1976-12-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 for the purpose of proposing a motion of urgent and pressing importance. In order to stabilize the economic and social situation which has so rapidly deteriorated in the Trenton area of Nova Scotia as a direct result of declining employment levels at the Hawker Siddeley plant, in excess of 1,000 to date with an additional 300 to come soon and 1,300 directly related jobs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House instruct the government to issue advance rail car orders which will be required by our national transportation systems within the next two years and further that the social services funds required to accommodate the 2,300 unemployed be immediately directed to this program.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented only by unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


RESOURCES
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island propose to enter into an arrangement respecting mineral resources offshore of those three maritime provinces which arrangement if proceeded with will result in complete control by the Government of Canada of the administration of the said resources by way of placing final decision-making authority in the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources of Canada, even though a federal-provincial board, perhaps to be termed "The Atlantic Offshore Resources Board" is to be created; and whereas despite the federal-provincial board, the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, The hon. member will know that the preamble to such a proposed motion must be brief, simply establish the urgent nature of the matter and not move into areas which are argumentative.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the shock felt by the Canadian people to find that a Canadian Crown corporation has, in the process of engaging in international trade, deposited cash in a Swiss bank account for the benefit of a person or persons unknown; in view of the fact that the government bill introduced to the house on November 1 would simply allow the Auditor General to request of the Crown corporations any specific information or explanation he might deem necessary, and in view of the fact that some 30 federal Crown corporations are not now required to open their books to the Auditor General, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House agree to give the Auditor General the power to audit these Crown corporations so that the Canadian people might know that their accounting procedures are subject to the objective and rigorous scrutiny of the office of the Auditor General.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion can only be presented by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Leeds.


Some hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, this concerns a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.


An hon. Member:: We thought you were on holiday!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I know you wish I was going, but I am not. As I was saying, this concerns a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to the area of Gananoque, Ontario, in my constituen-

December 7, 1976
Labour
cy of Leeds. It arises from the action of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in authorizing, despite the government's declared program of restraint, staggering and unwarranted increases in rents charged for water lots by the government- increases amounting to between two and three thousand per cent-for marinas, for other business purposes or for private cottages-
Some bon. Members: Order!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
In view of the fact that this action would seriously cripple the Gananoque tourist industry and would cause untold hardships to many other people involved, the House request the Minister of Transport to issue a stop order on these increases immediately and to set up a board of review composed of representatives of the federal government, the municipalities involved, the Gananoque Chamber of Commerce, the Rideau Lakes Thousand Island Travel Council-
Some bon. Members: Order!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: -and any other interested parties deemed advisable, with a view to arriving at some form of sanity in this disastrous situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing urgency to put forward a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that on October 28 the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) announced the government's labour policy of 14 points headed by the stated intention to establish a multipartite national forum to "discuss and make recommendations on the big economic issues of the day" and in view of the fact that despite repeated questions in committee and in the House of Commons neither the Minister of Finance nor the Minister of Labour are prepared to answer questions regarding the composition of the national forum, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Labour admitted in the House on Friday last that there is not yet any agreement that essential parties to the national forum will participate and, further, that "We do not know whether there is going to be some real participation by, for instance, labour" which, of course makes the minister's entire position that of platitudes and pious hopes rather than a definite policy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Minister of Transport on November 3 assured the people of the British Columbia coastal communities that Rivtow had agreed to hold the tariff rate while experience was gained in the operation and did not foresee any major increases, and in view of the fact that a month later some of those rates had increased by up to 150 per cent, and in view of the fact that the minister this past weekend admitted that he cannot control Rivtow tariffs and that they can boost them at any time, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington):
That the minister make a full statement to the House at its next sitting, giving the alternative plans, procedures, modes and rates which he is providing for the British Columbia coastal communities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can only be presented to the House with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. With today's unemployment figures revealing that our five eastern provinces each have unemployment rates higher than any state in the United States, and with an additional 22,000 people out of work in the nation generally, will the Prime Minister indicate what new measures the government intends to take to ensure more jobs in Canada, and specifically will the government use its flexible revenues to bring in a tax break for the Canadian public, especially people in the lower income brackets, as has been suggested by this party for some time and which would be a stimulant to the economy?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the selective statistics of doubtful relevance on the subject, I would answer the hon. member that any suggestion for tax cuts will, of course, be transmitted to the Minister of
December 7, 1976

Finance who would only make an announcement in that regard in a budget statement.


MEASURES TO MAKE INDUSTRY MORE COMPETITIVE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, with half our provinces having unemployment rates substantially higher, as I have said, than any state in the United States and as this is due increasingly to our lack of competitiveness in the business sector internationally, would the Prime Minister indicate if he is at least considering any new incentives or other approaches to make our industry more competitive, especially with their counterparts in the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 would give the same answer about a possible budgetary statement by the minister some time in the future.


UNEMPLOYMENT-REASON FOR HIGH LEVEL IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES COMPARED WITH UNITED STATES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I have another question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that this time he will be more explicit. With unemployment in our Atlantic provinces now averaging 11.8 per cent with a high of 14.8 per cent in Newfoundland compared with the current average of 6.9 per cent in the New England states, will the Prime Minister indicate to the House why the government has found it necessary to have such high unemployment rates in our Atlantic provinces compared with the substantially lower rates in the adjacent states?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have heard that there is an international border between the two.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: What is the matter with you? Don't you know people are out of work?


UNEMPLOYMENT-SUGGESTED PLACING OF ORDERS FOR RAILWAY CARS TO ALLEVIATE SITUATION IN NOVA SCOTIA
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Given the 11.8 per cent average rate of unemployment in the Maritime provinces, and given the necessity for substantial rail car orders within the next few years for our national transportation systems, would the government or the minister assume some positive leadership by issuing advance orders in order to alleviate some of the problems, particularly with regard to the Hawker Siddeley situation at Trenton?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have had some discussions with the railways in connection with their car order policy and other policies of theirs with regard to purchasing. The other question really relates to whether the
Oral Questions
government can take any special action, and that matter is being considered.


J. Michael Forrestall: Inasmuch as it is understood that the premier of the province of Nova Scotia will lead a delegation to Ottawa sometime next week in connection with these advance orders, will the minister and his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, take up with that delegation and with the premier, the twin problems Hawker Siddeley is facing, with 1,300 laid off at Trenton and 1,200 or 1,500 related jobs being lost plus an additional anticipated loss of 2,000 jobs at the Hawker Siddeley owned Halifax shipyards sometime in the next three to five months? Would the minister take up those two problems with the delegation and see what solutions Hawker Siddeley is offering with respect to those approximately 5,000 jobs?


Otto Emil Lang: Well, our agenda is not firm. I will be glad to speak to the premier about these subjects.


MANPOWER
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by complimenting the hon. member for York-Simcoe. It took him a month after the NDP to discover the unemployment rate but only three weeks to adopt one of our proposals.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration a question. Considering that only 16,000 jobs have been created this year, in contrast to the 250,000 promised by the Minister of Finance in his budget last May, and considering that the programs announced by the minister for the winter will create only about 40,000 jobs if they achieve maximum expected, is the minister saying that more than 700,000 Canadians can expect during the winter months to remain without jobs?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, here we have once again a rather loose use of statistics. I think the prediction was made by the Department of Finance as to the number of jobs which would be created in the course of this term, but I think what the hon. member is ignoring is the fact that recognizing the high unemployment rate, this government, flexible as it was, doubled the number of jobs which would have been created over the winter period, and in areas of high unemployment, namely, the Atlantic provinces, an additional $44 million to $45 million has been made available under LIP to handle the high unemployment aspect of that particular area.


John Edward Broadbent: Doubling the number will still leave 700,000 without jobs. Considering that today's figures show that

December 7, 1976
Oral Questions
23,000 women have dropped out of the labour force entirely during the past month, a rate much higher than that for men, and also considering that the level of unemployed heads of families is almost 50 per cent higher for women than for men, has the minister considered the implications of these statistics, and if so, does his department have proposals in mind to deal with the very serious problem of unemployment among Canadian women?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Here again I suppose one can make statistics prove almost anything, but the unemployment rate for men 25 years of age and over-and I suggest with respect that these are breadwinners-dropped to 4.2 per cent from 4.9 per cent, and the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for women in the same age group fell to 6.5 per cent from 6.9 per cent, so I suppose we can argue semantics and statistics all day long to prove our cases.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister will, of course, discover, if he considers those who have dropped out of the labour force, that that number accounts for more than the total change in unemployment figures about which he is so boastful today. Since we have had unemployment in excess of 7 per cent for more than 20 months running in Canada, which is the worst record in the industrial world, is the minister prepared to forecast any improvement during the next six months?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, 1 take exception to the hon. member's comment that I am boastful about this thing. I am frankly quite concerned about the unemployment figures in Canada and my department is endeavouring to do what it can within the limits of fiscal and monetary responsibility to create and find jobs for those who are unemployment.


LAY-OFFS IN FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY IN BRITISH COLUMBIA-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO AID INDUSTRY RECOVER MARKETS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and is a follow-up to a question asked last week by my colleague the hon. member for Hamilton West. Having regard to the announced intention of MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. to lay off up to 8,000 people in the wood converting industries there, is the minister in a position today to tell the House whether he had any talks with that firm and whether he is able to offer any solution to the particular problem?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, again this is a question of comparison. In looking over the statistics one is reminded that the income earned by these people who were laid off this year is substantially more than in 1974. It would be unfair to use the 1975 figure because of the three month strike, but I think the figure is something like 220 days as compared to 200 days. In so far as income is concerned over that two year period, this year it is 48 per cent higher than in 1975 and in the neighbourhood of 27 per cent higher than in 1974. Given these statistics, and the

fact that we had marvellous co-operation from MacMillan Bloedel who gave us advance notice of earlier lay-offs, we have been able to move our people into the field to help in a whole series of areas, with the UIC and with counselling for these individuals.


Frank Oberle: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister if he has discussed this most serious problem with his colleague the Minister of Finance in an attempt to determine whether the government would be able to adjust its program and to help the industry to regain its competitive position in world markets, which has caused this lay-off, and to adjust its fiscal and tax programs?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, one of the individuals that I have read about recently is a top official of MacMillan Bloedel who feels that if productivity picked up-he was complaining about the high wages paid and said it was difficult for them to be competitive, but perhaps if we could get union and management together to discuss some means of increasing productivity, that would be helpful in making us competitive with those who are in the same business in the northwestern United States.


RESOURCES
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Mines and Resources. It has been announced that the government of Canada and the governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island have reached agreement on the principles that will govern an arrangement that will be entered into as a federal-provincial arrangement respecting oil and gas and mineral resources off the shores of those three maritime provinces. Is it correct that the crux of this arrangement will be a federal-provincial board, perhaps to be called the Atlantic Offshore Resources Board to be established by federal legislation and consisting of six members appointed for a specific term with three appointed by the Governor in Council and three by the provinces? Is it correct that in the event the board reaches an impasse in any of their decisions the federal minister is to have the final decision-making authority so that the government of Canada has full control over the arrangement?


Mr. Lawrence:: Yes or no.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be able to answer the hon. member's question in as much detail as I possibly can but he has just read into the record a series of questions and not one question. I would suggest that perhaps-


John Allen Fraser: He announced government policy.


Alastair William Gillespie: -the most appropriate way would be to put it on the order paper and then I will do my very best to answer it.


John Carnell Crosbie: My question is very simple, Mr. Speaker. Is there to be a federal-provincial board and in the event that the board is tied, will the federal minister have the final decisionmaking authority on the offshore arrangements under that agreement? It is a very simple question, not complicated.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, on that aspect of an otherwise fairly comprehensive agreement-


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Alastair William Gillespie: If you want to get the answer, perhaps you are prepared to listen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
An bon. Member: We only have a short question period.


Alastair William Gillespie: I think it is important when the federal government enters into an agreement with three provinces and where there is as much at stake as there is with respect to the offshore, that one does not look at one aspect of the agreement by itself and separately. That is the reason I should like to be able to provide a full answer to the federal member.
On the general principle, however, it is anticipated that there would be a separate board on which the three maritime provinces and the federal government would be represented equally and in the event of certain types of situation, the federal government would have the final say.


REGULATIONS FOR OFFSHORE MINING OR DRILLING
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in connection with the board being established? Is it correct that the position now is that any regulations for mining or drilling off-shore would have to conform to the national regulations as proposed and promulgated by the federal government?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that while we have been advised that there is agreement in principle, there has yet to be a working out of details. If the agreement is consummated, it is anticipated that the administration would be attached to new oil and gas land regulations which I hope to present to the House in the near future.


POSSIBILITY OF REFERENCE OF QUESTION OF JURISDICTION OVER OFFSHORE RESOURCES TO SUPREME COURT
James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If that is the position of the federal government on this issue, is the government prepared to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to see whether it has jurisdiction to make that sort of regulation over a provincial authority, when it is
Oral Questions
clear under the constitution that resources lie within the provincial jurisdiction?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we are quite satisfied that the resource issue belongs clearly in the federal jurisdiction, but that there is no point in arguing this particular issue with the provinces at this time so long as we can reach agreement or an accommodation whereby, under a set of principles and regulations, we can move forward together to ensure that there is exploration and development of offshore resources off the east coast of Canada.
[DOT] * *


AIRPORTS
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? On November 19, in this House, I raised several inconsistencies with regard to the acceptance of car rental bids. The minister said in part at that time, as reported on page 1181 of Hansard:
... in view of the interest of all hon. members and particularly the hon. member for Crowfoot, I will be glad in due course to give a statement and analysis of the nature of the bids and the bid process ...
Can we believe that, because of the delay in making this statement, the minister is in fact changing his mind with regard to the tendering process and the acceptance of those bids?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the essential explanation is that there are a number of intricate legal questions involved and, indeed, legal actions, and I want to be fully aware of the implications of those before making further comment.


ALLEGED PAYMENTS BY AVIS-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO MONEY REACHED CANADA
John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of a statement made in New York, that Avis Incorporated said a study by its board's audit committee showed the company had made improper, facilitating or otherwise questionable payments to consultants, local government officials and others in the amount of about $425,000? Can he assure this House and country that none of that $425,000 found its way into his department or to himself, in the acceptance or ratification of the tendering process which did take place?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen that statement and am not sure whether the hon. member feels it fair and appropriate to use innuendo in the way he does. Obviously, a blanket statement of a negative is very difficult to make and therefore the innuendo the hon. member casts is even worse in terms of standards of conduct. I
1730

December 7, 1976
Oral Questions
can certainly assure the hon. member that I know of no such matters and am confident that none have occurred.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a quick supplementary question? I want to correct the minister. I was not making any innuendo.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I was asking for assurances. The report I read out was made by Avis Incorporated; they said that the auditors which the board had appointed found these inconsistencies. I did not. I was just quoting the auditors, believing the auditors to be correct, and I want some assurance from the minister that none of that $425,000 found its way to Canada, in the basic process of accepting the tenders, which he did.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have given the hon. member a full assurance, notwithstanding the fact, as I repeat, that the innuendo he engages in is totally unfair and out of place.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is not unfair.


Mr. Goodale:: Keep on smearing Jack, that's your style.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Now we are going to hear from Otto's little boy.


Mr. Lalonde:: The same old gang.


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As competition from low-wage countries is steadily reducing the share of the Canadian market supplied by the Canadian footwear industry, is it the intention of the government to impose quotas on imports from low-wage countries as the United States and the European Economic Community have done to give their producers a fair share of the domestic market and in this way prevent this important Canadian industry from going out of business, with the consequent loss of many more thousands of jobs?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am currently studying the problem. Last week, I announced a similar policy concerning the textile industry, but the government has not yet reached a conclusion as regards the footwear industry.


George Harris Hees: As this is a vitally important matter that cannot wait, will the minister indicate when he expects to be able to make an announcement in the House? Also, will he assure the

House that this announcement will contain policies far better than the diddling and fiddling which has characterized the government's handling of this very serious question so far?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, export and import policies are always extremely sensitive areas because, as the hon. member knows, Canada is essentially an exporting country and we have to be very careful in international relations.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS AGENDA FOR CONFERENCE WITH PROVINCIAL PREMIERS- INQUIRY WHETHER MEETINGS OPEN TO PUBLIC
Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Is the agenda for the first ministers' meeting next week going to be published and will the meetings be open or closed?


An hon. Member:: That was asked last week.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the second part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I did answer last week. I indicated that I would be following a consensus of the provinces and that the federal government was prepared to have it either open or closed. It now appears that most provinces, if not all, would prefer to have it closed in order to make more progress. On the first part of the question, I do not believe it has been stated yet. The state now is that the provinces have agreed that there will be only two items on the agenda, the first being fiscal arrangements and the second the state of the economy. In other words, the third item on the constitution, at the request of at least some of the provinces, has been stood over.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to several departments. For that reason, I should like to put it to the Prime Minister. In light of the discussions the Prime Minister and his colleagues had yesterday with representatives of the National Council of Women and in view of the many ways in which pensions plans under the aegis of the government discriminate against women, will the government consider establishing a review of all pension plans that come under the responsibility of the government with a view to ending discrimination against women? Would such a review look particularly at the shortcomings of the spouse's allowance, the non-inclusion of housewives in the Canada Pension Plan, pensions of only 50 per cent to surviving widows of public servants and the denial of pensions in many cases to veterans' widows?
December 7, 1976


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, a complete review is now being made of all pension plans in Canada, whether they be private or public, as well as of relations between public and private plans. As for the allegation of the hon. member to the effect that discrimination still exists in our statutes, I believe it would be preferable to discuss that matter further before the members of the committee. However, I want to deny that allegation most vigorously. What the hon. member sees as discrimination is not directed against one sex in particular; it is merely a matter of dealing differently with people according to the conditions in which they find themselves, be they male or female. That has nothing to do with the status of women as such.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the several precise instances of discrimination against women which I cited, will the Minister of National Health and Welfare direct that the study that is taking place go into the whole question of equality between men and women in so far as pensions are concerned?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, those matters were the subject of continuous studies in the last few years and will continue to be studied.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Solicitor General a question. As much of the trouble in penitentiaries is because of overcrowding and the fact that we are now getting sentences up to 25 years for capital murder, is it the intention of the government to build more minimum and maximum security prisons adjacent to large urban centres or in areas where the population is more sparse?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of planning the building of nine new institutions in the country which we hope to have on stream by the beginning of February, 1979. We are also in the process of trying to find suitable sites on which to build these penitentiaries.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will the Solicitor General assure the House that before building these penitentiaries, especially the maximum security, that the local council of cities, the chamber of commerce and other interested bodies will be consulted before an institution is rammed into an area that may be unsuitable?
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the Canadian Penitentiary Service to build new penitentiaries in areas where there is a very strong level of community support and not go into areas where that level of support does not exist.



SALE OF WHEAT TO UNITED STATES-EFFECT ON REMAINING UNSOLD CANADIAN WHEAT

Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the reported sale of approximately 160 million bushels of Canadian wheat to a group of American and international exporters, is the minister now having second thoughts as to whether or not that sale is in the best interests of Canadian grain producers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that it was in the best interests of the Canadian grain producers. The prices for Canadian grain fell rather significantly in the period after the sale was made. Unless we are to conclude that we should stop selling altogether, it seems that the Canadian Wheat Board ought to once again be commended on a superb job of selling.


Thomas Gordon Towers: In view of the fact that this grain will be in competition with unsold Canadian wheat on the world market, will the minister state whether or not in effect this will lower the Canadian selling price, as it would seem that the Canadian Wheat Board is defeating its purpose by creating another competitor?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that Canadian grain can go only once to the world market. Therefore, if it went this way and a market does not exist for additional grain, the fact is the wheat board got a better price by selling the grain then than if they had waited until now.



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Will the minister, who has been nothing but cooperative with me with regard to the Quaker Crescent affair at Lower Sackville, Nova Scotia, request Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, for which he reports to the House, to report to him as early as possible the involvement of past and present employees of CMHC in changes of development plans for Quaker Crescent.
8000S-42i/2

December 7, 1976
Oral Questions


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I have already debated this question on the late show. I will be happy to again bring this to the attention of the minister who will look into the matter.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. It is supplementary to one asked previously. In light of his comment that Penitentiary Services will not impose a penitentiary in a community against its will, will the department take into account the referendum yesterday in the town of Uxbridge which rejected the overtures by Penitentiary Services for a penitentiary in that community and withdraw that proposal?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as is our usual practice, we will take into consideration the results of the referendum taken yesterday and, of course, the representations made by the hon. member who represents that constituency.
[DOT] * *



ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I wonder whether the minister would inform the House if the federal cabinet has approved in principle, at long last, the construction of another uranium refining plant in Ontario by Eldorado Nuclear. If so, what is the location, will local hearings be held and, if not, why not?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken in this matter.
[DOT] * *



TRANSPORT


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport arising from a matter of grave concern in my own constituency. Would the minister tell the House how he and his department justify increasing rentals of water lots rented to private individuals by the government, such as marinas, other businesses and cottage owners, by
[Mr. McClcave.J
between 2,000 and 3,000 per cent in the area of Gananoque, Ontario; and is the minister prepared to issue a stop order on any further moves until a complete review is made of the situation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am always glad to look at specific rate situations. Of course, sometimes moves are being made from purely nominal rents to real rents, and are designed to better cover the cost of the operation, and therefore are by and large within the guiding principles of the anti-inflation program.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister particularly take into account the fact that such a move will put out of business a number of marinas and will seriously affect the tourist industry, which is primarily in Leeds? If I might also repeat the last part of my first question which the minister did not answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member makes a clear representation.



