1976-06-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the revelation yesterday by the Minister of Finance that there are still no conflict of interest guidelines applying to employees of Crown corporations and similar agencies in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the House support the immediate establishment and implementation of guidelines with regard to employees of Crown corporations and similar agencies, and that the standard be similar to that set for public servants on December 18, 1973 by order in council, and that in the case of quasi judicial bodies the standards be at least equal to those applying to our judiciary.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, due to the importance of the discussion on Bill C-84 in committee, I move under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That this House instruct the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to allow live radio and television coverage of the committee hearings on Bill C-84.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Now that the full impact of this government's new dairy policy has been experienced by producers and observation reveals individual producer hold-backs in sufficient amounts and numbers as to result in extreme financial losses and bankruptcies within the industry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That this House instruct the Minister of Agriculture, in consultation with the various provincial marketing boards, to revise immediately the present dairy policy, having special regard for the removal of at least a portion of the penalty clause and the return of a percentage of the resultant holdback and a revision of the interprovincial subsidy quotas.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the rapid approach of the summer recess I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That Bill C-242, which deals with smokers in transit, be put forward as a government bill in order to facilitate its passage through this House before the House breaks for the summer recess.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: The Liberals said no.

June 23, 1976
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion concerns the continual exceeding of provincial limits on the emission of SO 2 by the Great Canadian Oil Sands Company at the Alberta tar sands site. Since 1974, according to a report by STOP enclosed in a letter to the attorney general of Alberta from that organization, Great Canadian Oil Sands has exceeded the provincial SO 2 limits 258 times.
In view of the fact that this evidence corroborates the view of many that the province of Alberta is unable or unwilling to enforce its standards on GCOS, and in view of the fact that such emissions are a threat to the environment and health of tens of thousands of people living in the vicinity I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That the federal government take action immediately under the Clean Air Act to establish and enforce national standards of SO 2 emissions, which are long overdue in any case, and to enforce those standards in the tar sands operations.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There seems to be some indication that this motion has less than unanimous consent.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM AUSTRALIA
Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with the oral question period, may I take this opportunity to call to the attention of all hon. members the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished delegation, under the auspices of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, from Australia, headed by their distinguished Minister of Defence, the Hon. D. J. Killen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. The question arises out of the recent remarks of the Prime Minister that rather than the industrial countries giving up their right to sell nuclear power to whoever they wish, the world should not be afraid to live dangerously. In the light of the fact that it seems increasingly unlikely that

mankind will be able to control the political chain reaction of proliferation, which now threatens to become critical, will the Prime Minister take steps to achieve an increase in the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards capability, which at present has a staff of only 40 professionals to inspect over 400 nuclear installations?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if I may answer the question on behalf of the Prime Minister, just a short time ago I had a long discussion with the officers of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, and one of the questions I put to them quite forcibly was the very question the hon. member raised, namely, whether they had at their disposal adequate staff and inspection services to carry out their responsibilities. The answer from the officials was that they had adequate staff and adequate resources, and if the need for future additional resources should arise, they will make the appropriate request. That is the answer to that question.


Douglas Roche: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for External Affairs made a speech to the OECD this week in which he chastized the industrial nations for not doing more in the cause of peace and development in the world. In the light of that speech and the answer he has just given, will the Canadian government indicate to IAEA that Canada is willing if necessary to increase contributions to the agency, with the proviso that the extra resources are to be used to expand the safeguards division?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the first part of the question, my comments with respect to industrial nations were to suggest that in the continuing dialogue that is going on in Paris, it would be dangerous if the industrialized countries engaged in foot-dragging in the vital months that lie ahead. During my discussions with officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, I indicated to them that Canada was prepared to increase its financial commitment to the agency and I am sure that we would consider, if in their judgment additional resources were required for inspection services, doing precisely the same in that field.


NUCLEAR POWER-PROPOSED TRANSFER OF ACTIVITIES FROM PROMOTION TO SAFEGUARDS
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the government indicate to the governing board of the IAEA that it is this country's view, as expressed by such people as Maurice Strong, the chairman of Petro-Canada as well as many distinguished Canadians who met during the Habitat conference, in Vancouver that the promotion of nuclear power is inconsistent with its proper regulation and that resources presently used in promotion should be redeployed to safeguards activities?
June 23, 1976

Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already referred to his discussions with IAEA and I think has made it very clear to the hon. member what the position of Canada is, as the Prime Minister also indicated in a public statement at the Habitat conference.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He says the international agency has sufficient capability for inspection. It would be interesting if he would ascertain how many inspections have actually been carried out in the last three years at the CANDU plant outside Karachi. My question in relation to Pakistan is simply this: the minister has had on his desk for two months a request from Pakistan for added nuclear assistance. Has the government at long last come to a decision in respect of that request, and if so, what is it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has things mixed up. The situation is that Canada has requested a renegotiation with Pakistan of the present safeguards arrangements with a view to upgrading them. This is presently what is before the government of Pakistan and before the government of Canada. They have not requested additional assistance above what is presently provided.


RENEGOTIATION OF CONTRACT WITH ARGENTINA FOR NUCLEAR REACTOR-REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF COST
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Again the minister has been evading questions with regard to AECL cost of the Argentinian project by saying for six months at least that this has been under renegotiation. How long can the renegotiations go on, and has the government any idea what that is going to cost Canadian taxpayers?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member a precise time frame. Quite clearly it is in Canada's interest to make the best deal it possibly can. That is what Canadian negotiators are presently in the process of doing.


INDIA-INCARCERATION OF GEORGES FERNANDES-REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATIONS FOR RELEASE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of Canada's association with the Republic of India in the Commonwealth and the long friendship between the two countries both of which are or were united by respect for democratic freedom, will the minister express to Mrs. Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India or the appropriate representative of the government there, regret that one Georges Fernandes, a leading democratic socialist and trade union leader has been arrested and imprisoned for political reasons. This action is calculated to destroy democratic opposition in that country. Will the minister suggest that Mr. Fernandes should be released?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, any effort on the part of Canada to suggest to Indian authorities how they should administer the internal affairs of their country would very likely be more counterproductive than helpful in the present situation. The hon. member's representations, I am sure, speak for themselves.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate sincerely what the minister is saying, but suggest that when fundamental freedoms are at stake and many people throughout the world are expressing their regret, Canada might join in.


HOUSING
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
A few weeks ago the minister sent a communique to hon. members in which he announced a support program for the rehabilitation of rural housing. As far as Quebec is concerned, could the minister tell the House whether a special agreement has been reached between his department and a department of the province on the regions to be designated as eligible under this program?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yes, agreement has been reached with the Quebec Housing Corporation but I am not quite certain at the moment if the agreement has been signed. I shall be glad to check. The designated areas have been agreed upon with the province.

June 23, 1976
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR TABLING COPY OF AGREEMENT WITH QUEBEC ON RURAL HOUSING
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Given his affirmative answer, could the minister table a document enabling hon. members to read the agreement which was signed with the province of Quebec and could he also tell us what amount of money is made available for the implementation of this program?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to supply that information.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of his pending visit to Puerto Rico, to attend a meeting of the heads of state of certain states, and in view of the OECD tentative understanding that member countries should accept a 5 per cent per annum ceiling on growth for the balance of this decade, would the Prime Minister indicate what position he intends to take on this important subject in Puerto Rico, bearing in mind that we have much higher unemployment in Canada than exists in most OECD countries and that, if we are not permitted to grow at a faster than 5 per cent growth rate, there is little likelihood of our being able to materially lower our jobless level in the country?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we will attempt to grow at the optimum rate, from the Canadian point of view, regardless of what was said in any other place.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister to do with his attendance in Puerto Rico? As Canada's population and work force is growing at a faster rate than is the case in most OECD countries, does the Prime Minister intend, in Puerto Rico, to make it clear that we need a higher than 5 per cent per annum growth rate to even keep level with other countries on a per capita basis?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that is precisely the question the Prime Minister just answered.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of the Environment? Yesterday I asked the hon. gentleman if he would care to correct the misleading impression he left earlier concerning the U.S. Academy of Science, when he said, and I quote:

... made a study and came to the conclusion that nothing proved that the use of aerosol sprays could cause damages ...


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That's the result of some weeks of Berlitz.


William Herbert Jarvis: Since the minister did not take advantage of the opportunity I gave him yesterday to correct the misleading impression he left with the House on Monday concerning the state of scientific opinion with regard to the destruction of the atmosphere ozone layer, will he now admit that his original statement regarding the conclusions of the academy was in error, and will he take the opportunity to correct the impression he left on Monday?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, what I said in substance is absolutely true. I have the confirmation of the department. It has not been proved scientifically that the atmosphere's ozone layer has now so deteriorated that it puts people's lives in danger.
Now, a study was made by the U.S. Academy of Science, the report of which has not been published yet. I simply read the information published in Canadian and American newspapers, which confirms the opinion of my department that nothing shows right now that we are in danger, but that this could eventually happen if we do not take whatever action is necessary to prevent an increase in atmospheric pollution.


SOURCE OF REPORT TO MINISTER ON EFFECT OF AEROSOL SPRAY ON OZONE
William Herbert Jarvis: When the minister referred yesterday to a report that he had received from his department, was he referring to a report from the National Academy of Science or was it an interdepartmental report? If it was the latter, can he indicate the source of that report leading to the conclusion he has just drawn? What is the source of that report and who is its author?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is a communication I received from my department. People who work on that kind of pollution, scientists, tell me that an interdepartmental committee composed of representatives of the Department of the Environment, the Department of Transport, the National
June 23, 1976

Research Council and also some universities, are currently studying that important question. But right now I repeat, that nothing shows that there is an immediate danger for people's lives, but that is an extremely serious problem which is being looked at very closely by all scientists.


HOUSING
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. It is with regard to the decision by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to cut off the support program to native housing groups in the larger centres such as Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary. In light of the fact that the minister, recognizing the special problems associated with the increasing migration of native people to the cities, has repeatedly promised that a native housing policy for the cities would be established, can he explain why this latest step has not been taken and what remedial action is being proposed before the end of this month?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, there certainly have not been any programs cut off or concluded. There are certain programs which are desired by native people in the urban areas that are not possible under present legislation. We are working very closely with them. I recognize, as does the hon. member, the particular nature and growing urgency of the problem of urban native people. I repeat, no programs have been cut off and we are working with them. I was to meet with a group yesterday which unfortunately could not get here because of some difficulty with aircraft. We are continuing on that and indeed emphasizing those programs that are at work now as well as trying to expand upon them. There are some programs that cannot work at the present time, because of provisions relating to ownership as opposed to rental. Unfortunately, I cannot give an answer on it before the end of this month, as much as I would like to.


Frank Oberle: In the case of Winnipeg in particular, there will be a massive layoff of people who have seasonally and assiduously managed to succumb to their own desperate situation. In view of the fact the minister has promised for three years that there would be a special policy that would address itself to the problems of native housing, particularly in the cities, will the minister, in spite of the air strike, establish a moratorium over the policy of CMHC that has come to light in the past few days?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, no final policy came to light in the past few days. There is a committee that has been working on this, but no final decisions have been made on that at this time.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


REASON FOR RESTRICTIONS ON TRAVEL TO FOUR COUNTRIES ON MEMBERS' PASSPORTS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister explain to the House under what authority restrictions were placed on passports of members of this House dated June 3, 1976, for four countries. What were the circumstances leading up to those restrictions being imposed? I ask this with particular regard to Taiwan where there is no civil strife, contrary to the three other countries in which civil strife may be anticipated. I am referring to restrictions on travel to North Korea, Namibia, Rhodesia and Taiwan. In particular, would the minister explain why members of this House are forbidden, according to their passports, from travelling to Taiwan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would like to examine the question and reply to the hon. member, probably tomorrow.


An hon. Member:: No way; it is a holiday.


Mr. Wagner:: St. Jean Baptiste Day.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the Secretary of State inquire into the practice whereby personnel in the passport section call in the passports of members who are taking part in parliamentary delegations under the pretext of endorsing their passports accordingly, and then enter restrictions in the passports without giving prior notice?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will do that.


CANADIAN POSITION AT OECD CONFERENCE CONCERNING RATE OF GROWTH OF THE ECONOMY
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises from an OECD report which suggests there is to be a lower rate of growth and lower employment. According to a news item from Paris in this morning's paper, the Canadian delegation agreed with the thrust of the final OECD communique, noting that it was consistent with present government policy in Ottawa. I ask the Secretary of State to tell us what it was that our delegation agreed to, and in what way our position at the OECD can be reconciled with the statement just made by the Prime Minister that we were pursuing our own course at the conference.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have not seen the final communique but I do know that one of the questions before the OECD was the attitude of the industrialized countries toward future growth, the context within which future growth should be undertaken and the extent to which the policies of the industrialized countries could be harmonized. As I understand it, the thrust of the final proposal by the Secretary General was that the industrialized countries ought to support economic growth in the future but not to the extent that this would bring about unacceptable levels

June 23, 1976
Oral Questions
of inflation which would obviously result thereafter in greater unemployment and perhaps a further recession. I believe the position has to be understood against the background of a fear of resurgence of inflation in all industrialized countries if growth is permitted to go beyond reasonable bounds.


FINANCE
Max Saltsman: I should like to direct my supplementary to the Minister of Finance and ask him to what extent his May budget was influenced by this agreement Canada has made with the OECD countries and whether his budget does reflect that commitment to lower growth and less concern about unemployment?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: It was certainly not influenced by an OECD agreement which was reached about three weeks afterwards. Nevertheless, the position stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs seems to be a reasonable one and one which, I should have thought, would have commended itself to the hon. member. While we should be seeking growth to meet our employment requirements in Canada we would be the losers if we allowed it at the expense of unrestrained inflation. To that extent, the position stated by my colleague is the position taken in the budget.


