1976-03-11

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion is prompted by figures contained in the consumer price index released today which show a further increase in the price of housing in Canada making for an over-all yearly increase of 11.5 per cent, the highest yearly increase in the history of this country since records have been kept of housing statistics. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the Minister of State for Urban Affairs immediately convene a federal provincial housing conference.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a motion under Standing Order 43. The urgent and pressing necessity is based on the dramatic increase in government spending coupled with the continual refusal by the government to be accountable for and explain this escalation, as well as the failure of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) to introduce legislation based on a report of the Independent Review Committee on the Office of the Auditor General. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), if unanimous consent is given:
That this House calls on the government to immediately introduce a bill to deal with the recommendations of the Independent Review Committee on the Office of the Auditor General as called for in the report of the committee given to the government approximately one year ago and thereby ease concern of Canadians as to the new levels of government spending and extravagance and give some credibility to the currently discredited restraint program.


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:: No.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD SUGGESTED INVESTIGATION OF OPERATION OF COMPENSATION BRANCH-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that it has been over four months since the 600 Sudbury district elementary teachers reached an agreement with their employers and submitted it to the compensation branch of the Anti-Inflation Board, and in view of the fact that in speaking with a senior staff member of the compensation branch he expressed complete frustration with the board for not defining the roles of the employees in that branch of the AIB resulting in foul-ups and delays in approving agreements such as this one, and in view of the fact that the employee was very emphatic when he said-and I quote him-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. member but I feel he is transferring to the side of debate as opposed to the motion. Would the hon. member put the motion?


John R. Rodriguez: I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to investigate the manner in which the compensation branch of the AIB is presently operating, with a view to clarifying the confusion which exists and to ensure that all agreements are expeditiously handled.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43 unanimous consent is required before the motion can be put. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.
11694

March 11, 1976
Administration of Justice


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning an important question.
Taking into account the revelations made by special attorney Richard Holden concerning the intervention by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) in judicial proceedings, and the inexcusable leaks which happened at Mr. Holden's office to the profit of the media, particularly the Globe and Mail, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House order the federal government to request a special inquiry by an independent group on the whole question of intervention by members of the cabinet with different judges in Quebec.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since the Prime Minister has declined to give the House and the country any assurances that the conduct of his ministers vis-a-vis the judiciary will be subjected to the scrutiny of a public inquiry, and since his predecessor, the late Lester B. Pearson, at the time of the Dorion inquiry, clearly outlined by letter to his ministers that there must be no attitudes of mind or standards of conduct which could effect the full confidence of the people in the proper conduct of public affairs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House reject the Prime Minister's unilateral imposition of his own personal standards of what is right and proper in terms of his ministers' behaviour, and calls upon him to make public all of the evidence upon which he has come to such a conclusion and to institute a full public inquiry.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43 unanimous consent is required. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.
[Mr. Speaker.)


SUGGESTED REFERENCE TO BAR ASSOCIATIONS OF APPROACHES TO JUDGES BY MINISTERS WHO ARE LAWYERS- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of allegations against certain cabinet ministers who are also lawyers that they have intervened with members of the judiciary with respect to matters before the court, and in view of the statement in the code of professional conduct of the Canadian Bar Association that a lawyer must not "endeavour or allow anyone else to endeavour, directly or indirectly, to influence the decision or action of a tribunal or any of its officials in any case or matter, whether by bribery, personal approach or any means other than open persuasion as an advocate", and in view of the fact that there have been admissions of personal approaches to members of the judiciary by certain cabinet ministers who are also lawyers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence):
That this House direct the Minister of Justice and the chief law officer of the Crown to refer the matter of the personal approaches made to members of the judiciary by cabinet ministers who are also lawyers to the respective law societies of which the said cabinet ministers are members for investigation or appropriate disciplinary action.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister who, naturally, must take responsibility for the conduct of his ministers and answer to Parliament for the ethics of his government. Would the right hon. gentleman tell us whether, in his explanation to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Works completely denied the allegation that he had tried to effect a solution in the court case by seeking an indication from the judge as to how the judge would respond to an apology from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I would say, because it is relevant to my statement that the minister in my view was not guilty of any attempt to influence the court, that effectively the minister did deny that he in any way attempted to influence the court. Beyond that, I repeat what I have said to the House on previous occasions. The relevant subject is, surely, whether the courts were interfered with and not what ministers said to each other. I hear the hon. lady over there snorting.
March 11, 1976


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: She does that all the time.


An hon. Member:: That is one of her better speeches. She was at her most eloquent.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Therefore, I would urge the opposition to get back to the main question of the relationship between the ministers and the judges and not the relationship between ministers.


Charles Joseph Clark: On behalf of the House I must, I suppose, congratulate the Prime Minister on his extraordinary range-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hees:: Wait till you hear it.


Charles Joseph Clark: -his extraordinary range of evasion. He does not miss a chance or a snort.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister of course once again did not answer the specific question as to whether or not there was a denial by the Minister of Public Works of an attempt to seek from the judge an indication of how the judge would respond to an apology. Since raising with the judge any suggestion of the political impact of a verdict and any suggestion of the regard in which an accused is held by the government could certainly constitute both an attempt to influence and intimidate, I would like to ask the Prime Minister-and I wish he would be specific in his response-whether the Minister of Public Works has categorically denied to the Prime Minister that he reminded the judge that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is an important person and that the verdict is an extremely sensible and potentially explosive matter? Has the Minister of Public Works explicitly denied that he made that kind of representation to the judge in this case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, nor did he specifically deny that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is about five feet ten inches and has brown hair.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: It would of course be easier for us all if the Prime Minister would simply come clean with the House of Commons-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -and tell us what the minister did say to the judge so that we and not he, the interested party, can come to some conclusion as to whether or not there was an attempt to act in an improper way. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that he has asked the chief justice:
... to give us information that might be in his possession respecting any unwarranted attempts to interfere with proper administration.
I wonder if the Prime Minister would spell out for this House the circumstances in which he believes it would be warranted for a minister of the Crown to attempt to
Oral Questions
influence the decision of a judge in a case then before the courts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S CONVERSATION WITH CONSUMER MINISTER CONCERNING APPROACH TO JUDGE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. The Prime Minister has said that he received private explanations from the three ministers who reported-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot hear you with all the noise.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am sorry the Prime Minister cannot hear me. The Prime Minister said he received private explanations from the three ministers who were reported to have approached the judge. Without accepting in any way that that constitutes an adequate response in terms of the Prime Minister's duty to parliament, I would like to ask him whether he has had a similar conversation with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who has been found guilty of contempt in court, who alledgedly requested one reported intervention.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I told the House that I spoke to all three ministers, that they gave me the substance of what they had said to the particular judge, and that I had reached the conclusion they were not attempting to influence the outcome of the case. I can understand the House wanting to pursue that knowledge, but I suggest the proper course would be to pursue it with the courts themselves, who are surely the best judges of whether they have been influenced. If they say they were, obviously we might have to follow a course which would be announced. However, this is the whole purport of the letter of the Minister of Justice to the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec.


CONTENT OF CONVERSATION BETWEEN MR. DRURY AND JUDGE HUGESSEN CONCERNING CONSUMERS MINISTER
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yesterday the Prime Minister stated that unilaterally he had made a decision that there was no intervention, and he said any attempt made would be wrong. Then he said, and I quote: The essence of the question is "Did you talk to the judge in order to influence the judgment or to influence the course of justice"? That is the relevant-
If that is a relevant question, is the Prime Minister now prepared to give a relevant answer that the ministers made to him, referring to the Minister of Public Works and others talking to the judges, and what the Minister of Public Works said to the associate chief justice as to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs? In other words, if the question is relevant, let us have relevant answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I agree completely with the hon. member for Calgary North. The
21419-48V2

March 11, 1976
Oral Questions
question is relevant. I did say it was relevant, and it was in order to have relevant answers that I was suggesting we hear the views-if he wants to make them heard-of the chief justice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member wants to hear answers from me.


Charles Joseph Clark: Indeed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition says, indeed. I gave answers. The opposition does not think I am impartial or qualified to give such answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You are right.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member says I am right, and the Leader of the Opposition suggested I should come clean. I have given answers to the best of my ability.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: You can do better than that.


An hon. Member:: Yesterday you were claiming
privilege.


Mr. Forrestall:: Even Joe Guay could do a better job.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously, hon. members are not attaching a high value to my answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Therefore the best course surely would be for them to stop asking me questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


DATE OF CONVERSATION BETWEEN MR. DRURY AND JUDGE HUGESSEN
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I will do precisely that right now and direct my question to the Minister of Public Works. The minister has indicated to the House in the past that he did in fact have a conversation with Justice Hugessen. Would the minister tell us today if that conversation took place on a date before the hearing began into the case of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs? If that was not the date, what date was it, and from whom did he obtain the information that it was going to be Judge Hugessen who was to be hearing the case?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the telephone conversation to which reference has been made took place the day following the first of the series of hearings conducted by Judge Hugessen, who was in charge of this particular case.


POSSIBILITY MR. DRURY TOLD JUDGE HUGESSEN CONSUMER'S MINISTER IMPORTANT PERSON
John Edward Broadbent: Then the minister is confirming that the conversation he had with Judge Hugessen took place after the hearing had begun and while the judge was in the process of making up his mind on the matter. He has indicated to the House that he would not reveal positively-and we have heard his reasons, without necessarily accepting them-what was said to Judge Hugessen. In view of the importance of the allegations that were made in today's press would the minister take this opportunity to at least deny that he made any reference to the fact that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was either a French Canadian or likely to be a very important person, to Judge Hugessen?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member cannot really be serious in his intention when he says he respects my refusal to comment on speculative stories in one respect, but I should take the opportunity to deny another sort of speculative story.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister clearly misunderstood me. I said that I understood from his earlier answers he was not going to tell us in a positive sense what he did say to the judge. He has already said that. I do not accept that answer but I am not pursuing it any longer. The question I am putting to him is, would he at least take the opportunity of clarifying, and I hope denying, that he made any reference to the fact that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was a French Canadian and that he was a very important person? Surely, the minister can at least do that, since it is outside his own terms of reference within which he has answered questions in the House before. Why can he not at least deny that?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the hon. gentleman is falling for the tactic of ascertaining, rather inefficiently, a fact by setting up a series of straw men to be knocked down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The straw man is already going.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Does the minister intend to take particular steps to check the figures on gas consumption put out by automobile manufacturers in their advertisements, and find out
March 11, 1976

whether they correspond to the facts so that Canadian consumers do not become victims of misleading advertisements in this regard?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has specific examples to give me, I shall be pleased to convey them to the director of investigations of my department who, as required by law, will make an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question. In reaching a decision about the efficacy of ministerial conduct will the Prime Minister direct his attention to the code of professional conduct of the Canadian Bar Association and most especially that section dealing with the ethical standard expected of the lawyer in public office?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to direct my attention to that. Perhaps the hon. member could send a copy of the respective statutes or regulations.


An hon. Member:: Obviously, you have not read it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, some hon. members opposite do not seem to realize there are ten different bars in the ten different provinces and they may have different sets of regulations. I should be interested to hear not only what the Canadian bar has to say but what the bar of New Brunswick has to say. I am sure what the bar of Alberta has to say would be of no interest at all to the hon. member opposite who probably would not even understand it.


An hon. Member:: You are getting a little testy there, Pierre.


An hon. Member:: Boiling point is approaching.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Pretty close.


POSSIBILITY QUESTION OF MINISTERIAL ETHICS LEFT TO COURTS TO DECIDE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I accept the high karate. It would be quite an interesting experience. The Prime Minister told us yesterday relative to ministerial conduct that if an action is said to be wrong it will be wrong because the court comes to the conclusion it has been interfered with. I want to ask the Prime Minister if it is his opinion that the question of ministerial ethics and intent which after all must be one of his prime responsibilities and for which he would set the tone of any government, is to be left to the discretion of the courts or the chief justice?
Oral Questions
[DOT] (M30)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, certainly not the principle or rules of conduct. But there have been allegations of facts, that the courts were interfered with. In some cases these facts have been demolished. In other cases they are being analysed by the chief justice. My whole case rests not on the application of the principle itself, because I said, clearly, that it was wrong for anyone, not only a minister, to try to influence a judge of the court in the discharge of his duties.


Mr. Lawrence:: Especially a minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It will not apply to the hon. gentleman opposite, who will never again be a minister.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Such modesty.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I will join the Prime Minister in the has beens club.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the issue, therefore, is not one of principle, on which I have stated my views which, I believe, are not different from those of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. The issue is one of fact: whether, in fact, these courts in some way or other have been aggrieved; whether, in fact, there has been an attempt to interfere in the discharge of the judge's duties. It is a question of fact. I repeat, if hon. members opposite do not want to take my word for it, I do not blame them. I think we should wait to hear what the chief justice of the superior court feels about the facts.


ELECTIONS
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister? Yesterday the Prime Minister refused to give an account to this House, and has refused today. My question is this: rather than delegating the question of ministerial ethics to a judge, and trying to find an election issue in the constitution, is the Prime Minister prepared to call immediately a by-election in Ottawa-Carleton and put his conduct on this and other immediate matters before the voters?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Will the Prime Minister not answer?


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister

March 11, 1976
Oral Questions
told the House that the chief justice would not normally be called upon to look into conversations between "members of my cabinet," stating that this was "quite proper." The Minister of Public Works indicated that the chief justice has not interviewed him in this regard. As it seems unlikely that the chief justice will investigate ministerial intent, one of the crucial issues here and a central responsibility of the Prime Minister, does the Prime Minister intend to make a statement or initiate an inquiry into the conduct of his ministers in this regard, since he is the only person with access to this information?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have been sorting out questions carefully and watching for repetitions. There has been a recurrence of questions, with slight variation, on the same theme. I think, in this case, there is not a variation. The hon. member has put a question which has been put previously to the Prime Minister and answered by the Prime Minister.


REQUEST FOR IDENTIFICATION OF PUBLIC-SPIRITED CITIZENS WHO APPROACHED JUDGE ON BEHALF OF CONSUMER'S MINISTER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to elicit information, with all due deference. I am asking the minister for further clarification. As the Minister of Public Works has referred to a number of public spirited citizens who also approached the judge, has the Prime Minister, as leader of the Liberal party, looked into the matter. Has he any idea who those people are and will he identify them if he knows who they are?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no more idea than the hon. member opposite might have.


Walter David Baker: You should have.


REQUEST FOR SUBSIDY FOR OIL FOR GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY IN NOVA SCOTIA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As power rates in Nova Scotia have now risen beyond the reach of ordinary working men and pensioners, and in view of the rough reception given to federal cabinet representatives from Nova Scotia at last weekend's Liberal convention by Liberals, particularly the finance minister of that province and others, with respect to the need for a subsidy for oil for power generation purposes, can the minister say if Nova Scotia is to be given assistance in this regard?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia is already receiving assistance in two forms. It is receiving assistance under the oil compensation account. If Nova Scotia were to pay the world price, it would pay much more than it is now being asked to pay. To be specific, may I refer to the price that the power utility pays for its coal. If that coal were
(Mr. Hnatyshyn.]
sold at world prices, power would be much more expensive. Actually, that coal is being sold at the equivalent of the Canadian oil price, which is held down well below the world price. As a result DEVCO is assuming greater losses than it otherwise would. This form of subsidy is to the benefit of citizens of Nova Scotia.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the rate has more than doubled. May I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs? As recipients of disability pensions and war veterans allowances are finding it almost impossible to survive and pay their power bills, would the minister consider granting special supplementary assistance to recipients of DVA pensions?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, according to our last assessment, recipients of WVA and disability pensions, after receiving the indexed adjustment, are in a position to pay for their energy.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, while waiting for the report of the chief justice on the matter in which the Progressive Conservatives are interested, I should like to put to the right hon. Prime Minister a very serious question on a matter of interest to thousands of Canadians.
Following the meeting held by the members of the Quebec Liberal caucus with industrial milk producers-for we now understand-and the most positive representations of those producers, will the Prime Minister and his cabinet give serious consideration to the requests of the producers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker; I shall be helped in this regard by the very important brief handed over to me by the members of the Quebec Liberal caucus.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. In answer to a question I asked him on Tuesday of this week, he said that he was reassured about the Lockheed Orion
March 11, 1976

contract as two thirds of Lockheed orders are for U S. domestic contracts. As the United States does not guarantee Lockheed more than $250 million for all contracts, how can the minister indicate that he is reassured? Also, will he advise the House if he sought U.S. guarantees that Canada is to get what it pays for under that contract?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, it is obviously a matter of judgment not easy to deal with, but following our discussions with the U.S. government and those we had with Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, Ltd., we have obviously sufficient ground to believe that Lockheed will be able, if an agreement is entered into, to deliver the aircraft we intend to order.


CONTRACT WITH LOCKHEED-INVOLVEMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-PRESENT LIABILITY OF GOVERNMENT
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the Department of Justice involved in initial negotiations and in the declaration of principle or intent to purchase? Second, can the minister say how great a liability Lockheed has incurred so far with respect to this contract? In other words, what liabilities are we looking at today?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider the questions put by the hon. member and give him the information as soon as I have it.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It having been held in law, and I quote, that "it is a grave contempt of court to communicate with, or to seek in any way to influence a judge upon the subject of any matter he has to determine", and in view of the clear provisions in Section 127(2) of the Criminal Code covering such perversion of justice, will the minister indicate if he has asked the investigatory authorities who report to him to investigate the circumstances which led the Minister of Public Works to make the statement appearing at page 11457 of Hansard of March 3 to the effect that he had a conversation with Mr. Justice Hugess-en touching on a subject matter before him?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the enforcement of the Criminal Code is under the jurisdiction of the attorneys general of the provinces and I am sure they will do a good job.
Oral Questions


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In view of the circumstances I just outlined in my question, and bearing in mind that the actual laying of a charge may be in the hands of an attorney general of any province, will the minister indicate if he will ask for an investigation to be conducted by the authorities under his department?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister pointed out, if the Chief Justice of Quebec thinks that an investigation should take place, he will ask for one.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Public Works. As the minister will not give details of his conversation, is the hon. gentleman able to deny to this House that when he, as a minister of the Crown, communicated with the judge charged with the responsibility of trying this case, it was his intention to convey to the judge his viewpoint with regard to the charge?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think I did make a statement to the effect that it was not my intention to influence the course of justice.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to bring somebody else into the net. My supplementary is directed to my distinguished friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, one of our best parliamentarians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: I would not want to leave him out of something like this. I direct my question to him because we are trying to pin down the role of the present Minister of National Health and Welfare. Perhaps his grandson once removed, the President of the Privy Council, should really be answering the question. Has the minister or anyone in the department satisfied themselves as to the propriety of the request from the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago concerning the trial in Montreal a number of years back, and whether that request was properly transmitted and dealt with?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have ascertained that indeed such a request was made, as was mentioned by the Prime Minister. The record indicates that various steps were taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs at that time with respect to that request. There is no information that I have been able to find on the record that

March 11, 1976
Oral Questions
would illuminate the particular aspect of the question raised by the hon. member, except that there were discussions at that time which involved representatives other than those in the Department of External Affairs, including representatives, I believe, from the Prime Minister's office. However, this particular aspect is not covered.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I think that probably this is the field in which we in this parliament really have to make a final decision. However, with regard to the propriety of it, would it not have been better if the then Secretary of State for External Affairs had approached the Minister of Justice rather than leaving it to the principal secretary of the Prime Minister?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of opinion upon which the hon. member is as equipped as I to form a judgment.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the minister described the Prime Minister's speech in Quebec last Friday as a combination of kibitzing and jocular remarks, will he give the House a few examples of this good, boyish fun which evidently had the delegates rolling in the aisles for the best part of 90 minutes because this House is overdue a little humour and a few laughs to alleviate the jaundiced picture of ministers trying to influence the judiciary?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question refers to the understandings on nuclear aid to India which the minister stated had been reached by the negotiating team which recently visited India. Now that the Prime Minister's political advisor, Ivan Head, has stated publicly "The key to agreement as far as we were concerned was that India accept longlasting international safeguards on the use of nuclear reactors. We were successful in this", is the Secretary of State for External Affairs now in a position to tell the House what these long-lasting international safeguards are and whether they have received cabinet approval?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the negotiating team was acting under instructions. Its terms of reference were established by me. I have not yet received a detailed report nor indeed a copy of the understandings reached at the discussions at New Delhi. I would underline that these

have not been approved. They will be examined by myself and, if found appropriate, sent on to cabinet for consideration. None of these steps have been taken or completed at the present time.


INDIA-SUGGESTED DEBATE PRIOR TO SIGNING AGREEMENT FOR RESUMPTION OF NUCLEAR AID
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs might have some discussion with the Prime Minister's principal advisor to find out on what his statements are based. In view of the implications for world security of Canada's nuclear export policy, will the minister, and I put this question to him because I believe he is a more considerate and compassionate man than the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: It is obvious from the replies we receive that he is more considerate. Will the minister seek to have the government reverse its decision of not having the pending agreements with India debated in the House but rather bring full information as to safeguards, accords, length of time of agreements into this chamber for debate and discussion before we take any final step in ratifying the accord? I ask this question because the Canadian people have much more interest in this information than the Prime Minister appears to have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the tabling of the nuclear co-operation agreements with the Republic of South Korea and Argentina, I tabled a very extensive background paper on the whole question of nuclear safeguards in an effort to provide the greatest possible amount of available information on this subject. As the hon. lady recalls, there was a rather extensive question and answer period at that time on the significance of these agreements. It has never been the practice in Canada to submit such agreements to the House of Commons prior to approval, and that is the traditional practice that is being followed in this case. However, I have no objection to having this subject matter debated at any time that the opposition decides to bring it forward, or indeed to co-operating with any effort that might be made on a bilateral basis to have the subject ventilated in the House.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid my question is going to be anti-climactic. I just want to ask my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who received a communication from the Minister of National Health and Welfare who did not seem to like his response very much to the question asked by my colleague from Halifax-East Hants, if it is not a breach of privilege, whether he would disclose the contents of the note handed him by the minister?
March 11, 1976

Oral Questions FINANCE


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would have no difficulty except it might create an unfortunate precedent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to those asked by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands relating to the intended agreement with India and the continuation of nuclear aid. In view of the concern shown last night in Washington by members of the U.S. Senate in attempting to find out why Canada is now negotiating with India for the continuation of this nuclear aid, I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs is taking steps to indicate Canada's position to that Senate committee in Washington?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understand the report to which the hon. member refers relates to fuel shipped by the United States to the United States supplied reactor in India. That is my understanding of the news report. Obviously, if United States congressmen have certain views on this question, that is their concern. We will attempt to decide whether we ought to resume nuclear shipments to India on the basis of Canadian policy and our adherence to the nuclear suppliers' consensus which was recently certified by Canada.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My question is related to the concern shown by U.S. Senators in a Senate sub-committee last night, who were asking why Canada was renegotiating nuclear aid to India. My supplementary question to the minister is this. If he is going to be good enough to indicate that reason to the Americans, would he also have the courtesy to indicate to the House of Commons why this is so?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would have no difficulty indicating the reason that we are having these discussions with the government of India. Following the explosion in India, nuclear co-operation between Canada and India was terminated, despite the fact that there was an outstanding requirement to provide equipment for the uncompleted reactor in India. We have not resumed shipments and would not do so unless we were assured, as a result of these discussions and any agreement entered into, that the cause of non-proliferation had been advanced rather than retarded by entering into the agreement. At the very end of the analysis, we will have to make a judgment whether in all the circumstances any understanding arrived at will have advanced that cause, rather than leave the situation as it is now with this particular uncompleted reactor unsafeguarded to the extent of Canadian standards.


