canada, in Quebec, in every one of our cities, and even throughout the world, who could have used this food.
This is a waste. Something else could be done. We should act differently. Statistics were recently published which gave the names of those who are interested in sharing throughout the world, who know the developing countries, the under-developed countries where peoples are really in need, who do not have the food needed on a daily basis to satisfy their hunger.
It is forecasted that in 1975, 75 million people might lose their lives precisely because they will not have enough food on their table while at home we paralyze production because of domestic problems we try to solve. It is for that reason I think we should change somewhat our attitude, our approach.
The United Nations are an organization that was set up a number of years ago to promote peace in the world. It is all very fine, and I think the United Nations should continue to exist. But instead of talking only of nuclear arms, defence, wars left and right, I think the leaders could devote a little more time to examining the possibilities of different countries to bring help to underdeveloped countries, starving nations. A lot more money should be devoted to ensuring the survival of humanity instead of spending so many billions of dollars on new research, new arms in case of war. So if we want that to happen let Canada show leadership through its delegates when they meet at the United Nations. If the United States do the same we will certainly be able to find a way of having our grain distributed among the countries of the world at prices acceptable to producers. We will then stop always quarrelling on this same subject, and wondering what we are going to do with our grain, and what our producers can hope for the future.
Bill C-10 is a necessary measure because it meets a need. I urge farmers, prairie grain producers, where the land is suitable for that production, to continue to produce, do their best, do their work. For our part, this is why we are paid. We must draw up and pass the legislation to ensure the distribution of grain throughout the world. We will thus work constructively to promote peace which is

March 3, 1975
Grain
sought by everyone. Some talk about it, but not really sincerely.
Canada has a task to fulfil. Our country can do much to show that it believes in that formula of peace through the distribution of goods, of food in the world to prove its good faith to bitter countries that have always remained unsatisfied. They will understand that it is possible in the twentieth century to establish lasting peace conditioned by the free circulation of goods to meet the needs of each and everyone.
Therefore, on behalf of my party, I want to say that we support Bill C-10 and hope it will come into force as soon as possible, so as to reassure grain growers who are quite worried, considering that this bill was introduced last October. Here we are in March already and it has not been adopted yet.
Personally, far from delaying the adoption of this bill, I shall do the utmost to have it adopted as soon as possible.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the debate this evening that the subject of grain is almost irresistible. As the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) pointed out, this bill is a long way down the list of priorities when one considers what is wrong with our grain industry. When I think back to the fifties, no one worked harder and wanted cash advances more than my good Liberal farmer friends. However, the Liberal government of the day said it could not be done. They said if it were ever done, it would cost the grain companies huge sums of money, the farmers would not make their payments and so on. When this legislation was first introduced, they opposed it.
It was not until a young fellow called Alvin Hamilton came along during the Diefenbaker years that we got cash advances. It is also noteworthy that during the term of that government, a no strike deal was negotiated at the Pacific seaboard. That deal lasted for a good number of years. Compare that with the present situation with strikes from one end of the country to the other. We have already lost over 80 days at Pacific seaboard because of strikes and shutdowns. There have been four separate strikes. We have no international grain agreement. We are losing sales to the United States. Japan is tendering in the market, and there were six cargoes in the last week that we should have had. The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board must be about ready to announce to the world that Canada is out of the market. At the same time he could well announce to our producers that their delivery opportunities are frozen.
The situation has changed greatly in western Canada since this legislation was first introduced 17 or 18 years ago. Many farmers have to take an advance now because the trains just do not run anymore on our branch lines. This legislation can be used, in the minds of many, to coerce farmers into hauling greater distances. It seems to many producers that this is just another part of an overall plan the minister has to make changes just for the sake of change.
I hope the minister will consider some measure of compensation for the country's grain buyers who are responsible for most of the cost of administering this program

but receive nothing in return, while at the same time they are subject to some liability under it. It is not good enough for the minister to say that it is the responsibility of the companies to look after the grain buyers. The country elevator operator is the cash register of the western grain industry. It is the only business I know where one man's signature on a cheque can commit his company to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. I really believe the country grain buyer deserves a better shake from the government.
The minister, in closing the debate on second reading, did his best to indicate the prosperity of western farmers, quoting figures to prove that the average net farm income for 1974 would be over $23,000 per farmer. I leave it to the farmers of western Canada to judge the accuracy of those figures.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Further to the report stage of Bill S-6 this afternoon, by agreement, the question is that Bill S-6 be now read the third time and do pass.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; should the motion not be made by someone who is here?


