1976-12-21

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
SECOND SESSION-THIRTIETH PARLIAMENT 25-26 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from Printing and Publishing, Supply and Services, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9
80008 - 1%
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 21, 1976

Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members are aware that the funeral of the late Real Caouette is taking place at this very moment in Rouyn. It is a fitting tribute to this man's memory and to his many friends and relatives to whom our sympathies have already been extended that such a great contingent from this House has gone to attend the funeral this afternoon, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), and of course the entire Social Credit caucus. Since the funeral is taking place at this very moment, I ask hon. members to join with me in observing one minute's silence.
[Editor's note: The House stood in silent tribute.]



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. As the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) has remarked that Canada's financial performance during the past four years has been nothing short of remarkable, yet we find the prestigious independent Credit Swiss in their Canadian financial letter stating that Canada's rating as a place for investment has suffered due to the growth of the public sector at the expense of the private sector, the excessive and erratic taxation of corporations, and the productivity-hampering profit controls which have been wilfully introduced into the Canadian investment picture by Ottawa, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie):
That this House request the President of the Treasury Board to make a statement on motions setting forth why he feels our performance has been nothing short of remarkable in view of contrary views being held by independent world observers such as Credit Swiss.


Mr. Speaker:: I have some considerable misgiving about this kind of motion being moved pursuant to Standing Order 43. I have indicated that such a motion ought to set out the reason
for the motion and that members should stay away from controversial motions that are subject to debate. I will put the motion to the House pursuant to Standing Order 43, but I think hon. members should stay away from this kind of preamble in future. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the motion cannot be presented to the House without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration said, concerning the case of Mr. Charles Dube and of many other citizens involved in an awkward situation as a result of section 7 of Bill C-69 amending subsection 25 (b), which according to a letter from the minister's office came into effect on July 4, 1976, that after some inquiries this piece of legislation would have been effective in fact since January 4, 1976. Because of the misunderstanding about the date of implementation of the act, I move, supported by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That the Minister inform the House as soon as possible in order to clarify the situation so that the Canadian people involved in this matter do not fall victims of a misinterpretation on the date of implementation of the act, for which the civil servants concerned cannot be blamed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

December 21, 1976
Tax Cuts
[DOT] (MIO)


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The urgent and pressing nature of this motion concerns itself with the unacceptable silence of the government regarding its available economic forecasts related to unemployment, job creation, real growth and inflation for the year 1977 during a period when such respected bodies as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the University of Toronto's Institute for Policy Analysis and the Conference Board of Canada in general forecast for 1977, 8 per cent unemployment, 3 per cent real growth, higher inflation and the real possibility of a recession.
In light of the above and the desire of most Canadians to remove this veil of secrecy in order to have some indication of what the economic climate of this country will be in 1977, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That this House urge the Minister of Finance to table without further delay all economic analysis and forecasts for the year 1977 which deal with unemployment, job creation, real growth and inflation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the presentation of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
 * *


FINANCE
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that every major economic forecaster in Canada, including the Conference Board, is predicting even higher levels of unemployment in the coming year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth):
That this House urge the government to bring in a budget when the House reconvenes in the next year with tax cuts for the middle and lower income groups which will stimulate weak consumer demand, eliminate excess capacity in our industry and create needed jobs without inflating the economy.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion under Standing Order 43 cannot be presented to the House without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Rod Blaker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and I have some reason to believe there will be unanimous consent to this motion as a result of some considerations and deliberations during the lunch hour.
Whereas the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has been made aware of the terms which the Auditor General has set in order that he might accept an invitation by United Development Incorporated of Tel Aviv, Israel, to carry out an audit of that company's books as they relate to the Atomic Energy of Canada sale of a CAN DU reactor to South Korea; and whereas the Auditor General has expressed the concern that his mandate to parliament might obligate him to disclose information related to the business of United Development Incorporated which goes beyond the transactions of United Development Incorporated vis-a-vis Atomic Energy of Canada Limited; and whereas it is in the interests of the Public Accounts Committee and of the House of Commons and of the people of Canada that the Auditor General does accept the said invitation and report thereon to the committee, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House advise the Auditor General of Canada of it's desire that he accept the invitation of United Development Incorporated to audit the books of that company in Israel, and that this House further advise the Auditor General that his report thereon be restricted to those matters which relate to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited transaction and involve no matters related to the other business affairs of United Development Incorporated.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can only be presented for debate at this time with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we did not deny the unanimity required to permit the hon. member to present this motion, but there are a few words about it which I would like to say. We understand the stated purpose of the motion, namely, that the Auditor General have our approval when he comes back from Tel Aviv not to disclose matters which might come before his eyes other than those related to the transaction between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the purchasers of CANDU reactors through Mr. Eisenberg. However, the phrase at the end of the motion bothers us. I refer to the phrase which says that these inquiries by the Auditor General shall involve no matters
December 21, 1976

related to the other business affairs of United Development Incorporated.
If such other business affairs are dealings between Mr. Eisenberg and other countries around the world, we are prepared to say that that is not the business of our Auditor General, but what would be the case if Mr. Macdonell, in surveying Mr. Eisenberg's books, finds that there are other business affairs between Mr. Eisenberg's company and the Government of Canada or other agencies of the Government of Canada? It seems to me that for us to pass a motion at this time which would keep those matters secret would not be in keeping with the purposes of this inquiry.
The hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker) discussed his proposed motion with me before we met at two o'clock, and I indicated that we would not deny unanimity for the purpose of presenting the motion, but I also indicated to him that I was concerned about the point which I have just now made, and the more I have thought about it and the more I have discussed it with my friends, the more strongly I feel that we should not be passing such a blanket motion of secrecy. I realize that the purpose of the motion is to facilitate the going of the Auditor General to Israel to get all the information he can about the deals involving Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, but to repeat my question, if he finds that Mr. Eisenberg has been involved with the Government of Canada in other respects or with other agencies of the Government of Canada, it seems to me that we should not tie the Auditor General's hands with respect to the disclosing of that other information.
We would be happier, or less unhappy, with the motion if a few words were added to it. I therefore wish to propose an amendment which will add words to the motion before the House, and I hope the mover and the House generally will accept these additional words. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That the motion be amended by adding at the end thereof the following words:
"unless such other business affairs are between United Development Incorporated and the government of Canada or any agency thereof."
If that amendment is added, then the House of Commons is saying to the Auditor General, "Do not tell us about Mr. Eisenberg's affairs with other countries around the world but if you find on going into his books that there are other matters involving Canada or other agencies of the government of Canada we do not want to restrict you from bringing that information back to us."
I hope that the mover will accept my amendment and if he does, that the House will do likewise. Otherwise, I am afraid that although we were prepared to let the motion be presented to the House, we could not support it in its original form.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker).


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Auditor General


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House I should indicate that in putting this motion the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore has in fact spoken. Some hon. members are indicating that if he speaks now he will close the debate. May I remind them that discussion is now on the amendment put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond briefly to the comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Prior to doing so, I want to say that as he was speaking there seemed to be general indication of agreement to the amendment he put. As the mover of the main motion I would also agree. We are receiving the greatest co-operation from Mr. Eisenberg and his company, United Development Incorporated, in Israel and I am sure all members would agree that we hope the amendment would not cause Mr. Eisenberg to finally withdraw the invitation. He has shown the greatest co-operation and has asked for some lessening of the massive publicity surrounding his private business. So be it, and the risk will be ours if as a result of this amendment we cannot get his agreement on this.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is upon the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Knowles, (Winnipeg North Centre)) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is therefore upon the motion as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this preliminary point of order in view of the unusual circumstances today which result from the vote on the Standing Order 43 motion. I believe when this matter was previously discussed Your Honour indicated that if there were debate or a division on a Standing Order 43 motion, the business of the House would be interrupted at 2.15 p.m. in order that the question period could proceed without being affected by any debate on such a motion. I wonder if Your Honour would be inclined to indicate if we would have the full period of time for question period available to us or, as an alternative, everyone would simply agree we have the full three-quarters of an hour for the question period today in view of the unusual circumstances.

Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognized the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) because of the obvious nature of the point of order involved. I think it would be very dangerous for the Chair to rule that the question period ought to continue and the time ought to be made up. It would seem to me to be unfair to use Standing Order 43 in a way that might cause us great concern in the future. The time is really not that great. Perhaps under the circumstances, however, and with the opportunity to consider this problem further and time to clarify it in discussion in future, the House might now give its unanimous consent that the question period will continue until ten minutes past three this afternoon. Is that understood?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. With the shocking prospect that within one year there may be over 800,000 people out of work, as predicted by the Conference Board of Canada yesterday, and with business investment estimated to drop 1.5 per cent this year and slump by another 2.5 per cent next year, would the minister, responsible as he is for industry, trade and commerce, indicate if it is likely that we are faced with such a low level of investment, and does he agree in part with the current, scathing Credit Swiss financial letter which states that Canada's rating as a place for investment has suffered, owing in part to the imposition of our productivity hampering wage and price control program and arbitrary bureaucratic procedures at Ottawa?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with this statement made by somebody who lives in Switzerland.


ALLEGATIONS OF CREDIT SWISS CONCERNING REASONS FOR UNEMPLOYMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the President of the Treasury Board has commented that our financial performance during the past four years has been nothing short of remarkable, would the minister indicate if his department or any department of government has undertaken any study to determine if we are in fact doing so well; and if we are, why have we had a higher unemployment level in this country, on average 622,000 people out of work, than any of the countries referred to by the

President of the Treasury Board; also, does the minister agree with Credit Swiss that our " ... all-too-high unemployment in the country is 'structural', the heritage of years of ill-conceived policies that produced huge budget deficits ..."?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with that judgment.


IMPACT OF INTEREST RATES-POSSIBILITY OF LOWERING
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a final supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce? As high interest rates in Canada, three to four points higher than in the United States, have become an impediment to business development and an unreasonable burden for our homeowners and consumers, would the minister indicate if his department has reviewed the adverse impact of such high interest rates on our economy and, based on that review, has he made any representations to the Minister of Finance concerning the desirability of lower interest rates in Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the government monetary policy is drafted by the Minister of Finance, not by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


FORECASTS FOR REAL GROWTH AND UNEMPLOYMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce? Given that the University of Toronto Institute for Policy Analyses forecasts continued sluggish growth and even higher unemployment, that the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development warns that this country faces a mini-recession and that the Conference Board of Canada is concerned about the Canadian economy going into a stall which would result in 3 per cent of real growth and an unemployment rate of 8.3 per cent by the end of next year, does the minister accept these serious conclusions? If not, does he have available at this time any analyses and forecasts to refute these most serious conclusions?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, of course the government is always concerned about the economic situation of our country and that is why we have recently announced measures to reduce unemployment. We are really concerned about the present situation, but I do not think we are going towards a recession, even if the percentage of our growth rate for 1977 will not necessarily be higher than this year's.
December 21, 1976


REASON FOR REFUSING TO REVEAL ANALYSES AND FORECASTS FOR 1977
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The important part of my question was whether the government had any analyses of economic forecasts upon which it bases its position? I ask this since the Minister of Manpower and Immigration on November 22, when replying to a question I asked, said in part, as reported on page 1221 of Hansard:
I would say to the hon. member that obviously we have forecast information on which we base our judgments, but I think it would be inappropriate to put this up as a target for the opposition critics to shoot at.
Surely, such reasons for refusing to divulge analyses and economic forecasts are unacceptable. Therefore, why will not the minister or some other minister of the government reveal, for the benefit and edification of the Canadian people, analyses and economic forecasts pertaining to the year 1977? I am not prepared to accept the stupid reason given by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Surely the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce would be prepared to answer the question, because the people of Canada need to know what the situation is to be in 1977.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not have much to add to the remarks of the hon. member, but I would advise him to read the last budget speech. It includes all the government economic data established by the Minister of Finance. When we will be proposing the next budget, the hon. member will once again be in a position to treat himself to statistics.


UNEMPLOYMENT-GOVERNMENT'S VIEW OF IMPORTANCE OF PROBLEM
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the Conference Board's forecast on the economy which predicts even higher unemployment levels next year, is the government now prepared to admit that unemployment is Canada's number one problem and that it can be tackled without inflating the economy, as has been pointed out by the Conference Board?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the policy statements that have been made by the Minister of Finance on the subject of unemployment and inflation. The Minister of Finance has already indicated the priorities of the government in this field. It is not my intention to change them today.


POSSIBILITY OF REDUCTION OF TAX FOR LOWER AND MIDDLE INCOME GROUP TO STIMULATE CONSUMER DEMAND
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Finance. In view of
Oral Questions
the fact that we have legislation before us now which will reduce the tax load only for people in higher tax brackets, and in view of the fact that a reduction of the tax load in lower and middle tax brackets would have a far greater effect in stimulating consumer demand to take up the slack in the economy, will the acting minister tell the House if he is prepared to take this step and, if not, what action will he take to stimulate consumer demand?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the budget measures that are now before the House have been before the House for a long time. I hope hon. members will shortly be putting them into law. As for a future budget, the Minister of Finance has already indicated a new budget will be forthcoming which will take into consideration many or all of the matters raised by hon. members in the question period.


Some hon. Members:: When?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: As to when, it will be in the first six months of next year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HOUSING
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the Acting Minister of State for Urban Affairs, if there is an acting minister. In view of the Conference Board's prediction that housing starts will be down some
30.000	units in the coming year, has the minister in charge of housing any new initiatives he will be presenting to the House early in the new year to take up this slack in housing production?


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we all know that housing starts for 1976 were above what we expected them to be. We set a quota of one million starts in four years. We are better than half way through that mandate and we think we can continue with it. We are confident at this stage that we have more or less surpassed our commitment. We have every confidence that next year there will be at least
235.000	starts.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Inasmuch as a number of plants in receipt of grants under the Regional Development Incentives Act are experiencing serious
2192

December 21, 1976
Oral Questions
difficulty due to the deteriorating economic situation, an example of which was experienced in Pembroke with the recent closing of Homco Mobile Homes with a consequent loss of 120 jobs or layoffs at Storewall International, both firms having received over three quarters of a million dollars in RDIA grants, what action is the minister or his department taking to ensure that the reason for which the grants were made, that of job creation, will not in fact be defeated?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, it is most unfortunate that some of these industries which were granted support from our department are being faced with problems and that some of them are compelled to end their operations. However I can assure the House and the hon. member that whenever our department is informed of such situations, which is virtually always the case, it does contribute to seek solutions to the extent that the law enables it to do so. Whenever possible, we have provided technical and advisory means to get them financial assistance other than the one granted by our department.
Unfortunately, I must confess that there are limits to our possibilities and that sometimes there is no other alternative. We must accept therefore that these industries close their doors and give up their operations. But I shall remind the House that we are fully aware of those problems and that we are considering the reasons for such situations. We will attempt in the future to bring corrections when it is in our power to do so.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON ACTION TO CREATE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the considerable concern there is with regard to the need for long term job creation and the problems the minister and I both alluded to, and in view of the decreasing level of funding provided under RDIA for long term job creation as compared to the overall budget for DREE, will the minister make a brief statement today or, if that is not possible, make a statement shortly in this House indicating what steps are being taken to stimulate greater employment possibilities, particularly in those regions where the department has prime responsibility and where the unemployment situation is the most acute?
[ Translation]


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, we are in fact undertaking an advertizing program to promote certain activities for small and medium businesses in the designated areas. This program was launched a few weeks ago and will go on during the next weeks and months.
In addition, we are looking for other solutions and, as the hon. member said, I hope to be able, very early at the beginning of next year, to make a statement which would allow us to change our programs and thus, perhaps, meet some of the concerns expressed by the hon. member.


CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES ON MEASURES TO CREATE JOBS
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the minister's offer to make a statement in view of changes that may be made. In view of the fact there are a number of programs operating under federal departments as well as a number of provincial government departments, some of which are still somewhat in conflict with each other, and the need for these programs to harmonize in order to achieve maximum effectiveness in job creation, can the minister now say, before such a statement, that there will be a meeting convened of responsible ministers in the provinces in order to get maximum agreement with them and coordinate most effectively changes that will be made in order to make up the loss of jobs presently occurring in the plants I described or others that may be in jeopardy?


Marcel Lessard: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I am currently taking part in this series of meetings which are called for under our agreements with the provincial governments. At these annual meetings-I had one last week and shall have another one next week with another provincial government-I review the programs which are already in place, including our assistance program to the industry, trying to make the necessary improvements.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: 
AVAILABILITY OF CANADIAN EXPERTISE TO UNITED STATES COASTGUARD
William Herbert Jarvis: 
DEPARTMENT'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINE FROM KITIMAT, BRITISH COLUMBIA TO ALBERTA
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: 
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES OF CONSEQUENCES OF OIL TANKERS OPERATING NEAR KITIMAT, BRITISH COLUMBIA
John Allen Fraser: Can the minister tell the House whether a full environmental study has been carried out with regard to the possible consequences of oil tankers entering the dangerous waters opposite Kitimat? If such a study has been conducted, is the minister prepared to make the results public?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: No full environmental study has been done yet.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services and it has to do with cheques promised to veterinarians of the Health of Animals Branch. It appears some of these cheques have been
Oral Questions
delivered but that others have not. Is the minister aware of the consequences which late delivery will mean to members of this group in the context of their income tax returns? I understand that some of the cheques may not be delivered until January 3 or January 6. Will every effort be made by the department to ensure that all the veterinarians affected by the agreement will receive the promised remuneration in the 1976 tax year- either have them postmarked prior to midnight, December 31, 1976, or delivered prior to December 31?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Following consultations with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker, we have decided to send veterinarians their cheques for up to $1,000 before Christmas or by December 31, 1976 at the latest.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has reference to the mysterious death of Anna Mae Aquash in the United States. I first raised this question on May 14 and again on November 15. Does the minister have anything more to report on this matter? Further, will the children be receiving any compensation?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I have some information which has been conveyed to us by the United States authorities. I was planning to reply to the hon. member's letter to me on the same subject of December 16. The documentation provided by the United States conveys information from the FBI on its investigation into the death of the woman in question. I can make it available to the hon. member and would be prepared to table it. However, we have just received it and I do not have a French translation. I would be glad to let the hon. member see it, and perhaps table it subsequently with the agreement of the House.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister did not answer the second part of the question. Will the children be receiving compensation of any kind?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I apologize to the hon. member. In looking over this document, which is to the best of my knowledge the only document received from the United States authorities, I find there is no reference to compensation. But I shall be glad to make further inquiries and advise the hon. member.
80008-2%

December 21, 1976
Oral Questions


ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: A question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker. Has ministerial approval yet been given to the application by Eldorado Nuclear to build a new refining plant in Ontario?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Would the minister indicate whether approval is expected, or can he give an undertaking that there will be an announcement concerning this matter prior to the House resuming in January?


Alastair William Gillespie: I can give no such undertaking.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Will there be any further lay-offs by Canadian National in Newfoundland following the announcement on Friday that they were cancelling two trains, and laying off two crews, which seems to fly in the face of the understanding reached between the CN, the government of Newfoundland and the unions that there would be a freeze of present services in the province pending the findings of a commission of inquiry?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: I am not aware of the terms of the agreement to which the hon. member refers but I will look into the matter. I do not at the moment know of any further plans by the CN.


James Aloysius McGrath: While the minister is checking with the CN, could he inquire into the rationale behind a further decision of the railway company to withdraw one of the ferries connecting Newfoundland to the mainland of Canada, leaving only one ship to provide that service during the off-tourist season?


Otto Emil Lang: I am advised that the rail car offerings expected can be handled by the remaining vessel and that an additional one is therefore not required.


NORTHERN CANADA POWER COMMISSION
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern

Development. Can the minister tell us whether he has had an opportunity of reviewing the recommendations of the task force on electrical energy costs in the north and, in particular, does he accept the statement that power bills paid by domestic consumers are generally not out of line with those paid in higher cost areas elsewhere in Canada, particularly in view of the comment by the Mayor of Inuvik to the effect that monthly power bills in the north can often exceed mortgage payments on the home?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I am reviewing that report now. I did not accept the recommendations of the report in total. I am looking for other options which will relieve the impact of power rates in the north. All those options are not in the report.


Douglas Charles Neil: In the Speech from the Throne it was stated, and I quote, that "all federal programs will be reviewed to identify government activities which could be transferred to the private sector without reducing quality of service to the public." Has the government reviewed, or does it intend to review, the activities of the NCPC to determine whether some of its activities could be transferred to the public sector?


William Warren Allmand: That suggestion has not been made to us by the people in the north and is not under review.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister give us whatever documentation he has to support the validity of the statement that the underworld is involved in the marketing of beef in Canada?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: I think the hon. member should go by the record. If the hon. member would refer to the tape I made at Edmonton and to the press comments afterward, he would find that a question was put to me by a number of farmers. What I said afterward would clear up any misconception the hon. member may have. I was referring to a crime investigation being carried on in the province of Quebec, and that evidence is available to anyone.


AIRPORT
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport what is becoming my traditional question of the end of the year, in the hope that
December 21, 1976

he breaks up with tradition, and inquire when the airport construction in northwest New Brunswick will be announced. Or will he have to wait for a separation threat from the republic of Madawaska to get things moving?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. 1 think the hon. member has done enough already and that no further action on his part is needed. I am happy to say that we are making positive progress and we will soon have a time schedule for him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


PENITENTIARIES
Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General, to whom I was unable to give a copy of the letter in question, but I will do so as soon as I can.
Following the recent visit to Quebec penitentiaries, and in view of the fact that several inmates appearing before the committee mentioned they feared retaliation after their testimony, just before coming here I received a letter from an inmate advising me that one of the witnesses who had denounced some guards had indeed been thrown in the hole. Can the minister tell the House then whether he intends to find an early solution so as to prevent the ever increasing stress in that penitentiary before there is any row in there, and to protect the director, Mr. Goulem, who is also in a bad situation vis-a-vis these guards?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, of course I am looking forward to the report and recommendations to be submitted by the committee of which the hon. gentleman is a member.
As to the question of retaliation, I am not aware of the case the hon. member is referring to, and I am waiting for the letter with much impatience. It is obvious that I should like to tell him that no individual can be sent to solitary confinement unless he appeared before a disciplinary committee of the institution, and members of the committee are always appointed by the institution's director.


POLICY ON TRANSFERRING PRISONERS-ALLEGED REFUSAL OF AIR CANADA TO TRANSPORT PRISONER
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Solicitor General. On Monday of last week I asked him about policy on transferring dangerous prisoners between federal prisons in relation to delay of a certain commercial flight and the minister said he would look
Oral Questions
into it and get back to me. I should like to ask him again today, what is the government's policy on this important matter, and does he have the information he promised about the specific case?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer as far as policy is concerned. Perhaps the hon. member could bring to my attention the specific case to which he is referring. In the matter of policy, I can say there has been no change in policy recently. I will go beyond that to say that our policy is to use commercial means of transportation, taking into account the security of the public, but in all cases of transfers of inmates the captain of the aircraft is consulted. On his refusal to accept inmates as passengers we use other means of transportation as available and convenient.


NATURAL GAS-RATE INCREASE IN NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA-APPROVAL OF NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he is aware of an increase in natural gas prices in northern regions of British Columbia, particularly the town of Fort Nelson, amounting to 68 per cent, which results in an increase to the average householder of $30 per month? Would the minister indicate whether he is aware of this situation and if the National Energy Board was involved in approving of or scrutinizing this action?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the details of what the hon. member has raised. I suspect it may have to do with the B.C. government's pricing policy rather than the pricing policy at the wellhead. However, I will draw it to the attention of the National Energy Board.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD POSSIBILITY OF BOARD INTERVENING IN RATE INCREASE FOR NATURAL GAS IN NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. Will he co-operate with the minister in determining what deal was made with the province of British Columbia that prevents the Anti-Inflation Board to intervene in a case where such an increase is imposed on the domestic consumer of energy?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to bring that to the minister's attention and look into it with him.