ALLEGED INADEQUACY OF ARRANGEMENT FOR SHIPPING


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the Minister of Transport now says that the Malibu Princess is a very temporary service, and at the same time speaks of considering building a new vessel for the run, would he explain how under those circumstances the services of the Malibu Princess could in any way be considered "very temporary"? Would he also answer another very simple question. Why did he withdraw the services of Northland Navigation before adequate, safe and dependable alternate services were in place?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, first of all the construction of a vessel is not in substitution for the Malibu Princess but rather in place of the also "temporary" but not so temporary services of the Bella Bella along the coastline. In the case of the Malibu Princess, it was originally thought that air traffic between the Queen Charlotte Islands and Prince Rupert would adequately take care of the movement of passengers. The view expressed, particularly by some of my colleagues on this side of the House, that some such service by water was required led us to look for a vessel. The Malibu Princess was available and seaworthy for the journey but not ideal. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have chartered it on a thirty day by thirty day basis while we look at the alternatives.


Benno Friesen: A supplementary question. As the minister has indicated, the Malibu Princess was not built for open water transport. In view of the legitimate and strong fears people of the coastal communities, especially in the Queen Charlottes, have for their safety and the use of this present service, I would ask the minister whether his department has obeyed all the DOT marine regulations in assigning the Malibu Princess

to that run; and in view of the fact that the hon. member for Skeena has put her cabinet position on the line over this issue, I wonder whether the Minister of Transport would follow her lead in that regard?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member distorts the position of my colleague as well as some other situations. I have been informed that all of the tests and rules have been applied to the Malibu Princess in regard to its handling the voyage between Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlottes.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Bearing in mind that the ultimate decision respecting the appointment of an over-all chief financial officer must be given very careful consideration by the government, will the minister in the interim ensure that the organizational structure of all individual government departments, agencies and Crown corporations will indeed include a position of senior financial officer in each who will possess appropriate professional qualifications for the job and will definitely be part of the senior management committee of these departments, Crown corporations or agencies?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Notwithstanding his popularity the hon. member makes a clear representation.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Pursuant to many questions asked in recent months by members on all sides of the House and information in an article in today's Vancouver Sun, would the Solicitor General confirm to the House that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police headquarters in Ottawa were aware of the illegal raid on the premises of L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec the Monday morning after it occurred?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the clipping to which the hon. member refers. I would simply like to tell him that the whole matter of the raid on L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec is presently before the courts in Quebec who have jurisdiction to determine what actually happened.
Oral Questions


Arthur Ronald Huntington: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Solicitor General explain how it is that the officer responsible for planning the break-in, Mr. Donald Cobb, was given a major promotion after this illegal raid and, as the hon. member for Central Nova pointed out last July 5, as reported at page 15007 of Hansard, was given the responsibility of investigating his own break-in?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is, of course, incorrect in his facts. Responsibility for investigating the break-in was examined by the office of the attorney general of the province of Quebec, who decided that the best means to investigate the break-in was not by innuendo in the House of Commons but rather by bringing the matter before the courts through a procedure known as pre-enquete.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of northern affairs responsible for national parks. Has the minister had an opportunity to reply to numerous requests for a policy statement regarding enlarging downhill skiing facilities in Banff national park in the light of a new issue debenture offer by Lake Louise Lifts Limited and in connection with the Sunshine development in the park?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we are planning to make a decision on that matter by January 15. We are still assessing the pros and cons of both sides of that issue.


Howard Earl Johnston: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the assessment is still going on, is the department now prepared to let this proposal go before a public hearing?


William Warren Allmand: At the present time, Mr. Speaker, that is not contemplated.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In regard to the export tax which was collected from Indian bands four years ago, is the minister prepared to state unequivocally that he is going to return the money to the Indian bands, and will he arrange for a tripartite meeting to clear up this whole matter?

December 7, 1976
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: That question is under review, Mr. Speaker.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the government House leader. I should like to welcome him back to the House and ask him about another minister, the Minister of Communications, who has been away on three days, unexplained absence. Would he tell the House where the hon. minister may be and when we may expect her back in the House?


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may expect the minister back next Monday.



RESEARCH


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Science and Technology. Would he inform the House whether he subscribes to the policy of his predecessor, the hon. member for Westmount sitting to the right of the minister, that Canada should follow the policy of importing research information, as opposed to doing its own basic scientific research in this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have never endeavoured to restrict a question because it relates to government policy. I believe I said at the very beginning of this Parliament, at the first opportunity open to me, that such questions seemed to me to qualify in other respects. But a question which seeks nothing more than a general statement of policy is simply not suited for the question period.


Paul Yewchuk: May I rephrase my question then, Mr. Speaker, and direct it to the Prime Minister? The former minister of state for science and technology indicated that Canada was embarked on a policy of slow but steady erosion of scientific research in this country. I want to know from the Prime Minister whether the appointment of a new minister of state for science and technology means we can look toward a renewed interest on the part of the government in scientific research.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am quite certain the hon. member is not quoting the former minister accurately. If he would send me the source of that quotation I am sure I can answer him without delay.



NORTHERN CANADA POWER COMMISSION


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It arises from power rate increases authorized by the Northern Power Commission, notices of which I understand were mailed out to residents of Yellowknife. Has the hon. gentleman approved these rates and will he be tabling the task force report on the NCPC which he first promised me he would "make public in some way" at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development on November 25.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to approve or disapprove of these rates. Under the statute, the Northern Canada Power Commission has the right to fix these rates independent of myself. As I pointed out in the House last week, the Anti-Inflation Board has recommended that the increase not be proceeded with and I hear that the board has repeated that request. It is not certain at this moment what the NCPC will do, but I understand it intends to go ahead anyway. I am at present pursuing other possible ways of lessening the impact of increased rates in the north.
With respect to the publication of the report, the House rules require that the report be translated before being tabled. But I told the committee I would be happy to distribute copies as soon as possible-I hope that will be next week.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Will the residents of Yellowknife, who are mainly affected by this rate increase, have to pay these bills?


William Warren Allmand: That is a question I cannot answer in the House, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the recent ruling of the Ontario Transportation Board giving a non-Canadian bus company, Greyhound, the right to run express buses between Buffalo, New York and Toronto, which will have the ultimate effect of putting Gray Coach Company, a subsidiary of the publicly owned Toronto Transit Commission, the present operator, out of business with the result that 300 drivers will be out of work, will the minister invoke section 3 of the National Transportation Act as he did earlier this year with respect to the Newfoundland road cruiser service, thus overruling the Ontario Transport Board?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have delegated responsibility in a general way for supervi-
December 7, 1976

sion of interprovincial and foreign bus and truck transportation to the provincial boards and I would be loath to use the withdrawal power which does exist in order to deal with a specific case; I would prefer on the whole to assume that the provincial authorities are acting in a responsible manner. Of course, I can look at the case further should circumstances warrant.



ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is supplementary to the question posed by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham and it relates to the province of Saskatchewan. Can the minister tell us whether a decision has yet been made by Eldorado Nuclear Limited with respect to the establishment of a uranium refinery in Saskatchewan, and, if not, when an announcement will be made?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have not been advised that any decision has been reached at this time, nor does it appear to me that one will be made in the near future. A great deal of work has to be undertaken to determine whether or not various sites would meet environmental standards.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, would the minister give consideration to answering the questions I have on the order paper with respect to the details of this matter?



NATIONAL GALLERY


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. When does the right hon. gentleman expect to announce the name of the new director of the national gallery? I am informed that the nomination has been made to him by the trustees.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the nomination committee has narrowed down the search to a very small number of names and a certain choice is presently being recommended to the trustees. Until that is authorized by the trustees I am not in a position to comment. I will find out exactly when the trustees are meeting-I know that a meeting is imminent.
Oral Questions



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Government House Leader, and it is a follow-up to one I posed to him on November 18 regarding a possible reference by the House of the beef inquiry report to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. The House Leader replied to the effect that he would discuss this matter with the Minister of Agriculture. Although he did not respond to my supplementary question regarding the reference to the Commons standing committee rather than to a committee of the other place, he did gesture affirmatively. Would the hon. gentleman now indicate whether or not he is in a position to inform the House of his decision?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there are at any time a number of proposals to have items referred to standing committees. All of them concern worthy subjects which obviously are of great interest to hon. members. But in considering whether any or all of these proposals should be the basis of a reference to a standing committee one has to bear in mind the over-all workload- members generally are complaining of the workload imposed on the standing committees. Bearing this in mind, I will deal with this proposal and with a number of others.



FISHERIES


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries, I should like to direct a question to the acting minister. It arises from the unusually extensive kill, for no known reason of herring in the Bay of Fundy last summer. Has the department been able to determine the cause of this kill?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to bring this question to the attention of the minister and make sure that he responds to the hon. member as quickly as possible.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, one supplementary question. As a result of this situation a number of our fishermen derived no income whatsoever last summer from their ordinary profession. Has the minister given consideration to granting the assistance for which they applied? Has that decision been favourable?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Again, Mr. Speaker, I shall draw the hon. member's question to the attention of the minister.

December 7, 1976
Oral Questions INCOME TAX



SUGGESTION REBATES BE MADE AVAILABLE EARLIER IN THE YEAR

Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In light of the fact that the minister's colleague was moved to describe tax rebate discounting as a practice which should only be classified as theft, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman if he could work with his hon. friend to develop a scheme whereby the government could refund money to taxpayers when they are in need of loans-a system which would allow them to receive income tax rebates in advance of the April, May or June date of the following year, in other words, a program which would enable rebates to be made in certain cases in November and December of the year when taxpayers have their need?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider that suggestion.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. the Prime Minister in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the light of the report of the International Joint Committee that the Roseau River Basin project south of the 49th Parallel would have adverse affects on Canada and that definite remedial alternatives would have to be instituted, can the Prime Minister inform the House whether Canada's objections to this project have been conveyed to the United States authorities and whether agreement has been reached with the U.S. authorities as to the funding and scheduling of mitigating works?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I shall have to take notice of the question. I do know that with the change of administration in the United States, Canadian members of the IJC are concerned that all the work they have done on this and many other dossiers should not be kept from fruition by too long delays. Representations in that direction have been made but not with regard to any particular project.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for St. Boniface, in his role as secretary of state for attendance, if the record he has been keeping so faithfully is being translated and if it is his intention at the end of each month to present those vital statistics to members of the House of Commons?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some difficulty about that question falling within his administrative competence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek some guidance and clarification from you, sir, in relation to a question which I raised and which you deemed to have been a representation when it was really a direct question. The preamble was essential to the question, and I believe the over-all question was no longer, and probably just as direct, as many other questions raised in the House. I think the subject matter is one that is very much in the mind of the public at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The rejection of the hon. member's question, of course, has nothing to do with the importance of it or the importance of the subject matter attached to it. The Chair always has a difficult time judging the circumstances in which information is being sought, which is the purpose of the question period, and respecting which a direct representation is being made rather than seeking information. The hon. member asked the minister to consider the future establishment of certain posts in respect of each of the departments. That seemed to be an attempt to make a representation, particularly since it concerns a future possibility, and that always influences the judgment of the Chair.
There are many cases in which there is a combined effort to seek information in the present and to make a representation for the future. Generally, I try to let that go, but in this case it was a purely future representation and I thought it should not be the subject of a question in the question period.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to ask if the Minister of Finance, who was here a moment ago, or the Prime Minister would be prepared to make a statement on the just concluded federal-provincial finance ministers' conference, a conference which is of extreme importance to everyone in the House and to the whole nation.


Mr. Kaplan:: I might inform hon. members that the conference was concluded without a communique, which would normally be tabled if there were one. It is not normal for a statement to be made on motions at the conclusion of a federal-provincial conference. But, of course, the Minister of Finance will be in the House later and will be available for questioning about the conference and about the position taken by the government. I have some documents of interest to hon. members, which I shall table today at the appropriate time.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, this is a relatively trivial matter, but one which I believe comes under your jurisdiction. I should like to know why there is no picture of the Right Hon. Edward Heath in the hall on the sixth floor of this building, together with those of all other prime ministers of Great Britain?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a topic which has been on the tip of every member's tongue since the beginning of this parliament.

If we have not already done something about it, we will do something.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, pursuant to section 41(2) I propose to lay on the table a document which was prepared for the federal-provincial finance ministers' conference last July 7 and July 8, in English and in French. This document is complete except for some background minutes of meetings of both levels of government, excluded because the agreement of the ministers at that time was that the meetings were not to be made public.
I should also like to table two other documents, in English and French, which are the background material prepared by the Department of Finance for the federal-provincial finance ministers' conference concluded today.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 110, 111, 195, 310, 892, 907,932, 1,017 and 1,044. '


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Since the honourable Member for Leeds first raised the matter of defrauding of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in the House of Commons on or about May 19, 1976 and subsequently followed this by placing a number of questions on the Order Paper, how many employees of the Commission have been investigated as possible sources of the Member's information (a) what are the names and job designations of all such persons (b) what is the identity of all those conducting such investigations?
2.	Is the Commission extremely concerned about questions being asked on the Order Paper about its internal operations and some of its personnel and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Have discussions been held by high ranking members of the Commission in regard to the questions by the honourable Member for Leeds and, if so (a) on what dates (b) what was the purpose of such discussions?
4.	Has the RCMP been asked to assist the Commission in locating the sources of the information given to the honourable Member for Leeds and, if so (a) on what date (b) who authorized this action?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Department
Order Paper Questions
of the Solicitor General and the Unemployment Insurance Commission as follows: 1. None, (a) and (b) Not applicable.
2.	No. However the Commission is making every effort to ensure that responses to questions placed on the Order Paper are complete and accurate.
3.	Yes. If the nature of the question was such that their involvement was necessary, (a) No records were made of the dates on which the discussions took place, (b) To obtain information required to prepare thorough and accurate responses.
4.	No.


Mr. Cossitt: For what reason, whenever an Order Paper question asks for the exact salary in dollars of a public servant, does the government never give the exact Figures and the reply always states a salary range, which sometimes stretches over a gap of $10,000 or more?


Ralph Goodale: It is government policy to give government employees' salaries by classification or range in order to prevent personal embarrassment of employees within any given classification or range in which specific rates are determined according to performance evaluations.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Was information concerning the National Welfare Fellowships disseminated to each of the provinces and, if so, in what manner?
2.	Did the Department of National Health and Welfare receive applications from Newfoundland?


Marc Lalonde: 1. National Welfare Fellowships information (see following statement) is not communicated directly to provinces but is forwarded to every School of Social Work in Canada, including that of Memorial University in St. John's, Newfoundland, in early November of each year.
2. Departmental records show that of the nine new fellowships offered in 1976, one application was received from a resident of Newfoundland. It was not recommended for approval by the National Selection Committee because it did not meet the basic criteria of the program. National Welfare Fellowships: The Department of National Health and Welfare through the Welfare Grants Program, offers approximately 25 National Welfare Fellowships per annum. The fellowships are intended to develop and increase personnel resources necessary for such career areas as teaching, research, policy planning and administration in the Welfare field in Canada. Two types of awards are offered to residents of Canada for study in social work and in closely related fields at Canadian and foreign universities: (a) Post-graduate Fellowships are available to persons with a Master's Degree in social work and evidence of high academic standing, and who intends to pursue advance/

December 7, 1976
Order Paper Questions
doctoral studies in social work or closely related fields. Persons with a Master's Degree in the social sciences, but not in social work, may be considered if they intend to enrol in an accredited and recognized social work program, and if they show evidence of having had practice/teaching experience in the social welfare field, (b) Special Fellowships are available for senior welfare administrators for studies related to their duties. Prior degree training is not necessary and applicants may or may not be proceeding to a degree. Duration: One academic year, renewable. Value: $5,500 full time 12 month period of academic study proportionately reduced for a shorter academic year. Dependents allowance, travel and tuition. Deadline for application: February 1. For further information write to: Welfare Grants Directorate, Department of National Health and Welfare, General Purpose Building, 18th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1B5.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	(a) Who is the Co-ordinating Director, Industry Contacts Division, of the Anti-Inflation Board (b) what is the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?
2.	(a) What previous position in the Public Service did he or she hold (b) what was the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1.	(a) Mr. R. Weir, (b)	(i) SX2; (ii)


[Stage Direction]
2. (a) Senior Negotiator, Office of Claims Negotiation, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, (b) (i) SX1; (ii) $27,500-$36,500.
Mr. Leggatt: 1.	What studies (a) are currently (b) were in the past five years, undertaken or commissioned by the (i) Department of Energy, Mines and Resources (ii) National Research Council, on the pyrolysis method of deriving liquid fuel from coal?
2.	Has the pyrolysis technique been presented to the Cabinet as a serious alternative to continued and increased reliance on the importation of foreign crude oil?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and National Research Council as follows: 1. (a) and (b) (i) and (ii) None.
2. No.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Are steps being taken by the Department of Agriculture to improve the grain growing potential of farmers in the Maritime Provinces and, if so, what are they?
2.	How much money is allocated for this purpose in the current fiscal year?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Yes. The Department has for more than 20 years maintained an active usearch program on grain and corn in the Maritimes Provinces with emphasis on breeding, cultivar evaluation, early seeding, winter hardiness and harvesting losses.
2. $780,000.


Mr. Gilbert: Has a grant under Part V of the National Housing Act been given to the Community Planning Association of Canada by (a) Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (b) the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs and, if so, in each case, what was the contribution for each fiscal year such grant was made?


Ralph Goodale: (a) CMHC has made grants under Part V of the NHA to the Community Planning Association of
Canada, for the years	1963 to 1975, as follows:
Year	Amount
	$
1963	72,000
1964	88,650
1965	100,000
1966	120,000
1967	130,000
1968	200,111
1969	191,335
1970	190,000
1971	90,750
1972	16,908
1973	130,600
1974	nil
1975	142,500
(b) The following contributions have been made by the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs to the Community Planning Association of Canada: 1972-73, $115,960.00; 1973-74, $176,024.42; 1974-75, $339,698.00; 1975-76, $400,000.00.


Mr. Howie: Is consideration being given to preparing, regularly updating and distributing a manual to assist manufacturers and others in the difficult area of interpreting the exempt or taxable status of goods under the Excise Tax Act?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Revenue):: The
Customs and Excise Division of Revenue Canada currently publishes: A Federal Sales and Excise Tax Manual for the use of all licensees and others affected by the Excise Tax Act; as major changes in the law arise, the various sections of the manual are correspondingly updated and re-issued; an Excise News at regular intervals throughout the year, which deals with various commodity tax aspects such as budgetary proposals. It also highlights new rulings that have been issued respecting tax application; various lists of taxable and non-taxable materials and equipment for certain industries, e.g. con-
December 7, 1976

struction materials, construction equipment, etc.; an Excise Communique where any unusual matter of immediate concern to taxpayers arises. These publications are distributed to all licensees, and to other interested persons who have requested to be included in the mailing list. Copies are also available at all District and Regional offices across Canada.


Mr. Howie: What financial assistance is available in the form of (a) grants (b) loans for the Fredericton, New Brunswick Exhibition and Provincial Livestock Show for (i) construction of additional buildings (ii) new programmes (iii) agricultural demonstration projects?


