1976-03-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the latest report of the Law Reform Commission which recommends the abolition from the Criminal Code of such offences as incest, abortion, drug offences, obscenity, pornography and acts of indecency, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That this report on our criminal law be referred immediately for study to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs due to the ramifications of these proposals and the fact that the Minister of Justice has stated that he intends to introduce legislation to implement some of the Law Reform Commission's recommendations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The evidence of a deterioration in rail freight and express service in the province of Newfoundland prompts the need for an investigation into the terms of union between Canada and that province.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House order a public inquiry be initiated into the CNR's future objectives to ensure adequate service in that province and to allow for the province's participation in over-all transportation policy for Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: A motion under Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that aircraft safety inspectors walked out at major airports in Ontario and Quebec last Friday as a result of a breakdown in wage negotiations and that this is a possible first step toward a nationwide work stoppage which could affect airline service, and furthermore, since the Department of Transport is aware that 11 Air Canada pilots are flying with invalid licences as a result of unauthorized company check flights, which not only contravenes section 400 of the air regulations but also creates a safety hazard, and in light of the fact that commercial airline licences are expiring at the rate of 100 per day, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That the President of the Treasury Board become personally involved in the negotiations between the aircraft safety inspectors and the Ministry of Transport, that the Minister of Transport take the necessary action to guarantee that no pilots are flying with invalid licences as a result of unauthorized checks and that section 400 of the air regulations is strictly enforced with no extensions.


Mr. Speaker:: Before presentation of such a motion the provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In the

March 29, 1976
Oral Questions
telephone conversation concerning the LRPA financing which was held between the Deputy Minister of National Defence and Mr. Reisman, did Mr. Reisman suggest to Mr. Nixon how financing could be arranged?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the conversation on the telephone between the deputy minister and Mr. Reisman did concern ways in which the financing could be achieved. That was its purpose, but I do not have the details of that conversation. I expect that they discussed more than one option.


Mr. Paproski:: I guess so.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, it is rather surprising the minister would know now, when formerly he was in ignorance about it, that they did discuss financing. I would have thought the first question he would have put to his deputy minister would have concerned the details of the conversation. Could the minister tell us if the deal suggested by Mr. Reisman is substantially the same as the arrangements the minister has proposed or is proposing to the cabinet?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister has made clear to me that there were no representations made on behalf of Lockheed and that there was no attempt to persuade him to take any particular course of action. They were both looking at the matter in a very constructive way in an attempt to find a solution to the problem and achieve the purchase of the aircraft so badly required by the Canadian armed forces.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, could the minister in his next answer tell us who initiated the conversation between Mr. Nixon and Mr. Reisman and perhaps at that time he would clarify how he can consider a conversation, suggesting how Mr. Reisman's employer could close a contract with the government, could be anything but a representation from Mr. Reisman?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously in the House the deputy minister is not certain. He cannot recall in his own mind whether he instituted the call or whether it came from Mr. Reisman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Armstrong Richardson: But there were altogether three telephone conversations. However, I cannot confirm whether Mr. Reisman called Mr. Nixon or whether Mr. Nixon first called Mr. Reisman.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, would the minister undertake to seek an interview with his own deputy to find out what he and Mr. Reisman talked about and whether it was very similar to his findings?


James Armstrong Richardson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have done that. I will have further conversations with the deputy minister, but I think the conversations he had with Mr. Reisman were essentially constructive. As I tried to say, they were attempting to solve a difficult problem.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-TERMS AND DATE OF CONTRACT WITH REISMAN AND GRANDY
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, again this question is addressed to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the answers he has just given with regard to his own lack of knowledge and, laying those answers against his statement to the House a few days ago that there was no impropriety in respect of the contract, I think at least his earlier statement implied that he had made a thorough review of the contract and his statements today indicate that he really does not know the answer with regard to any arrangements. Could the minister inform the House at what date Lockheed retained Reisman and Grandy Limited, and the terms and conditions of their employment by Lockheed, particularly the size and the terms or particulars of any retainer that was paid to them and the financial arrangements that may have been made between Lockheed and Reisman and Grandy in view of the importance of these representations of which the minister is not now so sure?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, with respect may I say that I think those are questions which should be asked either of Lockheed or Reisman and Grandy. I do not ask the Lockheed Company who their lawyers are or what arrangements they have with a lawyer or any other professional.


Walter David Baker: The minister is quite right. That should be asked of the company. I suggest he should ask them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: In view of the ongoing relationship between this government and Reisman and Grandy, this House is entitled to know when the firm of Reisman and Grandy was established, and when it was retained by Lockheed. Was it before or after the date on which the government announced its decision to buy the LRPA. I submit that the government ought to answer these questions.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I have already made it clear that the government's decisions in principle to purchased the long-range patrol aircraft was made in November. To the best of my knowledge, the telephone conversations between my deputy minister and Mr. Reisman, all took place in the new year, in January.


Walter David Baker: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The extent of the minister's knowledge about this contract disturbs the House, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister review in Hansard my previous supplementary question to him, in which I asked when the firm of Reisman and Grandy was established, and when it was first retained by Lockheed. I asked this because there are many unanswered questions concerning relations between the firm and the government.
March 29, 1976


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-POSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING DETAILS FROM UNITED STATES CONCERNING BRIBES
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, address my question to the Minister of National Defence. Last Thursday, when I questioned him about pay-offs by Lockheed connected with the purchase of aircraft, he suggested I was inviting him to engage in a kind of witch hunt and that there ought to be no investigation until there is something definite to investigate. I understand that the minister is seeking information in writing from Washington. Can we now assume that there is something definite to investigate?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, of course, we are holding conversations with senior officials of the United States government. As indicated previously, we want their assurances about the financial stability of the Lockheed company. We are also talking about industrial benefits to Canada and about moving production tooling and equipment to this country. We want assurances on those things. As I said only last week, I wanted written confirmation from the United States government before proceeding with this contract, but I did not say that, in those discussions, we were trying to find out if improper payments had been made. We are dealing with at least three departments of the United States government and if improper payments have been made, or there is something about which they want to tell us, I am sure they will tell us. But that is not the basis on which we are approaching them, and not the kind of information for which we are asking.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister follow the procedures suggested by the American authorities, namely, apply to the Department of Justice for full information about this matter, including, if there is such information, information relating to any impropriety in Canada. Will he ask for all documents to be made available to the Canadian Department of Justice, so that after they have been studied the Canadian people can be assured there is nothing to be concerned about? I suggest that is important.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it might help if I were to quote from a press article, something I do not do often. It might be helpful in these circumstances. According to the Toronto Star:
A legislative aide to Senator Frank Church, whose Senate subcommittee is investigating the Lockheed bribery scandals, has been kept busy lately dealing with queries from foreign correspondents anxious to know if their countries were involved in bribe attempts.
'There is no evidence,' the aide said yesterday, 'that Canada was the subject of any bribe attempts to sell airplanes. Or Australia. Or any Commonwealth country, for that matter.'


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-POSSIBILITY OF REDUCING COST BY PURCHASING AIRFRAMES
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the minister would be well advised to get it officially and not just from a single Senator, however distinguished he may be-in fact, an aide to the Senator. That is very inadequate evidence to deal with a billion dollar contract. I want to switch a bit. Has the minister given consideration to the
Oral Questions
prices paid by Australia for Lockheed airframes and has he considered whether the same method of dealing with the problem might cut down the overall cost substantially?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am certain that we can cut the cost at any time and have an aircraft that does not do the job. When this aircraft has been completed, we will have the most effective long-range patrol aircraft in service anywhere in the world. I might say, as a result of my recent visits to Norway and with our NATO partners, this aircraft is needed in the North Atlantic. I think we should get on with this purchase.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Given the statement just made today on Parliament Hill by the minister to the milk producers who had come to meet him, in which he told these milk producers, and through them all Canadian milk producers, that he agreed with them that they should continue to produce milk on a profitable basis, can the minister tell the House if he is expecting sure profits for these industrial milk producers during the dairy year 1976-77?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, if they produce within the quota allocated to them, they will have a profit.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
Since part of the surplus of fluid milk ends up as industrial milk and thus increases the industrial milk surplus, could the minister tell the House if he accepts that this surplus from fluid milk producers be penalized in the same way as the surplus produced by industrial milk producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have a supply management committee made up of producer organizations from the Atlantic to the Pacific. They are the ones who decide on how the quota should be allocated. I want to make it clear that I said outside the House what I said in this House before, there is a limit to production. They should not produce a product that is going to waste.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 29, 1976
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-DATE MINISTER AWARE LOCKHEED RETAINED REISMAN AND GRANDY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of National Defence is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Victoria. Notwithstanding the affirmation the minister made in the House on March 22 when he said in reply to the hon. member for Victoria that no payments or commissions had been made by Lockheed to any Canadian, and we now know that that statement was not true because of the fact that they retained the firm of Reisman and Grandy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: -when did the minister determine that this firm, representing two former senior deputy ministers, was retained by Lockheed and what did he do when he came into possession of that knowledge?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, as I believe I indicated in an earlier answer, I first heard that the firm of Reisman and Grandy had been engaged by the Lockheed Company sometime last month. In other words, it was fairly recently. When one refers, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member did in his question, to payments and tries to compare a payment for a professional service with an improper payment or a bribe, I think we should be very clear we are talking about two different things. Of course, Lockheed makes payments. I suppose they pay their hotel bills when they are in Canada, too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: No doubt, as other corporations are entitled to do, they engage professional advice, whether lawyers, accountants or consultants. This is quite different from bribery and I think that should be made very clear.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-INQUIRY WHETHER REISMAN AND GRANDY MADE PAYMENTS TO INDIVIDUALS
James Aloysius McGrath: When the minister did learn that this firm was representing the Lockheed company did he then contact the partners in the firm, given the public knowledge that the Lockheed company has been involved in pay-offs in other countries in connection with similar contracts? Did the minister contact Messrs. Reisman and Grandy to determine whether or not they had made any payments for any reason whateso-ever to any individual in Canada, and, if not, why not?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I think we are dealing with two separate issues. There is the question whether or not senior civil servants should become consultants shortly after their retirement. The House has addressed itself to that issue and the Prime Minister has responded. Until that question is further defined and guidelines have been established, it is not practical or appropriate for me to suggest that the Lockheed company cannot use consulting services any more than any of the other major corporations which are clients of this firm and other consulting firms.


James Aloysius McGrath: Since this particular firm happens to consist of two former senior deputy ministers-the deputy minister of finance and the deputy minister of industry, trade and commerce-and since it now represents the interests of the Lockheed company in Canada and is involved with the Government of Canada in determining a way out of the financing difficulties, is it now the minister's intention to meet with the principals of this firm to determine exactly what their interest is with the Lockheed company and what their interest is with any other Canadians, including those in the Government of Canada?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to talk to this company about all the other arrangements they have with other clients. There is a long list of Canadian corporations which are clients of this firm. I do not consider it my job to talk with the company about that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-POSSIBILITY CONTRACT WITH MR. CRUTCHLOW DELAYING SIGNING OF CONTRACT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Might I direct a further question to the Minister of National Defence and ask him whether or not Mr. Crutchlow or any other individual in his department or in the Department of Supply and Services entered into any contract calling for the expenditure of any funds up to this point in time which was not properly authorized and if that is the situation, as has been reported, is this a factor which is holding up the signing of the final contract with Lockheed?


James Armstrong Richardson: I do not know of any authorization of that type,


J. Michael Forrestall: Is the minister telling the House that he has no information with respect to Mr. Crutchlow entering into any contract or undertaking with Lockheed for the expenditure of any funds prior to the actual signing of the contract? If this understanding is correct can the minister indicate on what basis Lockheed has gone ahead and spent, up to this point, something in the nature of between $10 million and $12 million in work-up expenditures before the contract has been signed?


James Armstrong Richardson: I was not referring to the current expenditures which I said are taking place on engineering studies. I was referring specifically to the question about Mr. Crutchlow. I do not know his part particularly. But the Department of Supply and Services did accept the offer which was made to us by Lockheed; that offer was accepted in principle following the decision of the government to purchase these aircraft. As I have indicated before, there are some costs related primarily to engineering and design. There are no production costs at the present time. There are some costs which have been incurred which no doubt would have to be negotiated in the event of termination of the contract, but as we are still proceeding to complete the contract that is a rather hypothetical question.
March 29, 1976


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I hate like the devil to pose hypothetical questions to the minister because I know he is so precise in his responses, so might I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Supply and Services. Upon what authority did the Minister of Supply and Services enter into any arrangement whatever with Lockheed for the commencement of any engineering, design or work-up studies prior to the signing of a final contract?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, we told Lockheed Aircraft Corporation that we intended to contact it, and of course this came after a requisition from the Department of National Defence. There is at present no formal contract with this company. Since his question does require an answer, I would ask the hon. member whether he would agree to grant me one or two days to answer with more precision so that the interests of Canada and of the government are better protected.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister which follows from the answer of the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the interest in this contract and the very large sum involved, and in view of the very legitimate questions that have arisen as a result of problems that are outside the minister's domain, I wonder whether the minister would talk to the House leader and, either through the guise of estimates or some other procedural method, have this whole matter referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, so that very detailed questions can be asked and very definite answers given by the minister in order to help explain the situation, and so we will not take up the whole question period over the next few days asking questions and trying to get answers?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, this subject was before the standing committee last week when numerous questions of a detailed nature were asked and answered.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A further supplementary question. I appreciate in part the minister's answer, but in view of the fact that some of Lockheed's problems arose out of either public or private meetings of some committees in the States, I would ask the minister to consider a public meeting, or is there a possibility of exploring the matter through a private meeting of the external affairs and national defence committee so hon. members can ask ques-
Oral Questions
tions and get answers from the minister? As far as I am concerned, I do not want to see an LRPA jeopardized because of some corporate problems of an international company.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to know that the hon. member is trying to find ways to purchase these aircraft rather than ways of not doing so. I would be prepared to meet with the committee or anyone else who wants to discuss the subject. Of course, I think that the calling of a committee meeting is the responsibility of the committee concerned.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Since the minister has said he would do some further investigating of the Lockheed contract, would he also check this out. The Minister of National Defence stated that Lockheed was aware of the fact that the Department of National Defence did not have sufficient funds available to proceed with the LRPA contract and that Lockheed gave a verbal assurance that it would provide the interim financing. On the other hand, the Minister of Supply and Services is saying that financing is the responsibility of DND and he will not say whether he knew that DND had only $30 million available or whether he knew about Lockheed's verbal assurance to provide interim financing.
In an effort to clear up the confusion surrounding this contract once and for all, I should like to ask the minister whether he was aware that DND had only $30 million available to start production of the LRPA, and was he aware that Lockheed had made a verbal agreement with DND to provide the interim financing itself?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: No, Mr. Speaker.


A. Daniel McKenzie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister think that it was wise of the Department of Supply and Services to proceed to negotiate a contract with Lockheed which required first year payments of more than $100 million on the strength of nothing more than a verbal assurance?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I said that my department received a requisition from the Department of National Defence and under the Financial Administration Act, when we receive a requisition from a department, we are assured that the financing is provided.

March 29, 1976
Oral Questions


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. Is the government aware that a $300 million borrowing by Lockheed for the Orion program would require approval by the emergency loan guarantee board, a United States agency; and in view of the suggestion that Canada should be the guarantor, has the government discussed this matter with the emergency loan guarantee board of the United States and, if not, why not?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government has discussed this matter and is, of course, aware that their authorization is required.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the last question put to the Minister of National Defence. In the negotiations that the minister entered into initially, did he make those inquiries of the United States concerning the emergency loan guarantee board in order to determine whether there were any problems in connection with the Lockheed Corporation?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge my officials did not do that. They talked with the Lockheed Corporation, which indicated to them that they could arrange the financing.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-POSSIBLE REQUEST FROM REISMAN AND GRANDY TO BE RELEASED FROM OATH CONCERNING SECRECY OF INFORMATION-SUGGESTED INQUIRY
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The provisions of the Public Service Employment Act provide for a certain oath of secrecy. That oath specifically provides, and I quote, "that I will not, without due authority in that behalf, disclose or make known any matter that comes to my knowledge by reason of such employment". Has the minister or any member of his government had authority requested by either of Messrs. Reisman or Grandy, or their consulting firm, to release any information that they have acquired as a result of their duties with the government?


James Armstrong Richardson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answer the minister has just given, and in view of the fact that it is unlikely that any specific authority was requested, would the minister now consider establishing an inquiry to ascertain if information has been released in violation of Schedule III, the oath of secrecy under the Public Service Employment Act, in view of the contractual relationship existing between Lockheed and the two former deputy ministers?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I would think that that matter would normally come within the wider consider-

ations which we discussed a moment ago, which have been addressed by the Prime Minister, concerning guidelines for senior servants, which is of wider scope than this particular relationship with one company.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-REASONS FOR DELAY IN SIGNING, OTHER THAN FINANCING
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. I should like to know what other items are holding up the transaction with Lockheed apart from the question of interim financing.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, it is the interim financing or shortterm financing that is the primary problem. As is widely known, shortly after that problem emerged the Lockheed company got into difficulties as a result of accusations concerning improper payments in other parts of the world. This had or appeared to have some effect on their financial stability and their ability to carry on, so that became a secondary problem. We are trying to solve both problems, first of all the production phase financing and, secondly, our conviction supported by a statement by the United States government that the Lockheed is financially viable and can in fact complete the contract. I believe we are working successfully towards a solution.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Will he in the interest of retaining the balance of competition between Halifax and Saint John on the one hand and Montreal on the other remove the flour and grain rail subsidies only after seaway tolls are increased, and not before?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, a bill dealing with the subject is before the House. I do not think the two items need to be directly related.


INCOME TAX
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Because of the fact that under the Income Tax Act volunteer firemen are only allowed a total of $300 annually to cover all expenses, would the minister give consideration to raising this allowance so it will better reflect present day costs? This $300 allowance has not been upgraded for many years now and these volunteer firemen do a tremendous service to many municipalities throughout the country.
March 29, 1976


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, after the suggestion of the hon. gentleman I will take it under consideration.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, because the government continues to see fit to operate without a Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, which in fact may be an improvement, I am forced to put my question to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact there were numerous incidents in past Olympic lotteries where some winning tickets were unsold, thus making the preceding advertising campaign misleading vis-5-vis the outcome, would the minister assure this House, particularly since he is supposed to be so closely related with COJO, that all future Olympic lotteries will in fact comply with the advertising campaign and, if not, will he take immediate steps to have them altered accordingly?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has checked into the advertising concerning the lottery and found nothing improper. It provides, in fact, for the precise number of prizes promised providing all tickets are sold.


Some hon. Members:: Provided.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is obvious that because of the computer type of operations in the selection of winning numbers, when certain tickets are not sold there is the possibility that certain prizes may not be drawn but are added to the next particular draw. I might add that I do not know if I am any closer to COJO, Mr. Speaker, than the hon. gentleman who I see most Sunday afternoons on CTV talking about the Olympics.


Otto John Jelinek: Very plainly, Mr. Speaker, can the minister or the government assure the House that there will be as many prizes awarded in the Olympic lotteries in future as there are advertised, which has not been the case in the past?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think we have that assurance. Changes have been made in the method of distribution. I am not in charge of the lottery, however, I am in charge of the coins.


MANPOWER
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Manpower and Immigration been informed of the response given to Miss Danielle Pouliot, a resident of Valleyfield, Quebec, and a student at the Sherbrooke University, who had sought employment at the
Oral Questions
Empress Hotel in Victoria, British Columbia; a response which was dated March 8 and made public in the Montreal press over the weekend which stated in part, and this was underlined in red: "Unfortunately, we are not in a position to offer employment to those residing outside of Canada"?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the verbal notice the hon. member gave me of this question just before the question period. I think the most charitable explanation would be that the hotel, and I am not apologizing for them because it is their responsibility, must have made an error, because that kind of answer, of course, is both incorrrect and unacceptable.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, in view of this excellent answer of the minister, for which I thank him, will he undertake to have his officials contact the chairman of the CPR or CP Rail in order that all personnel of these companies are clearly told that Quebec is, until further notice, part of Canada and that such a display of silliness is unacceptable?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will supply me with copies of the correspondence I will be glad to take it up with Mr. Sinclair and let him know how we feel about it.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, since a high turnover rate has been usually accepted as one indication of poor morale, and in view of the fact that 33 of the 43 members of the socialization division of the British Columbia Penitentiary resigned or transferred in 1975, and 75 per cent of the custody division are in the service less than six months, will the Solicitor General not agree that the administration of the B.C. Penitentiary requires some immediate and undivided attention to bring about radical reorganization of the staff structure as well as philosophy?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the same rules apply to the B.C. Penitentiary as apply to many other penitentiaries. There are problems at the B.C. Penitentiary but I have doubts as to whether they are due to the administration of that particular penitentiary. I think this will become more clear when the reports of the two recent incidents are published.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, as an aftermath of the second hostage taking at the B.C. Penitentiary a month ago the staff unanimously voted no confidence in the administrator while the Solicitor General wrote to him expressing his confidence. Can the minister tell the House whether he still has unqualified confidence in the administrator and what steps he has taken to bring unity to the administration of the British Columbia Penitentiary?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I still stand by that statement, and I think when the hon. member sees the reports

March 29, 1976
Oral Questions
to which I referred he may be ready to change his ideas as well.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I shall put my question to his parliamentary secretary.
In view of the demonstration held by the producers of industrial milk of Canada at noon today, and bearing in mind the representations they made about their problems with regard to their product, I should like to ask, first, whether the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce works in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture with regard to cheese imports, and second, whether those imports will decrease or increase in the coming dairy year? If so, could the minister tell the House why this should be so?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I met representatives of the Agricultural Producers' Union and industrial milk producers. We reviewed the whole policy of cheese imports and I assured the producers that there will be no increase in the import of cheeses already produced in Canada, especially cheddar. In addition, we looked into the possibility of meeting at some time to study production techniques of cheeses that could be made here in Canada, so that after having established our manufacturing potential, we can adjust an import program instead of our Canadian production.
I am pleased to tell the hon. member that we are working in close co-operation with the Department of Agriculture for we have announced a cheese quota of 50 million pounds for the current year, as was announced by the Department of Agriculture. Before closing, I wish to assure the producers that the imports of any type of cheese manufactured in Canada will not be increased in the next few years.


POSSIBILITY OF PROTECTING PRODUCTION OF NEW VARIETIES OF CHEESE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the parliamentary secretary for the excellent answer he has just given me, and put the following question to him.
Considering that the dairy producers in Canada are becoming more interested in producing different kinds of cheese, would the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce help the promoters of those products and provide them with financial assistance and support by ensuring that their products will be protected on the home market and that other products will not compete with those new cheeses?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, at

present we import 210 different kinds of cheese, the majority of which are not made in Canada. In answer to the hon. member's question, I wish to point out that a meeting will be held shortly to determine manufacturing techniques in order to ascertain the cheese manufacturing potential in Canada, in view of eventually limiting the importation of those which are not made in Canada.


MINISTER'S VIEW OF RESPONSIBILITY OF TRADE AND COMMERCE FOR ENCOURAGEMENT OF CHEESE PRODUCTION
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister satisfied that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be responsible for the encouragement of cheese production in Canada, particularly when they do not know a darn thing about agriculture in the first place?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the responsible Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, with my guidance, will remain responsible.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Herbert Jarvis: That is exactly what I am concerned about, lack of guidance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: If there had been any guidance, there would have been a reduction in imports. The parliamentary secretary just gave an answer about the upcoming meetings of cheese processors with officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the minister or have his officials been invited to those meetings?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, very rarely is there a meeting involving agricultural production at which either I, my parliamentary secretary or one of my officials is not present. I would doubt in these instances that we would not be invited. I am not aware of whether or not we have been invited.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the minister's statement last week in an interview that the government intends to make the BNA Act more Canadian but that in theory and in law it would remain a British Statute, how does the minister feel that this action would constitute the repatriation of the constitution?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the article referred solely to methods of patriating the constitution. No decision has yet been taken on whether it would be patriated or how it would be patriated. One
March 29, 1976

Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS
method, of course, is to patriate it by way of passage in the U.K. parliament accompanied by a proclamation of the Governor General of Canada which would include an amending formula to the BNA Act which would make it part of the constitutional law of Canada.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, in view of the so called second option which seems to be favoured, the use of a mechanism for constitutional review similar to the failed Victoria conference, what makes the minister feel that this mechanism would be any more acceptable to the provinces now than in 1971?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I do not think it was on that aspect that a conclusion was not reached at the conference in Victoria on the constitutional charter.