December 21, 1976
Oral Questions TRADE


TEXTILE IMPORT QUOTA-ACTION TO RELIEVE SMALL RETAILERS FROM EFFECT-POSSIBILITY OF MONOPOLIES BUYING QUOTAS
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Small Business). I am wondering whether he would advise the House on measures he is taking to alleviate the plight and concerns of small retailers and importers who have been caught in the 1975 quota guillotine of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will take the time to read the release we issued on the subject last Friday, on which my colleague worked with me, he will be satisfied we are doing our utmost to help the small businesses who started up in 1975. He will realize, too, that yesterday the first question by a member of his party called for more protection for the textile industry in Canada.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister that I have read the release many times. I am wondering whether the minister can advise if the textile quotas are to be permanent, and is he sympathetic to the growth of potential importing monopolies that are being encouraged through the buying up of these quotas?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this is a very complex problem. Of course, I can see another change in the policy of the opposition in this regard since Monday. My main aim is to protect the textile industry in Canada and I hope to be able to achieve that in a rational manner. If the hon. member has not understood my statement of last Friday I will be pleased to send him a copy in French.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I really think these two questions are serious and important. They are not negative in any respect. Would the minister advise whether he is taking steps to prevent such a concentration of importing privileges in the hands of a few in Canada? There are many small businesses and retailers who are affected by this measure. I am sympathetic to the basic move, but are these problems being Fixed up?


Mr. Chr6tien:: Mr. Speaker, in order to cope with this, especially for small businesses, we have decided to have a special allocation for businesses in high quality fashion, for those who started after 1975 and for the hardship cases we have retained 10 per cent of the quota for 1975 to distribute among those suffering the most.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr.   Albert@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Could the minister tell whether the people of the Lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspe Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands can expect to enter into a new agreement of economic development as promised for 1976 or the beginning of 1977 or whether they must resign themselves to the resumption of negotiations presumably resulting from the change of government in Quebec on November 15 last?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member and the people of the Lower St. Lawrence can reasonably expect to profit from an agreement on regional development which we hope to be in a position to conclude before the beginning of the next fiscal year.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, might I address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that December 31 is the deadline for negotiating nuclear safeguards with Pakistan, which is believed to be working toward the explosion of a nuclear device, and in view of the fact that Canada has insisted that the explosion of any nuclear device by Pakistan will be followed by a cessation of Canadian supplies, keeping in mind that the deadline is so near, will the government reiterate this determination to cease supplying nuclear materials to Pakistan if a nuclear device is exploded by that country?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I believe I could, answer the question with one word, namely, yes, but I should perhaps amplify it by saying the hon. member is quite correct in indicating the deadline, not only in relation to Pakistan but in relation to at least two other customer countries of which I am aware. We are in the process now of last minute, if that is the appropriate term, negotiations in the case of Pakistan, to see if there has been any change in attitude which would indicate their willingness to abide by the proposals we have placed before them. If the current last minute negotiations are not successful then the end result will be as the hon. member has outlined it, namely, there will cease to be any ongoing co-operation between us.
December 21, 1976


INDUSTRY
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of widespread reservations, especially by bodies such as the Economic Council of Canada, about the present means to deal with the textile industry and bring stabilization, which is being greeted with some concern, is the minister considering any in-depth study of the industry either by his own department by bringing in outside people in the form of a task force?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I believe we had no other alternative in the circumstances. Of course, I read the comments made by the Economic Council of Canada where they say they would prefer it if we took other actions but they do not know which. After analyzing the situation in the textile industry in Canada in the last few years, I am happy to report to the House that it has improved and modernized itself greatly since 1970, but it still needs some assistance. That is why I decided to give Canadian manufacturers at least 55 per cent of the market and let the remaining 45 per cent to imports. No other industrialized country is as generous as Canada in matters of imports.


William Gordon Ritchie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the present head of the AIB has indicated his willingness to move, and as he was responsible for the legislation of 1970, is the minister considering that Mr. Pepin might serve in some capacity to help bring more stability to this industry?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I take good note of the hon. member's recommendation concerning Mr. Pepin.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Supply and Services I should like to pose a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is in a position to shed some light on this subject. In view of the unfortunate shortfall in respect of the projected sales of Olympic coins, could the minister advise the House what the total overrun amounts to and what the government intends to do with the large quantities of unsold coins now on hand?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to
Oral Questions
give specific information to the hon. member, but I will pass the question on to my colleague the Minister of Supply and Services.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could confirm the fact that the overrun of unsold Olympic coins is in the neighbourhood of 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the $450 million which were expected to be sold, and who will bear the cost of liquidating these coins? Would the parliamentary secretary also explain the statements made by Mr. Garot Jackobsen, the assistant master of the Mint, to the effect that no melting of the coins is in fact taking place?


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no information on that. I doubt that the premises of the first part of the question are correct; as for the other two points, I will communicate with the minister and the information will be provided to the hon. member.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The minister informed us last week that he was moving the Canadian forces parachute maintenance depot from Edmonton. As the Canadian airborne centre, which gives initial and advance training to all parachutists, is apparently to remain in Edmonton, can the minister confirm that the parachutes used by the airborne school-representing 40 per cent of the total-will have to be sent down here to be repacked after each jump?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is correct in that the airborne school does do the majority of the jumping. The airborne regiment does much less than the others, so that the packing facility and the airborne facility have to be together. That is why, in speaking to the hon. member for Edmonton Centre the other day, I said that any moves have to be phased so that the packing facility and the school facility are close at hand.
It is not a new phenomenon. When the airborne school was at Shilo, I believe it was, and at Rivers, chutes had to be returned for packing to one central depot, which is usually associated with the school where most of the repacking is done. As I pointed out to the hon. gentleman from Edmonton Centre, the chutes are repacked before the troops jump.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister now has the situation hopelessly confused. Last week he said that the depot was moving down here, and now

December 21, 1976
Oral Questions
he indicates that it is going to stay in Edmonton. Could he be more specific: Is he or is he not going to move the parachute packing facility, what is known as the parachute maintenance depot, out of Edmonton?


Barnett Jerome Danson: When the airborne school is moved from Edmonton, as part of the phasing operation the packing operation will have to be moved to be close to it.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. This is the first indication we have had that the minister has any intention whatever of moving the airborne school. Can we now take it that it is going to be part of his future policy to move that, too, out of Edmonton?


Barnett Jerome Danson: That is a possibility, Mr. Speaker.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In the December issue of the Argus-Journal, the Public Service Alliance of Canada publication, there is a quotation from a letter received from the deputy minister of veterans affairs, Mr. Bruce Brittain. In this letter he states that the estimated total cost of moving the Department of Veterans Affairs from Ottawa to Prince Edward Island is $20 million. Would the minister justify this expenditure at this time of supposed government restraint?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that is the anticipated cost, with completion of the move in 1980.


A. Daniel McKenzie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can I take it from that answer that the government is definitely going to move DVA to Prince Edward Island at an estimated cost of $20 million?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The principle of this proposal has been approved by the government of Canada, Mr. Speaker, and as far as I am concerned the department is definitely going to move.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce another opportunity to demonstrate his support for the protection of Canadian industry from cheap foreign imports. In view of the fact that imports of chicken into Canada this year are running at four times the 1974 level and that 95 per cent of the chicken being imported into this country is coming into Ontario, does the government propose

taking any short term action to provide relief for Ontario producers from these extremely high levels of chicken imports between now and the time the final decision is made on the creation of a national chicken marketing agency? I ask this question in view of the fact that not only dollars but jobs are being lost to the United States in this respect.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, at the moment I have nothing to announce in this regard and of course, before I announce any policy in that area, I shall have to consult with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture.


FOOTWEAR-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON CLOSING OF FACTORIES IN MOUNT FOREST AND MARKDALE
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a related question on the subject of import quotas. On November 30 the minister indicated to me that he was not then in a position to report to the House on the undertaking that he had made on November 9 concerning the shutdown of two Canadian shoe factories in Mount Forest and Markdale because of the level of imports from abroad. Is the minister now in a position to give that report, and, if so, what is it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 
AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the nearness of year end coupled with the long period of time that we have been waiting for a decision from the CTC on the class two licence applications before them for air passenger service in Atlantic Canada, I wonder whether the Minister of Transport could give the House some indication of the status of these applications before the CTC and also the position of his department and the government with respect to any plans his department may have to work along with the
December 21, 1976

implementation of this much needed air passenger service in Atlantic Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, along with the hon. member we await that decision very eagerly and will attempt to deal with it in whatever way we must as expeditiously as we can.


ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is apparently serving as Acting Prime Minister today? May I ask the minister responsible for the Atomic Energy Control Board whether or not the board has received an application for permission to establish a pilot uranium mill in the city of Saskatoon from Amok Ltd., whether permission will in fact be granted, or whether or not they will await full environmental studies in the city of Saskatoon and its environs before granting such a licence?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to look into the whole question of a licence. It is not something on which I give directions to the Atomic Energy Control Board.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege since it is the only course open to me to protest against a recent, shabby CTV news report which, by innuendo, casts a slur upon me and my family. The report dealing with travel on DND aircraft and written by Mr. Charlie Greenwell, after a telephone interview with myself, was inaccurate and erroneous as well as clearly designed to make a preconceived point. I was unable to resolve the matter with CTV News since no one, not even the reporter concerned, would discuss the subject with me, although I made three attempts to contact them.
Having been given the facts, Mr. Greenwell chose to sensationalize the issue by producing a false and misleading report. Subsequent refusal to discuss the matter and take corrective action, in my view, establishes him as the journalistic equivalent of a creature to whom scientists refer as sus scrofa, or referred to pseudo scientifically as porcus domesticus. In view of the facts which I have outlined, and in view of the fact that this House has always staunchly defended the freedom of the press, if you, sir, should decide that my question of privilege is
Business of the House
valid, I would move that this House express its displeasure with all examples of shabby and irresponsible news reporting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You would have to abolish the Globe and Mail.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. For reasons which I set out at greater length in respect of earlier but similar cases raised by hon. members respecting the reporting of their activities, either directly or indirectly connected with their capacities as members of parliament, I have come to the conclusion that, as I have expressed in the past and for these reasons, unless the reporting amounts to a contempt of the House it should not be looked upon as being in the class of a question of privilege. Certainly, no argument is put forward that the reporting is contemptuous in this situation. Therefore, I will have to hold that no prima facie question of privilege appears to be raised by these remarks at this time.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I should like to ask the government House leader if he would indicate what order of business is intended for today, in view of the statement made yesterday in the House that he intended to have Bill C-22 passed through all stages. Would he advise the House of his intention with respect to the business of the House for the balance of the day?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I varied the order of the business in an effort to develop a more seasonal atmosphere in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Therefore, I would like to call the bill on historic sites and monuments, followed by the metric conversion bill, followed by the bill on scientific activities, followed by the bill on satisfied securities.


Mr. Elzinga:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek clarification of Your Honour's ruling with regard to questions relating to financial matters which might possibly be related to future budgetary provisions. I refer specifically to questions put by the hon. member for York-Simcoe yesterday and by the leader of the NDP last Friday. These two members were cut short by Your Honour and it was Your Honour's opinion that their questions were basically on budgetary matters. I am sure Your Honour can appreciate the difficulty which hon. members have in asking questions on fiscal matters since almost all questions can ultimately be considered to be on budgetary matters. In my humble opinion, the questions appear to be in order with regard to form and content, and I wonder if clarification could be obtained from Your Honour in regard to this matter.

December 21, 1976
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member raises a very interesting question. It has been the subject, I am sure, of much conversation. I am prepared to consider the matter very carefully over the Christmas break. However, it does seem to me that when a question is put to a minister, the answer to which would result in one of the strongest and most clearly established breaches of privilege in the annals of that very narrowly defined procedural area, there is little sense in allowing the question to be put if the answer will clearly be that it is a budgetary matter, and if it were to be answered it would breach one of the most well established privileges of the House.
It might be preferable to allow such questions to be put on the narrow grounds that the minister can always say that he is not prepared to consider such matters. However, that seems to me to be most unlikely ground, and in fairness we should indicate to hon. members putting such a question whether the Minister of Finance is prepared to consider a cut in taxes. That is a question that has been the subject matter of rulings on both occasions. If the minister were to give an indication that such matters were being considered, his answer would have to be classified as a leak of budgetary considerations, which is a clear breach of privilege. Therefore, if the answer will result in an offence against the privileges of the House, it seems to me that the question should not be put. However, if there is a strong feeling about it, I can listen to other representations and perhaps consider them over the Christmas break.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If Your Honour will be considering this matter over the Christmas vacation, I would mention that two of the instances in question related to requests for tax cuts; they sought an indication from the minister as to whether there would be tax cuts. I would remind Your Honour-and perhaps you will recall yourself-that certainly this is merely one option with respect to the economic circumstances of our country which was presented to the federal-provincial meeting by the Minister of Finance.
When the question was asked by the leader of the NDP and by the hon. member for York-Simcoe with respect to that possibility, it seemed to me to be in the context of whether or not it was an option that was being considered. In other words, the minister had the opportunity of saying either that it was, or was not, that there were other options, or elaborating on them. It seems to me that when there are serious economic matters that face our country, as there are today, these kinds of questions simply search out and seek clarification on the options that are available. The possibility is available to us, and it would not breach budgetary secrecy and the traditional privileges of hon. members would not be thereby affected.
So I simply make my observations in the knowledge that Your Honour will probably have thought of them himself. I simply wanted to raise them in case, by some oversight, you did not consider that aspect.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to assure the House that the next time a question of this nature arises which does not invite a clear breach of parliamentary privilege and

which is not a representation, which is often the case-a question put in this form is in double jeopardy because usually it is a straightforward representation-I will give it careful consideration, and if I have any doubt perhaps I will postpone the question until three o'clock and listen to arguments as to whether or not the question is in order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I have the honour to present the report on how to improve business-government relations in Canada.


HOLIDAYS ACT, 1976 MEASURE TO INSTITUTE JULY 1 AS &quot;CANADA DAY&quot;
Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-30, an act respecting certain holidays.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 147, 340, 344, 636, 761, 918, 924, 937, 962, 963, 1,027, 1,039, 1,043, 1,057, 1,087 and 1,098.
December 21, 1976


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the fiscal year 1975-1976, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs
Order Paper Questions
or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Department of Finance?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable figures for the fiscal year 1973-1974?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: I. (a)
Contract Description
To analyse long-term development of monetary and real income distribution among the different groups of the Canadian population.
To analyse and report on medium and long-term growth prospects of the Canada Economy and of the government sector in particular.
To assist and advise the Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance, concerning aspects of the Anti-Inflation Program.
To assist and advise the Department of Finance in providing information to the public concerning the economic situation, to undertake other special projects including communications liaison and to participate as an advisor at meetings of senior departmental officers.
To undertake tasks identified in the system proposed to the provinces in the Continuing Committee Sub-Committee on Intergovernmental Taxation and to carry out such other tasks as may be assigned by the project coordinator of the Task Force on Reciprocal Taxation.
2.
Amount
Committed	Name
$ 4,437.00	F. H. Leacy
$ 5,500.00 F. H. Leacy
$ 11,550.00 Coopers & Lybrand
$ 42,499.92 B. E. MacDonald
$163,109.75 Biro Inc.
1 [DOT] (b)
Contract Description
To advise and assist the Guaranteed Loans Division in the compiling and writing of an Operational and Procedures Manual and assist the Financial Services Division of the Department of Finance to carry out a management study of the Guaranteed Loans Division.
To examine the papers and documents held in the office of the Deputy Minister, in the light of Government policy and practice respecting the custody of public records, recommend which papers and documents should be incorporated in departmental records and to provide advice to the Deputy Minister on questions arising in connection with the internal organization and administration of the Department.
To provide advice to the Director, Information Services on the establishment of a system to deal with ministerial correspondence and on the quality control of the production of the Enquiries Centre.
2.
Amount
Committed	Name
$ 5,040.00	J. Mahar
$ 5,000.00 S. S. Reisman
$ 1,800.00 S. A. Clemens
To assist and advise the Tax Policy $ 18,700.00 Peat, Marwick, Branch, Department of Finance,	Mitchell & Co.
concerning aspects of the Anti-Inflation Program.
To assist and advise the International	$	30,875.20	G. Coulombe
Tax Policy Division particularly in the analysis and review of the International provisions of the Income Tax Act and the negotiations of a new network of International Tax Treaties.
To undertake research and studies	$	4,050.00	V. Festing
requested by the coordinator for the Task Force on Reciprocal Taxation.
To provide advice to the Director	$	5,000.00	H. M. Furniss
Information Services Division of the Department of Finance on the preparation of special publications and information associated with the Federal Budget.

December 21, 1976
1. (a)	Order Paper Questions 2.	
Contract Description	Amount Committed	Name
Mb)
Contract Description
2.
Amount
Committed Name
To advise the Economic Programs and $ 4,625.00 D. F. Gordon Government Finance Branch concerning economic analysis of issues relating to resource allocation.
To advise the Economic Development $ 4,600.00 Division concerning economic aspects of transportation policy.
T. D. Heaver Enterprises Ltd.
To advise and assist the Corporation $ 4,500.00 Price Waterhouse and Business Income Division	and Company
particularly with respect to analysis of the taxation of the natural resource industry.
To provide advice in connection with	$ 33,541.59	M. Clennett
studies and analysis pertaining to the Decennial Revision of the Bank		
		
Act.		
Total	$332,988.46	
3. Comparable figures for 1973-74	$132,655.00


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Was a press conference given by five hooded individuals on Sunday, September 26, 1976 to air complaints concerning the unemployment insurance system and, if so, was the conference reported by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	Were any of the individuals employees of the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
3.	Have any of the individuals applied for unemployment insurance payments?
4.	Is an employee of the Department of Manpower and Immigration entitled to publicly voice his criticism of departmental regulations and their application?
5.	Have any employees recently been dismissed for publicly criticising the Department and, if so (a) who were they (b) for what reasons?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	Not known.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	No.
5.	No.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What proportion of total sales did the four largest grain elevator companies in the industry earn in (a) 1960 (b) 1965 (c) 1970 (d) 1975 (or the most recent year that statistics are available)?
2.	What proportion of total sales did the eight largest firms in the industry earn in (a) 1960 (b) 1965 (c) 1970 (d) 1975 (or the most recent year that statistics are available)?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports the following: 1. The proportion of total sales earned by the four largest grain elevator corporations in the industry was 56 per cent in 1965, 70 per cent in 1970, and 85 per cent in 1973, the latest year for which statistics are available.
2.	The proportion of total sales earned by the eight largest grain elevator corporations in the industry was 74 per cent in 1965, 91 per cent in 1970, and 95 per cent in 1973, the latest year for which statistics are available. The above are based on data compiled from the income tax returns of corporations on the basis of industry statistics contained in the Statistics Canada publication "Corporation Financial Statistics." Sales include commissions and rent.
Note: Data for 1960 are not available.

December 21, 1976


Mr. Beatty: 1.	For each month since the creation of the Anti-Inflation Board (a) how many people were employed by the Board (b) what was the payroll of the Board (c) how many employees of the Board were seconded from other parts of the government?
2.	By month, how many consultants were employed by the Board and what was the cost to the government?
3.	(a) By month, how many square feet of office space have been used by the Board and where was such space located (b) is the Board currently looking for more office space or giving consideration to building permanent facilities?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. (a)
See Table "A", (b) See Table "B". (c) See Table "A".
2.	See Table "C".
3.	See Table "D".
1.	Table "A" (a)	(c)Month	Employees	*SecondmentsDecember, 1975	342	177January 1976	407	187February	470	175March	524	184April	677	164May	860	197June	889	151July	906	132August	865	104September	856	100October	866	97
* These are included in the totals shown in (a). *
Table "B"
Monthly Payroll of the AIB
1975	
October	Nil
November	Nil
December	$ 71,242.75
1976	
January	127,334.21
February	374,508.52
* March	561,289.40
April	298,147.99
May	417,464.26
June	596,268.42
July	695,126.50
August	1,080,981.38
September	1,287,914.06
* The payroll during the month of March includes the majori-
Order Paper Questions
ty of retroactive adjustments for the period of December to March. This is the result of the time lag between the official date of appointment of personnel and the processing of adjustment between departments. It also includes the overtime paid for the period of January to March.
The records are not kept in a format which will indicate the exact cost per month. The average payroll for the first four month period of the Anti-Inflation Board was $286,063.
2.	Consultants by man month and cost:
	Table "C" Man	
Month	months	$November	1	3,750December	5	20,650January	5	14,500February	6	25,475March	5	15,050April	6	23,162May	7	28,553June	8	25,487July	11	29,862August	7	19,329September	2	6,113Total	63	211,9313. Following is a list by location, square footage and occu-	pancy date of office space used by the Anti-Inflation Board. Table "D"	(a) Ottawa	Canadian Building	Square Footage	Occupied since14th Floor	13,189	October 197513th Floor	13,189	October 197512th Floor	13,189	November 197511th Floor	13,189	April 197610th Floor	13,189	November 19759th Floor	13,189	December 19758th Floor	13,189	December 19757th Floor	13,189	April 19765th Floor	13,189	July 19762nd Floor	3,220	April 1976Maple Leaf Building	1st Floor	15,904	February 1976Booth Building	3rd Floor	7,947	May 19762nd Floor	5,106	May 1976Vanguard Building	8th Floor	10,642	June 1976Export Development Building	9th Floor	9,109	June 1976Regional Offices	Halifax	4,000	December 1975Toronto	2,060	December 1975Quebec	2,603	December 1975Montreal	1,401	January 1976Winnipeg	2,259	December 1975Vancouver	3,020	February 1976
December 21, 1976
Order Paper Questions
(b) No.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	What was the cost of the land acquisition for the construction of the Post Office bulk mail handling facility in White Rock, British Columbia?
2.	What was the (a) estimated (b) final cost of construction?
3.	What was the cost of machinery and equipment for the installation?
4.	How many regular delivery vehicles will the facilities accommodate?
5.	How many persons will be employed?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Department of Public Works and the Post Office Department as follows: 1. Land, $225,000; Survey, $1,300; Appraisal Fees, $5,128.40; Total, $231,428.40.
2.	(a) $51 7,500; (b) $501,000 (Estimated Final Cost).
3.	Equipment was transferred from the old post office and from surplus equipment that was available in the Vancouver area.
4.	One Highway Service vehicle and eight Mailmobiles.
5.	Forty-seven.


Mr. Howie: What progress has been made with the five-year strategy for international development co-operation commenced in 1975 in respect to achieving the United Nations target of 0.7% of Gross National Product?