PROVISIONS RELATING TO CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES AND LEASING-EFFECT ON CANADIAN FILM INDUSTRY
Mr. John Roberts (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance-it is one of great concern to film-makers in Canada. In the budget of May 25, the hon. gentleman announced a new rule against tax sheltering related to capital cost allowances and leasing; it is feared that this will militate against the production of Canadian films. May I ask whether it is intended that the rule apply to films produced in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Subject to confirmation I would say it really applies to movable equipment only in Canada, that is to say, to chattels rather than to the films themselves. But I would have to confirm this through closer examination.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour but in his absence I will address it to the Prime Minister. When will the long-awaited report on railway pensions be tabled, and in any event, when will steps be taken to alleviate the distress of railway pensioners covered by inadequate pension plans?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is asking me when a report will be tabled. I will inquire.


An hon. Member:: You have been doing that for two years.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. Many hon. members have received complaints because of the heavy backlog in the processing of applications for licences for private aircraft and pilots dealt with by the Toronto District office. Can the minister offer us any hope that there might be a "catch-up" operation in the processing of these applications so that people wanting these licences will not have to wait two months or more as is now the case?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: I am afraid I cannot extend a great deal of hope at the present time. The labour dispute is not yet settled in a final way and there is a danger of falling further behind, let alone being able to provide for a catch-up operation. Nevertheless, some steps are being taken to deal with the situation.


RENEWAL OF PILOT'S LICENCES IN VIEW OF POSSIBLE STRIKE OF AIRCRAFT SAFETY INSPECTORS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: In the
light of the planned strike by the aircraft safety inspectors group, is the minister proposing any extension whatsoever of expired pilots' licences once the strike commences and, if so, for how long? Further, will he be conducting proper medical examinations before any of these licences are renewed?


Otto Emil Lang: The question is clearly hypothetical but I would refer the hon. member to our past practice.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It arises from the many statements made by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board in this House as well as in Western Canada about discrepancies between freight rates for rapeseed, rapeseed products, feed grains and beef. I refer in particular to one occasion upon which the minister, in answer to a question, said: "I would fight to try to preserve the benefit of the Crow rate in some other way ... " Would the minister tell us what he meant by "some other way"?
June 23, 1976


Otto Emil Lang: I will send the hon. member a copy of the speech I made in Edmonton a year and a half ago.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and it has to do with the recent oil spill in the Thousand Islands area of the St. Lawrence River system. Is the federal government involved in any way in the clean-up operations and, if so, to what extent? Further, is there any danger to the Canadian side of the river?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, some 4,000 barrels of crude oil were spilled in the area of the Thousand Islands, on the American side. There is a real danger that the crude could reach Canadian shores between Brockville and Kingston. Naturally, that will depend on both currents and winds. I know that at the present time violent winds are blowing. The United States have recognized that the spill is their responsibility, they are taking steps to prevent the crude from reaching the Canadian side. But we have no assurance that it will not, and we are working with them to reduce damages to a minimum.


Jack Burnett Murta: My supplementary is, really, the first part of my question. If that is the case, could the minister bring us up to date as to exactly what the federal government is doing to ensure that in the event the oil does move into the Kingston area the authorities will be prepared to deal with it?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are working in co-operation with the American authorities. If at some point the Americans cannot contain the spill alone, there is no doubt that the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment will help them directly.


LOTO CANADA
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the revelations made in the last few days concerning Loto Quebec, namely that influence and extortion tactics were resorted to, can the Prime Minister assure the House that Loto Canada will not be modelled on Loto
Oral Questions
Quebec and that it will not call on the concessionaires and distributors of the provincial lottery?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I would be glad to bring that question to the attention of the minister. He will be in a position to answer it when he returns to the House.


POSSIBILITY OF GRANTING TICKET CONCESSIONS TO NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Claude Wagner: I also want to put a supplementary to the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.
Could the right hon. Prime Minister consider the possibility of granting the Loto Canada concessions to nonprofit associations that are above suspicion such as those of the veterans, handicapped, blind and other worthy groups?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I will also bring that question to the minister's attention.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State who is reponsible for the CBC. In view of the concern expressed by his colleague the Minister of Communications in a speech at St. Andrews-by-the-Sea over the extension of communication services to the north and isolated areas, would the minister indicate what progress is being made with the accelerated coverage program that the CBC has now had in effect for two or three years? No action, or it appears that no action, has been taken to extend T.V. coverage to remote areas that have yet to receive coverage.


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I do not have the detailed information with me but I will be pleased to provide the hon. member with details of the accelerated coverage plan for the province of Newfoundland.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. First of all, may I welcome the statement that he made regarding the relocation of Lebanese refugees in

June 23, 1976
Oral Questions
Canada. May I ask the minister whether these applicants have been declared refugees by the United Nations high commissioner for refugees, and can the minister give any indication how many people will be involved under the program that he has announced?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the people in question have not been declared refugees by the United Nations high commissioner for refugees, and indeed we are not declaring them refugees either. Faced with the situation of continuing strife in Lebanon, we have made the decision to proceed to offer them the opportunity to seek landed immigrant status through order in council. To the best of our information there are between 1,000 and 1,100 such Lebanese individuals here in Canada now, and of course this will apply to those who have been in Canada as of, I believe, last Monday.


SECURITY CHECKS ON LEBANESE ENTERING CANADA-POSSIBLE USE OF POINTS SYSTEM TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether these applicants will have to qualify under Canada's immigration points system, but more importantly are proper security checks being completed at the present time in order to avoid the unfortunate situation that reflected negatively on the Vietnamese resettlement program, which was something that placed in jeopardy the whole question of Canada being a receiving country for international refugees?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, the applicants would be subject to the normal background and medical checks. As to the criteria by which they will be judged, these will not be exactly in accordance with the points system. The other requirement is some assessment that they will be able to adapt successfully to Canadian life, hopefully with the assistance of the Lebanese community.
With regard to the other part of the hon. member's comment contained in his question, I think there were only one or two incidents that occurred in the Vietnamese movement or any other refugee movement. I would defy anybody, faced with the emergency measures demanded by the sad state of affairs that cause refugees to apply for special consideration, to avoid an issue such as that, but I do not think that it should be over-emphasized.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REQUEST FOR REPORT ON WHICH BOARD BASED DECISION TO ROLL BACK SALARIES OF REHABILITATION WORKERS IN NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Mike Landers (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the recent rollback of the salaries of the pharmacy, physical and mental rehabilitation unit employees who fall

under part III of the New Brunswick labour relations act, would it be possible to obtain a copy of the case worker's report on which the Anti-Inflation Board based its rollback decision, and if not, why not, keeping in mind that allegations of inaccuracy have been forthcoming?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have pursued with the Anti-Inflation Board the questions posed to me by the hon. member in this regard, and I am advised by the board that due to the provisions of section 14(1) of the Anti-Inflation Act the documents would not be available because they are confidential. I therefore regret that the answer would have to be in the negative.


HOUSING
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
We know that the minister consults the provinces to set up the designated zones eligible for the RRAP program. Can the minister tell the House whether his department is responsible for the designation of those zones and on which criteria his department relies to determine if a municipal area may be eligible for this program?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I gather the hon. member is referring to the rehabilitation program which replaced the urban renewal program. The first criterion is that the residential rehabilitation qjid assistance program applies with priority to those areas previously urban renewal areas but which are no longer so designated, having been replaced by this more effective approach. The second priority would be neighbourhood improvement areas and the basic criterion is that area which is most in need, which has the lowest income and lowest standard of housing which has to be revitalized. The province usually selects the areas; final selection is subject to CMHC approval. There is a somewhat different and special situation in the city of Montreal where a special arrangement has been made in two areas in the east part of the city; but other than that there are 12 such designated areas throughout the province of Quebec.


EDUCATION
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Have the provincial ministers of education accepted an invitation to meet with the minister on July 7, and have they asked him to clarify exactly what it is he wants to talk to them about?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I understand it was discussed at the meeting in Manitoba last weekend. I plan to get in touch with the chairman of the council of ministers, Mr. Bennett Campbell, the minister of education for Prince Edward Island. I tried to get him this morning but he was occupied; I hope to speak to him later in the day and to be in a position to give a more complete response to this question next week.


HOUSING
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary.
I would like to know if a municipality, to be eligible for grants under the RRAP program, must necessarily get the approval of the provincial government?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it does.


TRANSPORT
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister advise the House what has been done regarding bidding procedures in dredging contracts, have any contracts been let and who is supervising these contracts?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, some contracts have been considered. This question, of course, in the broad area of government, would have to relate to the Minister of Public Works as well as myself. If the hon. member would refer to a specific contract I would be glad to try to deal with it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, may I direct the same question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister advise the House what is being done so far as dredging contracts are concerned? Is he supervising these contracts?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, dredging contracts are the responsibility of the department both with regard to letting and supervision. The department enters into the contract. There is, however, under the chairmanship of the Department of Public Works a committee that monitors not only the tenders but the contracts themselves and their execution.


DREDGING OF TURNING BASIN AT CHURCHILL-REQUEST FOR ACTION TO PREVENT DELAY OF SHIPPING
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. I
Oral Questions
understand that the dredging program in the turning basin at Churchill is seriously behind schedule. Would the minister take immediate action to have the situation corrected so that this year's shipping season will not be further hampered or restricted?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there have been some earlier problems with regard to the dredging program. As much action as is possible has been taken to put that right. As the hon. member knows we are looking forward to a record movement of grain through Churchill this year.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE INADEQUACIES FOUND IN RAIL SERVICE BY COMMISSION WILL BE RECTIFIED
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the provisions of the Railway Act and specifically section 262 which requires the railway to provide adequate and suitable accommodation for traffic at all places served by it, and in view of the fact that the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission is presently holding hearings in Saskatchewan to determine the adequacy of service to a number of centres in Saskatchewan by the Canadian Pacific Railway, will the minister assure concerned residents in Saskatchewan that where the committee finds the service inadequate the government will undertake to make sure that the provisions of Section 262 will be complied with by the railway.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the very reason the committee is there is to determine adequacy and to take the appropriate action. The committee will do that and the commission has the power.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is supplementary to the other questions asked on the issue of the export of the CANDU reactor. Would the minister advise whether Canada has ever taken a position in terms of the nuclear exporting powers that she would be willing to grant diplomatic immunity in terms of its own requirements within the country and outside, so that we can enter into the principle of extraterritoriality in protecting reactors that we sell abroad so that there is some protection against diversion of plutonium from those materials. Has that concept been forwarded by the Canadian negotiators at any time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understand precisely what is meant by extra-territorial diplomatic immunity and reciprocity in these circumstances. In the normal course Canada relies on the International Atomic

June 23, 1976
Oral Questions
Agency to carry out inspection to ensure that materials are not diverted for explosive purposes. There is also a provision for Canadian back-up to this inspection service where required. On the fact of it I do not see any additional evidence arising from the hon. member's suggestion that does not presently exist.


SUGGESTED REASSESSMENT OF POLICY OF EXPORTING NUCLEAR REACTORS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister will understand the advantages behind diplomatic immunity for embassies around the world and the same advantage would apply. IRDA, a division of the United States Department of Commerce, has now in a very intensive study indicated that there is no telling economic reason for the export of CANDU reactors to third world countries and that the purchases without exception have been made for power and military prestige only. In view of the continuing body of evidence that is flowing in terms of U.S. and world authorities, is the minister now making a reassessment in terms of Canada's position on the export of those reactors and the increasing risk to world peace that is occurring as a result?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, no one has ever suggested that it would be appropriate in every developing country to have sited power reactors. In some developing countries it may be possible to secure power requirements from other sources. But certainly in a number of developing countries the evidence seems to be overwhelming in the present circumstances that they must rely upon nuclear sources for present power requirements. It is on that basis, and because of the obligation Canada has assumed under the non-proliferation treaty, that we have undertaken to transfer technology to other parts of the world, especially the developing world. It is really one of the most urgent requirements for certain developing countries.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD   REASON UNITED STATES COMPANY RECEIVED COPIES OF PRICING AND PROFITS REGULATIONS BEFORE MEMBERS
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the recently announced regulations of the Anti-Inflation Board on pricing and profits were made available to the media in time for a news article on Tuesday, June 15 and in view of the fact that the United States office of Eaton-Yal in Cleveland, Ohio, received a copy of the regulations three days later on June 18 and more particularly in view of the fact that the Canadian office of that same company in Ontario was embarrassed and annoyed that they were unable to obtain the same information until three days later, at the same time that the local members of parliament received their copy, I wonder how the minister justifies this order of priority?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will bring that grievance to the attention of the board.


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PROPOSED ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE FROM QUEBEC TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Since the province of Quebec has long considered putting up a transmission line which would enable it to sell electricity to the United States, could the minister tell us where those negotiations now stand and would he say if the province of Quebec will receive a positive answer.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I believe that upon reflection the hon. member would agree that it would be quite improper for me to speculate on the decision that would be rendered by the National Energy Board on this matter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises from an earlier question by the hon. member for Edmonton West. It concerns if it was correctly stated by the hon. member for Edmonton West to be an outrageous interference with the rights of members of parliament to have freedom to go where they will, and the rights of Canadians as a whole under the United Nations charter to have freedom of egress and ingress. Was this order made by Order in Council or is it the consequence of bureaucratic lawlessness?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if that is a question I think the answer to both would be no.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister did not know anything about it when he was asked a moment ago. Has he had some information since the question was asked by the hon. member for Edmonton West? If there is an order in Council, will he table it because this is a gross interference with the rights of members of the House of Commons and parliament in general.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Elgin.
June 23, 1976


POSSIBILITY OF AGREEMENT WITH AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND ON IMPORTATION OF BEEF
John Wise: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture perhaps I might direct my question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister confirm or deny reports to the effect that trade agreements between Canada and the Governments of Australia and New Zealand have been reached with reference to the importation of beef from these two countries?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I take note of the question and I will provide the hon. member with the information.