Mr. Ir6n6e Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: (a) (i) Nil. (ii) Nil. (iii) Nil. (b) (i) Loans for up to 30 years bearing interest at a rate based on market yield of Government of Canada bond issue, plus one-eighth of 1%, are available for construction, re-construction, extension or improvement of multi-purpose exhibition facilities, (ii) Nil. (iii) Nil.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, December 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras that Bill C-19, to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Holmes (p. 1393).
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening I started my remarks on the bill before us. If I may summarize, yesterday I was simply pointing out that it is rather unfortunate that the government is suggesting that this bill is a key point in their restraint program. As I said yesterday, basically the bill is not needed in the sense that the government could restrain its expenditures without passage of this bill, and indeed many aspects of the bill are window-dressing, high profile items which undoubtedly the government feels gives them the excuse to create the impression in the land that somehow it is a restraint government. Yet we know that this
Restraint of Government Expenditures has been the biggest spending government this country has ever seen.
I say that in view of the fact that, as we know, the government now says that it will control its spending to $42,252 million this year. The government expects to get credit for holding that line, as government members say, but the fact is that they are already breaking their own guidelines. They indicated that they would not allow spending in this country to go up at a faster rate than the gross national product increase in the country. The GNP increase will be approximately 11 per cent, yet we find that, based on the estimate the government has already announced, government spending will increase by 14 per cent, a full 3 per cent faster rate of increase than that of the economy. Unfortunately, that will result in a greater government component in our GNP, which in turn puts more pressure than we have had until the present time on the average wage earner and taxpayer in this country.
This is why we want to emphasize once again that if the government had the will, we believe it could have eliminated $1,025 billion from its spending estimates. It could have taken about half of that money and given a tax break to the average Canadian, especially Canadians in the lower personal income tax brackets. The government could have given incentives to industry to allow it to get on with creating the jobs which are needed to lower our unemployment rate.
These are the hard facts, and I believe this government must recognize that, sitting at the top of the totem pole, it has access to funds to which no other governmental jurisdiction has access. We have pointed this out before. We have pointed out the fact that personal income tax is geared, under the present Income Tax Act, so that when the gross national product goes up, say 10 per cent, personal income tax goes up an arbitrary 15 per cent. There is no mystery about that. The fact is that personal income taxes at the federal level are bound to go up at a faster rate than the gross national product. The reason I emphasize that point is that this is why the government seems so inclined to spend money. The government is flush in revenue, and rather than do the honourable thing and give a tax cut, which in turn would create consumer demand, the government tends to cling to this revenue and work out spending programs which it feels it can get away with.
For those who were following the finance ministers' conference across the street yesterday, it was interesting to note the comments made by the minister of finance from Quebec, Mr. Jacques Parizeau. Dealing with this very question, he stated:
Only one tax can be said to have a natural increase rate significantly higher than the GNP increase rate, and that is the personal income tax. Come what may, every year this tax, even when indexed, produces some SI billion manoeuvring margin for the over-all Canadian governments. It represents nearly the total manoeuvring margin of governments in the long run-
Mr. Parizeau went on to state:
With the constitutional system being what it is, (no restriction on the federal power to expend funds, lack of precision on the respective jurisdictions at

December 7, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
different levels of government) the use of this manoeuvring margin inevitably leads to excessive centralization of powers in Ottawa.
What Mr. Parizeau said has been stated many times, and surely it is time for this government to realize that by clinging on to this excessive revenue, which it has tended to do, and by spending that money, it is first of all creating the centralization to which Mr. Parizeau referred but, most importantly, it is acting as a drag on the economy. This government allows the federal treasury to be a drag on the economy to quite an extent, and that is why we have excessive unemployment at the present time. In short, we say the government should give a large proportion of that excess income tax revenue back to those who are paying the shot, the average wage earner, especially those earning $8,000 or less and certainly those earning less than $16,000 per year.
Through personal income tax, the average Canadian pays most of the tab for the extravagant spending habits of the present administration. In 1968, Canadians made up 34 per cent of total federal revenues through personal income taxes. By the end of this fiscal year federal income taxes levied on the average taxpayer will cover 53 per cent of federal revenue needs. In contrast, corporate income taxes contribute 15 per cent of revenues today, the same level as in 1968.
It is not the corporation, or even the wealthy individual, who bears the burden of federal spending; it is the worker, the little fellow, who has to cough up the money to finance the quadrupling of federal expenditures since 1968. In that connection, hon. members will recall that last night I pointed out that when this government took power in 1968, the total federal budget after 100 years of confederation was slightly under $10 billion. This year we have a budget of $42,250 billion, more than four times that of eight years ago when this government took power.
In my speech in this House on May 27, I indicated where more than $1 billion could be cut from federal spending and I reiterated those items last night. I suggest that one-quarter of this saving could be returned directly to the taxpayer, where it rightfully belongs. One-quarter could be used to get the economy moving again, and the remainder-about $500 million- could be applied to reduce the cash requirements of the federal government. This would give an indication that the present administration is trying to live within its means and there would be an opportunity for the private sector to borrow money at more reasonable interest rates.
Surely we should challenge the present administration to admit that its growth policies will never restore the losses in potential growth Canadians have suffered in the past two years. On this point, let us not forget that 760,000 Canadians continue to be jobless, and judging from the reactions during question period even today, that figure is not going to be broken by this government's actions in the foreseeable future. With a more imaginative approach at the federal level designed to encourage growth in our economy, the private sector could produce the jobs needed to get Canadians back to work. As the Economic Council of Canada pointed out, referring to possible changes in unemployment insurance regula-

tions which were announced by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen): "Regulatory changes alone do not, and will not, send people back to work if there are no jobs available."
During question period today I contrasted the experience in the United States with the experience in Canada, and perhaps for the record I should reiterate those rather startling figures. How often have those who wish to defend this government stood up and said that somehow the unemployment level in this country is better than that in the United States? Yet when we look at the figures we find that there are five provinces- Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland-which have higher unemployment levels than any state in the United States.
Half of our provinces are experiencing unemployment of approximately 10 per cent. That is the rate for Quebec, and in the case of Newfoundland, which has the worst rate, the rate is 14.8 per cent. The worst rate of any state in the United States is 9 per cent. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is confronted with these figures, he simply says that there is an international boundary between the two countries. Of course there is; that is the point we are making. Why is it that a country which is faced in many of its areas with similar problems to those in Canada has been more successful in bringing its state unemployment levels down compared with comparable provincial figures in this country?
Why should our five eastern provinces have consistently higher levels than, for example, any of the New England states? Why should the Atlantic provinces have an unemployment level of 11.8 per cent when the New England states have a level below 7 per cent? Surely it is time we started to ask these questions in this House. It is not enough to say that there is an international boundary between us. With the interrelationship there is between the Canadian economy and the American economy, we have to start finding out why the Americans have been more successful than we have in eliminating unfair distortions in unemployment levels on a regional basis.
One of the places we have to begin is by looking at the government's spending plans. If you were to ask businessmen for the most important reason the economy is not functioning better at the present time, you would be told it is because there is a deep lack of confidence in the business future of this country. If you were to ask why there is that deep lack of confidence, you would be told it is because of undue intervention at the governmental level, undue spending at the governmental level, and that in general there appears to be indecision at the government level about what the future holds for the economy in Canada. That is why the money is not being invested to create the jobs that would make us more competitive in world markets. There is lack of confidence. One of the key reasons for that lack of confidence is the high spending of this federal government which at the present time is outpacing the spending of all other levels of government.
December 7, 1976

As we know, there has been a great debate about what really causes inflation in a nation. Many people like to blame others-governments are blamed, business is blamed and labour is blamed. Surely one of the most fundamental reasons we have experienced the inflation we have in this country is excessive government spending.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that many people, in a rather apologetic way, now agree with that premise. They agree, for example, that the former minister of finance, Mr. Turner, was totally wrong in allowing federal spending to double in the 44 months he held that portfolio. I will say that, likewise, the public will generally feel that the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) would be wrong if he ever tolerated federal government spending to double again in 44 months since his taking over. That is the crunch; that is the problem on which we have to zero in. Let us not be thrown off the track by what the government represents as a restraint bill.
When we look at the key features of this bill, I think most of us will agree that much of it is window-dressing. For example, there is reference to disbanding the Company of Young Canadians. Mr. Speaker, that organization is dead and gone; people have not taken it seriously for several years. Can we really and honestly say that is is part of a governmental restraint program to disband it today? Information Canada has been criticized for many, many years. We believed it to be an improperly conceived and directed arm of government. To include it in a bill that is called a restraint bill is rather misleading.
A ceiling is, in effect, being put on family allowances in the sense that it will no longer carry the indexing into this year to allow it to equal last year's buying power. We have to ask the basic question: why was it right last year to give those who received the family allowance $20 in real buying power in terms of 1975 figures, but not give it in 1976 when the amount will be discounted by inflation? In buying power, in terms of 1975 figures, people may receive only $18.50 this year. Surely, before we pass this bill, we have to ask ourselves what the significant difference is between 1975 and 1976 to cause the government to say that, in terms of real buying power, family allowance cheques should be less this year than last year- especially when we look at the government's own spending program.
They suggest that government spending will be kept at last year's level. They, just arbitrarily, say they are going to restrain government spending to the rate of increase of the gross national product which, incidentally, includes 7 per cent or 8 per cent inflation. Arbitrarily they say, "Do not ask us to control our spending without allowing us to increase by the amount of inflation plus real growth in the economy." These are some of the questions that I hope hon. members will ask themselves before they bring debate on this bill to a conclusion.
Last evening I touched on the approach of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to research and development in this country. There is a feature in the bill that is rather remarkable: before any new program is put in position,
Restraint of Government Expenditures before the government is able clearly to state what they intend to do to assist industry in this country to increase research and development expenditures, we find that if this bill is passed it will eliminate the present act governing research and development in industry. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? Surely, when we cite the unemployment figures, when we are faced with concrete evidence that one of the reasons for high unemployment is that our industry is losing its competitiveness in international markets, we must go to industry and offer incentives and inducements for it to undertake the research and development necessary to make it competitive in world markets. I would think that is elementary, yet this government does not appear to comprehend it.
The hard figures show that our industry is not as competitive as it should be. Is that any wonder, when we realize that in the past ten years the average amount spent per year on research and development by private industry in this country is .3 of 1 per cent? The United States, with its much greater gross national product, spends 1 per cent per year on research and development by private industry; for the last ten years Germany has spent 1.4 per cent, and Japan has spent 1.4 per cent. Rather than accepting the challenge to get up to the level with the United States, the government proposes, through this bill, to put an end to the only act we have that deals with the subject of research and development.
I am glad to see the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Faulkner) in the House today, Mr. Speaker. When his predecessor was confronted with this very serious situation he had the audacity to stand in this House and say that we did not realize when we were well off; that although Figures for research and development were lower in Canada, we should realize that we get the benefit of the research and development done by parent companies with branches here. What he was saying was that Canada should be glad to get second-hand merchandise; somehow research and development trickles into this country and we get the benefit after the parent company has had the advantage of breaking into world markets with new techniques.
That is the dilemma, Mr. Speaker. In the world's innovative market today, you cannot be a dealer in used merchandise and expect to be competitive with those who have the merchandise first: there is just no market for you; there is no room for you. If that is the case, why would the government be taking the retrograde step of cutting back on the unsatisfactory research and development commitment that this country has had for the last ten years?
For those reasons, among others, I believe hon. members have the right to debate this bill fully. They have tried to make the point that the government does not understand what restraint means. In short, we face another bill which is a bit of window-dressing. Say what you will, this government is a disgrace.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, whose allotted time has expired.

December 7, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
He may continue if he has unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I did not hear the result. I shall ask again if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Paproski:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Faulkner:: Say something nice, now.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for allowing me to speak longer. This is such a serious matter that perhaps I become overenthusiastic in bringing forward what I consider as damning figures concerning restraint in Canada. I thank hon. members for hearing me out and allowing me extra time. In fairness to those who agreed to allow me to go on speaking and to those who still want to speak, since I know other hon. members wish to put their comments concerning this bill on record before it is finally dealt with, I shall resume my seat.


William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) would permit a question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, I wonder how the hon. member equates his remarks with the attitude shown by his leader last week with regard to paying for all the overproduction of industrial milk. How does the hon. member equate that attitude with government restraint?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member who represents the riding next to mine has not been listening properly to my leader.


Ralph Goodale: The country is not listening, either.


Mr. Dinsdale:: You are not the country, although you may think that 1'etat c'est moi.


Ralph Goodale: You said it, Walter; I didn't.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I will personally take responsibility for delivering the full remarks of my leader to the hon. member, in the earnest hope he will read those remarks and learn something, since obviously he knows little about the problem to which he referred.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: That is not unusual.


Mr. Bert Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in the debate on Bill C-19. After listening to the news and examining this bill, one is led to
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
wonder where the country is going. The Auditor General, in his report, gave us an inkling of what is happening in parliament. One sees a government opposite which will not heed the Auditor General's report. This government has possibly led the country into the worst mess we have seen in our time. Since the Auditor General recommended the appointment of an overseer of government spending, one cannot understand why the government should try to change his suggestion by setting up another royal commission. This government talks about restraint, Mr. Speaker, but it has got into a mess in pretty well all departments of government and is guilty of some of the most wasteful and corrupt expenditures we have heard of in our time.
In debating Bill C-19 one can talk of almost all departments of government. The Auditor General, after all, was appointed to report what he finds going on in the government. Since the government has failed to heed his recommendations, I think it only proper that we should deal with some of the matters he raised when we debate this bill. Consider how much money this government has wasted all through the years by setting up various royal commissions. Possibly the government set up its latest royal commission because it does not want the public to know all the truth just yet. Possibly in a couple of years, when present events will be behind us, it will reveal some of the things which have taken place.
I was thinking the other day of what the Liberal party had said about the Diefenbaker buck, or the "Diefen-dollar" as they called it, when the Conservative government some years ago devalued our dollar. I was wondering what they will say about the Trudeau buck. How will it look? Will the party opposite be ashamed of it?
According to news one hears, transportation in this country is in a mess. News stories I heard last night show that there is a transportation mess on the Pacific coast. We have heard maritime members speaking of what is happening in the maritimes, and westerners know what is happening in western Canada with regard to the user-pay concept of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). Although I, personally, am not familiar with "at and east" rates, I know from listening to colleagues on my side of the difficult position in which the removal of these rates will place the maritime provinces and other parts of Canada. One is certainly forced to wonder what the effect will be in central and western Canada. We all heard last night what is happening on the Pacific coast and how that part of the country is reacting to the minister's user-pay concept. As well, recent revelations of the minister's own spending have not gone over well in the part of the country from which I come.
One hears much talk of rail operations. The minister has hesitated to state his position clearly on the Crow rates, for example. Western Canada would like to know where the minister stands on those rates. He must stop beating around the bush and tell us, because we very much want to know. One hears what has been happening at Mirabel and Pickering airports, and then one sees what is happening in central Canada and in the area I represent. I have attended, I do not know how many meetings to do with rail line abandonment. I
December 7, 1976

realize that the government has set up a commission to study the question, but it has no clear-cut policy.
Canadian National Railways advertises its rail passenger service. Mr. Speaker, in my area there is no rail passenger service-at least, there is no service at a convenient time. If there is such a passenger service, it is provided at the most outlandish hours when nobody can use it. Considering the high cost of energy and that rail lines have already been put down, I see no reason for not providing rail passenger service between places like Prince Albert, North Battleford and Edmonton. At present, no rail passenger service at all is provided to those areas. This makes one wonder if the government is serious when it says that it wishes to do something about passenger service.
Even on the freight haul service the trucks have pretty well taken over. One wonders why this has come about, because it is much more costly to build and maintain highways than to keep the present railbeds in proper shape. The way energy has increased in price, we should make more use of the railbeds. All across Canada the rail lines are becoming overgrown with grass and weeds. We hear a lot of talk about unemployment. I agree that there are some lines that could be abandoned. A lot of them should not have been put there in the first place. Railway companies were able to obtain charters which they should not have been able to get. A private railway company should not have been given a charter to build a line running parallel with another line. We all know the blunders that have been made. If we followed the user-pay concept, maybe all this would work out. Possibly we should do something about it. The Minister of Transport should come down to earth and give us an inkling as to where he is headed with his transport policy.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I wish he would come down to earth.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Yes, he has been in the air too much- $740,000 worth. Western Canada is looking for a transportation policy from this minister which will straighten out the present mess. Year after year it is getting worse. There is talk of the CNR building rail lines in other countries. They should first look after Canada.
I want to deal briefly with agriculture. There is a big mess here, as well. The minister has brought forward a stabilization bill. Our party has always been in favour of a sound policy for the producer. Therefore, stabilization is very necessary. There are 30,000 permit-book holders under the Canadian Wheat Board who are not in the stabilization plan. They do not know where they are going. We also have Bill C-2, advance payments on farm stored grain. Many in this House will recall that the Diefenbaker government brought in a plan for farm-stored grain. It was put into effect overnight. The plan worked very well. The Liberals, who at that time were on this side of the chamber, said that it would not work and the members of the Wheat Board would quit. I never heard of any quitting. The plan carried on for years.
Restraint of Government Expenditures
We are certainly not opposing this new stabilization bill. However, when we see what it will cost the producers, we can see what the government is aiming at. Thousands more civil servants will be required to administer the plan. With the Diefenbaker plan, the farmer went to the elevator, swore an affidavit as to the amount of grain he had on hand, and went to the bank to get his cheque. It was a good plan and there was very little discrimination. We are hoping that this new plan will be workable. However, we cannot see the need for the extra cost that will be involved. The previous plan worked very well and there is no reason why it could not, again, be followed for payments on farm-stored grain.
Many farmers in my constituency are in a difficult situation. They were misled by this government to go into livestock. The farmers take a dollar less for their wheat, a dollar less for their barley, while everything is increasing in price-some of it by leaps and bounds. A few years ago the farmers were encouraged to go into livestock even though many of them were getting along very well growing grain. Today, many young people are being put out of business. Young farmers in my part of the country are discouraged. A few years ago, calves were selling as high as 72 cents a pound. The farmers borrowed money from the bank for cows that should have been canner cows. They were being paid $500 to $700 to raise calves because the government was saying, "go into beef'.
The government had better come forward soon with some kind of plan. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is in the chamber. For a year and a half he has been saying that he will come out with a plan, but the farmers are still waiting. The government must come forward with a plan to help not only western farmers but farmers in eastern Canada as well. I understand that they, too, are in a tough situation with regard to livestock.
My constituency extends as far north as the Northwest Territories. Therefore, I want to deal briefly with some of the problems being faced today by the people in the north. There are so many civil servants in the north, both federal and provincial, that they are tripping over each other. It appears as though the more people you have under you, the more important you are. The number of civil servants keeps increasing, but not the workload. There is a lot of unemployment in northern Canada, northern Saskatchewan in particular, that should not be. There should be some form of development which would put these people to work. The resources are there and the people are willing to work. Why not create employment, rather than have these people on welfare? I am sure they would much rather work.
Many people in my constituency are 25 and 30 years old and know no other way of life than welfare. If roads, railroads, and so on, were developed, many of these people could obtain employment. Instead, we sit here wasting time debating a bill that should never have come before the House at this time. We should have proceeded with the rest of our work in parliament. I am sure that this country is looking to parliament to get down to business and to do something about the mess into which the government has got the country.

Restraint of Government Expenditures


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of participating in this debate. I shall not speak for long, but I want to point out that the reason I rise is, in part, because of some statements made yesterday regarding the proposal of the government, put forward by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), to not categorically withdraw clause 15 of the bill, but to reintroduce this clause in the form of a separate bill later this session.
On the basis of the statements made by all members of the House, particularly those from Atlantic Canada, not forgetting the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Landers), who moved a Standing Order 43 motion respecting clause 15 of the bill, it seems to me that the Minister of Transport does his party and parliament a disservice by telling us that the offer to withdraw this clause from the bill is only temporary. Indeed, it is the intention of the government not to withdraw it absolutely and categorically, but to bring it back again in a separate bill, notwithstanding its overwhelming rejection by the majority of the members of this House.


An hon. Member:: Government arrogance.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Occasionally, Mr. Speaker, I stand and talk about the arrogance of the government, but the attitude exemplified by the minister is an indication that the government is so bullheaded and stubborn about what are wrong headed policies that it just cannot see that it does not have the confidence of the majority of the members of the House in regard to this legislation. I can only assume that my hon. friends across the way, who are laughing and chuckling over this statement, are simply aiding and abetting the government in taking this very undesirable position on this legislation.
Hon. members on this side of the House have recounted over and over again that the removal of the statutory provision respecting the "at and east" rates is an undesirable move, if not in principle, certainly at this particular time. The government has gone to considerable expense to appoint commissions to investigate, for example, the cost of transporting grain in western Canada, railway costs in western Canada under the Snavely commission, and so on. It has given high priority to the findings of these commissions. Notwithstanding the fact that the reports of these commissions have not been fully completed and tabled, the government is proceeding on a piecemeal basis to dismantle the orderly shipment of grain in this country by attempting to remove, through clause 15 of the bill, section 272 of the Railway Act.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Selective user-pay.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My colleague from Vegreville says "selective user-pay." I think that is a very appropriate observation.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The parliamentary secretary, who is also aiding and abetting the minister, talks about a user-pay principle which will be applied uniformly across the country. The

fact of the matter is that this action of the government is a demonstration of the kind of user-pay policy we are going to see applied. The government is going to remove the statutory rates and revert to order in council assessment of subsidies for the movement of grain to replace the statutory provision. I presume that western grain farmers, millers and consumers will have to rely upon the whim of each and every government from now on under this new proposal, as opposed to having some concrete method of determining what the rates will be so that the industry can plan its future.
I hate to speculate, Mr. Speaker, but on the basis of my time in this parliament alone I think there is a plan on the part of the government to remove the statutory rates provisions, whether it be the "at and east" rates under the Railway Act or the Crowsnest pass rates. The actions of the government clearly indicate a move in that direction. For example, on Friday, November 26, the Minister of Transport announced a subsidy of $2.5 million to rapeseed processors to help them meet higher freight rates. Four days later, on Wednesday, December 1, the Canadian Transport Commission ordered the railways to increase freight rates for major domestic shipments of rapeseed oil, to reduce them for most export markets, and to raise both domestic and export prices for the transport of rapeseed meal. I understand that this particular move has been bitterly opposed by provincial governments, rapeseed producers and processors for some period of time during the course of this year.
If we look at this realistically, and if government members not on the treasury benches consider the direction in which the government is moving in regard to the shipment and movement of grain by rail, then I do not think there can be much doubt as to the intention of the government in regard to the Crowsnest pass rates. One of the first things that happened following my election to parliament was that the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, the minister of transport, indicated in a speech in Edmonton that the government was going to give serious consideration to changing the whole present concept of the Crowsnest pass rates.


Walter David Baker: Did he travel to Edmonton by train?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My colleague asks how he travelled to Edmonton. At that time I was not as cognizant as I am now of the method of travel of cabinet ministers. Under severe questioning by members of this side of the House, the minister indicated a basic and unequivocal interest in changing the whole concept and principle of the Crowsnest pass rates and in the statutory basis upon which they are founded.
Nothing that the minister has said since then leads me to believe the government has changed its attitude. Rather, all of the government's actions seem to point to a movement toward the so-called user-pay concept. As my hon. friend from Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) pointed out-indeed, as members in this party from all parts of Canada did-we should be very leery indeed of the action taken by the minister regarding clause 15 of this bill. I think it is fair to say that if

the minister comes forward with a subsequent bill containing clause 15 of Bill C-19, I for one will not be in a position to support that kind of legislation, certainly not until I have had an unequivocal statement from the minister concerning his intentions regarding the statutory Crowsnest pass rates and I have found out exactly what is the policy of the government.
There has been no clear statement as to what the government has in mind. Rather, it resorts to the subterfuge of appointing a commission, of removing the protection of statutory rights, of giving a subsidy to a particular group of producers in western Canada. Surely, the intention is to raise the rates after the payment of a subsidy has been announced. What other conclusion could be drawn? They are attempting to do by the back door what they are afraid to do by the front door. If the government comes forward during an election with a proposition to remove the statutory protection of the Crowsnest pass rates, it does not know what trouble is in western Canada. I have spoken to many producers and farm groups about their attitude to this issue. The Minister of Transport and his colleagues had better be very careful before taking any action with respect to these rates which are the Magna Carta of the western grain farmer.
What makes a lot of people so mad about this bill that it was brought down following a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in which he talked about a substantial reduction in the spending to which the government was committed. Since then we have had an opportunity of examining the legislation we have found, in the course of debate-the issue really concerns the report of the Auditor General-that the government in effect spills more in the course of a year than any bill of this kind could possibly save.
If the government is really interested in restricting its spending, it could do no better service to the taxpayer and to parliament than to give serious heed to the observations of the Auditor General. It should show more concern about its internal accounting processes. The only way in which there can be any substantial restriction in government spending is through a process of internal policing. It is true that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to reduce a lot of the expenditure which has to be made by statute. Nevertheless, there remains a vast area within which savings could be made if there were internal policing and effective scrutiny on the part of the Treasury Board. Equally to the point would be acceptance of the proposal made by the Auditor General with respect to a chief comptroller.
I was interested in the prepared question posed today by the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) when he suggested to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) that it might be a good idea to put in place in each department some form of puisne chief financial officer. It seems to me that when the President of the Treasury Board goes to the trouble to write out a question to be asked by a member of this House, he and his colleagues must really be in a flap about the reaction in the country to their refusal to
Restraint of Government Expenditures accept a reasonable proposition on the part of the Auditor General.
What kind of argument do they really have to support their objection to this proposal? They say the official the Auditor General has in mind would somehow or other cause problems with respect to the working of our parliamentary system. If it was not pointed out by the Auditor General, it has certainly been pointed out by the members of the party to which I belong that these fears are groundless, that the proposal is quite consistent with our parliamentary system. The person to be appointed would not be an extra government official; he would fit right into the context of our present system, within the public service. However, knowing the limited capacity the government possesses, I compliment them at least on making some move toward self-policing.
I do not think any of us who have watched the administrative scene for any length of time has ever witnessed a government which has so demonstrated its lack of capacity to govern. It seems capable only of bungling and demonstrating arrogance toward those who are paying the bills. If they were really serious about restricting expenditure, they would not come forward with these television projects, the Prime Minister telling us all he intends to do to cut back spending, while at the same time sloughing off proposals for the effective policing of government expenditure by appointing a royal commission to look into the over-all question.
I do not think anyone is deluded as to the motives of the government in appointing this royal commission. The whole move is so transparent. The government wishes to remove this issue from the public forum and from discussion in parliament until after another election. One has almost to feel sorry for the members of the treasury benches when they feel the need to resort to this kind of subterfuge in order to get around a very serious situation, one which is recognized as such by every Canadian. If members would go back to their constituencies and ask their constituents what they felt was the most serious problem facing them with respect to the operation of government today, I believe most of them would say-


Mr. Nystrom:: "Otto Lang".