DECLINE OF THE POUND-POSSIBILITY OF ASSISTING UNITED KINGDOM WITH VIEW TO MAINTAINING FLOW OF EXPORTS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the decline in the purchasing power of the British pound and the effect of this decline on exports from Canada to that country, will the government be holding any special meetings with British government officials in the hope at least of retaining our present flow of exports to that country while at the same time assisting Britain during this period of extreme economic difficulty, in the same way that we have assisted other countries?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we would, of course, be concerned about this to be helpful to the British government through our affiliation with the International Monetary Fund during the period of exchange difficulties through which they are passing at the moment. On a longer term basis-that is to say, the balance of trade between the two countries-I would have to defer responding on that matter until I can talk to my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who would have the prime responsibility.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
I was very interested in the answer he gave to the hon. member for Levis when he said that on the one hand he has received a brief from dairy producers and on the other another brief from his caucus, and in those circumstances I would like to know whether the Prime Minister would be prepared to assure the dairy producers that the present 65 cents levy will not be increased for the next dairy year and that storage charges will not be collected directly from the producers. If so, I would guarantee the Prime Minister full cooperation from this side of the House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking me to comment on the brief drafted by the caucus of Quebec, which I mentioned yesterday. May I tell him that I intend to give my answer to the caucus before giving it to him.


POSSIBILITY OF EXTENDING WESTERN OIL PIPELINE EAST OF MONTREAL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of energy. Can he shed any light at this point in time on the status of the

March 11, 1976
Oral Questions
government's planning to push the so-called western pipeline east at least as far as salt water?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would want to read the transcript of the proceedings of the standing committee which was putting some questions to me on supplementary estimates the other day; he might be able to get a fair appreciation of the kind of problems I was describing. I think the subject is too technical and too general to give an answer in the House.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the recent meeting on Tuesday between the United States delegation from the state department, department of agriculture, department of the interior and the state of Montana, with their Canadian counterparts, the Department of the Environment, the Department of External Affairs and the provincial government, in connection with Cabin Creek coal development, would the minister make a statement today on his department's views concerning the development of Cabin Creek coal at the B.C.-Montana border?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which I discussed with Mr. Neilson when I was in British Columbia. I have already discussed this question with the U.S. ambassador and I intend very shortly to meet with the director responsible for the environment in Washington. We want to discuss all problems, not only in B.C. but in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Great Lakes, and reach a solution.


Robert Hylton Brisco: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the minister's intention to table in the House or to provide in the form of a press release specific information to the House regarding Cabin Creek border coal development?


Jean Marchand: I will look into that, Mr. Speaker.



ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION IN IRVING CASE-REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO PERMIT UNION TO MAKE ORAL PRESENTATION

Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the Canadian Paper Workers Union submitted their appeal of the Administrator's decision in the Irving case on March 9 and I believe the cabinet is going to make a decision on Monday, owing to an error in the Privy Council office in announcing the deadline would the cabinet consider extending the deadline so they may deal with this
[Mr. Forrestall.J
complicated brief in some considerable detail and allow the union to make an oral presentation?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: We do not
have the right under the law to extend the deadline, but we have considered the submission of the paperworkers. In the analysis, we have not seen fit to grant their request. However, as we have stated, we are bringing forward amendments to permit appeal procedures and that option will be open to the paper workers as a result.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could I ask the House leader to let us know his intentions with respect to the business of the House today, for the balance of the week and perhaps even for next week.


Mr. Sharp:: This afternoon we shall resume consideration of Bill C-83. You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that the House must take under consideration objections which have been filed respecting the provisions of the reports of the Electoral Boundaries Commissions. Discussions have taken place among representatives of the parties, and as a result I should like to propose an order of the House which would set the process in train. The time for taking into consideration the objections filed to the Nova Scotia redistribution expires tonight; that in respect of British Columbia expires on March 27; and that in respect of Alberta, on April 3.
It will be my intention to ask the House to set aside some time later for the consideration of all the objections which will have been filed by March 28, which I am given to understand is the final date for the filing of objections. This would include any of the objections to be discussed later today, the consideration of which is not completed. I should, therefore, like to move, seconded by my colleague, the Minister of Public Works:
That at 8:00 p.m. this day the House shall take up consideration of objections to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Nova Scotia;
That, after completion of consideration of the said report, the House shall take up consideration of objections to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the British Columbia, but, if consideration of the report for Nova Scotia has not been completed at 8:40 p.m., the said consideration shall be adjourned and the House shall proceed forthwith to consideration of the report for British Columbia; and
That, after completion of consideration of the said report for British Columbia, the House shall take up consideration of objections to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Alberta, but, if consideration of the report for British Columbia has not been completed at 9:20 p.m., the said consideration shall be adjourned and the House shall proceed forthwith to consideration of the report for Alberta;
March 11, 1976


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Such a motion is normally receivable only during the time set aside for motions. However, if the House is disposed to make this arrangement, it might be simpler to dispose of the matter now. Does the President of the Privy Council have the consent of the House to move the motion?


Mr. Nowlan:: Might I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council?


Mr. Speaker:: If there are questions to be asked, it might be better if we adhered to our usual practice. The motion is more properly receivable when we get to that point in our procedure.


Mitchell William Sharp: Might I continue my report to the House on business? I had to interrupt it in order to explain what the government proposed we should do at eight o'clock. We shall proceed to the consideration of those objections, if the House so agrees. Tomorrow will be an opposition day. On Monday we shall resume consideration of the second reading of Bill C-68. Tuesday is an opposition day. On Wednesday, if Bill C-68 has not been completed, its consideration will be continued. Then we shall resume consideration of Bill C-83.


Walter David Baker: I understand that it is the intention of the government House leader, with respect to the electoral boundaries matters, that there shall be, following the time set aside this evening, a time appointed to complete consideration of the Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Alberta objections, if necessary, as well as any others consideration of which might have been begun. That is my understanding, and I see that the hon. gentleman is confirming it.
As to one other aspect, I really must protest. Yesterday this House endured an unwarranted intrusion into its regular proceedings in the form of a closure motion with respect to Bill C-68. Instead of dealing with this important bill at the first available opportunity, we find the government today moving on to the revision of the peace and security legislation. I suggest it is improper not to consider Bill C-68 if the need for it was so urgent as to lead to the introduction of the closure motion yesterday. I believe the House leader owes us an explanation.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the business of the House, may I say it will not bother me if the House leader puts Bill C-68 off for six months or a year. We do not want it at all. But may I ask a question which relates, to the very welcome announcement, which pleased us all two weeks ago, about legislation respecting Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war. Despite our pleasure at this announcement, some of us are getting anxious as time goes by. Can we be told on what day the bill will be introduced?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not think I am privileged to answer the House leader of the official opposition, but may I reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre? The bill is in course of preparation, and I expect it will be given first reading soon.


James Aloysius McGrath: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order you directed that the Minister of National Health
Business of the House
and Welfare would be given an opportunity today-provided, of course, that the hon. member who raised the question in the first instance, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, put the question to him-to carry out an undertaking the minister gave last Friday to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby having to do with the Canada Games to be held at St. John's, with federal participation. Since the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby did not raise the subject today, perhaps the House might agree to allow the minister to answer the question now.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair certainly has no objection to following that course. I recognize the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Lalonde:: Mr. Speaker, the federal government participates in the Canada Summer and Winter Games and shares in the operating cost and capital cost of those games on the basis of an agreed budget. Although the games have been awarded to St. John's for 1977, no agreement has yet been signed with the organizing committee of the games. In the meantime, the organizing committee has proceeded, as was mentioned yesterday, to award a contract for a sportsplex without consulting with us. It is clear we shall share only the cost of the agreed budget, and after we have signed an agreement with the organizing committee we shall cost-share only according to an arrangement in which there would be provision to ensure that normal tendering practices will be observed in the expenditure of federal funds.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order occasioned by an answer given earlier in the House by the Minister of Public Works. Last Wednesday, when the issue of alleged interference with judges by members of the cabinet first arose, the minister stated, as reported at page 11457 of Hansard:
I think it would be only an irresponsible member who would try to persist in having an effect or influence on a judgment on appeal.
Later in the same answer he said:
I would have refrained from intervening or from having any conversation with him.
That referred to a judge considering an appeal. In respect of a question I put to him today, the minister has raised a very serious matter, it seems to me, when it is considered in conjunction with the answer he gave in the House last Wednesday. When he gave the answer, I think a number of people understood that the intervention of the phone call which the minister had admitted he made to Judge Hugessen in fact took place prior to the commencement of the hearing. A number of us would have had objections about that in principle, but at least it might have been contended that what was being done then was simply an attempt to ascertain some information about, for example, the date of the commencement of the hearing.
Now, as a result of what the minister said today, namely, that his phone call was made to the judge a day after the appeal started, I submit that such a phone call could not-I repeat, "could not"-have any other effect except to be some kind of intervention in the judicial process. My point is that given the fact that the minister acknowledged today

March 11, 1976
Business of the House
that he made the phone call to the judge after the appeal was under way, he has an obligation to explain his earlier comments which many people interpreted as meaning that his phone call took place prior to the commencement of the appeal. He inadvertently, or otherwise, misled the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby may, of course, have a very valid comment on the relationship between the two answers given by the minister or the quality of either, or both, but this does not technically constitute a point of order.


Mr. Abbott:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a point of order to seek clarification of the point of order raised by Your Honour yesterday. The hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception asked a question and Your Honour stated he could not receive an answer to the question because it had been previously asked. Then, on a later point of order, when Your Honour was asked further about the situation, Your Honour stated that the test is not whether or not the question had been raised previously but whether or not it had been answered previously.
Clearly, we on this side of the House, particularly on the backbenches, have very limited opportunity to ask questions. I should like to bring to Your Honour's attention the fact that in the past few days we have had repeated questions on the matter of the judicial difficulty in the city of Montreal relating to ministers, and there has been repeated repetition of all points. I shall deal in specifics. On March 3, as reported at page 11457 of Hansard, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby asked whether the Prime Minister did not think it appropriate to have a public inquiry, and so on. On March 4, as recorded at page 11484 of Hansard, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby asked whether the Prime Minister was prepared to appoint an independent commission, and so on.
Then on March 4, as recorded at page 11486 of Hansard, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby asked for a public inquiry. Also, as recorded on the same page, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby asked for a public inquiry and whether the public would have access to the written report. As recorded at page 11490 of Hansard, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands asked for a public inquiry. On March 8 the hon. member for Central Nova asked for a special inquiry. On March 9, as recorded at page 11613 of Hansard, the Leader of the Opposition made a request for publication of the report of the judge. Yesterday, as recorded at page 11660 of Hansard, the Leader of the Opposition asked whether or not there was interference. As recorded at page 11661, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby asked whether or not there was interference. All I say-


An hon. Member:: We want some answers.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: The hon. member says they want some answers. Answers have been given. I suggest there is a grave inequity in respect of some members of this House who must sit here day after day listening to repetitive questions: the same questions are asked over and over again. Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that if the backbench members on this side of the House are to be governed by such a rule, I would respectfully ask Your Honour to apply the same rule to the opposition.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise that there have been repeated questions, but if the member feels there have been repeated questions with regard to the matter I wish to say to you, sir, and through you to him, that there has been repeated evasion in respect of an answer on the matter of a public inquiry. I hope the hon. member is not saying that the members of the opposition ought to sit quietly by and accept evasive and non-answers. Does he suggest that we should sit quietly by, retire, and leave a public matter like this hang the way it is, a matter which day by day is bringing disrepute to this government? I say "Shame" to the member who just raised the point of order.
In so far as the operation of the question period is concerned, aside from the question of the stonewalling which I think is apparent to everyone, the member has raised a point of order with regard to the way in which the Chair is handling this House. I want to say to you, sir, that if the question period is to be used for the answering of questions that can be raised by the member in another forum where may not be the same retiscence to confess wrongdoing, then I think that would be an improper use of the question period. By tradition you, Mr. Speaker, have made a ruling in respect of the position of parliamentary secretaries because they are privy to certain information.
In regard to the operation of this House, the question period is a place in which to attempt to elicit information. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that you have been extremely generous, having regard to the conduct of some of your predecessors, in respect of questions by government members. It is my duty and part of my function as a member of the opposition to very carefully monitor the operation of the question period. I do not say this as a criticism of you, sir-quite the contrary; but I say that the hon. member is not making a valid point when he says that you have been unfair in terms of the question period, having regard to questioning by the opposition.
I have done some research in respect of the operation of the question period in the past. The fact of the matter is that to a greater extent government members are being recognized. I suggest to you, sir, with great respect-and great respect to my friends as well, because I can understand their frustration in having to sit behind a government like that-that you must exercise a great deal of care in that regard because of the position of the Chair having regard to the traditions over the years as to the use of the question period. If there has been what my friend calls repetition with regard to this matter, I want to say to him that if this government would come clean, if this Prime Minister would answer the questions we have asked, if the Minister of Public Works would answer the questions we have asked, and if they would give the country the public inquiry for which we have asked from the first day, we would ask no more questions in this regard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in just a word or two may I say to the hon. member for Mississauga that the most effective way to avoid repetition of questions is for the government to answer the questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: As for his delight in giving instances when the same questions have been asked a number of times, I can tell him that some of us have had to ask questions year after year and decade after decade, and I know of no rule which prevents the asking of questions, especially when they have not been satisfactorily answered.
Frankly, I am surprised that my friend, the hon. member for Mississauga, should be raising this point of order. I have seen some bad times in this House of Commons, but I have never seen such calculated evasion of questions put by members of the opposition. If there is anything that has been wrong in the last week or so, it has been the unwillingness of the Prime Minister and his colleagues to answer questions to which the people of this country want answers.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief contribution to this point of order, in view of the fact that during the course of the question period Your Honour saw fit to make an assessment with regard to a question I asked of the Prime Minister. I should like to say to Your Honour that I realize that this matter has received great interest both within the House and publicly, and I know that the Prime Minister has indicated on different occasions in his answers that he is awaiting the reply of the chief justice and that is his position. But if Your Honour has an opportunity to reconsider the question that I asked, I would point out that there was no time parameter with respect to the position of the government regarding the action to be taken by the Prime Minister.
In other words, I was trying to determine whether the Prime Minister at any time, whether before or after he receives the answer of the chief justice, would conduct his own investigation among his colleagues or in cabinet to see whether, from the point of view of parliamentary procedure and propriety, in a political sense, the action of the various ministers was in order. That was the point of my question. I have followed in great detail the questions that have been asked, and I venture to say that this is one instance where there has been no repetition of a previous question. I suggest that Your Honour's assessment was not quite fair to me, in the sense that mine was a quite unique question regarding the intention of the Prime Minister in this respect.
With your indulgence, I ask Your Honour to reflect on the question which I asked, which was possibly more verbose than normally, and allow me to pursue it at a later time.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I support the hon. member for Mississauga in his remarks.


An hon. Member:: Surprise, surprise!


Jean-Jacques Blais: Like him, I was very encouraged by your remarks to the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Coneep-tion yesterday when he put his question. It is evident, from the comments made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, that the opposition tactic in this instance is simply to repeat the same questions. They are not interested at all in replies, because the replies were given earlier in these exchanges.
Business of the House
The Prime Minister indicated the attitude of the government. I suggest to Your Honour that those were acceptable replies. The Prime Minister stated exactly what the government's position was with reference to the matters raised by members of the opposition. As you have indicated before, sir, it is the right of ministers to give replies. They may not be acceptable to members of the opposition because they do not want to recognize the worth of those particular replies. The tactic of opposition members in this instance is not to seek information as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton stated. With his usual hyperbolic terminology, he is attempting to say that he is seeking information. Nothing could be further from the collective mind of members of the opposition. What they are seeking to do is to impress the scribes in the press gallery by repeating the same questions that have been replied to previously.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question of whether or not the Chair should intervene to prevent questions because they are identical to questions which have already been answered is one which the Chair has been reluctant to invoke in the past and will continue to be reluctant to invoke. It is a very technical rule. However, there are blatant circumstances in which repetitions are clear. Usually they are even so described by hon. members themselves, who say that because of lack of an answer, he or she wishes to repeat the question. Blatant repetitions of questions cannot be permitted.
However, the rule itself calls into play a judgment to be made by the Chair as to the exact wording of the question, as to any variations that might take place, and as to whether the question has been replied to in the past. It is not possible for any presiding officer to remember, particularly on an important matter of this nature, from day to day and several days back the exact wording of the question and whether or not it has been previously answered. Attempts which I have made to exercise that discretion in the past have never been successful. Indeed, the question put by the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception was identical to a question that was asked previously which, however, had not received an answer, and that should have been the test. That is some indication of the difficulty of the Chair in attempting to invoke the rule. I will do it when it is blatant repetition, but I am reluctant to invoke it otherwise.
However, may I say to all hon. members-and I am sure the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar is aware of it-that the Chair will enforce the rule from time to time. The expression of dissatisfaction at the Chair not invoking the rule often enough on one side of the House, and the dissatisfaction on the other side at the Chair having invoked it too often, gives some indication of the great assistance which the Chair has received in these interventions by hon. members.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order, just before we leave the matter. The hon. member for Nipissing imputed a motive to me with respect to my conduct as a member of the House of Commons. Quite frankly, I would ask the hon. member,

March 11, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
through you, Mr. Speaker, to look at the "blues" a little later and see whether or not that remark was justified in the circumstances. I do not think it is a proper thing for him to do, and I would certainly not do that to him.


Mr. Speaker:: With due respect, this is one of the difficulties when procedural arguments get to the substance of the matter. I think an examination of the "blues" or of Hansard tomorrow might indicate that with respect to what has happened on both sides of the House this afternoon-and it is an indication of what might happen when we get into discussions which are intended to be procedural-it would be better if we stuck to procedural grounds and stayed away from substance.


MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES
[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in both official languages-Mr. Langlois.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes
and Proceedings.]

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a copy of an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Quebec on the Anti-Inflation Program.


ANTI-INFLATION ACT MEASURE TO ADD NEW DEFINITIONS
Donald Stovel Macdonald: for leave to introduce Bill C-89, to amend the Anti-Inflation Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mitchell William Sharp: That at 8:00 p.m. this day the House shall take up consideration of objections to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Nova Scotia;
That, after completion of consideration of the said report, the House shall take up consideration of objections to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the British Columbia, but, if consideration of the report for Nova Scotia has not been completed at 8:40 p.m., the said consideration shall be adjourned and the House shall proceed forthwith to consideration of the report for British Columbia; and
That, after completion of consideration of the said report for British Columbia, the House shall take up consideration of objections to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Alberta, but, if consideration of the report for British Columbia has not been completed at 9:20 p.m., the said consideration shall be adjourned and the House shall proceed forthwith to consideration of the report for Alberta-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would remind the House that subject to discussion and agreement, the President of the Privy Council earlier indicated his intention to move a motion at this time. The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it understood and agreed that the terms of the motion put forward by the President of the Privy Council are agreed to?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, before this motion is passed I should like to know if time will be left for orderly discussion. It is all right to introduce a motion, but I think normally they should be introduced one at a time. However, I should like to know whether, because of the difficulty we are getting into with an extended session, we are going to have time before something has to happen- and, Mr. Speaker, we have to have some additional time rather than just the introduction to each redistribution debate to which we are agreeing.


Mitchell William Sharp: I have had some discussions with the respresentatives of the various parties on this very point, and in the explanation I gave preliminary to reading the terms of the motion I indicated that the intention would be to set the process in train tonight on three of the objections which must be dealt with before April 3. As I said, it would be my intention at that time to seek the agreement of the House or on my own motion to set aside some time after March 28, by which time all the objections must have been filed, to discuss not only those which will be introduced tonight but also others which are already with the Chair or which may be filed before March 28. We do not consider that the discussion tonight does anything more than set the process in train.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to ask an additional question. We have gone through this once or twice before. In terms of the discussions, will an attempt be made to keep the objections in a series, rather than introducing them all in a group? We may have someone talking about Quebec and someone else talking about the Northwest Territories. Is it the intention to keep them in some kind of order so that there will be a termination of the debate on one set of objections before another one is commenced?


Mitchell William Sharp: If I may speak again, I will put before the House leaders some proposals along these lines. Of course, it will be necessary to reach agreement. I hope we can reach agreement on some allocation of time so that the objections can be dealt with in a series in the most effective way.
March 11, 1976


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there was a bill introduced just a few moments ago by the Minister of Finance and it was given first reading. Is there a time problem with respect to that bill?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I want to have a discussion with the House leaders about the opening of the discussion on second reading. As the House is aware, we have a number of opposition days: tomorrow, next Tuesday, next Friday, and in the following week I think there are several before we reach the date for the end of this semester. I will want to talk with the House leaders about when might be an appropriate time to open the debate. I indicated that on Monday we would resume consideration of second reading of Bill C-68. It probably cannot be finished on Monday, and probably will have to be resumed on Wednesday at the opening, for a short time. Then we could go back to Bill C-83.
However, I should perhaps enter the caveat that if, as a result of discussions, it is deemed advisable to revert instead to the amendments to the Anti-Inflation Act, I would later indicate that intention. At the moment, however, I think it is better to indicate that we will revert to Bill C-83.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,035, 4,063, 4,077, 4,079, 4,084, 4,100, 4,101, 4,140 and 4,141.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Will the government give consideration to making caretakers' wages allowable expenses under the Winter Works Programme, as outlined in the resolution passed at the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association Convention in January 1976?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Under the Winter Capital Projects fundj portions of loans (equivalent to: 100 per cent in winter; or 50 per cent in summer of direct, on-site labour costs) can be forgiven and outstanding loan repayment obligations reduced accordingly. Loan forgiveness applies in respect of those on-site payroll costs directly related to construction activity. Caretakers' wages are considered to be an indirect or overhead cost and as such would not be an eligible forgiveness cost. Many loan arrangements have now been finalized according to established fund guidelines and federal-provincial agreements. It is not the gov-
Order Paper Questions
ernment's intention to modify the terms of these agreements at this time.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): 1.	Between 1963 and 1975, did the Department of Public Works grant money for public works in the Constituency of Roberval and, if so, in what amount?
2.	For each such grant, what was the (a) nature of the project (b) amount granted (c) municipality concerned?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. We are
unable to provide information prior to April 1, 1969 as the "General Records Disposal Schedules of the Government of Canada second Edition 1968"-amendment list No. 3, requires that financial records be kept for 6 complete years only. The Department of Public Works has made no grants for works in the constituency of Roberval between April 1, 1969 and December 31, 1975.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Gillies: Are there currently negotiations under way between the government and the American rail corporation Amtrak with reference to the possible purchase by the latter Corporation of light, rapid and comfortable (LRC) trains and, if not, will they begin in the near future?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The joint venture companies responsible for development of the LRC train have been in contact with Amtrak and will respond to a request for quotation when this is issued by Amtrak in the near future. The government is encouraging and supporting the joint venture in its efforts to sell LRC equipment to Amtrak but the government is not directly participating in the negotiations.


Mr. Elzinga: In each department, by province, how many employable man-hours were lost for language training in the Public Service for (a) English (b) French language training for (i) 1970 (ii) 1971 (iii) 1972 (iv) 1973 (v) 1974 (vi) 1975?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: During the years in question, 1970 to 1975, many different methods of language training have been used in the public service. These have included fulltime and part-time training. Part-time training for an individual student may vary from a few hours a week up to 250 hours a year, and over a period of two to three years. Given this variety of methods and periods of training, the commission has not kept statistical records of individual man-hours involved; nor could it answer for the departments and agencies which engage in additional training on their own initiative. An attempt to answer this question would require a large amount of work and considerable cost by all of the departments and agencies of the public

March 11, 1976
Order Paper Questions
service, and it is unlikely to produce results that would be statistically valid.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	How many employees are there in the census processing division of Statistics Canada?
2.	What section of the division has been designated as units working in French under the Phase II Programme?
3.	How many persons are employed in each section within the designated unit?
4.	What is the number of persons in each designated unit who are (a) unilingual French speaking (b) French speaking bilingual (c) English speaking bilingual (d) unilingual English speaking?
5.	What criteria were used to establish which unit or units within the section would become a bilingual unit working in French?
6.	In terms of the service that the unit was to provide to the public of Canada what, if any, were the complaints received from the public as to language usage for the period January 1,1974 to January 1,1976?
7.	Was there any unit within the section on January 1, 1976 incapable of providing services to the Canadian public in both official languages?