POSSIBILITY OF POISONED MILK IN CHILLIWACK AREA-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that a dairy farmer in the Fraser Valley telephoned a radio station and stated that he had just put poison in the milk. In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I should like to ask his parliamentary secretary whether the minister has been advised of this report and whether it is being investigated.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, that report was brought to the attention of the Health Protection Branch. I think I can give the hon. member some reassurance. The department is taking the report seriously although it may be a hoax. All milk shipments in Chilliwack have been stopped. Milk will be tested and approved before any will be released. If this is indeed a hoax or a joke it is a pretty expensive joke for the taxpayers.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that we have a group of very distinguished parliamentarians from Australia in our gallery, and in light of the fact that the Canadian cattlemen have lost more money in the last few weeks than ever in the history of this country, would the Prime Minister ask our guests from down under to find another market for their beef and give us a little time to recover.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Bilingual Air Traffic Control



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: should like to table copies of references to the administrator, under the Anti-Inflation Act, with respect to collective agreements concerning the Wentworth County Board of Education, the Prescott and Russell County Roman Catholic Separate School Board, and the Sudbury District Roman Catholic Separate School Board.


AIR TRANSPORT
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to table, in both official languages, copies of the order in council appointing the Hon. W. R. Sinclair, of the Court of Appeal in Edmonton, and the Hon. Julien Chouinard, of the Court of Appeal in Quebec City, to a commission to study the safety aspects of bilingual air traffic control in Quebec, and the terms of reference of that commission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: General aviation outside the commercial airline field is extremely important in Canada, especially because of our space and because of our income levels, which means that we can take advantage of the means of travel which is fastest and covers that great space of ours. This is true of Canadians who use English, and it is equally true for Canadians who are much more at home or even only at home in the French language, particularly in that great area which is comprised of the northern parts of the province of Quebec. This led us some time ago to look at the question of air traffic control in that area in both languages, and we took some steps in that direction.
I think it is important for me to draw to the attention of the House the fact that what we have done so far is simply extend bilingual air traffic control in visual flight operations to five airports in the province of Quebec and to indicate that within the near future that will be extended to two additional airports in that province. It is important to note that, outside certain radio services in that language, that it is all that has been done, and that all of this has been done now without any argument or disagreement on the part of the air controllers or pilots in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: The key consideration in this policy as it has been developed to this point, and as we look forward to the future, is that the current, strict safety standards and practices in aircraft operations in Canada have not, and will not, be lowered or jeopardized. We have indicated some plans which are subject to greater controversy. They

June 23, 1976
Bilingual Air Traffic Control
are, specifically, plans to examine procedures for bilingual air traffic control in the broad Montreal area, in completing bilingual air traffic control in the province of Quebec both in instrument flight procedures and visual flight procedures. Because of the complexity of our air traffic which the interest in general aviation creates, we had to take the time to develop procedures which were particularly suited to this area, in keeping with the fundamental commitment, we will maintain the safety standards and practices in aircraft operations in Canada of which we have been proud. These will not be lowered or jeopardized.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: It is important to note that this matter is under study and examination in terms of the development of procedures, and we have asked for and been given an indication of support from pilots and controllers in the development of these procedures with elaborate simulation equipment which exists here, in the national capital region, and at the Dion site as well. If this succeeds, then we will move to the next step. This was something that was to be done in 1977 and 1978 as we could proceed with it.
In every case it should be emphasized that throughout Canada the pilot of the aircraft will determine the language of use between himself and the air traffic controller. In no case would it be required of any pilot that he become bilingual, certainly not in any case if he was unilingual English, because throughout Canada air traffic control in English would be available to him at all times. What we were hoping to do, and what we are hoping to do, is provide air traffic control in the French language when the pilot is better served by that in the province of Quebec, and perhaps at a later date in the national capital region. No controller will be required to be bilingual except in areas of bilingual air traffic control or, in other words, basically in the province of Quebec.
In order to provide double assurance that safety remains our pre-eminent watchword, we agreed to the appointment of a commission to examine the manner in which our procedures were being developed, and at the end, when those procedures were ready for implementation in our view, to comment upon them and the standard of safety which we have achieved.
As hon. members know, Mr. Keenan, first appointed to such a commission, found it necessary to resign. Today I announced the appointment of a new commission. In view, not only of the distinction of the commissioners who will be at work, but the fact that the work being done is toward the development of procedures which will be put in place if we are successful in developing them in a year or two years from now, and in view of the fact that everything that is being done in air traffic control in Canada at present is judged safe by all the parties involved, I think it is right for me to ask hon. members in the House to join in the request to the parties to go back to work flying passengers in Canada while the work of this commission goes on, and to cease the disruptions which have so afflicted our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I ask for that support earnestly, as I have done in the past, in the belief that the right thinking members of all parties in the House-and I take that to be the majority in every party-believe that these steps are reasonable and that so long as the principle of the high standard of safety to which I referred is maintained, this course of action deserves support.
Just before coming to the House I received word that Mr. Maley of the Canadian Airline Pilots' Association had indicated through the press that he would like to see a meeting between himself and Mr. Livingstone, certain of the airline chief executives, myself and senior officials. I immediately responded by inviting Mr. Livingstone, Mr. Maley and such of the executives as can be present at such a meeting tonight to come to a meeting in order to attempt to resolve this matter. I am sure that in that resolution the support of all members of the House will be helpful indeed, and again I solicit it.


Mr. Jack Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party welcome the statement of the minister and join with him and wish him success in getting our airlines, air pilots and air traffic controllers back to what might be called a cordial effort to return our air freight and passenger travel to a normal situation.
We are deeply concerned about the safety aspects of this question and it is regrettable that language and racial questions have to enter the picture. We also regret that the minister has taken this long to meet the president of the pilots' association and the air traffic controllers. We believe that he, as Minister of Transport, would serve the country well if he answered the question put to him yesterday by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) and released all the air safety studies which have taken place in his department to this date so that we who want to judge this issue in an unbiased and fair way could have an equal opportunity to do so. I urge the minister to consider the question put yesterday by the hon. member for Central Nova, to answer it and to make available to the country those studies, because I think that would be helpful to the country in reaching a favourable decision.
It is regrettable that the minister does not, in essence, come completely clean. He says in his statement that pilots can and will be available to operate in both official languages at five airports. In his statement he also threw in the question of the Ottawa-Hull region, and that leaves the question in the minds of people as to whether this is the beginning and not the end.


An hon. Member:: What are you afraid of?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am afraid of nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We urge the minister to come completely clean and to place the facts on the table, and we regret very much that the whole question of safety has become clouded. I am particularly pleased that the minister has agreed to meet with Mr. Maley and Mr. Livingstone, because as a passenger I share their concern-


Miss Begin:: We all share it.
June 23, 1976


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -that safety standards are maintained in every part of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I want to commend the minister for the way he stuck up for and stood by Mr. Keenan. It is regrettable that he had to resign from the commission. I am pleased that the minister has appointed a new commission so that the whole situation can become more stable. It is regrettable, however, that he appointed two members to this commission and not three, because there cannot be a majority decision reached. While the minister appointed a member from each official language group, I think the best recommendation I could give him would be to appoint a third person from neither of those groups.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In that way, a majority decision could be reached. Hon. members laugh at that, but we all remember the Bilcon report in which a minority position was filed. I think the country wants this issue settled, not for political reasons but for the safety of air passengers, and I do not know whether these two gentlemen, Mr. Sinclair and Mr. Chouinard, are satisfactory to the pilots' association or to the air traffic controllers. I do know that in settling the contract with the air traffic controllers Mr. Keenan was satisfactory. I hope Mr. Sinclair and Mr. Chouinard will be, and I hope we can get back to a more stable situation with the highest degree of safety maintained.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, following the minister's statement and the response of the official spokesman for the Conservative party, I would like at the outset-perhaps it is not necessary, but under the present circumstances perhaps it is worthwhile-to emphasize the very profound commitment of the New Democratic Party to the principle of bilingualism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: As hon. members in all parties recognize, on an issue as sensitive and as important as this, the political issue involved is in maintaining a federal Canada. It is always extremely difficult to apply a principle to a particular circumstance, and it is very important for those of us involved in political decision-making to have a basic sense of trust about the motives of those involved in reaching a decision on this matter so that we do not call into question basic commitments if there happens to be a difference in judgment about the application of a general principle to the particular circumstances at issue.
In his comments today the minister correctly noted that the issue is not whether bilingualism is introduced all across Canada. That, of course, is not the issue. Unfortunately, perhaps that is widely misunderstood, and I am glad the minister emphasized that that is not the issue. The issue pertains very much to the province of Quebec, with a minor extension to the Ottawa-Hull area. The minister is also correct when he says that bilingualism has been effectively in operation for some two years in the province of Quebec, and is in certain areas right now. He might have
Bilingual Air Traffic Control
added that it has been in operation in those aspects of aviation covered only by visual flight rules. That is an important technical consideration, as I am sure the minister recognizes.
The issue is about the extention of bilingualism in air traffic control in the province of Quebec, particularly in the Montreal area, from those areas covered by visual flight rules to those covered by instrument flight rules. Again, that is an important technical consideration. The minister has said that this extension raises more complex questions and that is why technical studies and an independent public inquiry are needed.
There are a number of serious and, for me, as yet unresolved issues flowing from the government's position and from the terms of reference of the commission which were tabled today by the minister when he made his statement. In the preamble of the order in council it is stated that the commission will consider both the safety implications and the operational efficiency implications of extending bilingualism into flight control procedures in the province of Quebec. The order in council elaborates in detail on a number of specific considerations which arise from those two general points. However-and this is an area of serious concern to me-at no point is it stated that the commission, after all its deliberations on all the specific considerations which are referred to it, can reach a negative conclusion. I choose my words with care when I say that if it cannot reach a negative conclusion it can appropriately be seen as some kind of sham, and a costly sham at that. For example, one possible interpretation of the order in council that the minister has tabled is that bilingualism will be extended regardless of the cost, regardless of efficiency and regardless of the inconvenience to passengers. I am saying that is one clear implication of the order in council as I read it.
For this commission to have any validity at all it is much more important, in our view and in the view of the public of Canada, that it must have the genuinely open option of recommending either "Yes" or "No" after it considers all the factors.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The implication remains with me that the deck has in fact been stacked by the terms of reference as indicated in the order in council that has been tabled. If the deck is stacked, this implies that the conclusion has been reached and what the minister may be going through here is a costly public relations exercise. If that is the case, what we have is a mere form of political advertising and, like all advertising, it is intended more to deceive than to enlighten. I say those words with care, Mr. Speaker. I hope the questions that follow and the answers we will get from the minister will show that the commission can recommend to the government "Yes" or "No"; that it is not wedded by the terms of reference to come in with a "Yes" answer, with all the elaborate justification for that answer. I repeat, if the commission is not open-ended, if it does not have a completely frank mandate, it will be seen as a sham not only by the public but by those now involved in the

June 23, 1976
Bilingual Air Traffic Control
aircraft industry who are out of work and who all of us would like to see go back to their jobs.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, we are thankful to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) for the statement he made in the House today on the serious problem of the strike in air transport. We deplore that such a strike has happened. However we doubt that the commission will be able to proceed quickly enough to allow us to take the necessary procedures so that the problem will not drag on for days and weeks. We are now waiting for the commission's report and, during that time, the Canadian economy is unfortunately burdened with serious problems because air transport in Canada today has become very important, and we know it.
Mr. Speaker, some individuals make it a specialty to turn this problem into a racial issue under the guise of safety. In the last paragraph, the minister said in French, and I quote:
Experience in recent years has shown that while making for better comprehension bilingualism can increase the safety of operations.
I do not think the minister included this sentence in his statement without checking its meaning. Bilingualism can increase air safety. When we see individuals now making a pretext of safety for disrupting air transport, particularly in Quebec, I think that unfortunately they are using a false pretext to cover up a racial issue. We know very well that studies have been made and that in certain other countries more than one language are used even in communications and other areas, and that nowhere else as far as we know has there been a strike because of the hazards the language used in those other countries would have caused.
Mr. Speaker, I myself had the opportunity in recent days when several of my colleagues were caught in the middle of this air strike and remained grounded because air services were no longer working, I had the opportunity to meet a unilingual anglophone, a pilot who feels that this safety issue is a false problem in air transport. He does not believe a word of it. Yet he does not speak French and he is a pilot from western Canada who believes they are creating a problem from a false situation. We wish, therefore, that a solution can be reached by the federal government, which should make it possible for Canada to remain a bilingual country. As far as I know, we still are in Canada, we have two official languages and we should not allow some individuals, under false arguments or for other pretexts, to take steps which will result in one of the official languages of Canada not being recognized in a public service as important as Air Canada or air transport in general. We therefore support the means-not radical means, but means of understanding, we hope-to be taken by the federal government to have the French language respected in Quebec, because it is the official language of Quebecers and one of the country's official languages. We must have the French language respected and prove wrong those who take pleasure in repeating that under the cover of safety, we must use only the English language, and particularly in Quebec.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a couple of questions to the minister in view of the state-

ment he has made. The minister indicated he was meeting with the representatives of the air traffic controllers, the pilots' association and executives of the airlines. Could he tell the House if he has had an opportunity of reviewing the terms of reference, whether these have been approved as yet, or whether he intends to put them to these meetings when they take place?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that after sitting down I received a note that my suggestion for a meeting has been accepted at least by Mr. Maley, Mr. Livingston and Mr. Taylor of Air Canada who happens to be in Ottawa. We will meet at eight o'clock this evening and I have no doubt that the terms of reference will be further considered by us at that time. A good deal of what is in the terms of reference already has been the subject of earlier discussions between at least my officials, Mr. Livingston and the air traffic controllers.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question. Could the minister inform the House whether he is going to take the position that unless the parties themselves are satisfied that the terms of reference are sufficiently broad to satisfy their membership or particular companies, the commission will not proceed, or does he intend the commission to proceed notwithstanding the concurrence of the parties affected?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference are very broad, starting out by specifying the safety aspect as the key to allowing, under one paragraph, the commission to report on relevant matters. There is a great deal of breadth. While I hope the terms will be acceptable as they stand, obviously I have to await the discussions to know whether that will be so.