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Possibly the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) would wish to elaborate on that statement. But in my opinion most people would say they are concerned chiefly about the lack of control over government spending. They see this in relation to their own businesses, to their own incomes. It is something they have seen personally, examples of which they bring to the attention of members of parliament presumably on both sides of the House.
I want to make brief reference to a part of the Auditor General's report which is receiving much attention now. I wonder if we will ever get to the bottom of it. However, I hope that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts will give its concentrated attention to the report. I am referring to the practice of the payment of commissions. I was interested to

December 7, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures read of the experience of the Americans with respect to the payment of commissions. For example, in the most recent edition of the Economist it was pointed out that there is a law in the United States which prohibits the payment of commissions in the distribution of food aid.
I think occasionally we can learn a lesson from our neighbours to the south. Very often we criticize them both for acts of commission and acts of omission, but I think they have been going through the difficulties of the Lockheed affair and problems that arise from that kind of transaction by a private company which is heavily funded by the government. They are also giving some attention to the question of the morality of paying commissions. I wonder whether this government is really serious about its position with respect to the efficacy of paying commissions in respect of foreign transactions.
I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) last Friday whether any legal opinion had been given to the government by the Minister of Justice as the chief legal officer of the Crown regarding this whole issue. I was surprised to hear the minister say, in effect, that no such opinion had been given to the Prime Minister or to the cabinet. He simply sloughed off the question by saying that occasionally individual Crown corporations ask for legal opinions and are given them, but he did not address himself to the question of whether this cabinet had asked for a legal opinion as to whether their practice of paying commissions-particularly in the case of AECL, Polymer or Polysar-is in contravention of Canadian law. If there has not been an investigation of the legal consequences of these transactions, it shows that the government is not terribly interested in finding out what is going on.
I then asked the minister, in his capacity as acting solicitor general, whether there has been an investigation by any law enforcement agency of the activities of Canadian Crown corporations, and again the answer was an apparent undertaking by the minister to look into that matter and, I hope, to report to the House subsequently. However, the Minister of Justice is apparently prepared to turn aside the question by simply saying that the prosecution for any unlawful act is up to the provincial authorities. I wonder whether that is a good enough answer when we are talking about federal Crown corporations. We are not talking about individual citizens of one province or another, but about federal Crown corporations.
Is the Minister of Justice suggesting that somehow we in parliament should go to the provincial authorities and ask them to please investigate federal Crown corporations? The Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) has just come into the House, and I am glad to see him here. It seems to me that a rather unreasonable proposition was posed by the Minister of Justice last Friday in answer to my question.
What is the policy? Are we now to take the material about which the Auditor General has expressed his concern and address it to the attorneys general in the various provinces or, indeed, in any place where the federal government carries out its activities? Is there no responsibility on the part of the federal government to look into possibly unlawful or, indeed, illegal acts within its Crown corporations? I think these two

examples of answers to my questions show that the government is not at all anxious to get to the bottom of this matter- and one wonders why, without casting an innuendo or trying to suggest anything.
In its own interest, the government should attempt to get to the bottom of the matter, and if there have been wrongful acts I think the people of Canada will be far more appreciative of a government which comes forward with enthusiasm and vigour to investigate any possible wrongdoing than of a government that is merely prepared to sit back and let the public discover the facts through the medium of the press, from members of the opposition or from some public servant making a disclosure on the basis of an audit such as the Auditor General in his report.
I must say that the introduction of this legislation to the House could not have come at a worse time for the government. The government House leader will have to take a lot of trips to Paris to get away from this place and to contemplate what he can do to get the discussion about restraint of government spending off the floor of the House. It must be an agonizing experience for him to hear recounted over and over again, day by day, arguments and statements which prove without doubt that this government has lost its ability to control spending, has lost its capacity to govern and, indeed, has lost its will to govern our country.
I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale) is here, because I would like to repeat what he has said. I have to admit that he is here very often, and the people of Assiniboia must be very pleased that he is here so much of the time. But the fact of the matter is that I am very concerned about the statement made by the Minister of Transport, who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, that clause 15 of Bill C-19 will be reintroduced, probably in this session of parliament. I can tell the minister, on the basis of what I have heard among my colleagues and in discussions across the floor, that at this point we have only warmed up to the big game. He will have a very interesting time if he tries to bring back the clause in another bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Roy) is a fine parliamentarian and a man of great perception, but the difficulty with him is that he is now placed in the position of trying to argue the unarguable and to support the insupportable. I sympathize with him because he is a man who usually performs a great service in the House of Commons.
What causes me a great deal of concern as a western Canadian is that we are now seeing the government determined to tamper with the economy in western Canada by way of serious legislative amendments to the Crowsnest pass rates. If we have that kind of proposal put before us before another election, the people of western Canada will demonstrate in very unequivocal terms their rejection of the user-pay proposition with which the government has come forward. It is an
December 7, 1976

ill-defined policy and a piecemeal approach to transportation policy in our country. It is the kind of policy which caused the predecessor to the present minister to refer to transportation in this country as being in a mess. It seems that that mess will be perpetuated by the present minister.
If the minister who is responsible for guiding the legislation through this House would occasionally do some reading, I would recommend to him the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on behalf of our party with respect to areas of restraint and savings. Members of our party have put forward constructive and concrete proposals with respect to areas where we could support cutbacks in government spending. If the person responsible for guiding this legislation through parliament would be prepared to look at the report of the Auditor General and some of the horrors which are revealed there, and if the President of the Treasury Board would be prepared to give serious consideration to the proposal of the Auditor General with respect to a chief financial officer, and the other recommendations of the Auditor General, then-and only then-would we on this side be able to say that there is at least some will or indication on the part of this government to restrain government spending. Thus far, the indications are quite the contrary.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I want to point out that the attitude of some ministers, and primarily the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, is less than acceptable not only to hon. members on this side of the House but also to western Canadian grain producers. It has been adequately pointed out by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) that it is the intention of the minister to bring back clause 15 some time later in this session. We are not really talking about very much money when we relate it to the over-all budget of the federal government, but I suggest that the attitude of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board is wrong.
Today I asked a question with regard to grain sales which have been made to speculators, and in his arrogant manner the minister tried to justify such sales. I do not think there is a Canadian today who knows exactly whether that sale was a good one or not, but the so-called high price the minister mentioned cannot be justified to the extent he would like to have it justified, primarily because those speculators do not have to pay for that grain for 12 months. That means that the Canadian producer has to carry the financing of those 160 million bushels of grain. On top of that, in one form or another, either on the farm or in storage facilities, the producer will have to store that grain. There is no agreement whereby the grain has to be delivered or paid for at the present time. Had there been one, I might have thought it was a good sale, but in view of the fact that this grain was sold to speculators there will be a new competitor on the world market with regard to grain.
It is generally agreed that there have been fairly good crops throughout the world this year, but there is no guarantee that
Restraint of Government Expenditures that will happen next year. The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board should realize that unless there is an ample supply of moisture next spring there will be a drought on the prairies because there is no reserve whatsoever. If there is a recurrence of the dust-bowl of the 1930s, there certainly will be a market for that grain 12 months hence, and hon. members can imagine the profit the speculators will make on those 160 million bushels.
I would have no hesitation in selling that grain at the present time at present prices if it were going to people who needed it, or to consumers in other parts of the world who required it. I think the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board should take a second look at his attitude and his approach when he tries to justify sales of that nature.
I bring this to the attention of the House only because grain prices have dropped approximately $2 per bushel in a matter of 18 months, and it makes us wonder what is happening on the world market when the commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board makes statements like he did last spring before the Standing Committee on Agriculture when he said that there were no forward sales to be made from May until September, and that the amount of barley which was being held by the Canadian Wheat Board was smaller than it had been for a long time. Canadian producers wonder what is actually happening when within months we go from a period of short supply to a time when there is such a drastic drop in prices and when the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board tries to defend policies of this nature. I realize that the minister is only human, but I think he should accept the fact that he might have made a mistake.
I am glad to see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in the House this afternoon. I have a few words for him which have been voiced to me by many western Canadian beef producers. The minister has failed western beef producers in not having come forward during the past several weeks-and he should do so in the few days we have left before the end of the year-to tell the producers exactly what kind of economic climate will prevail for the marketing of their products in the months following the new year.
Everyone knows that the beef which will be coming to market in February, March, April, May and June of next year has to be going into the feed lot now. I believe the minister has really short-changed the producers by not telling them exactly what the import quota will be so that they could know whether to increase the amount of beef they put into the feed lot or whether they should cut back. This is a grave injustice, and the Minister of Agriculture is the one who is responsible, and who should be held responsible, for this situation.
The minister has come through some extraordinary periods of oversupply as well as periods of undersupply. If he is going to serve the industry as Minister of Agriculture, he should at least make an attempt to play ball with the producers. They can only know what the situation is if he tells them what the amount of imports will be after the new year. The minister has been jumping from crisis to crisis, and I presume that is what

December 7, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
is going to happen after the new year. Probably we will not know what the quota is for the next year until then.
I was disappointed to learn that we are not to have a delegation at the discussions now taking place in the United States on the question of the over-all quota that is to be allowed into that country. I understand that Mexico will request that their quota be increased. If they succeed, I think it is fair to assume that our quota will be cut. It would certainly be in the interests of Canadian producers to have someone there.
Mr. Speaker, these are just a few short observations on matters that should be considered by the Minister of Agriculture and the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. I respect the government for attempting to effect cut-backs in spending. It is a time for restraint, but a great deal of caution must be exercised if the government is not to become pennywise and pound foolish. Not only the well-being of producers could be jeopardized, but the whole economy could be hurt, because we rely to a considerable degree on agricultural production. I hope the minister will take my comments seriously and will rise in his place to tell Canadian beef producers what they may expect in the new year.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for affording me the opportunity to put these comments on the record.


Eugene Whelan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would not want the record to show that we do not have a representative in Washington. We had someone there a week before the meeting took place, and again on Monday of this week our officials met with representatives of the United States government to discuss the so-called "volon-taire" quota. I say "so-called" because when the president has the authority to call a meeting there is nothing very "volon-taire" about it.
[ Translation]


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, during the next few minutes, let me attempt to suggest to the government a few ways to save the taxpayers' dollars. However, I urge that it not be done at the expense of those who are eligible for family allowances or of the unemployed. Consequently, I shall use some Statistics Canada figures. The number of employees of that agency has reached 5,500 from 2,500 in 1967, which represents approximately a 120 per cent increase. The situation is quite the same in all other important departments.
Mr. Speaker, I was expressing in absolute figures and in percentages the increase in the number of public servants in only some of the most important departments because it would take too much time to give a comprehensive list. We should take note of the rates of increase since 1966. In 1975, there were 2,500 employees in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, up 122 per cent from 1966. There are now 6,201 civil servants in the External Affairs Department, or 100 per cent more than in 1966. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has 8,646 civil servants, 99 per cent more than

in 1966. With 8,406 civil servants, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has 81 per cent more staff.
To close that list, I shall add that in 1960 there was one civil servant in the federal Department of Agriculture for every 87 farmers. Mr. Speaker, it is quite ironical to see that, as the number of farmers decreased, that of the civil servants increased. Thus, in 1966, there was one civil servant for every 59 farmers whereas today, in 1976, there is one civil servant for approximately every 44 farmers. It all works quite well, doesn't it? The result we get are quite sufficient to prove that fact.
Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting to note that if the number of civil servants increases, that of their travels by plane increases too, at a vertiginous speed, almost as fast as sound. Federal civil servants fly more an more, so much so that the cost of their travels has almost doubled over the last 30 months. According to the figures from Statistics Canada which I have here, federal civil servants flew 153,795 times in 1974-104,100 more flights than in 1973.
And during the first half of 1975, our dear traveling pen-pushers, namely our dear bureaucrats, took to the air at least 94,146 times. The cost of tickets also soared from $16.1 million in 1973 to $24.8 million in 1974 and over $16 million for the first semester of 1975 alone.
Mr. Speaker, we are without a doubt experiencing an "inflation" period of civil servants. By the way, it can easily be noted that the Parkinson law, according to which work expands to fill the time available for its completion has been applying to Canada ever since the Liberal party took office.
In 1954, British economist Colin Clark had this to say: "In any country a taxation rate of over 25 per cent seriously harms production and dangerously induces the consumer to spend more."
And he went on to say: "The price to pay will be inflation, taxpayers revolting and finally the destruction of the national economy and the democratic system."
We are realizing that today, for with an inflation rate of 11 per cent it is useless to ask ourselves whether Clark's theory was founded. As a matter of fact, if we look carefully at statistics, we see that civil service proliferation, which is in my opinion very disorderly, started to go out of sight in the 60's and government participation in the economy had reached 40 per cent in 1975. I say this, Mr. Speaker, to show that if a growing number of Canadians are employed by the government or draw most of their income from it, the risk is that the civil service might well become a state within the state, powerful enough to prevent the federal government from restraining its expenditures, as it wants to do. At the present time, the government of Canada employs over 1,200,000 Canadians, that is one out of eight workers, or 12 per cent of those on the labour market.
This costs the state in wages and salaries about $10 billion anually, that is about 15 per cent of our gross national
December 7, 1976

product. Governments, either municipal, provincial or federal, have become big employers, competing without difficulty with service industries, small businesses, the manufacturing industry, and so on.
There is another area, Mr. Speaker, where it would be quite possible in my opinion to save a great deal of money. The Progressive Conservative party is presently making much of various scandals and cases of bribery. This, of course, does not mean that I approve of scandals, but while I admit that there is cause for reflection and particularly that immediate action is required to do away with such scandals and bribery, it must be realized nevertheless that with the number of public servants I have just mentioned, it is very difficult for any government to control or at least have an absolute control over each individual. Still, in my opinion, there is a much more serious scandal, one which is draining several millions every hour of the day, every day, to the point that soon all the income and other taxes will only serve to pay the interests on the national debt and there will be no more money left for administration purposes. And yet, except for us, of the Social Credit Party of Canada, no other opposition party ever mentions it.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, for hon members' benefit I would like to recall briefly certain truths about our economy and the national debt, an area where we stop the continuous devaluation of our dollar from which only financial sharks stand to benefit.
Mr. Speaker, a debt, whether private or national, is like a cancer eating away at the vital energy of our civilization, not only in Canada but elsewhere in the civilized world. The gross and net national debts have increased continuously in Canada since 1867. Indeed, if we consider the total debt of the federal administration, we find that in 1867, at the time of Confederation, the total national debt amounted to $93 million. In 1900, it had gone up to $346 million. In 1933, that is during the 50 year period following Confederation, it soared to $3 billion, and to $9,228 billion ten years later; it stood at $17,952 billion in 1955, and kept on rising until today when we are nationally indebted to the tune of $55 billion. I mention this, Mr. Speaker, to get to the point I was making a bit earlier on, that is to try to make the government understand that it should have restrained its expenses and if you will bear with me, I will try to show how it could have been done. There was therefore an annual average increase of 14 per cent.
In 1967, the national debt accounted for 33.9 per cent of the gross national product and 99.1 per cent in 1974. This marked increase indicates without a doubt the continuous tendency of governments to gobble up a greater part of a country's income. Finally, barely 100 years after Confederation, the Canadian national debt has been increased by about 60,000 per cent. Granted, the Canadian population has increased sixfold since Confederation but during that same period the government debt has been multiplied 600 times over. That is why every day Canadians pay $9 million in taxes, simply to cover the interest on this enormous debt.
Nine million dollars a day, how many bridges, hospitals, schools, public services which the Canadian population had to
Restraint of Government Expenditures do without does that represent? Nine million dollars a day going to financiers while the Canadian taxpayers keep on waiting for public services that are theirs by right and are paid for by their taxes. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the governments which allowed the public debt to increase without control are responsible for the shameless waste of $9 million a day in interest on the public debt. This money should be used instead to meet the needs of the citizens, not to enrich financiers.
As everybody knows, Mr. Speaker, some people generally distrust statistics but one must admit that it is sometimes good to be wary about the meaning of certain statistics; however I sincerely think that the figures I just gave reflect hard truths and realities. In particular, people realize that the system in which we live is really sick, and current events stand as proof of that. It can also be noted that debts incurred for public works never stop. Indeed, those debts will never be reimbursed because the present monetary system makes it almost impossible. Even if we succeed in reducing this debt, once again it is because the government takes the money from the taxpayers' pocket. And what if the government should fail to reduce it? Only this; taxpayers are called upon to bleed themselves white all their life, simply to pay for the interests.
As a matter of fact, it has been demonstrated that in Canada we are still paying for the interests on debts which were incurred in the past to produce goods which, in some cases, no longer exist. Furthermore, Treasury bills and bonds are the only instruments of the federal government's debt in Canada, and as these are issued to renew old loans rather than to refund them, the old debt and the interests keep growing.
Mr. Speaker, all hon. members and ministers know very well that each new loan starts the relentless process of compound interest. Each time a public debt is incurred, the public wealth of Canada is used as a guarantee to private credit monopolies. In other words, this means that our children become responsible for a growing national debt.
This also means that we will have to pay more taxes and to face a higher cost of living because in fact, this loan is nothing but a differed tax which will be shouldered sooner or later by the taxpayers. Every additional debt we make deprives us a little of our precious freedom which makes life worth living, since we are now enslaved to debts which hold us back and prevent us from speaking out as free individuals in a free society.
Mr. Speaker, indebtedness is sown by governments and taxes are the bitter crop harvested by the people, because as time goes on, one can readily realize that more and more the main function of any government is to levy taxes and to devise increasingly cunning methods of depriving people of their money. As for taxes, we have the personal income tax, the corporation income tax and the tax on dividends.
Mr. Speaker, it has already been evaluated that over 150 different taxes are levied on as simple a product as a loaf of bread. If we give ourselves the trouble of retracing them, we

December 7, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
realize how many additional taxes are levied at each step in the production of a loaf of bread, at the various agricultural, processing and distribution levels. In addition, we all know that out of each dollar taken away from the people by the government in the form of taxes, 13 cents go immediately to the financiers to reimburse the interest of our debts.
I agree that under our present financial and monetary system, our governments must accept that the debt should increase continuously. That debt, as well as the high interest on it, must be reimbursed through taxes which are the very basis of inflation. But it must also be recognized that, at the same time, a chaotic and obsolete economic system is thus being perpetuated. At the present time, banks and other lending institutions lend money according to such principles as, for instance, that which demands that borrowers have guarantees, that the borrower be able to produce the goods and services promised, that the borrower be able to reimburse his loan; but, what if the borrower does not meet one or several of those requirements? What then? Just this: the borrower will not longer be able to borrow money.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that, as a nation, we meet all the requirements, as we own tremendous guarantees such as our lands, our forests and our natural resources. In addition, we are in a position to produce all the goods and services we need.
I think it would be normal to replace the financing of the national debt by issuing federal funds: this way, perhaps the money supply will not increase, but at least we will not have any useless interest to pay. Let us suppose for instance that a community decides to build a school at a cost of about $1 million. It is now proven that a community, which has an excellent reputation or enjoys a high credit rating, can borrow money on national and international markets at an agreed interest rate. In addition, most of the time financing is done through bonds guaranteed by municipalities or through other financial sources.
So the community is now said to have contracted a debt. Thus a school is built to the advantage of the residents and to do so we used our own material and labour. However, to reach our end we have to borrow $1 million to be paid for instance at 10 per cent over 25 years-a total amount of $2,683,500. One thing for sure anyway, the money will be found to pay that debt. But it is really interesting to see how it is going to be done. I think that once again we are going to get this money through higher taxes.
But we must bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that if our country could issue that money through the Bank of Canada, we would have to repay only the initial amount, $1 million in this case. Then the $1,683,500 in saved interest could be transferred to the community through tax reductions. Moreover, by reducing the direct cost the community has to pay for this school through elimination of interest payments, we would fight inflation.
Anyway, I think that if the federal government can afford to put hundreds of millions of dollars at the disposal of other countries for 15, 20 and even 50 years, always without any interest, it should certainly be able to lend money to provincial

and local administrations at interest rates not exceeding the administration charges, and the best way the government could put this into practice overnight would be to grant these loans to municipalities which need them.
All this, Mr. Speaker, for it is already five o'clock, to state clearly that if our government wants to save money, restrain its operating expenditures and ensure sound and effective management of taxpayers' money, it has to make sure that the national debt does not increase and stop borrowing money at interest rates of 10 and 12 per cent. I think that would be one way of giving Canada a flourishing economy and sound financial management.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that the hon. member who just spoke was the last speaker in the debate on Bill C-19. Since we were advised that Bill C-9 would come on today, a good number of Cree and Inuit from northern Quebec have come to Ottawa to listen to the opening round of debate. Many of them are in the gallery. I intend to ask for the consent of the House to suspend private members' hour so that we can continue with government business and get in, perhaps, the first round of the debate on Bill C-9 today so that the Indians and Inuit from northern Quebec can hear it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: I wonder whether there would be agreement to continue government business until six o'clock. I understand that the vote on Bill C-19 will be taken at 8:30 this evening. Perhaps Your Honour could determine whether there is unanimous consent to suspend private members' hour.