An hon. Member:: The minister is not here.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (for Mr. Lang) moved: that Bill S-6, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, be read the third time and do pass.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-6 is an interesting bill. I think it is only fair the country should know that it originated in the Senate. While it was before the Committee on Agriculture, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, who was not here to move the third reading of the bill, had this to say with regard to the legislation as reported at page six of the committee proceedings No. 18;
I would simply say that Bill S-6 renders a little more certain the year in which the final payment will be received.
This is an important piece of legislation. The country is crying for action on inflation. The farmers are worrying about the inflated costs they will have to meet in 1975. From time to time supporters of the government suggest that the Opposition is holding up legislation-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -and that the ability of those on the treasury benches to govern is being interfered with. Mr. Speaker, this bill is, really, of no significance whatsoever.


William Arnold Peters: It is to keep them honest.
March 3, 1975


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said it is to keep them honest. I am glad he made that observation because I shall be dealing with it in a minute or two. Let me repeat what the minister said before the committee:
I would simply say that Bill S-6 renders a little more certain the year in which a final payment will be received.
Now, I want to read another significant statement which appears in the same paragraph. The minister added:
It is almost impossible for the Canadian Wheat Board to make a payment before January 1.
Let us analyze those words. Let us cast our minds back. In what year in the recent past, was there a payment made before January 1? Scratch our heads. Everybody thinks: My, it was the year 1972 when there was an election on October 30. That was the year in which the minister did the impossible.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr.  J. H. Homer@Crowfoot: He rose amid a cloud of dust on the prairies and said: I have done the impossible; farmers, vote for me and I will give you another 15 cents a bushel-he was in a little trouble on the prairies and he thought the farmers could be conned into voting Liberal.


Mr. Jamieson:: And was he re-elected?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: An hon. member asks whether he was re-elected. How many were re-elected with him? He would not have been re-elected if it had not been for the city voters in Saskatoon.


Otto Emil Lang: That is not true.


Mr.  J. H. Homer@Crowfoot: Let the hon. gentleman check the facts. Everyone else in Saskatchewan knows. They will remember the great con artist of the Liberal party who would speak one way in Saskatchewan and another way in eastern Canada. I am referring to the former Minister of Agriculture.


An hon. Member:: Forked tongue.


Mr.  J. H. Homer@Crowfoot: Someone said "forked tongue". He had a tongue that spoke one way in one part of Canada and another way in another part of the country.
As I say, this is an interesting paragraph. I have not got to the end of it yet. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board went on to say this:
As the present law stands, if the board can close its pool and therefore be ready to make a payment, it has to make the payment. In at least one recent year, this meant that the payment came rather unexpectedly to tax planning farmers in December.
He admits it was one recent year. The tax planning farmers had nothing to do with it. Vote-gathering Liberals offered the payment to the farmers on October 15, 1972 and the Wheat Board was then obliged to go ahead and make payment. The payment arrived in the hands of the tax planning farmers in December. Talk about a con game!
This is the Senate taking a hand in the operations of government. This is one of the most commendable pieces of legislation the Senate has sent to us in years. If we go back to 1867, we find the Senate is supposed-it does not,
Grain
but it is supposed-to act in a non-partisan manner, for the good of the country and not for the good of a political party. The Senate is slapping the wrist of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and is saying: "No more abuses; no more direct interference with the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board." The Canadian Wheat Board operates for the good of the Canadian wheat farmer, not for the good of the political party which happens to be in power at any given time.


An hon. Member:: Or for the good of the opposition.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hear an hon. member standing behind the curtain making a comment. If he wants to make a speech on this bill, I will spare him some time before ten o'clock if he comes forward. In any event, the significant thing that we are witnessing here tonight is that the Senate is slapping the wrist of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and saying there will be no more interference with the Canadian Wheat Board, no more of this trick of using the farmers' own money to buy votes.
Most members of the House of Commons think that final payments on wheat come from the general treasury. We are not dealing here with some kind of subsidy out of general revenue; we are dealing with the farmers' own money which accumulates in the pool accounts of the Canadian Wheat Board and is paid to the farmers when the Wheat Board settles those accounts. The minister's own admission on page 6 of the committee report is that this payment was made unexpectedly in only one year, and that it is almost impossible for the Canadian Wheat Board to settle accounts before January 1.
All hon. members know the job of the Canadian Wheat Board is to sell wheat for the Canadian farmer. It does the Canadian farmer a disservice if some elected official superimposes his wish upon the board's and tells them to stop selling wheat and to total up their accounts, because he is in political trouble and wants to offer the farmer some money. On that particular occasion the Conservative party, which happened to be the official opposition, had some very knowledgeable members in the wheat trade. They did the best calculations they could and decided that the pool accounts could safely be offered an additional 25 cents, and as an official policy they proposed a 25 cent boost in the initial price of wheat. This offer came out some time in September. I am pointing this out so the House can fully realize that the minister knew exactly what he was doing when he did the impossible in 1972. The official opposition said that the initial price was too low, that if they had been the government they would have increased the initial price by 25 cents a bushel at the beginning of the crop year on August 1.
I well remember the minister's initial reaction. He scoffed at that offer in his arrogant way and said we were insulting the knowledge of the farmers. Then, as the campaign wore on, he realized that the farmers had accepted the proposition that the initial price should be 25 cents a bushel higher than it was, so he directly interfered with the Canadian Wheat Board and told them he was going to make another offer. He said: "We have an election; we have to buy votes with the farmers' own money", and so he made an offer of 30 cents.