Mr. Fraser:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could put a further question to the Minister of Transport, for purposes of clarification. Yesterday, as reported at page 14744 of Hansard, referring to the air traffic controllers the minister said:
Indeed, the latest word I have is that there is some lack of interest in the commission because they seem to be taking the position that the only thing they will be satisfied with is a move away from the position which we have taken.
Meaning, the position the government has taken. Could the minister be more precise and tell the House whether he has been advised directly, especially recently, by the air traffic controllers that they will not co-operate in the matter of the technical commission?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, no, I would not put it that way. The reference I made yesterday was to the conversation between them and my officials. I hope we will have their co-operation. They had earlier indicated that they could co-operate on the simulation exercises even before the question of the commission arose. I had a discussion with Mr. Livingston about the announcement I was making today. I spoke to him last night, but had no positive indication then of the attitude he would take.


John Allen Fraser: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unfortunate situation which has resulted from
June 23, 1976

what I may call the series of inconsistent statements coming from the government side of the House, can the minister assure us that beginning tonight he will personally make every effort, which will be supported by members on my side of the House, to maintain constant communication with the parties in this matter so that they will not feel, as they put it to us on this side of the House, that there has been a talking to them but not talking with them.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, first I wish the hon. member would not accept the press versions of inconsistent statements. The only thing which has been inconsistent is the way in which these statements have been reported in the press. As hon. members on all sides of the House know, this can happen from time to time. The principal persons involved in the current dispute have been the air traffic controllers. My officials have been in constant contact with them. It was well known that I was available at any time to meet with them as well, if it seemed that such meeting would be helpful or useful.
I happen to have a great deal of confidence in the officials who are involved in these discussions and did not see any particular need to intervene every day or on an hourly basis. I had not been requested by the controllers to meet them personally or directly, at least not until the message reached my office today at about 1.30, and I had not had such a request from the pilots. Actually, I received the request today by way of a report to me by a reporter who said that an indication of interest in the meeting had been shown. I responded immediately by extending the invitation to meet me. But I was always available to meet in that way.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise some rather obviously inconsistent statements which have been made by the government. In the order in council of May 13, three tasks were to be given to the commission. They were to inquire into and report on implications relating to aviation safety, on implications regarding costs, and on the operational efficiency of procedures. Those three considerations were included. However, for some reason, in the order in council tabled today one of those three items has been left out. Why, in the order in council tabled today, is the commission not given authority to inquire into the cost factor? For some reason that item has been left out of today's order in council, but was included in the order in council of May 13. Why has it been left out?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the reason, essentially, is that while operational efficiency is seen as relating directly to aviation safety, we wanted to leave the major impression that safety is the key consideration here. It is included under paragraph E in relation to relevant matters on which the commission may comment. It might not want to pursue to the ultimate limit the question of total additional costs; therefore it seemed better not to highlight that matter as an obligation for the commission.
On the matter of additional costs and whether additional procedures should be instituted, a decision would have to be taken by the government, which accepts its responsibilities in this House and the country for the cost of bilingualism. On the other hand, it is just as clear that although ultimate responsibility rests with the government, on questions involving safety it would, clearly, be practically
Bilingual Air Traffic Control
and politically impossible for the government to take any step which would lower or jeopardize safety. In that area, the commission is playing the key role.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it was a serious mistake to leave out the matter of operational costs, because those committed to implementing bilingualism as much as possible, where appropriate, should know the costs involved. Leaving out that matter was a serious ommission. My last question to the minister is this; Is it the government's view that if the commission looks at the areas to which it is now restricted it can bring in a recommendation not to proceed with any extension of bilingual operations in air traffic control?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the commission is not limited in its recommendations and therefore that kind of recommendation is essentially open to it. It would be making a judgment on the quality of safety and operational efficiency and would draw conclusions therefrom.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems appropriate, in the circumstances, to conclude our questioning by recognizing the hon. member for Moncton, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, the hon. member for Vegreville, and the hon. member for Crowfoot.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, there should be no doubt that I, as a member of this parliament, am not committed to the present system for the implementation of bilingualism, particularly where air safety is concerned. Frankly, I have doubts about the sincerity of the Ministry of Transport in this whole matter.


An hon. Member:: Come off it.


Leonard C. Jones: Let me speak. The airline pilots held a symposium on air safety this spring in this city. I should like to know why Ministry of Transport staff did not participate in that symposium. I believe the airline pilots made an effort to deal with the matter of air safety.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member will see this in a different light when he knows that the date chosen for the meeting was chosen without consulting us, and the organizers of the symposium should have known that my key officials who are involved in air safety were on that date obligated to attend another meeting.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, since it is important to create an atmosphere of good will, trust and confidence as a positive step toward resolving this dispute, can the minister advise if the government will reconsider its somewhat hasty decision to prosecute the Winnipeg controllers, since the threatened prosecution has not been conducive to the achievement of an atmosphere of good will and confidence? Is the government reconsidering its position in view of the appointment of the commission of inquiry?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. It has been the plain and straight-forward position of this government that laws must be upheld and those who offend the law must be proceeded against. I hope that hon. members opposite will in this instance, as they have in other instances involving broad and important principles, support us.

June 23, 1976
Bilingual Air Traffic Control


John Allen Fraser: But the contract is still before the courts. Its validity has not been determined. How can the government prosecute in such circumstances?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, since similar incidents in other sectors of the labour force have occurred, and the government has not proceeded with such indecent haste, if I may use that expression, why has the minister and the government taken the present, adamant position in the present situation?


John Allen Fraser: Particularly as the matter is still before the courts and is not resolved.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Particularly as the issue is still before the courts, as my colleague says.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why the issue is before the courts. That is where it will proceed, and I do not intend to comment on the subject.


John Allen Fraser: Precisely. It is before the courts.


Otto Emil Lang: With regard to the question of broad policy, I say to hon. members that there was a time when hon. members opposite would say in every case, "You should not proceed because this would be the first time," or "because you did not proceed the last few times," and so on. We made it clear that this had to change. The law has to be respected. Therefore, when an injunction is issued it ought to be followed with action. I have made that position clear and I have followed that course throughout.


John Allen Fraser: But the validity of the contract has not been determined, and you are prosecuting.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I, along with the hon. member for Vegreville, am concerned to establish stability with regard to air traffic in this country. I want to see good will prevail on the part of those who oversee our air traffic, namely, the air traffic controllers. Can the minister, for the benefit of the House and the country, state that in the selection of Mr. Chouinard and Mr. Sinclair the air traffic controllers were consulted, and whether they agreed to the selection of those two individuals to carry out this commission for the study of air safety?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, earlier we had asked the controllers to suggest names-we meant in the plural-in order that we might look at those persons as possible commissioners. Certainly, once we had made the decision that it would be better to move to the judiciary for the commissioners, it would have been inelegant to begin discussing the merits of one or another of the commissioners. Therefore, there was not discussion in that sense, although I did have a discussion about the appointments, prior to their being made, with various elements within the dispute representing both CALPA and CATCA.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I very much regret the minister's answer. In order to attempt to clarify this, did not the air traffic controllers agree to Mr. Keenan to carry out this commission originally? Was it not the belief of the air traffic controllers that the faith demonstrated by the minister and the ministry in the first instance would be continued in the

second instance? I very much regret the fact that the minister now says he did not fulfil the obligation that they would be consulted.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member misstates the situation with regard to an earlier occasion. The earlier occasion was indeed a reason for my not expecting that full consultation, to the last bit of consent, would have been successful. The earlier occasion was evidence that that would not work. In the earlier situation we had submitted certain names to the controllers as possible commissioners, and received no response about those names. We then determined the possibility that Mr. Keenan might be available, and concluded that it would be a practical impossibility for them to disagree that he was acceptable. We indicated his name to them before we proceeded to appoint the commissioner, but received no response. It was really a question of my not wanting to be in the position of having to incur further delay.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, the country is now faced with a stoppage of air service. It is obvious that for some time there have been serious misunderstandings and profound disagreements between the minister and his senior officials and the controllers and pilots. If we are to have a resumption of service in the very near future, why did the minister not propose the appointment of a commission or commissioner and set the terms of reference 2Vi weeks ago? Why did he not even at this time discuss with the organizations concerned the people he would appoint and their terms of reference, so that we could be assured even today, as I doubt we are, that the organizations concerned are willing to accept the appointment of the commissioners, the terms of reference and are willing to go back to work while the commission is working? Why did he not do these things earlier? Also, will he have any assurance before tonight that he is likely to get an agreement with regard to the working of this commission and the employees going back to work today or tomorrow?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, even now I cannot give any assurance about where we will be moving from here. Indeed, it was exactly for that reason that I asked for the full support of hon. members opposite in urging that we resume normal air travel while the commission gets on with its work. The reason I did not take a certain course of action, and so on, was that it probably would have been more likely to exacerbate the situation than heal or cure it. Therefore, I will take the liberty of not going into that question in detail.


David Orlikow: What consideration, if any, has the minister and his department given to the fairly quick bringing into operation by the controllers much more modern equipment and instrumentation such as that used by controllers in the United States, which I understand would make the plotting of movement and safety much easier? Further, it might have facilitated the agreement of the controllers to implementation of more bilingualism than they have been prepared to do until this time.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have, of course, an ongoing program for the improvement and renewal of equipment. I have no reason to believe that that program, or the state at which it is, would have affected the current dispute.
June 23, 1976


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, since it seems to be generally agreed that there must be an atmosphere of confidence created between the government, on the one hand, and those who are directly concerned with air traffic on the other, the air controllers and pilots, a situation which has not been improved by some of the statements made or reported to have been made by the minister, why did the minister decide to avoid some of the provisions of the law last week when a strike was threatened, when he might have appealed to the PSSRB for a ruling as to whether this strike was legal? Also, does he know that a request has been made to the PSSRB by CATCA for a statement as to their legality at the time?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was aware of that later application after the earlier action that had been taken. Of course, the conduct of employer-employee relations is in the hands, strictly speaking, of my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, rather than myself as Minister of Transport. However, certain courses of action were open, and one of those courses of action was pursued.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister is not going to aggravate matters even further by turning down the appeal that has been put to his ministry-and I cannot give the legal terms because I am not legally trained-to appear before the PSSRB for a declaratory judgment on this matter.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that, essentially, involves some highly legal considerations. There are other proceedings taking place, and I will not comment on that matter today.


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, I intended to rise under motions to inquire whether the House would give unanimous consent to my reverting to motions later this day to deal with House business. I am not sure that I will want to take advantage of the opportunity, but if things look reasonably favourable I might put forward a motion for consideration at that time. I would like to have agreement now to revert to motions for that purpose.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Before you put the question, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that there is at least one fairly important committee meeting at the same time as this House is meeting. I do not know what the government House leader has in mind, but it may very well affect the conduct, in one way or another, of what goes on in committee. If the House leader desires to come forward later with a motion, the members on the committee have the right to know, now, what will be contained in the motion. If he is not in a position to tell us that now, and if unanimous consent is required, I must respectfully decline to give that consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps we should wait until we come to motions. We do have one or two routine proceedings to attend to before then.


Mr. MacKay:: I rise on a brief point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the seriousness of the transportation situation and the amount of time spent discussing it, would the Minister of Transport tell us whether he has considered the question I asked him yesterday with respect to making
Business of the House
public the results of the aviation inspection safety standards investigation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Standing Order surrounding the making of statements by ministers gives the Chair discretion as to how many questions are permitted during the question period. There could be no other way of interpreting the request of the hon. member except as a request to extend the question period, which I, in my discretion, consider to have been ample. Seven or eight members, representing the parties in equal proportions, have put questions. The hon. member now seeks to put a further question. Two other hon. members of New Democratic Party were also seeking to put questions.
Having indicated halfway through that question period that I would terminate it by recognizing certain members, if I were now to extend it by allowing the hon. member for Central Nova to speak I would obviously have to recognize other hon. members as well. It was an exercise of my discretion to discontinue the question period when I did, and I do not see how I could reconsider that decision now.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thought it would be more convenient for the House if I were to make a motion on House business later today, but I must, of course, accept the rules. Since unanimous consent has apparently not been given, I should like to make a motion which would, of course, require unanimous consent because there is not the ordinary notice; it would have been impossible to have given the notice earlier than today.
This afternoon we shall be reaching the conclusion, I would hope, of most of the remaining business before the House with the exception of Bill C-84 and Bill C-83. The House will recall that I said we would continue debating Bill C-83 as long as other business which was on our program was still before the House, but that I would not keep the House in session in order to complete consideration of Bill C-83. That is still the government's position.
The one item which does remain on the government's program and which must be completed before we rise is Bill C-84, apart from Bill C-88 and C-68 on which progress will be made today. This being so, it will not be necessary for the House to sit on Friday for the purpose of completing our business by June 30, unless, of course, the justice committee were to report today, which I think is very unlikely. It would be possible, however, for the House not to sit on Friday if some provision could be made that should the committee complete its business tomorrow, when it might be sitting, or on Friday, the committee could report as though the House were sitting.
This does not, of course, require the committee to report by Friday. That is a matter which is in the hands of the committee, not in the hands of the House or of the government. This proposal would simply facilitate the work of the committee, which would be able to sit more continuously on Friday because it would not be interrupted by the necessity of certain members being here for the ques-