Mr. Whiteway:: Mr. Speaker, it is my bill that would have been debated in this private members' hour. I simply wish to point out that the minister ought to have come over and asked me. I have been in the House some 20 minutes. Had he asked, I could have consulted with my colleagues with regard consent. I talked to the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes). He understands, as I do, the importance of this bill. We are quite prepared to give the minister this hour in view of the fact that these people have come so far and are so vitally interested in this bill. However, I suggest the minister could have spoken to us previously.
I would like some assurance from the House that Bill C-210 standing in my name will receive some priority. I would like assurance that it will be debated a week from today. If that were the case, I would be more than happy to relinquish this hour, as would my colleagues, to the minister for this important bill.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if it is the will of the House at this time to suspend private members' hour and to continue with government business for the next hour so that the first round of speeches on Bill C-9 can be heard, I will certainly undertake to the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway)
December 7, 1976

that I will do everything in my power to see that his bill, which would have been debated in this hour, does not lose its priority.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There seems to be a disposition to agree with the suggestion that has been made, but before asking consent I want things to be clear. We would need consent to suspend the debate. The Chair has no way at this time of deciding whether the debate has been concluded. The hon. member assumes that the member who resumed his seat at five o'clock had finished his speech and that no other member will want to speak at eight o'clock on the bill. Therefore, the Chair would need some direction as to how long consideration of Bill C-19 will be suspended. The hon. member assumes that there will be a vote at 8:30, but there is no order of the House that there be a vote at 8:30.
Therefore, so many things need to be clarified. I am ready [DOT] to ask the House whether it is agreeable to suspending consideration on Bill C-19, but I should like to know for how long. I would invite further contributions from hon. members.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Speaker, on our behalf may I say that nothing was said about stopping debate on Bill C-19. My understanding was that we were going to give up private members' hour in which Bill C-210 was to be discussed. To my knowledge, we have no further speakers on Bill C-19. Unless the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) wishes to continue his speech, I suggest that you call for the division, which by agreement has been set for 8:30, and at that time we can begin consideration of Bill C-9.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I understand, from a conversation I have had with the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) that he can conclude his speech in four or five minutes. The Progressive Conservatives say they have no other speakers on Bill C-19, and we will suspend the rest of ours also. So perhaps we could suspend private members' hour, hear the hon. member for Rimouski conclude his speech, set the division for 8:30 and then proceed with the next item of government business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the last suggestion, which is to suspend, by consent, private members' hour between the hours of five and six o'clock and allow the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) to complete his remarks in whatever time he has left, and then put the question, with unanimous consent, with the vote taking place at 8:30. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered. With private members' business being suspended for today, I now call on the hon. member for Rimouski to complete his remarks.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada could make loans, which would be likely to fight inflation. If the government were to proceed the way I suggested-which I doubt-it
Restraint of Government Expenditures could use the Bank of Canada to lower the national debt and thus save the taxpayers billions of dollars.
I think in all sincerity that this would be a logical and honest way for the federal government to save. No matter what you say and do, whether we like it or not, in a gigantic organization like the government it think it is practically impossible to avoid blunders. Whatever the government in power, as I said earlier, it is not easy to monitor everything.
Hopefully, Bill C-19 will have helped bring the government to consider taking effective steps to ensure that the Auditor General will not have to come out with complaints as he just did in his first report. It is nearly inconceivable today with all the means we have to tolerate things like that and have the gall to say sometimes, we did not know about it. But with all that has been said by my colleagues of the opposition, I remain confident that the government will be able to act wisely and put its pride aside and accept the suggestions that were made to it so that finally one day we will be protected against all those hazards involved in the administration of a country like ours.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. As already ordered, the question is on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than Jive members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made earlier this day, the vote stands deferred until 8.30 o'clock tonight. It is my understanding that the vote, being at a set hour, will be a 15-minute bell.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I certainly stand to be guided by your views on this matter, and I do not want to cut further into the final hour left to us before six o'clock, but my understanding is that the time of 8.30 was arrived at simply to avoid any confusion between the normal eight o'clock bell and the bell calling this particular vote. I stand to be corrected if that necessarily implies that the 8.30 bell, or the bell to call the vote, is a bell fixed for the duration of no more than 15 minutes. Perhaps with the consent of the House we can return to that matter for a minute or two at six o'clock, rather than go into discussion of it now, and allow the debate on Bill C-9 to begin.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have been looking at Standing Order 9(2), and it provides:

December 7, 1976
James Bay Agreement
When, under the provisions of any Standing Order or other order of this House, Mr. Speaker has interrupted any proceeding for the purpose of putting forthwith the question on any business then before the House, the bells to call in the members shall be sounded for not more than fifteen minutes.
Maybe the parliamentary secretary is correct in his interpretation, but that is not what the Standing Order says. Perhaps we should accept the suggestion that the matter be reconsidered at six o'clock, and in the meantime proceed to the consideration of Bill C-9. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan)-Airports- Waterville, Nova Scotia-Status of request for improvements; the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers)-Petro-Canada-Possibility of disposing of company to private enterprise; the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)-Communications-Provision in agreement with Manitoba for extension of cable to rural areas-Government position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


William Warren Allmand: that Bill C-9, to approve, give effect to and declare valid certain agreements between the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, the Government of Quebec, la Societe d'finergie de la Baie James, la Societe de developpement de la Baie James, la Commission hydro-electrique de Quebec and the Government of Canada and certain other related agreements to which the Government of Canada is a party, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking all hon. members for agreeing to suspend the private members' hour for this important debate. I apologize to the hon. member for

Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway). I thought that someone was speaking to him about the suspension of the private members' hour, but it seems I was mistaken.
Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne the House was advised that the government intended to introduce legislation respecting the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement. I am pleased, as Minister of Indian Affairs, to move second reading of Bill C-9, an act to approve, give effect to and declare valid the James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement, which is an important landmark in relations between our native peoples and the Canadian government.
The James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement demonstrates very clearly the federal government's recognition of its obligations toward the Indians and Inuit of that territory. As a comprehensive claims settlement, the agreement acknowledges the traditional use and occupancy of the land by the Indians and Inuit of northern Quebec. The legislation which I recommend to this House merits the support of all members because it will enable the native peoples of James Bay and northern Quebec to determine their own future, political, economic and social evolution.
In recommending this legislation to parliament the government is fulfilling an obligation it assumed in signing the agreement to introduce legislation implementing the terms of the agreement. As a co-signatory to the agreement, the province of Quebec has assumed a similar obligation and, accordingly, the national assembly adopted the corresponding provincial legislation on June 30, 1976. It is anticipated that upon adoption by parliament the federal and provincial enactments will come into force simultaneously through respective proclamation by the governor in council and by the lieutenant-governor in council.
On this occasion I should like to acknowledge the important contributions of the many individuals who made the negotiated settlement possible, members of the Cree and Inuit associations, many of whom are here for this historic debate, officials from the Quebec government and its agencies, and from the federal government. In the context of the history of the agreement, I want in particular to pay tribute to the efforts of chief Billy Diamond of the Cree, and Mr. Charlie Watt of the Northern Quebec Indian Association, both of whom are here today-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: -as well as to my predecessors in this office, the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) and the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan). Bill C-9 results from the dedication of all the parties and of their determination to arrive at a negotiated settlement.
The area covered by the proposed legislation comprises 410,000 square miles, or about 60 per cent of the province of Quebec and, incidentally, almost the size of the entire province of Ontario. It has a population of about 20,000 people, including some 6,000 Crees and 4,000 Inuit, and is rich in wildlife, forest and mineral resources. The background of the agree-
December 7, 1976

ment to which the legislation will give effect is complex. I shall outline some points which I believe will be useful in affording a better understanding of the bill. In 1898, Quebec's northern boundary was extended by statute to the Eastmain River without any reference to Indian rights. In 1912, the Quebec boundaries extension act transferred the area north of the Eastmain River from the Northwest Territories to the jurisdiction of Quebec. It also assigned an obligation to the provincial government to settle land claims which native people in that area might raise, in much the same manner as the government of Canada had dealt with the rights of Indian people in other parts of the country.
However, the obligations under the Quebec Boundaries Act were not pursued until 1971, when the provincial Dorion commission recommended that the province reach an agreement to recognize the rights of native people in that territory. In the same year, the province of Quebec announced its intention to develop the hydroelectric power resources of the James Bay territory and subsequently established the James Bay Development Corporation. This announcement, coupled with expressions of concern about their land rights from the Crees, who were most directly affected, led to periodic meetings between officials of the Department of Indian Affairs, Cree representatives and, in turn, the provincial officials concerned. A tripartite committee considered the whole range of questions raised by the native peoples of the James Bay area.
In October, 1971, the federal government provided funds to the Indians of Quebec Association to enable it to inform native people in the area about the proposed development. During the next two years the main effort was directed toward persuading the provincial government to address itself more directly to the concerns expressed by the native population. In the meantime, my predecessors gave both moral and financial support to the Indians. By the end of 1973, $981,000 had been provided to enable them to pursue their claims and to conduct intensive research into the effects of the development scheme.
It must be remembered that the federal government has also been involved in environmental matters in the James Bay area since 1971. In July of that year an environmental study group, composed of provincial and federal representatives, was formed to study the ecological impact of the proposals. The preliminary report, released in February, 1972, stated clearly that the impact of the proposed development on the native population of the area was the most pressing question to be resolved. Acting upon its recommendation, an agreement was signed between Environment Canada and the James Bay Development Corporation for the purpose of gathering sufficient data to have an adequate knowledge of the ecosystem. This is considered an essential prerequisite for conducting an eventual impact assessment of the project. This agreement now has been extended until March, 1979.
When discussions over the next two years failed to yield satisfactory results, the Indians and Inuit sought an interim injunction to halt the James Bay project. The federal govern-
James Bay Agreement
ment provided financial assistance to the Crees and Inuit in pressing their claims in the courts. In November of 1973, Mr. Justice Malouf of the Quebec Superior Court ruled in favour of the native peoples. Shortly thereafter, the Quebec Court of Appeal reversed that decision, thereby allowing the continuation of the project. It has been suggested on several occasions that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should have been more involved in this action, and even that the department itself should have taken the case to court. On the contrary, the Indians and Inuit themselves wished to take the leading role, and they had every right to do so. They told the federal government that they wanted to take the lead if we would provide support. In fact, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development provided a total of approximately $5.5 million in the form of grants and loans in support of their research and other court and negotiating costs.
In January of 1974, the Quebec government announced an offer of settlement which was deemed satisfactory by the parties concerned as a basis for negotiation. In order to ensure that the position of the Indian and Inuit groups was safeguarded and supported, federal authorities became formally associated with the negotiations. An agreement in principle was reached in November, 1974, and a year later the final agreement was signed after detailed negotiations involving representatives of the federal government, the Crees, the Inuit, and the province of Quebec. During the course of the negotiations, continuous information and consultation, with financial support by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, took place within the native communities. It was established, however, that a confirmation process would be carried out in accordance with clear guidelines set down by the department.
I should add that the northern Quebec Inuit Association and the General Council of Cree of Quebec took the initiative to explain the agreement in separate meetings held in the 22 native communities. Summaries of the agreement in Cree and in Inuit were prepared and used by the two associations for this purpose. The vote in the Indian and Inuit communities gave overwhelming support to the final agreement, more than 95 per cent of those who voted, and 66.5 per cent of the eligible Inuit voters actually voted. Of those, 1,253 voted in favour of the agreement, and 45 against. While only 25 per cent of the Cree eligible voters participated in the confirmation process, they supported the agreement 922 to 1. The small percentage of Cree voters, however, can be explained by the extensive consultation which the Cree themselves carried out up to the signing of the agreement.
As hon. members are probably aware, there was some opposition to the James Bay agreement by potential beneficiaries. Sizeable groups in three Inuit communities-Povung-nituk, Sugluk and Ivujivik-criticized, in particular, the concepts of extinguishment of rights, the categorization of lands and regional government. Last August federal officials, along with the Quebec minister of natural resources, met with representatives of these communities to discuss their concerns. The meeting served to clarify the interests and the provisions
1754

James Bay Agreement
of the agreement in respect of the main concerns of the three communities.
At that time the Inuit were told that the agreement had been nogotiated in good faith by all the parties involved. It was also indicated that the governments would be prepared to consider and discuss with the other signatories to the agreement any proposals worked out with, and put forward by, the NQIA to change the implementation phase to better meet the requirements of the communities, but it was made clear that the main principles of the agreement could not be changed.
While I am sensitive to their concerns, I am confident that if these groups were to sit down with the rest of the Inuit community in that territory in order to deal with their differences, workable solutions could be found which would benefit all the Inuit of northern Quebec. Billy Diamond, chief of the Grand Council of the Crees of Quebec, gave his assessment of the James Bay agreement before the Berger inquiry last June. He said:
The James Bay Crees have put themselves in an autonomous and independent position, not only to face the government of Canada and of Quebec, but also to face the society which they will have to participate in, not as spectators, but as p*articipators and decision-makers of their future.
The majority of native people who approved the negotiated settlement did so because they agree that it will enable them to participate as decision-makers of their future and that it will provide them with the resources necessary to effectively meet their needs while, at the same time, preserving their traditional cultures.
The legislation now before the House is fully consistent with the federal government's established policy. More than three years ago, in August 1973, the minister of the day clearly acknowledged the government of Canada's willingness to negotiate with Indian and Inuit representatives as follows:
Claims related to the loss of traditional use and occupancy of lands in certain parts of Canada where Indian title was never extinguished by treaty or superseded by law.
These claims are known as comprehensive claims. The policy recognized that such claims were not only for money or land but involved the possible loss of a way of life, or at least major adjustements, for which native peoples must be compensated through cultural, social and economic benefits established by mutual agreement. While committing the federal government to a key role in any claims negotiations, it was emphasized that settlements could be satisfactorily reached only if the province or territory concerned participated along with the federal government in the negotiation, settlement and compensation process.
The new land regime created by the agreement which this legislation will make effective is a major component of the specific rights and benefits conferred on the Cree and Inuit residing in the James Bay and northern Quebec area. It will support, in a significant manner, the native economy of the territory which has been traditionally based on hunting, fishing and trapping. It will enable the native peoples in that area to continue to derive their livelihood from these activities if they choose to do so.

In general terms, the land regime encompasses the James Bay Cree population south of the fifty-fifth parallel and the Inuit communities north of that latitude. Lands in the territory have been divided into three broad categories: the first is the areas around the Cree and Inuit communities; the second is generally the adjacent land which they have traditionally used for hunting, fishing and trapping; and the rest comes under the third category definition.
Category 1 lands, consisting of the areas in and around the 22 Cree and Inuit communities, are reserved for the sole use and enjoyment of the native people and will be largely self-administered by local and regional councils. On these lands the Crees and Inuit will have exclusive hunting, fishing and trapping rights. They will also enjoy exclusive rights to the forests and soapstone deposits for both personal and commercial use.
While mineral and subsurface rights will belong to Quebec, any development must be approved by the native communities involved. The provincial government will also be permitted limited expropriation rights for necessary public services such as roads and transmission lines, but any lands so used must be replaced or compensated if such works interfere with native activities.
With respect to the Crees, the category 1 lands will be divided into 1A lands, under federal jurisdiction, and IB lands, under provincial jurisdiction. The 1A lands, which will include the existing communities, in most cases will in some ways resemble Indian reserves elsewhere in Canada. Ownership of the IB lands will be vested in provincial corporations controlled by the native people. These corporations may not, however, sell or cede the land to anyone but the province of Quebec.
The second component of the land regime, category 2 lands, are those where the Crees and Inuit will again have exclusive hunting, fishing and trapping rights but no special right of occupancy. The Quebec government may develop these lands, but the native people must be granted replacement lands or compensation. Mining will be permitted as long as it does not unreasonably hamper native harvesting of the land.
In the remainder of the territory, category 3 lands, the native people will be entitled to hunt, fish and trap year round, and certain species will be reserved for their exclusive use. They will also have forest and outfitting privileges.
Land is intrinsic to the way of life of native peoples and is only one of the benefits provided by the agreement. The detailed and lengthy agreement provides them with other resources to improve and strengthen their position and role in contemporary society while enabling them to maintain their traditional cultures. Provisions aimed at giving the Crees and Inuit of James Bay and northern Quebec the opportunity to manage or participate effectively in the management of activities which affect their interests are major features of the agreement.
The Crees and Inuit will have an equal voice on the coordinating committee which will deal with all questions and
December 7, 1976

problems relating to the hunting, fishing and trapping regime. This committee can, for example, make recommendations to the appropriate level of government to regulate harvesting activities; it can set quotas on the harvesting of certain wildlife species.
To ensure further that the Crees can maintain their traditional way of life by harvesting wildlife, provincial legislation has been adopted providing for an income security program. At the same time a support program which will be managed by the Inuit will guarantee supplies of hunting, fishing and trapping produce to those unable to harvest for themselves and will facilitate exchanges of produce among communities.
The Indians and Inuit will also participate in policing the hunting, fishing and trapping regime, and both the federal and provincial governments have undertaken to provide the necessary training. Above the 55th parallel a regional police force will be set up, with special training provided for the Inuit officers. South of the 55th parallel special Cree units of the Quebec Provincial Police are to be established as quickly as possible. Finally, the entire territory will be constituted as a single judicial district which will be served by itinerant courts to bring the administration of justice closer to the people the judicial system serves.
The agreement recognizes the continuing need for environmental protection to ensure that the land and wildlife are safeguarded for the native peoples from the effects of industrial and commercial activities. The Crees will have equal representation with the James Bay Energy Corporation in determining remedial works needed to minimize the effects of hydro-electric undertakings south of the 55th parallel.
An agency to be called La Grande Complex Remedial Works Corporation will provide $30 million for these works over 11 years. Furthermore, the Cree and Inuit people of the territory will have an equal voice with government officials in the administration and supervision of the environmental and social impacts assessment process regarding proposed industrial initiatives throughout the territory. The initiatives include mining, major forestry developments, and power plants.
For those Indian and Inuit people who choose to take part in the economic development of the territory, the opportunities will be there. Government assistance will be offered to groups or individuals to establish or expand business enterprises. Training and employment programs will help native people to obtain jobs in development activities or in government services. These measures and others to open up greater economic opportunities for the Cree people of the territory will be promoted by the James Bay Native Development Corporation.
The federal government and the province of Quebec will continue to provide programs, funding and technical assistance to the Inuit of the area, with greater emphasis on the promotion of economic viability and development in their communities. Government funding and technical assistance will be available for key local services such as community centres and sanitation. In addition, a joint economic and community development committee with a majority native membership will review and make recommendations concerning the various
James Bay Agreement
programs related to the social and economic development of the Indian and Inuit people.
The Cree communities will be independent of the municipality of James Bay, the organ of local administration for the rest of the territory south of the 55th parallel. North of the 55th parallel each Inuit municipality will be represented by one councillor in the Kativik regional government, which will have jurisdiction over municipal affairs. Throughout all the territory governed by the agreement the native languages, as well as English and French, will be languages of administration.
I should mention that a separate piece of federal legislation will be introduced at a later date to deal with local government and land administration on lands designated as category 1A. These lands, to be set apart for the exclusive use and benefit of the James Bay Cree bands, will be transferred to Canada's jurisdiction by Quebec. A new legislative framework is necessary since some of the benefits granted to the Crees under the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement are not provided for in the present Indian Act.
Under the provincial education act the Cree and Kativik school boards will respectively have jurisdiction over and responsibility for the elementary, secondary and adult education of the Crees and Inuit in the territory. These boards will have the powers and functions of education boards elsewhere in the province. The Cree and Kativik boards may also make agreements with Canada for additional educational programs not provided by the province and will provide education in the students' native language.
In regard to health and social services, the general laws of the province will apply. However, native management and administration of these services are ensured by the agreement through the establishment of a Cree regional board of health and social services and, north of the 55th parallel, of a Kativik health and social services council.
The foregoing are the main elements of the James Bay agreement. I would like to note two other factors which are directly related to native interests in the territory. A group of 400 Indians, the Naskapis of Schefferville, live in the area governed by Bill C-9, but they have not signed the agreement. Nevertheless, they have been negotiating with federal and provincial officials over the past year to obtain benefits and rights similar to those gained by the Crees and Inuit. Although general agreement has been reached on the most substantive issues, discussions are continuing on the few remaining aspects of the agreement.
As hon. members are all aware, I agreed to delay this bill momentarily to enable the Naskapis to reach an agreement because their interests in the territory are affected by the enactment of the legislation before this House. I met personally with their representatives in November to discuss these questions and I undertook at that time to give the Naskapis one month's notice before bringing Bill C-9 forward for third reading if they had not at that time reached an agreement in the negotiations with Canada and Quebec on their claim. Efforts are continuing to reach an agreement with them. In addition it should be noted that the Quebec government has
80005-43i/2