FINANCE
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As the result of the recent increases in interest rates, has the government had any consultations or does the minister intend to have any consultations with the banking authorities to determine whether in fact the increase in interest rates heralds a new era with regard to the availability of farm improvement loans, because what happened in the past is that the banks have tightened up on the availability of farm improvement loans to farmers? Has the minister had any consultations or does he intend to have any to determine whether banks will continue to make these loans available as they have in the past?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have every reason to believe that the banks will continue to make farm improvement loans. There have been a number of questions in the past with respect to the lending policy in 1975. I do not have the exact figures with me at the moment, but my recollection is that the volume of loans was up rather than down during the year, as suggested by a number of questioners. Therefore we would anticipate that the farm improvement loan program will continue. The hon. member must bear in mind, of course, that under the system the banks reserve the right to choose as to who would or who would not be a good lending risk, in accordance with good banking principles.


Stanley James Korchinski: In view of the fact that statistics might prove that farmers take out more loans but do not necessarily differentiate between farm improvement loans and demand loans which they may be forced to take as a result of action which banking officials are taking with regard to the borrower who in fact has been a good risk for many, many years, can the minister differentiate between these two separate loans?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Speaking from memory, my recollection is that the figures I referred to were figures for farm improvement loans, but I could confirm that.


DATE OF HALL REPORT ON RAILWAY PENSIONS-REQUEST FOR EARLY CONSIDERATION
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the interest of many thousands of Canadian railway workers, including those retired as well as those still in service, in the report of Dr. Noel Hall on railway pensions, can the minister now say when the government expects to receive that report? Can the minister also assure the railway workers of Canada that when the report is received the government will consider it immediately?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that I have been in touch with Dr. Hall. He has indicated to me that because of the delays involved in getting all the actuarial studies done and because he wishes to have it done very thoroughly, it will not be ready until the end of April. As soon as we receive it, I can assure the hon. member we will certainly act on it as quickly as we can.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is he in a position to indicate to the House or when will he be able to tell the House the degree of cut backs of civilian employees at armed forces bases across Canada, and especially the areas where civilian employees will be affected? I am getting all kinds of rumours from my constituents that there will be a substantial cut-back in firefighters. I should like to know the score.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, this is part of the infrastructure study which should be going to cabinet within the next two weeks. As I have indicated before, I cannot prejudge how long cabinet will take to consider these recommendations.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board, who is affectionately known amongst his colleagues as the "abominable no man." I should like to ask him, in light of the fact that it is more than a year since the review committee brought in strong recommendations for a new Auditor General's act and the minister has made commitments to bring in the act which he has not kept, whether he would advise the House if this is so because too many senior civil servants have objected to the passage of the act, and will he produce and table copies of the correspond-

March 29, 1976
Oral Questions
ence ha has had with other departments indicating their unwillingness to accept this new legislation?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we have already agreed on a policy on this matter. The government's policy was adopted by the cabinet and it is being considered by the Department of Justice for the wording of the legislation. It is a pleasure for me to inform the hon. member that developing this policy took us quite a long time, but I am satisfied that the measures we proposed as to the role of the Auditor General are wholly acceptable to the Auditor General himself.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. What action is he taking in respect of milk products in animal feed products coming in from the United States illegally, in view of the fact that there is an embargo on any products containing more than 40 per cent milk solids and quite a number of them are coming across the border at present?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, a certain amount of prepared feed is allowed to come in if it has a higher percentage. I cannot remember off hand the exact amount which it is supposed to be. I am waiting for a full report which I have not received as yet, but I do not think the amount is as large as some people think it is.


QUANTITY AND SOURCE OF IMPORTED ANIMAL FEEDS
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can he tell us the quantity of feed coming through and from what sources this feed is' coming across the western Canadian borders into Canada?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I will consider that question as notice and I will give the hon. member an answer in the near future.


TRANSPORT
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that there is evidence of a deterioration in the whole transportation system from Vancouver to Halifax, I wonder if the minister would indicate the results of the discussions with the Atlantic region transportation ministers as a result of their request that the highways improvement program be implemented, and also as a result of the trans-Newfoundland corridor study with regard to rail freight and rail express service, which is deteriorating to the point of no return.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the discussions I had with the transport ministers related more to issues like support for movement of freight within the Atlantic region and possible new programs to use that freight assistance more adequately to improve development in the region. It was with the highways ministers that I had the more detailed discussions on highway strengthening, and I was presented with a fairly detailed brief. I made the point that highway strength anywhere else in the country had been rather more in response to the assistance we were giving to the Atlantic region rather than to the signing of a new program, but I did undertake a further examination of their brief before responding.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.-Mr. Guilbault.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-92, to provide for compensation for former prisoners of war and their dependants and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
March 29, 1976
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the House agree to call this bill for second reading later this day, once we have seen it?


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to make a statement on motions about House business, and perhaps I can deal with it then.


Mr. Speaker:: On the question as to when the bill should be read a second time, at the next sitting of the House is the response which ought to be recorded. However, at any time the House is at leave to give its unanimous consent to alter that arrangement.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the hon. members for Hastings (Mr. Ellis), Huron-Middlesex (Mr. McKinley), Oxford (Mr. Hal-liday), Regina East (Mr. Balfour), Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker), Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan), Battle River (Mr. Malone), Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kem-pling), Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek), has been filed with me, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, RSC, 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Ontario.
If the House agrees, I would suggest we follow past practice and print the text of the objection as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last I suggested the business of the House for the coming period, and I should now like to announce one or two alterations. It had been anticipated last Thursday that we might have reached the conclusion of the debate on Bill C-89 on Friday. We did not do so. It is anticipated that that will happen very early in this afternoon's proceedings.
I think the Chair has a judgment to make on a question raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West, but if that is disposed of and we are able to go ahead with the bill, it is my understanding that second reading will be completed, and there is an understanding that any votes on the bill will be postponed until tomorrow at three o'clock. We would then proceed to Bill S-31, Bill C-71 and Bill S-10 on which I gather the Chair has now reached a decision as to
Order Paper Questions
whether the bill is proper form to be considered; the information I have is that that is probably so. We would then be able to take up that bill. When we have concluded that business, it would be my intention to revert to second reading of Bill C-83.
I should like to have an opportunity to speak with the House leaders about the bill which has been given first reading today. We have no desire to hold up its consideration; however, it is not a simple bill and I think there should be an opportunity for hon. members to see the bill before they are asked to pass judgment on it.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the business of the House, and particularly the comments of the government House leader with respect to Bill C-89, I thought it had been made reasonably clear that so far as we were concerned the debate was finished at four o'clock last Friday. We are awaiting a ruling with respect to this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair certainly will be awaiting argument from the government side with respect to the bill and on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West. Depending on what the argument may be, hopefully, having done some study and research on the matter over the weekend, the Chair will be in a position to bring in a ruling immediately. However, that depends on the remarks made later this afternoon. That is as much guidance as the Chair is able to give at this moment.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether, having perused my remarks of Friday afternoon, I may be allowed to make an additional point. It is in clarification of what I said. I hope I will have an opportunity to do so in the course of the remarks that will be heard this afternoon.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today; 2,772, 3,188, 3,568, 3,917, 4,146, 4,149, 4,150, 4,164 to 4,166, inclusive, and 4,577.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Prime Minister use a government-owned aircraft to travel to and from Montreal on Saturday, June 7, 1975 for purposes of attending a Liberal Party function honouring the Minister of Transport and, if so (a) what is a full description of such aircraft (b) what is the cost per hour of flying time (c) what was the total cost of the trip to the taxpayer (d) where did all flights originate and terminate (e) what are the names of all persons on board the aircraft at any time during the trip?
2.	What is the (a) name (b) job designation (c) salary of each crew member?

March 29, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 478 on the subject of those who have been employed as Special Assistants by the Prime Minister's Office since April 20, 1968, what is the complete Public Service record of Mr. P. Levasseur who is shown as having been employed by the Prime Minister's Office on June 13, 1968 to January 5, 1970 (a) what positions, if any, in the Public Service did he hold prior to this position (b) to what position was he reassigned in the Public Service on January 5, 1970 (c) what was the salary involved and how long did he remain in such position (d) is he still in any way employed in the Public Service (e) has he at any time since leaving the Prime Minister's Office been employed on a contract or any basis whatsoever by the government and, if so, what are the full details (f) what are any and all connections he has had with Dorval Airport in Montreal or the new airport at Mirabel?
2.	What is a detailed description of the reasons that his employment with the Prime Minister's Office terminated on January 5,1970 and did this in any way involve connections, activities, or anything whatsoever to do with a foreign power with diplomatic representation in Ottawa?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. (a) Not
applicable, (b) P.M.7-Manager, Bureau of Co-ordination, Montreal International Airport Project, (January 5, 1970- March 31, 1970). Manager, Airport Support Programme, (April 1, 1970-August 4, 1972). Resigned from the Public Service effective August 5, 1972. (c) P.M.7, $18,089-$20,556 (5-01-70); P.M.7, $19,100-$22,900 (1-10-70); P.M.7, $19,400-$24,200 (27-09-71). (d) No. (e) See (b). (f) See (b).
2.	See replies to questions 430 and 478.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	What are the names of firms who tendered for dredging of Port Harmon in Stephenville, Newfoundland?
2.	In each case (a) what was the amount of the tender (b) who was the successful tenderer?
3.	On what date was the project completed?
4.	On what dates and in what amounts were progress payments made?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: For
Harbour Improvements (Dredging) Stephenville, Nfld. project for which contract awarded December 19, 1972: 1. J.P. Porter Co. Ltd., McNamara Corp. Ltd., Verreault Navigation Inc.
2.	(a) $0,988 per cubic yard, $1.09 per cubic yard, $1.20 per cubic yard, (b) J.P. Porter Co. Ltd.
3.	June 12, 1974.
4.	Progress payments No. 1: $88,228.40, dated 25/01/73; No. 2: $38,353.08, dated 30/03/73; No. 3: $35,796.35, dated 11/06/73; No. 4: $265,623.80, dated 12/06/73; No. 5: $236,527.20, dated 10/07/73; No. 6: $147,360.20, dated 22/08/73; No. 7: $61,009.00, dated 13/09/73; No. 8: $58,193.20, dated 10/10/73; No. 9: $35,666.80, dated 20/11/73; No. 10: $22,526.40, dated 03/01/74; No. 11: $56,316.00, dated 16/01/74; No. 12: $190,573.31, dated 17/07/74.
For dredging Stephenville, Nfld. project for which contract awarded June 1, 1972: 1. Harbour Development, J.P. Porter Co. Ltd., Marine Construction Ltd.

2.	(a) $1.38 per cubic yard, $1.47 per cubic yard, $2.97 per cubic yard, (b) Harbour Development, a division of Universal Constructors & Engineers Ltd.
3.	August 22,1972.
4.	Progress payments No. 1: $62,928.00, dated 08/09/72; No. 2: $40,860.90, dated 20/10/72.


Mr. Marshall: Has the government taken action on the recommendations of the Food Prices Review Board report on fish and fish products on (a) government assistance to the industry (b) domestic consumption (c) trade and tariffs and, if so, in what manner?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Ministry of State for Fisheries as follows: (a) On April 23, 1975, the Hon. Romeo LeBlanc announced a $50 million program leading to long term measures to strengthen Canada's fishing industry. $41 million had been authorized to provide assistance to ground-fish fishermen for producing first quality fish and to processors who produced groundfish products and maintained July 1, 1974 prices to fishermen. $10 million was authorized to help solve marketing problems encountered by other segments of the industry throughout Canada, (b) Since the beginning of 1975, the Canadian fishing industry and the federal and provincial governments have jointly undertaken a national promotional program under the title of "North Atlantic Seafood Association" aimed at increasing the consumption of fish in Canada. This program is initially of three years duration. The Consumer Services Division, Fisheries and Marine Service of the Department of the Environment has strengthened its programs, subject to budgetary constraints, aimed at educating Canadian seafood influentials in order to promote greater seafood awareness among consumers and the merits of specific types of seafood in diets, (c) The current GATT Multilateral Trade Negotiations (MTN) provide Canada with an excellent opportunity to improve access to world markets for Canadian fish and fish products. In developing our position in the MTN on these products we are, of course, taking into account the views of the Canadian fishing industry and Provincial Governments. We are being particularly mindful of Canada's general objective in the MTN of increasing processing prior to export where this is economically viable through the reduction of foreign trade impediments to more processed products.


Mr. Matte: 1.	From 1974 to date, how many employees have worked annually for the Department of National Revenue in Ottawa?
2.	How many are (a) French speaking (b) English speaking (c) bilingual?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
Taxation: As of July 1975: 2,550; As of December 1975: 2,811; As of February 1976: 2,817. Customs and Excise: As of July 1975: 1,272; As of December 1975: 1,358; As of February 1976: 1,364.
March 29, 1976

2. Taxation	(a)	(b)	(c)As of July 1975	192	1615	743As of December 1975	204	1714	893As of February 1976	200	1695	922Customs and Excise	As of July 1975	59	804	409As of December 1975	56	818	484As of February 1976	55	806	503
Note: Statistics for term employees at the Taxation Data Centre are not included in this reply. See our answer to Question No. 4,150. Figures are only available on a monthly and not an accumulative basis. Records prior to July 1975 were not kept in such a way as to enable us to give a complete reply to this question.


Mr. McKinnon: With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,782, on what dates will the (a) first (b) final TOW weapon system be issued to Armed Forces troops?


James Armstrong Richardson: (a) and (b). The following table outlines initial and final delivery dates by components.
Component
Launchers Missiles Field Test Sets
Initial
Delivery
August 76 April 76 December 75
Final
Delivery
June 77 June 77 October 77


Mr. Matte: 1.	Did the Taxation Data Centre employ additional staff from January to June for each year 1973 to 1976 and, if so, how many?
2.	How many were (a) French speaking (b) English speaking (c) bilingual?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1.
Yes. Numbers of additional term staff employed at the Taxation Data Centre in the years 1973 to 1976 were as follows: 1973, 11,345 temporary employees were hired but at no time did the total number of temporary staff on strength exceed 4,852. The difference represents turnover throughout the year. 1974, 11,783 temporary employees were hired. Peak temporary staff did not exceed 6,921. 1975, 10,098 temporary employees were hired. Peak temporary staff did not exceed 6,589. Information for 1976 is not available as all temporary employees have not yet been hired.
2. This information is not available from any source which would enable the Department to extract readily and
Order Paper Questions
without inordinate work, time and cost details of the linguistic status of term employees at the Data Centre. Because the Data Centre has been temporarily exempted by Treasury Board, until decentralization of the Data Centre is complete, from the requirement that incumbents appointed to term positions must meet the linguistic standards of their position, temporary employees at the Data Centre are not therefore recorded in the Official Languages Information System. (OLIS)


Mr. Hnatyshyn: What is the number of individuals committed to the Quebec Regional Psychiatric Centre by Provincial Orders in Council and upon discharge, how many are (a) discharged to another institution (b) discharged to a residential centre (c) released upon their own recognizance on parole?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: What is the number of individuals committed to the Ontario Regional Psychiatric Centre by Provincial Orders in Council and upon discharge, how many are (a) discharged to another institution (b) discharged to a residential centre (c) released upon their own recognizance on parole?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: What is the number of individuals committed to the Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre by Provincial Orders in Council and upon discharge, how many are (a) discharged to another institution (b) discharged to a residential centre (c) released upon their own recognizance on parole?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Two. (a) to (c) Nil.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence, as part of the Federal Assistance Programme to municipalities, grant loans for school construction or other projects in the Constituency of Champlain and, if so, in what amount?
2.	What was (a) the name of the project (b) the municipality involved (c) the amount of the grant?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.

March 29, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if questions No. 3,794 and 3,903 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On January 1, 1973 and January 1, 1975, by department, departmental corporation and agency corporation, what was the total number of employees?
2.	For the same dates, by department or corporation, how many employees were located in the Ottawa-Hull capital area?
3.	For the same dates, by department or corporation, how many employees were located outside of the Ottawa-Hull capital area and in what locations?
Return tabled.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	How many applications for loans were received by the Farm Credit Corporation from the Province of Newfoundland in (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (f) 1975 and, in each case, how many were (i) approved (ii) denied (iii) received from those under 35 years of age?
2.	By federal district, what is the number of employees in the Province of Newfoundland under the Department of Agriculture?
3.	What federal facilities, buildings, etc. are under the Department of Agriculture in the Province of Newfoundland?
4.	What is the breakdown of funding under the Department of Agriculture, its agencies and DREE, to the Province of Newfoundland for (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (f) 1975?
5.	By product, what are the statistics showing agricultural production in the Province of Newfoundland for (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (f) 1975?
6.	On what date was the Farm Credit Corporation office opened in Newfoundland and what is the staff complement?
7.	Since the opening of the office, how many applications were received in 1975 compared to the same months in 1974?
8.	On what dates did officials of the Farm Credit Corporation visit the west coast of Newfoundland?
Return tabled.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 3,984?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Harquail: 1.	Did the Prime Minister receive a request from Her Majesty the Queen for approval of the appointment of the Right Honourable Member for Prince Albert to the Company of Companions of Honour?
2.	Did the Prime Minister recommend and approve the appointment?


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no. The answer to the second part is yes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, March 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-89, to amend the Anti-Inflation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: When this bill was last before the House, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) raised a point of order. It was indicated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais) that they would like an opportunity to consider the matter. Indeed, the Chair was seeking an opportunity to consider the matter in order, first, that argument on the other side of the question might be presented and, of course, that the Chair would have time to examine the matter to see whether the point of order was in fact valid. It might be appropriate at this time if the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council made a contribution to the argument, or the Minister of Finance, as the case may be. Then we could hear the hon. member for Edmonton West, and then perhaps I would try to make a decision.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in due course will I have an opportunity to reply to the reply?


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose, in fairness the hon. member for Edmonton West who seeks to clarify something he said on Friday last, he might conclude remarks.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I think this might help clear up the situation. The question arises concerning the point I raised about the power of the Minister of Finance to enter into an agreement to disperse funds paid into the consolidated revenue fund. This question arises out of this particular bill and has reference to Bill C-73. This matter was not considered by the House, it was not raised and Bill C-73 has been passed by parliament. However, I want to point out that the agreement
March 29, 1976

with the province of Ontario signed by the Minister of Finance was tabled only in mid-January after the bill had been passed. Parliament had no opportunity to determine what kind of model agreement could be entered into by the minister. There is nothing in Bill C-73 which applies to the share of any revenue.
Now I come back. Does parliament at this stage have the opportunity to authorize the minister to enter into such an agreement providing for the payment out? There is no doubt the minister is empowered under the bill to enter into an agreement with a province with regard to the anti-inflation measure, but the minister has no power whatsoever to pay out moneys under any formula, to any province, out of the consolidated revenue fund.
If that power is to exist, it must come by way of a recommendation from His Excellency. That was not provided for in the recommendation to Bill C-73. I do not care whether the minister claims he has power under Bill C-73. There is nothing in the recommendations concerning payment of the funds to a province.
Does this bill relate at all? Yes. First of all, this is a bill to amend the Anti-Inflation Act. Second, Bill C-89 has direct reference to section 4 of the Anti-Inflation Act, Bill C-73. There is, under section 4 of the Anti-Inflation Act, the power to enter into agreements. I refer to page 6 of Bill C-73, particularly to section 4(3). May I say I am not relying upon the first minor amendment that appears in the present bill. However, let us look at clause 6 of this particular bill which amends section 20 of the Anti-Inflation Act. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that there we are right into the heart of the matter. Section 20(4) of Bill C-73, the Anti-Inflation Act, provides:
Where a person has contravened the guidelines by paying or crediting as compensation in the course of a business or as a dividend, an amount that exceeds the amount that he was, under the guidelines authorized to so pay or credit, the administrator may, if he is not satisfied that there are circumstances that, based on the particular facts of the situation, justify the person in so contravening the guidelines, make such order as he deems appropriate to accomplish either or both of the following objectives:
Then paragraph (b) states:
-where no order has been made by him pursuant to subsection (5) arising out of the same circumstances, to require the person to pay to Her Majesty in right of Canada or to withhold out of subsequent payments or credits of a like nature and pay to Her Majesty in right of Canada, an amount stated in the order equal to the whole or any portion of the excess payment or credit as estimated by the administrator.
That is the amount required to be paid to the government of Canada under the order of the administrator. Then there is the model agreement signed by the minister with the province which takes the amount paid under the order of the administrator and divides it with the province on some formula. This formula, this amendment in Bill C-89 is directly connected with that matter. As a matter of fact, section 20(4) (b) is repealed, and in addition sections 20(5) (b), 29(6) and 20(7) are repealed and replaced by sections of clause 6 in Bill C-89. It is precisely under these subparagraphs that the administrator's orders are made.
I ask: How can there be any greater and more direct connection between the two bills? Therefore, it is at this point there should be in the amending bill a provision that any moneys paid to the account of Her Majesty pursuant to
Anti-Inflation Act
such an order may be divided between the government of Canada and a province according to whatever agreements exists. For that there would have to be a recommendation from His Excellency. That is precisely the point I make. There is no recommendation. There is no power to share those moneys with a province under the amendments contained in Bill C-89 which amends Bill C-73. I think I have established the argument to make the connection between Bill C-89 and Bill C-73.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It may not be necessary for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) to contribute to the point. As I understand the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), whenever an agreement is made between the federal government and the Minister of Finance with a province, it may be without statutory authorization.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No.


Mr. Speaker:: If I understand the point correctly, it might have been authorized in Bill C-73, but in any case it is not dealt with in Bill C-89. The hon. member for Edmonton West, if I understand his point correctly, indicates that the provisions he has just referred to, which I have read very carefully, do not authorize the establishment of any agreement for the sharing of revenue.
It is a matter of fact. Surely, therefore, since they do not propose to do such a thing, no recommendation is required in the statute. The point raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West, that the purported agreement is without statutory foundation, may be valid. The argument that there is no statutory foundation for it in Bill C-73 and, therefore, that there cannot be any foundation for it in the amendments, may be valid; I do not know. Yet the amendments contained in Bill C-89 do not in any way touch on provisions which would relate to any such agreement. I have read these provisions carefully. I would welcome it if the hon. member for Edmonton West could indicate any instance in which such agreements are affected and, if so, in what way they are affected by this particular statute so as to require the royal recommendation.
The hon. member argues that if this statute proposed authorization for the entering into of such agreements, it would require the royal recommendation. In fact, it does not do that and the act does not do that. However, if it were proposed that it should do so, a royal recommendation would have to accompany the act.
I do not have to judge whether the entering into of agreements with provinces is, first, authorized by statutes which in turn must be accompanied by a royal recommendation, but I have to decide, first, if Bill C-89 concerns itself with those agreements; and, if so, does it concern itself in such a way as to require the royal recommendation? It seems to me, on the argument advanced so far, that the answer to the first question is no. Therefore, the answer to the second question does not apply.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect-


Mr. Speaker:: With the greatest respect, I am ready to hear the hon. member on that point.