Marcel-Claude Roy: In so far as Statistics Canada is concerned: 1. There are 119 employees in the census processing division of Statistics Canada.
2. To date, no departmental unit has been formally designated as a unit working in French. Current proposals now under discussion with bargaining agents would have the division as a whole identified as a unit working in French.
3. Name
Spatial Systems Retrieval
Edit & Imputation Quality Assurance Future Systems Administration
No. of Employees
47
2
4
4.	(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)
Unilingual Bilingual Unilingual Bilingual
Spatial Systems	French 11	French 17	English 29	English 3	Total 60Retrieval	2	10	30	5	47Edit & Imputation	-	2	2	1	5Quality Assurance	-	-	-	2	2Future Systems	-	-	1	-	1Administration	-	1	2	1	413	30	64	12	1195.	The criteria used to establish the census processing division as a unit working in French are described in Treasury Board circular No. 1975-111 (Section B) dated September 25, 1975. In particular, it contributed to the requirement that 10 per cent of the encumbered positions in the National Capital Region complement at the departmental level be maintained in units working in French by specific categories. It also complied with the hierarchical reporting structure set out in the circular.

6.	There were no complaints received from the public as to language usage for the period January 1, 1974 to January 1, 1976.
7.	While the spatial systems section has contact with the public and can give service in both official languages, the contacts of the remaining sections of the division tend to be mostly with other departmental units.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	In the takeover of Gilron Holdings Limited of Scarborough, Ontario, by Roboserve Limited of London, England, what percentage of control will Roboserve Limited acquire?
2.	What is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
3.	Who were the principal shareholders of Gilron Holdings Limited and what control, if any, will they retain in the company?
4.	Who are the principal shareholders of Roboserve Limited and what are their holdings in the company?
5.	Does Roboserve Limited control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by per cent of control and value?
6.	What will be the effect of the takeover on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts, components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada (g) employment within Gilron Holdings Limited and within the industry?
7.	(a) How many persons did Gilron Holdings Limited employ before the takeover (b) how many are presently employed?
8.	(a) What are the unions, if any, who represented the employees (b) did they approve or disapprove of the takeover (c) was their opinion sought?
9.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
10.	How is the takeover (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into, consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the takeover?
11.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the takeover?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 3,954 answered on March 2, 1976.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	In the takeover of Pacific Inland Resources Ltd., of Smithers, British Columbia, by West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd., of Vancouver, British Columbia, what percentage of control will West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd. acquire?
2.	What is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
3.	Who were the principal shareholders of Pacific Inland Resources Ltd. and what control, if any, will they retain in the company?
4.	Who are the principal shareholders of West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd. and what are their holdings in the company?
5.	Does West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd. control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by per cent of control and value?
March 11, 1976

6.	What will be the effect of the takeover on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts, components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada (g) employment within Pacific Inland Resources Ltd. and within the industry?
7.	(a) How many persons did Pacific Inland Resources Ltd. employ before the takeover (b) how many are presently employed?
8.	(a) What are the unions, if any, who represented the employees (b) did they approve or disapprove of the takeover (c) was their opinion sought?
9.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
10.	How is the takeover (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the takeover?
11.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the takeover?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 3,954 answered on March 2, 1976.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	In the takeover of United Dental Supply Corp. of Montreal, wholly owned by Sybron, Inc. of Rochester, N.Y. by Dental Depot (Canada) Ltd. of Montreal, wholly owned by Healthco Inc. of Boston, Massachusetts what percentage of control will Dental Depot-Healthco Inc. acquire?
2.	What is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
3.	Who were the principal shareholders of Sybron, Inc. and what control, if any, will they retain in the company?
4.	Who are the principal shareholders of Healthco Inc. and what are their holdings in the company?
5.	Does Healthco Inc. or Sybron, Inc. control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by per cent of control and value?
6.	What will be the effect of the takeover on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts, components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada (g) employment within United Dental Supply and within the industry?
7.	(a) How many persons did United Dental Supply employ before the takeover (b) how many are presently employed?
8.	(a) What are the unions, if any, who represented the employees (b) did they approve or disapprove of the takeover (c) was their opinion sought?
9.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
10.	How is the takeover (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the takeover?
11.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the takeover?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 3,954 answered on March 2, 1976.
Measures Against Crime COMPANY TAKEOVERS


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	In the takeover of Japan Oil Sands Co. Primrose Ltd. of Calgary, Alberta by Japan Oil Sands Company Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan what percentage of control will Japan Oil Sands Co. Ltd. of Tokyo acquire?
2.	What is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
3.	Who were the principal shareholders of Japan Oil Sands Co. Primrose Ltd. of Calgary and what control, if any, will they retain in the company?
4.	Who are the principal shareholders of Japan Oil Sands Co. Ltd. of Tokyo and what are their holdings in the company?
5.	Does Japan Oil Sands or Japan Oil Sands Primrose control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by per cent of control and value?
. 6. What will be the effect of the takeover on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts, components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada (g) employment within Japan Oil Sands Primrose Ltd. of Calgary and within the industry?
7.	(a) How many persons did Japan Oil Sands Co. Primrose Ltd. of Calgary employ before the takeover (b) how many are presently employed?
8.	(a) What are the unions, if any, who represented the employees (b) did they approve or disapprove of the takeover (c) was their opinion sought?
9.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
10.	How is the takeover (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the takeover?
11.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the takeover?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 3,954 answered on March 2, 1976.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, March 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-83, for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violence and other crime, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee of Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday evening, prior to the adjournment, I outlined my general criticisms on the shortcomings of Bill C-83. I also made some observations about the problem of violence in today's society. Then I made comments on the first of the five areas which are covered by the bill-and the first one was

March 11, 1976
Measures Against Crime
gun control. I said that I welcomed the legislation with regard to gun control because it sets forth the general principle that the availability of guns should be controlled, that we should promote public responsibility in the use of firearms, and that the penalties should be increased for persons who commit indictable offences while carrying firearms. There are six or seven proposals with regard to gun legislation, and I support most of them. I support licensing for a five-year period rather than registration of guns, the fitness test and in addition the two guarantors with regard to fitness. I also ask that we include a competency test because I feel no person should have a gun unless he is competent to use it.
The proposal of issuing special permits with conditions attached to persons between 14 and 18 years of age and also of requiring guarantors, one of which should be a parent, is a good move. The special provision for persons under 18 using firearms to provide food for their families in areas where hunting and fishing are a way of life is a good change, and the registration of restricted weapons which is now going to be expanded with regard to short firearms is a good change. The test of need to be applied is also welcomed.
The increased responsibility on dealers and importers of firearms and ammunition to record sales and ensure safety of storage is a move in the right direction. Seizure of firearms by the police in situations where possession constitutes a potential danger to the lives and safety of others is an excellent move because of the problems we have had with regard to domestic quarrels within families. Increased penalties to person carrying firearms during the commission of an offence is something which will be accepted by most people.
In addition to the observations I made last Tuesday evening, I should like to point out a criticism which was conveyed to me by my colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), who has had discussions with gun store operators. Out of those discussions has come a good suggestion, and that is to have gun stores solely and completely responsible for the sale, purchase and repair of guns. There is an analogy in the liquor stores in Ontario where beer and alcohol are sold, and I think that analogy should apply with regard to guns, because there is something wrong when guns are made available for sale in department and hardware stores. If we are going to control the sale, importation and repair of guns, it should be exclusively within the control of gun stores which would be able to issue licences, make sales and record those sales. That would make this process much easier.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the gun control legislation provides a reasonable balance between public concern for safety and the legitimate use of firearms by persons interested in hunting, target-shooting or gun collecting; therefore, I will support that section of the bill.
I notice the minister is now taking his seat, and I want to direct my criticism to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bas-ford). I am terribly disappointed with the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) with regard to the provision concerning electronic surveillance or wiretapping contained in Bill C-83. It is a complete

surrender by the Minister of Justice to the police. It is an abrogation of and failure to maintain the strong civil liberties approach which members of the Conservative party and the New Democratic Party fought for when the bill was presented and passed in 1974.
It is necessary to maintain a balance between the possible police abuse of electronic surveillance and the protection of civil liberties. When I heard the minister say that there is an approach by the opposition with regard to coddling criminals concerning electronic surveillance, it seemed to me he was drawing a red herring into the debate and not taking account of the basic principle of civil liberties and the possible abuse by police of the use of electronic surveillance. We in the opposition are not soft oh criminals but we are strong on civil rights and persons who live in Canadian society.
There are four areas of concern with regard to the amendments that the minister has set forth. First, the area of the intercepts is to be expanded from some selected, indictable offences to all indictable offences and to a pattern of behaviour constituting criminal activity. Mr. Speaker, if you knew how hard we fought to contain the government with regard to the selection of indictable offences you would appreciate how strongly we are opposed to that expansion. With regard to the extension of the authorizations from 30 days to 60 days and the extension of renewals from 30 days to 60 days, I do not think we have much objection to that. I have none, personally.
The third area is with regard to the repeal of the notification procedure within 90 days of the termination of the tap. We find this most unacceptable. We also have objections to derivative evidence admissible on an illegal tap. The reason we disagree with these three areas is that the principle of the right to privacy has been rendered ineffectual and meaningless by this legislation. To reward the police for attempting to illegally obtain evidence is to downgrade the judicial process.
Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would see the day when I would seek to persuade the Minister of Justice to follow the United States rule with regard to wiretaps where evidence obtained on an illegal tap is admissible in court. Here we have a complete abrogation of a fundamental principle by the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General. May I remind Your Honour, and the minister, of the evidence given to a committee by Ramsey Clarke, former attorney general of the United States, the man who worked with Senator Kennedy on the crime commission, the man who had a strong job to convince Senator Kennedy of some of the pitfalls of wiretapping. In the final analysis, Senator Kennedy was persuaded of the dangers of the practice. In substance, in his appearance before the committee Ramsey Clarke said that wiretapping is enormously expensive, it is wasteful of police time and talent, it is inefficient, it is ineffective on street-corner crime, and it is erosive of police dignity.
Why do we support that general proposition put forward by the former attorney general of the United States which I am sure would have had the support of Senator Kennedy? All you have to do, Mr. Speaker, is look at the reports submitted to the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General concerning the wiretaps that took place in 1975. In 1975, under section 178.12 and 178.15 of the Criminal Code,
March 11, 1976

564 taps were applied for by the police. Of these, 563 were granted and one was denied. The average time of these taps was 54.1 days, and the number of charges arising from the 563 days was 18. Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General were very careful to say that only 18 charges were preferred against people, not how many convictions were obtained. I am sure it would be far less than 18. With regard to the security taps by the Solicitor General-and this is where the figures become very striking-there were 465 in 1975, each taking an average of 239.7 days. But not one charge was laid. Is it any wonder that Ramsey Clarke said it is expensive, it is inefficient, it is ineffective and it is erosive of police dignity? There are other methods of detection for some of the problems we have today. Ramsey Clarke and others have suggested special strike forces and the use of informers. These have been far more successful than the approach we are taking under these amendments.
I am not the least bit impressed by the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice saying they are not able to get at organized crime, that they are not able to get at the "untouchables". By using electronic surveillance methods they will never be able to get at the top group in organized crime. What they need is other methods of surveillance which will strengthen their approach and their ability to arrest. With regard to dangerous offenders, I think it would be fair to say we have learned from experience the two major mistakes concerning habitual offenders and the dangerous sexual offenders provisions in the present legislation. There was a lack of uniformity in the application of the law. There was a gap with regard to the question of violence of some of the acts of offenders. The Klippert case in the Supreme Court of Canada underlined the question of lack of violence.
We now have a new definition, with "dangerous offenders" replacing "habitual offenders". The new definition emphasizes violence with regard to an indictable offence where there is a pattern of behaviour shown not only of violence in the particular crime but violence in other crimes. There is also another application concerning sexual offenders and the pattern of behaviour with regard to lack of control of sexual impulses. I draw to the attention of the Minister of Justice that he is following the Ouimet report is some aspects but he is not following the definition. I think the definition proposed by the Ouimet report is probably better than the definition set forth in the amendment. At page 258, the Ouimet report reads:
Dangerous offender means an offender who has been convicted of an offence specified in this part of the Criminal Code who by reason of character disorder, emotional disorder, mental disorder or defect constitutes a continuing danger and who is likely to kill, inflict serious bodily injury, endanger life, inflict severe psychological damage or otherwise seriously endanger the personal safety of others.
I submit that we should study the expanded definition given by the Ouimet report. The Ouimet report makes other important and interesting recommendations. For instance, before a dangerous offender is sentenced to an indeterminate sentence, he should be directed to a place where diagnosis and, if necessary, a cure can be undertaken. He should be there not more than six months. After that period of treatment there would at least be evidence about the serious problem affecting that person. Therefore,
Measures Against Crime
before we pass this law we should study what we are to do with those in custody. I support the diagnostic and cure approach. Before a person is declared a dangerous offender he should be sent to a centre where his condition can be determined and, if necessary, treated.
The bill requires certain other things to be done in the case of dangerous offenders. It requires, in certain circumstances, the consent of the attorney general; it requires expert evidence of psyschologists and others to be given at trial; it makes provisions with respect to the right of appeal, and the necessity of review by the National Parole Board prior to the termination of three years of the sentence and every two years thereafter. That approach is good. I hope the government will pay heed to my observations.
May I say a word about parole. Most of us agree that statutory parole should be abolished and that parole should be based on earned remission. The maximum penalty for prison escape should be increased from five to ten years, and the membership of the Parole Board should be increased from 19 to 26. Therefore, the provisions of the bill dealing with these matters are welcomed. We do not object to the government's position as set out in the "The Highlights of the Peace and Security Program," page 7. I quote from the pamphlet as follows:
Some procedural safeguards will be introduced into parole hearings to ensure that the process by which the board reaches its decisions will meet the expectations of natural justice. These will include assistance to the applicant, further information to the applicant and stated reason for refusal of parole.
One cannot object to such procedural safeguards which would correct shortcomings. I draw particular attention to the last sentence of the paragraph just quoted, which reads:
These will be defined in regulations and will be phased in over a period of several years.
Why will the government take several years? Considering the number of prisoners who have escaped recently, and the problems we have encountered with parole, why will the Solicitor General not implement such regulations immediately? When the committee studies the bill, why can it not also study the regulations? If we are to maintain law and order-which is the aim of this bill-and make our parole system better, we must devise the very best procedures. Good parole procedures are a necessity. As it is likely that passage of this bill will result in more convictions and longer sentences, it is incumbent upon the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice to make certain that our parole system meets at least some of the conditions set out in the government pamphlet.
I now turn to special crime inquiries. Not many will complain about legislation permitting provinces to set up special commissions to inquire, when it is deemed necessary, into crime and criminal organizations. I am talking of organizations which may not be uncovered with ordinary investigative procedures. I suppose the latest crime commission in Quebec is responsible for this provision. I notice that some of the amendments to do with special crime commissions protect individuals who may appear before the commissions or whose names may be mentioned although the individuals themselves may not appear before the commissions. These are good amendments.

March 11, 1976
Measures Against Crime
When the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) congratulated the Quebec crime commission because its work resulted in charges and convictions after bad meat had been sold in Quebec, I realized how our police are hampered by present investigative methods. Why should the police need to go on a witch hunt before they can lay charges in cases where offenders sell bad meat? This shows what has happened in Quebec with regard to the detection of crime. We must strengthen preventive measures and measures leading to the detection of crime. Frankly, I do not think we will accomplish much by appointing special crime commissions.
My party generally supports the legislation, although we do not think it should pass lightly. We do not appreciate the approach of the Minister of Justice to electronic surveillance, and we do not entirely agree with the approach of the Solicitor General to parole. Nevertherless, we recognize the necessity for preventive measures, for better detection and for the treatment of certain individuals.
I end by referring to the speech which the Minister of Justice made a week ago to the Second Commonwealth Caribbean-Canadian Law Conference. As he said the Galilean carpenter said we should never hide our light under a bushel: we should let our light shine so that all men can see our good works. The great Galilean carpenter also said that he came not to abolish the law but to bring perfection. When I consider the actions of the government, including the actions of the Minister of Justice and of the Solicitor General, when I consider what has been done about poverty, housing, employment and our other problems, I realize that the light of the Minister of Justice and of the Solicitor General is dim: they are far from attaining perfection.


William Warren Allmand: Perhaps the hon. member is suggesting I will go to Hull!


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter this debate regarding Bill C-83 because of its importance to me as an urban representative of the city of Vancouver. I am very well aware that the peace and security package will not solve all the problems or the causes of crime. Other hon. members, like the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), have dealt very ably and adequately with the sociological causes of crime and the role of the criminal legal system as an institution in the pluralistic, democratic system that we have in Canada. Suffice it to say that the solution to crime will not be answered by simplistic answers or slogans.
As a representative from the city of Vancouver, I am very familiar with the complaints levelled at the criminal judicial system. To a large extent, these complaints are reactions to spectacular crimes which have occurred in my city and elsewhere in Canada. I am informed by Inspector Cummings of the Vancouver city police that the east end of the city has a higher rate of violent crime than other areas. For the year 1974, violent crime in the federal riding of Vancouver East disclosed the following statistics: homicide, murders and attempts, 15. With regard to sexual assaults, male or female there were, 49, and rape and attempts, 26. That totals 75. Assaults on the police were 50; bodily harm and wounding, 352, for a total of 402. Robber-

ies, strong-arming, 404; armed hold-up, 103, for a total of 507. The total in this category is 999.
For the first six months of 1975 violent crime for the federal riding of Vancouver East disclosed the following statistics: homicide, murders and attempts, 9; sexual assault, male or female, 23; rape and attempts, 13; total 36. Assault, police, 27; bodily harm and wounding, 162; total 189. Robberies, strong-arming, 243; armed hold-up, 44; total 287. The total in this category is 521. By reading the total statistics for the city of Vancouver, hon. members will see that the east end of the city is subjected to a high rate of violent crime. For the year 1974, violent crime for the city of Vancouver disclosed the following statistics: homicide, murders and attempts, 52; sexual assault, male or female, 251; rape and attempts, 136; total 387. Assault, police, 100; bodily harm and wounding, 937; total 1,037. Robberies, strong arming, 919; armed hold-up, 510; total 1,429. The total in this category is 2,905. During the first six months of 1975, violent crime for the city of Vancouver disclosed the following statistics: homicide, murders and attempts, total 24; sexual assault, male or female, 129; rape and attempts, 56; total 185. Assault on police, 59; bodily harm and wounding, 476; total 535. Robberies, strong-arming, 436; armed holdups, 276; total 712. The total in this category is 1,456.
What these statistics mean, Mr. Speaker, is that women in my riding are afraid to walk the streets or to park their automobiles in underground parking lots. What these statistics mean is that in my riding, my city and other areas of Canada, there is an aura of insecurity for one's property and one's life and a sense of frustration by many law-abiding citizens that our criminal legal system cares too little about the victim and coddles the criminal. These statistics also represent the unnecessary waste of human life.
Recently, in Vancouver, there was a shooting. The scenario was like a story that could be taken from the plethora of police television programs that we are being inundated with day after day. A man troubled by his inability to participate in our economic system threatens action against his former employer. Threats not being enough, he visits his former employer with a .30-06 rifle. Doreen Gar-butt happens to be in his way, and she is "wasted." She becomes a statistic, one of those who will be a number under the category of "homicide and attempts" for the city of Vancouver for 1976. Although I and my colleagues in this House did not know Doreen personally, I feel that we would share with her parents and her friend, Jeffrey, in asking, "Why Doreen?" Another friend of Doreen's, Jack Wasserman, a columnist for the Vancouver Sun, expressed it better than I could. I quote:
Up until shortly before noon on Friday, I'd planned to get back to the regular column grind by explaining an absence of two days, and saying how I loved my mother, who died on Wednesday. She'd been out of it for nearly five years, and death was merciful. And then a guy with a .30-06 walked into an office on Fourth Avenue and wasted a friend of mine.
Death comes close to home twice in one week. And you accept it in the way it comes, once with a sigh of relief, because it is an end to suffering, and once with a deep feeling of loss because the victim is young and vital and just happened to be in the way of a bullet that exploded inside her and snuffed out the life of someone who had never done anything to anyone, except give love.
March 11, 1976

There is a higher entity, they say, who figures out all these things, and there is an order to the universe. No capital letter. Just a ridiculous sense of inadequacy, trying to find the right words that will give consolation to the friends who have lost a loved one in a meaningless act of violence.
Doreen Garbutt was my friend, and she was my friend, Jeffrey's friend for nine years. She was a woman of talent, humour, warmth, and also, incidentally, a woman of great beauty. Please forgive the chauvinism. She had native Indian blood, and such was the grossness of our society that she hadn't quite come to terms with that part of herself. Given time, which was not to be her destiny, she would have accepted and reveled in her roots, but it was still something to work out when we last talked.
By now you recognize that Doreen's death is not an abstraction for me. I hate to say it, but it's not an abstraction for most of you either. Doreen is someone you've seen in your own homes, on television, as a key part of the annual Variety Club Telethon. Each year, she was the pretty lady who posted the totals on the telethon board. Hit the fanfare, Dal. And Doreen would take down the numbers and post the new total. She wasn't there this year, because she was home with the flu, but for the eight years previous she was the one on whom all eyes focused during the Variety Club's annual fund-raising gig. In fact, she'd been off work for a couple of weeks and only came back to her job the day before yesterday.
And while she was home in her apartment, worrying about her inability to participate once more, there was this guy sitting in a furnished room on the other side of town, nagging himself into the tank because, in his view, he was not being allowed to participate in the system.
I didn't know him, but there is evidence to indicate that he'd worked himself into a state of mind whereby an act of violence could make everything right. There is no evidence that he ever painted a picture, as Doreen had done. Just that he bought a gun, and a scope, and a 100 rounds of ammunition, and a gas mask and a jumpsuit.
He, too, might have been dead, if the special weapons officer who had him in his sights had received the order to press the trigger. Not that it would have mattered, because Doreen was already dead.
When you're in this kind of business, that's what life is all about. Death. And shattered dreams. My mother was 75, which isn't all that great an age. She was young and vital, too, until she was 69. Without even trying, or tinting her hair, she always looked 20 years younger than her age. And then she took ill and she looked 20 year older than her age. She withered up and died and we buried her.
Doreen didn't have time to wither. She was snuffed out in the midst of life. Her friends and her family were cheated of her continuing presence in their lives. Perhaps it was preordained somewhere. Perhaps she even knew it. She would talk about certain heavy things that left you with the feeling that she had a premonition that her life would be short. It wasn't that she was self-destructive. On the contrary. But she had this feeling. And she and Jeffrey often discussed what would happen when they died.
So that was my week. Rabbi Marvin Hier conducted the service for my mother, and he told the story from Talmud of the man who went to the Great Sage and asked a dumb question. The Great Sage refused to answer and the dummy pressed him.
And finally the Great Sage explained that all of life is a matter of questions. It is not important to find the answers for most of the questions that occur to us.
It is important to be able to live with the questions and accept the fact that there are no simple answers. In fact, there may not be any kind of answers. For Doreen's friends and family, there is one question for which not even the Great Sage has an answer-the question is, "Why?"
I will not pretend to have the answer to the question, "Why Doreen?", for other people wiser than I cannot answer it either. What I can say as a comment is that maybe the proposed provisions regarding gun control could have prevented the unnecessary "wasting" of Doreen. That is, in essence the more salient purpose of the peace and
Measures Against Crime
security program. I ask those critics, some hon. members in this chamber, and in particular rod and gun clubs, to think about Doreen when they denounce the gun control provisions of the peace and security program. It is a matter of prevention, not a matter of denying the use of firearms by legitimate users thereof. It is a matter of licensing legitimate users of firearms, not the registration of their firearms.
As a part of the program and the commitment of the government to peace and security, Bill C-83 is of great assistance in waging war against crime, an enemy that provokes hatred, suspicion, the unnecessary and inexplicable harm to human life, and even death. It is not my intention to speak on all the provisions of Bill C-83, as other members have done so ably. My intention is to speak on a problem I have spoken on before, namely, the matter of hard drugs. Undoubtedly, Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments to the wiretap provisions will greatly assist our investigative forces in bringing to trial those individuals engaged in the illicit trafficking of hard drugs. However, what the bill fails to recognize is the cause of most of the violent crime in Vancouver or, for that matter in Canada, namely, the use of hard drugs. I say this not as a criticism of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), but suggest that action be taken now or within the near future to deal with a matter that I know he is deeply and compassionately concerned about.
The immensity of the hard drug problem in my city and province was related to the House by me during debate on Bill C-71, particularly in relation to the amendments to the Bail Reform Act. I should draw the attention of all hon. members to the fact that it was due to the Minister of Justice's appreciation of the problem that he amended the law, placing the onus of proof on individuals charged with trafficking when applying for bail. What I shall deal with now is the fact that between 60 per cent and 70 per cent of all property crime in Vancouver is attributable to drug addicts. I quote from the second report on organized crime in British Columbia, issued by the department of the attorney general:
Criminal activity still remains a major source of revenue for the heroin addict, who frequently engages in drug trafficking, prostitution, theft, shoplifting, breaking and entering, and robberies. In a recent Vancouver police department study of the 196 robberies committed in Vancouver between August 10 and September 20, 1975, it was found that, of 56 people arrested, 33, or 59 per cent, where known heroin addicts. Another crime that has increased noticeably is contract killing.
This report continues, at page 71:
In 1975, there have been nine murders directly associated with the illicit drug trade. There is no real explanation for this increase over recent years, but it may be significant that it has corresponded with an increase in the effectiveness of enforcement agencies and a reduction in the supply of good quality heroin. The murders may be the final result of the pressures which have been applied inside the organization by the lack of good heroin, and on the outside by the police. It has been reported that several of the murders are the results of "rip-offs", and have been committed as an act of enforcement, or as a warning to other people who might disrupt the trade from within. It is possible that the organizations are feeling the pressure from poor quality supplies and, because of the large numbers of recent seizures, perhaps suspect members of the drug trade of being informers. It may be that, if police pressure continues to be effective, the number of drug-related murders will continue to increase, for organizations will become distrustful of each other and eventually attempt to reorganize the trade.