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In 1975 Canada increased its official development assistance (ODA) by 23 per cent, for a total of $880 million dollars (U.S.), as compared with $713 million dollars (U.S.) in 1974. Therefore official development assistance increased from 0.50 per cent of GNP in 1974 to 0.56 per cent in 1975.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is the Chemical Control Research Institute in Ottawa to be relocated in Sault Ste. Marie and, if so (a) on what date will the move commence (b) how long will the move take (c) what is the estimated cost of the move (d) how many employees are involved and what is the estimated cost of moving the employees and their families?
2.	Was there consultation with the employees before the decision to relocate was made and, if so, in what manner?
3.	Has a cost benefit analysis been completed with respect to the relocation and, if so, what are the results?
4.	What is the estimated cost of the renovations required to adapt the new building in Sault Ste. Marie to the needs of the CCRI?
5.	What was the cost of renovations recently completed to the current building in Ottawa which is leased by the government?
6.	Does the current building have to be restored to its original condition before turning it over to the owner and, if so, what is the estimated cost of such a project?
7.	What criteria were used by the Treasury Board in making the final decision on the move?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: 1. Yes (a) April 1, 1977; (b) IV2 years; (c) $285,000 (including (d)); (d) 35 employees- $175,000.
2.	Some employees may have been made aware of the proposed relocation but no formal consultations were held until after the merits of the relocation were studied and decided upon.
3.	Yes. The Chemical Control Research Institute needs increased and improved laboratory facilities. It has been planned for some time to amalgamate its program with that of the Insect Pathology Research Institute at Sault Ste. Marie. Modern federal research facilities recently completed at Sault Ste. Marie now provide space that can be occupied by the Chemical Control Research Institute and cannot be duplicated elsewhere for less than $3 million.
4.	$195,000.
5.	1975-76-$2,925; 1976-77-$9,312.
6.	Extent to which building must be restored is not certain.
7.	The move was based on program needs as indicated in response to part 3.


Mr. McCleave: With reference to the motion passed unanimously in the House on October 19, 1976 concerning support for the Olympiad for the Disabled, is it the intention of the government to support the Olympiad for the Disabled fund raising programme and, if so, in what form will such support be and will funds be made available?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: There will be no direct support to the fund raising campaign for the Olympiad for the Physically Disabled from the Fitness and Amateur Sport Branch, Department of National Health and Welfare. As stated in the Minister's news release of July 28, 1976, the funds which had been destined for the 1976 Olympiad for the Physically Disabled in Toronto, until its organizers invited South Africa, will be devoted to assisting the development of a national sports and physical recreation program for Canada's handicapped.

December 21, 1976


[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions IRVING CASE-LEGAL FEES
Mr. Howie: 1.	As of November 1, 1976, how many veterans had cases pending decision or awaiting a hearing before the Pension Commission?
2.	How many of these veterans were residents of New Brunswick?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1.	At November 1, 1976 there were 2,776 claims by veterans or their surviving dependants at first decision level awaiting adjudication. In addition, there were 5,024 cases in which a first decision had been rendered but in which the applicant was dissatisfied and requested an Entitlement Board hearing to determine eligibility for pension. Of these, 2,291 are awaiting preparation of the statement of case in the manner and form required by the Pension Act. In 1,328 cases the statements of case have been prepared and are in the hands of the Avocate and/or the applicant, for certification by the applicant that he is ready to proceed with the hearing. The hearing cannot be held until the certification is received. There are 1,405 claims which have been certified as ready to be heard. There are 818 cases where the pensioner has appealed the Commission decision as to the amount of the assessment of his disability and has requested a formal hearing as to quantum by two members of the Commission. Of these, 167 cases are awaiting certification of readiness to proceed by the applicant or Advocate, 197 cases are listed as ready to be heard.
2.	Statistics are not maintained concerning the province of origin of applications at first decision level. However, at November 1, 1976 there were 344 applications from New Brunswick, for a hearing by an Entitlement Board or as to quantum by two Members of the Commission. Of this number 162 claims are in the process of having documentation prepared in the manner and form required by the Pension Act. In 98 cases the documentation has been referred to the applicant, usually through his Advocate and the Commission is waiting the applicant's notice that he is ready to proceed with the hearing. Eighty-four cases are ready to be heard.


Mr. Howie: How many veterans have cases (a) pending (b) awaiting a decision or hearing to determine (i) eligibility (ii) amount of benefit for the War Veterans Allowance and, of these, how many were residents of New Brunswick?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: (a)	(b)
(i)	(ii)	(i)	(ii)National	1,501	5,393	235	523New Brunswick	85	35	None	None


Mr. Howie: 1.	How much money was paid to date, for the prosecution of the Irving interests under the Combines Investigation Act, exclusive of departmental personnel and to whom was it paid?
2.	Was the cost of travel outside of Canada in connection with this case paid to any departmental personnel and, if so, to (a) how many persons (b) what destinations?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. William L. Hoyt, Q.C., $174,335 (fees and disbursements); T. Joseph Scanlon (Consultant), $12,467 (fees and disbursements); Winnifred Johnston (Witness); $630; Total, $187,432.
2. (a) Two. (b) One to Washington and one to Bermuda.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): 1.	Do airmail letters sent from Europe to Vancouver take from ten to sixteen days to reach the receiver and was the average time last year from four to six days and, if so, what action, if any, is planned to improve the service?
2.	Is mail from Britain to Vancouver shipped first to Montreal or Toronto before being shipped to Vancouver and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Does the government intend to route outgoing mail from Vancouver to Europe via Toronto or Montreal instead of shipping the mail directly from Vancouver and, if so, for what reason?
4.	If mail is handled first at Montreal or Toronto, then again at Vancouver (a) are there more employees involved in handling the mail than if it was sent to Vancouver directly (b) considering the wages paid to post office employees at both locations, is the total cost of handling the mail greater than if the mail was shipped directly to Vancouver and, if so, how does the government explain this excessive expenditure?
5.	Does overseas airmail receive lower priority in sorting than third-class domestic mail and, if so, for what reason?
6.	Have expenditures on machinery in the postal system resulted in a reduction of staff?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1. Some airmail letters from Europe to Vancouver may take from ten to sixteen days to reach the addressee and the time lapse would depend, in part, in what country the mail originated. However, such transmission time should be the exception rather than the rule. There are no figures available that would show that the average time last year for such mail would have been from four to six days. Checks made at Vancouver have indicated that, in some cases, airmail letters have been posted in England up to five days prior to despatch. Allowing possibly up to two days for such mail to reach Vancouver, and an additional two days if a weekend intervenes, up to nine days' transmission time would be accounted for.
2.	Air mail from Britain for Vancouver is transported by British Airways to Mirabel Airport exclusively. The decision to off-load at Mirabel Airport all air mail destined to offices in Toronto and west was made by the British Postal Administration in January 1976.
3.	Air mail from Vancouver for Britain and the major European countries has always been and will continue to be routed directly from Vancouver.

December 21, 1976
Order Paper Questions
4.	(a) Yes, our postal employees at Mirabel Airport must effect a bag transfer operation. This consists of taking the bags out of the incoming airline tub carts and transferring them to other airline tub carts for connection with next available domestic flights to Toronto and/or west, (b) Since the start of this new routing, there has been no need to increase the number of postal employees or create overtime at our Mirabel postal facility to cope with this light increase in workload.
5.	Overseas letter-rate items are afforded first-class service in Canada.
6.	Acquisition of mechanized equipment to sort postal coded mail has reduced overtime and usage of casual labour. It also reduces the number of additional positions that must be filled to process increase in mail volume.


Mr. Howie: As of January 1, 1976, how much income tax owing to the Crown by persons or corporations was unpaid and, of this amount, how much was owing by persons not resident in Canada?


Hon.   Monique@: (a)
Corporation Tax, 28,238; $248,613,000. (b) Individual Tax, 566,472; $472,823,000.
In so far as income taxes owing by persons not resident in Canada, statistics are not maintained to allow the production of this information.


Mr. Symes: 1.	What is the total dollar value of DREE grants to Algoma Steel Corporation since 1968?
2.	How many new jobs were to be created by the grants?
3.	How many new jobs have been created as a result of the grants?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. Two offers totalling $12,000,000 have been made to The Algoma Steel Corporation Limited for projects in Sault Ste. Marie.
2.	1,100 new jobs are expected to be created as a result of these two DREE offers.
3.	One of the projects is still under construction and, as the two projects are complementary, the projected increase in employment attributed to the offers will not be realized until both projects have reached commercial production.


Mr. Howie: 1.	For each fiscal year ending March 31 (a) 1970 (b) 1972 (c) 1974 (d) 1976, how many new persons were employed by the RCMP and how many were from the Province of New Brunswick?
2.	During each of the same years, how much was paid to the federal government by New Brunswick for RCMP services?


Francis Fox: 1.

Employed by		From the Province of
RCMP		New Brunswick
(a)	785	49(b)	1,228	80(c) 1,613	106(d)	1,313	85
Note: These figures do not include Public Servants as data of this nature is not available.
2. New Brunswick paid the Federal Government the following amounts for Provincial Police Services in each fiscal year ending March 31: 1970, $1,740,722; 1972, $2,041,414; 1974, $3,219,950; 1976, $4,317,886.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Since January 1, 1976, has the Department of Veterans Affairs entered into any negotiations with the Province of New Brunswick with a view to increasing the number of hospital beds available to veterans who require (a) active treatment facilities (b) non-active or nursing home facilities?
2.	Is the Department (a) conducting negotiations (b) making inquiries into the availability of beds or other facilities for veterans at the Victoria Public Hospital, Fredericton, New Brunswick and, if so, how many beds does the Department consider desirable?
3.	Is there a shortage of (a) active treatment hospital beds (b) non-active treatment or nursing care beds for veterans in New Brunswick and, if so, how many more beds in each category are required?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. (a) No; (b) yes.
2.	(a) Yes; (b) yes, 50.
3.	(a) No; (b) yes, estimated 50 more beds required, nursing care.


Ralph Goodale: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, according to the order paper, the House is due to recess tomorrow for approximately a month. Can the parliamentary secretary give us any assurance that he will make some attempt to clear up some of the outstanding questions on the order paper going back to the beginning of the present session?


Ralph Goodale: I think it would probably be useful to point out to hon. members that we have been keeping track over the last several weeks of this session of the rate of response to questions, the rate at which the government has been able to provide answers to questions put by hon. members.

I am pleased to report to hon. members that the rate of response to the number of questions which have been asked is, in fact, one of the highest rates which has been seen by this parliament. So I will give my hon. friend the undertaking that we will do our best to answer as many questions as possible before the adjournment, which is anticipated soon, but I think it is worthwhile pointing out that the performance in this particular session has been very good indeed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


William Warren Allmand: that Bill C-13, to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Mr. Keith B. Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce this bill at the second reading debate stage on behalf of my minister, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) who is also responsible for Parks Canada under the purview of which this particular bill falls.
The Historic Sites and Monuments Act provides that the board, bearing the same name, recommend to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development places, events and persons of historical significance to our country. Established in 1919, the board is composed of 15 members; two representatives each from Ontario and Quebec, one each from the remaining eight provinces, one representative each from the National Museums of Canada and the Dominion Archivist, and an officer from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I understand that the latter position is vacant at the present time. The provincial representatives are usually historians or archivists of great repute. Mr. Marc Laterreur is the chairman of the board, and he is also a member of the Department of History of the Faculte des Lettres of Laval University in Quebec.
In the past 20 years, on the recommendation of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, more than 70 historic parks and major sites have been designated, and almost 700 persons and events of historical significance have been commemorated. National historic parks and sites attracted 4.4 million visitors during 1975-76. The Halifax Citadel and
Historic Sites
Signal Hill in St. John's, Newfoundland, each recorded more than 800,000 visitors. The Fortress of Louisbourg, in Nova Scotia, received nearly 300,000 visitors, and the Alexander Graham Bell Museum, at Baddeck, Nova Scotia, recorded 243,000 visitors. In western Canada, there were 115,000 visitors to Lower Fort Garry, and 101,000 persons visited the RCMP ship St. Roch in Vancouver. In the Yukon Territory there were almost 85,000 visitors to the historic buildings and sites in the Dawson City area, including 10,000 visitors to the Palace Grand Theatre and 24,000 visitors to the Robert Service cabin.
In the past, much emphasis has been given to military sites in Parks Canada's presentation of national historic parks and sites. As a result, some provinces with little military history have not been adequately recognized in the present historic parks program. Planning has now been directed to provide a proper balance of thematic and regional factors which will allow Parks Canada to recognize Canada's history in such fields as agriculture, industry and ranching. The departmental estimates which were approved by parliament provide almost $19 million for capital expenditures by the national historic parks and sites branch of Parks Canada in the current year. In the years to come we will be asking parliament for additional amounts to carry out this program of historical commemoration, preservation and restoration for the benefit of all Canadians.
The purpose of amending the Historic Sites and Monuments Act is to have a better representation of two important parts of Canada, namely, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Up until now representatives from these northern regions attended board meetings only as observers without the right to vote. If the amendment to the act today, at second reading, is adopted, the delegates from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada will no longer voice their opinions in merely an advisory capacity. The board would have 17 members instead of 15, and the representatives from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories would have full voting rights which up to the present they have not had.
In the eyes of all the people of Canada, the north, with all its human, cultural and natural resources, is becoming increasingly important. I therefore believe that hon. members of this House will approve a measure which would ensure the participation of these vast regions in that board.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments with respect to Bill C-13. It is a fairly straightforward bill, and as the parliamentary secretary has said, what it does is increase the representation on the board by two, one representative from the Northwest Territories and one from the Yukon Territory. Quite frankly, this amendment should have been proposed a number of years ago. I was interested to hear the parliamentary secretary say that until now the representatives from the two territories have sat as observers and have not had voting rights. This is the situation with respect to most boards and with respect to conferences

Historic Sites
which take place where representatives of the territories are invited.
I am reminded of a conference which took place a short time ago. It was a federal-provincial conference of ministers with respect to manpower, and two territorial councillors, one from the Yukon and one from the Northwest Territories, were invited to attend. When they arrived at the conference, where they thought they would be given full delegate status, they were seated in the back rows behind the mandarins and were told, quite frankly, that if they wished to put any questions or to participate in the debates at that conference, they would have to do so through the mandarins or through the ministers. So this bill is a step forward in giving some status to representatives from the two territories. I hope this is just the beginning of steps to give more representation and more authority to the people in the territories, Mr. Speaker.
I was disappointed, in the parliamentary secretary's remarks about the various parts of Canada, that he just hopped over the province of Saskatchewan from which I happen to come. This province has an historic background and some historic sites well known to people throughout Canada. The Riel rebellion of 1884-85 took place in Saskatchewan; we have Batoche, Fish Creek and other places-yet the parliamentary secretary did not see fit to mention the number of visitors to these historic sites last year.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: All located in Saskatoon-Biggar!


Douglas Charles Neil: The hon. member says they are located in his constituency, and that is true. It is a fine constituency, and when the parliamentary secretary speaks on the subject in future I hope he will not overlook the province of Saskatchewan which is so often overlooked by members from other parts of Canada. The parliamentary secretary also mentioned that additional amounts of money would be needed to provide for future historic sites and monuments. I think it is important that money be set aside for this purpose because historic sites and monuments indicate part of our history and part of our heritage.
When I was looking over Bill C-13 and making a few notes in preparation for my remarks today, I came across the two programs that are proposed to assist unemployment; the Canada works program and the young Canada works program.
I think either, or both, of these programs could be used to further the development of historic sites and monuments. When I look back over the LIP programs that have taken place over the years, I find that many of the projects did not have lasting value. The money is spent, the program is over, and there is nothing to remember it by. It would seem to me that the young Canada works program in particular could be adapted to the development of historic sites because it would give the youth of our country an opportunity to participate in their heritage.
I hope the minister will be in touch with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) and will suggest to

him that he direct the attention of the ministerial advisory committee to programs directed toward historic sites and monuments.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing more to say on the bill. We are in agreement with its terms and it will be passed through committee very quickly. I am sure that when it comes back to the House for third reading there will be a very short debate in order that the bill may become law.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, this is a lucky day for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon in this House with this debate on Bill C-13 which will give part-time jobs to a couple of people. This is a big deal because we need the jobs, I guarantee that. Bill C-13, to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, will increase the number of board members from 15 to 17 with the addition of one from the Northwest Territories and one from the Yukon. Whoever they are, will, I am sure, be a useful addition to the board and will make some good recommendations. I think the bill should receive support because, as I mentioned, we need the jobs in the north.
Mr. Speaker, in Yellowknife a two-bedroom apartment rents for $560 a month; electricity, for a home in Yellowknife, costs from $150 to $250 per month; fuel, for the average home in Yellowknife, runs from $150 to $200 a month-yet wages are not higher than anywhere else in the country, although the taxes are. In a place like Fort McPherson, in the Mackenzie Delta, a loaf of bread costs a dollar; a quart of milk, $1.84; butter, $1.75; eggs, $1.93 a dozen. What is the government doing about this, Mr. Speaker? Is the bill going to change the Northern Canada Power Commission Act so that northerners can run the commission themselves through the territorial councils?
It is fine and dandy to bring in this bill which gives a couple of part-time jobs. I understand each member of the board is paid something like $100 per day, plus expenses. It works out to about 10 or 12 days each year, so that brings about $500 or $600 into each territory twice a year. But the government has not introduced a bill to do something about the extremely high cost of living in the north, although the figures are very easy to check when one looks around the towns of the north.
This bill is all very fine and we appreciate the couple of jobs it will create. I cannot see any opposition to this bill so I will not waste the time of the House, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I think the parliamentary secretary probably knows that I had charge of this particular operation one time when I was minister. I should like to speak on a couple of points that might be of interest to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board. I think everyone here realizes that a place that does not have a history does not have a future. We have not been the most active country in the world to preserve our history, but in all fairness, within the limited amount of funds provided to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board there has been a fairly comprehensive effort to preserve some of the physical evidence of our short history.
December 21, 1976

I should like to mention, in addition to those monuments where certain things happen, a couple of things that I think should be brought to the attention of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board that could make their work a shade more fruitful in the next year or so. The first thing I should like to draw attention to is the Centennial Series. I know it will shock the House to learn that Canada has never had a series of history texts which recount our history and is written by Canadians. We were always forced to use British books, the Cambridge History Series. Volume 6 dealt with Canada. In 1957, after discussions with the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, a target was set for centennial year for a history of Canada done by Canadians. It was to consist of 18 volumes, each written by a leading expert under the over-all management of Dr. Morton and Dr. Creighton. This was the decision of a group of people who turned the work over to these two people. I do not know whether the parliamentary secretary has seen any of these volumes, the most recent of which by Dr. Creighton was issued last fall.
I would like to suggest to the parliamentary secretary that he could serve Canada well by finding out why the missing volumes were not published. I know why: we calculated a certain amount for the grants, which came from a source other than the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, but we did not foresee the inflation of the last few years. It now costs nearly twice as much to produce these books which have a limited readership-hence the delay. The other reason, I suspect, is the question of the work, in one case, and I think the Historic Sites and Monuments Board should attempt to solve that problem.
I make no apology for bringing up this subject nearly 20 years after its inauguration. It annoyed me as a school teacher to realize the basic sort of information I had to use in teaching Canadians was that their own history was work by English writers. We tried to correct that situation in 1957, almost 20 years ago, by setting 1967 as the target date for the completion of the series, in time for the centennial celebrations. We could not meet that target because of cost and other factors. I say that we should complete that series in 1977. It should be made known to every school board and every school room in this country that there is a series of history text books concerning every part of Canada and every period of our history. This has never before been available. I have learned from talking to teachers that many of them have never heard of this series.
Since the government is spending millions of dollars publicizing many of its programs, why cannot they allow the Historic Sites and Monuments Board to publicize the existence of this history series? It was begun before many of our present teachers were teaching, even before some of them were born. I advise hon. members on the government side to read the last volume by Dr. Creighton, "The Forked Road", to learn where they went off the track. These books are an authentic history of our nation and have been written by Canadians. At least we should make them available to teachers. They are not the type of reading material you give junior grade students. The books
Historic Sites
are based on authentic documents of which teachers of history and students should be aware. I know that not many volumes will be bought, and I regret that as a nation we are not literate; only a small percentage of our people are truly literate in the sense that they read serious material.
The second matter I shall mention briefly has to do with the activities of the geographical names committee. That committee selects the names of Canadians who have played a prominent part in this nation's life and applies them to certain physical features such as mountains. It has been the rule that only physical features in this country can be so named after the person's death. That rule is occasionally broken by the provinces because they, too, are empowered to name certain geographical features.
I ask the Historic Sites and Monuments Board to consider the questions I am raising. We wanted to honour, say 15 or 20 years ago, those who were then prominent on the Canadian scene. When they were active their profile was high. Unfortunately, after a person dies, for a long time after death his profile becomes low in the public view. We tend to forget what such people did 15 or 20 years ago, and tend to forget the tremendous contributions to this country they made during their lifetimes. In other words, I suggest that the parliamentary secretary or the minister should remind the Historic Sites and Monuments Board that it must consult with other groups, such as the geographical names committee, which comes under another department, in order that we may reassess periodically the names applied to certain physical features of this country.
I am well aware of what is happening in the Arctic Islands, and of the new names which have appeared in recent years. I think they are well deserved. I do not say this because the name "Hamilton" has appeared in the centre of Ellesmere Island. That name is there for a good reason-and it is not to honour me. It honours one who did substantial work in that area. I simply say that it is up to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, and committees like the geographical names committee, to keep alive and vibrant the memory and names of those who served this country. The rule, by and large, is that we are not to use the name of any person living. Unfortunately, people once prominent tend to adopt a lower profile in the last years of their lives, and they tend to be partly forgotten. We must remember to honour them by naming after them certain parts of our geographical country, to remind the people of the north or other parts of Canada of work done in resources development and other fields.
Perhaps I could mention a couple of other points usefully, since we are not often given the opportunity to discuss this subject. I think the House is anxious to pass the bill. As I say, the minister must make certain that the Historic Sites and Monuments Board knows that members of this House want it to do its job and to record in physical form the history of our nation, a history which is short but of which we can be proud.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to take a few moments to speak on this bill. Obviously, there is general support for it in the House, and rightly so. The present debate gives hon. members a parlia-