March 29, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, section 4 of Bill C-73, the original act, without question empowers the minister to enter into agreements with the provinces but does not authorize the minister to enter into an agreement to pay to a province funds paid into the consolidated revenue fund. Bill C-73 did not provide that. Paragraph 9 of the model agreement the Minister of Finance filed in January says as follows:
Payments to the province: Canada hereby agrees, with respect to the aggregate amount paid to Her Majesty in right of Canada pursuant to any order made by the national administrator under sections 20 and 22 of the federal act against a person in the provincial public sector, to pay to the province an amount equal to such part of that amount as may be determined on the basis of a formula to be agreed upon between Canada and the province.
I referred to that paragraph of the model agreement last Friday. Under section 20 of Bill C-73, the administrator is to make orders directing those payments to the government of Canada. I am referring to payments referred to in paragraph 9 of the model agreement. But, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-89 amends section 20. Actually, it deletes whole sections which refer to those orders and it substitutes new sections. Those are to be the orders under which moneys are paid into the coffers of the government of Canada. Therefore, if money is to be paid in under Bill C-89 because that will be the applicable law, the money will be paid into the coffers of the government of Canada in accordance with the terms of the amended sections of the act which will be in force after the passage of Bill C-89. Surely there cannot be any payment out unless there is authority.
Bill C-89 goes to the very heart of Bill C-73 in amending the powers of the administrator. Once this bill passes, if it does pass, the administrator's orders will be governed by the amendments the House is now considering. They will be governed by the provisions of Bill C-89, not of Bill C-73. With the greatest respect, I cannot see how there can be any argument that Bill C-89 is tied integrally to Bill C-73. I do not see how any payment to a province of moneys paid under an order made pursuant to the provisions of the bill now before the House would not require the royal recommendation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before I call on the Minister of Finance, may I say this. It seems to me that the hon. member for Edmonton West says that any bill which seeks to amend a statute which was accompanied by a royal recommendation must also be accompanied by a royal recommendation whether or not it amends those provisions of the original statute which required the royal recommendation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, no, with respect.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there is no argument as to whether or not both Bill C-73 and Bill C-89 authorize any payments out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purposes contained in the agreement. The provisions of both Bill C-73 and Bill C-89 would authorize payment into the consolidated revenue fund of funds which might be assessed against some person as a result of a provincial, public sector agreement. That would authorize payment into the consolidated revenue fund but not out. The critical point to be understood is this: the agreement with Ontario or the other provinces

referred to by the hon. gentleman do not purport to be agreements to pay out to the provinces. At this point there is no appropriation of funds for that purpose. The agreements are merely agreements to enter into negotiations for establishing a formula which might be followed if any payments of this kind are to be shared with a province. In other words, it is an agreement to enter into an agreement.
Various things would need to happen if there were such negotiations. If the administrator ordered payments to be made into the consolidated revenue fund, and if there were negotiations between the government of Ontario and the government of Canada about the division of such payments, then I, as Minister of Finance, would have to bring before parliament an appropriation act to appropriate such part of the consolidated revenue fund as might be necessary to cover the payment. In other words, I would have to bring forward legislation with the imprimatur of the royal recommendation in order to make such payment out. As you said, Mr. Speaker, neither Bill C-73 nor Bill C-89 authorize such payments out. Indeed, the agreement itself is only an undertaking to enter into discussions to negotiate such a formula if such a payment should be made.
On the broader basis, this seems to me the sensible way of going about it. Obviously, a considerable process of negotiation will need to be embarked upon. Until we know what the amount is to be, it makes no sense to bring in an appropriation bill in advance.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But you agree to pay.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, amounts to be
negotiated.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. During the weekend I tried to consider carefully the argument advanced by the hon. member for Edmonton West. I gave him an opportunity to clarify today and I questioned him today about the matter of primary concern to the Chair. During the weekend I examined the sections to which the hon. member for Edmonton West referred and read them today as he was referring to them. The question the Chair must decide is much less complicated than the questions which have been raised in argument, and it is this: When does a bill which comes before the House require a royal recommendation? A royal recommendation is required when the government seeks to introduce a statute which would provide the government with power to draw upon the revenues. I must find that the provisions of any statute, with respect to which it is argued that the royal recommendation is necessary, contain that possibility.
I have examined carefully Bill C-89 which proposes to amend Bill C-73 and listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Edmonton West. I do not see, in the bills referred to, that kind of power which would reside in the government as a result of passage of the statute. Whether or not it would reside in Bill C-89 is an argument which should have been raised in the past.
Whether or not the model agreement tabled and referred to by the hon. member for Edmonton West is an agreement without statutory authority is another matter. It is an interesting and valuable argument. But there are other remedies. That argument is not, essentially, an attack on Bill C-89. It may be an attack on the government's position
March 29, 1976

and authority vis-a-vis that particular agreement or its power to enter into an agreement specifically with a province along the lines of the model agreement.
If I may speak on the specific provisions of Bill C-89, I cannot find that the bill ought to be impeded at this stage by an insistence on the royal recommendation accompanying any provisions which I have been able to examine and study during the weekend. I therefore find that the bill is procedurally acceptable at this point.
I believe the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) had the floor when this matter was last debated on Friday.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on Bill C-89. I do not know whether I am out of order but I am pleased to have this opportunity because last Friday, while we heard some ten members speak on this bill, we had no opportunity to do so. I do not want to blame the Chair, but I think it is quite reasonable that we have our turn today. Besides, my colleague the member for Bellechasse was supposed to speak on Friday, but as the opportunity was not given him, I hope we shall have a few minutes to express our view today.
Again a few moments ago I heard hon. members discussing some legal points. What we understand about this matter of legality is always the same. I even heard Mr. Speaker say that even if there has been a royal recommendation, the government can do anything, it can act as it sees fit. It is the same thing when we approve a bill. We kill ourselves trying to make the bill as clear as possible and to propose better amendments. But at the end of the bill there is a small line which kills everything else and allows the minister to use the bill as he pleases. I think that this somewhat sums up this afternoon's discussion. Moreover, it is the same with all our bills. This is why I do not want to miss this opportunity, the second reading debate of Bill C-89 to amend Bill C-73 which established the Anti-Inflation Board.
Only four months after, the government feels the need to amend its Anti-Inflation Act whose lack of precision surprised everybody. Panic-stricken by the vertiginous price escalation which occurred these last three years, the best the government could do was to draft Bill C-73 in a hurry not to lose face.
Of course, it was hard for the Prime Minister after his 1974 campaign to control prices and wages. The government did not want to make a fool of itself by accepting the temporary freeze proposed by the Progressive Conservatives during the last election campaign. That is why they brought in this strange so-called control legislation which in fact only controls the workers' wages. Today, they move an amendment which does not actually change much in the incomes of wages earners. Bill C-89 will enable at least workers to appeal the decision of the AIB. In the AntiInflation Act of December 1975, only the party who felt aggrieved by a decision of the board could appeal. As the main responsibility for wages lay on the employer, the latter could appeal the commissioner's ruling. The best example is the case of the Irving workers.
Anti-Inflation Act
The board fined the paper company for signing an agreement with its employees exceeding the guidelines authorized by the board. The company welcomed the fine because that board decision allowed it to save millions of dollars in the years to come. But the workers saw their wages cut without even being able to protest, whereas this amendment would at least allow them to appeal against the AIB's rulings. In brief, if they are not satisfied with the ruling, they will at least be able to complain loudly about injustice, even though nothing will be changed, Mr. Speaker.
Now I take to witness the remarks of the Prime Minister who, following the demonstration staged by more than 15,000 CLC members on Parliament Hill on Monday, March 22, 1976, is reported to have said that it was all useless.
Labour was right in stating that, as days pass by, inequalities become ever more obvious. When the government launched its anti-inflation program last fall, everyone without exception expected a firm and universal policy. We even expected the right hon. Prime Minister to take as a basis the temporary freezing advocated by the Conservatives during the last electoral campaign.
It is true that the Liberals took a stand against freezing prices and salaries but the government could even have improved upon that freeze but it was afraid to lose face among its own supporters. That is why it could not afford to be realistic. So, finally, it gave birth to this partial freezing, which is so partial indeed that it cannot even be considered as such except by the wage earners.
If the government had been in earnest, it would have, first of all, controlled its own expenses by freezing its own budget. I think this is the first control which was expected in Canada: the freezing of the federal government's budget.
Some will say that expenditures had to be increased in certain areas. Yes, in certain areas, but that is precisely what is rediculous, Mr. Speaker. The expenditures in some of those areas have been reduced, for example, medicare assistance to the provinces. Expenditures have been reduced in essential areas and increased in areas where they never should have been. For instance, I have already mentioned in the House the millions of dollars appropriated by the federal government for the opening or the construction of new income tax offices in every area so as to increase the number of inspectors who will check up on everyone in order to collect income tax or other charges. The government is ready to vote millions of dollars to harass people and to take what little is left of their savings.
When I say that expenditures in some areas should have been frozen, this is one where they should have been frozen until the economy recovers. I believe that we could have kept income tax collectors in their present offices. They have quite enough room to check on every workers. Let nobody tell me that this is to serve the people better, Mr. Speaker. They want to spy on the people and check into the family budget. Today the government starts by accepting a budgetary increase of 20 per cent while asking the workers to limit themselves to an increase of 10 per cent the first year, 8 per cent the second year and 6 per cent the third year. The government is well aware that the

March 29, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
inflation rate will be above 12 per cent in 1976, but it is still freezing the salary increase of the small wage-earner at 10 per cent. No wonder therefore if today the whole labour movement is waging an open war against the anti-inflation legislation.
In fact, the unions are not against a complete and temporary freeze of government revenue and expenditures, and even a wage freeze, provided that the freeze be universal and in discriminate. Then, the government should sit down with representatives of the federal and the provincial governments, representatives of the employers and of the employees, and look fully into the situation together in order to find a solution.
Mr. Speaker, this would be acting in a realistic way, as should be the case toward other groups and other men. People are made to discuss and not to fight each other all year round. We will not revive our national economy if we stand apart and hold our neighbour as an enemy. This is no longer the time to behave as champions and play the political game for one's group's sake. Sure enough, the easiest way for the government to rule is to create division among the groups, to provoke national and international strifes, disputes between the provinces, the groups, the blue and white-collar workers, and to make everybody stand up against each other so that it can rule as a master.
That is how we are governed today. Mr. Speaker, if the government does not finally give serious thought to the security and welfare of the entire population, then the disastrous situation we know today will persist. Although all this wrangling, all those fights were politically useful to the government by maintaining it in power, I think it would be dishonest to keep up this masquerade any longer.
And I agree with the unions when they say that the present government has a double standard policy, that we are heading towards authoritarianism, for this may be how a dictator rules. It seems to me that this may be the new society we hear so much about these days, the new society advocated everywhere.
And in support of my comments, Mr. Speaker, here is an excerpt from the CLC brief to the government concerning the government's double standard policy. I quote Le Devoir of March 23:
When a union has managed in its last agreement to keep ahead of the consumer price index and secure for its members a 2 per cent productivity premium, those grains can be cancelled in the new agreement by the so-called experience adjustment factor. On the other hand, a corporation which has made excessive profits during the five years prior to October 14, 1975 is allowed to maintain its profits at 95 per cent of that level. There is no experience adjustment factor in the case of profits.
If inflation exceeds the increase allowed under the guidelines for the first year, we are prevented from making up for our losses before the second year of our contract. On the other hand, any cost increase by a corporation is immediately reflected in a price increase; in other words, the corporation does as it always does.
The Anti-Inflation Act has no effect whatsoever on large corporations. And then, further down, the union members' brief says:


TOWARD AUTHORITARIANISM
[Stage Direction]
More than that; they policy applied through your anti-inflation program, as can be seen from what is happening and the prevailing mood, is leading our country straight down the road to authoritarianism. Act C-73 and its regulations are turning every employer into an agent responsible for imposing the will of the State upon the workers and their unions.

That is authoritarianism, Mr. Speaker. Someone on the other side said that the unions are experts in authoritarianism. I believe that, in this regard, they have the best example right here with this government. And if we are going on with this kind of dictatorship, I repeat what I said previously, we will be introducing more and more disorders in our society, and among social groups and tomorrow we will be faced with total anarchy unless the government wakes up in time.
We must hope-and I am looking forward to it with all my heart-that the government will become aware of these facts and stop being the servant of financial groups. It is a fact that it was elected by them, that it is here for them but if the government is sincere or wishes to restore the peace that everybody expects in this country, it should momentarily forget financiers and financial interests and devote itself for a while to social concerns.
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I think the House is extending, as it is difficult to see each other now. In any event, I would like to say a few words about this bill. Last Friday I wanted to make a few comments.
Mr. Speaker, once more I would like to be the spokesman for low and average income earners, such as workers in general and farmers who have irregular incomes and who too often have to operate at a loss for certain productions. When this anti-inflation policy was announced, I declared that it was impossible to support current government measures because low income earners would be most affected and big corporations would go on making profits and even too often, excessive profits. We now have the evidence which has been published in newspapers that Dominion stores' profits have risen by 28 per cent since the announcement of the anti-inflation policy, which means that unfortunately the projections I made at the time have been proven right.
I said that these measures would contribute to pertur-bate the social climate in our country. The ensuing events have shown I was right once again, as we can see by the various outbreaks of opposition that this law has provoked all across Canada. We only have to hear the sometimes violent words uttered by those who feel they are victims of these controls. I do not approve of violence nor of violent words, but when there are groups who feel their rights have not been respected and that they are being done an injustice, the violence of their reaction is understandable.
Let us have a look at the disputes which oppose the Ontario and Quebec governments to the public service employees and related categories. We see that the situation is in a state of complete disorganization which is likely to affect the students considerably: in Quebec the school year is on the verge of being a complete failure because of a dispute concerning money. In each news bulletin from my province we hear of schools which are closed, either by the school boards, or for study sessions, or because there is no more transportation or because children refuse to go to school or are going when there is no authority to let them get into the buildings. We are in a complete state of chaos. I do hope that these conditions will be corrected in any event but meanwhile, people who are concerned are worried to see the late development of these events in our country.
March 29, 1976

The Trudeau government does not deal with the cause of the evil; on the contrary, it attempts to lessen the effects of the true cause with the expectation that our corrupted economic system will survive and let the millionaire club continue to control the economic and political life of our country. I hope that such are not the objectives aimed at, but anyhow such are the results. They are rich Canadians who know that our economic system is furthering the interests of a minority of financiers despite what is suggested by some politicians who have become stooges and who quite often maintain that our economic system enables many Canadians to be affluent.
Those great characters, most of them unknown to all nevertheless rule the economic life of the country. Indeed they control our financial institutions. They steer our economy from deflation to inflation periods. In this connection, it would be beneficial to read over again the remarks of His Holiness Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical on economic and social problems published in 1931. I will quote a very interesting excerpt;
It was in 1931, but the situation remains the same in 1976.
"What first strikes us nowadays is not only the concentration of wealth but the building up of a huge power, a discretionary economic power, in the hands of a small group of men who are not usually the owners but just act as trustees and managers of the capital they administer as they wish. This power is particularly great among those who, holders and absolute masters of money, govern credit and grant it at their discretion. In so doing, they somehow distribute its blood to the economic body whose life depends on them, so that without their consent, no one can any longer breathe."
Mr. Speaker, let us ask one of these men, whose power has become greater than all the governments of Canada, how much he is worth in dollars and cents. This would amount to asking of these people to tell us in what position he prefers to make love. He surely has a preference but will not dare tell us and will then answer in the same way.
Our debt-credit system for the financing of the public sector is obsolete and constitutes one of the main causes of inflation and unemployment. That is why Bill C-89 is now before us, in an attempt to find solutions to such situations. It costs too much to this government, to provincial and municipal governments to finance public utilities. The more we go ahead, the deeper we plunge into the abyss; the more we run into debts, the more it costs to pay the interests on these public debts. The more taxes we levy, the less money the government has to do something else, to proceed with the building of piers and merchant marine vessels, and with the construction of public buildings which are needed by the people.
For instance, let us take the Jacques Cartier bridge in Montreal whose initial cost Canadians have paid up to now three times in interests alone, and the capital has still to be paid back. Let us look, in the province of Quebec, at the James Bay. This project is supposed to cost $12 billion, of which $6 billion are in interests alone. It is disgusting, Mr. Speaker, to see how money-capital is so well rewarded and how we fail to reward work-capital.
Anti-Inflation Act
Again this year, the most important item in the federal budget is the debt service: $4 billion a year in interests. If this is not inflation, I wonder when we are going to find a real example of it. Again last week, the Bank of Canada increased the bank rate from 9 to 9'A per cent, which will enable the banks to increase once more their interest rates. The burden will fall therefore on borrowers, which will result in an increase in operating costs.
And as a consequential effect, prices will rise further. In the end, once more, consumers will have to shoulder this price increase due to increased interest rates. In that regard, the government is doing nothing. I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) whether the Governor of the Bank of Canada consulted with him last week before authorizing an increase in the discount rate of 'A per cent. If we are really serious about fighting inflation, we will have to ask each and everyone and every organization in Canada to do their share and not only ask for it, but require it. We require restraints from labour but we let the door wide open to big business, charted banks and multinationals.
According to a press report, the minister announced that he "was giving up the idea of a special tax on export profits"-I read that in La Presse and I quote:
The Federal government has just provided organized labour with a new opportunity to howl at the inequity of the anti-inflation program.
Yielding to pressures that have been building up since the program was announced last October, the Cabinet has decided not to implement its planned 100 per cent tax on part of the export profits of Canadian businesses. Instead, the Anti-Inflation Board will merely monitor the profits of export companies and the way such profits are reinvested.
In other words, export companies may, theoretically make unlimited profits on their export market transactions, without being bothered by Mr. Pepin's Board. On the other hand, their Canadian employees will not be allowed to share this manna: they will remain subject to wage controls, which are more than ever the basis of the anti-inflation program.
Those are, Mr. Speaker, two examples which show that the anti-inflation legislation and regulations are not really implemented in all fairness with repect to every Canadian, whatever his occupation in society.
With regard to the interest rate increase, the governor of the Bank of Canada has stated that it was intended to slow down the rate of growth of the money supply. The authorities of our central bank intend thus to maintain a rigid credit policy. This may surprise financial quarters who would expect, to some extent, a lowering of the rate that serves as a barometer for money rental in Canada.
Even financiers do not agree. How can one give good advice to the government on its financial policy, on its economic policy, that might ensure greater well-being of the people and allow low-income workers to upgrade their confidence not only in Canada but in the government that manages the affairs of this country?
Last week, the right hon. Prime Minister, in reply to a question I raised in the House, asked me whether the hon. member had a formula that would enable the government to finance the public sector more adequately. I took good note of his question and I want to advise him that there is a formula which, to my mind, would deserve to be tried out and which certainly could not give worse results than the ones that are advocated and applied by this government.
12232

March 29, 1976
Anti-Inflation Act
Mr. Speaker, there is a way the government can raise the standard of living of all Canadians, without increasing anything at all, without taking anything from anyone, without paralyzing the economy, without bringing about inflation or deflation. And that would be to have public capital financed by means of interest-free credit advances, issued by the bank that belongs to all Canadians, known as the Bank of Canada. The government would now have a wonderful opportunity of applying that policy and I mean with regard to the construction of the building at the corner of Wellington and Bank that will house the offices of the Bank of Canada.
This will be quite an experience; it is so close to this Parliament and so if the experience is successful, as I am convinced it will be, all hon. members will have a chance to visit our bank, our institution in our own building, paid by us and not financed by New York financiers, who are leading New York City to bankruptcy.
Such a measure would result in lower taxes, those taxes which the government collects to pay the interest on the public debt or the borrowings he makes, and would correspondingly increase the money supply available to consumers to buy the goods they need. Although it is true that Social Crediters do not find much support for their ideas on the setting up of a national dividend or a minimum guaranteed annual income, some people on the other hand are in favour of the creation of new interest-free credit to finance public capital.
An economist named Theobald considered this problem of government financing. He came to the conclusion arrived at by the members of the Social Credit Party a long time ago, namely the financing of public capital through new interest-free credits. This economist goes on to say, and I quote:
A government has three methods of obtaining the funds necessary to meet its obligations. First they can tax the people and the institutions to get possession of their money...
-this is the method used in Canada-
... Secondly, they can borrow money from the people and the institutions and pay interest on the borrowings. Thirdly, they can simply create money and use the funds created for their purchases.
This is the formula we advocate for public financing of long-term capital expenditures. I continue:
One thing everybody agreed on in the years 1936 was that the government should never create money. This opposition to the creation of money was based on the belief that the demand for goods should always equal supply as long as the government did not interfere with economy. Another economist, Keynes, destroyed this belief by demonstrating that demand and supply were not necessarily always equal in wealthy countries.
Keynes, the economist, inspired many governments in the last years.
There are several methods to fill the gap between supply and demand. It would be possible, Mr. Speaker, to lower the supply level without affecting materially the demand by paying the same salary for shorter hours. It would then be possible to increase the demand by telling the people that more gooods are necessary for a decent life and a better standard of living.

This government could simply fill the gap between the actual and potential production by building wharves, clearing slums, controlling pollution because untapped ressources would be found in the economy. The government would not have to raise its revenues through taxes and borrowings; money could be simply created out of additional funds without imposing any inflation since, by definition, there would be no shortage of goods.
This is, Mr. Speaker, the testimony of American economist Robert Theobald who thinks it is possible to democratize money and use new interest-free credits for the development and capital goods of our country. To this end, I suggest that the government use the Anti-Inflation Board to educate the people on the government financing system and see to it to make everyone understand the simple facts and the functions of money, whether it be coins, paper money or bank credits under various forms.
This does not mean that endless studies on economic and monetary policies are absolutely necessary; it means that everybody should be able to understand, first, that money is a means of exchange, a payment method in itself: it is without any value and does not cost anything. Intrinsically, it has no value at all. Second, the control and regularization of the volume of money required must be materially improved to meet the needs of modern progress and of change due to an economy of capitalization.
In the past few years, there are projects under way with a view to improving energy resources, extending the heritage, improving shipping and port facilities, and finally all public utilities needed by the Canadian people. All these projects would become important assets for society and would furthermore create a great number of jobs. These projects would cost hundreds of million dollars, but it would be less than nothing compared to the advantages for the Canadian people. It would be applying, I think, Keynes' theory who advocated so strongly the fact of making financially possible what is physically workable.
But in order to do so, we should set up a national credit bureau which would provide the necessary funds for the production of goods and services which would benefit the whole of society. This would create jobs as long as natural ressources remain plentiful. In a peace time free society the over supply of labour cannot be forced into various occupations but with education, retraining, good wages and proper housing, it can be enticed into accepting other jobs. We must remember that the gross national product can and should be increased if we wish to ensure a reasonable standard of living for all Canadians.
Never before, Mr. Speaker, has our ability to produce, to move and to communicate been as great as it is now, yet this government's demands and requests that we tighten our belts are inevitably conducive to controls that producers impose on themselves in various ways. Let us consider, for instance, the case of the dairy producers who must necessarily decrease their production if they do not want to be penalized.
As a matter of fact, representations were made today asking the government to take steps to prevent that their annual revenues be decreased by 19 per cent compared with last year's. All those Canadians who participated today in the demonstration on Parliament Hill do not ask
March 29, 1976

for the impossible, they only want that justice be done. They do not want charity.
If the government in its wisdom decides before Wednesday to reduce the production quotas of industrial milk producers, it has in turn to increase the subsidies to allow them to get at least the same revenue as last year's. Generally the government's anti-inflation legislation provides for a 10 per cent increase in the wage earners' revenues and, as regards this group of Canadians called industrial milk producers, if the policy is not improved within two days, those producers will suffer, in 1976-77, a decrease of about 19 per cent in their revenues.
Those figures are proven by accurate calculations of production costs, operation costs, sale prices and revenues that may be obtained by the operators. I therefore believe the government should show some of its teeth to those neglecting to pay their taxes. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) recently answered a question under my name on the Order Paper. He informed us that multinational and national corporations had income tax arrears in the order of $223 million as of March 31, 1975, on which they pay 6 per cent interest. There is no mention of whether they pay a penalty as do private taxpayers who are penalized for late filing. And if income tax officers in the Department of National Revenue so decide, because they have every power, even under Section 152 (7) of the Income Tax Act which provides, and this I checked once more yesterday to answer a taxpayer, even when returns are filed in time, even if the taxpayer acted in good faith; if the tax officer decides not to accept his figures and assess him as he is empowered by the act, the statute allows them to blow hot and cold. I feel this is utterly unfair.
I would urge the government to show some firmness in respect of those big corporations neglecting to pay their taxes in time, and give part of the taxes so recouped to the Canadian Milk Board so that industrial milk producers may remain in business and hope to go on serving the people of Canada. I feel that within two days the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) together with his colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and other members of cabinet should review that policy, in all fairness to industrial milk producers. I believe it is in the interest of every Canadian that the policy be more adequate and take into better account the representations by industrial milk producers.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I feel Bill C-89 does not include many significant improvements to the Anti-Inflation Act. True, some provision was made for appeal in certain circumstances, but basically the large organizations will still be all powerful. They will go on doing as they wish, because clearly accounting procedures give them all kinds of legal ways to come down with balance sheets that fill their needs and allow them to go around the act, to make more profits notwithstanding anti-inflation legislation such as the one passed in Parliament in December.
I hope the government will take heed of representations by hon. members in this House. I realize that my representations on behalf of low or middle income people have probably less weight than those made by persons contributing generously to election funds, but nevertheless I
Quarantine Act
think it is my duty and that of all hon. members to stand for something which, in my opinion is a just cause.
And if after a while we realize that these people take advantage of their representives or of the situation, it would still be time to come up with another law to bring them back to their senses. But so far I admit that this Anti-Inflation Act does not treat fairly low income earners and does not provide sufficient enforcement to make large commercial organizations or big corporations realize that we in this country are faced with a crucial issue which we must straighten out all together, that is inflation.
If we succeed in putting our economy back on its feet, I hope we shall be able to allow our workers, the labour force of Canada, to work and earn a living. If the government and the cabinet really want to fight inflation, we shall have to use a lot of money to put everyone to work, to increase our gross national product so that we may say in the very near future: The gross national product has increased, unemployment is down. If we can really say those things honestly, we shall be able to say that we have done something to fight inflation, money will once more play its true role and the dollar will regain its real value.
However I am convinced-and I would like to be wrong-that the action we are taking to try to fight the problems caused by an unbalanced economic and financial system will not succeed in meeting this objective because it does not go at the root of the problem. This is the monetary system, milk which is in the hands of private agencies which exploit this system as if it were a commodity instead of using it like a service. This is the difference. A monetary system is a service and not a commodity. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I close by asking once again that something effective be done in the next two days to help industrial milk producers in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the House ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe it has been agreed to allow this bill to go to the standing committee on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it agreed, on division?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that Bill S-31, to amend the Quarantine
21804-I3'/2