'	Grain
I have often wondered, if the official opposition at that time, figuring things out to the best of their ability, had decided that the farmers should be paid another 35 cents a bushel, whether the minister would have offered 40 cents. I have come to the conclusion that that is the way the minister reached his 30 cents. If we had offered 35 cents, he would have offered 40 cents. It was an option with the farmers' own money.
In the fall of 1972 the price of grain was not as high as it has been in the last couple of years. This was a year or two following the implementation of the LIFT program which penalized the farmers if they grew wheat. That was a time when the farmers were in need of cash. We in the opposition recognized the fact that international grain prices were going to go up. They started to go up in May 1972, and the minister made his last big sale to China in April at a very low price compared with the prices that followed. That is when he offered the farmers 30 cents, as he admitted in the committee proceedings.
Further on in the committee proceedings the minister admitted that the Wheat Board really preferred this bill. It is not a question of the minister preferring the bill but of the Wheat Board preferring the bill. I ask, why did the Wheat Board prefer this bill? Why did the bill originate in the Senate? Who in the Senate had some knowledge of the Wheat Board? The former chief commissioner who operated and managed the Wheat Board for the farmers was a member of the Senate. The minister admitted in the committee that the Wheat Board preferred this bill because then no future minister could deliberately interfere with the Wheat Board's operations for political reasons, as this minister did in 1972.
Obviously, the bill originated in the Senate because the former chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board desired something like this to protect the Wheat Board and its pool accounting system. Senator McDonald of southern Saskatchewan was a wheat farmer fully knowledgeable of the political abuses that can be perpetrated upon the wheat farmer by a Liberal government, particularly the one of Jimmy Gardiner. I would also be remiss if I did not mention the Hon. Senator Argue, a knowledgeable critic-that is the best compliment I can pay him- who is fully aware of what political implications can spell for Saskatchewan farmers from time to time.
I have no doubt that when the Wheat Board requested this bill they did not get a favourable response from the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. The minister knew he was the culprit who had interfered with the Wheat Board previously. I can quite imagine that he said: "This is a minor bill; don't trouble me with it". They went to the Senate and found there a ready ally in the former chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, as well as ready support from the former member for Assiniboia, Senator Argue.
As I have said, the Canadian Wheat Board works for the wheat farmer, not for the political party in power. While the Wheat Board commissioners may be appointed by the government in power, they are to act in a non-partisan manner. Supposedly we are to gain something from this election charade the minister is carrying out in respect of advisers to the Canadian Wheat Board. One can only gather that the one little benefit to come from that is that,

over the years, it may tend to make the Wheat Board more independent of the government and more answerable to the farmers, particularly if the farmers elect the advisory committee to the Wheat Board rather than the members being appointed by the government. That is the one benefit that will come from this election charade the minister is perpetrating upon the wheat farmer. In years to come this may be a beneficial thing. The one thing which may be of benefit to the farmer is that this bill will make the Wheat Board one teeny-weeny bit more independent and protected from government interference.
If I have left no other message with members of this House tonight regarding this small, teeny-weeny bill, S-6, let me point out that the purpose is to slap the hands or the wrists of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. The reason this bill comes from the Senate is that those gentlemen there who have some knowledge about the grain trade realize the importance of the independence of the Wheat Board and that it must be maintained free of political interference. This minister has interfered with the Wheat Board for political reasons, and let there be no doubt about that. Let it long be remembered as a lesson to future ministers.
It is fine to interfere with the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board if you are pushing and promoting sales, or guaranteeing credit, as did a former minister, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), when wheat was hard to move. That is the kind of assistance the government can give. It should assist in making sales, but it should not deliberately interfere for political gain with this independent body set up to serve the farmers of western Canada. That should be a no, no, and Bill S-6 should make that abundantly clear to every member of this House of Commons.
Let me end on this note. At page 6 of the Committee's proceedings No. 18 the minister admits that the one purpose of this bill is to make certain of the year in which the final payment will be made. The minister admits, as do members of the Wheat Board, that it is almost impossible to make the final payment at any time before January 1. If this bill passes it will make it impossible, although I would not trust this minister even though he is the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). I would not suggest that he would break the law, but he may well go around it as he has tried to do in the last couple of years, and as he tried to do in respect of that famous stabilization bill. I am going back to 1971, November of that year, when the minister was called before the courts just before a by-election took place in southern Saskatchewan, and he had to drop his stabilization bill. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) admitted that they were trying to go around the law, but the government hoped to change the law after it had gone around it. That is really what he said.
If this bill passes it will be impossible for any responsible minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board to make the final payment before January 1. I would not say that about the present government and this minister, because this minister has accomplished the impossible in the past and he may attempt to do so in the future, but we will be on guard.
March 3, 1975