December 21, 1976
Historic Sites
mentary vehicle for airing grievances about the operations of the parks division of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I am fortunate enough to have in my constituency one of the most historic sites of Canada and certainly one of the most scenic and commanding sites of this country, Signal Hill national historic park. The park was established by the government of Canada in 1957, as one of the first acts of the Diefenbaker government, which adopted the recommendations of its predecessor, the St. Laurent government. Following the establishment of the park as a national historic site, development has lagged considerably, which is the point of the grievance I wish to put forward today in my representation to the minister.
Briefly, by way of historical background, Signal Hill national historic park is the site of the last armed conflict in North America between the forces of France and Britain which fought for a foothold on the North American continent. The site has long been recognized as an historic one. During the colonial administration of Newfoundland, prior to confederation, it was recognized as an historic site by the dominion government of Newfoundland. The most commanding feature of the site is Cabot Tower, which was completed in 1897 during Queen Victoria's jubilee to mark the four-hundredth anniversary of the founding of Newfoundland by John Cabot.
In addition to the early historic significance of the park in relation to colonial wars for the possession of that part of North America, the park is significant in that later, more contemporary historic events took place within its confines. For example, in that park was received the first wireless message sent across the Atlantic by Marconi in 1901. It has been associated with many other historical events to do with development of modern telecommunications, by virtue of the fact that it is the nearest point of land in North America to Europe. The distance between the west coast of Ireland and Cabot Tower, which is located near Cape Speare, is relatively short, shorter than the distance between Winnipeg and St. John's. For that reason the park has lent itself to the development of telecommunications and wireless communications in Canada. Apart from the erection of the Cabot Tower which was the site of a wireless station that was operated until a short time ago, very little took place until the establishment of the park in 1957. Following that, development, paradoxically, lagged considerably.
I remember one event that took place in the late fifties during the administration of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). One of the oldest existing buildings left intact at the site was a barrack building which was part of the fortification known as the Queen's Battery. It commanded a very strategic view of the entrance to St. John's harbour. I believe the building was a couple of hundred years old. I am speaking from memory. I am not sure of its precise age, but it can easily be verified. It was occupied by a man and his family who had been living there for a considerable time. The circumstances surrounding their use of the building are rather vague to me at this time. However, what is important is that as long

as they were there, they provided the building with a caretaker and maintenance: the building was a living building; it was lived in and looked after by this family.
The bureaucrats in Ottawa, without advantage of having been there, decided that this would not do. They decided these people could not stay there. Without having one alternate plan of their own as to the development and restoration of these old buildings, and that building in particular and the fortifications surrounding it, they decided, against my protests, that these people would have to be evicted and they were. A short time after, the building was burned to the ground. That was a great tragedy. We lost that building, and to date-over 15 years later-it has not been restored. The building still has not been rebuilt notwithstanding the fact, in my estimation, it was because of the negligence of the department that the building was destroyed in the first place.
It is interesting to note that the St. John's Daily News of Friday, December 17, carried an advertisement over the signature of the area superintendent of historic parks and sites. The ad asked people to come forward with old photographs of this very building. Apparently they do not even have a photograph of the building, let alone any part of it which survived that fire. That is the kind of thing which has irritated the people of St. John's and the many hundreds of thousands of Canadians and other North Americans who had the pleasure and thrill of visiting this site.
Last year the number of visitors to the site reached the one million mark. In fact, there were over one million visitors to the site last year. I am told that this year they will also surpass the million mark. Next year, because of the Canada summer games which will take place in St. John's, a very sharp increase in the number of visitors to that park is anticipated. However, the total expenditure on the site for 1975-76, covering capital construction, maintenance and operating costs, was less than $300,000-$278,000. By comparison, for the same year, 1975-76, the fortress at Louisburg, an equally historic site that is visited by many tourists, the total expenditure was almost $4 million. The total for the same year for the Halifax Citadel was $582,000. That site is equally prominent in historic importance.
A decision has been made and an announcement released that it is the intention of the government to spend $20 million on the restoration of Citadel Hill in Halifax. I applaud that decision. It is a very progressive and wise move on the part of the government because Citadel Hill is a beautiful historic park, one that commends itself to restoration. However, what is wrong with historic Signal Hill in St. John's? Why can we not get some of that development capital for restoration to at least put that park back in the position it was before one of the lone surviving historic building, dating back to colonial days, was destroyed by fire because of the negligence of bureaucrats in Ottawa who did not see fit to provide a caretaker for that building? It has caused us to wonder.
I believe the importance of the park can be measured by the number of visitors, over one million last year. That compares
December 21, 1976

with Louisburg where there were less than half a million visitors. Even Citadel Hill had less visitors.
The restoration of the fortress of Louisburg is something in which all Canadians can take pride. Indeed, at the time the decision was made to restore Louisburg, it was done as an act of great humanity because of the terrible economic conditions that prevailed at the time on Cape Breton Island. The restoration of Citadel Hill can equally be applauded as a very wise and progressive move. However, I say to the government, why not get on with the development of Signal Hill historic park in St. John's? This is one of the most beautiful historic sites in Canada, and certainly one of the most neglected historic sites in the country.
I appeal to the minister to visit the site. He will see, in a very dramatic way, exactly what I am talking about. All that has been accomplished since the designation of the site as a national historic park is a certain amount of landscaping-not a great deal. Less than $3 million has been spent there, since 1963, on everything. A very unattractive, badly designed visitors' centre was built. It does not lend itself to the area, the park or the surrounding environment of the old city of St. John's. However, at least they built that. Work then stopped. They seemed to have drawn a blank. Signal Hill seems to have been declared a non-entity in terms of receiving the attention of the planners and the department and in terms of expenditure on the development of that site.
The people of my province, more particularly the people of my city, take a great deal of pride in Signal Hill park. It is one of the advantages we have, living in the beautiful old city of St. John's, that we are able to go to the top of the hill and look out over the vast expanse of the North Atlantic, knowing we are standing on the most easterly site of the North American continent. We take pride in it and we are concerned about the government's attitude toward it. I can assure the minister that the sentiments I have put forward today would be echoed by all the people of St. John's-by the daily newspapers, the television stations, the municipal government, the government of Newfoundland and the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have taken the opportunity to visit this beautiful park.
I urge the government to discharge its responsibility to this most ancient of historic sites by getting along with the development of the area and carrying out badly needed restoration work on the old buildings. By all means develop Louisburg; but let us not forget Signal Hill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to prolong the debate to any great extent. We are, of course, delighted that the government has finally consented to appoint some representatives on the board and concern itself with the national historic sites and monuments in our country, particularly in that great part of our country which is north of the sixtieth parallel. I want to say a few words about another great region of Canada. It should be no
Historic Sites
surprise-it has never been any surprise to me or to those of my colleagues who represent the vast areas of northern and central British Columbia-that as far as historic sites and monuments are concerned we should get no better consideration in this respect than is given in other directions such as transportation, communication facilities and public services of all kinds. People up in that country have always been second-class citizens. We have never considered ourselves as part of Canada. As a matter of fact, I sometimes wonder when British Columbia ever did become part of Canada. When I look at historic sites and monuments, I find myself asking how many of my colleagues here or, indeed, how many citizens of eastern Canada, know anything at all about those brave explorers who opened the road to the west, the activities of the Hudson's Bay Company, and so on.
One has to stand on the bank of the mighty Peace River to get the feeling which must have inspired those early explorers who wrote in their diaries about the splendour and the natural beauty of the scenes they witnessed, the abundance of wildlife, the friendliness of the native population they encountered in the search for access to the Pacific Ocean. One has to travel the trails which go from Dawson Creek to Fort McLeod, from Fort Saint John to Fort Nelson, or take a canoe to travel the lake district of Central British Columbia, where the natives have carved out an existence since time immemorial, to appreciate what must have been in their minds. Yet there are no historic sites or monuments of any significance in that part of the country. Those of my colleagues who have read the logs of Fraser and McKenzie, who know the great rivers, the Columbia, the McKenzie and the Fraser as well as the fastflowing coastal rivers, the Skeena and the Stikine, will realize that this is an omission for which there can be no excuse.
I have spoken about this often in committee. I have had private conversations with the minister asking him to encourage the board which reviews applications made to it and considers plans to preserve historic sites. My heart bleeds when I look at the old fort at Fort Saint John and see another log carried away, another log floating down the river having been torn away by pranksters. I wonder whether people in the east are interested at all in this great chapter of Canadian history. I have worked with citizens groups, particularly in the Fort Saint John and Fort McLeod area. We have spent hours and hours, days and days, years and years, trying to persuade someone, either in the provincial or in the federal government, to establish some kind of point of recognition for the benefit of people who traverse that great highway to the north known as the Alaska or the Alcan Highway, 1500 miles of wilderness road. Yet there is no indication of any kind that the national government is interested in explaining or documenting the history of this spectacular region.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that I have gone somewhat beyond the scope of the bill. But let me say this. If the people who are to be appointed from the territories and who will, I suppose, make recommendations about commemorating the history of the territories, the history of the Arctic Ocean, are not able to make a contribution any greater than that of the person who

Historic Sites
has represented central northern British Columbia, we are wasting our time here. I am glad that both my colleagues from central and northern British Columbia are in the chamber this afternoon. I have desperately searched for any contribution to the debate in recent years with regard to this matter, one which has always been of concern to me. I have not discovered that there was any great interest. I merely rise to serve notice on the minister that if the representatives from the northern areas are not allowed greater input into the policy-making of the department in establishing historic sites and monuments, they will be wasting their time and we shall be wasting our time in the House this afternoon.
I regret to take this attitude. 1 know the minister is interested in the subject and that he is concerned, as many of us are, to preserve a number of the sites which are still in existence. The history of the white settler, of course, is not an ancient one in the region of which I am speaking. I know the minister is concerned about recapturing some of the stories which are documented in archives and libraries and which have been left to us by these great explorers. But he will need better co-operation from his colleagues on the government side. It will take a little encouragement from the government side. This is not a very expensive undertaking. There are a lot of people in the area who would, with a little encouragement, spend countless hours helping to recreate some of the stories which have been almost lost. A book has been published by just such a citizens group of which I speak in the Tayler and Fort Saint John area of my constituency. It is called "The Peace Makers of the Peace." I spent tireless hours trying to get a little help by way of a Canada Council grant. After all, it was a local publisher who printed the book and it was a local citizens group who produced it-senior citizens, mainly, had compiled the information and told the story. But there was no response. It would seem as though the sparsely populated areas of our country have little input into decision-making of the kind we have been discussing.
I hope the minister will take my comments to heart and will be a little more receptive to the ideas I will advance and that have been advanced by my constituents and the residents of the great coastal area of northern British Columbia. I hope he will join with us in our efforts to give greater recognition to that part of our history that I consider to be the most colourful and most significant in the evolution of our national development.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice the fact that of all of us on this side of the House who have spoken during this debate, three including myself, are from the province of Saskatchewan. That is an indication of the great interest we in Saskatchewan have in this whole topic of historic sites and monuments. We are glad the government has brought forward this bill. Although it has very few provisions, dealing, as it does only with the structure of the National Historic Sites Board, this does give us an opportunity to comment about the constructive sugges-

tions we on this side of the House have made to the government. This is an area in which the government is in need of our assistance to develop policies and ideas relating to all elements of the board's activities.
My colleague, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) was good enough to mention that in Saskatchewan we have a number of historic sites and areas of great significance to our Canadian history and development. He referred to the historic sites at Duck Lake, at Batoche and at Fort Carlton, all of which are within or immediately adjacent to my own constituency. One part of a proposed redistribution that saddens me very considerably is in respect of this area. It is to be deleted from my constituency. Although it will be well represented in the future, as it will form part of the constituency of Prince Albert, which will continue to be represented by the right hon. member, I must indicate my personal sadness as the result of the deletion of this very historic area from my constituency. I refer to that area which also includes the Fish Creek national historic site, Duck Lake historic park, Nesbit provincial forest, the historic towns of Rosthern and Laird, and the Indian reserves lying therein of Beardy's, Okemasis and One Arrow.
I know that these names as I recite them will bring forward recollections of a very important part of our history, particularly as it relates to the 1885 northwest rebellion which had such significance in the development politically, and in other ways, of our country.
I have just given an indication of some of the historic sites located within a part of my constituency to show that this bill gives me an opportunity to rise and bring forward representations to the parliamentary secretary, who I am sure will be back in a moment, on behalf of the citizens of the area who have, through their own initiative, developed some very incredible museums and have worked to develop the area on the basis of a neighbourhood concept, linking up these national historic sites with the idea of co-operation among the communities, allowing the people from across the country to visit the area and see the precise locations of some important events and occasions in terms of Canadian history.
Part of the investigation now taking place involves different levels of government. We have a study authorized by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, on the part of the federal government, as well as a study authorized by the appropriate department of the province of Saskatchewan, the department of tourism, I believe, prepared by Mr. N. Dyck, M.A., entitled "Saskatchewan Rivers Heritage Complex: A Preliminary Investigation and Overview for Future Development". There has been a summary of this study, which is at present in the hands of the provincial government, if not the federal government, prepared for distribution to interested people and agencies. It is a very definitive study made of the potential of this area.
The summary leaves out some very important information which has been investigated and developed by Mr. Dyck. I know that if the people of the area involved had access to the entire report they would be better informed and better able to advise different levels of government as to the best possible use

for the development of the area in terms of retaining the historic value in years to come. The report points out that one of the most striking features of the Saskatchewan rivers heritage complex is the very large inventory of important historic sites, locations and institutes.
Mr. Dyck points out that together with the area's interesting natural history and setting, to which I have referred, this area constitutes a heritage resource in the broadest sense of the term. The importance of this area included in the complex has certainly been appreciated by scholars, laymen and government departments for many years. Canadian historians recognize this area as the place where treaty No. 6, the most important treaty signed in Canada between the Indians and the Crown, was negotiated; where Louis Riel and the Metis people made their stand in 1885, where Seager Wheeler, the Canadian wheat king, achieved his triumphs in grain growing, and where many other important events and themes of Canadian history have unfolded.
This area attracts an amazing number of visitors from within and without Saskatchewan. During the past summer I travelled through my constituency in order to speak to the people. I had occasion to travel this historic area and trace out the course of General Middleton's march and engagement at Fish Creek. I saw the location of Batoche and some of the historic buildings and the museum in the area.
As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), we in Canada really do not do a very good job of taking pride in and maintaining the history of our country. I think this is a very important endeavour and should be very high on the priority list of any federal government interested in maintaining a sense of Canadian unity and federalism. More importantly at this time than at almost any other, we should be paying attention to those parts of our history with which we can feel a sense of reality and development. We look back to past events which were difficult at the time, such as an outbreak of fighting, but it tends to bind us together rather than tear us apart. For example, the Americans spend a lot of their time talking about and looking back at their civil war, but over the years the United States has become stronger and more unified. So while we may regard the northwest rebellion as an unfortunate part of our history, it was nevertheless a fact of life, one which we can now look back on as the basis for and beginning of the development of Canada as we know it today.
I have had the chance to go through this area and to travel somewhat more leisurely than is the case when the House is sitting, and I was amazed at the kind of development that has taken place and at the participation and pride of the local people of the area. But many things remain to be done. Access to these historic sites and the development of historic sites can be very greatly improved. If the minister and his parliamentary secretary have an opportunity to visit this particular area, they will see great scope for development. I think there is no question that there will be development; but the real question
Historic Sites
at this time is how individual sites are to be developed, by whom and when?
It is incumbent on the government to examine this area very seriously with a view to making some decisions which will put into effect a co-ordinated plan to develop the area for generations to come. I, personally, have been involved in hosting representative groups from my constituency which came to Ottawa. I think in particular of a delegation from the Duck Lake and district board of trade which is interested in promoting a museum in the Duck Lake area. I arranged some meetings with various government departments to see whether any assistance might be available. I might say that I have had good co-operation from these government departments and the public servants in those departments. Quite frankly, I think development will require governmental initiative in the sense of cabinet initiative in order to put this project in its proper place.
The major decision to be faced by the senior government, which is the federal government, as well as provincial and local governments, is how they will expand from the foundation that has been laid down and which has proven successful in the past. The second matter to be decided is whether they will design and co-ordinate their future activities in the area in order to achieve the most suitable form of development, not only for individual sites and projects but for the complex as a whole.
The fact of the matter is that this is another of the situations that we in Canada face from time to time which involves not only one level of government but three, the federal government, the provincial government and the local or rural municipalities-the municipal governments in the towns and villages. These must be involved in the co-ordination that must take place if we are to assure the proper development of this area. I hope the minister and his parliamentary secretary will undertake to pay special attention to this and will give this development the initiative it so richly deserves.
I want to place before the parliamentary secretary one or two brief points. I am not going to take a lot of time, but it is important not only to my constituency and my province, but to Canada as a whole that these developments take place wherever possible. Quite frankly, I do not think a very substantial outlay of money is involved, and at a time of restraint I understand the restrictions placed on government spending. On the other hand, it seems to me that if the initiative on the part of the federal government is well warranted, attention must be paid to some of the points I want to make which have already been set forth by Mr. Dyck in his report.
There is considerable potential for further development of heritage resources and associated visitor services and facilities in the Saskatchewan rivers heritage complex. It has been pointed out that this is a unique area, for located within it are a number of heritage institutions, sites and resources. It is a part of Saskatchewan that we often forget, a part where the prairie wheatlands meet the tree line and rolling hills of northern Saskatchewan which eventually turns into the preCambrian shield. It is a part of Saskatchewan which has

Historic Sites
terrific development potential because of the range of heritage resources included in the area. Notwithstanding the fact that they are numerous and diverse, Mr. Speaker, they are still complementary. There are possibilities for effectively utilizing heritage resources as the basis for development of some innovative tourism and recreational activities.
It has been pointed out to all levels of government that there is a cultural and educational value in the development of this area. This complex has been recognized by educational authorities as an area of considerable value, and more extensive use of the parks, sites and institutions in the area by school groups, historians and others interested in the history of this country would be certain if heritage development were undertaken.
One final point in the rationale for the development of this particular area, Mr. Speaker. I know I have the support of my colleague for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), and for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). They always support these worth while projects.


Henry Perrin Beatty: And the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yes. I am sorry the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) is not here, because he has always been a great advocate of the development of the tourist industry. Here is another area where there is potential for tourism unlimited. However, one of the problems in this particular area has been the fact that it is relatively inacess-ible. Indeed, it was only last fall that we were able to induce the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) to visit the Beardy's reserve in her capacity as parliamentary secretary. She will be able to tell the House in the course of her participation in this debate about some of the difficult roads she had to navigate, unless she came in by DND helicopter.


Mrs. Campagnolo:: The roads there are a lot better than they are in my part of the country.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Then the minister has a full appreciation of some of the difficulties of accessibility. She points out that the difficulties are similar to the difficult roads in her constituency.


James Aloysius McGrath: She has a difficult road anyway.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: When the minister was a parliamentary secretary she went there to attend an important event on the Beardy's reserve. She enjoyed herself and we enjoyed having her there. I welcome her back to that part of my constituency. She certainly impressed those she met and spoke to on the occasion of that special event.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Don't be so patronizing.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I speak the truth. Everyone who has met the minister was very impressed. The fact is that she made a

very fine impression. I do not think it is being patronizing to say so; it is being factual.
To get back to the point I wanted to make on the representation I am making to the parliamentary secretary, let me say that I believe there is a potential for tourism in the area. Accessibility to it has been difficult due to the relatively underdeveloped state of the resources in the area, the extremely poor state of the roads and facilities there and the almost total lack of publicity for the historic sites in the area. In spite of this, I want to bring to Your Honour's attention the fact that about 25,000 tourists made the effort required to visit the area in 1974. That is a substantial number. Without a development program to rectify the situation, the number of tourists in the area is certain to increase in a substantial manner.
The tourist activity is an important one, but so is the educational aspect of visiting the area. Therefore, I want to commend to the parliamentary secretary the report that I referred to and the representations that have been made by the citizens interested in the area regarding meaningful initiatives being taken now or in the near future with respect to the development of the area which is now referred to as the Saskatchewan river heritage complex.
I would like to bring my remarks to a conclusion by listing briefly some of the important heritage resources we have in my constituency. First, I would like to refer to the historic site at Batoche, now known as the Batoche national historic site, and the Duck Lake provincial historic park to which I referred earlier in my remarks. In the town of Duck Lake itself is to be found the Duck Lake museum, a marvellous place with relics and mementos from the north-west rebellion. The museum was initiated by a grand old man from Duck Lake, Mr. Fred Anderson who, through his own personal dedication and hard work, started this project which has now been taken up by the people in the Duck Lake area and developed into a first-rate museum. However, it needs assistance, and I made representations in that connection to the museums branch of the Department of Secretary of State. We hope that some assistance will be granted for the maintenance of that wonderful museum.
There is also the Fort Carlton historic park. History springs out of these names. When I refer to them, Mr. Speaker, I know you will recall part of the important history of the west and of Canada. There is the Rosthern cultural museum located in that wonderful centre in my constituency. There is the Fish Creek national historic site, which includes Middleton camp and the Fish Creek battlefield. I travelled through those areas this past summer. They are incredible places where one can still pick up shell remnants and different parts of equipment of the Middleton troops which engaged in battle. One can find arrowheads and other interesting mementos of that time. Of course, we all realize that one cannot remove these particular items from the national historic site, but the fact is they are still lying on the ground; they are still there as part of the living history. Then there is Gabriel's crossing in remembrance of Gabriel Dumont; there is the Batoche river crossing, and the South Branch House of the Hudson's Bay Company. I have already referred to the leading Canadian grain grower, Seager
December 21, 1976

Wheeler. There is the Carlton trail-marker and the Almighty Voice, a plaque in honour of this historical person.
There is the Duck Lake battlefield, the treaty No. 6 marker, the Fort Carlton marker, the Rosenorth Church marker, the Gerhard Ens-Seager Wheeler marker, the Nisbet provincial forest reserve, the prehistoric archaeology and the complex. This is an interesting part of Canada. There are the unmarked fur trade posts, the Almighty Voice grave, and the St. Laurent shrine, which is located near Duck Lake, the Qu'Appelle Long Lake and Saskatchewan railway line now operated by the CNR, and Seager Wheeler's Maple Grove farm. It is an incredible list of historic sites, monuments and institutions. There is the Rosthern experimental station and, finally, numerous historic buildings throughout the proposed complex.
I have touched in a brief form on some of the important historical and other places in my constituency. As the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) indicated, there were few, if any, national historic sites in his constituency and in northern British Columbia, but you can see that in my constituency alone we have a number of national historic sites. Hence the great interest I and the people in my area have in this bill.
Again I ask the parliamentary secretary to take back to the minister, to the department and to the National Historic Sites Board the expression of my constituents' concern that this area will be given the initiative and development that it deserves so richly. I hope the parliamentary secretary will in fact initiate an inquiry through his minister to his colleagues in the cabinet who have responsibilities for other departments which might affect the development of this complex so that we can proceed with the development of this historic complex of which we in Canada can be proud and which we could leave to our children and those who follow us a feeling that we have preserved a very important piece of Canadian history.
I want to thank hon. members for bearing with me and listening to the comments which I have made today with respect to what I consider to be a most important area in my constituency. I hope the parliamentary secretary will be able to encourage that initiative which we would like to see taken in this area.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few brief comments with regard to Bill C-13 which the House is debating today. I think it would be appropriate for me to say at the outset that it would have been difficult for me to have been in the House in the course of the last several minutes and to listen to my colleagues from various parts of the country speak without being struck by the pride which they have in the areas which they represent and without developing an increased awareness of the tremendous contributions which have been made to Canadian history by people from all parts of Canada.
I think that if there is one important core to the debate today, it is that we as Canadians have a tremendous history which we often overlook. Often our children in school find that the Canadian history, because it is not marked by bloodshed
Historic Sites
and by successive wars, is dull compared with the history of other countries. But I think that if we read our history and develop an increased awareness of our roots and of our origins, we cannot help but have a great deal of pride in our past and in our heritage. If we are to do a proper job in the future of safeguarding our heritage and moving society in a direction desirable to all Canadians we must develop an awareness of where we came from. This is why the work which is done by the federal government in terms of preserving and restoring national historic sites is a very vital function of the national government.
I want to say at the outset that I support the very simple principle behind Bill C-13, which is simply to increase the number of members of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board from the current 15 members to 17 in order to allow representatives from the Northwest Territories and from the Yukon Territory. It would be difficult for any hon. member of this House to be opposed to that principle because it is important that we have representation from all parts of the country.
In addition, as my hon. colleagues have said before, it is probably worth-while to deal briefly with the question of the way in which the government is functioning at the present time when it comes to the recognition and preservation of national historical sites, because this country is rich in historic sites: it is rich in history, and it is important that we do whatever we can to ensure that our children have the heritage, which has been passed on to us, maintained for them.
When we travel abroad or to other countries, we cannot help but be struck by the awareness people have of their own history, the pride they have in events which have taken place in their countries and their knowledge of the historic sites in their countries. A good deal of the credit for that must go to the respective national governments which have taken action to ensure that national historic sites are not lost, that they are properly publicized and that they are maintained for generations to come. Anyone who travels through the United States, for example, cannot help but be struck by the tremendous number of historic sites which have been recognized by the national government and by the individual states. I think it would be worth-while for us to follow the example of other countries and to give increased emphasis to the preservation of our national heritage.
I was first elected in 1972, and it is very difficult for me not to be overcome at times by a sense of humility when I study the history of my constituency and consider some of the great Canadians who have represented my area in the federal parliament. Since we are talking about historic sites, I think it would be worth-while for me to mention some of these people briefly. It was a tremendous responsibility for me to succeed Mr. Marvin Howe in 1972. He was a very distinguished member of this House. Mr. Howe followed in the tradition of a number of other distinguished Canadians who have left their mark on our national heritage. I would like to mention just a few of them.
2216