June 23, 1976
Business of the House
tion period, and so on. I should therefore like to move a motion as follows:
That the House shall not sit on Friday, June 25, 1976;
That, if at any time before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, June 25, 1976, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs shall have agreed to report Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, the House shall be deemed to have received the report of the said bill as if it had been sitting; and
That, if the said report shall have been deemed to have been received in accordance with this order, it shall be in order for the House to take up the report stage of the said bill on Monday, June 28, 1976;
Provided that it shall be in order for any member to submit to the Clerk of the House notices of proposed amendments at the report stage of the said bill at any time before 8 p.m. on Friday, June 25, 1976.
Some hort. Members: Oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The motion, if it were put forward now, would have to be put forward by unanimous consent. I could, perhaps, hear some brief comments on a point of order if there were some hope the motion might be consented to. Without considering that the motion is being spoken to, the Chair might be ready to accept requests for clarification on a point of order.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I am disguising a request for clarification by suggesting that I rise on a point of order. As I understand it, what the House leader is asking is that the House give permission to the committee sitting tomorrow, if it so desires, and to the committee sitting on Friday, if it so desires. It is also proposed that the House should not sit tomorrow and, as well, that th% 48-hour period for the reporting of the bill be abridged to 24 hours. This would be the practical effect if the House were not sitting on Friday. In other words, notice respecting the report stage of the bill, if the bill were finished in committee on Friday, would mean that the House could go ahead with the report stage of the bill on Monday. To my mind-and I don't care how you slice it-that still is abridging the time required for the report stage to the House from the committee, because the House is not sitting on Friday.
I suggest to the House leader that perhaps there still might be unanimous consent-I do not know, because this is not a matter for party discipline; there are no party whips and there is no party discipline on this matter-on two conditions only. First, that the House leader give an undertaking that in neither case would the third reading stage of Bill C-84, or the report stage of that bill, be proceeded with until after the House resumed in the fall.
An bon. Member: Come off it.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Otherwise, members of the committee are perfectly entitled to say "No tickee, no laundly", "No House, no committee". In other words, if the House is not sitting, we have the right to object, in the committee, to the committee sitting.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: If the hon. member is denying unanimous consent, I suppose the matter is closed. But I should like to make it clear that we would be happy to agree to this motion. As we understand it, it would provide that if the committee completed its work and made its report on Friday, we would be in exactly the same position on Monday, with the House not

sitting on Friday, as we would with the House sitting on Friday. If we sit on Friday and the committee makes its report, then the report stage debate begins on Monday. If the motion passes and we do not need to sit on Friday, the report stage will be proceeded with on Monday. We do not see it shortening anything; all it does is obviate the necessity of sitting on Friday, which would probably be futile anyway. Therefore, although we voted as individuals yesterday we all voted the same way and I can now say that we would support this motion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, one point that bothers me is that in his proposal the President of the Privy Council has totally abrogated the right of individual members to put forward amendments. Under the rules it is open to any hon. member to put down an amendment at report stage 24 hours prior to the taking up of a bill. In his proposal, the President of the Privy Council is saying that members who wish to put down any amendment shall have until 8 p.m. on Friday, June 25, a day when the House is not sitting.
That is all very well for Ottawa and Toronto members, Mr. Speaker, who are interesting in sitting around here to see whether or not the bill comes in so they can put down amendments. I am sure that the table officers would not be prepared to accept, and would not accept any proposed amendments until the bill is reported back. Therefore, hon. members are precluded from putting down amendments. I would suggest that hon. members read the rules and understand them. I was sorry to see a demonstration of what I consider to be the falsity of a free vote on the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: When I hear a concerted catcall on these particular points, it shows that hon. members opposite are advocating government policy. They are taking a party-government stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am prepared to hear the hon. member for Edmonton West on a point of order, but I think we must be careful to stay away from substance.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My point of order is very simple, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Don't take so long, then.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If the hon. member even looked at the rule book he would understand my point, which is that there is no possibility of any member of the House being able to put down an amendment, under the proposal put forward by the President of the Privy Council. When the House is not sitting there is no obligation on the table officers to accept amendments. Does the President of the Privy Council expect or insist that any member who wishes to put down an amendment must stay around in Ottawa on Friday, when the House is not sitting, in anticipation of the committee making its report?


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in the free vote atmosphere that prevails on this side of the House-I say nothing about the other side of the House-there was one point made by the hon. member for Edmonton West
June 23, 1976

which concerns the third paragraph of the draft motion, namely, that the House "take up the report stage of the said bill on Monday, June 28, 1976". As I understand the situation, that is quite within the rules of the House and it can be done on that short basis, but it is not within the common courtesies of the House. As I understand the courtesies of the House, if the draft followed what has been the normal custom of the House it would read in this way: " .. . take up the report stage of the said bill on Tuesday, June 29, 1976". This would give the time the hon. member for Edmonton West suggested for filing report stage amendments in the normal course of things.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I hope the government will give consideration to that, if I may speak as a private member. It might be that with that kind of consideration the position taken by the hon. member for Edmonton West would be satisfied, and perhaps the feelings of other members on this matter would be soothed somewhat. I believe there would be time for this consideration to be given, and perhaps we could deal with the matter later.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. By previous agreement, two deferred divisions are to be taken almost forthwith. I think the House is agreed that both divisions will be taken one after the other, with only one calling in of the members. That will require some time.
Despite some technical objections, there seems to be a general will to accommodate members by not sitting on Friday so long as the rights of members who wish to file amendments at the report stage are not in any way prejudiced. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has made the point that technically the situation remains the same as if the House sits on Friday, but as the hon. member for Edmonton West pointed out, members who wish to file amendments will have to stay here on Friday if the House does not sit. It does seem to disadvantage those members if the House does not sit on Friday. Obviously, they would have to stay here to file amendments if the report does come forward, which is an eventuality that does seem unreasonable in view of the uncertainty. They, alone, would be the ones who would have to wait here if they wished to file amendments. I think technically we could probably make the arrangements at the table, but it does seem to put some members who wish to file amendments at report stage under an extra burden.
Perhaps during the ringing of the division bells and the taking of the vote which is about to be taken forthwith there might be some further discussion to see whether the motion could be refined in order to accomplish this purpose. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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 30 ques-
Order Paper Questions
tions will be answered today: 4,187, 4,192 to 4,213 inclusive, 4,795, 5,203, 5,410, 5,426, 5,466, 5,534 and 5,637.
Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Saskatchewan Farm Annex and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


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


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Ontario Regional Psychiatric Centre and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	1	1	-	-	-	-Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence	with escort	-	1	-	-	-	-without escort	-	1	-	-	-	-Total At large (December 31, 1975): Nil	1	3	-	-	-	-


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	-	-	-	1Walkaways	-	-	-	-
Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence
with escort	-	-	*-	-	-without escort	-	-	-	-	-Total	-	-	-	-	1	-
At large (December 31, 1975): Nil


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Millhaven Institution and how many are still at large?
Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General):

June 23, 1976
Order Paper Questions
Escapes	-
Walkaways	-
Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence
with escort	-
without escort	-
Total	-
At large (December 31, 1975): 3
1971	1972	1973	1974	19752	15	3	-	42	15	3	-	4Escapes	gWalkaways	_
Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence
with escort	__
without escort	1
Total	g
At large (December 31, 1975): 11
1971	1972	1973	1974	197512	26	15	1	4-	-	21	3	2	25	10	6	12	1318	36	24	15	21


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at LeClerc and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Ste. Anne des Plaines and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Escapes Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence with escort without escort
Total
At large (December 31, 1975): 6
1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	19751970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975	Escapes	6	_	216	24	21	14	2	Walkaways	2	16	6	2	35	Failure to return from	-	-	-	-	Temporary Leave of Absence	with escort	-	2-	1	2	2	without escort	4	1	2	2	3	31	4	4	7	11	3	Total	12	17	8	4	3	1017	28	26	21	18	7	At large (December 31, 1975): 3


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Saskatchewan Penitentiary and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Archambault and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	* 4	10	8	1	1970	1971	Walkaways	1972	1973	1974 197f	Failure to return from	Escapes	18	1	1	Temporary Leave of Absence	Walkaways	4	2 -	with escort	1	-	-	-	-	1Failure to return from	without escort	-	-	-	-	-	Temporary Leave of Absence	Total	5	10	8	with escort without escort	-	z	2	1 6	- 1 1	At large (December 31, 1975): 2	1Total	18	5	3	7	3 1	
At large (December 31, 1975): Nil


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Cowansville and how many are still at large?
Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General):


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Frontenac Institution and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: June 23, 1976

1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	1	-	-	-	-	-Walkaways	3	5	21	10	7	4Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence with escort	without escort	4	10	7	6	12	11Total	8	15	28	16	19	15
At large (December 31, 1975): 3
Order Paper Questions						
1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	5	5	17	2	4	-Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence	2	2	2	2with escort	-	1	-	-	2	1without escort	2	23	10	11	9	19Total At large (December 31, 1975): 10	9	31	29	13	15	22


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Rockwood Institution and how many are still at large?
Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General):	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975
Escapes	-										
Walkaways	4	6	7	9	2	-
Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence with escort						2
without escort	3	11	20	13	15	6Total	7	17	27	22	17	8At large (December 31, 1975): 8


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Montee St. Francis and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	-	-	-	2	-	-Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence	3	3	7	5	7	6with escort	-	-	-	-	-	1without escort	-	14	3	6	4	3Total At large (December 31, 1975): 7	3	17	10	13	11	10


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Stony Mountain Institution and how many are still at large?


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Beaver Creek Correctional Camp and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: General):
1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	4	4	7	2	1	Escapes	6	-	-	-	_	2Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence	2	1	2	Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence	2	1	2	7	1	1with escort	-	2	-	-	2	1	with escort	-	-	-	-	-	-without escort	5	10	8	14	20	12	without escort	11	3	5	4	2	6Total At large (December 31, 1975): 4	5	18	12	22	26	14	Total At large (December 31, 1975): 7	19	4	7	11	3	9


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Joyceville Institution and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Pittsburg Institution and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 14818

June 23, 1976
Order Paper Questions
Escapes	-
Walkaways	2
Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence
with escort	-
without escort	1
Total	3
At large (December 31, 1975): 9
1971	1972	1973	1974	19755	4	7	10	610	15	8	8	1015	19	15	18	16


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Quebec Federal Training Centre and how many are still at large?


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Bath Institution and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Escapes	-
Walkaways	-
Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence
with escort	-
without escort	-
Total	-
At large (December 31, 1975): 2
1971	1972	1973	1974	1975-	4	11	9	--	4	8	3	2-	8	19	12	2


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	-	4	13	6	3Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence	1	with escort	-	-	1	-	-	2without escort	-	-	6	2	6	5Total At large (December 31, 1975): 6	-	4	20	3	12	10


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Collins Bay Institution and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Saskatchewan Farm Annex and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970	1971 1972	1973 1974	1975Escapes - Walkaways 4 Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence with escort - without escort -	9 - 2	6 10 5 3	7 2Total 4	- 11	11 13	9
At large (December 31, 1975): 1
1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	3	1	4	7	3	3Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence	1	1with escort	-	2	4	1	-	-without escort	4	9	13	5	6	12Total At large (December 31, 1975): 18	7	12	22	13	9	16


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Warkworth Institution and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Landry Crossing Correctional Camp and how many are still at large?
Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General):	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	-	-	1	Walkaways	8	5	7	12	10	10Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence with escort	1	1without escort	1	13	12	7	8	4Total	9	18	19	20	19	15At large (December 31, 1975): 7	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	7	4	8	9	3	Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence	1	with escort	-	-	-	1	3	2without escort	8	6	4	1	2	5Total At large (December 31, 1975): 4	15	11	12	11	8	7


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Quebec Regional Psychiatric Centre and how many are still at large?
Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General):


1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	-	-	-	-	-	-Walkaways	-	-	-	-	-	-
Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence
with escort	-	-	-	-	-	-without escort	-	-	-	1	-	lTotal	-	-	-	1	-	i
At large (December 31, 1975): 1


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit-officers at Ferndale?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1 and 2. For the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive: Nil.
1.	For the year 1975: 11.
2.	(a) 3; (b) 7; (c) 1; (d) Nil.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 86 of the Second Session of the 29th Parliament which listed expenditures from public funds in various years for "pest control services" at the Prime Minister's official residence, 24 Sussex Drive, what is a detailed description of the type of pests that the Prime Minister was attempting to have brought under control?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The pests referred to were: rhynchophora, rodentia, tinea pellionella, plodia interpunctella, lepisma saccharina, musca domes-tica.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has the Post Office Department recently introduced a policy of nameless postmarks and, if so, for what reason have the names of cities and towns been replaced by a code?
2.	Does the Department have a policy of replacing all names with numbers and, if so, what is the next planned change?
3.	Did the Department examine the experience of the USA Postal Service, which introduced similar nameless postmarks, and which more recently restored city and town names in the face of popular demand?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. The Post Office recently introduced the use of the postal code in its cancellation mark primarily for certain centres where changes in the pattern of mail
Order Paper Questions
processing made the continued use of a community name identifier impractical. This has occurred where mail from a number of communities is now gathered into one major processing plant and collectively processed in one stream. In these new mechanized plants it is impractical to keep segregated the mail from different source locations, and rather than select the name of one community to be used for the cancellation of all mail processed through such a plant, it was decided to use the postal code of the plant. For example, the processing plant located in Scarborough, Ontario will process mail from surrounding areas such as Richmond Hill, Willowdale, Thornhill, Markham, Ajax, Pickering and others.
2.	No, the Post Office does not have a policy of changing all names to numbers; postal code postmarks will be used only at a limited number of locations. The next location where such a postmark is to be used is St. John's, Newfoundland, to be followed, possibly later this year, by new plants in the Toronto and Montreal areas.
3.	Yes, the Post Office Department is familiar with the United States Postal Service experience. However, the systems are different in the two countries and there is no practical relationship.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many persons, including university students, applied for summer employment with Canada Customs from within the Constituency of Leeds and of these (a) how many sought employment at the Port of Lansdowne (Thousand Islands Bridge) (b) how many were interviewed and on what basis were they selected for such interviews (c) when were interviews held (d) were those not interviewed at least given the courtesy of an acknowledgement (e) of those interviewed, how many were actually hired (f) were those with previous experience given preference and, if not, for what reason (g) what are the names of all those actually hired?
2.	What is a full description of the manner in which persons are selected for summer employment with Canada Customs?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Public Service Commission and the Department of National Revenue as follows: 1. 124 students within the Constituency of Leeds have applied for summer employment with Canada Customs. They are divided as follows: four students came from secondary institutes; 18 students came from colleges; 102 students came from universities. (a) 30 students within the Constituency of Leeds have sought employment at the Port of Lansdowne (Thousand Islands Bridge). They are divided as follows: six students came from colleges; 24 students came from universities. (b) 23 were interviewed. They were selected for interview on the basis that they were considered: full-time registrants at a recognized University or Community College of Arts, Science or Technology (or similar postsecondary educational institutions, technological institutes, C.E.G.E.P.'s, etc.), returning to an educational institution in the fall of 1976; residents within the area of the Port of Lansdowne and, had been referred by the Public Service Commission; (c) From April 26, 1976 to May 7, 1976 inclusive; (d) All 26 candidates referred by the Public Service Commission were invited for interview but 3 declined; (e) five; (f) Yes, 11 students are returning this season; (g) Names of returning students: Colville, C. A.; Duff, J. A.; Gagnon, D.; Galway, E.; McDonald, M. A.;
95570-37'/2