March 11, 1976
Measures Against Crime
Although I congratulate our law investigators for the major drug busts in Vancouver, the result has been a limitation of supply, driving the price up and causing old addicts to commit more crimes to obtain more money to support their habit. What, then, may be required if we are to reduce the level of crime attributable to heroin addicts in Vancouver is a measure of forced treatment of these users. This would take these addicts off the streets so they would not be in a position to commit more crimes. Such a system of forced treatment has worked with success in Japan. To cut off the demand, the government of Japan required that every user caught be confined for at least 30 days of treatment. The result has been that in Japan the use of heroin as a medical problem has become as scarce as smallpox. In fact, we have in our laws a similar system of forced treatment, although not as draconian as the Japanese system.
Part II of the Narcotic Control Act provides for the preventive detention and custody for treatment of addicts who have had previous convictions. However, these provisions are not used because they were not proclaimed. In my investigation of the reasons why such provisions were not proclaimed, I have found that the provisions were not clear because of doubts about the constitutional validity of the provisions or the failure to develop suitable treatment methods and facilities, or later reservations as to the advisability of compulsory treatment in principle, or some combination thereof.
Given the successful results in Japan which may, or may not be applicable to Canada because of different cultural background, I strongly urge my colleagues, particularly the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), on the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to examine in detail this matter of forced treatment of addicts. During such examination members of the Standing Committee of Justice and Legal Affairs will find that the LeDain commission, in its final report into the non-medical use of drugs recommended temporary, involuntary commitment. I quote from this report:
While we do not see how, as a practical matter, we can withdraw at this time from the use of the criminal law against the user of opiate narcotics, we are not in favour of introducing long periods of civil commitment. We do not believe that the results obtained elsewhere with this approach justify the extended deprivation of liberty in cases in which there has not been a criminal conviction. We do believe, however, that there is a strong case to be made for the use of compulsory confinement for a short time to oblige the opiate dependent to confront his situation and to consider, in an atmosphere in which he is free from the pressures of "hustling" in the illicit market and has access to good diagnosis and advice, whether he desires to pursue one of the treatment or management options open to him.
We recommend that provincial legislation confer power on police officers to bring any person whom they have reasonable and probable grounds for believing to be dependent on opiate narcotics before a magistrate, in order that it may be determined, upon prima facie evidence, whether the person should be committed to custody for medical examination for a period up to seventy-two hours. If the person is found to be drug-dependent, the examining physician and another physician who confirms the diagnosis should have power to commit the person to a residential treatment facility for a period of not less than one month and not more than three months. The purpose of such confinement would be to permit further examination and observation of the drug-dependent person, to permit him to confront his situation and to consider the various treatment or management options open to him, and to afford an opportunity for a commencement of treatment 
including extended detoxification, the technique of the therapeutic community or stabilization on methadone maintenance. The chief purpose would be to acquaint the patient with the possibilities of treatment, to encourage him to decide in favour of some course of treatment, and to begin the treatment process. If, at the end of the stipulated period, the patient refuses to follow a course of treatment he should be discharged. The period of residential confinement would also afford an opportunity for advice and assistance with other problems having a bearing on the patient's drug use. The residential facility should have access to the necessary counselling personnel to assist with problems of social rehabilitation.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it very clear that in my opinion the forced treatment of addicts might help reduce the level of crime attributable to them. I think the adoption of such a system after careful examination by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs may well be a step in the right direction in eliminating one of the major causes of crime, namely, hard drugs.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with the introduction of Bill C-83, the abolition of Bill C-84 and calling both bills together peace and security legislation, the government continues its record of putting together piecemeal legislation to calm irate public opinion. One need only look at the economic policies of the present administration. The Canadian people were, and continue to be, dissatisfied with the ever-increasing rate of inflation, so the government threw together a package in the hope of changing public opinion in their favour. The anti-inflation propaganda did not work, and neither will their public relations effort on crime.
In the past several weeks I have received a very considerable amount of correspondence from my constituents on crime. The consensus is that the government has been responsible for creating an atmosphere that makes it easy for criminals. The laws of a nation are respected only if the government enforces them. This government has for nearly a decade given the impression it is easy on criminals, and now the people are reacting. Any government that would try to lull people into believing it can reverse the crime rate by a slick public relations job is guilty of a sinister hoax. The time has come for leadership in facing this cancer on our society.
Now that the government is feeling the pressure of an annoyed public, I believe their dismal performance in law enforcement bears repeating. There was a time when the conviction of criminals was within the aims of the law and we were not so lenient. That is no longer the case. The Canadian criminal justice system has been drastically weakened, and the spiral has continued to the point where fewer and fewer criminals are being jailed or made to feel the punishment of the laws, they have broken. Parole and probation policies have become far too lenient, restrictions have been placed upon the law enforcement officers, and one need not look far to find the culprit. The government must take the responsibility for creating this lax approach to the law. Criminals and potential criminals are very aware that a permissive society has been encouraged by this administration, and there should be little wonder why crime is escalating. Criminals operate on the way they interpret the odds of getting caught, punished, and so on. With this government in office, they have been given encouragement.
March 11, 1976

It is generally accepted that the role of government is to give leadership in the best interests of the public. When a government fails to give the quality of leadership necessary in any aspect of society, where are the people to turn? That is the sad state in which we find ourselves with this government's approach to crime. It has failed to give leadership and now expects us to believe that its peace and security legislation will solve the problem. The law abiding citizens of our country deserve more than that. How can any government that has been lenient in its approach to law enforcement expect legislation such as gun control suddenly to stop the increasing crime rates?
Gun-related crimes have been steadily increasing. Consequently, the problem of gun control has become an emotional issue and has led many astray from the real problems at hand. There are those who would have us believe that there is a significant relationship between strict gun control laws and gun-related crime. Without getting into a statistical war, I should like to suggest, based on various studies, that unless there are other crime deterrents, crimes carried out with guns do not significantly drop. Canada, for example, has what are accepted to be very tight laws with regard to handguns. Yet in 1973 there were 56 persons murdered with handguns, and another 71 victims in 1974.
A criminal will obtain weapons regardless of laws. Most owners of firearms in this country are law-abiding people. They are equally concerned about crime. Though it is a simplistic statement, let us remember that crime will not be stopped by the elimination of guns. In the many letters I have received from avid sportsmen, fish and game associations, gun collectors, and concerned citizens, the overriding point has been that concrete and positive steps must be taken to decrease gun crimes, but that it must be done in a manner that will protect society and at the same time really reverse the climbing gun crime rate.
Putting aside for a few moments the argument as to whether gun control will stop crime, I would like to expand upon the question my colleague from Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) raised in the House with regard to the administration of gun control. With over six million guns in this country, one begins to wonder if this government does indeed have a system that will not create an unmanageable bureaucracy. The question has to be raised concerning how much this will cost the Canadian taxpayers and, furthermore, how effective it will be. The government is consistent on this subject: it failed to give answers on its anti-inflation program, and will continue to do so on its gun control program.
Even with its proposed licensing of guns, the government is not being very specific. The suggestion is that a licence will only be issued if certain criteria are met, such as records and statements. No provisions are made, however, for gun safety, competency testing, and so on. These are necessary if the government really means what it says. Then, again, maybe this government will be satisfied with a half-hearted program.
The Trudeau government is straying away from the real problem, which is: How do we effectively reduce the commission of gun-related crimes? Canada's gun laws are
Measures Against Crime
already restrictive. So it is the crime rate with which we must concern ourselves. Most law-abiding people favour some sort of controls, because this will assist in the war against crime. But, again, there is more to the issue. I feel we have a moral responsibility to the Canadian public to make a concerted effort to hinder crime.
I, for one, am not in favour of a grab-bag of gun control proposals that will not effectively deal with crime. That is why I support the motion of my colleague, the member for Calgary North, in moving that Bill C-83 be not now read the second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Like the hundreds of people who have taken the time to write me, I feel that now, more than ever, we must come up with a law enforcement package that will protect society from criminals. It is not fair to ask parliament to consider a piecemeal effort. Responsibility is the only approach we can take if Canadians are to be guaranteed a true sense of law and order.
Many positive proposals have been put forward by those who have an interest in guns and their relation to crime. I should like to discuss with this House some of those ideas. It is generally felt that regulation of the criminal use of firearms should be in a manner that does not infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens. This government has not given satisfactory answers on how it proposes to do that. Many people are calling for stricter enforcement of the law in respect of gun crimes. This government has not given assurances that this will be the case-and we want the answer. There are those who feel that safety courses should be conducted. This government has not given any satisfactory answers in this regard. The fact of the matter is that there are just too many unanswered questions. This parliament should be very careful in allowing such a piece of legislation to pass unaltered. This government owes the Canadian people some answers. There is no choice but that this bill should be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Crime can no longer go uncontrolled in this country. Many people have been hurt by this government's persistent efforts to be lenient on the criminal element. When I first sought election to this House, I did so because of my personal belief that parliament is the one body that can set the direction of this country and that the tone it sets affects all of society. My belief has been strengthened; but I have also learned that a government can inflict negative effects upon society. That has been the record of this government on crime. In their brief on gun control, the Canadian chiefs of police said:
A fuller evaluation and assessment of many more points of view reveal a rationale that some "control" is desirable.
I believe most of us would accept that concept, but it must not be forgotten that controls alone will not be the solution. It is an impossible task to outline every comment and proposal for new gun legislation by every individual and interest group. However, a few shorter statements and suggestions on gun legislation are worth noting. The majority of gun control proponents favour mandatory terms for crimes involving firearms. The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police lists as one of its main proposals a mandatory jail term of three years for crimes involving firearms. Contrary to rifle associations, they have called

March 11, 1976
Measures Against Crime
for the compulsory registration of all firearms. The association also proposes that the purchaser of a firearm would have to have a government certificate to purchase a gun and this permit would have to be carried whenever the gun was in use. Failure to do so would mean a mandatory sentence of one year.
A former Ontario attorney general also studied a series of measures to tighten the offensive weapons section of the Criminal Code. He says that Ontario is considering the licensing of outlets or salesmen of guns, the introduction of a "cooling-off" period of 48 hours or more from the time of application of purchase of a weapon, the banning of the sale or possession of semi-automatic weapons, and an increase from the minimum age of 16 years for the purchase of a rifle or a shotgun.
The Canadian Wildlife Federation is opposed to the compulsory registration of rifles and shotguns because it does not believe this would reduce the number of murders with guns. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police notes that before any legislation of gun control is introduced the administration of that legislation must be given first priority. If any new system could not be operated feasibly, it should be scrapped and we should remain with the legislation that currently exists. The Canadian Wildlife Federation's paper outlines very well the administrative costs of registration of all firearms.
Last summer The Canadian Institute of Public Opinion conducted a national poll, questioning whether the Canadian public favoured or opposed the registration of all firearms. Nationally, 83 per cent favoured the registration of all firearms, while only 13 per cent opposed such registration. It is interesting to note that there was widespread agreement respecting compulsory registration among all socioeconomic and language groups. In the United States, where the crime rate is increasing at a far greater rate than in Canada, only 67 per cent supported registration of all firearms.
Although in the U.S. the House judicial subcommittee hearings on crime are still taking place, President Ford has proposed some specific gun control legislation. President Ford's main proposal would set mandatory prison sentences for armed criminals who commit violent crimes under federal jurisdiction and would compensate victims of such crimes for losses as high as $50,000. But under U.S. law, mandatory sentences would not affect such persons as murderers and rapists unless the crime was committed on federal property. Such crimes can seldom be attacked by the federal government because most are violations of state or local laws. Consequently, Ford has asked state and local governments to follow suit in respect of jail terms. Other options submitted by the Ford administration would tighten the restrictions concerning the licensing of gun dealers and would ban the manufacture and sale of cheap handguns known as Saturday night specials.
The issue of firearms' ownership is an emotional and ambiguous one. Research into the problem is limited, and when available it is prejudicial and interpreted to advance the cause either for or against stricter gun control. There is little doubt that some form of stricter gun control will provide the means for an effective attack on crime. But

there is more to the issue than just the registration or non-registration of all firearms. Mass ownership may aid in the commission of violent crimes, but it is seriously questionable whether it actually causes them. Since most murders involving firearms take place in a domestic environment, it is doubtful whether compulsory registration would reduce crimes or violence by way of this medium. The fundamental causes of increasing violence go much deeper than simply the ownership of firearms. The increase in violent crimes in Canada has caused many people to drastically rearrange their lives.
The Conservative party does not want a grab-bag of gun control proposals that will not lend themselves to a sharply focused campaign for public support. Efforts to regulate the criminal use of firearms must be carried out with justice and fairness in order not to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens. Any legislation respecting gun control must primarily concern itself with the rights of the people it exists to protect. The Conservative party supports the concept of mandatory sentences for crimes involving the use of firearms. At present, sentencing is erratic and inconsistent and therefore provides little deterrence to offenders. More financial and technical assistance should be provided to all levels of police forces, thereby enhancing their ability to enforce the law.
I should also like to point out that nearly every country with high homicide rates has gun laws which, for the average citizen, can be considered confiscatory or prohibitive, particularly with regard to the handling of guns. The availability of firearms has no bearing on the murder rate. Murder will be committed by whatever means are available. Just this week I received a letter from a prison guard in a Canadian federal penitentiary in which he stated:
I wish to point out that being associated with the criminal element for 40 hours a week, I have been able to get their reaction to the gun law as it is being presented for a vote.
Frankly, they think of it as more of a joke than gun owners do. They have told me that there is no legislation that can prevent them from acquiring weapons. One in particular volunteered to get me a 38 revolver for the mere sum of $46, much less than I would pay through legal channels.
The answer to all of this is that there must be heavy penalties for anyone selling or buying small handguns illegally. Harassment, or making things difficult for gun collectors and legitimate hunters or sportsmen, is not the answer to Canada's crime problems. Earlier in my remarks I pointed out that the government must take the responsibility for the present criminal attitudes and, indeed, share the blame for the rise in crime. I should like to stress that I do not feel comfortable about the fact that this government has tried to make political hay with Bill C-83.1 am relieved that the government realizes that the public is fed up with criminals and wants action; but I am saddened that, instead of action and leadership, all we get is a piecemeal effort. Crime should not be a political issue. Far too many law-abiding and innocent citizens have suffered. We can only hope that in the weeks ahead a more positive bill will emerge from this parliament.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, it is not with pleasure that I take part in this debate on Bill C-83. I would like it a lot more if the government had not introduced this useless legislation and instead put before
March 11, 1976

legislation to solve the serious economic problems facing all Canadians.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that all Canadians understood at first glance that the government is trying to have the people forget about the real problems-which are of an economic nature-by introducing bills on firearm controls. It is true that Canadians are concerned about the dramatic increase in the crime rate but it is also true that people do not believe firearm controls to be a serious solution. I will have an opportunity to demonstrate later on in my remarks that honest citizens are the only ones inconvenienced by this control. In fact, knowing the famous peace and security program which the government introduced a few days and which is aimed at abolishing capital punishment while controlling firearms, one comes to wonder whether the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) thinks that firearms are dangerous, not criminals. Already, Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to point out the absurd consequences of that approach, and it can be expected that one day the Minister of Justice will introduce a bill to throw firearms in jail while keeping criminals on the loose. Tackling inanimate objects and making them responsible for human acts by criminals and loathsome assassins is what this same government is proposing today. I do not think that firearms can kill by themselves. When did you see a revolver walking down the street? In my opinion, it does not move by itself. To punish it for acts of individuals who want to violate the law is absolutely ridiculous. Yet that is what the Minister of Justice is proposing today.
As I pointed out earlier, the victims of firearm controls are honest citizens, game hunters, sportsmen who will have to comply with those controls while criminals continue to do what they have always done-disobey the law.
Mr. Speaker, again today I received a telegram from the Abitibi East Regional Wildlife Council. That association of honest and law-abiding citizens refuses to accept the line of thinking of the government with respect to firearm controls. I would like to quote that telegram, Mr. Speaker.
Asking for your opposition to Basford-Allmand bill regarding firearm controls. Illogical bill. Punishes and inconveniences good citizens. Law should deal with real criminals, not peaceful citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I represent an area where hunting is a common activity for the large majority of the people. In the northwest of the province of Quebec, we have huge forests and many species of game. Then, it is not surprising if the people of my area and my riding are hunters. They are honest and law-abiding citizens. They have rifles, shotguns, but they always obeyed the law and acted like good citizens.
Mr. Speaker, the main effect of the bill before us will be to penalize these citizens, to prevent them from practicing their favorite sport freely and without restriction. A popular slogan says: Firearms control disarms honest citizens and only criminals will be armed.
However, Mr. Speaker, it is true that this government is trying to restrict firearms possession for honest citizens through Bill C-83 but it means that criminals will be the only ones with arms.
Measures Against Crime
Criminals are happy with this bill. Not only they will not be disturbed by the law, but furthermore they will be sure that their potential victims will be disarmed.
Mr. Speaker, even if this bill for firearms control is not to make us believe that the Minister of Justice is a particularly clever man, I do not think that the minister is naive enough to believe that when his bill is passed, criminals will wait in line to have their firearms registered.


Mr. Fox:: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member allow me a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: He might do it only with the consent of the hon. member and-


Armand Caouette: I regret, Mr. Speaker, but I did not understand-


Francis Fox: I asked the hon. member if he would allow me to ask him a question. I wonder whether the hon. member could tell us how the bill now before us will prevent hunters from owning firearms? How could it oblige them to get rid of their firearms since no provision in this legislation would compel them to do so. It is only a matter of asking them to obtain a license that would be valid for five years.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would come to my office and I will show him what hunting and fishing associations think of this legislation.
As I said earlier, the main effect of the bill before us would be to punish our citizens and prevent them from practicing their favourite sport freely and without restraint.
Let us try to imagine for one moment a situation in which a guy about to hold up a bank or commit murder says to himself: I forgot to register my gun. I will have to postpone my murder until tomorrow. Otherwise, the Minister of Justice will be angry. I do not think that this will happen when the legislation is enacted. And yet this is the impression one gets when reading the legislation put forward by the Minister of Justice. The minister knows as well as we do that it is useless and nonsense to have honest citizens register their firearms, and yet he wants us to approve a legislation to control firearms.


An hon. Member:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Armand Caouette: Later, the question.
Mr. Speaker, we believe the minister thinks or tries to make people think that criminals are stupid enough to register their firearms to please him.
As members of the Social Credit Party, we cannot accept such insignificant reasoning and the people from the northwest and from the rest of Canada will not accept it more than we do.
Mr. Speaker, I have received dozens of letters about the bill which we are dealing with today from all areas of the riding that I represent in the House. I have just quoted a telegram which was sent to me by the Abitibi East Regional Wildlife Council. I have received very interesting letters and briefs from hunting and fishing clubs of all areas of
11718

March 11, 1976
Measures Against Crime
my riding. These people, from what I see, are honest and respectable citizens. All of them without exception are opposed to the bill as I am, because it has been drafted by people who never set a foot in a forest or who have never been hunting in their life. They would probably see no difference between a telephone pole and a pine tree. And yet, Mr. Speaker, those very individuals who know nothing about hunting want to make laws to prevent sportsmen and people who like forests from practicing their favorite sports, something these people would like to be able to do without being harassed by a bunch of officials busily trying to see to it that only criminals have weapons.
I want the minister to know this: People in northwestern Quebec and all other areas of Canada do not like Bill C-83. They reject its false solutions. They refuse to be treated like criminals and will not let this useless if not dangerous bill restrict their freedom to have in their possession guns for hunting and target shooting.
If the minister is not completely deaf and blind, he must realize that the great majority of Canadians are opposed to this bill on gun control. He showed this a first time by trying to hide these control provisions in an omnibus bill which was introduced a few years ago and which proposed longer sentences for dangerous criminals, which everyone wants except the criminals themselves.
The minister seems to think that he will be able to mislead people freely by hiding gun control in a series of popular measures. His violent opposition to the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) to divide the bill so as to allow members to vote for certain provisions without having to approve gun control is another manoeuvre which shows that the minister really knows that gun control is as unpopular as it is useless.
What is even more serious concerning gun control, Mr. Speaker, is that people in my area and other rural areas where nearly everyone hunts will be penalized because of the lack of understanding of public servants and people who live in cities and do not understand the use of owning guns and rifles for hunting.
As the representative of the constituency of Villeveuve, where the great majority of people own guns for hunting, it is my duty, Mr. Speaker, to tell the minister that he is making a serious mistake and taking clearly unjust action by penalizing in this way whole groups of honest citizens while criminals will always be able to find prohibited weapons like machine guns even if these weapons are supposed to be controlled.
Mr. Speaker, the bill now before us will penalize honest citizens instead of criminals. If the minister wants proof of what I say, I could give him loads of it, as I was telling the hon. member earlier.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment this evening are as follows: the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger)-Transport-Request that departmental contracts specify use of Canadian ceramics; the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall)-National Defence-Possible closure of bases in Nova Scotia-Request for consultation with provincial authorities.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions for papers. However, I understand that there is agreement that all notices of motions will stand at the present time, which leads us to further consideration of private members' bills, which would return for consideration private bill S-30 which was before the House for consideration one week ago today at this time. Is that understood and agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is
understood.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, March 4, consideration of Bill S-30, to incorporate Continental Bank of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Before turning the discussion to the consideration of motion No. 1 in the name of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) a week ago, discussion was closed by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) arguing a point of order in respect of motion No. 1 in the name of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge in that on the one hand it constituted an expanded negative or, on the other hand, if acceptable, it ran contrary to the provisions of the Bank Act.
The motion would propose the deletion of subclause (2) of clause 2. It is therefore certainly within the procedural definition of this kind of motion at this stage. It cannot, therefore, be viewed, in the eye of the Chair, as an expanded negative. Notwithstanding the argument, it might have the effect in this instance of establishing powers and principles which would contravene the provisions of the Bank Act.
March 11, 1976