Historic Sites
One member who used to represent part of my constituency was the Hon. George Drew, the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and the former premier of Ontario.
Another is the Hon. Earl Rowe, a former lieutenant-governor of Ontario and a national figure of great consequence. He once represented the Dufferin county portion of my constituency. The Hon. Walter Harris was minister of immigration and minister of finance in the St. Laurent administration. He once represented portions of Grey county of my constituency. He was another great Canadian who made a tremendous contribution to our national heritage. His successor, Mr. Eric Winkler, was the chief government whip in the days of the Diefenbaker administration. He was also once the government House leader in the province of Ontario, and he represented portions of my constituency. Of course, there was Mr. Farqu-har Oliver, who was the youngest person ever elected to the Ontario legislature, and he holds the record for political longevity in the Ontario legislature. He represented the Grey county portion of my constituency.
There are two other names I want to mention because they should be dealt with, particularly today. These are the names of distinguished Canadians whose contributions to Canada are recognized by people from all parts of this great country, but their contribution to my area has not been properly recognized by the federal government. The first is the late Agnes Mac-phail, who was the first woman ever elected to the Parliament of Canada. Anyone who has read Canadian history must be aware of the tremendous pioneering work which was done by the late Agnes Macphail. She was elected from the Grey county portion of my constituency. She lived there most of her life. The reason I mention her today is that earlier this year I was contacted by citizens in my area who are concerned that the Agnes Macphail home in Ceylon, Ontario, may very well be lost if action is not taken immediately to purchase it and maintain it as an historic site.
A tremendous amount of credit is due to Mr. Ivan McWil-liam of Deep River, Ontario, who wrote as follows to a number of members of parliament and also to a number of government officials in May of this year:
I am writing to request that federal money be made available to buy and restore the house and grounds, the whole to become an historic site. A great deal of the Macphail memorabilia is still to be found within a short distance of Ceylon, so that with some effort the site could be restored to its 1930-1940 period, even perhaps to the presence of a green 1941 Chevrolet in the garage!
Since the letter from Mr. McWilliam there has been a series of correspondence between myself and a number of officials in the federal government, and I have been urging the federal government to take action to purchase this historic site which is up for sale at the present time because the previous owner of the house died recently. I was a bit disquieted when I received a letter in reply from the former minister of Indian affairs and northern development, dated June 25, 1976, saying:
Before we can become involved in the purchase or preservation of any property, I must first have declared it to be of national historic or architectural significance. I would consider doing so only if my advisers on these matters, the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, were to recommend this. According to the criteria set by the Board, a building must have been closely 
associated with events which, or persons who, have contributed significantly to Canada's history.
What surprises me about the minister's reply-although I was pleased he was asking the Historic Sites and Monuments Board to take a look at this and to make a recommendation- is that the recommendation should even be necessary because surely it should be self-evident to anyone who has ever sat in parliament that few Canadians have made a greater contribution to their country than the late Agnes Macphail. She was a pioneer when it came to social reform; she was a pioneer when it came to prison reform, and a pioneer in recognition of the rights of women in Canada. That should not require that the minister send a request to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board that it determine whether she was a figure of national historical significative. Surely that should be self-evident.
Since that time I have been informed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) that in November of this year the Historic Sites and Monuments Board considered the possibility of acquiring this property, that the minister has not yet been informed of its decision and that he probably will not be able to report back to me as to what action the government intends to take until early in the new year. One of the things which concerns me about the present operations of the board and of the government department responsible for the preservation of national historic sites is that because of the tardiness involved, and because it will be more than six months between the time this matter was brought to the attention of the government and the time we will finally get an answer, it is quite possible that this house could have been lost to the public of Canada. I hope the house will still be available when the government makes its decision, but surely action should have been taken before now.
It is self-evident that this house is an important national historic site. The artifacts are available, the house is available, and I think the suggestion made by Mr. McWilliam, which has been echoed by the Grey County Historical Society in representations it has made to the federal government, deserves to be acted upon.
There is one other historic site in Grey country which was the home of another very distinguished Canadian, and I believe it also should be preserved. I bring this matter to the attention of the parliamentary secretary so that he can bring it to the attention of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board. The speaker who spoke before me, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is very proud of the history of Saskatchewan, and one of the Canadians from Saskatchewan who made the greatest contribution to our national history is the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), a former prime minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: The people in my area are proud of the fact that they can lay claim to the birthplace of the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Although he is now generally looked upon as coming from western Canada, like every other prime minister of Canada he came from east of the Lakehead.
December 21, 1976

He was born in Neustadt, Ontario, and his early childhood home is still located there. I was quite disturbed by the fact that the federal government has made no effort to purchase the Diefenbaker home in Neustadt and preserve it as a national historic site. It should be beyond dispute that the individual in question has contributed a tremendous amount to Canada, and I do not think it should require much study to decide that his home is worth preserving.
A couple of years ago a private citizen in my home town of Fergus-a great admirer of the right hon. gentleman- attempted to purchase the house privately in order to ensure that it was saved for the people of Canada. He was concerned that the site might be lost unless action was taken to prevent it. Unfortunately, Mr. A. J. Youngblood was unsuccessful, but he deserves credit for trying. The house may become available in the future and I think it would be worth while for the government to recognize that it should be preserved as a national historic site. I think it should be beyond debate that the two sites in my constituency, the homes of two very distinguished Canadians from Grey county, should be recognized as historic sites and that action should be taken before this part of our national heritage is lost.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me again commend to the parliamentary secretary the recommendations I have made and ask him to bring them to the attention of the appropriate officials and ask that early action be taken before these historic sites are lost to us.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief comments on this bill and congratulate the parliamentary secretary on his speech introducing these amendments to the National Historic Sites and Monuments Act.
I especially want to make some comments concerning Fort St. Joseph National Historic Park on St. Joseph's Island which is located in Algoma. This former national historic site which is now a national historic park is perhaps one of the best examples of an historic site which had a very important part to play in the war of 1812 between Great Britain and the United States. It not only provided a defence for the frontier of Canada, as it was at that time, but also played a very important part in the fur trade in the frontier area, as well as having a very important role in the lives of the native people of Canada at that time. From this site one of the most successful attacks against a United States fort was launched in 1812. Their fort on the Straits of Mackinaw was successfully overcome by the British forces, the fur traders and native people who took part in the attack. Few sites have as much relevance as Fort St. Joseph in the history of Canada.
The fort site also has great potential for the development of natural bird and plant life. Over 600 acres of it was a bird sanctuary for many years and contains a large number of examples of bird, animal and plant life. This magnificent site overlooks St. Mary's River and gives a view of the entire area because of its reasonably high prominence. It has natural
Adjournment Motion
beaches for swimming, picnicking and other recreational purposes.
A few years ago, when this was only a national historic site identified by a placque, we established an advisory committee for the development of Fort St. Joseph. There are now 10 or 12 representatives of various community groups on St. Joseph's Island on this advisory committee. I believe they have made a very significant contribution in ensuring that the fort has been developed in the best possible way and in its day to day operations dealing with the thousands of visitors who come to see it. Their contribution is appreciated by the Parks Canada officials who operate the site. I think these people have been able to contribute to the development of this fort site and to ensure that it is historically authentic. There have been several archeological digs in the last three or four years; power and water have been provided and a utility building and an administrative building have been erected. A few weeks ago the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) announced the construction in the coming year of a $323,000 visitor and interpretative centre for Fort St. Joseph. This will provide a display area for the fort and a small theatre for visitors such as school groups.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows; The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin)-Immigration- Refugees in Argentina-Co-operation with Amnesty International; the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos)- Immigration-Request to accelerate admission of refugees from Chile and Uruguay; the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Immigration-Request for explanation of treatment of refugees in Argentina-Actions of United Nations Commission.
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, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.


Ralph Goodale: I rise on point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale) rises on a point of order.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, for private members' hour this afternoon I believe there has been agreement to deal with a
80008-31/2

December 21, 1976
Adjournment Motion
measure which can be disposed of rather expeditiously, Bill C-237. It is not anticipated that the matter will take the full hour.
I understand that there are also few speakers remaining on the subject we were dealing with this afternoon, the Historic Sites and Monuments Act. If it is anticipated that that debate could be concluded in a short time, perhaps we could continue with it without interruption before dealing with private members' business which, as I say, it is anticipated will not take very long either.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, this is a novel point raised by the parliamentary secretary. I have not had an opportunity to consult with my colleagues as I always do with respect to these weighty issues. I was under the impression that the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) would not proceed with his bill; then I learned that he intended to proceed and unfortunately I dismissed from the chamber members of my party who had been ready to participate in the debate on this bill.


Mr. Benjamin:: Dismissed?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Well, I told them they were free to go, but asked them to return at eight o'clock so that we could participate again in deliberations on orders of the day. Perhaps I could consult with the parliamentary secretary after I have had a chance to talk to some of my colleagues. The fact is that we look forward to hearing the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, and several members of my party are interested in participating in private members' hour. Perhaps I could confer with the parliamentary secretary after I have had a chance to determine what the situation is on my side of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the general state of flux may I suggest that we call the private member's public bill in the name of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). If it is disposed of quickly and there is time, perhaps we could decide whether, in the time remaining before six o'clock, we should continue with debate on Bill C-13. I think there would be a general desire not to begin debating another bill between now and six o'clock. Perhaps we should first dispose of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


Mr. Guilbault:: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), except that I would like to hold a discussion now rather than after the debate on the bill of the member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) so that we may come back to the orders of the day, since I am convinced that the said bill will take very little time. On the other hand, I would hesitate to carry on a debate on the orders of the day since we do not know exactly how long it will last and government members do not want the bill of the member for Regina-Lake Centre to be rejected for lack of time to discuss it, because it has true merit.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale) has also risen on a point of order. I shall recognize him and then recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie).


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems to me that the arrangement described by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Guilbault) and mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is sensible. I suggest that we consider item No. 37 under private members' public bills, Bill C-237 standing in the name of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), in the hope that the bill will be dealt with expeditiously. We can hold open the option of continuing debate on Bill C-13 once we have concluded consideration of the hon. member's bill.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to correct what the parliamentary secretary just said. He said, I think, that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) had been speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I suggest that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) spoke on behalf of the New Democratic Party, not the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was about to rise on the same point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed that we consider Bill C-237 standing in the name of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: that Bill C-237, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suggest that the second reading motion as put should be amended to provide for the bill to be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, the committee dealing with the Citizenship Act.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 21, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: By unanimous consent, is it agreed that we refer Bill C-237 to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, and amend the second reading motion accordingly?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Accordingly, Mr. Benjamin, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moves that Bill C-237, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the length of time hon. members on all sides have taken to accommodate me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We did our best.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I thank colleagues on all sides for their co-operation. My initial comment is this: I am not sure what I am supposed to do, but I will Figure it out as I go along. I have been here somewhat more than 8 Vi years and have placed various private members' bills on the order paper, but this is the first time one of my bills has been called.


An hon. Member:: It must be the Christmas spirit.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is not only the Christmas spirit; it is also evidence of socialist planning and perseverance.


Mr. Epp:: You just blew the bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This bill has been on the order paper for the last four or Five years and relates to another bill which has been on the order paper since 1969 or 1970 calling for the removal of the prohibition against epileptics in the Immigration Act. I have entered into correspondence with many citizens who are concerned about this matter and am supported not only by people in my constituency but by people in all parts of the country as well as members of this House of all parties. This bill is consequential to another bill presently before the House, namely, the bill to amend the Immigration Act. The amended Immigration Act will delete the prohibition against epileptics being entitled to landed immigrant status and, ultimately, the right to become Canadian citizens.
My bill would amend the Citizenship Act pursuant to certain sections of the Immigration Act. I am afraid I am not a lawyer and I will not become involved with legal terminology. I have entered into discussions with my good friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Guil-bault), with the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), and with legal counsel. The more I talked to legal counsel, the more confused I became. I understand that the bill, if the House is good enough to pass it on second reading, will require at least two minor amendments in committee, so that when the new citizenship act is proclaimed on or shortly after February 15, my bill will be relevant to that new citizenship act. As I say, it will have to be amended in committee in two ways. Instead of referring to the Canadian Citizenship Act, it will refer to the citizenship act. Also, the relevant section of the
Citizenship
new act will need to be amended so that my bill is not redundant or is not completely wiped out by the proclamation of the new citizenship act. That is what I understand, according to the legal advice I have been offered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would you now explain what you said?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I can explain it, but I promised my good friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State that I would not talk too long, perhaps not much more than three or four minutes, because he, too, wants to speak on this bill. Let me remind the House of the history of this bill. It represents the culmination of the efforts of members of all parties, efforts going back a long way in time. I remind the House that the provisions of our immigration and citizenship laws have been somewhat inhumane.
I have a File of correspondence that has accumulated over the past several years. For example, the wife of a pastor of a Lutheran church in Winnipeg whose husband and children could be, and are, Canadian citizens, could not be a Canadian citizen because she suffers from epilepsy. They emigrated from the United States some nine years ago. If you were sitting opposite her at a table and she had an epileptic seizure, you would not notice it; it does not last ten seconds.
Another case involves a university professor who has been here since 1967. In addition to writing books, he occupies the chair on the faculty of an important university in this country. He has been denied Canadian citizenship because he is an epileptic. His wife and children can be, and are, Canadian citizens. They have made a marvellous contribution to this country. I have received correspondence from a person in Ontario. I will not name the place. He Filed application for landed immigrant status at the Canadian consulate in Detroit. His application was refused because he is afflicted with epilepsy. I might point out that his last epileptic seizure was some years before making application. It goes on and on. Medical people have told us that this is not a mental illness: it is a physical incapacity; the medication for it even prevents seizures.
My bill states that when the amendments to the Citizenship Act are passed-and I presume they will be with a government majority, if they still have one in February, and if they do not it might be passed with our support-those who have been here on ministers' permits because they are part of a prohibited class, namely, epilepsy, will be credited with their time here.
I notice that the new Immigration Act puts an end to disallowing imbeciles, idiots and morons coming into the country. If the Liberals and Tories need that much more help, we will let them come in. I am only teasing my hon. friends.
After having talked to lawyers, I understand that if my bill is passed those who have been here for many years will be credited with that time. In two of the cases I mentioned, the people have been here for eight or nine years. They would be

December 21, 1976
Citizenship
credited with at least half that time toward the three-year provision required to obtain their Canadian citizenship. In other words, the wife of the Lutheran pastor, the university professor and the four or five other cases I referred to who have been here on permits long enough would be able to apply for Canadian citizenship on the first day after the passing of the new Immigration Act. They would not have to wait three years, half that time or any length of time; they would be able to apply after the normal three months, which I think is too long, to get their Canadian citizenship. There would be no waiting period for those people.
I hope the House will readily accept my amendment. However, I might caution hon. members not to pass my bill until after February 15. If it passes any sooner, the proclamation of the new Citizenship Act would wipe it out. I am sure it is a rare occasion when an hon. member asks the chamber not to pass a bill until after a certain date. However, I would be most grateful if the House would pass my bill at third reading. I would like it passed around February 16, 17 or 18. Then cases such as those I have mentioned-and there are many hundreds, if not over a thousand-would be able to obtain their citizenship.
May I close with a short quotation from a letter which I found to be somewhat heart-rending. A gentleman who wrote to me stated:
My wife died of pneumonia in March, 1966, but I have never forgotten the distress she felt at being treated in this cruelly insensitive manner by the statutory regulations regarding epileptics.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) for having consulted with the Secretary of State (Mr. Marchand) and myself to make us aware of his intentions. I wish to state that his avowed purpose to help those on ministerial permits is worth-while. After having consulted with officials in the department, I might state that we believe the hon. member's purpose is already covered by some sections of the new act. I will read them for the record. I have been trying to convince the hon. member, but he is somewhat reluctant about some legalistic talk. If one looks at the new Citizenship Act, he will find in section 2(2)(b) the following:
A person who is lawfully present and entitled to permanently reside in Canada shall be deemed to have been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence;
This is found in the interpretation section of the act and covers what the hon. member intends. Section 5(4) of the act which deals with special cases reads as follows:
In order to alleviate cases of special and unusual hardship or to reward services of an exceptional value to Canada, and notwithstanding any other provision of this act, the governor in council may, in his discretion, direct the minister to grant citizenship to any person and, where such a direction is made, the minister shall forthwith grant citizenship to the person named in the direction.
I recognize that this is not a blanket coverage such as the hon. member is proposing, but nevertheless it can become

useful. I submit that the first excerpt of the law that I read would cover the purpose of the hon. member. However, we are willing to send the bill to committee in order to have more time for departmental lawyers and others to appear before the committee. We will then be in a better position to know the exact effect of the hon. member's bill.
There is something I wish to clarify. It does not really matter whether the hon. member's bill is passed before February 15. The new Citizenship Act is already in existence. It is only that it has not been proclaimed. It can be amended. If it were amended today, when it is proclaimed, the whole act as amended would be proclaimed. There is no problem there. I just state that for the record. That being said, we on this side will agree to send it to committee.
The title to Bill C-237 reads, "An act to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act". As the hon. member has said, we would need the unanimous consent of the House to amend the title of his bill so as to read, "An act to amend the Citizenship Act", in other words, to amend the new bill. Do I have unanimous consent to do this, or would the hon. member do it-I do not mind. But it is essential, otherwise we would be amending the old act.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to thank the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) for presenting this bill to us and giving us the great opportunity to bring a matter of great importance to the attention of not only the House but Canadians generally. My intervention will fall into two parts, one of them dealing with the matter which I believe the hon. member has specifically in mind, namely, the provisions with respect to residency as they relate to epileptics. I shall refer specifically to sections 7 and 8 of the 1952 Immigration Act which give rise to some serious caveats. First, with regard to the provisions as the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre sees them, section 5 of the Immigration Act of 1952, under the heading "The Prohibited Classes", reads:
No person other than a person referred to in subsection 7(2) shall be admitted to Canada if he is a member of any of the following classes of persons-
Subsection A(4) reads: "If immigrants are afflicted with epilepsy." Section 5 contains a number of other archaic provisions which would be removed by the new act. Turning specifically to the entry of epileptics into Canada, let me point out that at the present time they must enter on a minister's permit. This procedure gives rise to a number of difficulties. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre has drawn attention to some of these difficulties. It is imperative that I mention them again. A person who is here on a minister's permit enjoys only quasi-legal status. He is not, of course, a citizen, nor does he enjoy landed immigrant status. He is not here as a visitor: he is in a state of limbo; his status has not been regularized. First, he is not qualified for residency.
December 21, 1976

Once the new act is proclaimed, the fact that such people are here does not qualify them for citizenship. Consequently, they are postponing the day when they will have the right to vote. They are also postponing the day when they will have the right to hold public office. Another practical consideration is this: they often find themselves in difficulty when they apply for a job because, of course, one of the first questions they are asked is whether they are citizens. When they say they are not, they are asked whether they have landed immigrant status, and their answer must, again, be no. Only two questions remain. One is, whether they are here as visitors, in which case they cannot be employed in Canada; and the other is whether they are here on a minister's permit. The answer, by its nature, indicates that their status is temporary. It indicates that a person does not qualify under the ordinary regulations and his right to hold gainful employment comes into question.
I am sure a number of members have been in correspondence with Mrs. Anderson, a British subject married to a Canadian. She was sponsored as an immigrant by her husband and eventually she came to Canada. Because she suffered from epilepsy, she was not granted landed immigrant status but was given a minister's permit. Mr. and Mrs. Anderson did not consent to this procedure without protest. Mrs. Anderson wrote to me, as well as to other members of parliament, drawing attention to the unfairness of this situation and to the difficulties in which people suffering from epilepsy found themselves. For example, she had difficulty in obtaining a social insurance number when it was found she was here under a minister's permit.
When the joint committee studying the green paper on fmmigration was touring Canada, representations on this point were made to committee members on a number of occasions. I recall that on one occasion in Vancouver, the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and I agreed in public-it is on the record-that we would present a motion which would delete section 5 B (iv) from the Immigration Act. We jointly checked with the then minister of manpower and immigration to ascertain whether it would be possible. He indicated that because of the process in which we were then engaged, that of revising the Immigration Act, he did not want to see the legislation opened at that time. I find it strange that while he did not see fit to open up the act and allow these people to get landed immigrant status on that occasion, he did, nevertheless, find it possible to open the act a few weeks later when the regulations were passed regarding deportation in the spring of 1976.
Again, I wish to commend the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre and say that members on this side are in complete agreement with the proposal to remove the restrictions presently in the act concerning epileptics. In other words, we would like to see them here as landed immigrants as opposed to being here on ministers' permits. Having said this, I must draw attention to the method by which the hon. member has chosen to bring this matter before the House. Bill C-237 reads in part:
Subparagraph 10(l)(c)(i) of the Canadian Citizenship Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
Citizenship
"(i) been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence or under
section 7 and 8 of the Immigration Act-
If we check section 7 and 8 of the Immigration Act, we find that section 7 is entitled "Non-Immigrants" or "Persons who may enter Canada as non-immigrants". In other words, these are people who are here on minister's permit. If you read section 7 of the Immigration Act you will find it says in part that the following persons may be allowed to enter and remain in Canada as non-immigrants, and under various sections there is reference to persons who are diplomatic consuls or officers, representatives or officials duly accredited with any country or the United Nations, or members of any navy, army or air force who come to Canada for training. As an example I just have to refer to the training of West German armed forces personnel at Shilo, Manitoba. As I understand the act, for the number of months these people are in Canada training at Shilo they will be qualifying under the provisions of Bill C-237; in other words, they are here under the provisions of section 7 of the present Immigration Act.
I could go into various other classifications under section 7, but I will not do that at this time. What I am trying to point out is that while we on this side of the House are in complete sympathy and agreement regarding the intent of Bill C-237, we must put some caveat on the method by which the bill hopes to arrive at the stated purpose.
I do not want to continue the debate too much longer, so in conclusion let me say that I reserve the right to investigate this matter further in committee. We would like to question officials of the Department of the Secretary of State and of the Department of Manpower and Immigration on the practical implications of including sections 7 and 8 of the present Immigration Act in the new Citizenship Act. Having expressed that caveat, we look forward to studying this bill further in committee.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I will not be very long as our spokesman, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), has placed our party's views before the House.
Let me first congratulate the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) for putting his finger on a very sensitive matter. Many of us in our travels across the country as members of the Joint Senate and House Committee on Immigration found there were archaic provisions in the present act which need to be reconsidered. I am pleased to see one of these points dealt with in this bill as it relates to epileptics. The hon. member, I am sure, has every good intention, and ,1 agree with the position he has taken in terms of giving further consideration to the members of society who happen to be epileptic and separated by a sort of non-status atmosphere. The hon. member said he has been here for eight and a half years, so he should recognize that by changing subparagraph 10(l)(c)(i) to include the words "or under section 7 and 8 of the Immigration Act" he will include not only epileptics but at

December 21, 1976
Citizenship
the same time a whole host of people referred to by the hon. member for Provencher.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre is attempting to remove a frustration. As our spokesman and critic has pointed out, we are in sympathy with the principle enunciated by the hon. member, but we must register some caution in respect of this bill as it now stands.
The parliamentary secretary has indicated there would have to be unanimous agreement in respect of the bill as it is entitled "An Act to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act", but should read "An Act to amend the Citizenship Act" in order to bring it within the four corners of the legislation which has been passed. Unfortunately that legislation has not been promulgated. Many people have asked what happened to the measure. It is of considerable importance, particularly that provision which reduces the time before one can acquire citizenship from five to three years. The minister indicated that it will not be ready for promulgation until some time in February, 1977. I hope there will be no pussyfooting in respect of that date which the minister announced in a press release.
The other thing that disturbs me is that we have not yet seen the bill in terms of the Immigration Act. We all know what is in it. We all know it has been given first reading, but we do not know its precise contents. Perhaps we are a little early in debating this measure as we do not know what position will be taken in the new immigration bill.