June 23, 1976
Order Paper Questions
O'Brien, S. K.; Ready, C. P.; Rupners, J.; Watters, K.; Wheeler, A. B.; Whiteland, B. N. Names of those offered employment this season: Lynch, S. E.; MacDonald, D. G.; Raymond, R.; Reid, B. J.; Walsh, M. P.
2. Persons selected for summer employment are considered for three types of employment: Customs Officers, Carreer-oriented employment, Other temporary employment. Customs Officers and Career-oriented Employment. Eligibility: To be considered for this type of employment during the 1976 summer period, selected persons must be: full-time registrants at a recognized University or Community College of Arts, Science or Technology (or similar post-secondary educational institutions, technological institutes, C.E.G.E.P.'s, etc.); returning to such an institution in the fall 1976; available to the Department for the full period of requirement, e.g., May 15 to September 15, their employment to be on an "as required" basis during this period. Preference in Employment is given to: students employed last summer who have retained their eligibility and received a satisfactory performance rating in 1975; students who reside in the locality in which the position is being filled or who are enrolled in the academic institution within or in close proximity to the locality; Canadian citizens.
NOTE: Students enrolled at academic institutions at locations other than their normal place of residence and locality may, if they so select, be regarded as having dual locality preference.
Qualifications: At interview, candidates are assessed by a Rating Board on relevant knowledge, ability to analyse, control and communicate as well as their tact, judgment, maturity and other factors which would contribute to their effectiveness. These selection standards are prescribed by the Public Service Commission; qualified students, sufficient to meet our requirements, are placed in order of merit on an eligible list. Application: To be considered for employment, students must have filed an application with the Post-Secondary Recruitment Program, Public Service Commission. Candidates are referred to the Department as appropriate. Other Temporary Employment: For other summer employment opportunities, persons must have registered with their local Canada Manpower Centre and/or Regional Office of the Public Service Commission. Candidates are referred to the Department as appropriate. Preference in Employment is given to: persons employed last summer who have retained their eligibility and received a satisfactory performance rating in 1975; persons who reside in the locality in which the position is being filled or who are enrolled in the academic institution within or in close proximity to the locality; Canadian citizens.
Note: Students enrolled at academic institutions at locations other than their normal place of residence and locality may, if they so select, be regarded as having dual locality preference.


Mr. Epp: 1.	Is a new building to house the Steinbach Manitoba Post Office contemplated for the fiscal year 1976-77 and, if not, on what date is it planned?
2.	Has $75,000 been allocated for 1976-77 for site acquisition for a new building to house a post office?
3.	Have budgetary acquisitions in the amount of $850,000 been made for the year 1976-77 for the building of a new post office building in Steinbach, Manitoba?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. No new
building is contemplated for the fiscal year 1976-77. Our current status at this location is for the provision of new Post Office facilities to be in service in the Spring of 1979. The present schedule is subject to availability of funds, Canada Post Office priorities and Treasury Board approval.
2.	No.
3.	No funds have been included for Steinbach, Manitoba in the Department of Public Works Accommodation Capital Program for the fiscal year 1976-77.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Did the government sell Canadair to General Dynamic Corporation and, if so, what was the price?
2.	Did the government recently purchase Canadair from General Dynamic Corporation and, if so, what was the price?


Marcel-Claude Roy: 1. Canadair Limited was a privately owned company established in 1944, with an authorized share capital of $10,000, to operate the aircraft manufacturing facility at Cartierville. Canadair leased the land, buildings and equipment from the Crown. Included in the lease agreement was an option for Canadair to purchase these assets. According to the share transfer records of the company, the Crown did not own any of the shares of Canadair at any time prior to January 1976. In February 1947, the company's authorized share capital was increased to $3,000,000 by supplementary letters patent. Electric Boat Company subscribed for 990,000 of the new shares for $1.00 per share cash. It should be noted that this subscription was paid to the company treasury and not to the Crown. On 24 October 1949 Canadair purchased some of the land, buildings and equipment at Cartierville from the Crown for $3,760,745. In 1953 Electric Boat Company, Consolidated Vultee and Canadair became General Dynamics Corporation. On 1 December 1955 Canadair purchased additional Crown owned land, buildings and equipment at Cartierville for $11,468,409.83. On 14 November 1958 General Dynamics subscribed for a further 306,963 shares of Canadair for $7,674,080. As in the February 1947 transaction, this money went to the company treasury. Over the years, General Dynamics acquired a further 111,494 shares from the original shareholders, employees and directors. As of the date of the option agreement, General Dynamics holdings amounted to 1,408,457 shares out of a total issued and outstanding of 1,408,463.
June 23, 1976

2. The Crown purchased Canadair Limited from General Dynamics on 5 January 1976 for a maximum price of $38,150,000.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Is the government aware of the report to the Ontario Traffic Conference by Mr. Leonard Thomas of the accident research team of the University of Western Ontario stating that older-model steel belted radial tires designed in or injury?
2.	Has the government done any research which would confirm or dispute Mr. Thomas' findings and, if so (a) by whom was the research conducted (b) what were its conclusions?
3.	Is the government aware of an abnormally high level of failures of such tires under actual driving conditions?
4.	Does the government intend to (a) order a recall of any of the tires presently on sale or in use (b) issue a warning to motorists about a possible hazard?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes. (a) Transport Canada, Accident and Defect Investigation Division; (b) That a specific series of tires failed to meet the compliance test requirements.
3.	Yes. As in (2) above.
4.	(a) A recall was instituted by the manufacturer on the specific series of tires that failed to meet the tests; (b) Press coverage was given at the time of the recall to warn the motorist of a possible hazard. A press release on Transport Canada's tire safety program was issued on June 15, 1976.
* *
*


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 4,040 and 5,115 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Korchinski: 1.	In each of the past two years what was the amount of feed grain in storage at the beginning of the crop year and at the end of each month since the beginning of the crop year in commercial positions (a) in Eastern Canada (b) on the Prairies?
2.	In each case, what amounts were held by (a) the Wheat Board (b) others?
3.	Was the initial price raised by the Wheat Board in the past two years and, if so, on what date?
4.	What was the initial Wheat Board price for feed wheat, oats and barley at the beginning of the past two crop years?
5.	What was the average off-board price on wheat, oats and barley from August 1 to the date of increase in the initial Wheat Board price?
Order Paper Questions
Return tabled.


Mr. Jones: 1.	In regard to the reports of encephalitis being spread by mosquitoes, have steps been taken by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of the Environment to study and survey the increasing problems caused by the mosquito population in various regions of Canada and, in particular, southeastern New Brunswick and, if so, what are they?
2.	Have any studies and surveys been made by any department with respect to mosquitoes, their breeding habits and their disease carrying capabilities?
3.	(a) How many persons died from encephalitis spread by mosquitoes in the years 1965 to 1975 (b) in which locations and areas did such deaths occur?
4.	(a) How many cases of encephalitis were there in the years 1965 to 1975 (b) in what locations and areas (c) what were the defects left to those who suffered from the disease?
5.	Has consideration been given to studying the relationship between encephalitis and the mosquito and, if so, in what manner?
6.	Will steps be taken to eliminate disease carrying mosquitoes and, if so, what are they?
7.	Have any studies been made of the efforts of the Moncton Mosquito Control Authority in its efforts to control mosquitoes?
8.	Will the government consider making a substantial grant to the Moncton Mosquito Control Authority to assist in its efforts to eradicate the mosquito population in the greater Moncton area?
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. 5,393?


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Does QRO article 10.015 still provide that former members of the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force will not be required to serve as a member of a crew or of a ship's company without first consenting, "except in an emergency" and (a) if not, when was such a provision altered and with what has it been replaced (b) if so, does the government intend to honour that provision?
2.	Does CFAO order 10.3 still provide that no member of the CAF who, as of January 31, 1968, was a member of the Canadian Army or RCAF will be required to serve as a member of a crew or of a ship's company without first giving his consent, "except in an emergency" and (a) if not, when was such a provision altered and with what has it been replaced (b) if so, does the government intend to honour that provision?
3.	Is the government presently requesting members of the CAF, who were members of the Canadian Army and Royal Canadian Air Force on January 31, 1968, and whose consent has not been obtained, to serve as members of a ship's company or crew and, if so, how many have been so requested?
4.	Are the Canadian Armed Forces in an "emergency" situation of the type contemplated by article 10.015 of the QRO or order 10.3 of the CFAO and, if so, for what reason?

June 23, 1976
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2)
5.	Is Maritime Command in an "emergency" situation of that type and, if so, for what reason?
6.	Is the government contemplating any changes in CFAO 10.3 or QRO 10.015 and, if so, in what respect and for what reasons?
7.	What steps, if any, is the government taking to upgrade manpower levels within Maritime Command?
8.	Is any attempt being made by the government to induce members of the CAF, protected by CFAO 10.3 and QRO 10.015, into serving as members of a ship's company or crew and, if so, for what reason?
9.	Are the responsibilities assigned to the CAF particularly Maritime Command, compatible with the provisions of QRO 10.015 and CFAO 10.3 and, if not, in what respects?


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there are several parts to question No. 5393. 1. The answer is yes. (a) The answer is: not applicable; (b) Yes.
2.	Yes. (a) Not applicable; (b) Yes.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	No.
6.	No.
7.	The following are the major steps being taken to upgrade manpower levels within Maritime Command: (a) The training capacity of the two Fleet Schools has been increased three-fold in the critical trades to accommodate the increased recruit intakes; (b) A new retirement plan is presently being offered to selected navy personnel to extend their period of service; (c) A plan is now being developed to guarantee a definite period of shore time to naval personnel after a reasonable period at sea.
8.	Yes, to provide relief for certain trades personnel from countinuing sea duty so that they may serve for periods ashore.
9.	Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 22, consideration of Bill C-88, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act

(No. 2), as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I again remind hon. members that there has been an understanding that members being called in for the deferred division on the motion of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) will at the same time, without further ringing of the bells, be proceeding to take the deferred division on Bill C-68 as well. Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-88, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2), as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Walter David Baker: At the next sitting of this House.



MEDICAL CARE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, June 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-68, to amend the Medical Care Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Speaker:: The other motion on which a deferred division has been ordered, and which I understand there is agreement to take now, is the question on Bill C-68.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. I understand that the third reading of the bill will be the order of the day. Before we call the order, let me say that there has been discussion about reverting to motions. Is now the appropriate time to discuss this, or does the House wish to proceed with discussion on Bill C-68?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

June 23, 1976
Medical Care Act


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette on a point of order.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members know, custom would have it that on St. John the Baptist Day parliamentarians should not work or assume their responsibilities as parliamentarians. I should like to draw your attention to the fact that, a few minutes ago, in committee of justice and legal affairs a motion moved by a government member proposed that the committee sit on St. John the Baptist day. Recognizing, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Joliette has brought up a very interesting point of order but, it is permissible, under the Standing Orders of the House, for standing committees to sit whether or not the House is sitting. All matters brought up in standing committees are theirs to decide upon, and not the House.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You may recall that just before we took the votes I had risen on a question of procedure. There have been some discussions, and also discussions with members of the committee. I understand that the justice committee is most unlikely to report by Friday; therefore, I am not proceeding with the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on the main motion, and the Chair recognizes the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth).


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, may I make a few remarks on Bill C-68 when the House has quietened down?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) might be given the opportunity to be heard.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on third reading of Bill C-68. I should not like to see the bill pass in its present form; I do not think it will be of advantage to the country. This opinion is shared by many hon. members, especially those who sit on my side of the House. This bill is a retrograde step and will decrease the amount of health and medical service available to people of this country. Bill C-68 has been in the works now for over a year. That, I think, is a pretty good indication that there is something wrong with it. It has been through committee and has been amended slightly, but it is still nowhere near the sort of bill it should be.
Not long ago the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), seconded by myself, proposed an amendment which if passed would have hoisted the bill for six months. We did not propose our motion because we wanted to be nasty; we did it to give the government an opportunity to look more closely at the bill and, hopefully, to bring it back to the House in a form which would satisfy the majority of hon. members. That, essentially, is why we proposed our amendment. We do not want to see the bill pass in its present form.