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: As the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) has said, this bill is really not that big in terms of its content. It only deals with the deferral of the final payment from a pool until after January 1 in each calendar year.
Let me strongly support the suggestion by the hon. member for Crowfoot that all too often in the past we have seen final payments from the pool being used for political purposes. I well remember the 1972 election campaign when, on or about October 15, all of a sudden, two weeks before the election, the farmers received a final payment. That was the final plank in the Liberal party's election platform on the prairies. It seems to me that in the interest of openness in politics-


Otto Emil Lang: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is seeking the floor for the purpose of asking a question which can only be done with the consent of the hon. member. Does the hon. member accept a question from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang)?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if it would surprise the hon. member at all if I refreshed his memory by pointing out that the final payment which came in the same year as the crop ended, came actually after the 1972 election and was an adjustment in the initial price for 1972? I really want to ask the hon. member if it surprises him to learn that when he relies upon the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) as his authority he is completely wrong?
ML. Nystrom: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the promise was made two weeks before the election, if I recall correctly, and the payment was actually made in the month of December.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, it was.


Otto Emil Lang: You have the wrong year.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It was 1972.


Otto Emil Lang: No, 1973. You have the wrong year.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is the recollection I have, but I am willing to correct the record if that is not the case. I will look it up tomorrow. I can recall very well the minister making an announcement during that campaign, about two weeks before the election, that the final payment would be made in that year.
This has very often been used as an election promise. That has often been done by the Liberal party in the past. I remember one member of my own constituency, the hon. Jimmy Gardiner, who used to do things like this during an election year. He used to do it very often. This was part of a great election campaign type of patronage program the Liberal party used all the time. I hope that tactics like timing the final payment on grain according to the political whims of political parties is a thing of the past. I think things of this sort explain why the Liberal party is almost irrelevant right across western Canada today, keeping in
Grain
mind the four provincial governments we have in the west.
All this bill will do is determine that the final payment will be made not sooner than January 1 of each calendar year. This will give farmers more economic stability. They will know when to expect the final payment, and will know what earnings to base their income tax on for one particular year.
As we all know, the farmer is up against all kinds of uncertainties. As suggested earlier by some hon. members, the farmer is up against uncertainties as to weather, international sales, grasshoppers and other kinds of insects, and the government in terms of its policy. This bill is one small step toward providing the farmer with some rationale on which to plan. This will give him some kind of consistency in respect of the income he is to derive.
It is very interesting to note that this bill originated in the Senate. I do not think that is a good precedent. I do not like to see bills originate in a Chamber which does not have democratically elected members. In any event, this bill did originate in the Senate and I wonder whether some of the senators really felt they could not trust the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) and wanted to make sure that he was not able to play politics with the farmers' money.
It was very difficult for the farmers under the old system to know just where they were economically, because in that situation they could receive two final payments in one year. They could receive a final payment for the year just before the turn of the year, and another final payment for the previous year just after January 1. This kind of political game and this kind of inconsistency will be eliminated by Bill S-6. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, you could still have a lot of inconsistencies with the bill now before us. It does not say the money has to be paid before a certain time. It just says the final payment must be made after January 1 in each calendar year. I suppose if it were politically expedient to withhold the final payment until May or June the minister could still do that. I think this feature of the bill could be tightened up.
In any event, I think this bill is a step in the right direction. It is one very small bill which all of us in this House can support as something that should have been in force years ago. As I said, the bill originated in the Senate. I think one of the senators over there who has a bit of life and spunk decided he did not trust the Minister of Justice. Perhaps this is why the minister treats the bill so lightly. The senator introduced the legislation so the minister could not play politics with the farmers' money as he has done in the past. This is money that comes out of the final payment, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) knows. I am sure he would not play games of this sort with the farmers' money. It is the farmers' money and the farmers should not have to see that fund being used as part of a political poker game. I know the Minister of Agriculture would not do that, but the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is a different sort of politician from the congenial Minister of Agriculture. I see the Minister of Agriculture nodding his head indicating that he is in accord with me. I know he is very happy to see this bill before the House. I know that deep down in his heart he knows that this bill is a little bit of a rap on the knuckles