The fact of the matter is, it is the area of the private members' bill to propose legislative enactment by this House which relieves individuals from the operations of existing statutes. An example is bills to relieve operations of the Criminal Code with respect to penalties and jail terms vis-a-vis persons imprisoned under the general law. It has been held that if it is the effect of a bill to exempt an individual from the operation of the general law, it is a proper subject matter for a private right and public bill. Since this is a private bill, one would have to make the corollary, if it does establish an exemption with respect to the general law, that it must be taken to be within the purview of a private bill.
Whether that is a desirable objective is a matter for debate and division. After extensive discussion and consideration, I think that motion No. 1 ought to be put and considered for discussion and division forthwith.
It is moved by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
Motion No. 1.
February 25, 1976-That Bill S-30, to incorporate Continental Bank of Canada, be amended in clause 2 by striking out lines 23 to 30 at page 1 and lines 1 to 3 at page 2.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to preface my remarks on the specific amendment by putting it in perspective and outlining my party's position on the matter. Our position on the bill itself and the reason for this amendment, and the others, is that we do not believe that the conversion is clearly in the public interest. There are many unanswered questions. There are questions about whether a conversion of this type will create a tax shelter, not only for IAC as it moves into the Continental Bank but whether by setting the precedent it will also create a tax shelter for other chartered banks which, I am quite certain, will seek the same kind of opportunities that this bill affords to IAC.
The figures show what this tax shelter would represent by way of housing, depreciation allowance, etc. Witnesses before the committee indicated that the shelter effect might be from $40 million to $60 million for IAC for the ten-year period of the transition of one to the other. But in the case of the chartered banks we may be looking at half a billion dollars if this is extended to cover them. The committee received argument that this is not possible. Yet the argument of the tax shelter came from a very reputable group, Equipment Lessors Association who represent some of the biggest financial institutions in Canada and the United States. Their tax consultants and lawyers appeared before the committee to speak of this strong possibility.
I recognize that the brief of the Equipment Lessors Association was self-serving and that they did not want IAC to become a stronger competitor by becoming a bank. I could read the long list of members of the association. It would look like the "Who's Who" of the leasing and financial institutions in this country, but I believe it has to be taken seriously. We should look at it carefully before passing a bill of this kind.
Certain questions arose in the course of the committee examination about public disclosure. Because of the special
Continental Bank of Canada
nature of the transition from a finance company to a bank, there is not going to be the same kind of public disclosure of the assets of the operation of the Continental Bank that now applies to banks in general. This has become one of the exemptions being sought in this bill. We will have an opportunity to talk of that particular exemption later, in another motion. I simply want to point out that important considerations are involved here beyond doing a favour for a good corporate citizen.
What this clause deals with very specifically is the question of interlocking directors. The clause that we are seeking to amend would knock out that section which says that provisional directors of the Continental Bank all have to hold a certain number of shares in IAC. A technical amendment was made to this bill in committee which had the same effect as the reading of the bill at the moment, but the point is that one of the provisions of the Bank Act is to avoid interlocking directors. For a brief time there are obviously going to be interlocking directors.
There is also some question of how much insider information was going out. At a fortuitous moment, Carena Bancorp bought something over 19 per cent of the stock of IAC. It may have been accidental or fortuitous, but it is interesting how the whole thing interlocks.
One of the arguments put forward by the sponsors of the bill is that we need more banking competition in this country. If we do-and I am not at all sure we do have that kind of competition-it is obvious it is a very cozy-cozy kind of competition. I wish I could be sure these people never talk to each other. If we look at the directors and major officers of IAC, these are the people the clause we are seeking to amend refers to, and if not these people specifically, then other major shareholders of IAC. Let me go down the list: Lyndon E. Nichol, now a director, formerly chairman; director of Ultramar, which is holding company for Golden Eagle Ltd., oil refiner and marketer in eastern Canada; K. H. MacDonald, chairman, director of Uniroyal, Zellers; J. S. Land, president, director of Canbor-ough Corp., Premier Property Ltd; Ronald L. Cliff, adviser, National Trust.
There are something like the representatives of eight chartered banks on this particular board. Then we have F. M. Covert, director of Petrofina, Royal Bank, National Sea Products, Standard Brands, Trizec, Sun Life; J. S. Dewar, president of Union Carbide, director of Manufacturers Life, Toronto Dominion Bank; C. F. Harrington, chairman, Royal Trust, director of Redpath Industries, Domco, trustee BM-RT Realty Investments, jointly owned by Bank of Montreal, Royal Trust; Peter Kilburn, chairman of Green-shields, director of Zellers, Sicard, Inc; David Kinnear, vice-chairman, Bank of Montreal, director of Canadian Pacific Ltd., T. Eaton Co., and a number of Eaton-related companies; L. A. Lapointe, director of Brascan, Goodyear Tire and Rubber, Hilton of Canada, Rio Algom, Toronto Dominion Bank, Trizec;
You will notice how frequently Trizec keeps coming up. Also we have Paul Pare, president, chief executive officer of Imasco Ltd., formerly Imperial Tobacco, director of Canadian Pacific Ltd., Canron, Royal Bank; Charles I. Rathgeb, president of Comstock International Ltd., director of Algoma Steel, Canadair, Royal Bank; Renault St. Laurent, chairman of Canadian Breweries, director of
21419-49*/2
March 11, 1976

Continental Bank of Canada
Banque Canadienne Nationale, Sicard, Anglo Canadian Pulp and Paper, Imperial Life, Scott Paper, Home Oil, Rothmans of Pall Mall, and son of Louis St. Laurent who was a director of IAC.
Then we have D. K. Yorath, vice chairman, IU International Ltd., director of Montreal Trust. IU International Ltd. is the new name for a hugh American utility company which owns Canadian Utilities Ltd., Alberta Power, Yukon Electric and a number of other power companies. Also, D. W. Maloney, director of a number of IAC affiliates; Harold Corrigan, president Alcan Canada, director of a number of other Alcan associated companies and current president of Canadian Manufacturers Association; J. C. Thackray, executive vice president of Bell Canada and director of Bank of Montreal, Union Carbide; Peter F. Bronfman, president of Edper Investments, chairman Canadian Arena Company, director of Trizec; E. J. Courtois, director of the Bank of Nova Scotia, Brinco, Canada Life, Trizec; president of Canadian Arena Co.
The committees of both places were concerned about one question: Was insider information given? We were assured over and over again in committee that the purchases were made by Carena Bancorp, without inside knowledge. Apparently nobody anticipated that IAC would try to convert itself into a bank. We are asked to believe that this large investment, involving almost one-fifth of the shares of a large company, was not made on the basis of inside information, that is, information that IAC would try to convert itself to Continental Bank of Canada. We know that someone inside the corporation had been thinking of this move for a long time, perhaps three years. Yet apparently no information was given to the directors before the announcement was made to them. Under the company s charter, an announcement of that kind to the directors apparently had to be made public. Well, we are asked to believe that the directors had no prior knowledge and that there was no discussion among them. It takes a lot of believing. It may be so. That question, among others, I want to examine.
The ultimate holding company involved in this complex seems to be Edper Investments, which holds Carena Bancorp, which in turn holds both Canadian Arena Co. and a roughly 20 per cent share in IAC Ltd. as well as a number of other investments. As well as Peter Bronfman, mentioned previously, the other major interest in Edper-Carena is Edward Bronfman who is chairman of Edper and a director of Canadian Arena Co. and of Trizec.
There are a number of connections between IAC and Carena Bancorp. For instance, E. J. Courtois has been a long-time director of Trizec, of the Bank of Nova Scotia, Brinco, Canada Life, and so on. Others involved with IAC are also on the board of Trizec. Yet we are asked to believe that no insider information was given, that shares were bought on the open market without prior knowledge that IAC would try to convert itself into Continental Bank of Canada and take advantage of all benefits available to banks.
Mr. Speaker, there is a coziness here which disturbs me. It may not be against the law, but when people say they want to establish another bank and compete it is pertinent

to ask, what kind of competition are they talking about? Are they talking about deals to be made on the golf course, or similar kinds of business deals and competition? We need clear evidence that this conversion is in the national interest. In the absence of any clear evidence we must look at how corporate arrangements are made. We need to know a lot more about this deal.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, not at the moment, if the hon. member does not mind. I would be glad to receive his question when I have concluded my initial remarks. As I said, we are concerned about unanswered questions. We want to know about the question of tax shelter, of public disclosure, about interlocking directives, about the possibility of insider information, and so on.
A serious question is at issue. If the bill were to pass it would anticipate the legislative decision parliament should properly make in revising the Bank Act when a full examination of the future of banking and financial institutions can be made. The Bank Act is reviewed every so often, and I understand the next review will be next year. This bill provides for exemptions which negate the Bank Act. If the bill passes, you might as well say the Bank Act does not exist. I know that certain agreements have been reached with the powers that be. I do not suppose the company is doing anything illegal. I do not suggest for a moment that it is. Nor am I trying to say anything about IAC shares. But we wonder who exactly is interested in this IAC conversion. We have embarked on many long discussions in committee. I have talked privately with the IAC people and with the sponsor of the bill who has been a good advocate on their behalf, and I realize that we cannot take this matter lightly.
Here is a large, important Canadian company coming to parliament and asking for something to be done on its behalf. Let me say that we would like to help. We are not refusing to help; that is not our attitude. We should like to be persuaded of the worthiness of their cause so that we can accommodate them. We are open to any argument any hon. member may want to put forward. We know the importance of what we are doing. We are not doing it casually, and we are not delaying anything. My colleagues and I have discussed this among ourselves and we are persuaded that there must be a fight on this question. As I say, we will listen to arguments, and if someone makes an argument showing that this conversion is in the national interest we will look at it. Let me say this: it is the strategy of the government to let the opposition talk itself out. Well, we will not talk ourselves out. We will need to be persuaded out, if I may put it that way, so hon. members might as well get up and say what they must say either in defence of or against the bill.
The Bank Act must be revised. It is significant that not one of the chartered banks appeared before the committee to say, "We do not want another competitor" or, "We think there is something wrong with what is going on." There was a conspiracy of silence. Not all committee members have been so silent. This matter is something of a precedent. We must consider the Bank Act and the implications of the Bank Act. As I say, if this bill passes in its present
March 11, 1976

form there will, in effect, have been a revision of the Bank Act. That, exactly, is what will have happened. I suggest that one cannot lightly pass a bill whose effect will involve a revision of the Bank Act.
We should not pass a bill of this importance so lightly. It has not been given more than cursory attention by a committee of this House. A few witnesses were called. There were hearings and meetings in the Senate, and I believe there were four references in the debates of the other place to this question. There were few committee hearings into a bill of such complex and enormous implications. There were some hearings in the House of Commons committee. Nevertheless, not one of us would dream of amending the Bank Act in this manner. You cannot, by hearing a few witnesses and saying, "Yes, we know all about it; we understand the situation exactly", amend the Bank Act by passing this bill. Interestingly enough, there are two senators who in fact are directors of banks: Senator Molson and Senator Desruisseaux.


An hon. Member:: Only two?


Max Saltsman: Those are the only two on the committee. There may be others; we did not look into that. The point is that both these senators declared in committee their conflict of interest and said they could not vote on the bill. Nevertheless, they did not consider it a conflict of interest to say it was a very good idea that the IAC conversion into the Continental Bank go ahead. What strikes me about this whole thing is the coziness. For instance, Senator Mac-naughton went out of his way, whenever questions were raised, to say, "We have to get this through as these boys are in a hurry." When we held it up, he indicated solicitude by asking how much time we needed. He emphasized that the thing was to get it pushed through. If it were a minor bill being dealt with in the face of some national emergency or some compelling interest, I would not be reluctant to see it expedited through this House. There is no reason to argue against that. However, it is a bill that raises all kinds of questions. There are more unanswered questions than questions that have been answered. It should not go through without serious consideration on the part of the House of Commons.
I see that Your Honour is about ready to remind me how the clock works. I appreciate that hint. I have other things I would like to say, but I am sure my colleagues will be only too happy to enlarge on them. There was a question being directed to me. I would appreciate it if Your Honour would permit that question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That could be done with unanimous consent. Does the House agree to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) asking a question even though the hon. member's time is completed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I was not on the committee, as was the hon. member. The only thing I did was read the brief. Therefore, I am asking this question to solicit information. As I take it, in the transition from IAC to the Continental Bank, the problem of transition, which is sometimes normal when there is an amalgamation of trust
Continental Bank of Canada
companies-and I have had some experience in this-is that they are trying to keep the same directors for the bank as with IAC, and that is why they have had to have this change in certain sections. If IAC were ready to compromise and waive that, would the hon. member then see things in a different light?


Max Saltsman: It would certainly improve the light, Mr. Speaker, but there are a lot of other questions. We have ten amendments, so this is not our only objection. The hon. member is quite correct. It is a question of what kind of assets you transfer. Two general kinds of assets are now held by IAC. Some are eligible assets for a bank to hold, and some are ineligible assets. The question of an amendment to the Bank Act arises in permitting the ineligible assets to be transferred to Continental Bank and dissipated or used up over a period of ten years. Although they will not all be used up over that period, it is anticipated they can use enough to at least make it manageable at the end of that ten-year period. This is what the chartered banks have been asking us for a long time-the right to hold and to deal in these kinds of ineligible assets. This is the kind of thing the Bank Act has refused to give them. This is more properly the province of other financial institutions.
Our concern is simply this: if we grant this sanction to the IAC-and, admittedly, IAC has no real, practical way of transforming these present assets into a bank without this special agreement-where does that leave us with regard to the Bank Act? The banks would say we did the right thing with IAC-in fact, they are saying it now-and surely we could do the right thing for them. We will have created-this will be confirmed at a later date-a precedent that will be looked upon by everyone in the industry. Certain competitors of IAC see it that way. The quietness of the banks, their unwillingness to say anything at all except indirectly, as they did in the other House and in a private capacity, is a clear indication there would be great joy in the boardrooms of the banking institutions if this bill passes.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), I will try to be brief because I would very much like to see the bill proceed through this reading to enactment. I want to reflect upon the observations of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) that this is not a bill which they are prepared to let be talked out. They intend to carry on the debate as long as they feel it is necessary for their purposes. What I want to do, in very brief compass, is appeal to the sense of fairness of the hon. members of the New Democratic Party.
The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge took a considerable amount of his time today to develop the allegations that there may have been some advance knowledge by certain shareholder groups about the bank application. I am not familiar with the details of the structure of the company. However, I listened to what he said and listened to the allegations which are very serious and which might at least give rights to the vendors of the interest that he referred to to have their sales set aside and reacquire the shares and perhaps rights under the provincial securities legislation. But, after laying all that out, he then indicated he is not questioning the propriety of it.

March 11, 1976
Continental Bank of Canada
I attended a couple of the committee meetings. As a result of the questions that were asked and the forthright replies that were given, I took it that this House ought to be satisfied there is no impropriety relating to acquisition of the shares in question. I very much regret hearing the hon. member referring to the issue again. I was surprised at the end of it to hear him say that is not an issue as far as he is concerned.
I want only to make three points. I think it is totally unfair to hold up the bill on the basis of these three points. First, he stated that there was a failure of the government or of this parliament to enact a general procedure for the incorporation of banks. We have had such a bill kicking around for a long time. It is regrettable that the bill has not yet been brought into law. If it had been, this whole procedure might well be unnecessary, although there are a lot of aspects of this incorporation which would be looked at in the course of reincorporation. They would have been looked at in some other way if that bill had been brought forward.
I want to argue that the NDP, if anyone, should know how scarce the time of this parliament is, how important it is that we try to organize our time better and that all sides of the House try to co-operate with that objective so that it would be possible to get more legislation considered in this chamber. Certainly, if we had other rules an allocation of time or a better spirit of co-operation among all parties it might well have been possible to have had that banking bill made law by now. In any event, I argue that it is totally unfair for these applicants to be made the whipping-boy for the failure of parliament to deal with that legislation and make it law.
Second, the hon. member raised some objections, which I share, with regard to members of the Senate serving as bank directors. In the case of the banking group which is before us, if what he says is true-and I do not question it-there are some senators who will be directors of the new bank. That may well be agreed to be improper, but there are other banks which have senators as directors.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I left that impression, I should correct it. The two Senators I referred to were not directly involved in the IAC conversion, and in fairness to them I should point that out. They are involved in the banking industry generally, so I am sorry if I left the other impression.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I accept, of course, the hon. member's statement, but in view of what he says I think his criticism is even more unfair. We have before us innocent applicants who do not include Senators, and they are being made the whipping boy for a standard of conduct by Senators to which the NDP, or at least the hon. member, objects. I do not think it is fair that an application which is otherwise valid should be held up and debate prolonged because some other standard ought to be imposed in the other place governing the conduct of Senators. I would urge the hon. member to withdraw his objection to this application on that ground.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would argue that he is using this application as a whipping boy for the whole capitalist

system. He does not believe it is in the public interest as a whole for banks "to do their thing," if I can put it that way, and participate in the market place in a way they consider to be in their own interests. We believe that the public interest is served by private corporations operating toward private objectives. He may have a great many complaints about the banking system in Canada and about whether the banks work well for us, but he has not said anything to indicate that this bank will work in any worse way than the others.
If the hon. member has an objection to the banking system it should not be used to prevent a new bank from coming on the scene and participating as a bank in the market place. If our banks have not served Canada well, that certainly is not something that should be laid at the doorstep of IAC and the new Continental Bank which hopefully is to be shortly incorporated.
For my part, although I think the banking system has flaws, it is an industry that is constantly under review by government and is reviewed every ten years by parliament. On the whole I think Canadians have good reason to be proud of their banks and the role they play in the development of our country. If he has objections to them, again I urge the hon. member not to use those objections as a means of preventing this particular worth-while application from proceeding.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us a proposal to permit establishment of a new bank to join the banks we already have in our country. This application comes at a very interesting time. I am not surprised that some new group wants to get part of the action because bank profits have been rising very sharply, by anywhere from 25 to 50 per cent per year, over the past three or four years. Last week in fact the Toronto Globe and Mail reported that bank profits for the previous quarter had increased by 35 per cent over the same period a year earlier.
It is somewhat ironic, to put it mildly, that the newspaper reports which indicated that bank profits for that quarter were up by 35 per cent also indicated that this, what I consider to be massive increase in profits, was within the guidelines established by the Anti-Inflation Board.
The Government of Canada is proposing, and parliament is approving, legislation that restricts the increase in wages and salaries which most citizens in Canada will be able to receive, which interferes with the free collective bargaining system as we have known it. The legislation, in effect, says to any group of workers that they may not get an increase in wages in 1976 of more than 10 per cent over what they received in 1975 except under very special circumstances, which have never really been spelt out by the government in the law or regulations, or in any kind of detail by the Anti-Inflation Board.
In the city of Winnipeg the transit workers are on strike. These workers run the buses upon which so many people depend; workers need them to go to work and senior citizens depend on them to visit friends and relatives. These workers have been on strike for over 7 weeks because the city of Winnipeg has said that its interpretation of the Anti-Inflation Board ruling is that these transit
March 11, 1976

workers cannot receive more than a 9.5 per cent wage increase. Indeed the city of Winnipeg will not even agree to let a higher proposal go to the Anti-Inflation Board for a ruling. Yet the banks had an increase in profits during the last quarter of 35 per cent over the same period in 1974, and this is within the guidelines set by the Anti-Inflation Board. I am therefore not surprised that we have an application from a group that wants to establish a new bank. I am only surprised that we do not have more applications. Why should not a group of well to do citizens in Canada want to get in on what is obviously a very lucrative kind of enterprise?
The question we have to ask ourselves is not whether this is good business for this particular group of directors and shareholders of IAC. Unlike the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) who has just spoken, who obviously follows the precept of the famous-or rather infamous- Charlie Wilson of the United States, who on one occasion said that what is good for General Motors is good for the country, we believe that what is good for IAC is not necessarily good for the people of Canada. We want to know what the benefits will be to the people of Canada from this new bank before we approve its establishment.
Similarly I should like to believe that the owners of IAC will at least have to live by the same rules and laws as all other banks, in accordance with the Bank Act. I see no reason to hurry this, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe that the people of Canada will be at all harmed if this matter stands over. If the directors and shareholders of IAC cannot qualify as a bank under the present regulations set out in the Bank Act, then I think representations should be made on their behalf when the Bank Act undergoes its regular revision which takes place every ten years, and which I think is due in 1977.
As I say, I do not believe there will be much harm done to the ordinary people of this country if IAC has to wait until 1977 when perhaps its directors will be able to persuade-and they may be right-the majority of the members of this parliament that the Bank Act as we know it at present should be revised so that IAC, a financial corporation, is able under the regular standard provisions of the act to change its organization and become the Continental Bank, a bank that will need no special consideration or exemptions from the parliament of Canada.
I cannot accept the suggestion by the hon. member for York Centre that we ought to pass a bill which was designed substantially to meet the needs, not of the people of Canada, but of the shareholders and the directors of IAC.
The purpose of this bill is to establish a new bank which will be able to take all the assets and operations of IAC Limited, with some exceptions, and operate them as a bank. One of the problems which IAC is currently having is that, because it is not a bank, the leverage on its money, the multiple of its assets that it can loan out to customers, or more simply, the number of times it can turn over its money in the form of loans and mortgages, is much lower than that of the chartered banks.
Normally trust companies, according to the testimony before the Commons finance committee, achieve a leverage
Continental Bank of Canada
ratio of about 6 to 1. IAC, because it is the largest Canadian controlled finance company, with huge assets and a reputation for careful management, has been able to achieve a leverage ratio of some 7 to 1 on its money. This is considered high for such financial institutions, but it is much lower than the chartered banks achieve: they are in the range of 25-35 to 1. This is because of the prestige involved in the status of chartered banks, and also because the chartered banks are more closely watched and more closely regulated by the Bank Act than are some other financial institutions. So there is a lot of money involved, all other things being equal, in being a chartered bank.
Basically, then, IAC has grown as big as it is likely to get unless it is allowed to convert itself into a bank. In recent years, since the Bank Act revisions of 1967, the banks have been growing faster than other types of financial institutions. Figures prepared by Statistics Canada indicate that the banks have outstripped all other financial institutions in terms of asset growth and consumer loans.
Looking at the annual average growth rates for the years between 1964 and 1974 we see that the chartered banks showed an annual growth rate of 17.5 per cent; credit unions, 17.3 per cent; trust companies, 15.9 per cent; mortgage loan companies, 13.6 per cent; trustee pension funds, 12.4 per cent; fire and casualty companies, 11.2 per cent; sales finance and consumer loan companies, 10.9 per cent; and life insurance companies, 8.2 per cent.
In an area of particular significance to IAC-consumer credit-the growth of the banks has been even greater. This is illustrated by the figures for the years between 1964 and 1974 where the percentage increase has been as follows: chartered banks, 19.8 per cent; credit unions, 14.6 per cent; retail dealers, 7 per cent; sales finance and consumer loan companies, 4.5 per cent. In other words the banks had an average annual growth of almost twice as much as the average for all business institutions. It is no wonder the directors of IAC would like to convert that corporation into a bank.
One of the advantages the banks have is that they are deposit-taking institutions. They can bring in money at relatively small interest rates and loan it out at an interest rate that brings them in a steady profit but is lower than that of the other types of financial institutions such as IAC, which has to get its money through notes and debentures at a higher cost than that of the banks. IAC, in other words, has to borrow its money, sometimes from the chartered banks themselves, and loan it out at a higher rate, and the spread on the rates is its source of profit.
The banks, paying relatively low interest rates on deposits and no interest on a great deal of the money that comes in in the form of deposits, have a secure and steady source of low cost money that is not available to IAC. As I said earlier, it is no wonder that IAC would like to get into the act. As one of the officers of the bank replied in the Finance Committee a few weeks ago, "We want to play in the major leagues". There is no doubt that moving into the major leagues would be immensely profitable for IAC and its shareholders. That is enough reason for them to approve the bid to convert into a bank. But shareholders' profit is not a reason that should be so compelling to parliament. In order for parliament to pass this bill it should satisfy itself

March 11, 1976
Continental Bank of Canada
that the bill is in the public interest. That, it would appear, is difficult to do.
IAC Limited was first known as Industrial Acceptance Corporation when it was set up in Windsor in 1925. Its business at that time was almost wholly dealer loans, lending money to car dealers to finance their inventory of new cars. Its business, in other words, was in commercial loans rather than consumer loans. It stayed primarily in this business for several years, and is still in it, but over the years it has broadened its base to other financial activities. It is now involved in wholesale and retail sales financing, dealer loans and business loans, mortgages for both homes and businesses, leasing of capital equipment, and consumer loans. In fact most of its advertisements in recent times have dealt with other aspects of business rather than consumer loans. I have noticed heavy emphasis, for example, on the leasing of capital equipment.
The activities of the corporation, to put it mildly, have been very successful. Among Canadian financial institutions, leaving aside insurance companies, it ranks eleventh in assets and sixth in terms of equity. The following table gives some idea of its place in the Canadian financial world.
Assets ($ millions)
Royal Bank of Canada	$21,669.9
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce	18,946.9
Bank of Montreal	17,651.0
The Bank of Nova Scotia	13,462.5
The Toronto-Dominion Bank	11,857.0
Banque Canadienne Nationale	4,125.9
The Royal Trust Company	3,122.0
Banque Provinciale du Canada	2,556.8
The Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation	2,223.6
Canada Permanent Mortgage Corporation	2,212.8
Then we come down to the various trust companies and smaller institutions. The years 1974 and 1975 have been very good for IAC. It had net income, (profits) of some $23,336,000 in the year ending December 31, 1974. In the year ended December, 1975, its profits zoomed up to $30,450,000, an increase of some 30 per cent. Dividends paid out jumped from $1.69 a share in 1974 to $2.18 a share in 1975, a healthy jump of some 29 per cent. So IAC is not doing badly for itself as it is presently constituted.
As the IAC people freely admit, IAC, with consolidated assets of well over $2 billion, is Canada's largest sales finance and consumer loan company. If IAC were a chartered bank it would be Canada's sixth bank in terms of equity and eighth in terms of assets. From a humble beginning IAC is already in the major leagues.
IAC has seven subsidiaries. The first is Niagara Finance Company Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary. It is the largest Canadian-owned consumer loan company, with some 260 branches all across Canada, and with some operations in the United Kingdom. It does sales financing and personal loans, which are usually secured through a chattel mortgage.