March 29, 1976
Quarantine Act
Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like today to move second reading of Bill S-31, an Act to amend the Quarantine Act. The intent of the substantive amendments proposed is to provide the legislative authority for prompt and appropriate action at Canadian ports of entry to prevent the importation into Canada of dangerous diseases in addition to the four infectious and contagious diseases named in the Schedule to the Quarantine Act.
The Quarantine Act is at present contained in Chapter 33, 1st supplement, of the Revised Statutes of Canada and was proclaimed in force on January 1, 1972. The act of 1972 was then a recasting of the original Quarantine Act which had been in effect for over one hundred years. Indeed, the orginal act was passed in the very first session of the Canadian Parliament in 1868, and, except for two amendments introduced in 1918 and 1919, remained in force until the 1972 revision.
There is an old proverb that goes: "There are three things done well in haste: flying from the plague, escaping quarrels and catching flies". A strange combination, but undoubtedly words of wisdom in their days. However, social medicine has made tremendous advances and we no longer deal with a plague by fleeing, but rather try to contain it and prevent it from spreading to new areas.
In the early nineteenth century in London, for example, cholera would periodically be brought in by travellers from abroad and a fresh epidemic started. This situation could have been prevented by effective quarantine laws. The concept of quarantine is not new however. The word "quarantine" dates back to at least the 14th century and was ascribed to that 40 days of isolation imposed by the local government on travellers arriving in certain European ports in an attempt to prevent them from infecting the local inhabitants. The proposed amendments, however, do not prescribe a period of isolation as drastic as 40 days.
The present Quarantine Act is designed to minimize the risk of importation into Canada of the four major quaran-tinable diseases. At the time of the last revision of the act these major diseases of concern were smallpox, cholera, yellow fever and plague, all highly contagious and infectious diseases. Fortunately, these diseases have been eradicated in Canada.
Great improvements in global health have unquestionably resulted from preventive health measures applied in Canada and in other countries throughout the world. For example, smallpox, I am glad to say, appears to have been all but wiped out. The latest bulletin on the subject issued by the World Health Organization shows the existence of only 61 reported cases, confined to one small area of the world, of this once dreaded disease. However, until major quarantinable diseases completely disappear from the world, legislation which provides the authority to inspect, examine and, if necessary detain, international passengers and international carriers entering Canada must be retained. This is particularly true in the light of the present jet age, when high capacity aircraft can transport over 400 people to Canada from any corner of the globe within a single day. As I mentioned, the present legislation provides Canada with quarantine powers only in respect to

the four scheduled diseases-cholera, plague, smallpox and yellow fever.
The diseases-and only these diseases-are recognized by the World Health Organization as requiring quarantine control. Through its adherence to the International Health Regulations, Canada has quarantine control only over these four infectious diseases.
The present act is quite specific with regard to the four scheduled diseases and measures are currently being taken to safeguard Canadians against them. For example, quarantine stations have been designated at all major ports of entry and at the present time, there are 17 of these across Canada. Of this number, six relate to maritime traffic and the remaining 11 to air traffic. However, recent international experience and new developments have demonstrated that a vacuum exists in the present act. New and highly communicable diseases, such as Lassa fever and Marburg virus disease, have appeared in some countries.

It may be recalled that last December, in response to a question from the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) I mentioned that I proposed to introduce into the House during the current session a number of changes to the Quarantine Act. These changes are now before the House and are intended to deal with such dangerous exotic diseases as Lassa fever.
A few words about this disease might help to put things into perspective. Lassa fever was first recognized after two American missionary nurses died of a mysterious, undiagnosed illness, in the town of Lassa in northeastern Nigeria, in 1969. Subsequent laboratory investigations revealed that Lassa was a dangerous, acute, infectious disease caused by a virus which was isolated, incidentally, only about six years ago. There is evidence to suggest that the disease is not actually new, but that it has been indigenous to certain countries in West Africa for many years. It is, however, only since 1969 that it has been recognized by specific, medically accepted nomenclature. Subsequent outbreaks of the disease in West Africa have confirmed its very high mortality rate.
It is the tendency for the virus to be passed from person to person and the concern that it could be spread across continents by rats carrying the virus that makes the disease so potentially dangerous in the world. This fact, along with the increase in the speed, volume and worldwide scope of international travel, results in a potential threat to Canadian public health. Approximately 40 million travellers pass through Canadian ports of entry annually. Should any one of these be a carrier of a new or heretofore unknown dangerous disease, there is not sufficient provision for emergency authority in the act at present to detain or isolate that person, even if the disease is confirmed as presenting a grave danger to public health. Authority does exist in the present act to permit quarantine control of diseases other than the four now listed in the schedule, but only through the passage of an order in council adding the new disease to the schedule.
Our problem with the provisions of this section is twofold. In the first instance, addition to the schedule of, for example, Lassa fever as a disease subject to regular quarantine control would not accord with Canada's obligations under the international health regulations. I mentioned
March 29, 1976

earlier that the four diseases listed at present were the only ones currently recognized by the World Health Organization as being subject to the international health regulations. These regulations stipulate that adequate control of these diseases justifies appropriate routine quarantine action being taken by signatory countries, of which Canada is one, with no reservations.
I have used Lassa fever as an example of the type of disease that is causing some concern, but the same situation applies to other dangerous diseases both known and, as yet, unknown. It is obviously impossible, in advance of an emergency, to list a disease that, while widely accepted as highly dangerous, has not yet achieved international identification nor consensus as to its medical name.
It is, therefore, necessary to honour the international protocol while at the same time providing the means whereby, during an emergency, quarantine control can be exercised over all-and I repeat, all-dangerous diseases. If a dangerous disease does enter Canada, that disease will be added to the schedule by means of an order in council and will remain on the schedule until the danger has passed. Thus, the disease in question will not-I repeat, will not- be subject to routine or regular quarantine control, but merely to emergency control for a limited period.
This leads, naturally, to the second problem which is one of time. There is simply not enough time between the appearance at a port of entry of a new suspect disease and the passage of an order in council to ensure that appropriate protective measures can be taken. Immediate detention and isolation is imperative in such cases; thus, the method provided for in the present act is obviously inadequate for the purpose of meeting such an emergency. What this bill before us will do is allow immediate detention of persons suspected or known to have a dangerous disease which is not on the schedule until measures are taken to add that disease to the schedule. Again I emphasize that this would be an emergency control for a limited period only.
Other countries, such as the United States and Great Britain, have had for several years emergency quarantine powers for diseases other than the four recognized by the international health regulations. It is, in effect, similar emergency powers that are now being proposed for Canada but with the added provision for judicial review of any detentions ordered in such circumstances.
What, specifically, is being proposed, Mr. Speaker, are two major changes. The first is to ensure a means within the provisions of the Quarantine Act whereby a quarantine officer at a port of entry may, in an emergency situation and with the approval of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, order the dentention of a person arriving in Canada whom that quarantine officer reasonably believes to be the carrier, or to have been recently in close proximity to a carrier, of a contagious or infectious disease not listed in the schedule to the act.
Such unlisted diseases are referred to as "other diseases" and are, intentionally, not listed in a separate schedule to the act in order to provide needed flexibility. This detention will be for a period of time not to exceed 14 days. An important feature of the amendment is the reflection of the government's concern that the Canadian Bill of Rights be
Quarantine Act
fully respected in any detention so ordered. Proposed subsection 8.1(6) makes it necessary for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to justify, within 48 hours, the detention order to a judge of the superior court of the province in which the person is detained. In such instances, the judge is required to hear the case within one day and is empowered to revoke, vary or confirm the detention order.
The second major change would provide for detention in those cases where it is definitely determined, as opposed to being suspected, by a quarantine officer that a person arriving in Canada has a disease considered dangerous to public health. Detention in these circumstances would, again, require ministerial approval.
In addition to the two major amending clauses that I have outlined, there are six further amendments the purpose of which is either to clarify the existing act or to make changes consequential to the substantive amendments.

Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make it clear that the proposed amendments before us now form just a part of the overall contingency provisions which are being developed and revised on a continuing basis. For example, in response to the December question from the hon. member from Simcoe North, I also mentioned that a working group had been formed to look into isolation facilities. Because the interest of provinces in the provision of adequate isolation accomodation at strategic locations across Canada parallels that of the federal government, the participation by provincial officials is an important aspect of the discussions of the working group. Recommendations can be expected from these discussions on the type of facility needed to treat the most virulent of diseases.
To summarize, Mr. Speaker, the amendments proposed are both logical and essential if all due precautions are to continue to be taken to preserve the health of Canadians- particularly in the light of ever changing world conditions. I expect and hope the bill under discussion will be regarded as akin to insurance protection against a potential threat but, like many such contingency provisions, will be rarely if ever utilized.
For example, under the present act, there have been no involuntary detentions within the last 15 years, though, of course, there have been routine medical checks performed on ships and planes a number of times.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members opposite for their agreement to proceed with the speedy consideration of this bill.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks I wish to say we do not have any intention of trying to block this bill. We do, however, have a number of reservations to express because this bill will not only affect visitors to this country in the near future but in fact will become permanent legislation affecting all Canadians who come and go from this country.
It was interesting to note the minister indicated that the first Quarantine Act was passed in 1868. That act, which was introduced by the Conservative government of the

March 29, 1976
Quarantine Act
day, lasted for 50 years. The government at that time had so much foresight that no changes were required for a period of 50 years, as opposed to the present administration which passed some amendments four years ago, in 1972, which are now no longer adequate. I think this is a clear indication of the type of legislation lacking in foresight which the present government might bring forward.
One thing that has concerned me somewhat during the past week or so is the great degree of pressure applied on this side of the House by the other side to try to shoot this bill through the House as quickly as a bullet would go past one's nose. I do not like passing, with such haste, bills which have such far reaching results. In addition, we as an opposition party have an obligation to the people of Canada to ensure that anything that passes this House with such haste is not legislation which in some way may be harmful to the country. We are very much interested in seeing good laws passed through this chamber and we must ensure that all the facts are on the table before passage is approved.
One suggestion I heard as a reason for this bill-I am sorry the minister did not refer to it-is the fact that we will be hosting the Olympics in the summer of 1976; and we need this bill to take appropriate precautions. But the minister chose to talk about Lassa fever instead. We know Lassa fever has been around for some time-even before the last changes were made to the Quarantine Act. The minister did not indicate whether the Olympics had anything to do with the desire to speed though parliament legislation, or whether it would make any difference in terms of how we receive Olympic athletes from areas where these exotic diseases exist or from areas where other diseases not mentioned in the Quarantine Act might exist. Perhaps the minister could clarify this matter, as the point is significant.
The minister suggested that we must pass this bill in order to control the spread in this country of Lassa fever and other virus fevers, including those at present unknown diseases which may come up in the future. He shows commendable farsightedness in the concern about diseases yet unknown. Perhaps this bill will fare better than the previous bill passed in 1972 which was in force only four years. This one may be in force longer, as it covers diseases known and yet unknown.
The minister is asking for far reaching quarantine powers to be extended to himself and his officials. Before we grant such far reaching powers we must make sure they are needed. Under the provisions of this bill, athletes coming to this country from West Africa or Europe, and Canadians who have been visiting those areas, could be quarantined for lengthy periods. Therefore, we should know specifically to what use he will put the powers the minister seeks. The bill does not specify how these powers are to be used and is, therefore, deficient in that regard. As this bill will affect people so directly, it would be useful if we could see the regulations which will be in force under this law before we pass the bill so that we may know exactly what we are passing.
We do not yet know how widespread Lassa fever is. According to some authorities, only about 100 cases have

been confirmed, world wide. I am told that there could be many more unconfirmed cases. Perhaps we are over-reacting to a potential threat to Canadians which is very small. That is how it seems at first glance. Appearing before the standing committee of the other place when this bill was being considered there, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare said recently, in 1976, that the World Health Organization had rejected an application Canada had made two years earlier to have Lassa fever added to the list of notifiable major quaranti-nable diseases. The parliamentary secretary said:
The application was rejected on the grounds that not enough was known at that time about the disease, and that it was doubtful that including Lassa fever in the international health regulations would be effective in controlling the spread of the disease.
Since the World Health Organization obviously has not changed its mind about the utility of listing Lassa fever among quarantinable diseases and since Lassa fever is the only disease to which the amendments to the Quarantine Act might apply, it is fair to ask if there is any point to this bill at all. The members of the World Health Organization are experts possessed of information. If they question the inclusion of the disease in the list of quarantinable diseases and our present methods of controlling the spread of the disease, should we not examine the matter further?
In short, although the bill, ostensibly, is designed to control the spread of diseases like Lassa fever and the Marburg virus, it does not mention them specifically. Why not? Is the minister afraid of international repercussions? Does he think that some countries, particularly West African countries, those sending Olympic athletes to this country, will accuse us of detaining their citizens under the pretext that we are controlling the spread of Lassa fever in this country? If the government wants to avoid such accusations, it should be more frank about the intent of the bill, and we could deal with this matter more easily.
The minister referred several times to it, as do the explanatory notes to the bill, that these extraordinary powers are needed to deal with emergency situations. So far, no one has defined such emergencies or what action is contemplated in these emergency situations. This omission raises questions about the minister's sincerity in dealing with this question. He ought to tell the House what emergencies the government has in mind and how the government proposes to deal with them. In the past, the quarantine officer made decisions regarding quarantine. This made sense, as quarantine officers were either physicians or nurses working under the direction of a physician. The minister proposes a different approach. Apparently he does not trust physicians to make the right decision: he, himself, wants that authority. Why does the minister want this authority? Why is he taking this power away from physicians who are trained experts in the field and can be relied on to make the right decision? He ought to explain that matter as well.
Health authorities agree that it is difficult to intercept carriers of quarantinable disease at their point of entry to this country. It is almost impossible to do this, as 40 million travellers cross our borders every year. I do not see how this bill will be effective in preventing the entry to this country of carriers of disease. In today's world of rapid travel, an infected disease carrier can travel from foreign parts to Canada very quickly. Hence, would it not be better
March 29, 1976

not to insist on controls at the border and to insist on more stringent examination of travellers coming from areas of known infection or in which disease is endemic? The minister suggests that we will tighten border controls. He did not refer to more stringent physical examination of people coming from areas rife with infection or where disease may be endemic. He did not indicate what kind of authority will be given to officials at the ports of entry, or specifically how they are going to detain people. It comes back to the same thing: under normal circumstances we have 40 million travellers coming through our ports of entry and with the Olympics there will perhaps be a few million more.
If the minister is concerned about Lassa fever it would be logical for him to instruct the quarantine officers specifically to watch for and perhaps even require people coming from areas in West Africa, where this disease exists, to be examined. If he is concerned about Marburg virus fever, perhaps he should look at the possibility of examining people from those areas, the athletes and indeed the fans coming to watch the athletes in action. Perhaps they, too, should be examined at the ports of entry. However, the minister does not say they are going to do that. We are left in a complete vacuum as to what the government will be doing. Greater powers are being asked for without our being told how they will be used.
The minister also indicated there were some 17 quarantine stations in the country-six maritime stations and 11 air stations. I have a document before me entitled "The Canadian contingency plan for Lassa fever" which states that at this time there are no safe facilities in Canada for isolation of patients or for the protection of attending staff and the avoidance of laboratory bio-hazards from this disease.
The minister has not told us what he is going to do about that. It is fine to isolate them, but the fact is we do not appear to have safe facilities in which to isolate them; by that I mean safe from the point of view of spreading the disease to people who work in the quarantine area. If it is a laboratory which will have to be involved in confirming what the disease is in fact, we do not have laboratories that are sufficiently safe to protect the laboratory workers from the disease in any of these 17 areas to which the minister referred. He has not given us any assurance that we can indeed handle these isolation cases with safety as far as our own workers are concerned. On page 5 it is said that the existing facilities admittedly do not meet bio-hazard safety standards in dealing with such dangerous communicable diseases, and a definitive contingency plan for Canada must await the availability of a purpose-designed isolation facility and maximum security laboratory.
It sounds from that as though the contingency plan with which we are now dealing is perhaps a little premature. We do not have the kind of designed isolation facilities which are secure, medically speaking, that are required.
With those comments and reservations, I again ask the minister to give us answers to these questions and inform us before trying to ram this bill through committee. We will, of course, object to any attempt to ram it through the committee. We will insist upon hearing a number of wit-
Adjournment Motion
nesses whom we believe are experts in this area, in addition to the experts provided by the minister's department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, both the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) have made reference to the history of this legislation; therefore, I need not say anything in that respect.
It is interesting to note that we are dealing with an act that has been on the statute books of Canada, in one way or another, since the year one. Even though it has not been amended very many times during a century or more, it is understandable that in these days of new diseases and new viruses, coupled with the speed of transportation, a new look at our quarantine provisions could well be necessary. Speaking generally, we concede the need for this legislation. Although there are questions we may want to ask when the bill gets to committee, we are prepared to give it our support.
Like the previous speaker and his colleagues, when this bill was put into our hands one of the first approaches we made to it was from the standpoint of civil liberties. We wanted to know whether any rights, either of Canadians going abroad and coming back home or of visitors or immigrants to this country, were being set aside.
As I say, we have looked at the bill rather critically from that point of view. I must say that we do not see it as a curtailment or denial of civil liberties. Canadians are not, by this bill, being denied the right to come back to Canada. Immigrants or visitors are not, by this bill, being denied the right to come into this country if they qualify under the Immigration Act, and so on. What is being done is that if persons are suspected, not only of the four diseases that are already listed but of new diseases whether known or unknown, they will be subject to quarantine for a time equal to the incubation period of that disease, or sent to their destination under certain agreements to meet with medical authorities, and so on. On that basis we do not see it as an interference with civil liberties.
I had hoped that I might be able to finish before five o'clock. However, I will need another four or five minutes. Therefore, I had better call it five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: 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 Broadview (Mr. Gilbert)-Fisheries-Seals-request for tabling of report on decline in population and need for decreasing quotas; the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski)- Agriculture-Effect on export trade of removal of transportation subsidy on flour-Government action; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Regional Eco-

March 29, 1976
Constitution of Canada
nomic Expansion-Inquiry whether there are any plans for port of Pictou, Nova Scotia.
It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made Friday, February 27, 1976, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions. I understand it is the wish of the House that we proceed to motion No. 37 in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche). If that is understood, notice of motions No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), No. 15 in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan), No. 19 in the name of the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson), and No. 20 in the name of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), shall stand at the request of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider a comprehensive plan of decentralization, as envisioned by the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada, with special emphasis on, (a) the constitutional division powers, (b) decentralizing the decision-making process within federal government departments, (c) improved intergovernmental relations.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion-I have found this a good way to begin a speech-decentralization may not be a glamorous word but it is one of the most important words in the political lexicon today. In its fullness, it provides a bold, exciting new way to restore the vitality of Canada. For it is through decentralization that the country can be pulled back from overdependency on federal government officials and Canadians across the land provided with a way to develop their opportunities.
I hope to show why, and how, the federal government ought to press vigorously a decentralization policy in a way that will enable municipalities today to cope with the explosion of social problems brought about by urbanization. Before long in this debate a government spokesman will be telling us that the federal government is already committed to decentralization. Actually, the present policies of the federal government make decentralization a game of musical chairs adding to the proliferation of government. I am arguing here that decentralization, first of all, depends upon a determination to slow down and control the haphazard growth of government in Canada.
This goal is all the more important when we grasp the implication of two basic trends in Canada: first, government spending now accounts for 40 per cent of the gross
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave).]
national product; second, 19 per cent of Canada's work force, two million people, are on the public payroll. What this means is that government at all levels is growing faster than the economy. The Economic Council of Canada has warned us about this escalation. Unless it is slowed, the spending of the three levels of government will exceed 50 per cent of the GNP before the end of this decade. Provincial expenditures are rising fastest of all. This is principally because of delivery programs in the social security area which are direct offshoots of the state of the economy and the federal government's economic and social policies.
The trend toward a dominantly governmental economy is now a chief characteristic of our society. That trend must be broken, because the increasing intervention of the state in economic and social life will substantially change-for the worse-the character of our society. Increasing tax burdens on private economic activity will inevitably lead to the elimination of that activity, and the increasing dependency of people on government programs will result in diminished initiative in the much-needed further development of Canada.
Around the world people are asking: Can democracy cope with the complex problems of a modern, interdependent global community? There is a "crisis of political faith" in the ability of democratic governments to respond, according to the distinguished social scientist, Robert Heil-broner-"All the polls indicate a serious dropping off of public belief in the efficacy and trustworthiness of government." Canada is by no means exempt from this voter disenchantment. Distrust of a large, powerful and faceless bureaucracy in Ottawa is intensifying. People are paying higher taxes than ever to support an ever-growing government-and yet the problems of transportation, housing and safety in society are getting worse. Decentralization is not a magic answer to all this, but without decentralization the problems of the municipalities, the level of government closest to the people, will become chaotic.
The rate of urbanization is nothing short of a phenomenon. Before the end of this century, 94 per cent of Canadians will be urbanized and three-quarters will live in 12 major cities. Urbanization is caused by an interlocking set of developments spawned by exploding technology. Government efforts must be directed toward managing the process of urbanization. The special problems of urbanization-public assistance, transportation, environmental management, leisure, recreation and housing-interact on one another and demand more money which municipalities have no way of raising, thus exacerbating their dependence on provincial and federal government grants.
The quality of life in urban centres is diminishing, despite local efforts; the institutional framework of government was established long before the social impact of urbanization was ever dreamed of. As the role and level of government in Canada has expanded, each level-federal, provincial and municipal-has become involved in areas in which the other levels previously had a special or exclusive interest. Complexity and fragmentation of government has followed. This has resulted in a proliferation of duplicative, autonomy-seeking special agencies in each level of government and hence has highlighted the problem of a decision-making mechanism which can no longer respond
March 29, 1976

to the needs of a society in an era of accelerating social change.
Thus, a new philosophy at the top is needed to meet the super problems of big government and urbanization. Only a new philosophy can counter the mounting evidence that government is big, rather than strong; flabby, rather than powerful-that it costs a great deal and doesn't achieve very much. More tinkering with government will not be enough. That is why the present federal government's policies on decentralization are inadequate. They are focused on spreading out certain government departments such as DREE, Revenue, and Supply and Services, and diversifying the sources of federal purchasing, as the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) said on September 3, 1975, when he announced a task force on decentralization of government. This approach is too narrow a concept of decentralization. A comprehensive plan based on a philosophy of streamlining is urgently needed-not more piecemeal solutions to mounting problems.
Mr. Speaker, there are three basic areas of decentralization I wish to touch on, first, the constitutional division of powers. Decentralization is a theme running through the report on the Constitution of Canada produced by the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons in June, 1972. I see in the chamber this afternoon the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Mac-Guigan) who was co-chairman of that committee. I would welcome his contribution to the debate. After recommending a new constitution, the committee's second recommendation was as follows:
A new Canadian constitution should be based on functional considerations, which would lead to greater decentralization of government powers in areas touching cultural and social policy and to greater centralization of powers which have important economic effects at the national level. Functional considerations also require greater decentralization in many areas of government administration.
The principal way in which constitutional decentralization can be brought about is contained in recommendation No. 50 which sets the division of powers in a more modern context as follows:
Concurrent powers which predominantly affect the national interest should grant paramountcy to federal parliament and those which predominantly affect provincial or local interests should grant paramountcy to the provincial legislature.
Therefore, a complete policy on decentralization begins with full support of the constitutional committee's recommendations on decentralization and a commitment to implement them. A more functional allocation of governmental powers will benefit all regions.
As the President of the Treasury Board has himself noted: "Alienation exists in other parts of Canada, especially in the west. The reason for this is that the federal government appears insensitive and unresponsive, just as it used to seem to Quebeckers." In every area of Canada people feel that the constitution is preventing their governments from doing what they would like to see them do.
The committee proposes an expansion of provincial powers in such areas as income support, criminal law, marriage and divorce, educational TV, taxing powers and international arrangements. The committee supports limitation of federal powers with respect to appointments to the Senate and the Supreme Court and with respect to federal spending in fields of provincial jurisdiction. Corre-
Constitution of Canada
spondingly, greater centralization is necessary in the regulation of the economy. Hence, there should be a transfer of some existing provincial powers to the federal parliament, for example, an increase in federal jurisdiction over air and water pollution, international and interprovincial trade and commerce, incomes, securities regulation, financial institutions, unfair competition and foreign ownership.
The constitutional committee made a major recommendation concerning decentralization in the field of social security: the federal government would determine over-all spending in such programs as old age pensions, supplements and family allowances, and the provinces would determine how this total was to be distributed within limits to preserve national standards and maintain the principle of redistributing income.
There is today a great deal of confusion over jurisdiction and increasing political rivalry in promoting bigger social benefits. Integrated economic-social planning between the federal and provincial governments is imperative to prevent the escalation of universal benefits into a welfare state. Strategies for growth, housing and transportation are but three of the items in which the people will best be served by the three levels of government working closely together.
In considering ways to decentralization it should be reaffirmed that the federal parliament must retain the primary responsibility for general economic policy in the country. Thus, decentralization does not rule out centralization in primary areas. The federal parliament must have sufficient economic powers to regulate and influence the economy. However, in fulfilling this constitutional responsibility of centralization, the federal government should explore more ways of decentralizing its operation so that federal policies can be regionally adapted.
It is not satisfactory to leave this matter to the new committee of officials dealing with federal-provincial relations under the terms of Bill C-38-for the authority and role of the House of Commons should not be diminished. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has said, "There is an inexorable danger that these new processes we are developing will bypass parliament and will mean that decisions are taken at some other place; and it is this place where, under our system, decisions are supposed to be taken."
I come now, Mr. Speaker, to the second item under the general heading of decentralization; that is to say, decentralizing federal government departments. Here the news is not quite so good. The importance of our policy reference to the constitution should not be diminished, for complete reform of present incompatibilities takes us directly to the constitution. However, a new constitution cannot be achieved overnight. On the other hand, we do not need a new constitution in order to improve administration, but only a new outlook. The injection of the judgments and feelings of Canadians across the country into a more regionalized government service would be tangible proof that the central government wishes to reach out to all Canadians.
12240