March 3, 1975
Grain
of the Minister of Justice who is in charge of the Wheat Board.
I agree with the representation made in committee last year by the Minister of Agriculture to the effect that the time had come in this country when all matters pertaining to agriculture should be under the purview of the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture made that representation and I agree with him. I also agree with him that we cannot really trust the Minister of Justice to administer the Wheat Board in a proper and efficient manner, so it should be under the umbrella of one minister, the Minister of Agriculture. I am pleased, therefore to see the Minister of Agriculture here today smiling and nodding his head in the affirmative. I am sure he is very glad to see this very small bill before us, and I am sure he will wholeheartedly support it.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this bill I must say that if there is one thing this bill does it is that it shows the lack of imagination of the government, since it must rely on the Senate to bring in the rules of application which this minister and the department he represents do not seem able to draft. One very important point should be brought to the attention of the minister. A great many farmers received two payments in one year and therefore have suffered a hardship in respect of income tax. Producers have come to me and have asked if there was something I could do for them in respect of this payment because they had actually planned their income so that they would receive that payment the following January. It had been done that way for years, but all of a sudden because there was an election there had to be a promise of a payment.
One thing the minister does not understand is the fact that one cannot buy the respect of the prairie grain producer. That election proved that. Fewer Liberals came from western Canada after the election in 1972 than before, primarily because of the fact that the western grain producer will not be bought. I presume this has been a lesson to the minister. No doubt whenever members of the Senate go to the areas they represent they find this to be a fact and, while the Senate has a vast majority of Liberal supporters and past Liberal members of parliament, I presume the Senators are trying to protect the Liberal image by not allowing the minister to do this in future.
This is what this bill is all about. It limits the period in which the minister can do this type of thing. There are many occasions when, if the minister did not interfere with the Canadian Wheat Board, the initial payments could be much higher and much closer to the final payment. It is absolutely unnecessary for an amount of 30 cents, 40 cents, 50 cents or $1 a bushel to be retained in any fund as has been the situation in some cases. When the minister interferes to keep the initial payment down and there comes a point in time when he feels he must buy the affection of the producer, he will announce an interim payment if he is permitted to do so. This is a very despicable practice in the minds of the prairie grain producers. They do not like this and, as I pointed out earlier, they will not be bought. The minister must recognize this. We

all should realize that no one is able to buy the allegiance or support of these people. While the Senate apparently sees this and tries to protect the government, we are not really sure that the minister recognizes this as a fact.
We on this side of the House have at times thought the minister had learned a lesson in certain cases but we are never actually sure that we can trust him. Regardless of how we may feel about the Senate, I suppose we must accept the fact that there comes a point in time when something good comes out of it, even though it may be a bill of little significance. Mr. Speaker, I see it is now almost ten o'clock. It is our intention to allow this bill to pass tonight. With those few remarks I am prepared to end this debate.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have been intrigued by the fact that it appears that not only members of this House but of the other place are not too sure whether or not this bill has been introduced as an affront to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. The members of the other place must have been well aware of the fact that one can use the averaging provision in order to average one's income over a five-year period and that, therefore, if one had a good bookkeeping set-up and a good accountant he could probably reach the same result in the end. This piece of legislation has been used to provide that the payment normally would come in the new year. It is to be attached to the former year's income and, therefore, an excess of income would occur in that year. Obviously, this would mean increased taxation. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I realize that my colleague called it ten o'clock, but I think there was some indication that we could pass this bill.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker-


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to taking a vote, but if the debate is to go on I would be prepared to continue.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it would take me about two minutes at this point to finish the debate.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There would be a difficulty involved in hearing the minister. Since this is third reading there is no right of the minister to reply. Since he moved the motion, he is considered as having already spoken.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
March 3, 1975

Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to say what the order of business will be for tomorrow. First, we will call Bill C-5. If we make sufficient progress and conclude second reading of that bill, we will move on to Bill C-50, the Agricultural Stabilization Act.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, in these days of stagflation where social chaos is at our doors, how can we decently, as a Parliament, allow an industry deeply rooted for decades in an area and elsewhere in the country to close down, out of a sudden, three of its divisions, and thereby deprive of their livelihood some 200 workers, men and women, without stepping in or at least raise pertinent questions?
This is the basic question facing us tonight and that 1 put to everyone here.
On February 14, Penman's Limited of Saint-Hyacinthe informed me, through their president Mr. A. P. Earle, that following the strike extant since June 10, 1974, and the subsequent losses in markets, it had regretfully decided it was not possible to reopen if and when the labor strife was settled, its spinning, felting and dyeing shops.
This would mean, Mr. Speaker, a reduction in labour force from 369 to 150, with a resulting loss of some 200 jobs.
On Friday February 28, I gladly met in Saint-Hyacinthe representatives of the workers involved, at their request. I saw there justified amazement, and even exasperation at that decision by the employer.
Most important, I felt that this new situation, arising in the middle of a conflict already nine months old, will preclude negotiations of a return-to-work agreement, since the National Knitting Union still insists on negotiating for the total number of employees, while the employer only wants to negotiate for the 150 employees present market conditions would allow him to reenlist. It can already be seen that the situation is explosive at Penman's Limited in Saint-Hyacinthe.
Are we going to go through a new Lapalme affair, mutatis mutandis? I hope not, I hope all parties concerned will think only in terms of job security for all workers involved.
Adjournment Debate
Let us be fair: the company says it deplores the effects of its decision. In addition, it is seeking the co-operation of the union, federal and provincial government agencies to appoint, jointly, a committee whose task would be to reintegrate into the labour force the largest possible number of those who have been laid off, while promising to give priority to older employees who might otherwise find it difficult if not impossible to find jobs elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, that initiative is sincere, provided of course the company, Penman's Limited at Saint-Hyacinthe as well as its parent company Dominion Textiles Limited are really wallfighting with its back to the wall, that it has not operated profitably in the last few years, nor invested abroad, either in Japan or elsewhere, amounts of money amassed here, or finally that it has not benefited from exports. Those are as many questions to which I should doubtless get replies from the company concerned any day now.
For the time being, however, I refuse to resign myself to the decision of the company, Penman's Limited. With several persons concerned, I fail to understand how the present strike at Saint-Hyacinthe could have harmed Penman's situation in the marketplace to the extent where it cannot even consider a gradual return to a normal situation, both in the market and consequently with gradual reemployment of its labour force. I request that the political authorities, federal as well as Quebec, authorities in the field of industry, trade and commerce or possibly manpower, should discuss the company's attitude before doing anything about it.
As people in my constituency said, when shall we have governments bold enough to talk to multinational or other companies? When shall we have governments which are shocked by the employment insecurity of our poor taxpayers?
It remains nevertheless-and Penman's rightly say so- that the sharp increase in imports on the main markets served by the company had a decisive influence on the announcement mode by Penman's that some 200 employees would be laid off in Saint-Hyacinthe.
Because of their lack of initiative, their lack of concern, and the excessive delay in dealing with this matter, the present government, and most of all the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), are responsible for the present textile situation in Canada and to a great extent for the layoffs in that area, and will bear the responsibility of the social chaos which might unfortunately ensue.
The minister should make a statement without delay committing the government to further restrict textile imports. The employment security of tens of thousands Canadian workers, and more particularly, on a very shortterm basis, the linelihood of some 200 Saint-Hyacinthe workers and the social order in Saint-Hyacinthe and the surrounding area are at stake.
Any ambiguous attitude on the part of the government in this matter will only make corporations like Penman's Ltd. more reluctant to carry on their operations with their full present staff.
In another respect, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) together with

March 3, 1975
Adjournment Debate
his colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), and their provincial counterparts, will have to consider the opportunity of capital investments to help those industries in their updating process to keep abreast of new market needs.
Let me warn them though: such subsidies, whether under the form of loans or something else, should only be granted to factories provided it has been ascertained that they will generate more employment security and possibly more employment opportunities.
On the whole, Mr. Speaker, the Government should assure that people of Saint-Hyacinthe and especially the workers of Penman's Ltd., that every attempt possible will be made on a short term as well as on a long term basis in order to help Penman's Ltd. regain its share of the market and to help workers get back to work on a gradual basis.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the clearsightedness and solidarity of the workers involved as well as to the social conscience of the employer who has always had the benefit of a stable, competent and reasonable manpower in Saint-Hyacinthe, to settle this matter to the advantage of all parties involved, all workers involved and their families, and to the advantage of the whole community of Saint-Hyacinthe which is plagued with the repercussions of that serious problem.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the recommendations of the Textile and Clothing Board being examined by the government do not include the items mentioned by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, which were sweaters, T-shirts and underwear.
When representatives of the workers and the textile industry met the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) last November, they did not identify the items mentioned as being priority problems and did not ask that the Textile and Clothing Board undertake the study of these products on an urgent basis.
Moreover, we understand that the layoffs in the Penman's Ltd. plant in Saint-Hyacinthe are the result of a decision made by this company to stop manufacturing products other than sweaters, T-shirts and underwear. Therefore, we can conclude that the importation of these products is not directly responsible for the layoffs.
According to our textile policy, when a Canadian textile manufacturer believes that his business is being caused a prejudice because of importation, this manufacturer can go to the Textile and Clothing Board or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) and ask for an investigation to determine if there is in fact a prejudice. Penman's did not approach the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Textile and Clothing Board.
The government cannot be expected to act in the case of a specific company when this company sees no need to use the measures at its disposal.
However, if Penman's decides to resume manufacturing the discontinued items, I can assure the House that all appropriate programs under the jurisdiction of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be placed at its disposal.
I am certain that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) and the Minister of Manpower

and Immigration (Mr. Andras) would say the same thing about their department.