December 7, 1976
James Bay Agreement
undertaken to negotiate claims with any other native groups who may be able to establish an interest in the territory.
Negotiations are also under way between the federal government and the Crees and the Inuit regarding their traditional rights of use and occupancy on the offshore islands. These Northwest Territories islands are, in the main, situated within 15 miles of the Quebec shoreline in James Bay, Hudson Bay and Hudson Strait. During the course of the James Bay negotiations it was agreed that separate settlements would be concluded for these islands. We anticipate that agreement in principle will provide for special rights and regimes for the Crees and Inuit similar to those they obtained on the mainland. However, the Inuit of Port Burwell on Killinek Island in the Northwest Territories have been included in the James Bay agreement at their own request.
The Northern Quebec Inuit Association has made representations to both governments for amendments to certain sections of the agreement and to Bill C-9. I have met personally on two occasions with the Inuit representatives, in November and again earlier today. Discussions on these matters will continue between the Inuit, the federal government and, as required, hopefully with the province of Quebec. I have promised Charlie Watt, president of the Inuit of northern Quebec, that I will seriously and openly examine these amendments with the hope that an agreement can be reached on them prior to committee stage of this bill.
Among the issues the Inuit have raised is a request that Bill C-9 be amended to delete the provisions relating to the extinguishment of the native interests of the Inuit of Port Burwell across Canada pending an agreement on the offshore islands. At this point I believe that the best course of action is to pursue the negotiations with a view to reaching an early agreement. I have urged the Northern Quebec Inuit Association to join us at the negotiating table as soon as possible in an attempt to resolve this issue. If it becomes obvious that substantial progress cannot be made before the closing of the parliamentary committee discussions-and I hope progress will be made-I have assured the Inuit representatives that I am prepared to review the matter with them again before bringing Bill C-9 forward for third reading.
As you know, the Inuit have publicly raised certain issues with respect to the completion of their selection of lands. In this regard there have been meetings between the NQIA representatives and the province of Quebec, with the participation of a federal observer. I hope that these discussions will proceed favourably toward the resolution of the land selection issues, and that through the continued efforts of all parties a satisfactory agreement will be reached in the near future.
I am convinced all hon. members will agree that, in many ways, the Indian and Inuit people have been in a seriously disadvantaged position within our society. For this, we and our forefathers all share some blame. Although there have been some improvements in recent years, we must continue to rectify the imbalance. Participation in the vital decision-mak-

ing processes to which I referred will be facilitated by the financial compensation included in the agreement.
This compensation, totalling $225 million over 20 years, will be paid to and administered by Cree and Inuit controlled corporations for the benefit of all native people in the James Bay and northern Quebec territory. The federal government is committed to a cash payment of $32.75 million and the provincial government is to pay $42.25 million. An additional $75 million, guaranteed by the Quebec government, will be paid as hydro-electric royalties by the James Bay Energy Corporation. A final $75 million in Quebec government debentures will be provided to the native people in lieu of the original Quebec proposal for royalties from mining development in the territory. The agreement further provides for the exemption from taxation of the monetary compensation.
Because no land claims settlement can possibly solve all the problems of the native people concerned, such settlement must be accompanied by programs which increase economic opportunities and which encourage the native communities to develop their own institutions through education and training. The federal government is committed to the continuation of these programs which are included in the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement. All parties in the negotiations are convinced that such programs are necessary to enable the native people in the territory to participate fully in the economic, social and political structures of Canadian society, in their own way, while preserving the values which they cherish.
During recent months there have been criticisms of the use of the term "extinguishment of native rights" in the bill presently before the House. I would like to mention here that this term is not a new concept and was used in the prairie treaties, in the Alaska native land claim settlement, and in the James Bay agreement itself. In signing the agreement, the James Bay Crees and the Inuit of Quebec agreed to surrender their traditional interest in these lands in return for the specified benefits granted to them under the agreement and at the same time agreed to the term "extinguishment". If hon. members or others who come before the parliamentary committee have a better way of expressing this concept, I for one would be willing to consider their suggestions. The government's policy is based on the concept that the settlements reached must be final, foreclosing the possibility of future claims, based on historical use and occupancy of the lands concerned, by the native parties to such settlements.
It should be eminently clear that the agreement and the legislation which the House is asked to endorse confer specific rights and benefits on the Cree and Inuit people of the James Bay and northern Quebec territory. Previous to the agreement and Bill C-9, the native people of that territory had traditional, unspecified rights which have never been clarified in Canadian law. Until now these rights had not been sanctioned or protected by treaties or laws in that territory. Such uncertainty and vagueness will disappear upon giving legal status, acceptable in our courts of law, to well-defined rights and benefits through the proposed legislation. In addition to the specific rights and benefits outlined in the agreement, Bill C-9 ensures the Cree

and Inuit people in the territory that they will continue to enjoy all the rights and benefits to which all Canadian citizens are entitled, as well as those resulting from the Indian Act and any other eventual legislation applicable to them.
Other claims negotiations are currently taking place for the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and British Columbia. The federal government is committed to a flexible approach, recognizing that different native groups in various areas of the country have different needs and priorities, as well as distinct characteristics. Bill C-9 and the agreement which it approves contain components such as hunting, fishing and trapping rights, environmental guarantees and increased local autonomy, which for the sake of fundamental equity could well apply to other settlements. However, our approach recognizes that unique problems and conditions require different arrangements, and therefore, agreements which are best suited to the people and areas concerned.
It is my sincere belief that this flexible, dynamic approach in the ongoing consultations and negotiations with the Indian and Inuit people will provide a sound basis for the just settlement of their land claims and will ultimately serve to safeguard their identity within Canadian society.
I would urge hon. members to give quick passage to this bill at second reading so that it can be sent to committee for the appropriate hearings where all concerned can present their views. I believe that such hearings by the committee will clear up any misgivings and misunderstandings that hon. members might have. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I thank all hon. members for their attention in this important and historic debate.


Mr. Holmes:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the time of day and the anticipated vote at 8.30 may I call it six o'clock? Otherwise I anticipate being interrupted on at least two occasions. Therefore with the permission of the House I will call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before we do so, I should like to raise one point. As hon. members know, the House adopted an order earlier for taking a vote at 8.30 p.m. In view of the short notice which has been given to hon. members, some of whom may be on their way to Ottawa for the vote, I understand that there may be some disposition on the part of hon. members for not limiting the ringing of the bell to 15 minutes beginning at 8.30. Would hon. members agree to that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would it not be possible for us to discuss the matter during the dinner hour and come to some agreement? The rule calls for the bells to ring 15 minutes, but we do not want to be too strict. On the other hand let us not have the bells ringing for an hour and a half.
James Bay Agreement


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, without coming to any specific conclusions at this time, would it not be possible for us to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), consider the matter during the dinner hour, and come to some conclusion after eight o'clock?


John Robert Holmes: Mr. Speaker, may I add one caveat? I remind hon. members that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) requested that the first round of speeches should be made this evening, for the benefit of certain persons who are in the gallery. I hope that aspect will be considered when the negotiations are under way.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The last point is well taken. If the bells were to ring one and a half hours, not much time would be left for the first round of speeches. At the same time let me caution hon. members against these last minute agreements. Hon. members who were expecting a set time for the vote now do not know where they stand. Who can communicate with hon. members not present?


Stanley Howard Knowles: They ought to be here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps we should not change the application of rules, unless other hon. members know of such changes. I will leave it to hon. members to come to an agreement and to suggest something to the Chair at eight o'clock when they return after the dinner hour.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Clark) this afternoon suggested that the bells should be rung for a limited time this evening. I suggest that the chief opposition Whip a few minutes ago agreed that the bells should ring for approximately 20 minutes. This afternoon I spoke with the Leader of the Opposition and he suggested we should carry on as usual in this particular regard. Although the bells may ring for some extended time this evening, I hope they will not ring for too long beyond the time ordinarily allowed in the taking of a vote.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hon. members ought to be here anyway.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that no special agreement will be made until hon. members return to the House at eight o'clock. I will therefore call it six o'clock and do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 8 p.m.
John Robert Holmes: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway), for relinquishing his time between the hours of five and six this afternoon in order that we could initiate this

December 7, 1976
James Bay Agreement
most important debate on Bill C-9. Of course he did this so that members from the Cree and Inuit community could listen to the initial portion of the debate in the House of Commons.
I understand there has been some agreement to permit the hon. member for Selkirk to proceed with his private member's bill perhaps some time next week. I am certain that all members of the House will support that piece of legislation which is extremely important and vital. In relinquishing his time, the hon. member made a major concession of that portion of our parliamentary system which is scrupulously guarded by all members of parliament. I believe, however, this will not establish a precedent that will be followed in the House. I am equally certain that those individuals referred to previously, the Cree and Inuit who travelled so far to listen to a portion of the debate, will appreciate and commend the hon. member for his gesture in relinquishing that time this afternoon.
I listened with great interest to the comments of the minister this afternoon. Without appearing to be too critical, I felt for the most part of his speech that I was in effect reliving one of my mundane history courses from earlier years. However, toward the latter part of his speech the minister referred specifically to his involvement with the Naskapis, the problems of offshore islands, and the Inuit at Port Burwell. I sensed that the minister was inferring there would be a new purpose, a new sense of direction or new morality in the department with his arrival to that portfolio. May I simply say we would appreciate and welcome that type of action. Indeed my party would support that type of initiative from the minister. However, I must remind the minister that, by virtue of his presence in the cabinet prior to his recent appointment, he was obviously privileged and briefed on the issues and decisions that were taken by the Liberal government in the handling of the James Bay issue.
I have confidence in the minister's integrity. In saying that, I am sure he will not attempt to impart to this House or the committee an aura of innocence regarding the facts leading up to the James Bay agreement and the introduction of this legislation. If by chance our historical facts should not jive or if they should be at odds, I am certain the minister will be prepared to defend the government's position when this bill is referred to committee.
The problems of native people are written in the statistics of short-life expectancy, increased infant mortality, mercury poisoning, unemployment, poor housing, and poverty. There is a need for a firm commitment on the part of government to rectify these problems, and the land settlement provides Canada with a unique opportunity to take an important step in that direction.
This bill which enshrines the James Bay agreement and the northern Quebec agreement in legislation has numerous parameters, many of which the minister referred to in his speech this afternoon. I have no doubt that many of these will be examined during this debate and during subsequent standing committee hearings. However, it is important that all

members understand the basic issue in this debate, that of a minority group and its future.
We are talking about individuals, whether they be grandparents, parents, children, isolated Inuit hunters in the Arctic Circle, Cree trappers from the interior, or the forgotten Naskapis who bear earlier scars from encounters with government. These Indians and Inuit are simply asking that we listen and understand. They are simply asking for the opportunity to grow, to develop and contribute to our Canadian society. They are asking for nothing more than to be recognized in their own right as the original inhabitants of the James Bay area. In failing to recognize this basic issue, the government has violated a principle fundamental to our democratic society, a principle which has sustained the growth and development of Canada through the interdependence of numerous minority groups.
I want to indicate that I sincerely hope the final settlement will fulfill the aspirations of the native signators to the agreement. However, it is my personal belief, after a thorough analysis of the circumstances surrounding the settlement, that the signing of the agreement on Remembrance Day, November 11, 1975, is prophetic, and future historians will record it was the native people who made the sacrifices; not the power hungry corporations insensitive to the needs and aspirations of the native people; not the province of Quebec which for more than half a century ignored its obligations clearly defined in the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act of 1912, a province which was finally driven to the negotiation table only after the Indian chiefs of the project area began a suit against the James Bay Corporation, seeking an injunction to half the project; and not the Government of Canada, which from the outset abrogated its constitutional and trust responsibilities on behalf of native people.
It is impossible to separate the legislation and the agreement from the manner in which the James Bay project was initiated, an agreement which I must emphasize was signed by this government with full knowledge of all the facts, including the scandalous omission of native people from the final agreement on November 11, 1975. As Boyce Richardson stated in his book "James Bay":
Probably no other project of similar scale has ever been put on foot for such nakedly political purposes, and with so little attempt to disguise those political purposes.
The former premier of the province of Quebec in announcing the James Bay project in 1971, in order to fulfil an earlier election promise to provide 100,000 new jobs, made the decision without thought of the implications. He ignored earlier studies rejecting the project. He made the announcement of the now estimated $16 billion project before its economic viability was established. He rejected the necessity to determine the environmental consequences of such large scale intervention in the north and, more important, he did not acknowledge that the land in question was occupied and used by native people.
December 7, 1976

But, more important, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what was the position of this federal Liberal government during that period when the isolated native communities, lacking political and economic power, faced extinction of their culture and life style, indeed their very lives, in a fight against powerful national and international interests behind the project? This federal Liberal government chose silence rather than speak of its constitutional responsibilities, and it chose inaction rather than fulfil its special trust responsibilities toward native people.
What should we have expected from this government? What role should this government have played in the James Bay litigation? Should not the government have been involved because of its constitutional and trust responsibilities? It is not my intention to review all relevant data. However, it can be stated that the policy of previous governments, for the major part of our life as a nation, has been recognition of native land rights. The one exception followed the introduction of the government's White paper on Indian policy in 1969 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in responding to the question of the existence of aboriginal rights, stated:
Our answer, it may not be the right one and may not be the one which is accepted ... Our answer is, no.
But that declaratory policy was forced to change following the Nishga judgment by the Supreme Court in 1973. Then six judges agreed that aboriginal title exists, and the Prime Minister was compelled to state:
Perhaps you have more legal rights than we thought you had when we did the white paper.
May I add that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) during the debate on April 11, 1973, clearly defined the position of the Progressive Conservative party, and our recognition of aboriginal rights.
In 1972 when the Indian chiefs from the James Bay area began a suit against the James Bay corporation seeking an injunction to halt the project, this federal government described its position as one of "alert neutrality". Despite the fact the court action involved federal jurisdiction over Indians and their land and over a number of other matters, such as migratory birds, fisheries and navigable waters, this government failed to take action.
The 1912 Quebec Boundaries Extension Act clearly defined the role of the federal government, providing in Section 2(c):
That the province of Quebec will recognize the rights of the Indian inhabitants in the territory above described to the same extent, and will obtain surrenders of such rights in the same manner, as the Government of Canada has heretofore recognized such rights and has obtained surrender thereof, and the said province shall bear and satisfy all charges and expenditure in connection with or arising out of such surrenders;
(d)	That no such surrender shall be made or obtained except with the approval
of the Governor in Council;
(e)	That the trusteeship of the Indians in the said territory, and the management of any lands now or hereafter reserved for their use, shall remain in the
Government of Canada subject to the control of Parliament.
The intent of the act is specific and clearly states that the "trusteeship of the Indians in the territory" shall remain with the federal government. How did this federal Liberal government respond to its constitutional and trust responsibilities? In
James Bay Agreement
July of 1971 a resolution passed by the Indian chiefs of the James Bay area was sent to the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to stop the James Bay project. The result-no action. In the spring of 1972 legal action was introduced by the Indians concerned, and again the Indians sought help from the federal government to participate in the case. The result-again the necessary action was not taken.
The decision of the government was described by the minister on numerous occasions as one that demonstrated the federal government was not as paternalistic as it had been in the past. In an effort to cover up this infamous scandal in its dealings with native people, this government avoided the controversy and attempted to appease its conscience by providing some assistance for legal funds.
The government's acquiescence to become an observer rendered meaningless both the special trust responsibility of the government and the justification for federal rather than provincial or corporate jurisdiction in dealing with the problems related to native people.
Of the many lessons learned from the James Bay episode, one of the most important is that a trustee cannot have divided loyalties. We saw it in Quebec, and we see evidence of this recurring in the Yukon territory, the Northwest Territories, and with the Inuit Tapirasit. The actors may have been different leading up to the James Bay agreement. However, the end result of a conflict of interest has prejudiced the natives' hopes that this government will honour its special constitutional and trust responsibilities.
If tragedy was the earliest form of drama, then the next act, which includes the period leading to the signing of the agreement and the subsequent introduction of new principles to the agreement, would be analogous to the Greek drama of Aeschylus in which the fates pursue the main character to his eventual doom.
The native leaders were forced to confront a silent federal government, a Quebec government committed to a $16 billion plus political scheme, the federal and provincial bureaucracies, and the giant corporations determined to develop the north at any cost. The odds were unbelievably overwhelming. Imagine, if you can, the following scenario-the necessity of the native people to negotiate with a gun to their heads knowing that the $16 billion project would proceed unchecked with the threat of a unilateral settlement being imposed without involvement. Imagine if you can the necessity to negotiate in downtown Montreal confronted with unfamiliar pressures and an uncomfortable environment. Would it not have made sense for the instant southern experts to have carried out a reasonable part of the negotiations at Fort Chimo, Aupaluk or Povunanituk in the north, to name but a few communities? Imagine, if you can, the necessity to meet an imposed deadline of November 1, 1975, or face the prospects of an imposed settlement.
I vividly recall meeting with a responsible, concerned group of Inuit late in the evening, during the latter part of August

December 7, 1976
James Bay Agreement
1975, and with their interpreter. Their request, which we pursued in the House of Commons the following day on October 29, 1975, by way of Standing Order 43 and questions, was to have the period of negotiations extended one month. May I repeat it was a simple request: to extend the negotiations for a period of only one month, during which time the Inuit believed that they could complete the negotiations. And what was the minister's response? He refused to intercede and take action. This was not a contract negotiating an hourly rate for a two-year period, but an agreement which would alter the lives of a people and their children and children's children for all time. Is it any wonder the native people distrust this government and question its motives?
Imagine if you can the necessity to impart the. details of a massive legal document to the native people affected by the agreement, in a relatively short period. I read and studied the agreement and had difficulty in interpreting the implications of many sections. Is it not reasonable to conclude that if I experienced such difficulties, then the Cree in the James Bay area and the Inuit on the Arctic circle who had a limited number of documents and, more important, too little time, would be in the impossible position of trying to understand the full impact of the agreement? And to compound the impossible, the initial agreement was written in French, subsequently translated into English, and only at the last minute under pressure was the document translated into the language of the native people, and then in an abbreviated form. Yet this government has the audacity to refer to a just society and participatory democracy.
Imagine if you can the necessity to take a vote on the proposal by March 11, 1976, which the former minister, in a moment of generosity, conceded, knowing perfectly well the proposal would not be understood by the natives in the time allotted, and the task of carrying out such a vote in the middle of winter would be one of Herculean dimensions.
Imagine if you can a small group attempting to reach the coastal communities of Inukjuak, Povunanituk, Ivujivik, Arud-livik, Sugluk, Wakeman Bay, Koartac, Payne Bay, Aupaluk, Leaf Bay, Fort Chimo, George River, and Port Burwell during February and March, in a hostile climate with poor communications.
We know the mission was accomplished and a vote taken, the results of which were admitted to be a foregone conclusion. However, it should be noted that even in the remote settlements on the Arctic, insulated and unaware of the power struggle occurring in the south, communities such as Povunanituk, Sugluk and Inujiuk sensed the threat to their way of life and their future and many registered their protest by refusing to vote.
The agreement raises a number of serious political issues which this government has endorsed by signing the settlement and by the introduction of this legislation. The most-important issue with the greatest potential impact on native people across Canada is the decision to allow the Quebec government the right to mould the future of the native people on its own terms.

This is in direct violation of the constitutional responsibilities of the federal government.
On November 6, 1975, an article appeared in the Montreal Gazette describing certain features of the agreement. In that article the MNA for Mount Royal, John Ciacca, who served as the provincial government negotiator, stated:
In effect the agreement will have precedence over the federal Indian Act...
It is our end to create a new concept within the framework of a Quebec law- the establishment of a community lived in either by Cree or Inuit of their own choice but also accessible to the rest of the population.
My understanding of the agreement is in accord with his observations. This obviously violates the constitutional responsibilities of the federal government as outlined in Section 91 of the BNA Act which set out the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada and gave rise to the Indian Act.
When the federal government signed the agreement, for unexplained reasons it felt justice was served by omitting some native groups in Quebec from the negotiations. Can the minister possibly explain why the Naskapi, faced with the same fate as other natives in the north, were not included in the final agreement?
The minister knew that the Naskapi were a nomadic group indigenous to the area, having followed the caribou herds for untold generations. The minister knew that his department had been involved in the past with relocation plans which have failed to resolve the social problems affecting the Naskapi. And yet this government refused to play a leading role as the trustee of the Naskapi to ensure the future of these native people was protected and included in the agreement.
Again I would like to ask the minister what steps he has taken to protect the rights of the Inuit at Port Burwell. As the minister knows, the Inuit at Port Burwell have interests outside Quebec, yet the agreement, as I understand it, extinguishes all rights including those outside the boundaries of Quebec. I can assure the minister we will expect a full explanation of the facts.
In reading the agreement it is apparent the ultimate success or failure of the settlement will depend in great measure on the good will, on the understanding of the native people and their aspirations and trust, by the non-native signatories. That has not happened. Again this federal Liberal government stood idly by adopting the strategic position of alert neutrality while events occurred during the pre- and post-signing period which jeopardized the rights of native people.
On September 29 of this year I had a lengthy meeting with the NQIA land negotiating team to discuss one small aspect of the agreement. Their mandate was to finalize the selection of category I and category II lands under which the terms of the agreement had to be completed within two years of the signing of the settlement, at which time Quebec can unilaterally impose a choice of category I and category II lands on the Inuit.
Negotiations had reached an impasse despite specific provisions under section 6 of the agreement enabling the Inuit to make application to Quebec for the revision of the category I
December 7, 1976

lands, to take into account the wildlife productivity of the land and the usability of such lands for harvesting.
The rules of the negotiations had suddenly changed. The province of Quebec misinterpreted the provisions of the agreement which established the criteria to be followed by both parties in land selection. The province of Quebec ignored the spirit and the letter of other provisions in the agreement which deal with procedures for the selection of Inuit land needed for the project and the added new criteria affecting the land selection process. I see you are looking at the clock, Mr. Speaker.