Capital Funds IAC Ltd., and Capital Funds (IAC Ontario) Ltd. are both wholly owned subsidiaries which deal mostly in commercial loans. Both of these, plus Niagara Finance, can be absorbed virtually whole by the new bank, except for the leasing of capital equipment which is done by the two Capital Funds companies and which is not presently allowed to a bank under the Bank Act.
It is widely assumed, incidentally, that the revision of the Bank Act in 1977 will allow banks to get into leasing of capital equipment since it is a highly lucrative field that is at present being left to other financial institutions. If this is so, then by the time the bank sets up for business this type of business will be eligible to be included also, and can simply be absorbed directly.
When I first heard of this bill I wondered why the banks were not objecting to it. After all, it is not usual for a group of six large corporations which have virtually a monopoly among themselves not to object in such a case. I was puzzled. In my blissful ignorance of business I assumed that the banks would, either publicly or privately, have been opposed to the IAC application. I wondered why there was no opposition. An hon. member over there is pointing in this direction. I assume he means that someone on this side of the House could give an explanation. My suggestion to the hon. member is that he should make his own speech. We would be glad to hear from him rather than have the type of pointing of fingers and verbal objections to which we are so accustomed.
As I said a moment ago, I was puzzled why the banks were not defending their interests and making sure that there was not a new competitor. I was puzzled until it was pointed our to me that, if this bill should pass, IAC in 1976 under its new name Continental Bank of Canada would be involved in business which is not now permitted under the Bank Act, business which the Royal Bank of Canada, the Bank of Montreal, the Imperial Bank of Canada, and the Bank of Nova Scotia are not permitted to transact.
It is obvious from what I have placed on the record in respect of the operation of IAC that this is a very lucrative field of business. Of course the banks would like to have a piece of the action which is now permitted them. Those of us who were here before 1966 and remember the debate which took place at that time-


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Reid:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I listened to the statements made by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I was astounded that neither member spoke about the amendments which are before the House. It is my understanding that at the report stage we are supposed to confine our remarks to the amendments before the House. Perhaps if Your Honour would care to look at Hansard tomorrow he would find that my point is verified. I believe we should be paying more attention to the legislation before us.
March 11, 1976

Electoral Boundaries


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair tried to follow what was said, and although perhaps I should not become involved in the debate I think it was closely enough related to the amendment.
Is it agreed that the hon. member may conclude his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wish to complete my remarks simply by saying I am amazed that, on the government side at least, there seems to be a disposition on the part of members, who have much more experience in the business world that I and most if not all members of our party, to support this legislation which will benefit so tremendously one specific corporation, and will do so by a change in the rules which will apply to all the banks which now must follow the rules which are set out clearly and explicitly in the Bank Act. Moreoever, this is being done at a time when we are just one year away from a major revision, if we so desire, of the Bank Act which was passed in 1966.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, it is on a very rare occasion that I become involved in a debate dealing with financial institutions. However, at this time I should like to lay before the House my bias in this connection. I have found that banks and trust companies are the least desireble institutions to which an individual, a private person, should go in order to obtain a loan. I have always found, on the contrary, that credit unions are much more co-operative and are much more mindful of the reason why banking, financial institutions, and trust companies exist.
Bill S-30 is designed to establish a new bank which will convert the assets of IAC Limited into its operation. The point of our opposition to this bill and of the amendment we recently placed before the House is that this is a most irregular way of attempting to convert a finance company into a bank. I notice that the company chose first to introduce this bill in the Senate in the hope, quite understandably, it would receive a much more positive reception there because of the number of Senators who have an interest in banks. Indeed the bill was quite speedily approved there.
I think it is important that this House should examine a little more closely the bill which is before us. We should consider the dangerous precedent involved in allowing a finance institution such as this to avoid the carefully thought out provisions and safeguards contained in the Bank Act of Canada. We believe the amendment we suggest should be carefully considered because what we have here is the thin edge of the wedge in subverting the Bank Act which has been set up to protect the people of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I see it is six o'clock. May I call it six o'clock at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-32, to implement conventions for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax between Canada and France, Canada and Belgium, and Canada and Israel, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 6.04 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to order made this day the House will now proceed to the consideration of objections to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Nova Scotia.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I do not want to be distracted by some former adversaries on the football field who know a little bit about the Maritimes, but because of their interest in the Maritimes they will understand why I am rising tonight pursuant to an objection filed under the act protesting the proposal of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Nova Scotia, and in particular how that proposal affects the riding I have the honour to represent, the historic riding of Annapolis Valley, which the proposal would change.
Our time is rather limited tonight but at the outset I should like to thank the House leaders for mutually agreeing to arrange this time for debate on the last day I could rise in this House to bring a formal objection under the act to the attention of hon. members. I also want to thank the hon. members who joined with me in filing the formal objection and those hon. members who have indicated to me, to amplify the objection, that they are prepared to speak tonight and/or any other time this matter might come before the House.
It might seem rather peculiar to those in the gallery, let alone hon. members opposite and perhaps hon. members on all sides, what is going on here tonight, but the fact is that I am rising at the last stage of the legislative machinery to protest a proposal by the Electoral Boundaries Commission suggesting new boundaries for the riding I represent. I feel very strongly about this. I made representations before the Electoral Boundaries Commission in Halifax when it had
11726

March 11, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
its hearings there, the same as it had its hearings across the country, and there is no doubt that there is a certain quirk in the act whereby, under the law of the land, anything we say tonight is read by the same commissioners who made the proposal. Therefore we have a situation like the original judge and jury deciding whether their verdict was correct, and this does pose difficulties.
I can certainly say to you, Sir, that since this proposal has been laid upon the Table of this House, pursuant to the law of the land, my office has been swamped with letters, petitions, and protests over the proposal to cut the Annapolis Valley in half and join it with other parts of the beautiful province of Nova Scotia.
I want to say at the outset that I have nothing against any part of Nova Scotia. I should like to be the member for any part of it, any part of the Annapolis Valley, any part of the district of Halifax, or anywhere else, but at this point I happen to be the member for the riding called Annapolis Valley.
In my view there are few parts of this country that have such an identity of interest as the Annapolis Valley in generic terms. There is the Niagara Peninsula, but it is being paved and having condominiums built upon it, and its apple orchards and vineyards being ruined. The Okanagan Valley, if you mention the name-


Mr. MacFarlane:: What about Acadia?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. member for Mount Allison and/or Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane)-Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be sidetracked because my time is limited and I want to say a few serious things.
There are very few parts of Canada where you can say the name and immediately Canadians, rightly or wrongly, will identify with it. Annapolis Valley is one, the Niagara Peninsula is another, so are the prairies and also the Okanagan Valley. Try to visualize the beautiful open sky of the prairies and put that into a specific area that could be a riding. There is the Annapolis Valley-


John Edward Broadbent: What about Oshawa-Whitby?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That area has grown. The hon. member is lucky to be its representative at the moment but, as it grows, he may not be.
At the moment there is a community of interest in the riding I represent, yet the proposal of the commissioners, albeit sincere and based on statistics, fits the electoral factors, and they have suggested a riding called Kings-Hants. In the 1920's there was a riding called Kings-Hants but tonight I am pleading through you, Mr. Speaker, that the soul of an area is so much more important than the statistics which make up an electoral boundary district.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank my colleagues for their endorsement of that principle. That is the reason why I am taking the time of the House tonight.
I do not blame the commissioners, but I have been rather involved with the public of Canada in the last six months,

Mr. Speaker, and there is no doubt that there is an alienation factor between the public and the politician-that is me, that is you, that is every member of this House. There is an alienation factor between the public and the elected person because the public wonders what its small voice has to say in something to do with government. What is more basic to government and the law of the land than the ridings from which we come?
I wish I had more time, Mr. Speaker, and I hope I can have it extended with the help of my colleagues before the debate concludes. I hope there will be an opportunity to file a petition that is now being circulated in the Annapolis Valley, with X number of names for the moment. There are already 1,000 to 1,500 names on file, and I suggest in terms of the specific issue there are very few things I have been involved with in the ten years that I have been a member of this House that have produced 1,500 letters or coupons, individually signed and individually written, such as this one protesting the proposal of the commissioners.
I say in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, that the voice of Canadians from coast to coast, the voice of particular Canadians in my riding who protest this change, has to be heard. It has to be heard more than in just the formal procedures of the electoral boundary commission holding hearings in different parts of Nova Scotia.
I suggest the very fact that the Gazette notice of the hearings was published on July 29, in the middle of summer, did not help generate public interest in the proposal for the new riding. I think the House should look at the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and make sure that the Gazette notices will never again be published in the middle of summer when Canadians are involved in other things.
I wish the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, who has such gusto, would contain it when I am speaking about something I know is dear to his heart, that is, the representation of people. It is up to us to bring their views to the floor of this House and deal with them here rather than have them going to a hearing. The people in my riding, Mr. Speaker, did not have the opportunity to give their-


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) rises on a question of privilege.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member mentioned Hamilton Mountain. It is true I have a very strong feeling for the Maritimes and it is true I have a great knowledge of the Annapolis area, but I would say it would be wrong for a person who now represents Hamilton Mountain to make any comments concerning what those people should think. Those who represent the Maritimes should represent them. I think the hon. member should check whether he really represents the entire Annapolis area or whether that is-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There is nothing to prevent the hon. member from making his own remarks in due time. This is not a question of privilege.
March 11, 1976


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member who just spoke was getting some advice from the member behind him, the hon. member for South Western Nova (Miss Campbell). Interestingly enough she has not made any representation at all and this is going to affect her as much as it is going to affect me. But let us leave that alone, Mr. Speaker.
The fact of the matter is that the Gazette notice was published on July 29 when most Canadians were enjoying vacations. Then under the auspices of the government we had a postal strike that went on for weeks so it was difficult for the public to register objection to the proposal or get in touch with their member.
These are some things which adversely affected the public interest, which kept individual Canadians from raising their collective voice as 2,000 of them have done in these files that I hold. These letters are trying to tell the commissioners that their proposal to cut the Annapolis Valley in half is against geography, against history, against the economy, and against the very community of interests that has made the Annapolis Valley a very valuable part of the fabric of Canada since 1604.
Our problems are different from those of larger areas such as Oshawa, and urban areas that grow overnight, where it is difficult to have a definable community of interests. My area has had that for almost 300 years. But because of the machinations of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, and on the basis of statistics, it is going to be cut in two.
The main interest in many parts of the riding of South Western Nova is fishing, and under the proposal it is suggested that Annapolis Valley will be incorporated into that riding. Historically, geographically, and economically the main occupation of Annapolis Valley is agriculture. You can see a real division of interest right there, Mr. Speaker.
I would be the last one to claim pride of authorship for words of wisdom that I think should be followed. In the submission I filed several months ago with the commission I objected on the basis of history, geography, economy and education to changing the name of the riding to Kings-Hants. After all we want names to mean something in this country.
We have heard much talk of Canadian content. Pierre Berton wrote "The Last Spike", a saga of the Canadian Pacific Railway, because he was interested in Canadian history. You have Peter Newman, who now has a virtual monopoly with Maclean's with the help of the government, trying to foster Canadianism. My hon. friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) wears the kilt on the historic days of which he is so proud. We are proud of our history. My part of the country has history coming out of its ears, yet the Electoral Boundaries Commission wants to cut up a district which has been a unit for the past 200 or 300 years.
I appreciate that in older, historically significant regions it is more difficult to make boundary changes. Few communities in Canada have such a community of interest as the Annapolis Valley, the place where European civilization first flourished in this country. After all, western
Electoral Boundaries
civilization first established itself in eastern Canada at Port Royal, in 1604. European civilization flourished there and grew from there.
Not only is the valley a unit historically; it is a unit topographically, educationally, and economically. A long time ago Edmund Burke defined a community of interest in "Reflections on a Revolution in France", page 399, as follows;
Society becomes a partnership between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.


John Edward Broadbent: We're sad.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I ask the hon. member to constrain his tears. I know his speech.
My family is from the Annapolis Valley. My good friend, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall), is from the valley too. We have extensive roots there. Now the place which is one historic unit, the unity of which I consider as my historic birthright, is to be severed, separated, no longer to be known as one riding, Annapolis Valley.


John Edward Broadbent: Come off it!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. He is oohing and aahing. That is the hot gas socialists produce. What's more, the hon. member is not being sociable.
I know the Electoral Boundaries Commission is sincere. Its members should look at the area not from the viewpoint of statistics but from the much broader viewpoint of community of interest. I say that the valley is a community and, as such, its wishes should be respected. I know that the commission is sensitive about electoral boundaries and splitting regions. You know, it is one thing to divide a community, quite another to define it. Our community has been defined for hundreds of years. Now the commission wants to divide it and make it into two new ridings.
The area has produced at least three Canadian prime ministers. The Secretary of State for External Affairs no doubt has heard of Right Hon. Lorimer Ilsley, who was one of the best ministers of finance we have ever had. He came from the area.


An hon. Member:: Was he a Liberal?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: He was a classical Liberal, and he would be completely appalled by the Trudeau government of today. He was a true liberal, not a Liberal of the type who sits opposite now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He would not be too happy with today's Conservative party, either.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: At present Acadia University serves Annapolis Valley. Between 60 per cent and 70 per cent of all students come from the counties of Annapolis and Kings. The university was built to serve the regions-with all respect to my hon. friend from Halifax.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: This speech is better than the one you made at the leasership convention.
21419-50)4

March 11, 1976
Electoral Boundaries


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: No, Joe, it isn't. The commission cannot ignore deeply rooted traditions. The area is one unit educationally, served by a university attended by between 60 per cent and 70 per cent of students who come from the valley. Why, if this proposal carries, the people in the valley will be divided. How can they ask with one voice for manpower programs which may be necessary, or for OFY grants, if the government continues to give them? The governemnt isn't sure of anything. I do not suppose the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) knows what he will do next. He probably isn't sure if he should shave his beard tonight. That's how unsettled he is.
Why should you divide the region? Why should some students at Acadia University be represented by one member and some students by another, which will happen if you establish the new riding of Kings-Hants?
Think also of what will happen to CFB Greenwood, part of which is in Kings county and the other part in Annapolis. Under this proposal some of the married service personnel living at Middleton will vote in one riding; others at the base will vote in the other. That is preposterous. Greenwood is right on the borderline of the proposed riding. CFB Greenwood, incidentally, is the largest base east of Montreal and the large NATO base in Canada. Why create such problems at the base? Our school systems are also involved in the proposed change.
The two towns affected, Middleton and Bridgetown, are none too happy with the proposed change. The clerk of the town of Middleton wrote me the following letter, a copy of which went to the chief commissioner. It says:
The town of Middleton wishes to make known its views and opinions regarding the proposed federal electoral boundaries changes in the Annapolis Valley.
Although approximately one half of Annapolis county is now included in the Digby-Yarmouth electoral boundaries region, the town feels that should any changes be made in these boundaries, that Annapolis county in its totality, should be included with the Kings-Hants riding.
Annapolis county has traditionally been closely linked with the rest of Annapolis Valley community, not only in its history but in its present economic ties.
The economic mainstay of the Annapolis Valley is agriculture; the mainstay for the Yarmouth-Digby riding is fishing. Should Annapolis county be included in the Yarmouth-Digby riding, the federal representative would then have to be well experienced in agriculture and fishing as well and would, of necessity, have to have close liaison with the other MP representing the valley riding. This condition could cause a great deal of unco-ordination in efforts to assist the agricultural community of the Annapolis Valley as a whole and further complicate the position of the representative were he to try to represent these two economic mainstays in the Annapolis-Digby-Yarmouth region.
For these reasons the town of Middleton feels that rather than change the boundaries to include the Annapolis county with Digby-Yarmouth counties, that the commission should give serious consideration if any change is made at all, to include Annapolis county with the Kings-Hants riding. The town of Middleton wishes that the Annapolis Valley be left intact as one historical and economic entity and that one federal representative for the Valley should speak for the entire Valley community.
I could not agree more with those thoughts and sentiments. They were filed after the representation hearings were held because of the difficulty of summertime and the postal strike.
The mayor of Bridgetown has written to the commissioner. I quote from his letter:
On the 8th of October 1975 our Town Council addressed a letter to Judge Angus MacDonald expressing our dissatisfaction and opposition to the proposed changes in electoral boundaries which would attach all of Annapolis County to the South Nova constituency.
[Mr. Guay (St. Boniface).)
We understand the Nova Scotia commission on electoral boundaries has now submitted its report, which does approve the change noted above, even though there is widespread and strong opposition from this part of the province.
This is the dilemma that faces Canadians because they do not understand the legislative machinery that has to be followed. Quite frankly I hope we have some effect in going through this procedure tonight. The mayor continued:
While not fully aware of the procedure in such instances, we understand that the only recourse now-
Again, this came late in the day because of the summer recess, vacations, and the postal strike.
-is an appeal on the part of a number of elected members of the House of Commons. Just how this is accomplished we do not know, and would welcome advice from you as to what we might do to assure further careful consideration to this very serious and disruptive proposed electoral change.
We recognize that this is a late hour appeal, but at the same time it is due only to the fact that our appeal of October 8, 1975, was not favourably received.
I'm sure you will recognize at once that this request comes from a responsible elected body, and reflects the apprehension and concern of the people of our area.
Without being more specific, it must be quite clear that the proposed change would be both disturbing and disruptive. It follows quite logically too that all possible should be done to retain the harmony and satisfaction which presently prevails.
We urge you to consider this letter as a reasoned and well-considered appeal for further study of a proposal which promises to promote dissatisfaction and disharmony.
Those are submissions from two of the larger towns in the area that is going to be cut back and tied into another constituency, which is undoubtedly tremendous, but one with which they have never been associated in any way whatsoever.
I have a resolution from 17 or 18 Annapolis Valley boards of trade who also protest this move. I have a petition signed by over 2,000 people that I hope to file before this hearing is concluded in this House.
It is very difficult in this formal Chamber to try to relate the serious personal concern and confusion of people who have always been a part of an area and overnight their boundaries are going to be changed. As I said, this is not a new area. For the past 50 years Annapolis Valley has been an electoral unit and this proposal is cutting it up. It does not have to happen.
When I made my representation to the regional commissioner in Halifax, it so happened that Mr. Castonguay was there. He is a very respected Canadian who knows more about the electoral procedure and boundary changes than any other Canadian. In my submission I stated that all of Annapolis County, all of Kings County, and at least half of East Hants, which I now represent, should be in the constituency of Annapolis Valley. In fact, as far as I am concerned, it should be all of Annapolis County, Kings County and Hants County.
My friend who represents East Hants is prepared to speak on my proposal. He will say that East Hants has a community interest with either Truro or Windsor and no community interest with Annapolis Valley. It is not even part of the Annapolis Blossom Festival. It is not related with regard to newspapers or radio. Mr. Castonguay stated that I was the first member to appeal before a commission
March 11, 1976

hearing and advocate taking on more people, rather than less. Mr. Castonguay caught the point completely because in terms of the Annapolis Valley community interest, I or whoever is the member, would serve more people. That is because the community interest is so definable. The interests are similar. To divide Annapolis Valley in two and add a portion to one part, with all respect to the lovely people of East Hants there would not be the same community interest that is historic in the Annapolis Valley. I hope the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) will say a few words.
With the consent of the House, I or another member on my behalf, will file the necessary petitions and formal signatures. This can be done at a later date. However, I plead that statistics not be the determining factor for a constitutency that has been a historic part of the land for 300 years. It is the soul of the Annapolis Valley that I plead for in terms of electoral representation rather than just the cold, formal statistics that are applied to determining electoral boundaries. There is now a definable boundary in terms of Annapolis Valley. I do not understand why the commission should use statistics to cut it in half.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave).


Jean-Jacques Blais: You only have one minute.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to support a colleague and have so much gratuitous advice thrown across the floor from people who have forsaken the maritime way and gone to other places, but still have the interests of the maritimes at heart.
My purpose in rising is to suggest a way out of the dilemma posed by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan). I rarely rise in this place to scold, but only when I think of some kind of remedy that might or might not be applied, or at least should be considered. It is my purpose to follow that sort of course this evening.
I do not know whether hon. members realize it or not, members like the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) would realize it, but the hon. member for Annapolis Valley is telling it exactly as it is. There has developed a rather explosive situation in Nova Scotia in connection with the redistribution of seats.
Knowing the people who sat on the commission I must say I thought that, by and large, they did an excellent job. Mr. Justice Angus MacDonald has been a friend and associate of mine for years and years. His father was the distinguished premier of Nova Scotia for years back. Knowing him and others who sat on the commission, they did the best they could. The fact is, however, that once in a while one is allowed to blunder. In the case of Annapolis Valley, probably they have made a blunder. There is certainly very strong feeling there that the division of seats should be in a different direction than is proposed. I gather the procedure is for Hansard for this debate to be forwarded to them so that they can make up their minds whether they did a wise thing or bad thing originally. That is their obligation at this point.
Electoral Boundaries
I hope I can appeal through you, Mr. Speaker, to the members of the commission to accept the argument by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan). I say that because I have to be a practical politician in this sense and acknowledge what has been said by people in Nova Scotia. I think Mr. Justice MacDonald and his group would accommodate him in that regard.
If I may just take another 30 seconds to make another additional point, perhaps the most practical argument I can advance to Your Honour is that I believe in the county distribution system, or in division along county lines. There is a part of the riding of Halifax-East Hants known as Mount Uniacke which could probably adjust itself to another riding. So if Mr. Justice MacDonald and his group need an area that has to be adjustable, they might look at the Mount Uniacke area, a very large and growing area of Nova Scotia, an area that does not necessarily have to be tagged-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it being 8.40 o'clock p.m., pursuant to the order made earlier this day the debate on the objection to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Nova Scotia is adjourned.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of the objection to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of British Columbia.