The principle of the bill is wrong. We are asking the government to take another hard look at it. The bill will not solve the problems it is alleged to solve. Although members on the front benches opposite have spoken in rambling detail on the bill, they have not convinced us that it is satisfactory. We say that the bill will not solve health problems in this country. I think the general idea behind it would have been more acceptable and it would have received our consent if it had provided for improved, basic health care for all the people of Canada, since health care is extremely important and a basic human right to which all Canadians are entitled.
We as a country are rich enough to provide such health care. The government ought to provide better health care and streamline present facilities so that all who need health care may receive it. I am sure no Canadian would begrudge paying a little extra here and there if this could be done. This bill fails principally because the government has failed to realize that one can divide the problem of the high cost of medical care into two parts. The government has put all its efforts into the cost part but has ignored the part to do with providing high quality medical care and services. In short, Mr. Speaker, the bill shows no leadership. It is a narrow-minded bill which does not take into consideration all those things which make for good health in this country.
We have a system of health care in this country which is based on the idea that if something goes wrong, we should try to fix it. We have built up a system of hospitals, doctors and insurance, all geared to waiting around for something to happen, until something goes wrong. Now that we have established the system, the government is saying to us, "We are going to save money and give you less health care." There is no provision for changing the type of health care available in this country. It is almost as if the government were treating health care as if it were potatoes. First the government decides that it will give everybody potatoes. It begins a program and supplies all the potatoes. Then, when the price of potatoes goes up, the government comes along with Bill C-68 and says, "We cannot afford to give you potatoes at these prices; we will set a limit on how many you are to get next year." Mr. Speaker, health is not like potatoes. You cannot measure it and divide it up. What is more, it does not fit easily into whatever accounting system the department is working on this year. Instead of giving us better health services, instead of showing a little leadership and imagination, the government has presented this bill. I do not like it because, as I said earlier, it gives us fewer potatoes.
We ask the government to look seriously at the bill and to listen to the important proposals and suggestions which have been made in the debate on the bill, especially by members on my side of the House. Over and over again the point has been made in the House that a number of changes can be made to our health care system which would accomplish the government's aim of saving money. They can all be made without reducing the present level of health care. Some of them may even make it better.
I think this bill should be studied further because of the very important and good suggestions made in this House on many occasions, particularly with regard to Bill C-68,
June 23, 1976

by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), a pioneer in the health insurance field. He was implementing health care programs when the biggest health program the present minister had to deal with was acne. There have been all kinds of good suggestions for ways to replace this bill, ranging from use of paramedics to group or community clinics, from increased public education about nutrition to stricter safety standards in the work place.
I want to single out one area that I think shows this government's lack of concern for cutting down health care expenses except in the most visible ways. It is a pretty extreme example, but it points out one of the areas where the government should be concentrating its efforts. The example is mercury pollution. I read the other day that government officials are running around saying that there is no documented case of Minamata disease in either Ontario or Quebec. They cannot say for sure that anyone has it. However, there are a number of experts who have discovered symptoms of that disease in people who depend on fish from the several river systems affected by mercury pollution. The Japanese experience shows that Minamata disease takes a number of years to reach a stage where it can be diagnosed. Therefore, if we have symptoms this year we may very well have diagnosed cases next year or the year after. We have known about mercury pollution in our rivers for over six years now, and this government has done very little or nothing. I am not even going to mention the pain and suffering this horrible disease causes. Nor am I going to dwell on the costs of replacing a fisherman's livelihood, especially the Indian people who live on reservations.
These remarks are for the health care planners opposite. I just want to ask them how much they think it will cost to provide what little treatment is available for people with Minamata disease. While they are doing this, it might be good for them to keep in mind that their colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand), gleefully announced the other week that he was going to allow pulp and paper plants to continue dumping mercury. They will do it a little more slowly, perhaps, but they will continue to dump it all the same. At least, they will continue to dump it until their machinery wears out. Then they will replace it with the next generation of machinery that does not use mercury.
For the price of writing-off some out-of-date plant facilities we will continue to get mercury in our rivers for another eight or nine years. Add that to the cost of providing health care to the Minamata disease victims. That is only one example where increased attention to environmental problems would have an effect on the cost of health care.
There is another area in the Northwest Territories where we spend a lot of money and which should be looked at very seriously. It has been estimated by some people in a position to know that it costs between $2 million and $3 million a year on what we call "medivacs". This situation arises because there are not enough health care facilities, hospitals, doctors, eye specialists and dentists. To evacuate to the areas where these facilities and experts are available costs the taxpayers millions of dollars. As I mentioned earlier, it costs between $2 million and $3 million a year for
Medical Care Act
charter aircraft to airlift people from the north to facilities in the south. That is a lot of money.
That problem can be partly solved by building one or two more hospitals and having a few more people to work in the north. I suggest that a hospital in the Cambridge Bay-Copper Mine area would save a large number of lives. Who can put a price tag on a life? I do not think you can do it. It would certainly save the taxpayers of this country a lot of money, and a lot of families much misery and grief.
These are the areas this government should be looking at-disease prevention, paramedics, and so on-in the north. On behalf of many people in this country, I wish to register these comments against the implementation of Bill C-68. I hope that other hon. members who have similar objections will make them known to the government.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak at considerable length on second reading of Bill C-68. I also had the opportunity to express some very specific concerns about this bill at the committee stage. I am fortunate to serve on the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. As a result, I participated in the dialogue and debate with regard to the amendments which were introduced in reference to this bill. Indeed, as the House knows, we were successful in having one amendment accepted. It requires this government to report back to parliament, before they make any substantive changes, some 18 months down the line.
Throughout the debate there has been one area that has caused me considerable concern. It is, indeed, unfortunate that any party that is concerned about a federal bill dealing with the health and welfare of Canadians should decide that at the same time they should drag in the red herring of the health and medicare situation in a particular province. This has been the tactic of the NDP. I have read some of their speeches and some of the other things they have said. There is no question but that they have made a valuable contribution to the debate. However, I see no necessity whatsoever, nor do I see any similarity in the situations when they make reference, in a most derogatory fashion, to the situation in the province of Ontario. They would have us believe that the problems faced by the province of Ontario have been generated solely by that government, that they are the authors of the piece, the architects of the piece, and therefore the responsibility rests entirely with them. They fail to recognize that in their own province of Saskatchewan, the same restraints are now being clearly demonstrated. In my view, they will become more and more apparent as the days go by.
Only recently there was evidence in the newspapers that the province of Saskatchewan, with a limited budget-they do not, after all, have the wealth of British Columbia- would probably be horror-struck, at the government level, if some cabinet ministers decided to spend an extra $100 million on welfare. Mind you, the NDP government in British Columbia did not agonize over that. After all, most of it was federal money. However, in the province of Saskatchewan $100 million is a great deal of money. To the taxpayers of British Columbia it is not a great deal of money, and to Canadians generally it is not a great deal of money.
14826

June 23, 1976
Medical Care Act
I can say to the Liberal government that it is not a great deal of money. When the province of Saskatchewan is forced to reduce their health care budget or hospital care by $44 million, there has to be something seriously wrong with the government's operation of that province and the way in which they are managing their economy. If such be the case, it is a question of the pot calling the kettle black, and maybe the NDP members should examine conditions in Saskatchewan if, indeed, they know what is going on there.
I call their attention, for instance, to a report in the Globe and Mail of June 19, 1976, which states that one of the major reasons for the increase in hospital care in Saskatoon hospitals is that patients are coming in from outside points. This indicates that there is a breakdown in hospital administration in the outlying communities. What they are probably trying to do in Saskatchewan is reduce the staff employed in those hospitals. They are taking action in those situations where they have a hospital in one community, and another 10 miles or 20 miles down the road.
There are similar situations in the province of Ontario. The distances are the same; population densities are the only variants. The NDP should address itself to this question, I suggest, rather than bring in the red herring of the province of Ontario. If they are so concerned about Bill C-68, I suggest that is what they should do. Because of the criticism and comments of the NDP with reference to medicare in Ontario, the unfair, unjustified criticisms they have made, I felt obliged today to rise and defend the province of Ontario even though it is not my home province. In fairness, I feel bound to defend it, while pointing out that all is not well in the province of Saskatchewan. What are we to think when a good doctor there, Dr. Louis Brand-


An hon. Member:: An ex-Conservative candidate.


Robert Hylton Brisco: That is right. At any rate, he is a man sufficiently responsible to be chief of the emergency department of the St. Paul's Hospital in Saskatoon. He comes out with the facts and tells us that 33 per cent of the patients in St. Paul's, 40 per cent of those at the city hospital and 70 per cent of those at the university hospital, came from outside the city. This clearly shows there is something wrong with the system.
I should like to make a few comments now about Bill C-68. The evidence is there as a result of the conference between the federal minister and his provincial counterparts. The chickens have come home to roost. When the federal government, in its largesse, indicates to British Columbia that it owes the government of Canada some $750 million retroactive to 1972 or 1973, where does that put the Province of British Columbia in relation to its budget of some $2 billion? When that happens, what kind of faith can exist at the federal level in its dialogue with the provinces?
Once more we face the age-old problem of a party which has been in power too long. The arrogance is there and it will ever more be so. When there is consultation with the provinces it is always after the fact, never before the fact.

That is the sickness which is ingrained in .the pores of this administration. How can the government expect to get the co-operation of any province while Bill C-68 is being forced down the throats of Canadian citizens?
The inevitable is already happening. In Ontario we see proposals for increases in medicare charges. In British Columbia the situation is the same. In Saskatchewan there will unquestionably be increases in medicare costs to the province, as predicted when this bill was introduced. The chickens have come home to roost and it has been clearly demonstrated that the only hope for the provinces is to increase charges to the consumer. Who will suffer most? Who are we most concerned about at this time? Here I speak for the NDP as well as for my own party. We are concerned for the poor, we are concerned for the sick, those who will suffer most from this increase in medicare charges.
What happens? The poor get poorer, the sick get sicker, the poor get sick and the sick get poor. Let it ever be on the conscience of the Liberal government. Let them answer for the increases in medicare charges. Let these people answer as to how widows and pensioners will cope with these increases. There is the possibility that the provinces will be obliged to impose a deterrent fee applicable not just to the wealthy but to the poor. That is the type of thinking demonstrated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) at the federal level.
It was interesting to note that while the vote was being taken today, to a man members on the opposition side of the House opposed this bill. This measure has been debated as long as any other I can remember, and this has been the case for a valid reason. The reason is simply that the bill is wrong. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in a moment of truth of which he is frequently capable, I will admit, stood at his desk, banged it and said, "This bill is wrong. It is wrong, wrong, wrong." I felt that there was a demonstration by a man who felt sincerely that an injustice was being foisted upon the nation.
Our own critic, the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) holds the same view as me. Other members who come from the medical profession have condemned the legislation, especially at committee level, because they can see clearly the hardship it will cause, the fiscal, financial and technical problems it will create. They realize the effect it will have on the workingman who carries the main burden of the tax load. I want it on record, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Kootenay West, along with every other member on this side of the House, is strongly opposed to the basic thrust of this bill, that he believes it to be wrong and will not support it.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, it was just a year ago today that the then minister of finance delivered one of his budgets of 1975 in which he announced government policy, part of which is contained in the bill before us. This policy has become clearer with every day of this past year to members of parliament and provincial governments, whether Liberal, Conservative, NDP or Social Credit. It represents a substantial pull-out on the part of the federal government from shared-cost programs, and therefore means either sharp cutbacks in services or very much greater funding by the provinces than has been the case till now.
June 23, 1976

As these matters have become clearer, the provincial governments have become more adamant in their opposition to the proposals outlined by the federal government in this bill, as well as in other bills that have either been introduced or proposed. Just this last week the premiers of the ten provinces met with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and in public and in private expressed their complete opposition to the course being followed. I am told by reliable sources that the Prime Minister admitted to them in private conversations that the cutbacks outlined in this bill were part of a deliberate, arbitrary and unilateral decision on the part of the federal government directed toward reducing the financial participation of the federal government in shared-cost programs as part of its restraint program which restrains expenditures in certain major fields.
These are programs which to a large extent were initiated and promoted by the federal government. Indeed, as I have said on other occasions, they were forced as a result of blackmail on the provinces. What are these programs? We have hospital insurance, a tremendous program of post-secondary education, the Canada Assistance Plan, regional economic expansion, a fantastic increase in expenditure on behalf of the native people, and this medical care insurance program.
All these programs were made national in scope as a result of generous funding on the part of the federal government. The hospital insurance plan and the medical insurance plan did not become national in scope but were restricted almost entirely to within the province of Saskatchewan until the federal government, first a Liberal government and then a Conservative government headed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker), said to the provinces that they would pay 50 per cent of the cost of the programs if the provinces would implement such programs.
In many cases the provinces were reluctant to implement these programs. I remember when the Liberal government of Manitoba accepted the idea of hospital insurance, but then the leader of the Conservative party, later premier of Manitoba, Duff Roblin, opposed a universal hospital insurance plan that would cover everyone. At that time he said, as many people both in politics and in the professions said, "We already have voluntary plans such as Blue Cross covering most people. We do not need a bureaucratic government plan that will grow in size. All we need is a government program that will meet the premiums of people who cannot afford to join a voluntary program".
However, each province succumbed to some good arguments, and time has proven this to be an excellent program, as a result of which every person in Canada is now insured against large hospital bills. I am sure all members of this House know of families in their constituencies that have had major illness, with a hospital bill running into thousands of dollars. For years this has not been a worry for the people of Canada in the ten provinces and two territories.
What is happening now, Mr. Speaker? The federal government has given notice to the provinces that in 1980, which is the earliest it can do it, it will no longer be willing to pay 50 per cent of the cost of hospital insurance. After
Medical Care Act
that time the increase that the federal government will be prepared to pay in any one year will be tied to the increase in the gross national product.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the amount of illness in the country, the number of people who fall sick, the kinds of sicknesses they are subject to, and the time they have to spend in hospital, does not depend in any way on what is happening to the gross national product. If the federal government is not prepared to pay 50 per cent of the cost, the provinces will have to choose from among a number of pretty unhappy methods of meeting the increased cost. For example, they will have to cut back on services, they will have to implement some kind of deterrent charge of so much a day spent in hospital, or they will have to meet the increased cost that will not be paid by the federal government through a subsidy out of general revenue.
The provinces are hoping, just as much as the federal government, that the increased costs in the year 1980 will not be in the neighbourhood of 20 percent, as they have in recent years, but that they will be half that. Nevertheless, each province is looking at ways in which the increased costs can be reduced, if not eliminated. Some have had considerable success in new programs, though they have no assurance that they can succeed entirely. They do not know what the rate of inflation will be, any more than they know what the rate of illness will be. Indeed, the federal government has a great deal more responsibility, authority and ability for dealing with inflation increases every year than any provincial government, yet the federal government has already given notice that beginning in 1980 it is going to restrict the amount it will pay to cover any increase in the cost of hospital insurance.
At the same time, as I say, they insist on sticking pretty closely to a policy under which they are prepared to pay 50 per cent of the cost of hospitalization in acute-bed hospitals, while they are not prepared to pay for any of the costs, or virtually none of the costs for alternate methods of caring for ill people, which involves such things as nursing homes, convalescent homes and visiting nurses, any one of which is substantially less in cost than the intensive care hospital bed for which the federal government has been paying 50 per cent of the cost.
There is a similar situation in the field of post-secondary education. The federal government has given notice that it will limit the amount it will pay for post-secondary education. At least, it will limit the increase in the amount it will pay for post-secondary education to 15 per cent in any year. Post-secondary education costs have been going up substantially more than 15 per cent in each year. In the 30 years since the end of World War II we have done a fantastic job of improving the educational facilities and the educational opportunities provided the people of this country.
This is not the time to discuss it, but a recent report prepared by an examining committee appointed by the OECD authorities detailed what the provinces and the territories in Canada have done to improve the educational facilities in this country. The number of young students attending high school has more than doubled, percentagewise, over what it was in the years up to and including
95570 -3814