PUBLIC SERVICE-STOPPAGE OF GRAIN SHIPMENTS BY STRIKE OF GENERAL LABOUR AND TRADES GROUP
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to speak about the complete stoppage of shipments of all commodities from the west coast of British Columbia. I mention all commodities because on Saturday the longshoremen and warehousemen's union began a legal strike. Some time before then, the grain weighmen, public servants of Canada, went on strike legally, affecting grain shipments from the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert. It might interest the House to know that between October 1, 1974 and the end of February it was impossible, for about 70 days, to ship grain from Vancouver or from the west coast generally.
These difficulties arose as a direct result of labour disputes. First, we had the grain handlers legal strike which, after stopping the flow of grain to customers abroad for many weeks, was settled by parliament with the introduction of compulsory return to work legislation on October 11, 1974. Subsequently, we had grain inspectors, who are employees of the government, booking off sick and then beginning an official strike on November 23. It lasted several weeks. Then, beginning on February 17, grain weighmen, who are public servants of Canada, went on strike with fellow workmen operating in other trades. That strike is still continuing. As I said, on Saturday, as a consequence of the legal strike of the longshoremen, the whole of the west coast is tied up and shipments are neither coming in nor going out.
The question we must consider is twofold. First, are these work stoppages affecting the national interest; second, what is the government going to do about them? This government is on record as stating its concern for the public interest when labour-management disputes arise. On February 10 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacGuigan) said, as recorded on page 3098 of Hansard:
[DOT] .. this government has always asserted the rule of the public interest in labour disputes and has never pretended that labour disputes are matters which affect exclusively the parties.
This view was put even more forcefully on August 31, 1972, by the then minister of labour. Speaking about the longshoremen's strike then in process on the west coast, he said, as recorded on page 3901 of Hansard:
... there are occasions when parliament must deal with situations, when the full resort to economic warfare by strike or lockout so impairs the ability of others to carry on their activities that it can be said to be against the national interest for the work stoppage to continue. Parliament in this case was recalled as a last resort when it was evident that the ports on the west coast would not resume operations for some weeks if normal collective bargaining procedures were allowed to take their course.
He went on to say, as recorded on page 3902:
By far and away the hardest hit at this time is the grain economy on its external markets. This important sector of the economy is presently in the greatest jeopardy should the ports remain closed. British Columbia, too, has an export-oriented economy, and it is of the utmost importance that there be no prolonged closure of its ports.

Further, at the time of the legislation, which was introduced to end the grain handlers' strike in October 1974, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) said, and I quote from page 165 of Hansard for October 7, 1974:
The only responsible view for the government to take was that a work stoppage was not only unnecessary, in view of the existence of a reasonable and viable alternative in the form of Dr. Perry's report, but would certainly adversely affect the national interest.
He stated that in May the government had invoked Section 181 of the Canada Labour Code because any work stoppage would affect the national interest. He went on to say, and I quote:
-I think, a sufficient chronological backdrop to a situation that can no longer be allowed to run its harmful and protracted course unchecked.
On Wednesday last, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart) asked the Minister of Justice what was going to be done about the situation on the west coast. The minister's reply, which is recorded at page 3600 of Hansard for February 26, is as follows:
Mr. Speaker, a number of plans are being looked at, both in connection with the immediate period and also in connection with an attempt to catch up as quickly as possible when conditions return to normal.
The situation is certainly not returning to normal. I personally regret the fact that this government has chosen to hold the line against inflation by putting the burden on the backs of the public service workers out on strike, especially in view of the fact they are the lowest paid people in the civil service and, for that matter, in the country. I am not about to decide who is wrong in the dispute, but the longshoremen are not the lowest paid people in the country by a long shot. The dispute between the longshoremen and their employer seems to centre around the fact there is dispute over a clause which management wants to have changed. It would change the procedure for handling container cargo.
The whole of the west coast is now tied up in two disputes. The government is on record as saying on more than one occasion that its concern is the public interest. However, I asked a question of the government House leader on February 28, as recorded at page 3663 of Hansard. I quote:
-will the government House leader advise this House whether in the view of the government the national interest is being affected by the present stoppage of grain shipments due to the present legal strike?
The minister replied:
-I support the position of my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, that this is a time for negotiation-
As I said, my question is twofold.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, at the present time, the movement of export grain and other goods from west coast ports is being interrupted by two work stoppages, one in the public sector and one in the private sector. These groups include a walkout of the federal government's general labour and trades group, which includes grain weighmen and samplers under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Grain Commission, as well as
Adjournment Debate
approximately 4,000 longshoremen. These longshoremen have been in negotiation with the British Columbia Maritime Employers' Association and struck this past weekend in support of their demands. In this complex situation both disputes will have to be resolved before grain and other goods start moving once again. It is our hope they can be settled by a process of negotiation between the parties concerned.
While it is true that legislation has been used in the past to end disputes such as these, it is premature to suggest that this course of action will be followed, particularly since the longshoremen commenced their walk-out only today. In May of last year, after Parliament had been dissolved, the Canada Labour Code was used to prevent a work stoppage of grain elevator employees. Dissolution is not a factor this time, so the procedure under that act cannot be applied in the same manner. However, the full parliamentary process could be invoked at short notice should it be considered appropriate.
At the moment approximately 30 vessels are waiting in Vancouver to take on grain. There are almost 11,000 railway cars loaded with grain, stacked up from Vancouver and Prince Rupert back to the prairies awaiting movement.
There is no doubt these strikes are affecting a vital national interest. It is just as vital that the parties concerned, including the government, be given the opportunity of negotiating their respective positions before that right is removed by parliament.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-ALLEGED DELAY IN ESTABLISHING BROADCASTING STATION FOR OKANAGAN VALLEY
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, February 28, I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) whether the proposed CBC radio broadcasting station for the Okanagan Valley in British Columbia is being held up because a suitable site is being sought for a French television station. It appears that as soon as anyone asks a question in this House relating to a subject such as this he is immediately labelled antiFrench, but this is not the case. I believe this is a very legitimate question to be asking at this time.
The people of the Okanagan Valley have been asking for a CBC radio broadcasting station for a number of years. In the two and a half years that I have been here I have had a number of representations on this subject and I have discussed it with many people in the Okanagan Valley. They feel they have been discriminated against for many years by not being able to have a full CBC radio station. The proposed CBC radio station would serve about 150,000 people in the area, many of whom have moved in to retire from other areas of Canada and have had access to CBC radio. They just cannot understand why there is not a broadcasting station in the Okanagan when they move in, especially when there are so many people in the coverage area.
I have been pressing the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) and the Secretary of State over the past
i