March 29, 1976
Constitution of Canada
Historically, 25 per cent of federal civil servants work in the Ottawa-Hull area, with three-quarters dispersed throughout the rest of Canada. The United States appears to do a better job of decentralizing, since only 12 per cent of the American public service is in and around Washington, D.C.
More importantly, in Canada the decision-making process is still clearly centred in Ottawa; only 14 per cent of senior executives are located outside the national capital region. Most executives have had no field experience and they do not want to go to regional centres because they believe their prospects for career advancement reside primarily in the national capital region. How can the federal government be made more sensitive to the needs and aspirations of Canadians when ambitious public servants consider field assignments to be equivalent to exile?
How, indeed, can we believe that the federal government is serious about decentralization when we see in the 197677 estimates that the federal public works department will spend more money on new capital construction in the city of Ottawa alone, $65 million, than in the entire four western provinces and the northern territories combined, $43 million? In fact, there will be more federal capital spending in Hull, $70 million, than in the entire west and north.
As an Albertan, I note that of the 74 capital construction projects to be carried out next year, only two new ones are found within Alberta-government buildings in Calgary and Lethbridge, with nothing, incidentally, in Edmonton. In addition to the Ottawa-Hull national capital region, Quebec will get 16 high-priced projects worth almost $93 million. Surely, I tell myself, there can be no connection between voting patterns and the awarding of public works projects in a government of such high principle that serves all the people!
That is why the present federal government's announced policies on decentralization give an illusion of improvement without ensuring the reality. Only a start has been made. Recent steps by the federal government have been the relocation of the Royal Canadian Mint in Winnipeg; announced intention of having 70 per cent of the staff of DREE in regional offices and 30 per cent in Ottawa, reversing the present proportion-only 270 Ottawa civil servants affected; the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce extending business counselling assistance to three new areas and delegating, on an experimental basis, to regional offices some granting authority. Since the government has determined that we must have Petro-Canada- our party voted against it-at least it is in Calgary and not Ottawa.
The government points with pride to the move of the supply department's cheque redemption control division to the Gaspe town of Matane, providing 250 jobs and a $2.3 million payroll. What happens to the civil servants who do not want to move? Why, they are given the option of finding jobs elsewhere in the civil service. No wonder we have a hard time distinguishing between decentralization and duplication. As the Montreal Star has noted, as long as decentralization is seen as merely a synonym for pork-barrelling, public confidence in a necessary and overdue program is likely to be weak.
The last annual report of the national capital commission suggests that "it may be possible" to reduce the

percentage of the federal public service in the capital from 25 per cent to 20 per cent. This 5 per cent shift could involve 25,000 jobs. But the Ottawa civil servants aren't worried. The report says it will take 25 years to attain its objectives. Yet the Treasury Board President has said that decentralizing it to get "the highest priority". What does the government's decentralization committee have to say about this contradiction? And, by the way, of whom is this committee composed, when do they meet, and when will they report?
Decentralizing the decision-making process is of far more value than redistributing a handful of civil servants. The joint committee on the constitution of Canada recognized this and stated:
Most Crown corporations could have their headquarters outside Ottawa, as many already have. Federal departments like agriculture, energy, mines and resources, environment, national defence and transport could have their principal offices elsewhere, and many other departments could give their regional offices more authority. Even when Ottawa must remain the effective centre of administration, a greater effort can be made to encourage regional input.
The western premiers, at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, called for the establishment of industrial "centres of excellence" throughout the various regions of Canada. These centres would be based on natural and human resources, supported by research and marketing assistance to develop a vital economic unit capable of serving national and international markets. Such a program concept suggests clear initiative on the part of the federal government in the establishment and support of new centres of industrial activity in Canada. It would involve decentralization of the technical expertise of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to plan and support the development of such centres, and the major funding of research activities and new industrial enterprise in cooperation with other departments of the federal government.
We can see, now, the necessity of the federal government permitting the provincial governments and various local organizations to participate in the planning of broad economic development policies, in establishing regional industrial priorities, and in the development and implementation of programs. There should be, in short, decentralization of decision-making power on assistance programs, and strengthening of regional offices.
I come now, Mr. Speaker, to the third and last item, intergovernmental relations. We have seen that constitutional reform is a long-range goal. Decentralization of the administration, while attainable in the near future, still requires structural changes. What can be accomplished immediately is more inter-governmental co-operation. A fresh spirit of federal government co-operation and consultation will do wonders in achieving decentralization of the decision-making process.
The municipalities, especially, will be helped via this method, since there is little hope for the entrenchment of expanded municipal rights in a revised constitution. Facing the crushing super problem of urbanization, the municipalities must negotiate a better tax position with the provincial and federal governments. Recognizing the plight, indeed the trap, of municipalities, the federal government could find a structural way for the inclusion of local government in the federal and provincial decision-
March 29, 1976

making process. In this way, local officials would be sharing more directly in the management of urbanization-a complex social problem-rather than merely finding ways to cope with the effects of urbanization.
The joint municipal committee on intergovernmental relations which reported a couple of years ago told us, in short, that the role of local government today no longer satisfies the needs of society experiencing the process of urbanization. In brief, the federal and provincial governments cannot solve the problems of an urbanized society without the link to the community provided by local government. The municipal governments must have expanded methods of increasing their tax revenue. That is the nub of the problem, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, the municipalities want a restructuring of revenue-generating capacity and involvement in the federal and provincial decision-making process. Their demand for more participation is supported by the joint committee on the constitution. Their recommendation No. 67 says:
In the light of the injustice done municipalities by their having to rely on the property tax for the bulk of their revenue, there should be a sharing of tax fields between governments that would allow municipalities direct access to other sources of revenue.
A three-level task force of representatives from Ottawa, the provinces and the municipalities have been studying for nearly two years the problems of public finance. The report, which will soon be completed, was commissioned by the last national tri-level conference in Edmonton in 1973. It is easily predictable that the report will insist that the cities are running out of money to build and service the structures needed for an additional urban population of 12 million in the next 20 years. The property tax is a hopelessly outmoded method of revenue-raising, incapable of providing the gigantic amounts of public capital needed to continue building our cities.
I see my time has practically elapsed, Mr. Speaker, if it has not already, and I would ask the permission of the House to continue for a few minutes so I can conclude my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Roche: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues. True, decentralization calls for massive changes in the financial system of Canada so that municipalities can provide the public transportation, housing, water and social services demanded by urbanization. Grants by senior governments that want the political credit for handing out money are not the answer; today there are so many millions of dollars of transfer payments being issued from one government office to another that it is impossible to keep track of it all, let alone provide accountability to the people.
Despite the constitutional inadequacies, the federal government has basic urban responsibilities that can only be exercised by partnership, not paternalism. A national urban strategy is desperately needed. But, as Toronto metro chairman Paul Godfrey, who is also president of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities said:
Constitution of Canada
"I fear the national urban strategy will be a long time coming, and that when it comes it will be revealed as having been developed by a group of civil servants peering blankly at the rest of the country through the smoke of their campfires on the Ottawa River."
Nowhere is a fair-minded federal policy more urgently needed than in the funding of rapid transit, which is the backbone of urban growth. In the 1974 election campaign, the federal government promised a significant contribution toward urban transportation capital investment. This was good news to Edmonton in the process of constructing Canada's third subway system. But the government reneged on this promise by imposing a specious definition of "commuter system" that excluded rapid transit systems that operate within municipalities. So much for any financial aid to Edmonton. This promise was fulfilled in the same manner that the promise of federal assistance-made by the Treasury Board President-for the Edmonton Cultural and Convention Center was fulfilled. That is to say, nothing. Is it any wonder that out west we no longer trust this overly-centralized federal government that is making such a mockery of the aspiration to better intergovernmental relations?
As far as we in Edmonton are concerned, the federal government's policy in urban transportation is deficient in funding, scope, timing and concept and has discriminated particularly against Edmonton. Now, when we learn of proposals to terminate the CNR transcontinental passenger service through Edmonton, we are understandably upset as well as fighting mad at a federal government that refuses to recognize the importance of Canada's fifth largest city as a key distribution and terminal centre in western Canada. The industrial growth of northern Alberta is dynamic; 90 per cent of all projects proposed or under construction are north of Red Deer. All modes of transportation, including rail passenger transport should be developed and improved, rather than eliminated.
Mr. Speaker, my conclusion has admittedly been lengthy. But true decentralization is both vast and deep. Last week, the Edmonton area members of parliament met with the city administration in Edmonton and the chamber of commerce. It is clear to me that the leaders of our community want to see implemented a new philosophy of government that will meet modern social pressures. For the quality of life at the community level will continue to be impeded unless the anomalies and pressures faced by the cities are alleviated.
Above all, decentralization demands a willingness by the federal government to implement a new system of revenue-sharing to help community leaders all over Canada cope with urbanization.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Constitution of Canada


An hon. Member:: The more government, the better, is yours.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Generally speaking, I find I am in agreement with him more extensively than I am in disagreement. I want to state at the beginning, for the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), that liberal philosophy is, more government where necessary and where it is beneficial to the people.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, the more government, the better the government; that is your philosophy.


Mark R. MacGuigan: No, that is NDP philosophy. I am not going to speak about their philosophy today. I may have something to say about it sometime, but not in this context.
I should like to make clear one concern I have at the very beginning, and that is the enormous emphasis the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona placed on municipalities. I find this very curious, because surely decentralization is a lot more than, and not only, that. Also, the municipalities and their problems involve a lot more than this matter of decentralization. Perhaps I might make this a little bit more specific. In the province of Ontario the problem, in many respects, has been the fact that the provincial government in recent years has created, as a kind of emanation from Queen's Park, where the provincial government is located, a further centralization. The system of regional governments has been very badly worked out, as a result of which the costs of government have actually increased, yet the services to the people have not. There have been two competing bureaucracies set up in the same localities.
I do not think one can simply consider the problems of cities in the context of decentralization. There are a lot of things involved. I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona that the property tax is not a suitable tax, but this surely is not a matter of decentralization but, rather, a question involving the form of taxation you are going to use. I think we all would like to see some changes made.
The end result of the suggestion that this is to be all laid at the door of the federal government will be a perpetuation of the idea that no provincial government, like that of Ontario, has any authority or responsibility in the area, particularly if people think it is the federal government that should change the plight of our cities in Ontario when in fact it is the provincial government that has the primary responsibility. I do not think we do a service to the cause of decentralization or of reform if we do not recognize that it is the provincial governments in Canada which ought to clean up this bloody mess. I will come back to that issue in a few moments, Mr. Speaker.
I want, first, to refer to the Special Joint Committee On the Constitution of Canada which presented its report just a little over four years ago. That committee recommended both more centralization and more decentralization; more centralization, generally speaking, in respect of economic powers, and more decentralization in respect of social powers and the administration of federal government powers, and more decentralization in the federal powers which are retained in the interim before any changes can be made.

I want to quote briefly from that report. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona has given a pretty good summary of the committee's report, but I should like to bring it together in two or three sentences. I quote from the committee report at page 2:
We have spoken of the need for an increase in both centralization and decentralization, depending on functional considerations. In our view greater decentralization in areas of culture and social policy would benefit all the provinces. We propose such decentralization for reasons of functionalism and flexibility, and to meet the regional differences which became obvious to us in the course of our hearings.
The committee went on the specify some of the areas in which decentralization should occur. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona has already referred to these. Again quoting from the report:
On the other hand, greater centralization is necessary in the regulation of the economy. Hence there should be a transfer of some existing provincial powers to the federal parliament.
Again there are some examples to which the hon. member has already referred. Then my final quotation from that report:
At the same time, we favour considerable administrative decentralization in the operations of the federal government. This change of administrative direction requires no change in the constitution. It does require a change of heart. It involves the recognition that geographically Canada is a very, very large country.
Although parliament recognizes that the considerations of that committee were constitutional ones, and no constitutional changes have taken place which reflect its recommendations, it is nevertheless fair to say that there have been many changes in federal policy as a result of the recommendations of that committee. The process of regular intergovernmental consultation has been set up, and especially the tripartite consultation between the federal government, the provinces, and the municipalities-not without considerable difficulties, I might add, in the case of this latter form of consultation because of continuing provincial objections to any formal meeting in which the federal government actually meets face to face with the municipalities. Of course we have disregarded that kind of objection which the provinces continue to make.
In other areas as well, even in the matter of the appointment of senators from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, which creates a greater regional balance in the Senate, there was a fulfilment of the recommendations in the committee's report, as well as the very significant movement which occurred in the federal government's family allowance program, which was again the carrying out of the recommendations which the committee made with respect to income support measures.
I would like to quote again from the committee's report, recommendation 84, paragraph (3), which reads:
Demographic grants (old age pensions, family allowances and youth allowances) and guaranteed income payments (guaranteed income supplements) should be matters of concurrent jurisdiction with limited provincial paramountcy as to the scale of benefits and the allocation of federal funds among these income support programs.
This kind of limited provincial paramountcy was written into the Family Allowance Act as a simple federal statute. It could be changed subsequently, but for all practical purposes the result is the same as if it were a constitution-
March 29, 1976

al change because no government is likely to change it without giving it careful consideration.
I could go on to talk about the multicultural program and other ways in which the government has implemented the report at a non-constitutional level, but I merely want to sketch the fact that there has been a considerable change in government policy as a result of the recommendations of the committee.
Not the least important of those changes has been that with respect to the general decentralization of administration which has been occurring. Partly this is just a question of giving better service to people in various areas to make sure that they are adequately served by federal offices in their areas, but I think it is more important than that; it is a chance for open decision making and shared decision-making. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona has referred to this and I agree thoroughly with what he had to say on it. I think this is the primary advantage of decentralization, and decentralization at the decision-making level is the most important kind. I suppose that sharing economic benefits from decentralized government offices across the country is another advantage which may occur, but I do not think that this pork-barrel aspect, if I may refer to it that way, is anything like the main reason for decentralization.
I think we should also recognize that modern technology itself does not necessarily require centralization. We should take the unemployment insurance program as an example of this. When the Unemployment Insurance Act was changed, and also computers were used for the first time in putting the whole system on a recorded basis in one central place, it was thought that the new system would be that there would be one office-in Ontario it is Belleville-and that all the operations of the Unemployment Insurance Commission which affect clients would be in Belleville. That is where the computer was to be, and from where everything was to work.
After two or three years' experience it came to be realized that this type of centralization was one which gave very poor service to the clients, and indeed was one which did not adequately take into account the kind of varied decisions which have to be made with respect to particular clients' cases. About two years ago the present minister instituted a new program of decentralization in which the regional offices which had been disbanded were upgraded, the local offices were re-established, and new local offices were established.
In addition to that there is a program for the establishment of computer terminals at most of the offices across the country, so that when the program is completed across the country the client in a particular office who goes to the wicket will be able to get very complete information as to the status of his claim right there through the use of computer terminals, and he will be able to get a decision right there from the insurance officer, which is reflected at once in the computer, and on the basis of which payment is made immediately. In other words, he gets first-quality service and he gets it face-to-face from the people who make the decisions, but because of the computer he gets it much more quickly. He would not get this if the system were centralized in Belleville and not plugged into the
Constitution of Canada
local community through the local unemployment insurance office.
That is an indication of the way in which government programs can reflect a desire for decentralization, and one in which the benefits are not only for the individual but also for the system because the system functions better, and even a systems specialist would see that, if he is not one whose basis is entirely mathematical.
I think that there is considerable agreement between the positions that the hon. member has advanced and those I am here enunciating, but again I should like to repeat my concern over the fact that for him this seems to come down to the municipal question. I think that the person whom decentralization should serve is the citizen. It is primarily for the purpose of giving him input into decision-making, and the proper service, as well as a regional share in his government's services. I think that any benefits that may occur to municipalities as a result of this are really incidental, and I do not think that they are primarily the responsibility of the federal government, certainly not under this kind of program.
We have to put the responsibility for municipal problems where it properly belongs, and if we do not do that, as I mentioned before, we are going to perpetuate a false impression of our provincial governments, which are not doing their jobs, because we are creating the impression that it is the federal government, which should be solving these problems.
Municipal problems today are indeed staggering. I am most familiar with those in Ontario where I see, as a result of the half worked-out and badly worked-out system of regional government, that the system has been made worse. We have a government in Ontario which is handing over to the municipalities the costs which the provincial government should be absorbing. The provincial government is saving money by making municipalities pay more, seemingly without any regard for the position in which the municipalities find themselves, and all this is being done without any relief from a proper tax base. That is a very serious problem in the province of Ontario, but it is an Ontario problem, one which the people of Ontario should solve. I dare say they should solve it by changing the government, but that is not a problem which we can solve in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: But Stuart Smith is supporting the government.


Mark R. MacGuigan: If I may say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), we may at least have some common ground in our attitude toward the government of Ontario.
I just want to say that I think we must be careful not to make this kind of mistake, not to think of these problems which are provincial as being federal.
The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is quite right in saying that there has to be a federal urban presence. The federal government itself is present under probably some 30 programs in cities, and it has a great duty to co-operate with the provinces and with the municipalities

March 29, 1976
Constitution of Canada
in planning, especially in the area of urban transportation. It should be co-operating more than it is, and I agree with the hon. member on that point as well, but the fact is that this responsibility of the federal government toward the municipalities is still primarily a peripheral responsibility. It is not peripheral in respect of transportation, but the heart of the municipal problem is a provincial problem, and it is only the provinces which can solve that problem. We have to keep the focus where it belongs.
I think it has been useful for us to have had a chance to look at the problem of decentralization. The general recognition of the need for decentralization is one of the most striking phenomena of today. This is true of business as well as of government. I do not think we should consider this as anything which is peculiar to governments alone. It is something which is a general part of human life today. As the hon. member himself suggested, it is nevertheless compatible with greater government at the international level, but only to the extent that it carefully preserves the independence and the right to make decisions which various countries around the globe have. I certainly join the hon. member in saying-and I think he did say this-that decentralization does not necessarily mean less government in the world; it means more careful government, government which is more carefully tailored to the needs of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: I should like to pose a question to the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). He said that I put a great deal of emphasis on having municipalities accept their own responsibility for property which they have on their doorsteps. I did dwell on that. I should like to ask the hon. member if he agrees that, without a new revenue sharing formula in this country, the municipalities are handicapped and cannot solve the problem of urbanization; that that is precisely the reason a national urban policy is needed with an initiative by the federal government which will help the municipalities to find a way which will be proper under the constitution for revenue sharing; and that it is not, consequently, correct to say that it is only the problem of the municipalities when in fact the power to tax at the principal levels in this country is held and maintained by the federal government.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, if I may briefly reply, I agree with the hon. member that the problem is with respect to revenue sharing, but it is revenue sharing by the provinces. I do not think that it requires any changes between the provinces and the federal government. It requires a willingness on the part of the provinces to share their revenues with municipalities. It requires the provinces to share their income tax resources with the municipalities, but as I kept repeating it is the provinces which have the responsibility.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) raised the question he brought before the House through notice of motion No. 37, which I do not need to

read now. It is a motion which deals first with the constitutional relations between the provinces and the federal government i.e. the constitutional separation of powers, or the division of powers secondly, with the decentralization of the decision-making process among the federal departments and, lastly, with the improvement of intergovernmental relations.
Of course, this is an opportunity to speak in detail of any subject pertaining to the constitutional problem. Before raising the question of the division of powers as such and that of the powers which should remain within the provinces or those which the federal government should retain, I would simply like to add a few words about the question of the patriation of the Canadian constitution which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) raised a few weeks ago.
I just want to say that I am happy to see that our Prime Minister has decided once again to contact the provincial premiers and ask their consent in order to repatriate the Canadian Constitution. For that is what the Prime Minister has done. He has contacted again the provincial first ministers and asked them to agree to the repatriation of the Constitution. However, the Prime Minister said that this time there should not be any obstacle in the way of the agreement, as was the case for Quebec and Victoria, in 1971. After numerous concessions by several provinces which granted certain demands from Quebec, this province refused once again to agree to the Victoria Charter and to the patriation of the Constitution.
Quebec has been acting in this manner for many years. I do not have the document in hand, but it is a fact that Quebec has always refused to give its agreement because it demanded certain a number of constitutional concessions from the federal government in the areas of immigration, of communications, and of social security, at least before 1971. Since then, there have been some administrative arrangements and apparently the question is more or less settled. But Quebec has always refused its consent to the federal government and the other provinces for the repatriation of the Constitution unless the other provinces and the federal government made concessions in those areas.
I believe that Quebec, an important province of this country, has the right to demand certain things, perhaps because of its peculiar cultural characteristics. I believe that the interests of the entire country are equally important here. I was deeply disappointed, especially in 1971, because for the first time we seemed to have reached an agreement about the repatriation of the Constitution as well as on a amendment formula, and furthermore, the Victoria Charter provided some safeguards for the French language in the country.
And for a French-speaking Canadian living outside Quebec, this is important. However, it is the province of Quebec who rejected that safeguard.
In my opinion,-


An hon. Member:: Thanks to Quebec.


Herb Breau: Yes, my friend tells me that Quebec influence has ensured the survival of the French fact. I would like to say that the Acadians and the French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec acknowledge that the linguistic, cultural and political influence of Quebec has really been
March 29, 1976

beneficial to them. However, an Acadian who represents the first Frenchmen who came to North America and Canada will never accept that his language depends on Quebecers. Acadians have always maintained their language, and they were Frenchmen who settled in North America, in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick many years before other Frenchmen settled in Quebec.


Miss Begin:: Many years before? Be more precise!