June 23, 1976
Medical Care Act
World War II. The number of people attending our universities has grown fantastically. Community colleges which did not exist until a few years ago are now functioning and growing in every province in this country. We have built technical institutions in this country for thousands of young people. We have retrained hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose education was such that they could not fill the jobs that were vacant in this country.
Despite that, this federal government has again, in the field of post-secondary education, announced that it is restricting the size of the increase it will pay in any year for such education to 15 per cent. Was that done on the basis of an examination of the needs? No. Was there consultation among the federal government, the department of the Secretary of State, which is the department responsible for what Ottawa does in the field of post-secondary education, and the provincial departments of education and/or the colleges and the universities? No. There was no formal discussion, and so far as I can find out there was no informal discussion. Yet there is to be a limit of 15 per cent on what the federal government will pay out, beginning this year.
Is this being done because it is good for education? No, not at all. Why? It is because the federal government set itself the goal of restricting the increase in its expenditures for the year 1976-77 to 16 'A per cent, regardless of the consequences of that policy. The government was not satisfied with simply saying it would restrict the increase of expenditures for post-secondary education to 15 per cent. It has now decided to cut back on the actual payout to the provinces for post-secondary education.
Let me place on the record what that meant as of just a month ago. Although we have had no formal announcement, I believe the situation in fact is much worse than will be indicated in the figures I will now put on the record. The provinces, in the field of post-secondary education, will lose in two ways in the year 1976-77. First, the application of the 15 per cent ceiling which Ottawa has annouced will mean a payments shortfall of $63.1 million for all provinces, combined, for the coming year. Second, the newly-announced cut-back in cash payments will mean an additional reduction of $110.7 million for the ten provincial governments. Thus, the total shortfall resulting from these two figures will be $173.8 million.
Because of the decision to cut back on cash payments, the expected or true ceiling on federal payments for 197677 will not be the 15 per cent announced by the federal government but, in fact, will be 7.7 per cent for each of the ten provinces. As a result of the federal cutbacks, Ottawa's total share of shareable post-secondary costs in 1976-77 will be just 45.5 per cent instead of the normal 50 per cent. Of course, Ottawa counts 4.357 percentage points of provincial personal income tax and one point of provincial corporation income tax for which the provinces take political responsibility, along with related equalization and revenue-guarantee payments as part of the federal share. If these amounts are netted out, the real federal share, in terms of cash payments, is only 15.1 per cent of total shareable post-secondary education costs. The provinces affected most seriously by the double impact of the 15 per cent ceiling and the cash payment cutback are as follows: Ontario, which loses a total of $80.4 million; Quebec, which

loses a total of $42.5 million; B.C., which loses a total of $22.6 million; and Alberta, which loses a total of $9.4 million.
I place those figures on the record partly for the benefit of members like the member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco), who spoke before me, who seemed to feel that we usually criticize the government for purely partisan political purposes. I would point out to the hon. member that respecting the four provinces I used in my illustration, Ontario and Alberta have Conservative governments, Quebec has a Liberal government and British Columbia has a Social Credit government.


Mr. Blackburn:: Of sorts.


David Orlikow: Of sorts, as my colleague so rightly points out. About a month ago, since the facts about the real cutback became known, some questions have been asked by members of the official opposition, which were replied to by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien). It is interesting to look at the questions which were asked, not purely for information purposes and not just for the replies which were given, but for the language used in the replies. I shall place the questions and the answers on the record, because the answers show that the ministers felt that the provinces had to be taught a lesson in restraint, that the federal government believed the provinces may have submitted false or overly high estimates of the costs, and that the federal government has no immediate plan to make up the cuts in cash payments and may wait for three or four years before paying the outstanding amounts.
The Secretary of State suggested that the provinces were reluctant to meet with him to begin negotiations on a new financing scheme. There is no truth in that at all. Let us just look at a couple of the questions and answers' that were given. On May 14, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) asked the Secretary of State the following question:
It has to do with his admission of a $111 million mistake in estimating the payments due to the provinces for the financing of post-secondary education under the Fiscal Arrangements Act. What justification does the minister have for reneging on the agreement with the provinces to pay the full amount calculated under Section 6 of this act in respect of post-secondary education?
The minister replied:
First of all, Mr. Speaker, the notion of an admission of a mistake is the contribution of the CBC, not mine. I have never admitted to a mistake. It was not a mistake. It was one the realities of a restraint program.
He went on to say:
We shall be paying 50 per cent of the operating cost of post-secondary institutions. What is at issue here is the rate at which we shall be paying over the next three years.
Then the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands asked a supplementary question, and the minister said:
As to the time frame, that is a matter I shall be discussing with the provinces ... It is not a question of error. We are talking here about estimated costs. The estimate offered by the provinces may in fact be higher than the real costs. We have a certain estimate-it happens to be a bit lower than the provincial one-but neither has been confirmed.
June 23, 1976

In other words, the Secretary of State is saying in his answer that the provinces inflated their estimates of cost, not just one province but all the provinces. I suggest that if the minister really believed that the place to deal with that was at meetings, either his meeting with ministers of education of the provinces or with his officials sitting down with the appropriate officials from the provinces and showing them where they had inflated their costs, that is the road he should have taken instead of giving some kind of rambunctious answer to an MP in this chamber.
The same day, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) asked a question about the same matter. He suggested it might be an idea to have a federal-provincial meeting to try to delineate the goals of post-secondary education, or education in general. He asked the minister how he responded to that idea. The Secretary of State said: Mr. Speaker, I have responded sympathetically to that idea. I think it is a sensible and constructive idea. I have not at this point had any response to the idea from the provinces.
I do not believe for a moment that the provinces would not be prepared to discuss the whole question of education costs, particularly at the university and community college level, with the federal government. I am sure that they would be more than happy to discuss with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) V'hat he and the federal government are doing to the provinces with the unilateral and cruel cutbacks in their expenditures for post-secondary education, having induced the provinces to get in the business of building and staffing community colleges, a large percentage of whose students consist of people whose expenses are being paid through manpower training grants.
These students are now being told that the federal government is cutting back on the number of seats it is prepared to pay for in the coming year. All the provinces have the unenviable task of deciding whether to cut back on the number of courses which they offer, which means telling a number of professors and teachers that they will no longer be employed, or meeting the increased cost out of their general revenues.
On May 17, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands asked questions of the President of the Treasury Board. She asked him how he could justify the deliberate tabling of misleading estimates designed to show restraint in the federal government's spending program, when he knows that final payments under this program for 1976-77 will be much higher and that what he is trying to pass off as restraint is in fact a deferred payment of an expenditure mandated by law. The President of the Treasury Board replied in part:
We had, under the law, the privilege of postponing payment of certain debentures to show to all levels of government that we are serious about our restraint program and indirectly encourage them to do likewise. Those expeditures will be settled when the government deems it opportune.
I have dealt with the question of post-secondary education and the way the federal government has cut back in this field, unilaterally, because it is one more example in the growing list of programs sponsored originally and encouraged by the federal government of a program which is now being virtually destroyed, certainly being cut back drastically and unilaterally by the federal government. They are breaking the faith, they are reneging on promises
Medical Care Act
which they made to the people of Canada and to the provinces over the years. Of course, it is two years away from the next federal election and Liberal governments have learned from experience that if they can show some form of repentance-


Max Saltsman: On their deathbed.


David Orlikow: -they often have a miraculous recovery. This time it will need a miracle for them to recover, but that is what they will try. What they have done in hospital insurance and post-secondary education is, as I have tried to indicate in some detail, to prepare the poor people who have been supported under the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan for what they propose to do to them. Some of us were here when that plan was brought in with such great fanfare. It was one more part of the Liberal program of providing total social security to meet the needs of the people of Canada, one more plank in that program of promises began away back.


Max Saltsman: Thirty years ago.


David Orlikow: No, back in 1919.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The year the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was born.


David Orlikow: That bill, which was to be so important to Canadians, is going to disappear. In its place we will have a social services act which will take the place of the Canada Assistance Plan. It is going to provide a guaranteed income to all Canadians.
The provinces are not completely stupid, although the Prime Minister may often think so. How many times do the provinces have to be burned before they will recognize that they are dealing with a pyromaniac? Whether the governments of the provinces are Liberal, Conservative, NDP or Social Credit, they are beginning to ask questions. They are saying that this sounds great, and that the federal government is telling the public that it will have to look after, not only the people on welfare, the old and the needy, but also the working poor, but let the government give us some of the nitty-gritty and answer some of the small questions, like who is going to qualify and how much they will get. Are they going to get $50 a week, are they going to get something near the poverty level, or is Ottawa going to pay 50 per cent or 60 per cent? I am speaking from memory, but I think I am not far wrong when I say that Newfoundland has an unemployment rate of 18 per cent. Newfoundland cannot pay 50 per cent.
Is the federal government going to be prepared to pay more, and if we are going into this program will the government come back in 1977, 1978 or 1981 and say that it has changed its mind and will no longer pay the 50 per cent or whatever it will have promised to pay? Will it pay only 20 per cent, 30 per cent, or 40 per cent?
We want to know these things before we get involved. Despite all the meetings of first ministers, of finance ministers and of health ministers, the provincial ministers still do not have the facts, and they are not going to get any more information from this government than the govern-

June 23, 1976
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
ment is prepared to give them-and that is damned little. Let us look at this medical insurance bill. We opposed this bill from the day it was first mentioned in that infamous budget of a year ago, and so have the provinces. I do not know why the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) digressed from a pretty constructive and positive speech to attack the Saskatchewan government. It is caught in the same bind as every other government, whether federal, provincial or municipal, and it is trying to cut back on increased costs.
The provinces have not agreed, and we oppose this bill. We have held it up. We have been accused of filibustering. While we are accused of that publicly, privately the provinces are told by officials not to worry, that there is time, that agreements will be worked out, that the deal will be sweetened and that the federal government will look after the provinces within the next few months. We do not trust this government, and we do not trust the statements it makes in public. Nor do we trust the statements it makes in private, and it is for that reason that we will continue to oppose this bill.



PRIVILEGE


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time on a question of privilege. It has been brought to our attention by representatives of the media that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) intends to go on national television this evening. He intends to interrupt the regular programming on both national television networks at nine o'clock to make a statement to the country with respect to air traffic controllers, airline pilots and the situation in Canada in that respect.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) made a statement in the House today, and the Prime Minister sat through that statement and listened to it with all of us. We had occasion to question the minister. There was a vigorous question period after his statement, and under those circumstances, for the Prime Minister to pre-empt, as he is apparently now able to do, network time all by himself on a matter of such significance that it was discussed in the House of Commons and has been the subject matter of the question period for many days, offends all the rules of the House. It offends not only the rules of the House, the privileges of hon. members, the rights of parliament and the position of parliament in the scheme of things, but I say, with respect, that it also offends good taste, common sense, and involves a downgrading of this parliament. This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened, and if it is going to continue, I think it is time this House looked into its privileges with respect to the Queen's first minister appearing here first to make his statements.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker-


Walter David Baker: Just a minute. I still have the floor on a question of privilege.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: It is not a question of privilege.


Walter David Baker: The matter which disturbs me is that the Prime Minister has-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest the hon. member should come to his question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: Before six o'clock.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Let's have a little free speech so that we can reply.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What do you know about it? The Prime Minister is going on television and-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: My submission is that the privileges of this House are being infringed upon, and that parliament is being bypassed by a Prime Minister who at one time called members of parliament nobodies outside parliament, and now we are being called nobodies when we are here. Further, the Prime Minister must have known, as he sat in his place here today, that he was going to preempt that network time, and if that is the case he did not have the common courtesy to tell hon. members that that would be done. More than that, he has not had the common courtesy to tell the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) that this would be done, or to consider the importance of giving the other parties in this House the opportunity to appear and comment as well. This is a matter for the consideration of all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I am raising this matter now, but I do not suggest that you should deal with it now. I am raising it as a matter of notice to the Chair that this is a matter which may well be pursued on a later occasion. I would like the right to pursue it on a later occasion and to reserve the right of other hon. members to pursue it, including the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) who had the bad manners to rise when I was in the middle of a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I trust that hon. members opposite who have been talking about free speech will not cut me off by the clock. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) did not cite one Standing Order or one rule of this House relating to this question of privilege. There is no question of privilege.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been in this House every day this week during the question period to be examined and cross-examined on the air traffic controllers' situation. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) made
June 23, 1976

a statement on motions in this House today on behalf of the government, which includes the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: The matter was fully canvassed by the Minister of Transport on behalf of the government and the Prime Minister. The opposition parties replied to his statement, and the minister was examined and cross-examined. That, Mr. Speaker, is totally in accordance with the rules of the House. However, I am not aware of any rule of this House or any question of privilege which says that any member of this House, the peoples representatives, be he Prime Minister or no, is not entitled at any time to go outside this House and speak to the people he represents and is supposed to be reaching. It is, surely, no question of privilege, in a free society and a free parliament, for one of its members, including the Prime Minister to go out and speak to the people of this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) said he did not know what rule the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker) was citing in raising this question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: Cite it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend has asked me to cite one. Mr. Speaker, I cite a very simple rule-the rule of fairness.
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Liberals are all leaving.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They do not care about parliament.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest to the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve), either in her own capacity in that portfolio, or maybe she is Acting Secretary of State-and I would be delighted if she were- that the suggestion be made to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation right away that if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is given free and extra time tonight for a political broadcast, equal or commensurate time be given to the other party leaders in this House. Mr. Speaker, I make that plea simply on the basis of the rule of fairness, which I think is still in existence.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member's question may be a question of propriety, but in my opinion it is not a question of privilege and I consider the case closed.
At 6.04 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, June 25, 1976