An hon. Member:: We will see it at the committee.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If the hon. member wants to ask a question I will be pleased to answer, but I do not want to use up my time in that way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. If the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) wants to ask a question he will first have to return to his own seat.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I was trying to help the hon. member who was interrupting me. We accept the principle of the bill regarding epileptics, but we register some caution in respect of those others who will also be included. We want the bill sent to the committee for the purpose of exploring the implications that will result from the inclusion of sections 7 and 8 of the Immigration Act.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on the motion of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre that Bill C-237 be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films, and Assistance to the Arts. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films, and Assistance to the Arts.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to revert to Bill C-13?


An hon. Member:: No, call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Hon. members have heard the suggestion that we call it six o'clock. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the cnair until eight o'clock p.m.
At 5.42 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-13, to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned the debate at five o'clock I was speaking about Fort St. Joseph on St. Joseph's Island in the Algoma riding and the developments taking place there. I has just mentioned that $323,000 has been provided for the construction of a visitors' reception centre and interpretative centre for Fort St. Joseph. This facility will provide display space for the artifacts which have been unearthed at the fort. It will provide exhibit space, and also administrative and visitor service areas will be provided in a new building which is of contemporary design but very well designed to suit a national historic site.
A small theatre will also be provided for the hundreds of school students who visit the fort ruins each year. I think this is an important development because it will provide visitor services, and we do have a large number of student groups visit the fort each year. One teacher who visited the fort, and who pays regular visits to Fort St. Joseph, in a letter to me described it in this way:

It is my opinion that if Fort St. Joseph were reconstructed and re-enactments of drills of the British soldiers, the arrival of Brock's messenger from Penetangui-shene, the gathering of the Indians, voyageurs and traders, the departure of Capt. Roberts and his men for Mackinaw Island were to be performed in the site of the reconstructed Fort St. Joseph, it would become one of the greatest tourist attractions in Canada, with all due respect for Upper Canada Village, Fort Henry at Kingston and the changing of the guard at Ottawa.
That is his opinion, Mr. Speaker, and I concur in it.
This fort has terrific potential. There are several needs for the future, and one is reconstruction of the blockhouse. I received tentative approval from the minister that during the next two or three years this will be commissioned and reconstruction of the blockhouse will go ahead. It seems to me that this very important site is rather remote from highway 17, and we often receive criticisms when people travel some 25 to 30 miles to see Fort St. Joseph and all they find there are ruins. With the development of the visitors' reception centre and interpretative centre, and ultimately the reconstruction of the blockhouse and palisade, the casual tourist who is only interested in history in a general way, and especially students who visit the site, will see more than just the ruins.
It seems to me that during the past year or so we have seen a very great increase in the number of visitors. Some 11,000 people visited the ruins of Fort St. Joseph in 1975 alone, and the number has been increasing over the years.
The problem that the historians of Parks Canada have is to get an authentic design of the original fort. They have the original plans, but the supplies that were delivered for the fort at that time do not exactly jibe with the plans. They suspect from this evidence, and from the archeological dates, that the fort was probably not exactly as laid out by Her Majesty's architects in planning it. Research into the original is going on at this time and we are hoping that the reconstruction of the fort will take place in the next two or three years.
It seems to me that it is important on an historic site such as this one to continue the archeological digs. I think this is very interesting for tourists and for historians. During the past year an archaeological dig has been taking place there. Traders' huts which were just outside the fort, the ruins and the basements for them, were unearthed during that dig. There is activity going on at the fort at all times when this kind of work is taking place and when historians and other visitors visit the site. Of course it is important that the ruins be stabilized as they are unearthed.
As I indicated, there is a great deal of interest, not only from the military and historical point of view, but in the fur trade and the trading huts of the company which had a trading post there at the time of Fort Joseph in the 1800's. It seems to me as well that this side needs to be developed from the natural point of view. As I mentioned earlier, there are over 600 acres on this site. There is a terrific potential there for the development of walking paths and trails for people to view the various plants, animals, and bird life that exist on this site which was a former bird sanctuary.
Historic Sites
The third area which I think is important for purposes of tourism is the development of swimming beaches and picnic areas.
From the few brief remarks that I have made it becomes obvious that Fort Joseph is not only a very important historic site but it has tremendous potential for teaching students about the history of Canada. I believe that when it is fully developed and staffed it can be one of the most important tourist attractions in Ontario or indeed in all Canada.
I want to express my appreciation to the Minister through his parliamentary secretary, and to the department for the initiatives that have been taken in developing Fort St. Joseph.
I hope they will continue the development of this most important historic site.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak this evening on the National Historic Sites Act and amendments thereto. In general, most hon. members find agreement with that act, but as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) mentioned earlier today, opportunities such as this to speak about national historic sites do not come very often, and it is a privilege when we have the opportunity to make some mention of them.
It is not my intention this evening to talk about that great constituency of Battle River and therefore the need to develop the national historic sites there. I am sure every member of parliament would like to visit this area some time, and I invite them to come, but there is irony in a situation which has developed there which I am sure is not the intent of the government or of the department. It results from a regulation regarding national historic sites. This is the opportunity for me to bring it to the attention of the House, and particularly to that of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which looks after national parks and historic sites.
I am pleased that the parliamentary secretary is present, and also the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo), because I think my comments relate to both of those ministries. The regulation which I would like to bring to their attention does not permit camping at a national historic site. Basically that is a position with which I would agree. When you have a fort, an old church or an old graveyard, obviously you do not want people going there and using that site as a camping ground. However, I would like to give a short account of the situation which took place in my home province of Alberta where there is considerable interest in whitewater canoeing and kayaking. In this sport you go out to a place where there are rapids and try out your Eskimo rolls.
I felt very privileged to be part of the Edmonton Kayakers. One of the most popular places in the province of Alberta where we went was down to Red Deer and west to Rocky Mountain House. There was a stretch from Rocky Mountain House going toward the mountains to the town of Horburg, a distance of 20 miles, that had eight descents or rapids.
In 1966 the Calgary Canoe Club, the Red Deer Canoe and Kayak Club, the Edmonton Whitewater Kayak Club, and the
2224

December 21, 1976
Historic Sites
Northwest Voyageurs pooled together to clean out a large area along a flood plain of the North Saskatchewan river. That became a camp site. There were water facilities right across from Brierly and Fisher rapids. Of course this was a very fine site. It is interesting, however, that since that time it has been named a national historic site. I am pleased that the old chimneys of the David Thomson expedition are still there. Diggings are taking place in the David Thomson old fort, and that is quite commendable.
However, this year when the kayakers and canoers went out to camp at that site, the RCMP showed up and told them that no camping was permitted. One of my good friends in his usual way asked the RCMP officer, "Why would there not be camping there?" The officer responded by telling him, "It is now a national historic site". My friend, still playing coy, asked him the next question, which was, "Why is it a national historic site?" "Well," the policeman answered, "It is in recognition of David Thomson". The next question was, "What did David Thomson do to make this a national historic site?" He was told, "He camped here over night". We have a site there in recognition of David Thomson camping over night, but what is important is that whitewater canoers and kayakers in Alberta who want good whitewater only have the choice of this stretch on the North Saskatchewan river or an area closer to the mountains where you have water coming out of glacier ice. If you do a roll there or you flip into the water and have to roll back up, you have a few square miles of ice cubes out of glaciers to contend with, and that is not quite so comfortable to be rolling in.
All I would like to ask the department to do is to give special consideration to the David Thomson historic site, bearing in mind that there have been very active clubs for about three decades now and that it was the people who belong to those clubs who cleaned out the flood plain. The previous owner of the land built Brierly. One of the rapids is named after him. He made it his express wish that the site be kept for campers along that stretch of the North Saskatchewan river.
While this may seem to be too minute an issue to be raised in the House, the fact of the matter is that the large group from Calgary, Red Deer and Edmonton have traditionally, every year gone out on that river and cleaned it up. It is ironic that they are now being told they cannot camp there, when the reason the site was made a historic site is that David Thomson camped there when trying to find a route to the Pacific.
I would like to sneak something in and say to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) that we in Canada ought to give more support to kayaking and canoeing in this country. I was disappointed that at the time of the Olympics Canada did not introduce canoeing and kayaking. All through Europe the terms "C-l" and "C-2" are used with regard to canoes. The "C" refers to Canada. As this country was being developed, our rivers were used as highways. In Europe the feeling is that Canadians are the experts when it comes to kayaking and canoeing. These sports are identified very much with Canada,

and they should have been introduced by Canada at the Olympics. Incidentally, in Munich, Germany, these sports were tried on a temporary basis, although not as part of the Olympics, and they should have been introduced here. I pass that along also to the parliamentary secretary, and I hope he will give consideration to it.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question. I wonder if he knows that Sport Canada has made a considerable contribution to the Whitewater Canoers and Kayakers, and that at the present time they are situated in the national sport administration centre here in Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: I am well aware of that, and I appreciate the interjection. We again have the opportunity we missed a year ago to make this into an international sport with a Canadian identity to it, and I think it was unfortunate that we missed it.
I would like to bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary the number of people who have worked to make that flood plain a camping area, and it need not interfere at all with the national historic site of the David Thompson Fort at Rocky Mountain House. Members of the RCMP there have claimed that there is no problem with the canoers and the kayakers camping there. As a matter of fact they say they rather enjoy their company and like them, and in view of the reason that campsite is there, and because a citizens group over a number of years actually built the campsite, I hope the parliamentary secretary will give special consideration to having that regulation removed so that there can be a campground there. Officials in the department have been told that there is a place five miles away where these people could camp, but that is not satisfactory.
Once you have rolled over in icy water a few times, you want to get into a warm tent which is right near the rapids, and to go five miles downstream is just not safe. Not permitting camping in an area which is away from the old fort would be to kill the sport of whitewater canoeing and kayaking at that point on the river, and I simply ask that a special regulation be considered in that regard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) spoke for us this afternoon, indicating our support for Bill C-l3, and at that time it was not our intention that any other members of my party would speak at this stage of the bill. However, some of the things which have been said have had the effect-which often takes place around here-of suggesting that perhaps something additional should be said, and a couple of us have a few words which we would like to add.
There are a number of things I could say and a number of suggestions I could make, but it strikes me that if one has a particular point he wants to make, it is better to stay with that point and leave the other for some other occasion. It is in that vein that I refer just to one matter, namely, the excellent statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for Well-
December 21, 1976

ington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty) when he spoke about the desirability of the former home of the late Agnes Macphail being purchased so that it might become one of our historic sites.
When the hon. member was speaking, I was pleased to note that the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo) indicated her approval. It is nice to have that approval here in the House, and I see she is nodding her head up and down now to confirm it. I hope that her approval will also be indicated in certain councils where she has both a voice and a presence.
All of us who know anything about Canadian history, and particularly those of us who remember Agnes Macphail, are deeply conscious of the great contribution she made to the life of this country. She was the first woman to be elected to the House of Commons. That was back in 1921, and she was here for 19 years. She later went on to become the first woman ever to be elected to the Legislature of the Province of Ontario. I am sure hon. members are aware of the fact that her bust, along with that of another former woman member of this House, the Hon. Ellen Fairclough, will be found in the corridor just to the north of this Chamber. In other words, the late Agnes Macphail has already been recognized as an important person in Canadian history.


Miss B6gin:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am delighted now to have not only the support of the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport), but also the support of a very important minister, the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin). I suspect that if the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) were here, she would make it unanimous.


Monique Bégin: We know how to recognize competence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I seem to be winning my point. Perhaps I had better stop while I am ahead. I support wholeheartedly the suggestion made by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Penner) will note these remarks and do what he can to make sure that this piece of property is purchased so that it can be made an historical site in memory of the late Agnes Macphail.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I will intervene very briefly in this debate tonight on Bill C-13, to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act. I do so just to bring to the attention of the minister, through his parliamentary secretary, whom I see in the House tonight, an incident which has occurred not once but twice in my area.
I agree wholeheartedly with the purpose of this bill, which is to increase the membership of the board which recommends to the minister that certain actions be taken by his department. I certainly agree that the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory should be represented on that board, and that fact has been well argued by the hon. member for Battle River
Historic Sites
(Mr. Malone) as well as by the speaker for the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth).
My purpose is to draw attention to what I call a rather petty feud which is presently going on in my area between the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board and the local historical societies. It stems from the fact that original plaques marking sites of national historic significance in my area are now in the process of being replaced.
One of them is a monument erected to the memory of two Jesuit priests who wintered on the shores of Lake Erie at the time of LaSalle's exploration of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi. There are several others which have been erected by the federal government. These plaques are being replaced by bilingual plaques which include, in many cases, more detailed information about the activity or national significance of the events they mark.
One particular plaque, which was on the outside wall of the Eva Brook Donley Museum in the town of Simcoe, administered by the Norfolk County Historical Society, has been replaced by a bilingual plaque which has more information on it. The local historical society would like to keep the original one and put it in the museum with the exhibits relating to the event it marks. The plaque commemorates the birthplace and the contribution to the history of Ontario and Canada of Dr. Egerton Ryerson after whom the hamlet of Port Ryerse on Lake Erie was named. Dr. Ryerson is known as the father of education in Ontario.
The local historical society had no quarrel with the newer plaque but they wanted to keep the original one. The Historical Sites and Monuments Board, however, insisted that it must be turned in to be melted down for scrap or something. It was necessary for the local society to take possession of the original plaque and literally hide it so that it could not be melted down. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it is in my constituency office. The society has written the minister asking permission to keep the original plaque in the museum, a simple request which would not in any way detract from the plaque now in place. What bothers me is the insistence that the plaque must be scrapped, when it is really a part of the history of the area. A similar incident occurred in the municipality of Nanticoke when the local people made a request to keep an original plaque.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary to talk some sense into these people. In my view this is petty feuding. Why must they be so inflexible and demand that these plaques be returned to the government? They are of peculiar historical significance to the local area and, in my view, should remain there. If the RCMP want to come and take the plaque that is in my office they can, but I do not think the department will want to go that far. The local historical society is up in arms over the issue, however. This is just a minor thing in the whole scheme, but I would ask the parliamentary secretary to draw his minister's attention to the letter written by the local
80008-4/4

December 21, 1976
Historic Sites
historical society requesting that they be allowed to keep the plaque.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments while we are discussing Bill C-13, to amend the National Historic Sites and Monuments Act, to make a representation to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand), who is responsible for Parks Canada, about a matter which is of concern to many of my constituents in Sault Ste. Marie. I corresponded with the previous minister about this issue, and he showed his concern as well.
Many citizens of Sault Ste. Marie, myself included, want to declare what is left of the St. Mary's River rapids and Whitefish Island, which is located in the rapids, an historic park site. The Great Lakes Power Company of Sault Ste. Marie has announced plans to expand its hydro generating facilities into the St. Mary's River rapids, and also to construct some facilities on Whitefish Island. If this were to go through it would mean the end of one of the great historic sites in Canada and Northern Ontario, the St. Mary's River rapids, because a concrete raceway would have to be constructed. This would destroy the scenic beauty of the rapids, and also the sports fishing which is enjoyed by many residents of Sault Ste. Marie. This beautiful site is right along the downtown waterfront in the city.
I need not remind the hon. parliamentary secretary and other members of the House of the historic significance of the St. Mary's River rapids or, as the French explorers called them when they first saw them, ou les eaux de la riviere Sainte-Marie se deversent-"where the waters of the St. Mary's River jump". The city of Sault Ste. Marie, of course takes its name from this beautiful, important and historic site which is synonymous with the identity of the city. The rapids of the St. Mary's River appeared on the first map of the Great Lakes which was made in 1632 by the explorer Champlain. They were discovered 245 years before Confederation, in 1622, by Etienne Brule, the early French explorer associated with Champlain.
Brule found the rapids and Whitefish Island in St. Mary's River to be the centre of activity for the Indian tribes. It was a great fishing ground and meeting place for many tribes. Preliminary archaeological digs on Whitefish Island have found it to be a treasure house of Indian artifacts and an important archaeological site as well as an historic one. In a dig last summer archaeologists discovered some 3,000 artifacts, mostly fragments, some dating back 2,000 years, so they consider this an important site that should not be ruined by commercial development.
Tourists who come to our part of the country remarks on the natural beauty of these rapids in the heart of the city, the beautiful water and parkland surrounding them. Whitefish Island could provide a recreational facility for visitors as well as the many residents of the Sault who fish in the rapids. The rapids are still a good fishing ground and should be preserved. The area is adjacent to the world famous shipping locks that carry ships from the upper levels of Lake Superior to the lower

levels of Lake Huron. What I am trying to convey to the government is that this is not only a place of natural beauty but a place of historic significance as well which must be preserved.
The Great Lakes Power Co. stunned the citizenry of Sault Ste. Marie by announcing plans to expand the existing power plant. The reaction to that proposal was one of alarm. Many citizens of Sault Ste. Marie began to organize, and founded the Sault Rapids Society, under the leadership of Mr. Harry Graham. The society obtained thousands of signatures to a petition asking that the power plant should not go ahead, and that the area be preserved as an historic parkland site. Indeed the city council of Sault Ste. Marie went on record as supporting the concept that the area should be preserved as an historic park site and that the rapids should not be endangered.
I fully agree with the objects of many of the citizens of Sault Ste. Marie, particularly those of the Sault Rapids Society, for making this area into a heritage park. It is important to preserve this last bit of the history of Sault Ste. Marie and the natural beauty of the area. I urge the Canadian government to follow the example of the American government which has declared its portion of the rapids a national historic site. It is important for Parks Canada to become involved in this development, to ensure that commercial exploitation of the area is not permitted and that the present residents of Sault Ste. Marie, as well as future generations, may enjoy the natural beauty and historic significance of that important area of the St. Mary's River rapids. I hope the government will consider the matter sympathetically and examine favourably the representations I have have made this evening.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in debate on Bill C-13, the bill to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act. Debates of this kind allow one to talk of various areas in one's constituency and neighbouring constituencies, to determine if they should be remembered. In some cases I suppose it would be best if they were forgotten.
As I listened this evening to hon. members speaking of various historic sites in their areas, it came to me that the history of the west coast of Canada is entirely different from the history of central or eastern Canada. Until less than 100 years ago, that is, until the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway, there was really no communication between the two parts of the country now called Canada, that is, between British Columbia and the central heartland. The settlement of central Canada took place along the St. Lawrence River. St. Lawrence River communities sprang up. It also took place in Quebec, where French communities settled. The English communities went farther up-river and located in places like Kingston, Toronto, and Niagara. But this part of the country grew older, and political events took place which had no effect on the people living on the west coast of Canada. The people in British Columbia at the time were entirely isolated from
December 21, 1976

Central Canada; perhaps I should say central Canada was completely isolated from British Columbia.
The different routes of the colonists were such that they did not come together until the 1880's. Consequently, as that part of the country now known as the west was opened with the coming of the railway, it was settled by and large by people from Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes, and later from Europe. They came via eastern Canada.
The tale of British Columbia of course is entirely different. The British Columbia area was first seen by the Russians, who traded with the coast Indians early in the eighteenth century. The Russians were followed by the Spaniards, and such great names as Juan de Fuca and Quadra appeared on maps of what are now known as coastal waters; they so appeared in the late 1770's. The first of the British to show up was Captain Cook who arrived there late in the eighteenth century, around 1786. He was followed by Captain Vancouver, who established the first settlement on the east coast of Vancouver Island in 1792. Then, in 1827, the Hudson's Bay Company, then known as the British Hudson's Bay Company, established Fort Langley, the first permanent settlement in the area. That took place in 1827. These small settlements on the west coast were nurtured almost entirely from Great Britain, so that such events as the Rebellion of 1835 in eastern Canada meant absolutely nothing to the people of Vancouver Island, in the Crown colony of Vancouver Island. Subsequent great events, such as the Durham report, were meaningless to people living on Vancouver Island and on the British Columbia mainland. The Canada Act had no bearing at all on the people then living in British Columbia.
At this particular time of the province's history one great man appeared on the scene, Sir James Douglas. He had joined the Hudson's Bay Company at the early age of 16, and by 1839 was chief factor of the Hudson's Bay Company on the west coast. He was ordered to build a fort on Vancouver Island in 1843, he having explored it in 1842. Sir James Douglas landed on Vancouver Island, landing where the city of Victoria now stands, going ashore there. It is difficult to determine exactly where he came ashore; it is thought to be Clover Point, but there is some argument as to whether he landed closer to the inner harbour than Clover Point.
There is no plaque, so far as I have been able to determine, marking the spot where the first representative bearing our civilization set foot on Vancouver Island. Although instructed to build Fort Camosun, Sir James Douglas built a fort on the site in 1843 and called it Fort Victoria.
Victoria is filled with names which are totally unfamiliar to people in eastern Canada but well known on the west coast; there you hear names such as Blanshard, the first governor of the colony. Actually he came to Canada to be the governor of the colony centred on Vancouver Island; apparently he did not like it. He was the last person from outside Victoria who, according to our records, came there but did not like it. He left one year later and was succeeded by Sir James Douglas as governor and vice-admiral of Vancouver's Island.
Historic Sites
Sir James Douglas first came to notice in 1840. He was sent to Alaska, to settle the trading arrangements with the Russian-American company which had at that time leased the Alaska panhandle to the British. I am sure the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo), the minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport, wishes that it were that simple now, that we could again lease the panhandle as they did in those days.
Sir James Douglas arrived shortly after the Oregon boundary settlement. The British government had deemed it wise to establish a Crown colony on Vancouver Island. When Sir James Douglas did this, he became firmly convinced that he would have to control immigration, and control the Americans as they came in, particularly during the gold rush days, so that what had happened in Oregon would not happen in British Columbia. The vast majority of people who came for the gold rush in 1858 were Americans. With the help of a small contingent of the Royal Engineers, a few ships of the Royal Navy, a handful of magistrates, and Judge Matthew Baillie Begbie, he preserved law and order and kept firm possession of the country. None of these names are marked by historic sites and monuments. I ask the parliamentary secretary to look upon this as a request that more attention be paid to that part of Canadian history that did not find its well springs in either Ontario, Quebec, or the maritimes.
It is of note that the only Father of Confederation buried west of the Great Lakes is buried in Ross Bay Cemetery in Victoria. There is no marker of significance to point out this fact. I hope that after this bill is passed, and we do not intend to present any difficulties with regard to the passing of it, the parliamentary secretary will take these matters as representations from my constituents and myself and realize that there is more to Canadian history than the story taught in eastern Canadian textbooks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Before recognizing the parliamentary secretary, I must inform the House that when he speaks he will automatically close the debate.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I rise only briefly to close this debate and to express to all members in the House who participated in the proceedings this afternoon my gratitude for what was a very stimulating and most interesting debate.
As hon. members noted during the course of today's debate, it is all too infrequently that the House provides us with the opportunity to remind ourselves about the historical content and the historical sources, some of them very rich indeed, that lie within our constituencies. Of course much of the debate this afternoon went well beyond the simple terms of the bill which, although it is important, does nothing more than add two members to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board in order to give representation to the Yukon and Northwest Territories.

December 21, 1976
Historic Sites
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) pointed out that this should have been done a long while ago, and stated that he hoped there would be more endeavours to give representation to these two territories. I would just remind him, although he is not present this evening-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He is here.


B. Keith Penner: Thank you very much. I would just remind him, although he probably knows it as well as I do, that it is the policy of the government, on a basis of evolution, increasingly to provide representative and responsible government to the Yukon and Nbrthwest Territories.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw quite correctly chastised me for not mentioning in my opening remarks the number of visitors to historic sites in the province of Saskatchewan. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) indicated how many members from Saskatchewan were speaking in today's debate. He pointed out that Saskatchewan had a great deal to contribute to the history of this country and that in fact I was guilty of an oversight. I must confess my guilt in this regard. I feel particularly badly about it because I was born in the wonderful province of Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: My parents, my father recently deceased, were also born in the province of Saskatchewan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then why are you a Liberal?