Ralph Goodale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the vote that is anticipated this evening may I say I am very aware of your concern with regard to the effect of Standing Order 9(2). In view of the somewhat extraordinary situation this afternoon and in fairness toward members, discussions have taken place and it is now generally agreed that when the division bells begin to ring for the vote on Bill C-19 they should not be limited to fifteen minutes. We do not expect the time will be much longer than fifteen minutes, however.


Walter David Baker: That is my understanding as well. I should like to confirm what the parliamentary secretary has said in terms with the understanding that was reached earlier today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are party to this understanding. I want to express the hope, however, that after the hon. member who is speaking completes his speech, there will still be time for the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) to finish his speech before ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the parliamentary secretary and they have expressed agreement. Is it agreed by all hon. members that the division bells ring for longer than 15 minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to express my appreciation to hon. members. It is not always easy to interpret the rules, even though they may cause some inconvenience, but we can always find good will and understanding in solving problems.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES RESTRAINT ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras that Bill C-19, to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on
Restraint of Government Expenditures Miscellaneous Estimates; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Holmes (p. 1393).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 8.30 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier this day, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes). Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. Shall it be recorded that the motion carried upon division?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


JAMES BAY AND NORTHERN QUEBEC NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT MEASURE TO GIVE EFFECT TO AGREEMENTS WITH NATIVES OF NORTHERN QUEBEC
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-9, to approve, give effect to and declare valid certain agreements between the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, the Government of Quebec, la Societe d'energie de la Baie

James, la Society de developpement de la Baie James, la Commission hydro-electrique de Qu6bec and the Government of Canada and certain other related agreements to which the Government of Canada is a party, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that when debate was interrupted for the purpose of taking the vote just concluded the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) had the floor, and has a few minutes remaining.


John Robert Holmes: Mr. Speaker, just before the bell rang at 8.30 I had indicated that to a great extent the settlement-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I invite hon. members who wish to leave the House to do so quickly so we can hear the speech of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent.


John Robert Holmes: As I was saying just before the bells rang at 8.30, the settlement will depend in great measure on the understanding of native problems, on good will and on a great deal of trust on the part of non-native signatories. I had been establishing the fact that this understanding was lacking. I pointed out that the government of Quebec had gone beyond the scope of the established criteria to which I had referred. It had been indicated that potential future development will take precedence over the present agreement which clearly defines the importance of the wild life productivity of the land and the use of the land with regard to harvesting. Actually future development, despite the vagueness of the term and lack of supportive evidence, was being used as the selection criteria. The province was insisting on new land selection criteria and that any final agreement must be a package deal. There was no final agreement even in the case of those communities which had entered into some form of agreement, and the threat that these communities would lose what little land had been agreed on was used as a negotiating device.
The position of the provincial government has ignored the fact that land selections are made on the merits of individual community circumstances since category 1 and category 11 lands must meet community and harvesting needs in specific geographic areas. I firmly believe that every member in the House, including the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand), would privately concede, if they reviewed the history of category 1 land selections for Aupaluk, Leaf Bay and Payne Bay, that the Inuit people in the Arctic settlements have been used as pawns by powerful interest groups. Yet this federal Liberal government has persisted with its policy of "alert neutrality."
The greatest injustice and unfortunate feature of the negotiations are that Hydro Quebec and its right and left arm, the James Bay Energy Corporation and the James Bay Development Corporation, have been the principal negotiators or, more appropriately, the principal adversaries throughout the negotiations. During the negotiations on Inuit land selections the province of Quebec indicated that no agreement could be

reached without the consent of Hydro Quebec. For its part Hydro Quebec has indicated it will not agree to any land selections unless the Inuit sign certain conditions completely beyond the provisions of the agreement. These conditions are to the effect that, and I quote:
The Inuit will never invoke social impact factors or effects of proposed future hydroelectric projects on the coast, Wastapaka, Payne, Leaf, Caniapiscau, Lanch, Whale and George Rivers, for the purpose of opposing or hindering these projects.
This position is in direct violation of the spirit and intent of the agreement and will undermine the future development of native people and destroy their culture and economies. A major land settlement will not succeed unless the native people have the opportunity to take their full and rightful place in Canadian society and to enrich that society through their participation.
It is not my intention to discuss the various sections of the agreement. However, I want to acknowledge and commend the native people and their leaders for many of the concessions they obtained, despite overwhelming odds negotiated in an environment emphasizing development and exploitation at any cost without a parallel commitment to the future of a people.
To those who have read and studied the agreement it is evident that the ultimate success or failure of the existing settlement will depend on the good will, a thorough understanding of native people and their aspirations, and complete trust on the part of the signatories. As I indicated previously these essential ingredients have not, and do not exist, on the basis of the past performance of the non-native signatories. I have no reason to believe these attitudes will change.
Sir, it must be emphasized that there is no universal formula as to the necessary ingredients in other major land settlements to be negotiated. With respect to those who hold the view that the James Bay settlement will set a precedent for future land settlements, let me indicate that they either do not understand the regional differences or are discarding the issue with indifference. In either event if such attitudes persist in future negotiations, the ultimate goal to have native people succeed in Canadian society is doomed to failure.
When the Supreme Court in its 1973 decision recognized that the Nishga had aboriginal title in the Nass Valley, there was no effort on its part to define the exact nature of their rights, how to evaluate the rights or to extinguish the rights. This fact has been exploited by extremists at both spectrums of the issue. But surely the questions that must be asked are obvious. Do we want a continuation of welfare for native people? Do we want a continuation of alienation, with its implications, between the native people and the non-native community, or are we prepared to provide through land settlements a basis for stronger native communities and a more positive relationship with other Canadians? We have the opportunity to achieve the latter to the mutual benefit of all Canadians.
James Bay Agreement
Of the numerous lessons to be learned from the many tragedies surrounding the James Bay settlement, perhaps the most important is the approach used to achieve a settlement. The federal government's abrogation of its constitutional responsibilities, the Quebec government's commitment to development and insensitivity to the native people, and the ever-present adversary role of powerful Crown corporations, are maglignant symptoms which must be avoided in future land settlements.
When one assesses the broad picture of what has occurred in northern Canada, it is obvious that the policies of the government have failed to produce a society in which we can expect to see a general improvement of the quality of life of the native people.
It is apparent, in assessing the attitudes of those involved in discussions related to comprehensive land settlements, there is a marked difference in the native and non-native perception of the issues. Among the non-natives there is a tendency to see solutions in terms of our own experiences and values, which invariably are translated into economic terms by the power structures in the south and the belief the native people should be like us.
What we have failed to recognize and accept is that the native view is real and logical to them, and that they may not accept our approach to life in total, and that economic independence and economic self sufficiency may be conceived in ways different from our traditional views.
This does not imply that the native person seeking to improve himself and the position of his people believes it is possible nor even sensible to return to the "good old days". The hardships experienced by the native people as described by Rene Fumaleau in his book "As Long as the Land Shall Last" is not the lifestyle envisaged by the vast majority of native people today.
It is also apparent, and I believe the vast majority of native people recognize and have demonstrated, they are not prepared to adopt a position which has a serious adverse impact on Canadians or to adopt a position which would undermine government authority in vital areas. They are, however, telling Canadians the present situation is unacceptable and destructive to their future, and they see no hope through the democratic process to change the course of economic, social and political development. They are telling government and Canadians that changes must be made. They are seeking meaningful participation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Robert Holmes: It is absolutely essential that we work toward a common understanding of these differences, and in this regard the federal government has a special responsibility to proceed with patience and sensitivity since we are dealing with the future of a people.
However, I must stress that proceeding with patience and sensitivity should not be construed as inaction. Indeed it is
80005-44%

December 7, 1976
James Bay Agreement
imperative that the government take action immediately to alter its present policies and practices, to arrest social discontent in the north, and to ensure the future vitality, self respect, and dignity of the native people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Robert Holmes: An important component to the approach taken to achieve land settlements which has received considerable attention is the time frame necessary to arrive at a final agreement. The James Bay settlement has clearly demonstrated the injustice of negotiating the future lives of a people by placing a time limit on a complex agreement and by tying such negotiations to major developments.
I view with apprehension any approach that in effect states it is possible to negotiate a comprehensive complex land settlement by crossing all the t's and dotting all the i's during a time frame that is either specied or implied. Such an approach will contain rigidities which will prove unworkable at some later date and give rise to new frustrations and new problems. Such an approach will be disadvantageous to the native people, will impede responsible development, and the resultant tragedies in human terms will weigh heavily on the consciences of those suggesting such a formula.
In dealing with human beings one must recognize that change is a continuum; no Canadian, either native or nonnative, has the ability or wisdom to outline a master plan for the evolution of native people or indeed any people. It is therefore essential to strive for an agreement which is flexible to permit the positive evolution of the native people; an agreement which the Government of Canada must honour with scrupulous integrity.
In concluding, I want to emphasize that any approach to the resolution of native problems in our democratic society must be based on the fundamental principle that all Canadians will benefit by supporting the development of a pluralistic culture in which the culture of the native people, as indeed of other minorities, will have the oppotunity to grow and develop.
There is no instant remedy to correct native problems, and the necessary measures must be implemented over a period of time that will permit their adaptation to the natives' growth, development and aspirations.
During my travels across Canada which have brought me in contact with a large cross section of the native community, I have been impressed that responsible leadership exists and new leaders are continually emerging. They are restructuring their national psychology in the direction of greater responsibility for their own fates. The vast majority of native leaders are energetic, creative, and despite years of paternalistic oppression are abandoning the colonialistic rhetoric of an earlier era, are articulating the present and seeking involvement in the future. Their legitimate aspirations must not go unheeded.
I am convinced the social problems oppressing our native people can be alleviated, not by the continuation of paternalistic attitudes but through the efforts of people sharing values fundamental to all mankind, and by bringing people closer

together through the things that make them happier and provide them more spiritual freedom.
The future strength of our country must rest with the interdependence of minority groups, and this is only possible by saving all components.
We have experienced an era of paternalism, we have seen the introduction of programs to rationalize our national guilt which has produced moral harm with its tragic consequences. It is the native people who have sacrificed their culture, traditions, and youth through their total dependency on the state. We have experienced the tragedies of economic development without a paralleled development of people.
Hydro Quebec, the James Bay Energy Corporation, and the James Bay Development Corporation are not the government of Quebec, are not the Government of Canada, and do not represent the will of the people. There is no evidence from their record that social impact is an integral part of their policies. By staying in the background and allowing the native people to negotiate their birthright with Crown corporations, both the federal and provincial governments have committed an unpardonable offence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Robert Holmes: By their silence they have condemned the native people to the whim of giant corporations, and this federal government has abrogated its constitutional and trust responsibilities on behalf of native people. As I indicated previously, there is no rapid or universal solution to their social problems; however, we must move with boldness, consistency, patience, and tolerance if we are to succeed. The federal government has failed on all four counts in introducing this legislation. It has lost the confidence of the native people of Canada. It has lost the confidence of minority groups in Canada who share the common aspiration of social justice. It has lost the confidence of all Canadians who place a value on people. I can assure you the federal government has lost my confidence and the confidence of my party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy indeed to make a few comments on the second reading of Bill C-9, a bill which I am sorry to say I will not be able to support as it now stands. I cannot support it for the very basic reason that the main purpose of the bill is the extinguishment for all time of native claims, rights, title and interests, whatever they may be, in and to the territory, of all Indians and all Inuit, wherever they may be, and all the native claims, rights, title and interests, whatever they may be, in Canada, of all the Inuit of Port Burwell. I am paraphrasing clause 3 of Bill C-9.
I have personally been involved for many years in at times the very lonely and difficult struggle to have native rights in this country of ours recognized and dealt with justly. I know what it is like, Mr. Speaker, to be out in the bush trying to
December 7, 1976

make a living as a hunter-trapper. I know what it is like to be hungry, when you are not sure where your next meal is coming from. 1 know what it is like to try to compete in the white man's world with very limited formal education. I can remember wondering, three or four days before payday, where my next meal was coming from. I had nowhere to stay, being too proud to ask my neighbour.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I tried to get the native people organized, whether in the Northwest Territories, the Mackenzie delta or Great Slave Lake. You try to raise funds from people, and get the general public to understand what it is like to try to compete in the white man's world. You try to get the rest of Canada and the world to recognize that the native people of this country have certain aboriginal, or legal, or whatever term you want to use, rights which they have had since time immemorial, and it is a very hard struggle.
My grandfather was born and raised in Arctic Village and comes from Alaska. Today his children and grandchildren are watching colour television which is brought to them by satellite, but this has happened only recently. In the north you have people caught between the white man's culture and Indian culture, people who do not know where to fit in. You work hard and spend many long, lonely hours bringing the message of the people. You might get a little encouragement, but not very much. Not only among your own people but there are those in the white society who call you names, call you a self-appointed leader, or radical red power, or a guy who is trying to radicalize the young people of this country-that sort of thing. You do the best you can and work your way up to the highest court in the land, the House of Commons. But when you get here, Mr. Speaker, you find introduced into the House this piece of paper, this modern day treaty, which is no better than any of the other treaties that we have signed across the country. We know the suffering they have caused many native people. This is why I am very saddened indeed to see such a bill as this now being debated in the House.
I had hoped that during my time in the House I would see a better and fairer bill brought forward, one that would recognize and enshrine in the British North America Act native rights, aboriginal rights, or legal rights, which is the term the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) once used, for the benefit of the first and original citizens of this land.
Instead, Mr. Speaker, what we are debating here is a bill that does the exact opposite; it extinguishes for all time the rights of, in this case, the native people of James Bay. The James Bay agreement represents the surrender of Indian and Inuit rights. I am not absolutely certain whether the Metis will be losing out as a result of this bill, but one can rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that the bill will put them in a losing position as well.
This surrender of rights extends to a very large area which the people of James Bay have been occupying since time immemorial. The people are being given a small reserve of land and a sum of money which looks to me like a large welfare cheque. This is not what I would like to see. According to the bill, the native people in the James Bay area are being
James Bay Agreement
promised some kind of guarantee of exclusive hunting, fishing and trapping rights, and continuing use of soapstone and of the forests in that area. Some kind of guarantee that is, Mr. Speaker! These people have always had and made good use of these rights. According to some archeologists, native people all across this land have been making use of these rights for thousands and thousands of years. In effect, this bill is guaranteeing something which I do not believe can be guaranteed in the first place.
When we hear reports of arsenic poisoning in places like Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, of mercury pollution in the Grassy Narrows and White Dog reserves of northwestern Ontario-and a few days ago I raised a question in the House about mercury pollution in Arctic Bay, which is close to the north pole-how can a government give this kind of guarantee? For example, Mr. Speaker, even as negotiations were continuing in the drawing up of the James Bay agreement, the native people in the area could actually see a huge hydroelectric dam being built on their hunting grounds. Is that a guarantee of hunting rights? Huge areas of land that people had used and occupied for thousands of years were being flooded. Again I ask the question, what kind of guarantee is this?
Bill C-9 looks to me like a modern day treaty. The intent of the bill is pretty well the same as other treaties agreed upon between some native peoples of Canada and the government of this country many years ago. In this what I call modern day treaty the Canadian government agrees to pay $225 million to the native peoples of the James Bay area who may be in agreement with this bill, over the next 20 years. This is what an Indian will get for signing away his aboriginal rights forever, Mr. Speaker.
As many native people in other parts of the country have sadly learned, it has not always been to the benefit of the people who have signed these treaties. This cash settlement amounts to about $1,000 a year per person. In the early treaties, of course, the Canadian government, as we all know, paid at the rate of $5 per person per year. While the Canadian government may have taken into consideration such modern day phenomena as inflation, whether the government pays $5 or $1,000 the terms are still the same and are not for the betterment of the native people.
All through Canadian history when a native person signed away certain land rights it has usually been to his detriment. I should like to give some examples in the Northwest Territories where I come from. This is the area covered by Treaties Nos. 8 and 11 which were signed back in the late 1890's-actually I believe Treaty No. 11 was signed in 1921. As I understand it, these treaties turned over to the federal government certain mineral rights, or sub-surface rights as they are called. This gave the government the authority to issue exploration and mining permits, prospecting permits and so on in connection with the search for and extraction of non-renewable natural resources such as gas, oil, gold and other minerals. As a result, the native peoples found they could not receive any royalties on major finds in the Northwest Territories.

December 7, 1976
James Bay Agreement
We did not fare very well in this area. For example, Norman Wells, an Imperial Oil Company town, has been operating for almost 40 years but we did not get many benefits from that operation. As a matter of fact, as far as I know only one northern native person has a full-time job at that site at the present time. I might mention the Pointed Mountain Gas Well near Fort Liard, a gas pipeline now in operation. We did not get one full time-job out of that project.
Neither did the native peoples of the territories get many benefits from such operations as the large lead zinc mine at Pine Point, two gold mines at Yellowknife, the tungsten mine near the Yukon border, or the Echo Bay mine on Great Bear Lake. I believe that had the treaties covering that area not been signed, and had the Dene been able to hold on to their aboriginal and native claims we would have at least been able to get some royalties in respect of the minerals which are now being exploited instead of all those royalties going directly to the federal government. In other words, if the native peoples of that part of Canada had retained their aboriginal rights, as common dignity says we should have been allowed to do, the Indian people would have enjoyed the royalties which resulted from technical development affecting their communities. We did not even get jobs, Mr. Speaker. At the beginning, that is, at the stage when the bush was being cleared, we did get some part-time work. But after the operations began we found ourselves in the cold.
All these treaties say the Canadian government would guarantee the hunting and trapping rights of the native peoples in the lands they have occupied. I believe that in the negotiation of these treaties it has been customary to use such terms as "As long as the rivers will flow, the grass will grow and the sun will rise ..hunting and trapping rights were to be protected. Yet we all know this is not happening. The Canadian government knows that these promises are hollow even as it makes them.
What can the Canadian government guarantee when we see the waters in Yellowknife Bay are polluted by arsenic so that the fish are no longer safe to eat? The people of the White Dog and Grassy Narrows reserves in northern Ontario know how hollow these guarantees are when they are told they should not eat the fish from the water system in the area because they are contaminated with mercury poison.
I feel that no hon. member of this House would honestly wish to be party to an agreement which extinguished the aboriginal rights of the native peoples for all time. What would the children of these people, and their children for that matter, say of us parliamentarians if we agreed in 1976 to the extinguishment of their aboriginal rights in the lands they have occupied since time immemorial? When will the government learn from previous experiences of such treaties? I would not like to be blamed for agreeing to a treaty with the people of James Bay under such intensive pressure.
I have referred to the treaties which were made earlier this century covering parts of the Northwest Territories. While I am on the subject of the Northwest Territories I might say
[Mr. Firth.)
that some months ago I asked the previous minister of Indian affairs a question about the James Bay settlement, as it is now called-whether it will be used as a precedent for other claims such as those which may be coming forward soon from the people of the Northwest Territories. I was not able to get an answer. The previous minister was not able to tell me how the Metis would fare either. As far as I know they are not even mentioned in this agreement. I have not studied the agreement in its entirety, but I asked the minister the following question on November 18, 1974:
Have the interests of Metis and non-status people in Northern Quebec been protected under the terms of the announced settlement?
The former minister replied:
I believe there are, roughly 200 non-status people involved in the area concerned in northern Quebec.
That answer does not tell me anything at all, Mr. Speaker. I asked him also whether this settlement would be used as a model for possible settlements affecting the Northwest Territories, and once again he gave me a non-answer. In fact though, this James Bay settlement does take in the Northwest Territories since it is mentioned that among the rights of the native people which are to be extinguished are included those of the Inuit of Port Burwell. And Port Burwell happens to be in the Northwest Territories. So I had to wait a couple of years before finding the answer to my question in this bill.
As I say, I would not like to be blamed for agreeing to such a treaty negotiated with the people of James Bay under such intensive pressure-The people were under extreme pressure to settle since many of them were afraid that if they did not they would be excluded from any of the benefits of the development which is taking place.
I should also like to mention the section which deals with the extinguishing of claims. I should like to see it completely removed from the bill. I believe it is in clause 3(3) of Bill C-9. This clause goes against the wishes of many people who are involved in the cause of fighting, working and struggling for the recognition and acceptance of the fact that the native people of this country have their basic aboriginal rights, and many of us believe that these rights should be enshrined in the BNA Act. It seems to me that the Canadian government does recognize that the native people have such rights by the very fact that this bill is attempting to extinguish those rights. Otherwise, why would this clause be in Bill C-9?
Goodness knows, the native people of this country have paid for these rights many times over. We have paid for them since the days of the first explorers who came to this land from across the sea. The first traders and the missionaries, as well as the government people, would not have survived in this country had it not been for the native people who welcomed them here and showed them this country. The native people have paid for these rights in many ways. They did not pay for them only with the birch bark canoe, the snowshoe or the lacrosse. The North American pharmaceutical society admits today that
December 7, 1976

there are over 400 drugs and remedies sold on the market that were originally used by the native people of this country.
The native people have paid, and paid again, with the loss of their culture, the loss of language, and the loss of their lives. They have paid with the loss of the beautiful lands across this country. They have paid by serving in the two or three wars in which our country has been involved. For example, they have served as communicators in the European countries where you could have heard some soldiers talking to each other in the Cree language. That is a pretty hard code for any European to break! We have served in many ways and we have paid for our rights.
We hear references to Canadian sovereignty. You send a few Mounties up north to fly a flag and you call that maintaining Canada's sovereignty! That is not the way to prove the sovereignty of Canada. The way to do it is to accept being a Canadian citizen by going up there and living up north, by building your home there, bringing up your family and making a livelihood off the land. That is maintaining sovereignty for Canada up north, and the Inuit have been doing this for thousands of years.
I say that our aboriginal, native, or legal rights have been paid for very dearly by many of my people. Let us take as an example Sir Alexander Mackenzie, a chap who went down the Mackenzie river, the mighty river which bears his name. According to the history books from which many of our children learn the history of Canada, Sir Alexander Mackenzie, the Scotsman who discovered the Mackenzie river, was quite a hero. But in fact it was not he who discovered the river. A group of Chippewa Indians took Mackenzie's group down that river in birch bark canoes, kept them warm, kept them fed, showed them the way down the river, and brought them back. Yet the history books say he discovered the Mackenzie river! There are many other examples.
One day the history books in this country should be corrected so that we will know the true history of the country, and then we will be a little more proud of the people who were the original citizens of this country. Now Bill C-9 wants to take away and extinguish the rights of the native people forever.
Only a few years ago when I was a little boy at home in Fort McPherson, the game officer, the fur trader, the missionary, or whoever else wanted to go into the bush did not go there by himself; he had to have a guide. There was a tragic occurrence when a group of Northwest Territories Mounted Policemen organized a patrol from Fort McPherson, the village where I was born and raised. They wanted to take a trip across the mountains. The Indian people had taken them over and back many times before. There was no problem, they thought. But when they tried it once by themselves, not one of the boys made it back. They are all buried at Fort McPherson.
Canada, this country, has always treasured its rights and freedoms, so it should not be acting in a negative way by trying to do away with the basic rights of many of its inhabitants. But this is what this bill is attempting to do. I believe that the Canadian government has a basic human obligation to
James Bay Agreement
provide general public services for the people of James Bay without asking them to sign away their aboriginal rights.
The minister mentioned the many goodies that are contained in this bill, the many good things that are in the bill for the people in the James Bay area. I think that is fine. It should have happened a long time ago. I myself do not live in the James Bay area. It is time that the government did what it could to improve its general image by bringing about justice and righting some of the wrongs that have been done to the James Bay people, and by looking after the general welfare of the native people all across this country.
I say that you have a good program for the James Bay people, but I do not believe these people want to sign away their rights as you go ahead with programs for economic development in the area. There are many plans for the area such as, as the minister mentioned, a police force manned by the Inuit or Cree in that area. That is great. Such are the plans for the James Bay area today, and the rest of the reserves will be looked after tomorrow. It is about time the government took upon itself responsibility not only for James Bay but also for other parts of the country.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may put a question to the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) before he concludes his remarks? In his remarks he said what an awful bill and what an awful agreement this is, how bad it will be for the Indians. I wonder if he has taken the opportunity to speak to the Cree and the Inuit who are the beneficiaries under the bill, and many of whom are present in the galleries. Has he bothered to ask them whether they share his impression of the settlement and his view of the bill, because it appears to me that he is making a judgment about their rights that they have not made themselves? I want to know if he discussed it with them and got their opinions.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, it is a little different to have a question coming from the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: They are practising before the next general election.