Herb Breau: Many years before! I shall look up the history books for the benefit of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of External Affairs, and I shall report to her. I merely say that Champlain came to Nova Scotia before going to Quebec.
I would like to say that by systematically objecting to the repatriation of the constitution, Quebec takes a position that smacks of blackmail. It is saying to the rest of Canada, perhaps to Anglophones or to the Ontario people who want to repatriate the constitution, that between them, Ottawa and the provinces, they are trying to find a way to amend the constitution that would be suitable to all concerned. And, in my opinion, to insist on obtaining some constitutional concessions even before accepting the patriation itself without amendment is almost blackmail.
And I can say that I am proud that our Prime Minister has indicated he would again contact the provinces and ask their consent, and that this time he would urge Parliament to act unilaterally to bring home the Canadian constitution since is has never been here before, and then we would try with the provinces to find some means of amendment which would protect Quebec as well as Ontario or British Columbia, which also had certain reservations in 1971 about an amendment formula.
Once the constitution is back home, and this is my opinion not necessarily the government's, if Quebec still wants to frustrate an agreement on an amendment formula, both Houses will have the responsibility to see to it. There must be an amendment formula attached to the Canadian constitution once it has been brought back. That is not to say that the federal Parliament should unilaterally amend the constitution, but it should, for example under the 1971 formula, give Quebec and Ontario a right of veto, and I think it should even give one, under certain circumstances, to British Columbia. I am no expert in constitutional law, but I think that such a mode of amendment could not be considered as unreasonable.
In my opinion the federal Parliament, the government, should, when the constitution is repatriated, consult with the provinces regarding an amendment formula and try to win their consent, but even then, the federal Parliament ought to assume its responsibilities and try to obtain an amendment consensus. I emphasize that we should not amend the constitution unilaterally; this would not be acceptable even though it would be constitutionally sound but it would be most unwise politically. We have the responsibility to deal with issues such as the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) is bringing up here. Unless the constitution is repatriated and a consensus is reached regarding the amendment, we in Parliament, and Canadians in general, will not be able to amend the constitution. I am aware that other hon. members wish to speak. To conclude I shall say that I have been extremely sur-
Constitution of Canada
prised to note the position taken by the premier of my province when he recently announced that he would side with Premier Bourassa, in a very intricate official statement. It was rather difficult to understand clearly what his intentions were but we inferred that he was going to enter into an agreement with Mr. Bourassa in order to take a stand agains the Prime Minister because, apparently, he was concerned that the Prime Minister would do that within the context of partisan politics.
Naturally, that is not true; I feel his own remarks smell far more of party politics than anything else because there is not much logic in his release unless it is political logic. And I feel that the expression "political logic" is a bit contradictory in itself because, as we know, in politics there is often very little logic or reason. I merely want to say that Mr. Hatfield wants to join a strange partner because where the linguistic question was concerned, Bill 22, they certainly were not allies. In fact, Mr. Hatfield came quite close to intervening at the Supreme Court of Canada. At least; he sent observers.
We wondered what we had to say to Quebec concerning the linguistic question, within the province, in its own sphere. But I find it strange that Mr. Hatfield should have decided on that strange alliance. Perhaps patriation of the constitution and some amendments to it, might give linguistic rights to the Francophones outside Quebec, on the one hand, and on the other, reaffirm the linguistic rights of the Anglophones in Quebec, and give Canada the possibility of amending its constitution: that might, in turn, give certain advantages to New Brunswick as well as other provinces.
I must say then that I am happy the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona brought up the matter of the constitution, because it gave us the opportunity of discussing it.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. member who just spoke. I am prepared to concede that the question he raised and discussed in respect of this motion is a matter of great difficulty. The difficulty perhaps is not something that has come about quite recently.
The problems in respect of the provinces are matters which have been with us for many years. While none of us condone obstruction, all of us on the other hand must recognize the legitimate partnership which exists, a partnership of democratic consultation, between the federal Government of Canada and the provincial governments. Perhaps the premiers to whom he addressed his words rather harshly are the people who arq very much concerned about the details of this issue of patriation brought up under rather suspicious circumstances by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). This issue is couched in terms of confrontation rather than consultation. The hon. member should not forget this. It is unfair of him to single out the Premier of Quebec, the Premier of New Brunswick, or any particular provincial premiers in respect to this whole matter of consultation. The very essence of the federal process is that consultation must take place.
The patriation discussion that has been going on in the last little while is an example of confrontation which

March 29, 1976
Quarantine Act
certainly is not in accordance with the great traditions of this country. I can understand in some respects the difficulty in which the provincial premiers find themselves.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member accept a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) on a question.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member finds it normal that after years of consultation, when nine premiers are in agreement or perhaps eight, because we do not know where Mr. Hatfield stands, someone somewhere should look at the situation and solve the problem. We could go on for another 100 years because one province does not want amendments.


Walter David Baker: Naturally there is no person in Canada who would not like to see a resolution of this problem, but I, and I am sure the people of this country are not either, am not interested in any resolution or attempt to solve this problem which would create many other problems in the country. I think that is the issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: The hour for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill S-31, to amend the Quarantine Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when debate on the second reading of Bill S-31 was interrupted at five o'clock I had indicated our readiness to support it. As I said, in line with what had been said by the minister and the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk), we live in an age in which new diseases and viruses turn up unexpectedly. In this age of fast, mass transportation the Government of Canada must be able to cope with persons or vehicles which might bring new or strange diseases to this country. The bill deals not only with persons; it deals also with vehicles of all kinds, whether they travel on land, by sea, or in the air.

As I said, we asked ourselves some questions about the bill when we first saw it. First, we wanted to be sure that it does not interfere with basic civil rights, or does not do things which might be done under the Immigration Act and thus deny certain rights which would otherwise apply. We cannot find that there is any unwarranted interference with civil liberties. The bill does not deny a Canadian the right to come back to this country, or a visitor's or an immigrant's right, under the Immigration Act, to come here. It provides for a person suspected of having a certain dangerous disease to be put in quarantine for the time it takes that disease to incubate. I need not spell it out. As I say, we looked at the bill with the question of civil rights in our minds and find nothing objectionable in it on that score.
As I say, the bill requires certain persons to be quarantined for the length of time it takes a strange or dangerous disease to incubate. After all, even the astronauts, heroes though they were, who came back to the United States from the moon were put in quarantine lest they had picked up some strange disease in that part of the universe.
The other question we asked ourselves was if the bill provides for powers too wide for parliament to give to the executive. I notice that the hon. member for Athabasca expressed concern on this point. We can deal with it when the bill is in committee. It seems to me that the bill contains protections. Quarantine officers are given certain rights and powers. If a quarantine officers feels he must do more than is permitted by the legislation he must get an order from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). If the aggrieved person feels that the order is unfair, there is provision in the bill for an appearance before a judge within a matter of hours. It strikes me, therefore, that there is a reasonable balance between the situation which can develop if someone is found to be the carrier of a new virus or strange disease and the rule of law. In other words, we do not want to give the executive unlimited power. I do not find this bill offensive on that score.
I echo the concern raised by the hon. member for Athabasca when he mentioned that about 40 million persons cross our borders every year and wondered if we can solve the problem of disease control simply by passing a bill. I also echo his concern about our limited facilities for checking strange diseases and for putting people in quarantine. But the bill seems to make the kinds of amendments to the Quarantine Act which are called for in these times; therefore, Sir, we are prepared to give the bill second reading so that it can go to committee where witnesses can appear and where we can ask any further questions which ought to be answered.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my comments on Bill S-31, an act to amend the Quarantine Act, will be brief. Some questions I had anticipated asking were answered by the minister this afternoon, or raised by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
I acknowledge receipt of three documents from the department which I found extremely useful. I shall allude to them in discussing this bill. Some aspects of the documentation are paradoxical, in that they raise certain questions. Although I have no intention of going through these
March 29, 1976

documents in detail, I want to make one or two references to what in each document I think is somewhat of a paradoxical situation.
One document is rather intriguing. It is entitled "International Health Determination of Lassa Fever Problem". It is particularly pertinent. It was written, I gather, by Dr. Sprenger of the department, a senior consultant, Quarantine and Regulatory Medical Services Branch, Department of Health and Welfare. It is an excellent document outlining Lassa fever.
As I understand it, this particular document on Lassa fever and Marburg disease is really the proto-type of the type of problem that brought about the implementation of the particular piece of legislation we see at this time. As I indicated, there are some aspects of this document about which I am concerned. I want to quote one section. It reads:
In contingency planning against Lassa fever, the new international dimension we are facing is not so much control of one of the scourges of the past as it is taking steps to prevent the emergence of a new plague in Canada and in countries of the world with which we have direct transportation air links.
Vivid illustration of the inadequacy of relying on any voluntary system of control to curtail international transportation of patients was the self-arranged return earlier this year to London by commercial airline from West Africa of a doctor stricken with Lassa fever. The public has a right to expect compliance powers to exist for the effective enforcement of quarantine control. Urgent action is vital when faced with such an inadvertent importation, in order to minimize the risks. The risks when dealing with diseases caused by the dangerous pathogens can be considerable.
With the legislation before us it seems that we are embarking upon a whole new era of quarantine. There is no question that there are great powers given to the minister and, indeed, to the quarantine officer. At some appropriate time I hope the minister will respond to this whole new line of progress in terms of quarantine, particularly when in the past we have had essentially a voluntary system other than those entities to which the minister referred. This is important. We must recognize that we are embarking on a new area in terms of quarantine and new disease entities.
I received a document earlier today entitled "Canadian Quarantine Manual". This is particularly pertinent. I wish to quote from Section 4.2.1. which reads as follows:
The Federal Quarantine Act was promulgated the 1st of January 1972-
The minister made reference to that earlier this afternoon.
-and is an Act to reduce the hazard of introduction into Canada of infectious or contagious diseases. It will be noted that the format of the Regulations has been changed from the previous specific type of format applicable to Maritime trade to a discretionary type of format more applicable to the speed of current international air travel.
What concerns me somewhat is that the minister indicated that we had dramatic changes to the Quarantine Act in 1972 which was promulgated January 1 of that year. We now have new amendments to the act with the prototype Lassa fever and Marburg disease being given as the reasons for them. I find this strange. As the minister indicated, Lassa fever was a well recognized entity in 1969. It was recognized as being a very virulent type of organism with
Quarantine Act
a high morbidity rate. The same can be said of Marburg disease. If one refers to the document I mentioned earlier entitled "International Health Dimensions of the Lassa Fever Problem", it is well illustrated that both these disease entities were well known to medical circles and in the international community as being a deadly serious virus.
The minister has some explaining to do as to why we are seeing these amendments at this time. If in fact that concern existed in 1972 when it was promulgated, I cannot help but think we should have seen the amendments at that time.
The last document concerns the Canadian contingency plan with respect to Lassa fever. The hon. member for Athabasca referred to this earlier. For those who are interested, it gives an excellent introduction on the disease itself and situations in which the virus organism can present itself. In addition, it deals with the principles underlying the federal government's participation in the program.
This implies two things to me. It seems to be somewhat in contradistinction to what the minister stated later today. I assume the minister implied that at this time there are only four disease entities-cholera, plague, smallpox, and yellow fever-that are part of the Quarantine Act and in fact no other disease has been listed. However, as I read this particular contingency plan it is implied that Lassa fever may in fact be on this list. This is a specific question which could be asked at a later date.
As was indicated earlier, it is not certain from the documentation whether in fact we have a capability to carry out the particular principles enunciated in this document. At any rate I want to recognize and acknowledge the importance of these documents. I plan to study them in more depth. I have additional questions related to these documents that I would like to ask at a later time.
We are a global community that has become much smaller with the passage of time, particularly with the jet age. Because of that we are far more vulnerable to contagious and infectious disease. I agree in principle with the minister that we need the capability to prevent certain infectious or contagious diseases that may prove to be very detrimental to the health of Canadians. They may be highly communicable and have a high degree of morbidity.
As I interpret the legislation, there is a necessity to be able to provide the facilities and also to have a contingency type of plan to look after Canadians returning to Canada, who may well have a contagious disease, for treatment and diagnostic purposes.
There are several questions that, in my view, have not been answered. One particular area is with regard to federal-provincial jurisdiction. It is well recognized that the federal government has a responsibility in terms of the Quarantine Act. This was alluded to earlier today. It is also an accepted fact that the traditional health care system is a provincial responsibility.
I wish to pose a hypothetical question because I am not clear as to the jurisdiction in this area. In the great number of cases one would see, in terms of contagious or communicable disease, that type of individual who has been visiting, in this instance, let us say West Africa, and who has returned home to his particular province. Four or five days

March 29, 1976
Quarantine Act
later he develops symptoms that are consistent with the particular disease entity, in this instance Lassa fever. I am not clear in my own mind where jurisdiction now falls, whether this is a matter strictly under the jurisdiction of the province itself or whether the federal government has a direct responsibility and can intervene if it feels it has information at its disposal which would suggest there may well be a health hazard to Canada.
As the minister outlined earlier in his comments this afternoon, the four diseases listed in the Quarantine Act at present are cholera, plague, smallpox, and yellow fever. I am not certain as to the means the minister and his department would use to determine what other pathogens would be listed under the Quarantine Act. I am not even sure how they would be determined. Do we really have the epidemiological capability to make this type of determination? We need far more information about the staff within the department and the follow-up capability which exists. It is important to know what consultation has gone on between the provinces and the federal government and, of course, it is extremely important to know what has happened in the international context. Has there been input from the World Health Organization?
The minister did indicate, if I understood him correctly, that if a particular pathogen is thought to be dangerous enough it would be listed by order in council. And if I understood him correctly, that listing could be terminated at any time by order in council. Is that correct?
I am also interested, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has alluded to this, in the possible infringement of civil liberties involved. This is another important area which should be looked at carefully during the committee stage. I alluded to that earlier in my comments.
There is one other aspect on which I should like to spend a moment or two because I had hoped, when this quarantine bill was introduced, that the minister was implying a greater concern on the part of the government with respect to tackling the various contagious and infectious diseases which presently exist in Canada.
I know the minister has received various representations in the past regarding the positive role the federal government could and should be playing in combatting these diseases. To give one example, I should like to talk for a moment on the subject of tropical diseases and parasites which are increasing, frankly, at a substantial rate in Canada.
We must recognize that Canada, like many other temperate countries such as England, Sweden or New Zealand, is really faced with these exotic-type diseases because of the global age and because of the jet travel which is now so common. The danger is compounded by the great degree of tourism. Figures were quoted earlier; the figure of 40 million was mentioned in connection with the Canadian tourist industry. And, of course, we are seeing a migration of people from all countries of the world.
The other thing we must recognise is that there have been disturbing reports principally from ports of entry, from major cities including Halifax, Montreal, Edmonton, and Vancouver. Certainly the Toronto General Hospital

with its tropical and parasitic disease clinic could show a very alarming increase in the incidence of tropical and parasitic diseases. I think we must recognise, and I quite agree with the minister in principle, that because of this type of setting and the facility of communication we see today it is highly unlikely that Canada will ever again be free of exotic diseases in the future.
If we look carefully I think we would find it startling that there is no school of tropical medicine within the confines of Canada. I have seen estimates that probably less than one per cent of physicians in Canada have any education or particular experience in the area of tropical or parasitic diseases. It is unfortunate that there seems to be such an indifference at times within the profession and the medical schools. There are so many of these diseases, many of them common to tropical countries etc., and little knowledge is actually imparted through the medical schools and, indeed, by nursing schools. I find this most unfortunate.
We must also recognise that at government levels there has been lack of funding for some of the post-basic education and the training of physicians and nurses, as well as for the training of the technical personnel who are extremely important in this particular specialty of tropical and parasitic diseases.
I hate to come back to the word research because I have talked about it so many times, but it is another area of medical research where the government has really not given the type of support needed to deal with tropical and parasitic diseases. I have also received representations from various people within the profession and within the pharmaceutical industry stating that on occasions we have had difficulty obtaining certain of the drugs, what one might call exotic drugs, necessary to treat some of these tropical diseases which, I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, do occur and have occurred in Canada. I should also indicate we have many examples of lengthy delays before patients reach the specialized clinics which are at a premium in the Canadian context.
I also want to indicate that we have very little knowledge when we come to discuss the subject of multiple infections, the toxicity of drug reactions, the conditions which can cross the placental barrier, to name just a few of the perplexities associated with the study of tropical and parasitic diseases. I have no intention of lecturing on the issue of tropical and parasitic diseases. I suspect the average individual probably thinks of tropical or parasitic diseases as mainly confined to pinworms. I suspect that anyone who has raised children is well aware of that particular condition.
I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, there are other threats to health in this area, for example, amoebiasis. If one looks carefully it is endemic in an area such as Toronto. Studies in the province of Saskatchewan have indicated that approximately 30 per cent of the native population in that province have anti-viruses in an endemic form. We must recognise that we escape epidemics in these instances because we do have hygienic facilities and the type of practice in this area which have prevented epidemics up to this point. But we must also recognise that it may lie dormant for life. It is not uncommon at the time of autopsy to find that many patients have suffered from this particu-
March 29, 1976

lar disease. I think this is true of every province across the country.
You might find it of some interest, Mr. Speaker, that malaria was at one time endemic in parts of Canada, in the Kent and Essex counties specifically. I am rather interested in the fact that the anopheles mosquito is still present here-it was reported two or three years ago in Oregon. A soldier returned from Viet Nam-his malaria had not been diagnosed at that point-and visited a picnic area. Mosquitoes in that part were infected, and later a group of nurses who visited the area came down with malaria within a short period of time. This is an indication that some of these diseases which we think of as being extremely rare, which we think could not occur in Canada, do occur.
Many hon. members will recall the Peterborough Petes of the Junior A League who visited Leningrad two years ago. Half the team came down with a severe parasitic infection.
I am simply saying that I hope the minister, in bringing this quarantine bill before us, is thinking beyond the act itself and is paying some recognition to the importance of tropical and parasitic diseases and to some of the other exotic diseases to which he has referred. I am quite concerned that we do not have the capability at this point to handle these diseases despite the importance of the issue and despite the implications of the bill.
May I reiterate that I support the principle of quarantine for certain infectious diseases and in pathogenic cases; but I also suggest that there are many unanswered questions, and that we need greater leadership from the federal government in areas such as tropical and parasitical diseases.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few comments to make in connection with these changes. In general I agree with them. Much has been said before about the need for changes in the present Quarantine Act. The need to cover so-called dangerous diseases is self-evident. Fortunately these diseases are quite rare and hopefully will remain so.
I presume that certain additions may be made to the list by order in council. However, I think it is most important that any additions of so-called dangerous diseases to the list be along the lines of those suggested by the World Health Organization. In other words, I hope we will not act unilaterally in adding so-called dangerous diseases to those already on the list.
Much has also been said about people moving around the world these days, and it is a fact that it is almost impossible within a short period of time properly to screen the average visitor, immigrant or person returning to Canada from abroad.
I should like to make mention some of the changes regarding the handling of suspected cases. At the present time under the Infectious and Contagious Diseases Act the period of detention is not to exceed the prescribed incubation period, and on the authority of the quarantine officer an appeal can be made to the deputy minister of the health service.
Quarantine Act
There are some significant changes in the new subsection (8)(l)(c) under which a person can be detained up to 14 days under the authority of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). In other words, a quarantine officer must get authority from someone higher up the ladder. On weekends, holidays, and so on I wonder about the chain of command in this regard. Presumably a quarantine officer would have to telephone or communicate in some way with Ottawa.
Knowing what it is like at times to get decisions, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there may be some trouble in implementing this provision. I would be interested to know what will be the actual mechanism used to enable a quarantine officer or customs officer who suspects someone is suffering from a dangerous disease to take prompt action. I suggest there would be a good many cases that would take three or four days, perhaps even a week, to deal with.
With regard to the provisions dealing with a judicial review the minister must justify to a Supreme Court judge detention in excess of 48 hours unless within that period the suspected case is confirmed. This seems to me to be pushing the time element to the extreme and I have some doubt whether this process could be completed within that period. Any person who is detained can ask the minister to justify before a Supreme Court judge of the province the reason for his detention, which seems to me could lead to delay.
As far as the new section 9 is concerned I have no great problem. I presume that the regulations will be along the line of what is considered reasonable in medical circles and customary throughout the world.
I think some questions can be raised in regard to subsection (7) in that a quarantine officer may act not only when he suspects a person has an infectious and contagious disease, as was the case before, but when he suspects a person has any other disease which may, in the opinion of the quarantine officer, constitute a grave danger to public health in Canada. This immediately raises in my mind the question whether the quarantine officer will be given guidelines, or will he be allowed considerable latitude in deciding what constitutes a grave danger to public health in Canada? A quarantine officer is not a person trained in medicine and presumably will have to rely heavily on guidelines. As the bill is presently written the situation is not too clear. It seems to me possible, as the bill is presently worded, that a quarantine or customs officer acting on his own could in certain instances detain a person unjustifiably.
The amendment to subsection 8(1)(d) is a slight broadening of the original act. In the original act this provision applied to a person who had been in close proximity to someone who was a carrier of a contagious disease or who is in close proximity to someone who is infested with insects. Under this change the person in question need only have been in close proximity to a person who may have, or may be the carrier of an infectious or contagious disease, and this includes people arriving in or departing from Canada. This tends to broaden the area of jurisdiction of the quarantine officer and enables him to work a little more effectively in cases of doubt. He will also carry more responsibility and will have brought into his area of

March 29, 1976
Quarantine Act
jurisdiction considerably more people. This leaves the situation open to abuse and could cause the zealous quarantine officer some unhappiness. I think some guidelines will have to be formulated carefully in this particular area.
Under subsection 8(2) the scope of a quarantine officer's jurisdiction is extended to people arriving in or departing from Canada. I presume that Canadian citizens will be covered by this provision. The third part of the amendment represents a change in the original act, Section 8.2. This extends the act so it applies to anyone arriving from a place outside Canada. That means all visitors will be subject to the same rules as any resident of Canada who has been abroad.
The main issue I think involves the fact that the act is considerably broader. The number of diseases that are involved is quite limited, but they are important to those who might be afflicted, and important to the health of our people. The act seems to give more latitude to the quarantine officer. Undoubtedly it will cause some unhappiness and a fair amount of conflict when visitors are held under the act. Therefore I think it is important that, when we review the bill at the committee stage, we get answers to some of the difficult questions which may arise. Some of these questions have international overtones, particularly as the measure applies to visitors and immigrants from abroad. Those few words are all I have to say in respect of this bill, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather difficult to follow three of my colleagues, each of whom is a doctor, and I refer to the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk), the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes), and the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie). When the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) introduced this bill we were treated to a rather fascinating lesson on the history of the Quarantine Act. It brought to our attention a concern regarding the possibility of contagious and infectious diseases becoming more prevalent in Canada. If this is the fact we should be extremely concerned.
I was very interested to learn of the role the World Health Organization plays in respect of this matter, particularly when it comes to a desire on the part of the federal government to add contagious diseases by way of order in council. I should hope that the minister does consult the World Health Organization before moving in a unilateral way.
The hon. member for Lambton-Kent brought home the necessity of medical research in this area. He pointed out most vividly the necessity for continuing co-operation and the continuing provision of funds in order that we might have the best medical research possible.
What I have found most fascinating about this whole matter is that in his introduction the minister made no mention of the Olympics being held in this country this year. I find this strange, particularly in light of the fact that about a month and a half ago the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) also brought forward a bill because of a concern about the possibility of terrorists coming into the country at the time of the Olympic Games.

This is perhaps also the concern of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but rather than coming clean he completely ignores this possibility in his introduction of the bill, and says nothing about this means of keeping people out of the country.
Perhaps this bill is part of an Olympic package. The first bill dealt primarily with terrorists and now we have this one which primarily deals with diseases. I hope the minister will enlighten us in this regard, if not here in the House then at the committee. At that time I hope he will be honest with us. I am not suggesting he is less than honest now, but there are some questions that should be answered in order that we may determine why the government is bringing a bill of this type before the House.
Considerable emphasis has been placed on Lassa fever and Marburg disease. Both of these infections have been isolated for some period of time, as pointed out by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent. I wonder why these diseases have been emphasized at this particular time. I suggest the answer is that this is the second part of an Olympic package.
The hon. member for Athabasca in a brilliant speech said that he agreed with the bill in principle, but pointed out there are many questions that have to be answered. The two diseases I mentioned have been known of for some time. That being the case, I wonder why they have not been brought within the Quarantine Act before now. Instead, the minister has waited until almost the time of the Olympic Games and then says he is concerned about the health of Canadians.
What we have here is an extremely powerful bill which actually restricts the movement of people. Some concern has been registered regarding its effect on civil liberties. There is no doubt but that it does have an effect. The explanation to clause 3 states:
The purpose of this amendment is to empower a quarantine officer in emergency situations to take certain action, subject to the approval of the Minister and, where the action involves detention for a period in excess of 48-hours, subject to review by a judge of a superior court, in order to prevent the introduction into Canada of dangerous diseases not presently covered by the Act.
That is the purpose of the main change to this act. It will broaden the section, and I suggest it is a change that we should look into thoroughly when we are considering the bill in committee. As I have suggested, this change affects the freedom of movement and the civil liberties of people. This does not stop with the actions of a quarantine officer. He now has this right when he suspects a disease may be brought into the country. This is peculiar wording and I suggest it defies definition. We will have to look into the definition of the word "suspects". When the quarantine officer has suspicion about a dangerous disease being brought in he has the right to detain individuals.
What is even more important, and this has not been mentioned, but has been alluded to, is the fact that a collector of customs will also be in the same boat. He will also have the awesome power that before now only rested with a quarantine officer. If a customs officer suspects there is a dangerous disease being brought into the country he too can stop the individual and contact the quarantine officer. The quarantine officer must in turn contact the Minister of National Health and Welfare in writing, and
March 29, 1976

the minister must then proceed within 48 hours by way of a superior court judge who will determine the rightness or wrongness of this particular detention. Therefore these matters are of some concern.
I listened to my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), a very respected gentleman in the House, who spoke about the possibility of loss of freedom of movement and also loss of civil liberties. Of course this matter will be looked into more thoroughly by the members on the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs where that concern will be registered, but in keeping with what the government is trying to do because of the Olympic Games which will take place this summer, we all want co-operation. This does not mean to say that we will give the government a blank cheque. It is not the role of the opposition to give governments blank cheques, and particularly this government. I do not want to be partisan on this bill because this bill is for the benefit of all Canadians, and hopefully it will enhance the role played by our country in support of a city which is hosting the Olympic Games.
I believe that we should proceed with caution. We all want to co-operate, but with co-operation comes the necessity to say, "Stop, let us look at what the minister is attempting to do." If we have to ask questions, let us ask what is the opinion of the World Health Organization regarding the procedure proposed by the minister in this bill. What do they think about Lassa fever and Marburg disease? Should it be spelled out by order in council and brought into the bill? I think we must determine whether this is the practice. I believe it is. If the minister can convince our colleagues that it is not, then this matter has been standing for some time because the government does not have the required answers and that is why it was impossible to bring in this bill before now. The minister will have to tell us that.
We must have answers describing how one determines a dangerous disease. How does the customs officer determine this, and how does a quarantine officer determine it? Can the minister give us answers in that regard? We want to know what other criteria will be set to determine a disease, and will this information be passed on to those who have the authority to detain or quarantine people entering the country at ports of entry? This bill is supposed to deal with emergencies, but nowhere in this bill is it spelled out what an emergency is. That is another question which should be answered by the minister once this bill goes to committee.
I heard there is some question as to whether there are enough places with suitable quarantine facilities. I believe the hon. member for Athabasca voiced some concern in that regard. He is of the opinion that there are not enough such places.