OBJECTION TO COMMISSION'S REPORT RESPECTING BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see us going from one end of the country to the other and eliminating most of the stuff in the middle for a change. It is my privilege tonight to speak on behalf of a couple of other members from British Columbia who happen to be away from this House on very important business, namely, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).
The points I wish to make touch on three types of characteristics: geographical, political and demographic. Specifically I wish to inform you that the Creston Valley area of the present day riding of Kootenay West should not be redistributed into the new riding of Kootenay East, and that the Christina Lake area should remain in Okanagan Boundary rather than be added to Kootenay West. The hon. member for Kootenay West, who has asked me to speak on his behalf in his absence, states that he would like to make it absolutely clear at the outset that he personally has no objections to serving and representing the Christina Lake area; indeed he has many friends in that community. None the less, he does not feel it to be fair to either the people of Christina Lake or of Creston or even of Trout Lake that the proposed redistribution take place.
Geographically speaking, the Creston Valley area forms a natural boundary for the southeastern limits of Kootenay West, as does the Rossland range of mountains in the southwest, and as do the Monashees on the north end of the Arrow Lakes. By contrast, Christina Lake and its

March 11, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
environs are at the base of a natural obstruction, namely, a high mountain pass known as the Blueberry-Paulson, and does not geographically belong to the natural boundaries of present day Kootenay West.
In effect what the proposed redistribution does is oblige the member for Kootenay West to travel over an additional mountain pass, which in winter is not only time consuming but also difficult and hazardous. Anyone who has lived in the Kootenays for a winter will know that eastern Canada's snowfalls are minor compared to those in his area. There is no permanent habitation along the 60 odd miles of this pass. In order to cover the east side of Kootenay Lake in the redistributed riding, the hon. member would have two choices before him. He can take the ferry at the north end of the lake and, on reaching the east side, swing 40 miles south. This ferry runs once every 45 minutes, but is frequently delayed in winter due to weather, and in summer due to heavy tourist traffic. Or he could travel over the Salmo-Creston Skyway through what would become his former riding and then drive approximately 40 miles north. Either way, he is severely inconvenienced.
Further to this, should it prove impossible to persuade the commission to leave Creston in Kootenay West, surely they can leave the north end of Kootenay Lake in his riding. This would be an improvement in that it is far easier to travel the few extra miles to this remote part of his riding, a part which shares in the concerns of Kootenay West as it now exists, than to service the Christina Lake area.
Politically speaking he would like to draw the commission's attention to the fact that two community bodies which are representative of a cross-section of the people in the Creston area have rejected any inclusion of Creston into the new Kootenay East riding. The Creston Chamber of Commerce spoke against the proposed redistribution and, as well, the Creston Town Council unanimously voted to reject the proposed change. The stand taken by these two bodies is understandable in light of the fact that prior to 1952 Creston was in the riding of Kootenay East and was moved back to Kootenay West in 1965. Another move back to Kootenay East would only confirm the feeling of the local populace that their fate is to be a political football approximately once every 10 to 15 years, serving only to satisfy the whims of redistribution and the numerical population needs of redistribution. He would suggest to members of the commission that this is totally unnecessary in light of the following demographic considerations.
In November of 1974 the British Columbia Research Council issued a report entitled "Population Projection" wherein it outlined the following statistics. In the regional district of Kootenay Boundary in 1974 the population was 31,407; the projection for 1980 is 30,763. In the central Kootenay area in 1974 the population was 44,670; the projection for 1980 is 47,265. In Columbia Shuswap the population in 1974 was 30,811; the projection for 1980 is 40,647. In East Kootenay the population in 1974 was 39,735; the projection for 1980 is 52,475.
The first two regional districts, corresponding roughly to the land area of Kootenay West, will experience approximately 7.8 per cent growth by 1980. The second two regional districts, corresponding almost exactly to the new riding of Kootenay East, will experience a 63.3 per cent growth by

1980. Even if we tend to be pessimistic about future economic growth, Kootenay East will more than make up for the 5,000 or so constituents it will not get if Kootenay East keeps its present proportions.
It is pertinent to note in this connection the statement by Premier Bennett of British Columbia that coal is going to play a major part in the provincial economy and that it is going to be a part of the new economic prosperity. The riding of Kootenay East encompasses the largest and most development-ready coal mining area in all of British Columbia. At the rates predicted by the British Columbia Research Council, Kootenay East will, in a matter of 4.8 years, have gained about 5,000 people, already sufficient to make the addition of Creston superfluous. It is therefore highly likely that after the next census Creston will once again be redistributed back to Kootenay West.
The hon. member would also like to point out that economic trading patterns presently exist between Creston, Nelson, and Trail, rather than between Creston and Cranbrook. Similarly, the people of Christina Lake do their trading mainly with Grand Forks. It is not appropriate or fair to the people of Christina Lake that the economic concerns of Christina Lake be included in those of Kootenay West, just as it is not appropriate or fair that the economic concerns of Creston be included in those of Kootenay East, an area whose economic concerns differ widely from those encountered in Kootenay West.
Finally the hon. member would like to make a point about the peculiar manner in which the commission has drawn the boundaries in his present riding across areas that are virtually uninhabited the year round, presumably in the name of fair redistribution. He asks that you take note of the fact that the commission has drawn a line through hundreds of square miles of Kootenay West in an area bounding the Salmo-Creston Skyway, the area north of Creston, and the area bounding Trout Lake and Upper Arrow Lake. It is inconceivable to him how the mere addition of hundreds of square miles of bush can be justification for the commission's supposed aim of fair apportionment of constituents to every member's riding.
Did the commission find any great and pressing concerns in these areas of forests, high mountain peaks, and surging creeks which would cause it to put them into either Kootenay East or Okanagan North? If so, the hon. member is most anxious to hear about them. He does not think it too much to ask that at least those portions which play no part in this population redistribution be left in Kootenay West since these areas are ones of present and future environmental, economic, and other concerns to those constituents left in Kootenay West after redistribution.
In any case the hon. member would like to demand from the commission a full explanation as to why it insisted on such a move. Perhaps such an explanation will remove the lingering doubts in his mind, and in the minds of other members of parliament who have suffered the same fate as he, as to whether or not the commission's work is serious 100 per cent of the time, or whether it redistributes ridings in a manner akin to shuffleboard.
I should like to talk now about some ridings on the lower mainland of British Columbia. I propose that the electoral
March 11, 1976

district of Burnaby-New Westminster be formed by joining that section of the proposed Burnaby riding which is west of Sperling Avenue and Kingsway to the city of New Westminster. An electoral district of Burnaby-Capitol Hill can be formed by joining the Capitol Hill district to the section of the proposed Burnaby riding which is east of Sperling and the Kingsway. An electoral district of Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody can be formed by joining these three districts.
The following reasons are urged for my proposals: Capitol Hill, proposed now as part of North Vancouver-Burna-by, should be electorally associated with Burnaby. Geographically being separated from the rest of its proposed constituency by Burrard Inlet, the residents of Capitol Hill have little or no association with North Vancouver. Consider the separation, the inconvenience; there is not even a bridge to the North Vancouver district within the Capitol Hill section, therefore all social and commercial relations flow south connecting Capitol Hill easily with Burnaby. Culturally and socio-economically, the Capitol Hill quarter is associated with Burnaby and not with North Vancouver.
It is obvious that the interests and concerns of Capitol Hill residents are similar to those of Burnaby, while in an enlarged North Vancouver-Burnaby electoral district they will be an unrepresented minority. In this area I feel sympathy for the present member for New Westminster because the riding I now represent, Burnaby-Richmond-Delta, has a part of Burnaby that is totally separated from Richmond-Delta. From either end of my riding I have to drive about ten miles through the ridings of a couple of other members to get to the rest of my riding in Burnaby. From the Delta end of my constituency I have to drive through the ridings of other members and across a bridge to get to the other section of my riding. The people living in that area of Burnaby really have no relation with those living in Richmond and Delta which are brand new areas, growing fast, whereas Burnaby has been there for much longer.
That has been a hardship for this member mainly because of the distance one has to drive around there and because of the disassociation, not being next door neighbours. I would have hoped the commission, when drawing up these boundaries, would have given more attention to these factors because the people in Capitol Hill, who will now have a representative who most likely will be on the north shore, will not even have a bridge-they will have to drive through the ridings of other members to get to the rest of the area of the riding they will be associated with. I can't understand the members of the commission when they draw things up like this because certainly some of the members of that commission know British Columbia better than would seem from the lines that are on the maps.
The western section of the proposed Burnaby riding should be joined to the city of New Westminster since the historic, commercial, and social relationships of a large part of that section have been with the city of New Westminster. Again the hon. member is pointing out that people who are socially and economically in the same area should be left in the same area.
Coquitlam should be in the same riding as Port Coquitlam and Port Moody. All are new suburbs, all are within the same school district, and all have similar socio-econom-
Electoral Boundaries
ic mixes. By putting those areas together, Coquitlam would then become the centre of a major riding, and this again would serve the people of that area much better.
Now that I have made some comments for the member for New Westminster and the hon. member for Kootenay West I might make some on my own area and also on the province in general. I have attended all the public hearings and a number of the meetings which have been held. I remember the debates in the last parliament when redistribution got shot down, much to my dismay because of the fact that I represent one of the largest ridings in the country, in excess of 200,000 people. I am disturbed that once again I have to go back to an election with the same large group of people which is awfully tough to represent, especially when you look at members from Newfoundland and the smaller provinces who have only 30,000 electors. You then think it would be nice if you could get your riding down to the same size and maybe give the people a little more service.


An hon. Member:: How many blocks is it?


John Douglas Reynolds: I hear someone down there yelling "How many blocks is it?" Mine is also a large riding geographically. Certainly in the rush hour I could not drive around my riding in seven hours the way the traffic is blocked up at tunnels and bridges. Some of the members who represent rural areas must think it would be awfully nice to represent an urban area, but they do not realize that people disappear into their cars in the morning and do not come back until late at night. It is not always that easy. Besides, the people in the urban areas tend to become more involved in politics.
The point I am making is that British Columbia was alloted only five new seats in the redistribution and the way I heard some of the members talk in the House it was great we were getting so many. But the main error of the whole redistribution setup is that it was taken on the basis of a census which was so old. If it had been based on the 1971 census British Columbia would have qualified for a lot more seats than five. Members might say that this would apply to every other area, but no province in this country has shown the growth rate of British Columbia.
We are the fastest growing province in the country and the reason is obvious to everyone who lives there. The hon. member who is speaking has lived in two eastern provinces; he happened to be born down here and has lived in two of the western provinces, but the province of British Columbia seems to have nicer weather which attracts a lot of people from this area to live there, and maybe that is why our growth rate is so great. Certainly after this redistribution, even if it takes place within a very short period of time, most of the members from British Columbia will represent constituencies with far more people in them than members in other parts of the country. I think this is a shame.
We should look toward a system of redistribution which would redistribute the ridings on the basis of population figures much more up to date than those we are using. I was looking at the map, and looking at the numbers of people I am going to have in my riding, and I was amazed to find that the figure is roughly 83,000-that is the number the commission says will be in the new riding of

March 11, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
Richmond-South Delta. Well, there are already in excess of
90.000	people in the Richmond area alone, and in excess of
30.000	in the South Delta area. So the minimum population by the time redistribution comes in will give me at least
120.000	constituents. This is a considerable number to represent.
The way they split up my riding, I cannot complain. After saying there are so many people to look after, I am very pleased that those people in the Burnaby area will be going into a riding represented for the first time. Right now there is no one member who represents Burnaby. My riding is Burnaby-Richmond-Delta and there is a member on the other side of the House who represents Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Raines), but there is no member who represents Burnaby only. That is the one good thing this commission has brought out after recommendations from members on both sides of the House, that Burnaby should have one member to represent the area, one of our larger municipalities. I am very happy, and I am sure the people of Burnaby South, who I have been proud to represent in two elections and who in the last election, in every poll, voted for me with over 50 per cent of the vote, will be pleased that they will now be represented by a member who lives in Burnaby, althouth I am sure they feel they are well represented, and have been, not only by this member but by other members in the past who, by the way, mostly all lived in the Richmond or Delta area.
As far as Richmond goes, those people will still have a member of parliament to represent them, and that member will only have to represent South Delta as well as Richmond I still feel that if the redistribution were carried out on a more up to date basis the community of Richmond should have a member of parliament of its own. A community with a population in excess of 90,000 should not have to share its member of parliament with another community in the area, especially when one considers the size of some other ridings in the country.
When it comes to the Delta area I shall be losing the North Delta area to a riding that will be called North Delta-Surrey-White Rock. That might fit well together geographically, but again it is a shame because Delta encompasses three distinct communities. It is the southeas-ternmost part of the mainland of Canada, it borders on the United States, and it is called the sun capital of Canada. This area receives less rain and more sunshine than anywhere else in the country. It is a shame this area has to be split in half through redistribution when it has in excess of
65.000	to 70,000 people and could qualify in most regions of the country as a riding in its own right.
I must say in all fairness that the commissioners had to take into consideration the old census. This is the only way they could do it and we will have to go along with it. However, I am looking forward to the day that Delta will be a riding on its own. I am sure it will reach that point at the next redistribution after this.
I hope that as soon as this redistribution is completed the House will set up a committee to review and redistribute seats. I know that the Committee on Privileges and Elections is looking into the area of permanent voters' lists and so on, which ought to speed up many of those things and

perhaps make us look a little more professional to the people of Canada than we do at the present time when we try to redistribute our seats. Mr. Speaker, that is about all I have to say about redistribution. I thank the House for listening to my remarks about my area, the area of the hon. member for Kootenay West, and that of the hon. member for New Westminster.


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a few minutes tonight to speak about the redistribution in British Columbia, and more specifically in my constituency of Kamloops-Cariboo. By and large the Commission has done a fantastic job in the province of British Columbia. Many of us are concerned about the rapid growth in the province. We are very happy to see that finally we are to be allocated five new constituencies. My representation was that we should have six new constituencies, but five is pretty close.
British Columbia has been one of the most rapid growth provinces in the country. Five new seats reflect this new growth. This growth has been all over. It is in the lower mainland and also in the upper interior in places such as Prince George, Kamloops, Kelowna, and Penticton. These cities have grown extremely rapidly. I want to congratulate the commission for having taken all these factors into consideration.
As I said before, the commission really has done a pretty fantastic job in British Columbia. Some pretty strong representations have been made to me from the city of Merritt. Hearings were held in Kamloops at which presentations were made. There was one presentation by the Shulus Indian Band on behalf of the Indians in that part of the constituency, and another by the Merritt Chamber of Commerce. These people were extremely concerned about the city of Merritt no longer being included in a constituency with Kamloops.
The old constituency of Kamloops-Cariboo had about
140,000	people. It covered an area of about 25,000 square miles. There were some anomalies in the old distribution. It was necessary to try to fit people into some areas which were very large. In some instances there was no relationship between one area and the other in respect of, for instance, Kamloops and Quesnel. When the last redistribution took place there was much concern that Quesnel, so many miles away from Kamloops, had to be in the same constituency. In any event it all worked out. After all the shouting was over it was fantastic for me to represent Kamloops-Cariboo along with the city of Quesnel.
I want to say I hope the commission will look again at the matter of including Merritt with Kamloops in a constituency. In the redistribution it is now with Okanagan-Similkameen. Merritt really has no connection with the area of Okanagan-Similkameen except perhaps with Princeton. It has no affinity with Penticton or the Okanagan part of British Columbia. The real connection of Merritt is with Kamloops. Its connection with Kamloops is in such areas as the newspapers. The people in Merritt read the Daily Sentinel and the Kamloops News. Many people in Kamloops also read the Merritt Herald and the Merrittonian and so on. There is a natural connection also through television and radio. Radio Station CHNL Kamloops has an outlet in Merritt and Princeton as well as in Clearwater
March 11, 1976

which is up the North River. The same thing applies to the mining industry and the forest industry.
With these few comments may I say, on behalf of the people of Merritt, that I hope I have registered with the commission their concern so that the commission may take another look at the situation in an effort to ensure that the Merritt-Quilchena area will be included with Kamloops where they want it to be, and with which there is a natural connection geographically, socially, and economically.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the commissioners for the good job they have done in the basic redistribution of the ridings in British Columbia. They do not have an easy job in the mountainous area of British Columbia. It really is not too easy to get everybody in exactly the areas where they would like to be. I should also say that probably they recognized at the outset that the city of Merritt needed some really good representation. Perhaps that is the reason why they included that city in the new riding of Okana-gan-Similkameen. I think I must agree with the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) that the basic economic community is joined to the city of Kamloops and that area more than it is to the rest of the new riding that is being created, Okanagan-Similkameen. So I would think that even though the commissioners wanted to get better representation for the people there, the area really should be included in the Kamloops areas.
Also in the redistribution the new riding is called Okanagan-Similkameen. The name of the riding now is Okanagan Boundary and the only difference between Okanagan Boundary and what we would have is the inclusion of the city of Merritt at the north western extremity and the exclusion of the small community of Christina Lake in the southeastern boundary, and then dividing it up into another riding which would include Kelowna, Vernon and Enderby. Actually we are getting in the very high growth area, bearing in mind that the riding of Okanagan Boundary has the third largest population in British Columbia, and that takes in all the ridings in the area, including Vancouver. It is a big riding with a large population.
You might get many complaints from city ridings, but I know that in most of them you can cover the whole area on a bicycle. There is no way that you can do that in a riding such as Okanagan Boundary. Many of the city ridings in Canada have small populations, such as Vancouver East and Vancouver-Kingsway. They contain not much more than half of the population of the riding of Okanagan Boundary.
I also agree with the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Brisco) that Christina Lake should not be included in the riding of Kootenay West. There is a mountain range between the city of Castlegar and Christina Lake. In May of 1974 when I went over to the nomination meeting of the hon. member who now sits for Kootenay West-I hope I did a little bit to help him get here-I came back that evening over the mountain range, with mountains on both sides of the highway covered with snow, and on the way I encountered a bear and her cub. The bear cub had just been born up high on the mountain range which was
Electoral Boundaries
covered with snow, and this was in May. This is the kind of thing we are talking about in British Columbia and these are the kinds of roads we have to travel on in these areas.
Christina Lake is a community which the CRTC and CBC do not consider as having a sufficiently large population to qualify for television coverage under the accelerated program, although there are more than 500 people living there. I believe they went back to the 1971 census in making their decision to exclude that community, a community which is cut off by a mountain range which, at the best of times, is hazardous to cross. Yet the commissioners have decided to include it in the riding of Kootenay West. These people are only seven miles away from the city of Grand Forks. Christina Lake was at one time a resort. Now it is one of the better places in which to live in Canada, as is most of the area that I represent. Many people from all over Canada come to live there. Even a relative of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) lives there. These are the type of people who move in from all over Canada to live in this community. That is why it is growing so fast.
I think that more study should be devoted to this matter of excluding a community such as Christina Lake and putting it into the riding of Kootenay West, and also including in the riding a community such as Merritt which is closely connected with the city of Kamloops.
I know this has not been an easy task and I would not like to see any of these representations upset the designation given by the commissioners because, as I said at the outset, it is not at all easy to designate ridings in this type of mountainous area. When you consider any interior riding such as mine, with a population which is so much greater than ridings in the great metropolis of Vancouver, you realize that there is an inequality there and that to represent these people properly we must have more seats in the area.
I agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) when he says we are not overjoyed at receiving five new seats in British Columbia. All we received were five new seats in British Columbia. When you compare that with ridings in other areas of Canada such as in the Atlantic provinces, in Quebec, and in many parts of Ontario, you find that we are not getting our just due in British Columbia. More seats should have been given to us. When I look at the redistribution in Ontario I see that ridings in the south and central area of Ontario have a smaller population than some of the great spread-out ridings in British Columbia. I do not understand why we should not get more seats.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. It being 9.20 p.m., pursuant to the order made this day, the debate on the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of British Columbia is adjourned. Shall I call it ten o'clock? This would need unanimous consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, Alberta comes next.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that five or six minutes are left in the debate on British Columbia redistribution and I think hon. members would like to speak for a few minutes on that subject.

March 11, 1976
Electoral Boundaries


Jean-Jacques Blais: What is wrong with Alberta?


Steve Eugene Paproski: It will be next.


Jean-Jacques Blais: He is finished.


Steve Eugene Paproski: No, he still has two or three minutes left. He still has four minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I must remind the hon. member that the order states that the debate with respect to British Columbia should adjourn at 9:20 p.m. This is why I called the debate adjourned. Unless there is unanimous consent, we will proceed to the next objection.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe each province under this redistribution is to have 40 minutes. There are still three minutes left of the 40 minute period, and the hon. member could be given three minutes before we commence the Alberta objection.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The order says 9:20 p.m. I think upon consent of the House we could permit three or four minutes; but simply to make sure the order is understood, it spoke of 9:20 p.m. and not 40 minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us agree and not use up the three or four minutes on this point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it agreed that the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) shall have three or four more minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the very brief time I have I should like to make only two points, and that will take about all the time I have.
One can hardly be too critical of redistribution which in a sense does what I suggested it should do, which is to create two Kootenay and two Okanagan seats, as it was historically. However, an examination of the map shows that it has not really solved some of the problems which existed previously. The large size of Okanagan-Kootenay has been a difficulty to overcome, for any hon. member representing that area, and yet if we look at the proposed Kootenay East, it reaches into north Okanagan on the one end and west Kootenay on the other, and carries for whoever represents it in the future parliament the same difficulties which exist in Okanagan-Kootenay today.
The distances will be tremendous, and if one looks at the Okanagan side of it one sees that north Okanagan has been divided three ways, whereas it was divided two ways before. The Shuswap Sicamous area has been included with Kamloops. It is a great reaching over for that area, so I hope the redistribution commission will consider what it has done because it could have been done differently if the Kootenays hhd been regarded as Kootenays and given two seats. If the whole Okanagan had been treated as a unit and divided into two, a more sensible redistribution would have been made.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The House will now proceed to the consideration of the objection to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Alberta.