Walter (Wally) Firth: I would like to answer the minister by saying, yes, I did meet with these people. I say to the minister, this is fine, the program he mentioned in the House today is great and he should go ahead with it so far as it concerns economic development and that sort of thing. What I disagree with, and what many native people across this country disagree with, is that we do not wish to have our original rights extinguished. You will hear that complaint from many people.


William Warren Allmand: What about these people here, what do they think?


Walter (Wally) Firth: It may be a bargain to these people, but I do not happen to agree with them in that respect. I think the price is too high.

December 7, 1976
James Bay Agreement


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In order to keep our perspectives straight, even though the minister is getting ready for the next election, may I ask him a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister does not have the floor.


William Warren Allmand: I am not getting ready for any election.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I am sorry to inform the hon. member that he cannot put his question because the minister does not have the floor now. I am about to recognize the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith).


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to follow the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) in speaking on Bill C-9. I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to rise at second reading of this bill.
This legislation is to approve, give effect to and declare valid the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement and to protect, safeguard and maintain the rights and obligations contained in that agreement. I was happy to hear the hon. member for Northwest Territories mention the word "treaty" because in fact that is what this is. It just so happens that "agreement" is a word which has been put into Bill C-9. It took 102 years to make this transition. Now we are talking about an agreement, but in actual fact it is a treaty. If we were to take the time to read the treaties which were signed in Manitoba, and especially Treaty No. 5, we would find that the parallels are about the same.
This agreement has been the subject of much criticism and much apprehension, particularly on the part of Canada's aboriginal people. I feel that their criticisms and apprehensions are justifiable.
With regard to this issue I think it is time the government addressed itself to a very basic but very fundamental question. My understanding is that the BNA Act explicitly bestows legislative jurisdiction over Indians and their lands on the federal parliament and implicitly recognizes an obligation on the part of the federal government to protect the rights and interests of Indian people. In discharging this responsibility is the government not abrogating its legal responsibility to the Indians and Inuit of James Bay and northern Quebec by being a party to this agreement? The basic premise upon which the agreement is based is the principle of extinguishment of all Indian rights. By this action does this government feel that it is acting in the best interests of the Indian and Inuit as a trustee of their rights? I fail to see how it can.
The land claims of aboriginal people are at stake here. When the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement was signed on November 11, 1975, the federal government hailed the agreement as a tremendous breakthrough in Indian policy and as a model for future agreements. Again we must ask the government if considering this agreement a precedent in set-

tling future aboriginal claims is wise? If the government seriously condones this direction, then clearly it is in conflict with the views of the large majority of the native people of Canada who view aboriginal rights as the right of an Indian tribe or band to use and occupy their traditional land. Aboriginal rights are not for sale; they must be preserved. Settlement of claims must be based on land and political authority over that land. Settlement must not be based on cash compensation and the extinguishment of rights. I would like to emphasize "the extinguishment of rights".
In the case of the James Bay agreement, compensation in the amount of $225 million tax-free sounds like a lot, but in fact this amount will be doled out over a period of 20 years. What lasting development projects can be undertaken on this basis? Further to this the agreement states that all money will be paid to special corporations established for the purpose of administering the funds. The native people are to have the majority on the boards, but the Canadian and Quebec governments will be represented for 10 years. I call that blatant paternalism. Sure, the James Bay Cree and Inuit agreed to this, but many Canadians are cognizant of the fact that they did so under the threat of governments that if they did not sign they would get nothing. In fact many native people are saying that the Indians and Inuit of James Bay are getting little more than what was already available to them.
Is giving the Indians and Inuit exclusive rights to parts of their own lands, compensation? Is giving the Indians and Inuit hunting and Fishing rights limited to specific areas, compensation? Is giving the Indians Indian police to enforce white men's laws, compensation? Is making Indian lands municipalities, compensation? I can tell hon. members that it certainly is not.
In recognition of the Royal proclamation of 1763, which clearly assumes the rights of Indian people, I call upon the government to change its direction in terms of settlements of aboriginal rights. By proceeding with the James Bay agreement, the injustice which will be done to the native population and their children, yet unborn, is one to be reckoned with.
As a member of parliament for the Churchill constituency in Manitoba I feel very strongly about the government's direction in compensating Indians for loss of land. A parallel can be drawn between what is happening in the James Bay area and what is happening in regard to the Churchill River and Nelson River diversion project in Manitoba. They both began as concerns for hydro development, and both disregarded the native people in the areas, although their communities would be seriously affected.
Governments boasted that comprehensive environmental assessments had been made and that there would be compensation for those who would be affected. In Manitoba a consulting firm was hired, because of basic questions raised by the Northern Flood Committee in Manitoba, to reassess the initial assessment of the Churchill diversion project.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?
December 7, 1976


COMMONS DEBATES ' PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to participate in this adjournment debate on the question I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) on December 3 concerning the status of the Waterville airport. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Roy) in his place. Knowing the generosity and experience of the hon. member, I am hoping that he will have some positive and constructive comments to make about the future development of the Waterville airport.
In the time allotted to me under this procedure I do not want to belabour the House at this late hour with all the positive aspects and the obvious merits of getting financial assistance to develop the Waterville airport, which is in the heart of Kings county. Kings county is in the heart of my riding and is really the king county of Nova Scotia in terms of agricultural development and educational development. The Acadia University is right in the centre of the county, and Acadia not only wins hockey and basketball championships, but just last week played for a football championship against a college team from Ontario called Western. For the first half Acadia almost beat them, but in the second half there were too many Mustangs in the field, and unfortunately Acadia did not quite come through. However, Acadia did show that Kings county is appropriately named. It is an integral part of the Annapolis Valley riding.
For a properly developed commercial airport Waterville has the base, and it was in existence for over 30 years under private ownership. Finally, several years ago, the municipality took over the ownership so that the municipality could make an application to the Department of Transport for much needed financial assistance.
I also believe that the economic and technical studies required by the Department of Transport have been carried out. I hope that the parliamentary secretary will stand in his place tonight and indicate when a firm announcement will be made on financial assistance to Waterville. I see the hon. member for South Western Nova (Miss Campbell) tiptoeing out because the moon is high and the hour is late. She is fully aware of the assistance granted to the Digby airport. Assistance has also been granted to the Greenfield airport on the south shore and to Port Hawkesbury. Because of the configuration of my province, Mr. Speaker, the smaller airports can expedite traffic and help the tourist industry.
Adjournment Debate
I know the hon. parliamentary secretary is an historian and knows about the expulsion of the Acadians in 1755. As an Acadian I know the area is very attractive and the tourist industry is very important to it. For these reasons, and many others, I hope the parliamentary secretary can tell us what firm plan the department has in mind.
I do not want to end on a sour note, Mr. Speaker, but we have watched the development of other types of airports in Canada, be they an attempted Pickering or Mirabel, and while they involve so many more millions they cast a little cloud on the type of thinking that goes into development plans. In this case, however, because of a very cogent brief the minister received from the Affiliated Annapolis Valley Board of Trade and other people he should not have any problem in planning for the airport. We do not have to worry about some of the white elephants that might have been erected around the country because this airport in Waterville, Kings County, in the heart of the Annapolis Valley, could not be classed as a white elephant but could become a new incentive for development in the valley.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, it is a very important day today not only for the late show; I should like to mention that the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) is celebrating an anniversary.
I was very impressed with the presentation made by the hon. member on the present status of the request for upgrading of the Waterville airport in the heart of Kings county. I should like to point out to the hon. member that in December, 1975, the municipality of Kings county submitted a formal application for financial assistance for extending and paving the existing runway and refurbishing the runway lighting system at a total cost of $170,000.
The application was subsequently reviewed by regional officials, and a cost-benefit analysis of the proposal completed in May, 1976, had favourable results.
The Waterville airport application will be considered for funding in Transport Canada's 1977-1978 airport financial assistance program. Approval of the project at that time will be subject to national priorities and availability of funds depending on the money we can get at that time.


PETRO-CANADA-POSSIBILITY OF DISPOSING OF COMPANY TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE
Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the adjournment debate because of the answer I received from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to a question on November 2. The question was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the throne speech referred to the possibility of Crown corporations being returned to private industry, would Petro-Canada fall within that category?


' COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
December 7, 1976
Adjournment Debate
The Prime Minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will return to the throne speech, he will see that the words he uses are not there.
I shall refer to the pertinent part of the Speech from the Throne and to some of the remarks of a former deputy minister of industry, trade and commerce. In his answer the Prime Minister suggested that the words I had used are not in the Speech from the Throne. I therefore wish to clarify the basis of my questions and my reasons for asking them, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so in the present debate. The part of the throne speech to which I referred in my question reads:
In a further effort to reduce the size of government as well as expand the range of opportunities for private enterprise, all federal programs will be reviewed to identify those government activities which could be transferred to the private sector without reducing the quality of service to the public.
I agree that the words "Crown corporations" are not specifically mentioned, but if Petro-Canada is not a federal program which could be transferred to the private sector without reducing the quality of service, if it is not a program which does merit investigation, I can only wonder which programs can be transferred. If that sentence in the throne speech does not include Crown corporations, what does it mean?
The Canada Development Corporation was set up to be run as a business and ultimately, the majority of its shares were to be owned by the public. Petro-Canada was established without any specified goal with wide powers authorizing it to do almost anything; but apparently it does not necessarily work for financial gain.
I would like to quote what a former deputy minister of industry, trade and commerce, said at the Calgary energy conference last month. He said in part:
When one looks at Panarctic and Syncrude, it is somewhat reassuring that the government is in partnership with private companies which in each instance hold the controlling shares. There is reason to expect, therefore, that these ventures will operate on a business basis with a minimum of political interference. There is no such safeguard in the structure of Petro-Canada.
When Petro-Canada purchased Atlantic Richfield in Canada at a cost of $340 million, one more private industry was taken over by this government. If that corporation also buys Panarctic Gas at the mentioned price of $80 million, can we expect private companies to maintain a high level of incentive?
Where is this corporation headed? What will it do for Canadians? When will the powers given to this government under the act be explained, and how will those powers be limited? How can anyone say that Petro-Canada, regardless of the good intentions of its president, is being operated in the best interests of and for the expansion of opportunities for private enterprise?
Petro-Canada is merely duplicating, without restriction or guidelines, the services and functions of the CDC. Why not pour a fraction of those millions into the CDC instead of paying such unlimited amounts into a corporation which does not show any benefits, profits, advantages or encouragement for private industry? Are Crown corporations not part of this
[Mr. Towers.J
government? Anyone who is interested in industrial progress in this country would not seek to belittle a serious, legitimate question such as I asked on November 2.
Allow me to quote again from the speech which the former deputy minister made in Calgary. He said in part:
The private enterprise system can be destroyed just as easily by carelessness as by design. It is careless, to put it charitably, to launch state institutions into the realm of business where there is no vacuum to be filled and no clear purpose to be achieved.
It is equally careless to put forward a set of northern oil and gas regulations designed in part to give important preferences to the state enterprise over private enterprise, and in part to promote a show of economic nationalism by imposing a level of Canadian ownership large enough to discourage the multinationals in the industry and too small to mean anything in terms of Canadian control of any project.
Please note the following words spoken by the former deputy minister:
In the recent Speech from the Throne, the government indicated its intention of reviewing all federal programs for the purpose of identifying those activities that could be transferred to the private sector without reducing the quality of service. I suggest that Petro-Canada should be the first and foremost candidate for that review.
The recent report of the Auditor General criticized Crown corporations over which the federal government has jurisdiction. In all, the Auditor General was highly critical of lack of financial control in 21 Crown corporations. I suggest you can include Petro-Canada in that list of Crown corporations with respect to which the Auditor General is critical, because the Auditor General of Canada is the auditor of Petro-Canada.
Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, while we may be tempted to agree with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) with regard to the economy being better off within the private sector, in this case we are not speaking of a common business but of a non-renewable natural resource.
Notwithstanding the statement of a former public servant, which was referred to by the hon. member, the purpose of this Crown company is clearly spelled out in this legislation. I will again endeavour to impress upon the hon. member the aim of the legislation. It was, and I quote:
-to explore for hydrocarbon desposits, to negotiate for and acquire petroleum and petroleum products from abroad to assure a continuity of supply for the needs of Canada, to develop and exploit deposits of hydrocarbons within and without Canada in the interests of Canada, to carry out research and development projects in relation to hydrocarbons and other fuels, and to engage in exploration for, and the production, distribution, refining and marketing of, fuels.
The powers and duties of the corporation are defined with certainty in the act. Its board of directors, including highly qualified people from the private sector and three deputy ministers, ensures that the corporate performance is in accordance with the intention of the legislation. Company officers are of the highest calibre, and we have every confidence in them and are pleased with the initiatives they have already taken in the short history of the corporation.
I would like to remind hon. members of some of the reasons for the establishment of a national petroleum company. First,
December 7, 1976

while Canada has continued to be well served by industry, government by virtue of its responsibilities puts a higher value on having full knowledge of the Canadian resource base than the private sector can be expected to do. Public confidence in the long term adequacy of energy supplies is also of greater concern to the government.
Secondly, the strong role of government in the oil producing countries of the world, through the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), requires a government presence now in all countries having a heavy reliance on oil. Until Petro-Canada was established, Canada was behind most industrial countries in terms of a government presence in the industry.
Thirdly, Petro-Canada provides a window on the industry, which enables government to perceive industry problems and opportunities more accurately and, consequently, the company is of benefit to both the public and the private sector.
In summary, the compelling reasons for creation of a national petroleum company relate primarily to security of supply from domestic resources and also, as required, from abroad. Besides providing a new focus for mobilizing capital and skills in the service of necessary resource development, the company will bring to Canadians a sense of pride, satisfaction, and confidence in owning a portion of this criticially important Canadian industry.
I invite the hon. member to read the comments made by his colleague, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), on November 5, 1973, as reported at pages 7542 and 7543 of Hansard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The time allotted to the parliamentary secretary has expired.


COMMUNICATIONS-PROVISION IN AGREEMENT WITH MANITOBA FOR EXTENSION OF CABLE TO RURAL AREAS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, on November 16 I asked the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) to spell out specific details on the agreement that had been signed between the Manitoba government, owners of Manitoba Telephone System, and the Canadian government, specifically its Department of Communications, in which the Department of Communications and the Manitoba government negotiated an agreement whereby the Manitoba government would be in control of the hardware for all cablevision in Manitoba.
At that time, as reported at page 1042 of Hansard I indicated to the minister that a monopoly had been granted to the Manitoba government through its public utility, Manitoba Telephone System, and that up to that date we had not received the extension of cable television in rural areas for which we had asked some two years previously. The minister then said:
Mr. Speaker, as far as I know the CRTC is on schedule as to the examination of applications for cable.
Adjournment Debate
I then said:
No. Two years.
The minister continued:
No, sir. They are on schedule. They come down with their decisions and I have nothing to do with the decisions of the CRTC as they apply to specific applications.
What is the case? The case is simply this, Mr. Speaker. Hearings were held on May 17, 1974, in Winnipeg, which are quoted in the Winnipeg Free Press of the same date. I quote the following:
A Winnipeg cable television firm outlined Thursday an $8.6 million plan to transmit its programs to 31 rural Manitoba communities on a microwave system that it wants to build.
The article then went on to list some 31 communities in rural Manitoba to which this cable company wanted to extend cablevision.
What happened then? We find out very clearly that the Manitoba Telephone System was really not interested in the extension of cablevision to rural Manitoba. The reason I say that is this. To quote the same article of May 17:
Mr. Mitchell-
He was with CKY-TV.
-said that his company would like to begin immediately to extend CKY-TV to the Arborg area, followed later by service to Flin Flon, Snow Lake, The Pas and Thompson.
During his presentation Mr. Mitchell told commission members his firm was experiencing many frustrations in its attempt to arrange for microwave transmission facilities to get its signals to Dauphin.
He said both the Manitoba Telephone System and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have demanded excessive rates and his firm cannot get permission to erect its own facilities in Riding Mountain National Park.
The point I am trying to make is that the record of Manitoba Telephone System in providing the hardware for the extension of cable television into rural Manitoba is simply abominable. What has happened now is that the Department of Communications, which is supposed to protect viewer rights to receive cable television in the same way as people in urban areas, has now given the Manitoba Telephone System the monopoly not only of deciding where cable will go, but they now control the total hardware. This simply means that the Manitoba Telephone System has complete control.
The minister said that the CRTC was up to date on its decisions. What has happened since the May 17, 1974, hearing, more than two years ago? A decision was made with tremendous alacrity. The decision was announced again in the same paper on July 5, 1974, a month and a half after the hearings, which allowed Winnipeg Videon Limited to amend its cable television broadcasting licence for part of Winnipeg, Manitoba, to add a new remote head end antenna site near Tolstoi, Manitoba. That head end antenna site is in my riding, down in the very southern part of the riding. The purpose of the application to extend the head end antenna was to extend the cable television into rural Manitoba.
They got a licence from the CRTC for the head end antenna, but that is just half the decision. There the minister was quite right. But since that date the CRTC has made no

December 7, 1976
Adjournment Debate
decision on the extension of cable television into rural Manitoba, so I would ask the parliamentary secretary, what does the minister mean by saying that on the one hand they are up to date on decisions, yet two years later we are still waiting? Or is two years "up to date"?
The hassle that has gone on between the federal government and the provinces as to who controls communications has victimized rural people. They want the same cable television viewing rights as people in urban areas. I say to the parliamentary secretary he should forget about his prepared notes and tell us exactly what the government is going to do on this issue. In other words, what guarantees have been given by the Manitoba Telephone System, the public utility of the Manitoba government, that it will extend cable television into rural Manitoba? In a presentation to members from Manitoba they indicated that the microwave system is going right through our ridings and that it can be done at any time.
Has the Department of Communications asked the Manitoba system when the extensions will take place? When will the CRTC make decisions on applications made two years ago for the extension of cablevision into rural Manitoba? Lastly, what guarantee has the government or the department given to the people of Canada, and especially of Manitoba, that the Manitoba Telephone System should not only control the hardware but should now be on the production end as well? I do not believe government should be in that type of industry.


William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to answer the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).

No one has more desire to see cable television extended to rural residents than has the parliamentary secretary. Having
been born and raised in a rural area, he is certainly aware of the limited communications facilities which many Canadians in rural areas have found available to them in the past.
I wish to point out to the hon. member opposite that article IX of the agreement does recognize that the CRTC will continue to determine the timing and conditions for the introduction of cable television, that is, programming services, into the various locations in Manitoba. Furthermore, under article VIII, the provincial government has committed the Manitoba Telephone System to readily make available sufficient telecommunications capacity to permit the distribution of all federally authorized cable t.v. services.
I believe it is clear that one of the prime motivations of the provincial governments in seeking this agreement was precisely to ensure that coaxial cable systems should be developed on a rational and economical basis throughout Manitoba, and not be limited to the major urban areas as is the case in most other provinces.
The two governments agree to co-operate to ensure the orderly extension of service, both CATV programming and other telecommunication services. It would be my view that concluding this agreement should expedite the extension of services. The negotiation and agreement of related considerations might perhaps have been a problem in terms of holding up some of the extension work while the jurisdictional question was being worked out, but I would expect now that in the spirit in which the agreement was concluded an extension of cable services to the rural residents will result. Here again a great deal rests with the province and its relationship with the Manitoba Telephone Service.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

Wednesday, December 8, 1976