Paul Yewchuk: There are none.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The bill specifically refers to "other places having suitable quarantine facilities". What does the minister have in mind? Where are they and how many are there? I think these are important questions.
I do not wish to take much more time of the House on this bill except to state in conclusion that the hon. member
Criminal Code
for Athabasca, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, the hon. member for Dauphin, and I all say that we accept this bill in principle but that many questions remain to be answered. The minister, who is usually open, fair, and honest, will give the answers, I hope, in order to satisfy the curiosity of the opposition.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.

Bryce Stuart Mackasey: that the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-71, to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to the Crown Liability Act, the Immigration Act and the Parole Act, be concurred in.


Mr. Francis Fox (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the Senate has now completed its study of Bill C-71 and I am hopeful that the House this evening will concur in the amendments proposed by the Senate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a point of order which might save time. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) was good enough to advise me, and I have checked it through with members of our committee on this side, that apart from one amendment all these amendments are in reference to translation and are to clean up a few things of a technical nature. Only one amendment is a fairly major one. I wonder whether we could not move one motion to approve all these amendments. Someone might insist on procedural grounds that we cannot do so, but the House can make its own rules. This would save time because there are so many small amendments with regard to language and translation that I hope the House will see fit to save time and pass them altogether.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what the motion does.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I think that is the way the motion is drafted and I hope the House will concur in that motion. I should like to point out to hon. members that these amendments in general are minor ones, and for the most part quite technical in nature. Some deal with punctuation and changes of certain words and expressions in the French version. As such they ensure a higher degree of precision and agreement between the French and English texts of the bill. Hon. members will be interested to note,


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The other place is often criticized with reference to amendments, but once again it has proved that in accordance with the jurisdiction it has, besides taking care of minority rights, it must take a second look at bills which are of a technical nature. In this case it has done so, not only on an important point in reference to the theft of credit cards but also in reference to translation. The Senate was set up to protect minorities and to act as a sort of court of appeal for this Chamber on matters which must be approved expeditiously, such as Bill C-71.
I am glad that the parliamentary secretary said that there is some responsibility and duty on this House to get on with this bill and get it approved because of the attitude today of those who wish to impose distress and evil on society. There is a feeling of what I call the permissive society, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has said that he is endeavouring to tighten up the law.
I am not criticizing either the Minister of Justice, the parliamentary secretary or the government, but a situation arose where two people were given bail. One was charged with murder, and the other with attempted murder. Just a short time ago they came from Vancouver to Calgary and murdered a police officer. They then took two females as hostages for 45 hours. It was only due to the good work of
the Calgary police force that those hostages were freed and the matter was settled.
I endorse exactly what the parliamentary secretary says: let us get on with the job.
I should like to say one last word with reference to the Senate. Too often in this place we hear that they have no function, no real jurisdiction, and they are not doing their job. The purpose of the Senate was to set up a group of fairly wise men who could look at the technicalities of legislation received from this House, and I think the Senate is functioning in that regard. We have a large volume of legislation, and we do not have time to examine it carefully. The Senate has done an excellent job in bringing these amendments before the House of Commons, and this proves that we need the Senate and that the constitution has operated for the benefit of Canadians in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear someone to my left, and I am glad he had something to say because I well remember Mr. Hazen Argue, who is now a Senator, every year from 1958 to 1962 moving bills every year to abolish the Senate. The only thing I could say about him is that he has arrived there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I know it is against the rules of this House to impute motives, but I wonder if my friend, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), did not make that speech just to provoke me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: When we are told by the government that there are some Senate amendments to a bill and that they are just a few technicalities which need not take any time, I have learned from experience that one should look at those amendments to be sure that something is not being slipped through. Indeed, on some occasions I have found that to be the case. However, in this instance when we were told that these amendments to Bill C-71 were on the list, I made sure that I read carefully the amendments as they appeared on page 1125 of Votes and Proceedings for March 17, 1976, and it is correct, as the parliamentary secretary has pointed out, and as has been confirmed by the hon. member for Calgary North, with one exception they are corrections in translation from English into French, corrections in grammar or construction, or what have you.
The only amendment of substance has to do with credit card wrongdoings, and I think we all agree that there should be the options of summary conviction or indictment.
So these amendments present no problem to us, as sometimes happens with Senate amendments, and therefore we are prepared to support the motion for concurrence in these amendments.
I am really surprised at the enthusiasm with which it is suggested tonight that we should maintain 104 full paid

March 29, 1976

Senators in the other place so that if our translators do not do a good job, their translators will do it for us. Is that the function of the Senate?


An hon. Member:: Come on, now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Come on, now, yourself. Or go on, now, to the Senate if you want, but to suggest that these amendments justify the existence of that other place I suggest is really as ridiculous as I think the hon. member felt it was, because of the smile on his face. As far as I am concerned the other place is still for the birds, but we are prepared to vote for the amendments it has given us tonight.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit one question. I wonder if he has checked the amendments dealing with theft of credit cards where the Senate reduced it to a summary conviction which, of course, is an option to the Crown. I think that is very important because any one charged with an indictable offence cannot leave the country and go to another nation. This way, basically if a person is charged under summary conviction he could go elsewhere. Often a youth might be able to pick up a Chargex, and in that regard I think it is a good suggestion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In response to the question of the hon. member I can only assume he was not doing me the favour of listening when I was speaking. He probably listened to what I said about the Senate, but I pointed out that there was the one issue of substance in their amendments. I have to correct the hon. member. The change does not reduce the charge from an indictable offence to a summary conviction offence. It leaves both options open to the court, and I think that is a change the members of the committee of this House ought to have made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from March 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Whelan for concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to amendments made by the House of Commons to Bill S-10, to amend the Feeds Act.
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my speaking at this time on this particular amendment is to try to put on the record some of the unusual things which have happened to this bill.
Feeds Act
The bill was a straightforward housekeeping bill introduced in the Senate, brought into the House, amended in the House and sent back to the Senate, and the Senate sent it back here amended. All I can say is that to any person who is a member of the public-and I might even say a member of this House of Commons-trying to keep track of what is happening to this bill this is an exercise in profundity which can only be described as asinine.
Let me explain what I mean. This bill was a straightforward bill introduced in the Senate. It came to the House, the House amended it and passed the bill. Since both the Senate and the House passed the bill, under the rules of this place and the other place neither House could consider the bill. They could consider just the amendment. I am hopeful that what I am complaining about can go into the record as a suggestion that there should be some way whereby the records of the various members of parliament and of the people across the country trying to follow these debates could be clear enough that we all know what is happening.
All we have before us at the present time is a bill passed out of the Senate on March 6, 1975. That is all we have in the form of a printed bill. However, in addition we have a report from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) saying that the bill passed out of the Senate on March 6 is contrary to the Bill of Rights. Those of us who follow what happens in this House understand that the minister took this back to the committee and amended the bill so that it would be within the terms of the Bill of Rights. Because this was an amendment of the bill from the Senate, we sent the piece of paper back to the Senate saying that we had amended the bill so that it would be in comformity with the Bill of Rights, and the Senate took it under advisement. The Senate then made their amendments.
The only way to check what the House did on the amendments and what the Senate did on the amendments is to read Votes and Proceedings. I simply say that for those who are much wiser than I who represent just a simple constituency and try to follow what goes on in this House, I think there should be a little better system of co-ordinating the program between the two Houses of parliament so that the public, including members of parliament, would know what is going on in respect of this very involved system in attempting to follow the procedure on this bill which has been before parliament for over a year.
I sympathize with the minister. It must have been a dreadful experience to follow all the ramifications of what went on concerning what this House and the Senate did. I would simply say that the system is cumbersome and crude. We know that our counterparts in the United States have a meeting which allows both their Houses to get together and bring a matter back so that a common bill may be passed by both Houses. I ask in these short remarks, Mr. Speaker, that you recommend to those who know more about the rules and procedures than I do that they try to get a better system so that members of parliament will know what is happening with regard to their legislation. Unless one knows what happens in this House and its committees and in the other place and its committees one does not really know what is going on.

March 29, 1976
Feeds Act
It takes a pretty good student to follow the procedure in respect of this bill. I am not the only one who has found this confusing. Several weeks ago the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) explained that he did not understand it. When it came to the House the members did not understand it either. I should like to register my complaint neither to the government, the opposition, nor the other place, but in respect of the cumbersomeness of the rules dealing with matters concerning amendments passing from one House to the other.
Basically, when a bill is passed by this House we cannot debate it again. When a bill is passed in the other place they cannot debate it again. We need a simple flexible system whereby the two Houses of parliament can get together and produce some type of amendment for both Houses so that we both have something in front of us and know what we are dealing with. I should like to register these criticisms of what on the surface seem to be a housekeeping bill but actually is a mess when one tries to follow the procedures of this House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in effect I am raising the point of order that was raised some time ago. I wonder whether there is to be a ruling from the Chair on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers). It seems to me the situation ought to be cleared up procedurally.
What happened, as I understand it, is that the Senate passed the bill and then sent it to this House. Then in this House amendments were made, then we passed the bill on third reading and sent the bill in reprinted form back to the Senate. Then the Senate made amendments, not to the reprinted bill we sent back to them but to the bill in the form in which it was passed by the Senate in the first place.
I suggest that what we are doing at this moment will end up being ridiculous. This washes out the tributes paid to the Senate by a couple of hon. members a few minutes ago. I understood there was to be a ruling by the Chair on the matter raised by the hon. member for Red Deer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on the point of order?


Mr. Schellenberger:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Before I speak on the bill I should like to speak on the point of order. I understand the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) did question whether or not the Senate had amended the proper bill. I was under the impression that Mr. Speaker would rule on that. I ask the same question that was asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Would Your Honour rule on that at the present time?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must say to hon. members that the point raised by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) follows directly the point of order raised by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) on March 4, at which time Mr. Speaker said he would look into the matter. He really did not say he would resolve it by making a ruling.
After looking at the whole matter it seems that the problem arises mainly from the fact that both Houses have

not based their work on the same document. This more or less causes some confusion because the amendments that were moved by the Senate and referred back to this House were made to amendments made by this House to the original bill. In the House of Commons when we reach the report stage on a bill we reprint the bill if required.
In this case the lines do not correspond. I am advised that whatever amendments have been sent back from the Senate to this House for its approval at this time do not contradict anything in the bill or in the decisions that were made in the House of Commons. The only difficulty is that of placing the amendments in the right place in the original version of the bill. This difficulty can be circumvented. I am advised by the Law Clerk of the House of Commons that the matter is clear.
Although I am not in a position at this time to analyse the situation and make my own evaluation of it, I do have the advice of the Law Clerk of the House of Commons who feels that there is no difficulty regarding the amendments that are presented to this House by the Senate. I am taking into account the fact that the legal branch, the Clerk and the staff of this House know exactly where these amendments apply and will make the necessary changes. This means that the amendments adopted by this House may not apply to lines 7 and 29, let us say, on page 3 or on another line of the report stage reprint of the bill.
I submit to hon. members that the question of amendments is more important with regard to the text and content than to which exact line the amendments apply. I would hope that the House would agree on this unless some hon. member feels we should delay or postpone a decision on these matters until and unless we have some kind of institution such as suggested by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain by which both Houses could come to an agreement. In the present circumstances I do not see a way to prevent such minor difficulties which the Chair believes can be overcome. I do not know how we can resolve the confusion unless both Houses meet and discuss the Senate amendments. I see the hon. member is rising to his feet. I welcome his intervention.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I support what you said. On behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition I have read these amendments carefully. I want to be sure that we are all talking about the same subject. I do not think there is any quarrel between the government and ourselves. I know that the presentation of the amendments is sloppy, and I suppose we can do little about that, short of sending the matter back. I suggest that the opposition accepts your interpretation, Mr. Speaker, and we understand that it is agreeable to the government. Therefore, why can we not deal with it tonight? After the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) speaks, we are prepared to accept the amendment.
Let me make it clear that we are not debating a bill. We are debating the first item appearing in issue 229 of Votes and Proceedings of Friday, December 19, 1975, on page 965. The House is considering an amendment made by the Senate to amendments made by the House of Commons to Bill S-10. The matter is set down, as I say, on page 965 of
March 29, 1976

Votes and Proceedings. If the government agrees that we are discussing that item, I foresee no difficulty. There will not be opposition from my side of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know if hon. members want the Chair to read the amendment. The point raised by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) is well taken. The message from the Senate of December 18 was printed in Votes and Proceedings of December 19, 1975. I do not know if I should read the amendment for the sake of those hon. members who do not have readily available their copies of Votes and Proceedings. Actually this House is requested by the other place to concur in an amendment the other place made to a bill. It will be the responsibility of the Senate to incorporate our amendments into that Senate bill. It may be difficult to do more, to give instruction to the Senate as to how it should implement any amendments made to the bill. That would have to be done elsewhere than in this House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I assure the House that I will not be difficult. I have a suggestion to make. I must say that this is a sloppy way to deal with these amendments. The House is asked to amend the bill in certain lines, but that is not at all that is to happen. Those lines to be amended are now somewhere else in the bill. If any member of the opposition brought in a motion asking for some bill to be amended on page 3, line 10, and he put down the wrong line, on the wrong page, he would soon be told he is wrong.
I think the Senate should have amended the bill in its latest reprinted form, but it did not. I will not press the matter; I will not be difficult, but I do say to Your Honour, and through you to the Table, that we should have the right to see a reprinted version of the bill incorporating all the amendments before the bill gets to the next stage, Royal Assent. Stopping it at that point is difficult. In effect we are approving a pig in a poke. We are approving amendments which are to be put in, and which are not as set down in Votes and Proceedings.
I will not object further. I think we should be assured that at some point the bill will be reprinted in proper form and that we shall see it before it is given Royal Assent.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak on the same point of order, I agree that there is some confusion as to where substantive amendments in the various pieces of legislation are to be included, but I think everyone agrees with the substance of the amendments being discussed. There is no confusion about the substance of the amendments or about the words used by the Senate and House of Commons. I do not think anyone disputes that. Therefore I think we ought to hear the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) who wishes to deal with the amendments as now worded.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not wish to argue with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) but I think it will be difficult, even with all the good will in the world, for this House to so correct these amendments that they will appear in a reprinted copy of the bill which can be discussed at this stage. We are discussing this bill in its final stage before this House. These amendments
Feeds Act
are to be sent to the other place, where they can be incorporated in the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Send the whole thing back. It's pretty sloppy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps this is a good time to suggest that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization should look at this matter in order that we may avoid further difficulties. Perhaps we can find some other way of dealing with the problem.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) made a suggestion, and gave an undertaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. He wants to be satisfied about the problem that has arisen before we finally deal with the bill. I do not suggest that we should hold up the bill. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais) will consult with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. If the hon. member is satisfied, we shall be satisfied. We do not wish to hold up matters.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak on the same point of order, I shall consult with the hon. member, so long as it is agreed that we shall deal with the matter with due dispatch. We are considering a motion to concur in an amendment.


Walter David Baker: That is right.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I understand that not many hon. members wish to speak. Perhaps we could deal with the matter in the next 15 minutes or so.


Walter David Baker: In the meantime debate can continue.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concern about the bill. My concerns were initially expressed before the standing committee which amended the legislation, and which later was amended by the Senate. If hon. members feel they are confused, how do they suppose a new member feels, a new member who is trying to learn the rules and is concerned about the mix-up between the House of Commons and the Senate? We amended parts of the bill. Then the Senate amended parts of the bill and sent them back to the House of Commons for concurrence.
Initially I expressed concern about the position of the small farmer who might have incorporated his farm and who, if found guilty of contravening certain provisions of the Feeds Act, could be fined a stiff fine by the courts. We spend a good deal of time discussing such questions in the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
I want to congratulate the hon. member who is chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture for being so patient as we wrestled with this amendment, attempting to break it down in such a way that the small corporate farm would not be treated in the same manner as the larger corporation. It seems that in our amendments we eliminat-

March 29, 1976
Feeds Act
ed the large corporation from any fine other than the maximum of $2,000. This was noted in the Senate and an amendment was made. It was passed back to us in Votes and Proceedings.
Reading from the Senate Debates, Senator Argue said and I quote:
Here we are narrowing it down to corporations found quilty of an indictable offence, and providing for a smaller penalty for a corporation found guilty on summary conviction.
One of the worries of the members of the other place was that by providing for two types of fines, one for an individual and one for a corporation, a farmer who operates a corporation, for example, that mixes feed in the name of himself and perhaps his family-in other words, a very small family corporation-might be caught twice; he might be found guilty as an individual, and then found guilty as a corporation, so that he might perhaps even be placed in bankruptcy.
When one goes across this country he finds various reasons why many small farms have incorporated. Mainly it is for tax reasons or estate purposes. Because of that, there is a great deal of concern. Many of these small family farm operations and corporations today put in their feeds, in their own mix mills, various drugs and proteins, proteins such as urea which requires a thorough mixing. The labelling must be such that it regulates the mixing of urea into feeds in order that only cattle of at least five months or over 400 pounds should use the protein mixture. As well there are such drugs as aeromycin, terramycin, penicillin, arsenline acid and, at one time, DES mixed in foods for a long period of time so that they are thoroughly dispersed.
Under this legislation an inspector of the Department of Agriculture can go on a farm at will, take a sample of the feed, and have it analysed. Upon analysis it is possible he will find the feed has been improperly mixed. If he feels it would endanger the animals on the individual farm or a neighbour's farm, he could place the individual or corporation under indictment. This is of great concern to me.
I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) will clarify this position and that, even with the Senate amendment, the small corporate farmer will not be treated in the same manner as the large corporation. As I read the amendment I am not sure that is so. I have read it over a number of times. We dealt with it in the agricultural committee. I still feel there is some concern.
The other concern is for small corporations which may only have a staff of one or two individuals. The manager of the corporation may also be involved in the mixing of feed. If his feed is tested by an inspector, analysed, and something is found to be deficient, the inspector can say to the manager of the corporation that there is a problem, and for some reason or other it involves a number of firms and a charge is brought forward.
Under this act, we are zeroing in on managers of corporations. This is all well and good for large corporations such as Swift and Purina, but it is of serious concern to the hundreds of small feed mill operators in western Canada, Ontario, Quebec, and the maritimes. I want to raise this query before we allow the bill to pass. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will relate this to his officials and, in the regulations, they will adhere to the difference between the small corporate feed mill or farm as compared to the large corporation which the Senate is attempting to get at when it amended our amendment wherein we limited the fine to
$2,000. That is the intervention I wish to make tonight before the bill passes on and is given Royal Assent.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a short reply. Our concern is to be fair when drafting the regulations. Regardless of how small a feed operator may be, our main concern is to ensure that the product he is offering for sale does not contain ingredients that will do damage to animals or humans. The byproducts from the animal, whether a dairy cow or swine, that will be used for human consumption must be as safe as possible. That is our basic concern.
If I may, I want to say one thing about the discussion that took place earlier. I do not think you will ever see this minister sending a bill to the Senate first.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, before we deal with this bill, regardless of whether we deal with it in an orderly, proper manner which would take time, or suit the convenience and time of the House of Commons, I want to point out that we are not dealing with something small.
The point raised by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) is extremely important. The matter we are touching on in the amendments deals with fines and imprisonment with respect to offences created by the statute. If I were the minister I would be very concerned about it.
I assume those sanctions are in the bill so that the ministry and the Crown can enforce compliance with the law. I suggest there is some grave doubt as to whether there are any sanctions in the bill if we follow the procedure suggested for the convenience of the House, a procedure I indicated I would go along with for the sake of convenience. However, speaking for the official opposition, we do not regard this nor do we accept this as a precedent for the manner in which we should deal with these matters.
If I were the minister I would be very much concerned that the bill being dealt with by the House tonight really has no teeth in it. I caution the minister. I do not think that is the intention of the government as expressed by the legislation. I ask the minister to review the amendments.
I ask the parliamentary secretary to consider the procedure very carefully, to consider what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and perhpas read Hansard. This is important.
I do not think there would be any objection from any member to put this legislation aside overnight so that it could be looked at during the morning to ensure that these matters are being properly dealt with and that the intent of the legislation, which this House has dealt with and is agreeable to, has been followed. That is the only caution I have.
I want to say to the Chair and through the Chair to my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais), that it is a dangerous matter. I would not be opposed to allowing whatever time is necessary in his judgment.

March 29, 1976


Eugene Whelan: I, too, am concerned about this. The Senate amendment of the bill referred to it by the House contained only one modification of substance with respect to the bill as amended by the House on November 26, 1975. That modification will remove the penalty limit of $2,000 which may be applied to a corporation if found guilty of an offence on conviction by indictment. The limit is replaced by provision for a fine at the discretion of the court. We have asked our legal advisers for an opinion and I gather that this does not change the intent-the Senate amendment preserves the general intent of the House amendment and allows the court to levy a heavy fine on a corporation if found guilty of very serious offences. As I say, the Senate amendment has been examined by the department's legal advisers in consultation with the officials of the Department of Justice, and it is acceptable in this form.