OBJECTION TO COMMISSION'S REPORT RESPECTING ALBERTA
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, as we move eastward into the province of Alberta I think even the most solidly entrenched member of parliament would agree that the process whereby riding boundaries are regularly re-evaluated is desirable and necessary in order to ensure adequate representation to fast growing ares and to reflect the experience of those who have been elected to represent a given district. Accepting as we do the necessity, and indeed, the value of redistribution, changes in the province of Alberta must be made with a minimum of major surgery on constituency boundaries except where we must repair anomalies which were introduced in prior redistributions. With respect, I find that some changes in the electoral map which the commission has proposed this time are unacceptable.
As the commission should be aware, the provisions of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act permit certain considerations to influence the delineation of each riding, namely, special geographical considerations, including particularly the sparsity, density or relative rate of growth of various regions of the province, the accessibility of such regions or the shape and size thereof, and any special community or diversity of interests of the inhabitants of various regions of the province.
The tolerance of 25 per cent in either direction from the established quota for each province was written into the act to benefit rural areas. This was much discussed at the time of the last distribution. I know a number of my colleagues will be bringing this point up again tonight. This is to allow rural constituencies to retain their distinctive character and to continue to exist within a representable framework even if, as a result, their population is substantially on the low side of the deviation permitted. I contend that in some respect the commission has ignored these provisions and the intent of the framers of the act.
With specific reference to my riding of Wetaskiwin I cannot comprehend why the commission found it more reasonable to carve out the commuter area south west of Edmonton and move it into the Yellowhead riding. Surely the commuter towns of Spruce Grove, Stony Plain and Winterburn-and the acreages which are adjacent-should not have been taken out of Wetaskiwin because they have much more in common with the suburban area communities of Devon, Leduc and New Sarepta, the demographic interests of which are more urban oriented than that of the large area of Yellowhead where the primary occupations are lumbering, mining, tourism, and agriculture.
Stony Plain, Spruce Grove and Winterburn are situated in an agricultural area dominated principally by hobby and dairy farms, a characteristic similar to that of the Leduc-Devon area. Wetaskiwin is made up of a rich agricultural area with largely a preponderance of dairy farming and other cereal crop farming. It is surrounded by large towns which service that area, along with the commuter area which is south and west of Edmonton.
March 11, 1976

Growth and growth patterns come into this picture as well. The towns of Spruce Grove, Stony Plain, Devon and Leduc have all experienced rapid growth which has virtually doubled their populations over the past few years. Without becoming urbanized these communities will more and more attract light mobile industry which does not need to be located within the city, but which does need to be close to its facilities and transport routes. The employees of these industries, as well as those who commute to and from Edmonton, have special needs and interests. These individuals, along with the specialized farmers, constitute the two readily identifiable and not incompatible populations of the riding. To extract a large group of persons, some 6,000, from this territory and place them in a constituency where the terrain, working pattern and orientation are totally dissimilar to the riding in which they are presently located is contrary to the sense, spirit and letter of the act.
The accomplishment of what has been done is to make Yellowhead riding 71,000 people and the Wetaskiwin riding 64,900 instead of the reverse as it was on the pre-public hearing map of Wetaskiwin, which was 71,700, and the Yellowhead riding 64,044. In our motion in section 8 we suggest that the commission has not established the rationale of the decision to limit the urban city ridings at the boundary limits of the cities of Edmonton and Calgary in order to eliminate a possible urban domination of the adjacent rural populations. It then immediately reversed itself in its designation of adjacent constituencies where the rural populations are entirely dominated by those of suburban communities, the demographic interests of which are solely urban orientated.
The commission decided to limit the urban city ridings at the boundary limits of the cities of Edmonton and Calgary. How can it then justify its delineation of boundaries where, quite obviously, the rural population will be entirely dominated by the suburban communities whose democratic interests are wholly urban orientated? Again I must refer to the Wetaskiwin-Yellowhead situation. The density of the urban-orientated population concentrated in the commuter towns of Spruce Grove, Stony Plain and Winterburn and surrounding acreage, is not comparable to the population dispersal in the farmland and national park area to the west of this region. There is a disparity, and the denser populated region will almost certainly be the dominating influence in the proposed Yellowhead riding.
The situation in which any member representing Yellowhead constituency will find himself cannot be overlooked in the examination of the proposed electoral boundaries. It is entirely conceivable that this individual will be placed in a position where he cannot adequately pursue and forward the interests of agriculture, natural resources, tourism, and the urban commuters in the eastern part of his constituency. The emphasis attached to tourism and the urgency of the development of our natural resources may well overshadow the concerns of the Edmonton oriented suburban group.
Indeed the issues and problems of Jasper National Park and the town of Jasper alone are quite complex. The interests and goals of individuals living in the present Rocky Mountain constituency are peculiar to that area
Electoral Boundaries
alone and demand the full and individual attention of their member of parliament. Will that member be able to represent adequately the divergent interests of the socio-economic composition of both the eastern and western parts of the proposed electoral district?
Since the electoral system is for the primary benefit of the electorate, constituency boundaries must be easily defined and readily identifiable by the constituency population. Riding units should be cohesive and possess as great a common community interest as possible, recognizing working patterns, marketing areas, and demographic factors.
A constituency deserves and should expect the close attention of its member; by this I mean his intimate knowledge of its communities, people, and particular problems, and his regular personal contact throughout that riding. Rural areas generally have been deprived of representation equal to that of urban areas simply because of the distance factor. Because of the increasing difficulty involved in representing a rural constituency, in particular the distance a representative must travel, it is reasonable to expect a rural riding to have a smaller population than an urban riding which is much easier to service.
In the case of the change being made to the Wetaskiwin and Yellowhead constituencies I submit that it would be much easier for the member from Wetaskiwin to serve some 6,000 people living in the commuter towns just outside of Edmonton. The member for Yellowhead, who already has a riding almost three times the size, would be much freer to serve his much larger, more sparsely settled riding than at present. The fact that the urban-orientated area has now entered into a slower expansion era and must now catch up with services such as sewer, water, health and recreational facilities, should not concern the commissioners with regard to projected growth in the area.
Even though the river is a natural boundary, the fifth meridian that was used prior to public hearings adequately divides the commuter area from the other demographic region. This area is used to being in the constituency of Wetaskiwin; it has been there for the past ten years.
I must complain about the fact that no reasons were given for the change from the pre-public hearings to the after public hearings maps. The people in the area extracted from Wetaskiwin and placed in Yellowhead constituency were extremely surprised by the move. They submitted no briefs to the public hearings because they were satisfied with the original delineation. In fact I believe that only one brief was submitted from that area and it was in support of the boundaries as they were then drawn.
I must voice my frustration, and the frustration of some of my colleagues, with the fact that the commissioners did not cite reasons for making changes. The whole burden for launching an attack lies upon the shoulders of the general populace of the area, the members of parliament, and interested organizations. The commissioners in turn never are required to justify their decisions. How are individuals supposed to understand why they have suddenly, for no seemingly apparent reason, been pulled out of one constituency and thrust into another?
At the present time Alberta has 19 seats in the House of Commons, seven of which are totally urban and 12 of

March 11, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
which are rural. With the new proposed boundaries the province will gain two seats. The urban-rural breakdown will be ten to 11. In other words one rural constituency will be lost, therefore making all rural ridings larger than at present. While we recognize that a reasonable effort has been made to delineate boundaries on the east-west line rather than on the pattern as it was before on the north-south boundary, making the riding of Rocky Mountain House very large and hard to represent, we must still complain to the commissioners about the size of the rural constituencies.
I realize that the task of the commission is an extremely difficult one. It is no simple matter to undertake to draw lines on maps, and regardless of where the boundaries are drawn some people will, of course, complain. Admittedly many of the inadequacies of the last redistribution have been rectified. However, I must in conclusion re-emphasize that we now have something new in Alberta since the distribution of 1961, and that is the commuter acreage areas around the two large cities of Edmonton and Calgary. This recent development was taken into consideration and recognized when the boundaries were drawn on the pre-hearing map. The riding of Pembina encompassed the commuter population to the north and east of Edmonton, and Wetaskiwin the towns to the south and west of Edmonton. In the recent map, for unknown reasons, this has been changed.
The danger of dominance of thicker density populated areas over more sparsely populated regions should not be underestimated in deciding upon boundary lines. This can and will create very real and serious problems for constituents and members of parliament. We must recommend in all sincerity that the commission reflect upon these objections and recommendations and reconsider its decision.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, as an opening comment in this debate about the new proposals for the Alberta redistribution of federal seats I should like to say it is really much better than the previous attempt in 1973. Of course that one never became operative. This one is much better for my Medicine Hat federal riding.
I would go on to say that, if the only criteria for change were to increase both area and population, then the new proposal that we are discussing tonight for my Medicine Hat riding is both fair and proper as it accomplishes this with the least disruption. It extends the northwest corner and the north side to include the town of Brooks and Bassano and those areas up to the Red Deer River.
I agree with point No. 5 on the objection's statement, which reads:
The commission has failed to take into consideration the size of some of the rural constituencies it has created, and the difficulty involved in representing an area that large. Although Alberta's representation has increased from 19 to 21, three of these go to Kdmonton and Calgary, so that rural Alberta loses one seat.
I suggest sincerely that the 25 per cent variation rule has not been used sufficiently in large, rural constituencies such as Medicine Hat. I am well aware of the principle of representation by population and the specific reference to this principle in the Canada Gazette edition of February 21, 1973, outlining Alberta's federal redistribution and later

references for Alberta. However, I seriously ask this question: is it right and proper that Calgary and Edmonton, with 52 per cent of our provincial population-that figure was used in the proposal-should have almost as many seats as all the remaining cities and towns and, most important, the entire rural areas combined? My answer of course is that the proposed new electoral boundaries are inequitable and ignore the well founded and continuing importance of agriculture and of rural cities, towns, and villages, to our total Alberta economy.
There is now reasonable agreement by governments that the present trends to large super cities should be altered in favour of population and industry dispersal policies. I cannot argue that the "rep-by-pop" principle is unfair when population only is considered; but in view of static or even shrinking rural populations over vast areas we must surely recognize that crowded city living is not in itself justification for over representation in our large cities. Our shrinking rural populations have been due to a vastly increased size of farms brought on by modern agricultural technology and the need for production efficiency. There are now clear signs that the exodus from rural areas may be ending, and in Alberta new provincial policies are being introduced to point out once more that rural industry and living should indeed be considered and encouraged.
The question of enlarging the number of seats in our House of Commons has now achieved some reality. Passage of time and Canadian population growth will make still further enlargement necessary. When this point in our history does arrive I, for one, sincerely hope that these lessons in economic and political disparity, together with the development of our north, will not be sacrificed completely to the cold analytical approach of a purely academic "rep-by-pop" system.
While I have been a member of parliament for only three and a half years I am already acutely aware of the physical problems in properly representing the Medicine Hat federal constituency. It is almost 300 miles by road from Empress, in the northeast corner, to the opposite corner on the U.S. border southwest of Lethbridge. One half of the present population resides in Medicine Hat and Redcliff. The other half includes all the remaining towns and rural residents. With the obvious requirements for House attendance, regular weekend constituency visits are impossible. Travelling schedules from Ottawa to Medicine Hat are such that it takes me much longer to travel from Calgary to my home than from Ottawa to Calgary. A Friday afternoon to Monday noon week end away from Ottawa nets me only about 24 hours in my constituency. I have partially resolved this problem with a constituency office in the city of Medicine Hat. It is run by a very competent secretary five days a week. The proposed new Medicine Hat boundaries will still further aggravate these physical problems, due to a larger area and a larger proportion of the population coming from rural towns and strictly rural areas.
May I make some appropriate comments about the new areas to be added to my riding? I am genuinely pleased to see the addition to my riding to the intensive irrigation districts adjacent to Brooks and Bassano. These regions are surely among the most extensively developed irrigation communities in Alberta, which of course means in all

Canada. This means that my Medicine Hat riding would include nearly all of the intensive irrigation areas of Alberta and, therefore, of Canada. The beautiful towns of Brooks and Bassano are really the products of 70 years of progressive irrigation. The growth of trees, orchards, lawns and shrubs is a joy to behold after one has travelled across the dry land prairies.
I would be remiss in my duty if I did not refer to the new addition across the north side of Medicine Hat riding, that area adjacent to the Red Deer river, east to the Saskatchewan border. This addition contains some of the finest ranch lands in Alberta's short grass, chinook country. It also contains the historic and scenic Dinosaur Park and Bad Lands along the Red Deer River. I also point out that the well known Suffield military reserve of some 1,000 square miles, about which I have been so concerned this last month, will now be totally within Medicine Hat riding.
While I am deeply disturbed and concerned about the physical aspects of representing an ever increasing rural constituency, and although I worry about the dwindling voice of agriculture in this parliament, I am genuinely pleased at the prospect of representing these new additions to my Medicine Hat riding.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this occasion to place before the House and government a proposal to honour the memory of a great citizen and chief magistrate of Edmonton, the late William Hawrelak.


Mr. Andre:: A Grit.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: And a great Canadian.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is the desire of large numbers of citizens of the community to which Bill Hawrelak devoted himself that his memory should be preserved in a tangible and appropriate manner. I am therefore proposing, with the support of a great many citizens of Edmonton, regardless of political affiliation, that Edmonton Centre riding be named Edmonton Hawrelak, in order to perpetuate the service and the memory of this great Canadian who did so much for the citizens of this community.
Bill Hawrelak came from the Ukrainian community of Alberta. He was a son of one of those numerous families who came from the Ukraine in search of freedom. Bill grew up in the farm community of Wassel, Alberta, northeast of Edmonton, and came to Edmonton where he entered municipal politics, finally becoming mayor, and serving for many years. The modern city of Edmonton is Bill Hawrelak's monument. His monument lies also in the hearts of the various groups to whom he dedicated himself so unstintingly. I feel that in giving Bill Hawrelak's name to this riding in the city of Edmonton a well merited action would be taken to perpetuate his work and his service to his community, his province, and his country. I am hopeful that this proposal from this community will be given to the proper authorities for implementation. I am certain that it will receive a wide cross-section of support, regardless of political affiliation or racial descent. Bill Hawrelak was a man who put people first and I am deeply convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Edmonton Centre and, indeed, the entire community, would be deeply appreciative of this action.
Electoral Boundaries


Jean-Jacques Blais: What's the angle?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about calling the constituency Edmonton-Paproski?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would move that the constituency be renamed Edmonton-Paproski, I would second the motion.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What about calling Winnipeg North Centre Winnipeg-Knowles?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this debate is one step in what has turned out to be a very long process of arriving at new maps for redistributing the electoral districts of Canada from which the members of this House are elected.
The House of course knows that according to the old act the redistribution was to occur as soon as practicable after the 1971 census. This procedure caused new maps to be presented early in 1973, which was in the midst of the term of a minority government. I think it is fair to say that in addition to the reasons given, namely, that the previous act was not truly satisfactory, the fact that with a minority government an election could occur at almost any time had a lot to do with causing members of the House to respond favourably to the suggestion that redistribution be set aside and that a new method be found for deciding upon the electoral districts in the provinces of Canada.
I might say that in terms of my own constituency of Calgary Centre the 1973 map was not that great. It was not that suitable. Basically, it was cutting off one third of the existing constituency of Calgary Centre and adding the equivalent amount of population and geography from other constituencies, but in a manner which dissected existing communities and associated people together who really did not have a common community of interest.
As a result of this decision to set aside redistribution, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections was presented with a reference from the House and a proposal from the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) on how a new House might be constituted and how the electoral district maps might be decided upon.
I might say in passing that that proposal for deciding upon the basis of the new House did not meet with my approval for the simple reason that it called for an increase in the size of the House. I do not think that would contribute to more efficient conduct of the House of Commons or of the Government of Canada.
As a result of a process of debate and discussion this new procedure was decided upon. It was very similar, except for the number of seats allocated per province, to the old procedure in that an "independent commission" was to be established in each province with a mandate for deciding upon the electoral districts within each province, based roughly on the concept that each electoral district should have an equal number of electors within it.
There were a couple of changes made. One change in particular was unfortunate. The change was that the commissions could no longer take into account trends but rather should be restricted to the data available from the

March 11, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
most recent biennial census. As a result of that we had a situation in Alberta where the constituencies very rigorously followed the act, as is most proper, and therefore the commission cannot be faulted, but that resulted in some anomalies that, although not severe now, will be severe in the near future because of growth patterns within the existing cities. One possible consequence was talked about by my colleague, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schelienberger).
As I understand the commissions will have the benefit of this debate, I must state that the commission in the province of Alberta produced a map in 1975 that was a considerable improvement over the map produced in 1973. It was not perfection, and that is a subjective thing, but it was nonetheless a considerable improvement.
There were a few things in association with Calgary Centre to which we took exception. This was with regard to where the boundaries cut through existing communities. As a result of our feelings on this we made representation to the commission. I am pleased to say the commission accepted the recommendations we made. I suppose I feel that way because they did, but nonetheless I think it demostrates the responsiveness of the Alberta commission to reasonable suggestions. Therefore they should be applauded. Consequently in terms of the last issue of maps produced in January, in terms of my constituency and the city of Calgary in general, the map meets with the approval of the members and the people of the city, at least as far as I can see.
In the last minute before ten o'clock I wish to acknowledge the problem raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), respecting the inability of our existing system to acknowledge the need for regional representation. This would acknowledge the fact that somehow there is a difference in terms of population within densely populated cities and within rural areas. Somehow that should be reflected in our system. That problem, and the fact that the committee of the House of Commons when looking at redistribution the last time overlooked this, constitute something that is unfortunate. One never knows the schedule of this House, but I hope that sometime in the not too distant future this House will address itself to the question of how we can provide representation in the House of Commons that is fair and equitable, taking into consideration regions, areas, remoteness from existing communications, travel centres, Ottawa, and so on.
I see that it is now ten o'clock. I merely want to repeat that in my opinion the commission for Alberta, given the existing act, has done a very credible job. I have to voice my approval of that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, the debate on the objection to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Alberta is adjourned.



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

Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, it is not often one gets to speak twice in a matter of half an hour,
The only way that small secondary industry is going to get ahead in Canada is if it receives the support in many cases of the federal government. An article in the March 6, 1976, edition of the Financial Post states that imports are strangling Canadian secondary industry. It is no wonder. A case in point was brought out by my question of December 12, 1975, when I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), and I quote:
Because of the comparative advantage we enjoy in the ceramics industry in Canada-
I am not so sure we can maintain this advantage if the government keeps acting in the manner it did with regard to the Calgary airport contract.
-will the minister, together with the Minister of Supply and Services and Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, assure this industry that government contracts will specify the use of available Canadian ceramic products and that we will not follow the practice followed in the case of the new Calgary airport?
The minister replied that the government observes some broad rules-and I emphasize the word broad-in connection with Canadian materials. He continued:
I do not know if they apply in the particular case in question, or to a specific tendering operation, but I will look into the matter.
The case I am referring to concerned the letting of tenders for ceramic tile for the new airport at Calgary. The specifications stated a Canadian tile should be used. Canadian tile and German tile were tested by the Alberta Research Council; both were deficient in some areas, but the German tile had more deficiencies. Then it was brought to the attention of the government that the specifications were more stringent than Canadian government specifications board standard No. 75-GP-1B. Subsequently, the tenders were issued on the revised specifications to which Canadian tile could subscribe. Tenders were submitted; Frontenac Tile and International Brick and Tile, both Canadian companies, and a Germany company submitted quotations, and International Brick and Tile was the lowest Canadian bid.
The architect stated he wanted German tile because he was familiar with it and would guarantee it. But the Research Council of Alberta had done extensive study and tests on Alberta tile, and had in fact helped set up the process and kilns and was prepared to stand behind it. The province of Alberta's minister of transport was prepared to give assurances as to the ability to deliver on time and would give written guarantees. Federal people on site
March 11, 1976

seemed satisfied at the time. However, after all these assurances the government gave the contract to a German company and based its decision on the uncertainty of deliverability. Unreal, Mr. Speaker!
I can only say that I hope that after the minister looks into this situation he will see that this does not happen again. International Brick and Tile now is making pottery and is intending to sell its tile kiln as it cannot get the reputation needed to break into local markets. The ceramic industry in Canada is viable and competitive, but it is just getting started and needs the kind of help that government can give it by awarding contracts for this type of tile to Canadian owned companies whenever possible, even if the process is a little more complicated.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be pleased to know that we have advised the Calgary project office to revise the specification to a Canadian government specifications board standard which had been developed in conjunction with Canadian industry. However, as it was too late to issue that change before tenders closed, the general contract was awarded but the contractor was instructed to obtain quotations on the revised specification and specifically to invite tenders from two Canadian manufacturers who had questioned the specification.
In the re-tendering, International Brick and Tile of Edmonton submitted an identical price to that of Darling-ton-Haskins and Company of Vancouver, the original low bidder who was supplying a tile manufactured in Germany. Both companies were asked to supply test reports to show that they could meet the CGBS standards. The Dar-lington-Haskins test exceeded the specification while International Brick and Tile were not able to furnish test reports. This company, Mr. Speaker, was in the process of developing a tile and had not yet produced one which would meet the standards. We have been in contact with them since, and as of October they still did not have satisfactory test results to show us. Therefore the contractor was authorized, on June 30, to place an order with Darlington-Haskins and Company for the supply of quarry tile in the interest of permitting the job to remain on schedule.
As a result of the above, its associated problems and other objectives of the ministry, the following actions are taking place. First, as a participant on the interdepartmental policy committee for the Government of Canada master specifications we are formulating a uniform course of action with all five member departments, Public Works, National Defence, Industry, Trade and Commerce, Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Transport with respect to both Treasury Board's policy and guidelines on contracting, and Ministry of Transport contract regulations on the use of Canadian products.
Second, the implementation of the use of the master specification for projects within the regions is at a high degree of achievement. An integral part of the master specifications is the standards which are set by the Canadian government specification board, which includes ceramic tile.
Adjournment Debate
Finally, it is now mandatory for all consultants engaged by the Ministry of Transport to use the master specification exclusively.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-POSSIBLE CLOSURE OF BASES IN NOVA SCOTIA-REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCIAL AUTHORITIES
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions in the last couple of weeks, and indeed over the last number of years, I have found myself raising in this Chamber what I consider to be serious questions with respect to programs of base consolidation and closure.
This evening I find myself at it again because rumours continue to flourish with respect to bases at Moncton, Chatham, the airborne regiment at Namao, part of base Calgary, London, my own base at Shearwater and Dartmouth-


An hon. Member:: Winnipeg.


J. Michael Forrestall: Winnipeg will not do too badly from what I gather, because they are going to move the research station from Medicine Hat over to Winnipeg. That is decentralization a la Winnipeg Richardson.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: When there was a fire at Greenwood, for example, the people at the base there, businessmen in the surrounding community, went into Halifax, sat down in the premier's office, called the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) and forced him to give a clear undertaking that nothing would happen to Greenwood. That is fine for Greenwood. But what do we do at Shearwater? Do we burn down the gymnasium? Do we burn down half of Dartmouth and then get on the phone to ask for some assurance that this base will not be so seriously disrupted in a precipitous way that the civilian employees and the surrounding economy will suffer unduly?
I have asked the government, if it insists on going ahead with widespread closures, to establish an interdepartmental committee within the cabinet which would take into account the sociology of the question, the background of the civilians concerned. I have pointed out that these men are, by the government's own definition, technology redundant people, people who would not in most cases have more than a 20 per cent opportunity of ever regaining permanent employment.
We need an interdepartmental committee, on top of which must be a cabinet committee, which would look at the sociological and economic impact of these moves, which would consider the relocation and retraining of those people with some humane concern. I find myself speaking here this evening because at the root of all this is clearly the avowed intention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to reduce the Canadian armed forces to a level below which they cannot posture as a defence force but merely as a para-military police force functioning in aid of the civil power. That is not good enough.

March 11, 1976
Adjournment Debate
So that my words of wisdom will fall clearly on all ears let me repeat them. When I first came to this Chamber ten or 11 years ago the armed forces had their share of the gross national product. They played their part in the ability of the country to grow. We maintained an adequate posture in the eyes of our neighbours to the south and our allies in Europe. We were able to play a meaningful part in collective continental defence and elsewhere. This had an influence on our export trade. We had good will, in other words. We were treated at a high level in respect of need to know. Ten years later we have lost access to partnership on a need to know basis.
Our Prime Minister is being told to put up or shut up. I find it offensive that anyone would have to speak that way to my Prime Minister. I would remind the members of this Chamber of that. These are matters of concern. I suggest that they are emphasized by the continuing rumours. We understand it is the clear intention of the Department of National Defence to submit to its minister, and subsequently to cabinet, a list of recommendations that will include not only the bases I have mentioned but possibly seven or eight more. These closures or consolidations will affect some 7,000 or 8,000 civilian employees, their wives and families, and the communities in which they live. We should not do this lightly. I wonder whether tonight we might hear more about when this report will be presented to the minister, when it will go to the cabinet, and what generally is the attitude of the government in respect of handling this very serious and important departmental report.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) said a few moments ago, it is not too often one has an opportunity to speak twice in this Chamber during a short period of time.
I was beginning to wonder whether the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) had a question or was merely making a speech. In any event I will try to meet some of the issues he raised. I must say I agree with him that most of the questions I have heard the hon. member put in the House are serious questions. I certainly understand his concern with regard to Shearwater and Greenwood. I would, however, like to try to correct a couple of misrepresentations of fact he made which I am
sure he did not make intentionally. Certainly the Premier of Nova Scotia did not have to force out of my minister a statement concerning the future status of Greenwood.


J. Michael Forrestall: Read the Halifax Herald.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I did read the Halifax Herald, but that is not necessarily the most credible voice in the country either. The situation of course is that the minister is endeavouring to use the budget of the department as wisely and efficiently as he possibly can. It is a well known fact that the armed forces have a very large overhead, so to speak, or infrastructure.
I must take issue with the hon. member's contention that it is the intention of our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to reduce our armed forces to a paramilitary force. That, of course, is patent nonsense. We have undoubtedly the most professional armed forces in the world today. We have one of the most efficient forces in the world. The fact is that the minister has asked within his department for a review of the infrastructure of the armed forces. He now has the report of the group that carried out the study. He is working on it at the present time. It has not been presented to cabinet and therefore no decisions have been made with regard to the closure of any base, the phase out or the reduction of any base to this date. There may well be some.
The hon. member's statement that seven or eight bases would be closed is probably a gross exaggeration. The statement that 7,000 or 8,000 employees would lose their jobs is also probably an exaggeration. The hon. member also suggested that an interdepartmental committee be established to look into the economic and social effects of this kind of government action on the communities involved. I want to tell the hon. member that such a committee exists. It was set up in the fall of 1974 or the spring of 1975, at my request to the Prime Minister after the closing of a military base in my constituency was announced.
In summary let me say that no decision has been made to close, reduce, or alter any base in the country. The minister has made no recommendations to cabinet to date, and therefore no decision can be made until cabinet considers the minister's recommendation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:17 p.m.

Friday, March 12, 1976