March 3, 1975
Adjournment Debate
two years. Finally, on November 25, I received a letter from the Secretary of State in which he said:
I am advised by the CBC that barring further capital budget restraints, under the affiliate replacement plan, which applies in the case of Penticton, Kelowna and Vernon, B.C., they expect to submit an application to CRTC by the fall of 1975. The Corporation further informs me that having received CRTC approval they will need some twelve months before becoming operational in the areas you have identified.
This was very encouraging because I thought that it would bring the CBC broadcasting station quite soon to the Okanagan Valley. I also know that the existing broadcasting stations in Kelowna, Vernon and Penticton are very interested in having CBC establish a full time broadcasting station. They are so interested that they have between them devised a plan so that they would be able to accommodate a CBC radio station. This would provide the necessary engineering and funding to make available a full time radio station. The only thing they want in return is a guaranteed lease for the next few years.
I understand that this proposition has been submitted to CRTC complete with the overall monthly or yearly cost. The cost seems quite reasonable for the number of people who would be served. This service could begin very quickly, using the facilities proposed by these radio broadcasting companies. I have just recently heard that the CRTC is looking for a site in the Okanagan that would accommodate both a CBC broadcasting station and a French TV broadcasting station. It would appear that this would be a much more costly venture and would take much longer to bring into effect. The French TV station would accommodate between one and one-half per cent of the people of the Okanagan, while the CBC radio broadcasting station would accommodate over 150,000 people.
I think it would be fair to point out at this time that there are areas in my riding of Okanagan Boundary that do not even have a CBC-TV broadcasting station now, or can only receive Canadian TV through their own ingenuity, the people in the area having put up the necessary equipment themselves in order to receive this TV. I would also like to point out that there are areas in my riding that do not even get any TV, places such as Christina Lake.
I certainly believe that the majority should be serviced first by the CBC and CRTC before any moneys are spent on a costly French TV network. I would, therefore, respectfully ask that the government adopt a policy that will ensure that the majority of the people get the service
for which they have been asking and to which they should be entitled.


Mr. Gustave Blouin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) I have some information obtained from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation through the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner).
Two major undertakings by the CBC are involved in the matter of improving service to the Okanagan valley. One plan is known as the radio replacement plan and the other is known as the accelerated coverage plan. The radio replacement plan arises out of the fact that many years ago resources were not available for the CBC to build its own radio transmitters in many locations. The private sector of radio was, therefore, given the responsibility of representing the CBC in many communities. The privately owned stations could carry only a portion of the total service, but this was better than no service at all.
In recent years commercial radio network programming has dropped markedly and radio broadcasting styles have changed; the affiliation arrangements in radio have become more and more unsatisfactory to both the CBC and the privately owned radio affiliates. As a consequence, the CBC has recently embarked on a program of construction of its own radio transmitters in order to eliminate to a great extent the need for affiliation. Three such transmitters, broadcasting the complete CBC English AM radio network service, are planned for Kelowna, Penticton and Vernon. In addition, Kamloops forms part of this group.
Early last year the CBC had hoped to apply for licences for those three stations late in 1974. The effect of inflation on the CBC's capital budget has caused a postponement of the licence applications, and it is now expected that the applications will be submitted late this year.
The other major CBC undertaking is the accelerated coverage plan. Under this plan, CBC service will be extended in the required official language to all unserved areas containing 500 or more people. Under this plan, French service will be extended to Kelowna in late 1977. The CBC wishes to make clear that the accelerated coverage plan is separately funded; the accelerated coverage plan is not responsible for the budget constraints experienced by the CBC's radio replacement plan, and the resultant one year delay in the plans for CBC English language radio transmitters in Kelowna, Penticton and Vernon, together with Kamloops.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.32 p.m.

Tuesday, March 4, 1975