Walter David Baker: I am not quarrelling with the opinion of the advisers with respect to the amendment. The question we face is whether we ought to bring into law in this way the amendment which the department's advisers say is proper. That is the issue to which I am addressing myself. However, it is the government's bill. If the government wants to proceed in this way, that is fine. I do not know whether it is really the intent of the government. In any event, if we appear to be agreeing with this procedure I do not wish either the government or the Chair to feel it is intended by us to be taken as a precedent.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I think the House leader of the official opposition has made his position very clear. If I understand him correctly he approves of the substance of the amendment and feels it can be concurred in. However, he does not wish to be tied down; he does not wish the procedure now being followed to be taken as a precedent. I am content to have the hon. member's comments on record in Hansard, and perhaps we might now move on by indicating concurrence in the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be difficult. I shall not stand in the way. I think the whole process is sloppy, and I am glad the hon. member for Grenvijle-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has suggested that if we do go through with this it must not be regarded as a precedent. Some of us will not stand for this again.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I might say a word at this point. The Chair has not taken this question lightly and I wish to reaffirm this to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). As I said before, the legal branch of the House of Commons has looked at the matter and there does not appear to be much difficulty, though it is suggested the procedure should be improved or modified in order that the House might not end up in a like situation, the object being to ensure that any decision, whether by the House or by the Senate, is a clear decision. Members would then know where they stood and what kind of legislation was passed. Is the House ready for the question?
Measures Against Crime


Some hon. Members:: Question!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Under protest!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, March 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-83, for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violence and other crime, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favour of the amendment presented on March 9 by my hon. friend from Calgary North respecting Bill C-83. His motion is certainly deserving of the consideration and approval of the House. It asks that the bill not be read a second time, but that its subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for study.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) pointed out most eloquently that the 76 page bill should be split, as 39 pages of the bill deal with new gun laws. This is another case of the government bringing in an omnibus or umbrella bill with a mixture of good legislation and bad, and hoping to sneak the entire package through by serving it all up on one platter.
This bill with its gun controls, broader wire-tapping powers for police, and tougher prison provisions, overlooks the real crime problem. When I compare the opening remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) on March 8 with the substance of Bill C-83 I find it difficult to believe that he and I are talking about the same thing. The minister opened his remarks with the statement that this bill represents major legislative initiative on the part of the government. I suggest that the minister's attempts to rewrite the dictionary have had the same unhappy result as the government's attempts to deal effectively with rising crime in our country.
Bill C-83 is a mish-mash, a hodge-podge, and a patchwork quilt of every conceivable sort of dodge that the minister could come up with in order to avoid facing this issue head on. The excellent rebuttal of this bill by my able colleague shows all too clearly that the Minister of Justice

March 29, 1976
Measures Against Crime
has given us a mixed bag of tricks calculated to throw us off the scent. He and some of his fellow ministers are so determined that no murderer shall hang, or even suffer any real hardship, that they are prepared to sacrifice principle, and even to chip away at the rights of the law-abiding citizen to accomplish that purpose.
The minister went on to say that this bill is designed to ensure the adequate protection of the safety and security of the law-abiding, and the legal rights and dignity of those charged with offences. This is the best indication we could have that the minister has not changed his stripes. He is just as determined as ever to place his own personal convictions above those of the majority of members of parliament and above the wishes of the majority of Canadians. By all means, he says, let us ensure that the rights and dignity of offenders are protected. This is not the same as saying that the rights of all Canadians to full protection of the law should be preserved and protected. The minister should have said that this legislation is designed to protect the safety, security, and legal rights and dignity of the law-abiding.
My sympathies are, and have always been with those who are law-abiding and with those who are the victims of crime. I consider the dignity of the law-abiding to be infinitely more important than the dignity of those who are convicted of crimes, especially those who are convicted of violent crimes. If we can ensure that the dignity of all Canadians will be served by a particular piece of legislation, then let us by all means consider that possibility. But, Mr. Speaker, let us not place the cart before the horse. Let us first do what we must to protect the dignity of those Canadians who respect our system and our laws and who abide by our laws.
The Minister of Justice tells us that the safety and security of law-abiding Canadians will be enhanced by making it more difficult for law-abiding people to obtain and keep rifles and shotguns. In the same breath the minister urges us to approve legislation making it more difficult for people to obtain and keep automatic weapons, pistols, and such weapons as sawed-off rifles and shotguns. For the life of me I cannot make the connection between those weapons designed purely for criminal use, and those designed for, and used by, hunters and sportsmen. I am not talking about the types of pistols used by sportsmen for target shooting or by our Olympic shooting teams. These guns are required to be registered, and it is my understanding that permits are only issued for these pistols to persons known to be of good character and who do not have records of criminal activity.
What I am talking about is the registration of every person in Canada who wants to own a shotgun or rifle. In the first place it is a matter of record that no country in the western world has been able to prevent people from owning guns simply by outlawing them. It is also well known that one of the first things that a communist government does when it takes over a country is to outlaw the ownership of guns, any kind of gun, and the penalty for owning a gun in most of those countries is death.
History has shown that oppressive laws only breed lawbreakers. In some countries like Sweden, Israel, and
France, oppressive tax laws have served only to develop a nation of tax cheats. A story in a local paper recently pointed out that the government of France collects only about one half of taxes actually owed, and it noted that the Frenchman and Frenchwoman who is not a tax cheat is a rarity. The same syndrome can be detected in countries where there are oppressive laws concerning the ownership of guns. A veteran police official in Britain, where gun laws are extremely strict, said that there are millions of unregistered guns in Britain, and he also said that there simply was not any way that anyone could ferret out these illegal guns.
The city of Detroit probably has the strictest gun laws on this continent, yet I need not point out that Detroit is the murder capital of North America and that the majority of murders in that city are committed with guns, restricted guns-outlawed guns, if you will. By comparison, in the deep south of the U.S. where anybody can own a gun of any type, except for automatic weapons, the per capita murder rate with guns is significantly lower than in cities where restrictive gun laws are in force.
May I just put some statistics on the record, Mr. Speaker. In 1973, 474 murders were committed; in 1974, there were 545 murders. Less than half this number in each year were committed with guns. I point out that in 1973, 56 murders were committed with a handgun; in 1974, the number was 71. There were 114 murders committed with a rifle in 1973 and 122 in 1974. Sawed-off rifles accounted for two murders in 1973 and six in 1974. Sawed-off shotguns accounted for three murders in 1974 only, none in 1973. Shotguns were used in 31 murders in 1973, and in 55 murders in 1974. In 1973, 11 murders were committed using a gun of an unknown type; in 1974 the number was 15. In other words, in the majority of murders some weapon other than a gun was used-for example, beatings, stabbings, strangulation, suffocation, drowning, axing; and in some cases cause of death was unknown.
What I am trying to say is that we in Canada cannot outlaw the instruments of death any more than we can outlaw death itself. If we could outlaw violent death, then I would suggest that the government use its majority in this House to do just that. That would be more reasonable and just than to use its majority to push this bill through the House. The Minister of Justice takes liberties with our intelligence when he suggests that we are in the process of outlawing the instruments of death by agreeing to impose licensing requirements and restrictions on all law-abiding Canadian gun owners.
A friend of mine, when I was speaking to him at a banquet last Saturday night and happened to mention the possibility that this very important and contentious gun control legislation would be before the House this week, stated that he could make a weapon, which I presume could be classed as a gun. He described how he could make it out of a piece of pipe and this, that, and the other thing, at a cost of 75 cents, and that he could make it in less than an hour. This is further proof that anyone who has the desire to murder will be able to do so using some type of weapon.
Let us take the various aspects of this part of the legislation and apply hypothetical situations to them and see just how ridiculous they appear in the clear light of day. I refer

March 29, 1976

hon. members to the first step, the establishment of a nation-wide bureaucracy of gun licensing agencies employing thousands of persons. These people will be given a frightening degree of latitude by this legislation to approve or reject applications from citizens who want to keep the guns they now own or to obtain new guns. I am talking about rifles and shotguns only.
Then pile on top of that the mountains of paper work that must be processed and forwarded to central record offices. In addition we must have an elaborate appeal procedure to protect the rights of citizens from arbitrary decisions made by bureaucrats. This begins to get more and more expensive, Mr. Speaker, and will enable the government to reward more and more of the party faithful, defeated candidates, and friends ad infinitum. Perhaps this is the way that the Minister of Justice plans to justify the enormous expense.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, on March 1 I asked the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) two questions concerning seals and sealing on the east coast of Canada. The questions related to the tabling of an interim report to the minister from the committee on seals and sealing, and the studies by his department on alternative employment for persons who would be affected by a phasing out or stoppage or serious curtailment of the seal hunt. The minister's answers to these questions, is the reason I am debating the issue this evening. I wish I had 70 minutes, Mr. Speaker, instead of the seven minutes limitation that is imposed upon me.
In the July, 1974, election campaign many Canadians obtained a written or oral commitment from most political candidates that if they were elected they would ask the government to find ways and means of stopping the senseless slaughter of the seals and, at the same time, find alternative means of income for those who were affected by such stoppage. The concerned Canadians who opposed the seal hunt had three main reasons-first, the serious depletion of the seal herd; second, the method of killing the seals; and third, the minimum income obtained by the sealers.
The interim report of the committee on seals and sealing, which was composed of representatives from the animal welfare, scientific, and industrial communities, and was
Adjournment Debate
not aligned with any government agency, studied the seal hunt in Canada with regard to conservation aspects and humane killing methods. May I quote from the report regarding some of its findings. Having regard to the conservation aspects the report states at page 2;
The one definite conclusion based on scientific analyses of available data between 1950 and 1970 is that the stock of harp seals has been halved. The original size of the seal population although of interest statistically, is immaterial in considering this point. The population trend towards decrease is continuing. This decrease in population has been supported by observations made by vessel-borne sealers, landsmen, government officials, casual observers, and biologists. There has been some difference of opinion on the effect of reducing the size of the annual kill on the recovery rate of the seal herd. Only continuing research can ensure the herd is not eradicated.
If the seal hunt is maintained at the 1972 level there will be a total elimination of the one year old animals in 2014. The harp seal would then move toward extinction as the older animals die off. A decrease in the annual exploitation of the harp seal is therefore indicated if the species is to survive.
A moratorium in 1973 on the taking of seals, except for those taken by the aboriginal population (native human populations of the Canadian Arctic and Greenland), would allow the herd to start its recovery in
1975.	If the seal hunt is phased out, by all but aboriginals, over the period 1972-1974 then the herd will start to substantially recover in
1976.	The phase out is preferable as it has obvious advantages to the sealer, as well as to the government in allowing the latter to implement economic support for these changes.
On page 6 of the report this committee summarizes by a number points as follows;
1. The majority of the Committee on Seals and Sealing supports a phasing out of the Canadian and Norwegian harp and hood seal hunt...
3.	The phase out must be accompanied by an economic evaluation of the change in income to the sealer, vessel owner and operator and the processing plant operator, so as to prevent individual hardship.
4.	Intensified research, through contract and governmental laboratories, must be carried out to ensure satisfactory guidelines for protection of the harp and hood seal population, if these species are ever again exploited.
5.	The sealer, when advised, has made every attempt to act humanely in the killing of seals. There is no reason to believe he is in any way different in his attitude to the killing of animals from any other human being.
What has been the response of the minister? There has been no real phase out with regard to the seal hunt. There has been a slight reduction from 150,000 to 125,000 for the 1976 seal hunt. There has been no evaluation of the incomes loss to the sealers or the finding of alternative employment. There has been no research as to other methods of killing seals. There has been no research as to the effect of the eating habits of the seals on other marine life, and there has been no indication of the termination of the sealing agreement between Canada and Norway, and the necessity of giving three years notice with regard to its termination. In other words there has been no real response by the minister to these very vital issues.
What has been the response of most Canadians? There has been disappointment at the continuation of the senseless slaughter of seals for the maximum profit of the Norwegian industry which caters to the vanity of European women in a luxury trade. There has been concern that the government should pit sealers against other Canadians regarding loss of income to sealers, instead of finding alternative methods of earning income for the sealers. There has also been the necessity of the Greenpeace Foundation to dramatize the problem to the govern-

March 29, 1976
Adjournment Debate
ment, instead of the government and members of parliament finding ways and means to solve the problem.
I am asking the minister to stop dividing Canadians on the social, moral and financial issues and to direct his mind and manpower to finding a solution to the conservation of the seals, alternative humane methods of killing, and the protection of income and the safety of the sealers. If he does this he will gain the respect and admiration of all Canadians.


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, there is no single report directed to the subject of current population levels of the seal herds. There are many recent scientific reports by Canadian and Norwegian scientists on the harp seal populations. These differ in content and conclusions.
It should be noted that at least four species of seals on the Atlantic coast are being hunted. The status of the various seal populations and the regulations under which they are harvested differ for each species.
The harbour seal and the grey seal are resident in Canadian waters the year round, and their activities in destroying fish and fishermen's gear are a serious problem in some areas. For this reason the department operates a bounty program to encourage the cropping of harbour seals, and itself undertakes and annual cull of grey seals, that is, the latter herds are thinned out by departmental officers to keep their numbers in check.
The species which are hunted commercially are the harp seal and the hooded seal. The abundance levels and population biology of the hooded seal are not well known, and the harvest has been held at a maximum 15,000 for the past five years. In 1976 Canadian hunters were allotted 6,000 and Norwegian hunters 9,000.
The species which is in greatest abundance is the harp seal and the main commercial harvest is directed toward this animal. It is a significant predator of fish and thereby a significant competitor of fishermen. At current population levels it is estimated to consume about one million tons of fish and smaller marine animals annually, including a quarter of a million tons of capelin-itself a significant food item of other fish species, and also of our people. '
Like the hooded seal, the harp is not present year round in Canadian waters, but is present during its breeding season in late winter and spring. During this period it consumes 10 to 15 thousand tons of herring in the gulf of St. Lawrence alone.
The harp seal has been hunted commercially for hundreds of years, not only in the Northwestern Atlantic, but in the White sea and other places near Spitzbergen in the Northeastern Atlantic. All these herds have fluctuated in size over the years, and have, at one time or another, experienced over-exploitation. In the Northwestern Atlantic the harp seal is hunted in spring by ship-based hunters from Norway and Canada, and by land-based hunters in Newfoundland and the Magdalen Islands. At other times of the year it is taken at Labrador, the Canadian Arctic, and West Greenland by resident fishermen and hunters.
The harp seal appears to have been over-exploited at several times during the long history of the seal hunt in the Northwestern Atlantic, most recently in the 1960's. The

hunt came under international regulation, International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries- ICNAF, in 1967. An initial quota of 245,000 in 1971 was reduced to 150,000 in 1972 to 1975, and to 127,000 in 1976.
Excessive exploitation in the 1960's and earlier has resulted in declines in pup production in the 1970's. Lower levels of pup production may be expected until the beneficial effects of the quotas from 1972 onwards become evident in 1978 onwards, since the seals mature at about age six. Meanwhile the hunt is being regulated to prevent further decline in the herds. The herd is now estimated at about one million animals.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time expired some time ago.


AGRICULTURE-EFFECT ON EXPORT TRADE OF REMOVAL OF TRANSPORTATION SUBSIDY ON FLOUR-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question directed to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) on March 19 concerned the impact of the removal of the transportation subsidy on grain and flour shipped from east coast ports which constitutes a serious threat to an important industry and is a policy decision which, I believe, should be reconsidered by the government.
The minister in his answer left the impression that the flour milling industry for export purposes is a dying enterprise. He implied that it is better for us as a nation to ship the raw product, in this case wheat, rather than worrying about processing it in the form of flour. I must advise him for his information that some markets for grain can only be met by the export of flour. For example, Africa, and the nations in the West Indies do not have any flour milling capacity, and so therefore the exports we ship in the form of wheat have to be made in this case in the form of flour.
It is interesting to note that Canada mills approximately 90 million bushels a year. In the face of this the sort of shallow attitude of the Liberal government has led Canada into a major slump in manufacturing trade which is now causing us to slide into a major crisis. This attitude has resulted in our country facing a very serious trade deficit. In 1975 there was a deficit of some $8 billion in the so-called higher technology manufacturing field. That was $1 billion worse than it was the year before, and more than three times the sum of what it was in 1970. This means lost jobs, lost economic activity, lost investment activity, lost potential for technological achievement and, in short, lost opportunities for present and future generations of Canadians.
I am told that the elimination of this subsidy could mean a loss to Canada of something in the order of $28 million worth of value added processing activities, or a total economic spin-off of something in the order of $65 million.
Let us look at the flour trade and what has happened in Canada relative to the world position, and let us examine for a moment what effect this government decision will have upon its future.
March 29, 1976

First, world demand for flour has expanded from 65 million hundredweight in 1954 to 95 million hundredweight in 1974, an increase of 50 per cent. Canada's share, meanwhile, declined from 31 per cent to 11 per cent. In 1954 Canadian millers were exporting 20 million hundredweight. In 1964 we exported 24 million hundredweight on an annual basis, and in 1975 our exports dropped by more than 50 per cent from the 1954 figure, to a figure of 8.5 million hundredweight, and by 65 per cent since the 1964 figure.
The minister suggests that more and more countries are milling their own flour. Well, for his information, only Canada and Australia have experienced substantial declines in exports of flour. The U.S. share has not fallen appreciably from its level of 1954. As a matter of fact, until 1972 it was well above its 1954 level. The European Common Market, meanwhile, has expanded its exports over a period of ten years from 15 million hundredweight to 64 million hundredweight in 1974. Therefore it is categorically wrong to suggest that world export demand for flour has fallen. As I pointed out earlier, some countries have no flour milling capacity so the only way our grain can enter those countries is in the form of flour.
The actions which are proposed by the government in abolishing this freight subsidy will only serve to worsen an already deteriorating Canadian industry and will result in further declines in our share of the export flour trade. In this instance I do not believe that the government has carried out an accurate cost benefit analysis, and I suggested that it do just that before proceeding further. The result of this action by the government will increase freight costs to Canadian millers by 212 per cent. This cost will have to be added to the export price of flour.
We are told by the Canadian National Millers' Association that while the U.S.S.R. has indicated requirements for
375,000	tons of Canadian flour during 1976, it has insisted that further negotiations be conducted in the event of freight costs are to be adjusted upward. The U.S.S.R. representatives have stated further that Canada is no longer competitive in world markets and that further price increases will require them to look for alternative suppliers.
The Canadian National Millers' Association sums up its observations as follows:
Eliminating the subsidy and the "hold-down* will visit disaster upon Canadian millers and damage a substantial export market for Canadian wheat in the form of flour. We cannot believe that these and other foreseeable consequences are in the public interest.
I urge the minister to persuade his cabinet colleagues to reconsider this policy. I suggest that an immediate cost benefit analysis be undertaken, and if it is revealed that such a subsidy should be discontinued, something which I doubt, then I suggest that it be discontinued in a phase out period over the next four or five years so that the industry can adjust over a period of time rather than be disrupted by a spontaneous government action.
I do not believe the action which is contemplated by the government in the form of restraint program is in the public interest at this time. I believe it will only serve to accentuate the speedy demise of Canada's already shaken and eroded flour industry. I must say in conclusion that the whole restraint program which has been advocated by the government plays too harshly with agriculture. I think
Adjournment Debate
agriculture under this restraint program is getting short shrift.


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, part of the initial rationale for the "At and East" subsidy was to keep an all-Canadian route competitive with the American alternative. American rates have increased significantly since that time and current indications are that a full compensatory level in Canada would be preferable to other alternatives. However, as the subsidy has been in effect for some time its removal will result in some adjustment for Canadian flour exporters.
As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) mentioned, there has been a general movement in most countries toward milling their own wheat. To the extent that Canada has replaced some of our flour exports with wheat exports these markets have not been lost. The world export market for flour has been stagnant since the late fifties with an increasing share of the market going to lower quality, subsidized EEC flour. In spite of substantial PL480 activity even American sales have dropped dramatically.
Canadian flour exports fall into three categories: first, commercial; second, government; and, third, Russia-Cuba. The bulk of these sales are made to Cuba under the Russian sales agreements for Canadian grain. The removal of the subsidy will not affect sales in 1976. In the longer run it is expected that Cuba will move toward a higher degree of self-sufficiency in wheat milling. Until that time the government will continue its efforts to maintain this market.
Commercial sales and sales to the Canadian government together accounted for the balance of flour exports-about 25 per cent. Sales to the government will likely continue at present levels regardless of the subsidy. Commercial sales may be effected. However, a strong case has not been made by the Canadian National Millers' Association as to the magnitude of these effects. The Department of Agriculture is keeping a close watch on this situation and if other aspects arise appropriate action will be taken.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-INQUIRY WHETHER THERE ARE ANY PLANS FOR PORT OF PICTOU, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pursue further the question I raised earlier this month with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) concerning whether or not DREE has any concrete plans or projects, either by itself or in concert with other federal agencies in the province of Nova Scotia, for development assistance for the port of Pictou.
I know that we are in a time of restraint in government spending, but that, I submit, does not or should not apply to essential infrastructure projects. I realize that priprities must be constantly re-examined. However, I submit that there is a good case to be made for more DREE involvement in developing the port of Pictou. At least we must begin some systematic efforts to improve matters.
This once busy and still strategic port is immediately adjacent to a heavily industrialized infrastructure including Hawker Siddeley, pulp and paper mills, Scott Pulp,

Adjournment Debate
Michelin Tire, Ferguson Industries, shipbuilding and so on, together with several small industries. These are important industrial components of the complex which ships all over the world and needs proved access to salt water in order to realize its full potential.
This is not the first time I have pointed out to the minister and to his predecessor, now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson), that Pictou county in general and the port of Pictou have been neglected, and that DREE by itself and in conjunction with other federal departments such as Public Works and Transport ought to and indeed must make a meaningful effort to upgrade this port for the good of the area and its people.
This month the minister, in response to my request for support in my representations to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) to keep open the customs office in Pictou, stated that he was advised the volume of business would not justify my request to the Minister of National Revenue being granted. This is indeed a retrogade step because now the port of Pictou can no longer act as a ships' registry. Surely this ought to give the minister and the government an additional reason for improving the port. Once it is improved, the business will come to it.
Earlier this winter I got in touch with civic officials, business executives, and other prominent and interested persons in Pictou county, to ask for their opinions and support in making the government in general and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in particular aware of the need for better marine facilities at Pictou. I received that support from the mayors of several towns, and received an offer of assistance from the Pictou County Research and Development Commission.
In the limited time available I wish to put on record some excerpts from communications sent to me by some of the mayors of towns which, together, make up this important industrial area.
Mr. R. J. Murae, Mayor of Stellarton, wrote in part:
I wish to assure you of my complete co-operation on your endeavour to improve port facilities in Pictou. It is something that is long past due. I propose to have a resolution passed by our council and forwarded to you immediately.
Walter Duggan, Mayor of Westville, wrote:
It is our feeling that any development to the port facilities would not only benefit the town of Pictou, but the county as a whole.
M. A. Harquail, Mayor of New Glasgow, wrote:
Pictou county has a great need for industrial and economic expansion. Industrial expansion without ready access to markets, is, as you are aware, a case of putting the cart before the horse. For this reason I endorse your efforts and offer my support.
The mayor of Pictou, Mr. Clarence McCarthy, sent out many detailed examples of how Pictou would benefit from and is entitled to more funding to increase its capability as a port. I forwarded his excellent letter to the minister as I did with the other letters. I wish to put part of his representation on public record in Hansard so that people of Pictou will see where he stands on their behalf. The mayor said in part:
Mention is made of the ice locked condition of the harbour during the winter months as being a deterrent. To counteract this one should look back to the war years when the port was a most important repair depot for the Royal Canadian Navy every month of the year, and Foundation Maritime Limited were building . . . 2,400-ton steel freighters and sending them to sea, once each month, 24 in all.
If we consider the freeze-up as a reason for non-use of the harbour oy our Pictou county manufacturers it could be an argument that storage sheds with enough capacity to carry over this freeze-up period are needed; incorporated as well could be capacity for at least... 12,000 tons of feed grain which would be transported from the Lakehead before freeze-up. Surely this would allow for cheaper feed than the present method of storing a rail shipment of only ... 200 tons at Scotsburn.
It is obvious that we are not using the port of Pictou to its best advantage.
Pictou county has recently received assistance in the form of DREE grants made to businesses in the area. We recognize this and appreciate it. As member for the area, may I, too, express my appreciation. But unlike the "grand centres" encompassing the Halifax-Dartmouth area, or the strait area of Nova Scotia, we have received little if any of the type of infrastructure aid to which we are entitled. For example, $20 million was committed in 1972 for the Metropolitan Area Growth Investment Organization in the Halifax-Dartmouth metropolitan area. To date this investment has produced little if any benefit because of the delays arising in handling. The interest paid on this money in three years would be more than enough to pay for the facilities which the port of Pictou desperately requires.
In conclusion I ask the minister to make a commitment to provide more infrastructure aid in Pictou county and to improve the port of Pictou. This will bring quick rewards in promoting a better way of life and expansion of business. The people of Pictou county have always shown an ability to respond to opportunity. They deserve a more equitable share of federal moneys spent in Nova Scotia for infrastructure assistance.
I hope the minister will give my representation favourable consideration. I repeat that this important area of Nova Scotia has not received its fair share of infrastructure aid. It has not received that kind of assistance to which I referred in my question earlier this month.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as usual the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) ably delineated his concern for his region. He was able to quote from letters sent by people in Pictou and neighbouring communities which support his position.
I am aware that Pictou has a great tradition as a shipbuilding centre and as an active port over the years. To my knowledge, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was not directly approached by the government of Nova Scotia about further planning or funding for port development at Pictou.
As I am sure the hon. member is aware, the development of port facilities falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transport. I am not offering that to dodge any responsibility from the point of view of DREE. DREE has provided industrial incentives to a number of firms in Pictou. It is my understanding also that our officials anticipate a further proposal from a firm in that area in the fairly immediate future.
It is certainly the intention of DREE to make full use of all of the development instruments available to provide co-operation and full support for initiatives undertaken by the province, by other federal departments, or by the private sector to help the port of Pictou achieve its full potential and at least some of its former greatness, of which the hon. member is well aware.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:29 p.m.

Tuesday, March 30, 1976