B. Keith Penner: That is why, indeed. The summer before last I had the privilege of being a delegate to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association which visited Saskatchewan. We held meetings in the legislative buildings in Regina. Part of that delegation made a visit to Batoche. Therefore, having been there, I know what the hon. member for Moose Jaw and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar are referring to, as well as their references to Duck Lake, Fish Creek and Fort Carlton.
I was particularly delighted that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), a former minister of Indian affairs and northern development, saw fit to participate in the debate. He made a very useful contribution. His suggestions will, of course, be taken under advisement. I am particularly grateful to that hon. member for having mentioned the recent work by Dr. Creighton, "The Historic Beginnings of Canada", a well written, scholarly and beautifully illustrated book. The hon. member thought it would not have wide circulation or interest in this country. I am sure that as more Canadians know about that book, they will be anxious to read it and acquire it for their own libraries.
A number of members this afternoon made important representations, directed through the minister to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board. Representations were made by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar to whom I have already

referred, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty) who received strong support from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone), the hon. member for Norfolk-Hal-dimand (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) and the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). I wish to remind all these hon. gentlemen that the representations they made have been carefully noted and that the Hansard report of today's debate will be carefully studied by the board. In addition the minister will pay attention to it.
It is not unusual, when an opportunity like this arises, that every hon. member has a suggestion as to how a particular board or agency of the government should spend its money. As I said in my opening remarks, in this current year we only have $19 million to spend. We are going to ask for more money in the next fiscal year. Of course it will be recognized that if we were to meet all of the requests made this afternoon, we would have to ask for more money than we would have any hope of receiving. However, I do not wish to discourage any hon. members on the cases that they presented so well today.
As Canadians we must pay a great deal more attention to our history. We must be prepared to invest more money in our history. We pay a great deal of lip service to national unity and the national character of Canada, but we do not always adequately carry through with the commitment of expenditures that historic sites, monuments and personages so well deserve.
In conclusion, I want to thank again all members for a useful and interesting debate. I wish there were other ways in which we could provide an opportunity for members to talk about their constituencies and the history they know so well. This would contribute very much to a good record in the House of Commons with regard to the history of this country, much of which is not as well known as it ought to be.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Hon. Len Marchand (for Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved: that Bill C-23, to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, be read the second time
December 21, 1976

and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to move second reading of Bill C-23, which is an act to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement.
I should like to talk first about the principles behind the government's decision in 1970 to assume a leadership role in metric conversion. We all know that to make such a change in a modern industrial nation entails cost and inconvenience. But it is also clear that almost every country in the world has concluded that the benefits offered by the metric system more than justify the costs of converting to it. Only Burma, the Yemen Arab Republic, the Yemen Peoples Republic, and Liberia are not yet converting. Of the countries now converting, Australia and New Zealand, for example, are about 75 per cent converted.
The benefits of metric conversion derive mainly from the inherent simplicity of the system which tends to have the effect of speeding up and simplifying the measurement calculations which are made every day throughout the economy. By simplifying many measurement-sensitive operational jobs it helps keep operating costs down, no matter what the size of a company.
Increasing Canada's exports is also one of the key reasons why it makes good economic sense to go metric. It has been estimated that almost half of Canada's export trade is measurement-sensitive; and there is a clear market trend to the metric system both inside and outside North America. The increasing importance to Canada of export markets, especially for manufactured goods, confers a certain urgency on the need to convert. In the case of exports by secondary industries to countries outside North America it is the practical judgment of many of those who are concerned with Canadian trade in many of the established metric areas of the world that the unfamiliar inch-pound standards significantly hinder Canada's penetration of those markets. On this score, there is one country which will no doubt continue for many years to be our most fertile export market, and that is the United States. It is a mistake to think that our great southern neighbour is moving only very slowly to the metric system. In fact the United States is adopting the metric system much more quickly than is generally believed. For example, 40 per cent of all General Motors automotive parts are manufactured to metric dimensions.
There is one principle which pervades all areas of the national effort. It is that metric conversion must be carefully planned, timed, and phased in order to make sure we minimize the cost while maximizing the benefits for the public, industry, labour and government at all levels. In 1970, the leaders of all parties in this House gave their support to the principle of metric conversion and to the policy as outlined in the white paper on metric conversion. On the basis of this support the government established the Metric Commission in 1971, and in 1974 approved the national program of guideline dates for metric conversion, consisting of four distinct phases as follows: Phase I-Investigation to be completed in 1974; Phase II-
Metric System
Planning to be completed in 1975; Phase III-Scheduling, to be completed this year; Phase IV-Implementation to begin in 1975 and to peak in 1978, the end of 1980 being fixed as the guideline date by which the economy will be working substantially in metric units.
Last year a resolution in connection with this program of guideline dates was introduced in the House by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs examined and endorsed the program last December. The ministers responsible for metric conversion in each of the provinces, who met with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Ottawa in April, 1976, also unanimously endorsed it.
The program was similarly endorsed by organizations such as the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the iron and steel industry, the Canadian Construction Association, the Canadian Telecommunications Carriers' Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. The following two associations also endorsed it and stressed the importance of passing amendments to legislation: the Canadian Gas Association, and the Canadian Petroleum Association. The program received qualified endorsement from the following organizations: the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Retail Merchants' Association, the Canadian Federation of Retail Grocers, and the Canadian Electrical Manufacturers' Association.
Supporting metric conversion since 1971, some 1,500 volunteers from all sectors of the economy have been investigating, planning, scheduling, and in some cases actually implementing metric conversion in their respective sectors of the economy. These national metric conversion officers, grouped into more than 100 sector committees, have put their faith in the leadership of the government. They have produced sector plans for their industries which contain specific guideline dates indicating when it would be in their best interests to introduce metric products and services. They expect the appropriate legislation to be properly amended in time to meet their schedules. They are doing their share, and the results of their work are already evident in hospitals, in weather reports, in metric road signs on many of our roads, in litre milk containers in British Columbia and Quebec, litre soft drink and wine bottles and, kilometer per hour speedometers on 1977 cars, to mention just a few examples.
Hon. members may ask why an omnibus bill is being presented. Mr. Speaker, the House has already passed the law which is the basis for virtually everything the economy does in terms of measurement. I refer to the Weights and Measures Act of 1873, amended in 1971, which makes the international system of units legal for all purposes in Canada. But there are still approximately 90 federal acts which must be amended if we are to keep pace with the march of events I have just described.
Differing national sector plans call for different implementation dates in the various industries or public services. Although the implementation dates are not mandatory, they

Metric System
serve as guidelines for each member company or organization in a given sector. The patterns emerging so far in Canada and, for example, in Australia, indicate that the bulk of a given sector does convert on or around the dates in its sector plan. The important aspect as far a*>
we are concerned in this House is that the federal government should also have a timetable indicating when legislation ought to be passed, because the time when legislation is required is clearly marked for each sector in the sector plans. It is thanks to this careful planning that we have developed a schedule of dates which covers the majority of the 90 federal measurement-sensitive acts needing amendment. The bill before us today is the first of four such bills to be proposed before the virtual completion of the final or implementation phase of metric conversion. It covers nine of the 90 acts.
I propose to deal briefly with the main features of the bill before us, first being the proposals relating to the grains sector. The most pressing deadline we face concerns the various pieces of legislation which must be changed to allow the bulk grain handling industry to go fully metric in February of next year. Domestic and export futures transactions have been made in metric tonnes since July of this year on the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange Futures Market. The conversion of scales has already begun. The Manitoba Pool, the Saskatchewan Pool, the Alberta Pool, the United Grain Growers, the National Farmers Union, and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture all support conversion. With this kind of support, with widespread conversion work already completed, and with our customers abroad, even in the U.S.A., already using metric units, it would be far more costly to undo the work already done than to make sure this bill is passed in time. The proposals with regard to grain involve four of the nine acts covered by the bill.
I wish to deal briefly with the reference to the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act. Many metric conversion managers across the country have noted that when both metric and imperial units appear side by side on a consumer product, the consumer tends to notice only the familiar unit and ignore the new one. As experience in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, testifies, the result is that the consumer learns nothing about the new system. Many sector committees, with the support of industry, have recommended that the legal requirement to show the customary Canadian unit be dropped. The amendment is to the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and would mean that the manufacturer would have the option to show the old unit or not. This amendment would thus favourably affect all sectors manufacturing consumer packaged goods, not to mention all wholesalers, retailers, and the consumers themselves.
The Weights and Measures Act will also be amended. The sixth act that would be amended by this bill now stipulates that the governor in council cannot amend it in such a way as to prevent the use of customary Canadian measures in trade. Given the over-all policy in the White Paper acclaimed in 1970 of the eventual adoption of a single coherent measurement

system, the proposed amendment to the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, and taking note of the accelerating pace of introduction of metric products, it is now time to delete this provision.
This amendment could affect the advertising and sale of commodities sold by weight, volume, or length, and prevent consumer confusion about the quantity of a product by controlling the unit of measurement.
There are other important acts that will also be amended. Another clause of the bill would amend the Regional Development Incentives Act by changing square miles to square kilometres. This is merely an arithmetical change to specify the size of a designated area as 12,500 square kilometres instead of 5,000 square miles.
In the natural gas distribution sector no change can be made to provincial legislation governing the transmission and distribution of natural gas until the Federal Gas Inspection Act is changed. In the metric conversion plan of this sector this amendment is therefore critical. The plan also calls for drilling to begin in July, 1978, with a lead time of one year for legislation, and this bill would amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act in time.
May I briefly point out that it is not only the 1,500 volunteers from the Canadian private sector who have been looking to the federal government for leadership in metric conversion. The provincial governments and the United States are vitally interested in every move this House makes in connection with metric conversion.
In 1974 all ten premiers sent a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) expressing their support for the program of guideline dates for metric conversion. Omnibus bills have already been passed in provincial legislatures; the first was in British Columbia in June, 1974, and the second in Alberta on November 4 of this year. All provincial governments have organizations which co-ordinate metric conversion, and in most cases they have been operating for several years now. Metric conversion activity among the provincial governments is, therefore, well under way. Unless this House keeps up the pace with its own legislation, provincial legislatures will be inhibited from acting on their own legislation, as in the case of the Federal Gas Inspection Act.
Since May, 1973, the United States has been actively investigating, planning, and scheduling metric conversion for the private sector on a national basis. The national sector and co-ordinating committees of the American National Metric Council, formed since that time, have been operating along much the same lines as the Metric Commission national committee structure.
Contrary to some belief, the United States is doing more than just following Canada. It can be said that the United States is moving very quickly in some influential sectors of the American economy. For example, 40 per cent of all components in General Motors automobiles are now in metric dimensions. The Ford plant in Lima, Ohio, has been producing all metric engines since 1973. The essentially all metric General
December 21, 1976

Motors Chevette is now on the market, and Chrysler intends to launch an all metric subcompact in 1977.
President Ford signed the United States metric conversion act in December, 1975, and this provides for a United States metric board. Its members have been nominated, and observers in Washington anticipate that these members will be confirmed by the United States Senate early in the new year. In light of all these facts it is reasonable to conclude that the United States is not far behind Canada, if not ahead of us in certain areas.
In conclusion, our trading partners both south of the border and overseas are watching us to see if we will continue to maintain our stature as a modern trading nation by moving unequivocally to the international system of units. Equally as important is the fact that our provincial governments, private industry, and commerce have put their faith in our leadership. Now is the time to respond.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great and exhilarating experience to speak in the House of Commons on a Tuesday night just before the Christmas recess.
I will not be too long in my remarks. There are several others who wish to speak and I think they will all be reasonably short because I believe there is a disposition to move with some haste on this piece of legislation.
This bill is one of a series to be presented to parliament to facilitate conversion to metric. The standing committee which dealt with the metric resolution recommended in its report to parliament that the government proceed with plans for metric conversion by bills that would be presented to parliament, rather than proceeding by order in council. I am pleased to see that the minister has recognized this desire on the part of people in parliament. His predecessor did not appear to have the same recognition of the suggestion that this matter be aired here in this House rather than proceeded with by way of order in Council.
There has been considerable controversy over the introduction of the metric system, but we are more than half way down the road and we certainly cannot turn back now. I have not been at all impressed by some of the information that has come out of the Metric Commission, and all of us continue to get mail criticizing the fact that we are proceeding with this conversation. Generally speaking I think everyone supports the idea or concept of metric conversion, yet we find in talking to various ministers that they still want to proceed in this rather cavalier and high-handed way. The point I have tried to make in the past is that the best way to get the metric conversion settled is by having a wide open debate in the House so that interested people can speak on the measure. Let us get things out in the open. This would do a great deal of good, much more than some of the promotional material from the Metric Commission.
I would caution the minister that when he introduces another bill he should not leave it until the 11th hour. We recognize that this bill must be passed. We are going to recess soon, to return in late January, and this is supposed to be in
Metric System
effect on February 1. However, I think the bill could have been introduced one, two or three weeks ago. Certainly it was before us on November 22. I hope the next time around the minister will bring his bill in for debate in the proper way. I do not think that would involve too much time in the House, but there are members who have some misconceptions about metric conversion. I am sure they would like to be heard and to put forward the views of their constituents.
I think the minister and I have a slight disagreement in respect of countries, but there are only a few countries in the world not now on the metric system. I think this is a progressive step for us to take in order to complete our conversion. This bill amends several acts. I think it is pretty straightforward. It changes some of the designations in the Canadian Wheat Board Act and a few other acts dealing with grain. For example, it changes "acres" as it appears in various statutes to "hectares". The new term is a combination of the words "hecto" and "ares", "hecto" meaning "hundred" and "ares", which I think is of Greek origin, meaning a square unit and from which is derived the word "area". So the definitions are pretty straightforward. The word "bushels" is changed to "tonnes". That is an old English term. The old English is "tunne" and the middle English is "tonne".
To give the House an example of how people get upset about metric conversion, one of the metric terms that has puzzled me is the unit of measurement of barometric pressure. For years the common term has been "millibars" when referring to barometric pressure; it is now reported in "kilopascals". I do not know where the hell that term came from, frankly. The metric designation for pressure is "newtons per square metre" or "dynes per square centi-metre". These can be designated as kilinewtons per square meter, or newtons per square centimetre; but where they dug up the term "kilopascals" is beyond me. I have looked through several scientific digests and cannot find it anywhere. I do not know whether it is a creation of the Canadian Metric Commission or what it is, but that is the sort of thing that gets people upset. They are used to working with one term and then, all of a sudden, another one is thrown at them and they cannot figure out what it means. I have received letters from engineers and people in the scientific field, and they have asked me what the term kilopascals means. They want to know where it came from and who designed it, because they cannot find it anywhere.
They have the same sort of frustration that we had in the finance committee. We had a caucus committee meeting one night and the Metric Commission was with us. They had a map of Canada and, believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, they had Edmonton where Winnipeg is, and Winnipeg where Edmonton is. The Metric Commission is an agency of the Government of Canada and was telling us what a great thing metric conversion was, yet they had the audacity to show a map of Canada like that to a group of MP's.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Perhaps they did not know where they came from themselves.

December 21, 1976
Metric System


William James Kempling: Perhaps they picked up "kilopascals" somewhere along the way, but this is the kind of silliness we have had regarding some of the matters dealing with the metric system.
I have spent a great deal of time trying to convince people that it does not cost $3,000 to convert a set of tools to metric measurement. I know for a fact it does not cost that because we use tools in my own business. Yet we are still getting letters, and representations are still being made to us by people who tell us that it will cost them $3,000 to convert a set of automobile mechanic's tools to the metric system. That is absolutely wrong; we know it does not cost that much. I have checked with tool manufacturers and tool distributors, and 1 do not think it will cost even 10 per cent of $3,000. But the only way we can get these things out into the open and get these concerns expressed is by bringing in bills to this House, sending them to committee, and then have the Metric Commission come before the committee to hear our views.
Talking to the Metric Commission at the time we examine estimates is totally inadequate. I urge the minister to continue bringing in bills as we proceed along with metric conversion, let us have a day or two's debate on each, send the bill to committee, and discuss our concerns. Perhaps this will give the Metric Commission some direction as to where their advertising efforts should go. I know there has been a tremendous amount of co-operation with industry, and although the separate committees have had some criticism, generally they have worked quite well. I cannot be too critical of them, but I do urge we continue to proceed by bill rather than by order in council.
I received a long letter from a man who is an engineer, and who simply tears the whole idea of metric conversion apart. I intend to answer him, but this is only one of many letters we are continuing to receive. This makes me feel that some of the advertising done by the Metric Commission is too slick, too professional to reach the people it should. It is great for young children and kids at school; they are very well adapted to the metric system today. But older people, people in the professions in some instances, are just not being reached.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks. We have three or four other members who wish to speak on the bill, and I believe some members of the NDP are going to speak. Nevertheless we hope we can move with some haste on this bill.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I want to make just a few brief comments on Bill C-23, an act to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement. The bill before us seeks to amend a number of acts of parliament dealing with measurement, and on the whole I cannot find any objection to the amendments in the bill. What I should like to do is to use the few minutes available to me to make some observations and suggestions on the whole policy of metric conversion.
I should like to zero in on three areas for the benefit of the minister and his officials to which they might address them-

selves. First, there are certain problems that I think are associated with metric conversion and information given to the public; secondly, I wish to refer to policing the changeover that is occurring so as to protect consumers; and thirdly, I want to address a few remarks to the cost of metric conversion.
On the first aspect, that of informing the public about metric conversion, I know the Metric Commission has launched quite a public information campaign on television, in newspapers, brochures and elsewhere. I think probably it is effective so far as young people are concerned, students in elementary and secondary schools, but I think it is failing in terms of educating the adult population who, of course, have grown up under the old system and are very set in their ways. They have difficulty relating Celsius to Farenheit, metres to yards, and so on. I must confess that when I hear temperatures expressed in Celsius I am still not sure how cold or hot it is. Or when the wind is so many kilometres per hour I still have to look outside and see how far the branches of trees bend in the wind to get an idea of its velocity. I think the Metric Commission should address itself to this problem that many adults are facing, and try to design information that relates in a very concrete way to some of the basic commodities adults are going to deal with in the consumer field, or in terms of temperature and distance.
[DOT] <2130)
For example, we know that a litre is about 88 per cent of the volume of a quart. When this bill passes, there will be an end to double labelling, the metric and the standard labelling on standard articles. When a housewife buys a litre of milk, she will still be thinking in terms of a size which in her mind relates to the quart. What she will be concerned about is the cost of that litre of milk as it relates to what she conceives as the usual cost of a quart of milk. I do not know whether we will still have the same volume, whether it will be the old quart expressed in terms of metric measurement, or whether eventually the quart will be transformed in size to the litre. Whichever way it happens, it would be very helpful if the Metric Commission would produce a set of tables or some figures for comparison purposes on a quart of milk or any other item which the housewife buys. For example, a quart of milk costs so many cents, but if you buy a litre of milk it would be expressed in terms of a litre being so much of the volume of a quart, therefore the corresponding price should be such and such. If you do such an arithmetical calculation for the consumer, when they go out to shop they will not be bewildered by a whole host of different sizes and prices. It would take a mathematician to figure out whether you are actually paying what you should be paying.
Some kind of educational policy should be directed at the adult population, because I do not think the kind of advertising which tries to change our whole mental conception of things is working. I remember some of the charts they have of a thermometer which shows so many degrees Celsius at which you cannot walk on ice and so many degrees Celsius at which you can skate on it, and so on. I do not think that kind of technique really works for the adults.
December 21, 1976

The other area of concern I have is with regard to the policing of the changeover. To my knowledge there is still no agency set up to protect the consumer from any unscrupulous business enterprise which does a metric conversion and does not put a corresponding fair price on that conversion. They may be using the changeover to reduce the volume and keep the price the same, or they change the volume and increase the price. The public should be made aware of the place where they can send their complaints but, more important, there should be a public agency monitoring the conversion with power to impose penalties on anyone who uses the metric conversion in an unscrupulous manner. I think public confidence would be much greater in the conversion system if people knew there was adequate policing.
For example, in clause 4 of the bill there is a proposal for a change in the Gas Inspection Act. No longer will we talk in terms of British thermal units but rather we will refer to something called megajoules. I have enough trouble with kilopascals in the barometric pressure system, but now I think I will have to get used to megajoules as well for measuring the sale of gas by what used to be the old British thermal unit. I also notice there have been changes in the term for cubic feet to cubic metres, etc., and I wonder again what that will mean to the consumer of natural gas. The gas meter measures units in cubic feet. It is stated here that there will be a changeover to cubic metres. I note that the bill provides for an "either or" situation, but I hope that no consumer of natural gas will have to bear the cost of the conversion of gas companies to the metric system.
That leads me to my third area of concern with regard to the cost of conversion to the metric system. On other occasions we have expressed our concern about the cost to small businesses of having to keep dual inventories of parts. As we convert to the metric system, people who have appliances, automobiles and other machinery which have been designed under the old system will need parts as those machines wear down. I hope it will not be an extra cost that will be added to the consumer who has some old equipment and has to keep finding parts for it.
We have spoken in the past about mechanics, carpenters and repairmen having to buy metric tools and use metric measurements. The only provision under the Income Tax Act to help people convert to the metric system is the $150 deduction for employment expenses. Surely if the government embarks on such a major revamping of our whole measuring system it could just as easily amend the Income Tax Act to allow for the cost to small business and to individual tradesmen of converting to the metric system. The Income Tax Act should be amended to allow greater deductions for that kind of expense that will be incurred.
I have outlined three areas in which the Metric Commission has to do some work, not only with the general public but with convincing the government to take certain legislative initiatives in order to protect the consumer and compensate the individual and certain businesses for the cost of conversion. We have no objections to the changes proposed in Bill C-23, but in
Metric System
order to facilitate further changes in acts of parliament I hope the Metric Commission will take serious note of the concerns I have expressed tonight on behalf of my constituents and the general public.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make only a few brief remarks on the principle of Bill C-23. Conversion to the metric system is something which has been going on for some time, and as the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) mentioned, we are gradually getting used to some of the invented terms used with respect to weather reporting and so on. However, according to the minister in his introduction of this bill, it was about six years ago that all parties in this parliament adopted a White Paper which set the country on the road to the implementation of the metric system. I suppose a change of this magnitude is bound to create some problems and inconvenience, and certainly there has been some confusion and apprehension over the nature of that decision.
I was pleased to listen to the minister tonight and to hear the long list of farm organizations which are supporting and co-operating with the metric commission in implementing the conversion program. I hope that those same farm groups he mentioned will stand up and help explain the program and the rationale and the advantages behind it, explain why they are supporting it, and help our grain producers become accustomed to this very major change.
The words and phrases which are very familiar to prairie grain producers-quarter section, section, acres, and so forth-have been part of the geography and part of the traditional language for a long time, and those words and phrases and that thinking will not disappear.


Mr. Mazankowski:: It is part of our culture, Cliff.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: That is right; it is. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) says it is part of the culture of his part of the country, and the same is true for my part of the country.
I was reassured when I heard the minister tell us tonight that our American neighbours are moving roughly in parallel with the Canadian conversion program. That is a fact which is not generally recognized by farmers in my part of the country, and I want to urge the farm groups, and the civil servants who are involved with the implementation of this program, to maintain a closer liasion with the United States agricultural conversion program.
Western farmers have proved many times-and they do not need to prove it again-that not only are they the top food producers in the world but also that they are adaptable and progressive, and they look with favour on any change which will benefit them in the longer run. I hope the over-all metric committee, the provincial departments of agriculture to which the minister referred again, and the various producer organizations will work closely together to sell and explain this program, because it is a very large job. The farmer does not just

December 21, 1976
Metric System
have to get used to some of the terms which were pointed out by the hon. member who spoke prior to me with respect to litres of milk, wine, ice cream and so forth. These are not really major problems, compared with the machinery conversion and the new terms for quotas and so forth that farmers will have to get accustomed to in terms of gauging their own production, and of course in terms of their own pocketbooks and what is coming back to them.
I understand we are talking about so many tonnes per hectare as far as quotas are concerned. I wonder why we could not try tonnes per acre, or some part-way measure initially. If the various farm groups and the Canadian Wheat Board wish to proceed with this quickly, I am not going to stand in their way in that respect. I only say let them not blame the politicians when the flak begins to fly with respect to the rate at which it seems to me we are proceeding down the road to metric conversion.
I will be supporting the bill because I realize that the move to the metric system is inevitable and in the long haul, will benefit the country, but I do not support it with any great ethusiasm.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Vote against it; I will join you.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: I hope this particular program is not handled with the usual heavy-handed, insensitive bureaucratic touch which so often goes along with programs of this kind. It seems to me, and it has been mentioned by other speakers in this debate, that we need to spend some more money and explain this in more commonplace or common sense terms. We need to explain the program, and explain why we are moving in this direction, and I trust that the new minister, who is himself a man with an extensive rural background and who is sensitive to rural needs, will bear those thoughts in mind as we proceed down the road in implementing this program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I was glad to see the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) step forward and speak on behalf of the grain producers in western Canada. Farmers and mechanics are going to be the ones who are going to be caught with this legislation. The hon. member suggested that the farm groups brought about the situation the government is now in, but I suggest that the government itself is to blame for the fact that this system has not been adequately publicized to the Canadian people. I say this especially with regard to farmers and mechanics.
For some time we have been trying to get the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) to relax just a little on his taxation policy as it relates to the mechanics of this country. There is no way mechanics can maintain their tool supplies even under the present method of taxation, and the government has not seen fit to provide any Financial assistance by way of tax relief for mechanics who will be required to have two sets of tools.

The government should give consideration to this matter prior to implementing this program.
It has been said that we have gone too far down the road to turn back. Perhaps we have, and perhaps when we try to resist this, we are swimming against the tide. Nevertheless, the government has forsaken all the mechanics of this country by not allowing some type of allowance so that they can buy the extra tools they will require if they are to work on implements, automobiles, trucks and so on which are built under the metric system.
The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley, and the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Marchand) stated that we are travelling at a rate comparative with that of the United States. I suggest that we are far ahead of the United States because much of the equipment which is coming across the United States border to Canada and upon which the Canadian farmer relies has not been built under the metric system. All these machines will have to be changed. One of the real problems farmers have run into has been that when they have taken sprayers out into the field, they have had difficulty relating ounces to acres, and now under these changes they will have to use grams per hectare. Hon. members who do not think there will be problems should go out to farms and talk to farmers who have to use measures which have been assessed under the metric system. They have to work with these products in terms of hectares, and there certainly will be problems.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A hectare of a problem!


Thomas Gordon Towers: That is exactly what is happening. When the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley says the flak will begin to fly-that is when it begins, Mr. Speaker. The government has made no provision for this and it has shortchanged industry and all farmers by not making suitable provision. A lot of problems could have been prevented if a program had been inaugurated to take care of this, and if there had been opportunities for dialogue.
I have spoken to many farmers and they do not realize the rate at which-it is happening. I have a letter which I should like to put on the record because I think it expresses the opinion of many farmers. It is addressed to me as member of parliament, from R. R. No. 2 Lacombe, Alberta, and reads as follows:
I would like to draw your personal attention to the enclosed clipping from the editorial page of the December 2, Western Producer. As you see it concerns the metric system as it applies to Britain. I believe it is time a little common sense was inserted into the way Canada is handling its conversion to metric. As our land is surveyed in square miles containing 640 acres, nothing can change this fact, call it what they will. Another thing is the handling of grain, it is ridiculous to have no measure in between the kilogram, about 2'/2 pounds, I believe and the tonne. What is needed is a metric bushel of 55 lbs making 40 bushels to a metric tonne. The gallon and inch should also be kept if we are not to make mistakes handling herbicides, etc. What is going to happen when we need a four feet by eight feet sheet of plywood to replace a broken one, are we going to have an odd size that fits nothing?
I hope when the Conservatives form the next government-
December 21, 1976

I hope hon. members opposite are listening, Mr. Speaker.
-this course of action will be pursued. You would have every farmer in Canada behind you. If you agree, now is the time to start working on it. Thank you for listening.
The editorial referred to, which appeared in the Western Producer on December 2, reads as follows:
Metrics: Britons Dig Heels In
Britain learned that it would go metric in 1965. It has been 11 years since then and the Weights and Measures Bill-as it is called-is still battling its way through the House of Commons.
How has it fared? What can Canada learn from their experience which spans many more years than does our journey toward metrication?
According to a story in the Business Section of The Sunday Telegraph, November 7, entitled, "Metrication Muzzled and Delayed", a number of changes have been made to the bill as it fought its way through house committees. In order to ensure its progress the British government has conceded one major point: it has agreed that the mile, the inch, the pint and the gallon will be preserved and exempted from statutory metrication. Apparently the Common Market rules and regulations make it clear that such exemptions can be made.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what provision has the Canadian government made in this regard; what dialogue has it had with Great Britain in this regard?
The editorial continues:
Some members of parliament on both sides of the House were concerned lest metrication increase consumer problems, already vexed enough by inflation, and they asked for a delay in metrication of four basic foodstuffs until after 1979. The foodstuffs were bread, cheese, tea and butter. However, the government offered to prevent metrication of any foodstuffs before April, 1978. The members of parliament accepted the broader alternative.
The government also agreed that fish, meat, vegetables and fruit, which in Britain are usually weighed out in front of the consumer in smaller shops, will not be subjected to compulsory metrication until after 1980.
Canada is not faced at present with the problems confronting the British economy but it is possible we might find it useful to consider their experience with the legislation to see if it could have any application in this country.
This is why I say the Minister of State (Small Businesses) should have given some consideration to small business when he was speaking.
Some time ago the Retail Council of Canada estimated that it will cost at least $50 million to convert measuring scales in some 28,000 retail outlets, particularly food stores, to the metric system. My note on this says that the council wrote to finance minister Turner as well as provincial treasurers. It is some time since the Hon. John Turner was minister of finance, so that is how long the government has known about the problem. The cost to the small retailers is going to be tremendous. I think the minister should have given consideration to this problem before going ahead. We know what inflation has done and we know that the profits of the small business people are not great; we also know that any increase in their costs will be passed on to the consumer. Once again, the consumer pays.
Just today I spoke to a fairly large retailer of building products who told me that his increased costs will have to be passed on to the user. Therefore even in the construction industry it is going to be a problem. People buying a home today find it costs enough already.
Metric System
I feel greater consideration should have been given to the problems associated with this bill. I was quite interested that the minister did not mention football but I see the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo) in the House so perhaps she will have some comment. I wonder if that game will be played as "first down and eight and three quarter metres to go".
There should have been more dialogue on the Canadian scene about this whole metric system. Canadian people are intelligent and can adapt to circumstances over a period of time. Certainly farmers, mechanics, and all those people who will be hit hardest should have been considered. There should have been provision to protect them and not all of a sudden subject them to this situation. I hope the minister will give some thought to that. Mr. Speaker, I see you are ready to rise, and I want to thank you for the opportunity of speaking on behalf of those people about whom I am vitally concerned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. minister on a point of order.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there was some discussion earlier with spokesmen from the other parties to the effect that we might complete all stages of the bill tonight. I wonder if I may inquire whether we might not see the clock and have the other speakers make their contributions and complete the bill as we agreed earlier.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there certainly have been discussions about dealing with this matter, but it was my impression that if we reached ten o'clock with all those who wished to participate in the debate having done so, we might have been able to complete the bill. In canvassing my colleagues-as I always do to make sure we have a consensus on this side of the House-I find that a number of members still wish to address themselves to this important legislation. I also understand that another member of the NDP may wish to speak.


An hon. Member:: We don't want to speak.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is ten o'clock. Perhaps he has gone home. At any rate I am afraid we cannot go along at this point with the suggestion made, owing to present circumstances.


Mr. Paproski:: Try again, round about February 1.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There is not unanimous consent to adopt the suggestion which has been made.

December 21, 1976
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, two of my colleagues and I addressed questions to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) yesterday having to do with the situation of refugees in the Argentine.
The Canadian government in June promised to increase the number of refugees to be admitted from South America from roughly 4,500 already admitted to a total, including that 4,500, of 6,000. In other words, another 1,500 persons were to be admitted.
The three members I have mentioned in September visited the Argentine and Uruguay under the auspices of the Canadian churches and accompanied by Mr. George Cram, a representative of the Canadian churches. They directed their attention specifically to the question of Canada's contribution to refugees and to the question of fundamental human rights in the countries they visited. They presented a detailed memorandum to the minister, asking that the refugee situation be treated as a matter of urgency and that steps be taken by way of appointment of a special commission to deal promptly with the cases.
The minister replied in a memorandum furnished to us on December 16. The effect of the memorandum is to suggest that the situation is by no means urgent, that the Canadian embassy in Buenos Aires has reported that the Argentinian government is taking a more humane approach toward refugees and human rights, and that present regulations are quite adequate.
We interviewed the embassy officials, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and many of those in the churches and elsewhere who are responsible for refugee programs, and we talked to many refugees as well. We find it necessary to reassert that our statement that an emergency exists is indeed correct. The only evidence which might justify the statement of the more humane approach was the statement that the Argentine authorities have shown a greater willingness to co-operate with the UNHCR and such other organizations as Amnesty International.
This view, Mr. Speaker, is totally rejected by Amnesty International itself, which speaks in a recent interim report of kidnappings, including the kidnapping of the person who a few moments before had been interviewing the Amnesty International group. Father Drinan, a member of the Congress of the United States, says the situation is almost as bad as that in Chile at the height of the repression there, and indeed the situation is worse than in Viet Nam when thousands of prisoners were imprisoned and tortured. Amnesty Internation-

al speaks of the killing of ten clergymen and the disappearance of many people as a result of "actions by unofficial security personnel." It is also clear that Amnesty International representatives were not in fact granted freedom to move throughout the country. We ourselves can attest from very many interviews we had that a situation of lawlessness does indeed prevail. There are at least 10,000 detained without trial on political charges. All of this has created grave uneasiness on the part of refugees.
It is apparent from the minister's memo that he has got his information from our embassy staff. When we were there, two junior officials were looking after immigration matters for the Argentine and six other countries. We understand that one more has been added. However, it was quite apparent to us that they took routine views of their duties, and we find it strange that the minister should prefer the opinion of these officials to that expressed by three members of parliament, all experienced and quite familiar with the situation. We think it is somewhat derogatory of our parliamentary system that representations from members of all major parties should be treated by the minister with such scant respect.
I urge the minister to reconsider the whole matter and to get in touch with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees through well qualified and independent personnel in order to get at the real facts. This is a matter of human beings and their lives, and Canada should not base its policies on a garbling of the facts.


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, even though we first consider the information provided to us by our embassy in Buenos Aires, we also take into account the information that might be given by organizations such as Amnesty International. Our embassy indicated to us recently that Argentine authorities showed a greater desire to cooperate with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and seemed more concerned about the international opinion. We were informed by our embassy that in early November two representatives from Amnesty International met with Argentina's foreign affairs under-secretary and were allowed to visit a few prisons and interview some inmates.


IMMIGRATION-REQUEST TO ACCELERATE ADMISSION OF REFUGEES FROM CHILE AND URUGUAY
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to point out the non sectarian nature of the short debate we are having tonight about the political refugees of Chile and Uruguay who are presently under the protection of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Argentina.
I should also say that this is as it should be since we are dealing with a transcendental issue, an issue which goes far beyond the electoral interests of the political parties of hon. members of this House who are concerned with this problem. Indeed it is quite out of question, Mr. Speaker, to play political games with values such as respect for human rights or promo-
December 21, 1976

tion of individual liberties, which get virtual consensus in our country.
Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the good conscience of the minister's advisers in this field. It is obvious that their vision of the Argentine situation is quite different from what my colleagues and I have been able to see during the week we spent there last October. This difference was already clear during the long discussions we had with our representatives in Buenos Aires. According to what they said, you would have thought that the coup of last March 24 was only one more incident in the political history of Argentina, and that the conditions of the political refugees coming from neighbouring countries had been only slightly affected when the army took over in Argentina.
One should know, Mr. Speaker, that Argentina today is no longer the open land that it traditionally was for political dissidents from surrounding countries. Because the new regime is hostile to them, they live in a climate of fear that the commendable efforts of the UNHCR are not enough to alleviate. Indeed, they had good reason to be fearful. One only has to recall the kidnapping last May right in the middle of Buenos Aires and the subsequent assassination of two Uruguayan refugees, Senator Michelini, a former minister of industry and commerce of Uruguay, and his fellow citizen, Mr. Gutierrez Ruiz who was Chairman of the Congress in his country. Yet those were two politicians belonging to moderate formations whom the Uruguay security forces, apparently acting with the tacit consent of Argentine authorities, picked up in a hotel rented by the United Nations High Commissioner right under the nose of the Argentine police. In that respect, it must be said that the protection offered by the police varies from day to day and that at certain times it is virtually inexistent.
At the very time we were in Argentina, a raid was made by the security forces in a place housing refugees registered with the United Nations in Argentina's second biggest city, Rosario. Some fifty persons were thus detained during 24 hours, without any apparent reason.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that a large number" of those refugees should strongly desire to leave Argentina. In fact, about a quarter of the 10,000 refugees registered with the High Commissioner for Refugees are considered urgent cases, that is individuals whose physical security can not be assured. So I am surprised that it could be suggested that few refugees want to find refuge in Canada because it goes without saying that the majority of those individuals would be quite happy to be in Canada. Indeed, a visit we made in a place accommodating refugees in that category showed us the obvious interest they have for Canada. We were literally assailed by many requests, for representations to the Canadian government by those living there.
Mr. Speaker, it must be recognized that Canada generally contributed a much larger share than the rest of the whole world to the solution of those difficult problems. However, this should not appease our conscience to the point where we should close our eyes to the miserable plight of people whose
Adjournment Debate
only fault for most was wanting to create a fairer social order in their country.
It is interesting to know, Mr. Speaker, that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees rejects about half of the request for political refugee status that are made to him. As to Canada, it rejected 70 per cent of the 1,284 cases submitted by the High Commissioner between January and September of this year. It is a scandalous rate of rejection of which we cannot be proud.
Furthermore, the Canadian embassy is known for being unable to react quickly in emergency situations so that fewer and fewer cases are referred to it. Last week, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees asked for a meeting with the officials of the embassy in Buenos Aires to make them aware of the problems created by the slowness of our admission procedure. So we cannot say that the relationship with the High Commissioner is really good.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that those who report to the minister on the situation in Argentina do not really understand the political events happening in that country. They do not realize that it is improper to unduly extend the stay in Argentina of people who are not welcomed there and who, according to a senior official of the ministry of interior that we met, will be deported to their country of origin if a third country is not prepared to receive them.
And how shall we establish if a refugee can stay or not in Argentina? The decision is based on the information given by the government of the country from which they fled in terror. Of course, they would not be welcomed back very warmly.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is essential that the minister decide to give more credibility to his young officials who perceived the distorted reality through a prism formed by three parliamentarians from political parties who got 95 per cent of the popular vote at the last elections and who have a long experience of those problems. If he cannot make a decision I encourage him to make arrangements so that an experienced official of the Department of External Affairs may go there and evaluate the political situation in the near future.
It must be remembered that it is only after the political situation was assessed by a high ranking official of recognized competence that Canada could start to decently discharge its responsibilities in Chile after the coup of September 1973.


Arthur Portelance: Mr. Speaker, as indicated previously by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), immigration applications by Chilean and Uruguayan refugees are normally processed within two to four months. In cases where the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or one of our officers identify an instance of particular urgency, a refugee can be accepted within days. There is no interview waiting list in Buenos Aires. Refugees are interviewed as soon as their application is received. Right now the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Adjournment Debate
refers about 30 cases every week to our embassy. Our three immigration officers can process a larger number of cases, but right now there is only moderate interest for Canada among refugees. It seems refugees would rather establish locally in a more compatible cultural environment.
I would repeat what Mr. Cullen already indicated to me, namely that a special mission is not required for the time being. We respond as quickly as possible to refugee applications. The applications cannot be processed any faster, in view especially of the screening which is absolutely essential to Canadian security. Unless refugees showed sudden interest for Canada, a special mission would in no way facilitate the entry of those Argentine refugees.


IMMIGRATION-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF TREATMENT OF REFUGEES IN ARGENTINA-ACTIONS OF UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, before I deal with other parts of the subject under debate tonight I want to deal directly with the answer the parliamentary secretary has just given my colleague, the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos). Perhaps this shows the virtue of having this kind of a debate on one single issue, something in which the three of us are obviously vitally interested.
It is unfortunate, and I feel very sorry for the parliamentary secretary, that he has had to provide an answer to this House which could be so incomplete and, in some cases, so factually inaccurate. In discussions we held earlier today with Mr. Cram, referred to by my colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), we again reviewed the situation in respect of the length of time it takes to process refugee applications. We could find no basis whatsoever for the affirmation that has been made again this evening by the parliamentary secretary that the average waiting period is from two to four months, unless in fact he is referring to the period after the application has finally been approved, which means, of course, considerable time prior to that when a number of interviews, security checks and medical examinations are made.
Even more important, the assertion by the parliamentary secretary that there is no waiting list is absolutely inconceivable to the three of us who have had the opportunity of talking directly with refugees who are in an emergency situation, of which, by UNHCR reckoning, there are some 2,500. Each of us could speak very personally and feelingly about standing in a hostel containing more than 100 refugees who are absolutely desperate to get out of Argentina. From the moment we arrived and were pointed out to be parliamentarians from Canada, I can tell you that each of us had a number of animated conversations with people who would do anything to come to Canada, but in a number of instances have had their applications turned down. Some were encouraged through our conversations to reapply, and their process has perhaps now been completed.

When the parliamentary secretary suggests there is only moderate interest in Canada, it may be the situation of the chicken and the egg. It may be that the fact is that far too many refugees have experienced the reality that Canada has not seemed very willing to process their applications, and that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has recently reasserted with Canadian officials in Buenos Aires that there must be a better understanding of the refugee process than the one that is presently in process.
My colleague, the hon. member for Montmorency, in the latter part of his remarks suggested that indeed the time had come for there to be some cutting of the enormous amount of red tape, and of misinformation that has been conveyed on the subject from the minister's office and from the parliamentary secretary here this evening.
It is interesting to note when we reflect on the situation in Chile, following the coup that occurred there in 1973, that significant action did not occur on the refugee problem until the special delegation in 1974 of Geoffrey Pearson and Mr. Danby had the opportunity to give an objective stating of the situation as it existed at that time in Chile.
The problem we are faced with this evening, and it is a very real problem of modern day bureaucracy, is that the minister, and I am here in no way criticizing him in himself, suggested to us in response to answers yesterday that he does want to take a humanitarian approach to this problem, but he is relying, as my colleague the hon. member for Greenwood has said, on very junior officers who do not have an over-all and objective picture of the situation. They are in a day-to-day process of dealing with people who are coming in as refugee applicants. They have not had a clear directive in terms of their mandate. They are functioning, I think, in a very difficult manner, using forms that are regular immigration forms.
We heard some horror stories about people who came to apply, desperate as refugees, and who were being asked to indicate whether they had a valid job offer before their refugee status could be regularized. Surely to goodness we are not talking about a normal immigration program. The minister and his predecessor made it very clear that this is a special refugee program because of the very urgent, serious and dangerous situation for people living in the southern cone of Latin America.
Unfortunately the parliamentary secretary has been in the position again of providing information that obviously has been filed by junior officers, and which is simply not adequate nor accurate. What we are calling for here this evening is an opportunity to clarify that situation as it presently exists in Argentina. I would urge the parliamentary secretary to relay to his minister and senior officers of the department that the time has come to get some objective and accurate information.
I would hope that as a result of this particular exercise this evening of reflecting on questions which we raise about the perceptions that have been expressed by the minister in his memo to the three of us, he will in fact take the same action
December 21, 1976

that was taken with respect to Chile, and an objective, high level commissioner will be appointed immediately to investigate the full facts of the situation. I have reason to believe that the information that the minister has operated with has not even canvassed the full range of the Department of External Affairs but has relied very heavily on two or three of the immigration officers who, as I have said, are in the day to day business of processing refugee applicants. They are not in a position to give an over-all or political perspective to the situation. It is vitally urgent, in view of the commitment that the minister's predecessor made earlier this year, to extend the refugee program with respect to Argentina, that we do not operate with these gross misconceptions which exist.
As I mentioned in my question to the minister yesterday, I can think of no competent observer who has visited Argentina in the last six months who has not confirmed, on the same basis that a recent article in the Saturday Review of books of October 24 suggested, that there is very great terror in Argentina, very largely in the first instance for those who have come as migrants from Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay or Bolivia, and increasingly for some residents of Argentina itself for whom we may well be seeking an oppressed minority category.
While the minister's parliamentary secretary may not be able to provide us with anything this evening than more of the same half-baked information from junior officials, I hope he will convey the thrust of our concern for accurate information and assessment of the real refugee situation in Argentina very, very soon.


Arthur Portelance: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a series of questions that the hon. member has asked previously of the minister, I would add, as the Minister has already indicated that recent reports presented by our embassy in Argentina reveal that the government of that country has adopted a more tolerant and humane attitude towards foreign refugees within its boundaries. It is important to keep in mind that since the Argentine government has ratified the United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees, along with its various geographical restrictions, it only recognizes European nationals as refugees. Some 10,000 refugees, mainly from Chile and Uruguay, living in Argentina as refugees according to the UN definition, are considered by Argentina as simple illegal non-immigrants. Nevertheless, the Argentine
Adjournment Debate
foreign affairs under-secretary has stated that his government does not intend to deal harshly and rashly with these people, even with those whose documents are not in order after the registration program deadline.
Indeed, since this program has been terminated on November 30, 1976, there have not been any mass expulsions of Chilean refugees. The latest reports from our embassy in Buenos Aires show that the Argentine government does not intend to do anything before at least mid-February against people who forgot to register or who are recognized as ineligible for permanent residency in Argentina. Our officials in Argentina are looking closely at the refugee situation. If this situation should change and if expulsions were threatened, in agreement with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, we would consider what additional action be taken.
We do not consider that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has acted irresponsibly as concerns his mandate in Argentina. This mandate has been extended to people who did not always meet the definition of the convention on refugees because in Argentina, housing and survival allowances are available only to recognized refugees. Our officials work in close co-operation with the Buenos Aires office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In fact, the representatives of this office are making a preliminary study of the immigration applications of refugees to identify those who are really interested in coming to Canada and who can meet our selection criteria. We depend mostly on the reports of our qualified and experienced officers on duty in Buenos Aires. They are well aware of the situation of refugees in Argentina and have good contacts with Argentine authorities and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Moreover, we take into consideration the reports published by world wide organizations such as Amnesty International.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat that in answer to the calls of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and as concerns the situation of refugees in South America, Canada has accepted as permanent residents more South American refugees than any other country. As of November 30, 1976, the admission of 5,300 people was authorized under the special Chilean program.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 o'clock p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Wednesday, December 22, 1976