1976-12-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43 which, as usual, speaks for itself. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House express its immediate concern about and opposition to the method of dealing with the Canadian people through the present federal-provincial first ministers' conference which, without a specific mandate or constitutional authority and without open discussion, is engaged in carving up the Canadian taxpayers for the benefit of the participants.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 cannot be presented to the House without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[Translation\


SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF TOXICOLOGY CENTRE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that for the first time in Canada federal inspectors have had to withdraw meat from the market due to the presence of antibiotic residues; considering that such substances could be harmful to the health of Canadian consumers whom the government is compelled to protect, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That, through the Department of National Health and Welfare, the House enjoin the government to accede to the important requests made by the Quebec order of veterinarians, to wit, the acceleration of programs to detect antibiotic residues in food and the early establishment of a toxicology centre to ensure more adequate control over medicine and residues in food.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity to the House.
Since 300 homes in Elliot Lake, Ontario, have unacceptable levels of radioactive contamination, thereby exposing workers who already work in the uranium mines to an extra level of radiation, and since Atomic Energy Control Board is applying only Port Hope standards for measuring unsafe exposures, thereby making the findings inaccurate, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources instruct AECB to institute a special standard for measuring radioactive exposure for residents of Elliot Lake.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the questions raised about the situation in the administration of Loto Canada yesterday and some of the problems which never

December 14, 1976
Oral Questions
have been explained about the Olympic Lottery and the criteria used to recruit people for Loto Canada, and since reports of the RCMP investigations into the Olympic Lottery have never been made public, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Solicitor General appear before a suitable parliamentary committee as early as possible in the new year to explain and, hopefully, reassure members that there is no cause for concern in the operations of this Crown agency and in the meantime take under advisement the possibility of holding an inquiry into the obvious irregularities associated with Loto Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such motion. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are experiencing continuing difficulty with the operation of the clocks in the House. We are trying to have the clocks fixed. In the meantime, I shall try to inform hon. members of the correct time as we proceed through the question period. It is now approximately 2.13 p.m.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I would ask the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce if he will take time to interview Mr. Jean P. Dion of Loto Canada and the officials of Gestion Janita Management Ltd., as well as the officials of Sandiford Sound & Signal Ltd., so that he may be apprised of the circumstances involved in the letter signed by Mr. Dion relating to the payment of a commission to him which I assume the minister has now seen? Also, I would ask if the minister or anyone can confirm that Mr. Dion has now been suspended from his regular duties and that the RCMP carried out raids in reference to this matter yesterday?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the question as notice for the time being.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Here is the minister now.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has just come into the chamber, may I repeat my question to him. Will the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce take time to

interview Mr. Jean D. Dion of Loto Canada and the officials of Gestion Janita Management Limited as well as the officials of Sandiford Sound and Signal Limited so that he may be apprised of the circumstances involved in the letter signed by Mr. Dion relating to the payment of a commission to him, which I assume the minister now has seen? Can the minister also confirm that Mr. Dion has been suspended from his regular duties and that the RCMP carried out raids with reference to this matter yesterday?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Dion-I did not want to mention his name, but the hon. member took the initiative to reveal it-has been suspended and the RCMP has been working on that case for six weeks. I talked with the president of Loto Canada and nobody ever informed him of any of those problems. The RCMP is investigating the matter. So I would not want to judge its decision beforehand.


REGULATIONS GOVERNING CONFLICT OF INTEREST SITUATIONS FOR EMPLOYEES
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. I would like to ask him now what sort of declaration, if any, do Loto Canada employees have to sign, or enter into, in connection with their employment to ensure exclusivity, confidentiality and a prohibition against conflict of interest situations being allowed to exist, as we have seen in Stats-Can recently?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, Loto Canada officials are subject to the same rules concerning conflicts of interest as are all Canadian government employees.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a brief supplementary to the Acting Solicitor General. Have inquiries been made as to what investigations have taken place into the threats against William Sandiford and John C. Newton and their families which may relate to the Loto Canada matter about which I spoke yesterday and whether any police protection has been or is being provided?


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to take notice of the question.
December 14, 1976


LOTO CANADA
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Because of the fact the chairman of Loto Canada, Mr. Cousineau, could not assure me during last June's Miscellaneous Estimates Committee that substantial operational changes in the transition from the Olympic lottery to Loto Canada would be made, even while RCMP investigations continued to take place into the matter, can the minister explain to this House why the irregularities within the federal government's lotteries are permitted to continue and what does the minister intend to do to rectify the obvious problems being encountered?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what irregularities the hon. member is talking about. If he is referring to the problem raised by the hon. member for Central Nova, all I can say is that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is investigating this matter and that I should not like to anticipate its findings. If the hon. member has precise questions to ask concerning the operations of Loto Canada, he should let me have them so that I may refer them to the chairman of Loto Canada who has stated his willingness to appear at any time before the committee to explain his activities.


REQUEST THAT ANNUAL REPORT BE REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, if the minister would care to read the reports of the miscellaneous estimates committee in which we outlined all the problems, he would know what I was talking about. Pursuant to the commitment given to the members of the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee last June, can the minister now assure the House that the annual report of Loto Canada as well as all pertinent documents pertaining to the operations will be brought forward with as much expedience as possible and referred to the appropriate committee for study in order that questions asked in June to which answers were not received will be now brought forward.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have said that when the time comes for the committee to study votes, Loto Canada officials will be delighted to appear and testify. That is a commitment I have made to the committee and I intend to live up to it.
1977
Oral Questions


ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the recent findings by the Atomic Energy Control Board in Elliot Lake that over 300 homes show unacceptable levels of radiation contamination and that 14 homes have to undergo remedial treatment, and in view of the fact that the standards used by AECB when testing homes for radiation contamination are the same as those used in Port Hope and other areas across Canada and do not take into account the fact that the residents of homes in Elliot Lake are already exposed to radiation in their place of work, would the minister instruct the AECB to set special standards for the examination of residences in Elliot Lake?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member raises a very good point. I believe, as he does, that the situation should be looked at in quite a different way than it is in Port Hope, because these miners are subject to radioactivity below ground. Clearly, there could be a cumulative effect if they were also to be subject to radioactivity in their houses. For that reason, both the AECB and the provincial government will be meeting very shortly-I am told before the end of the year and perhaps even before Christmas-to try to work out the criteria which should apply in this situation.


SUGGESTED INCREASE IN BUDGET TO PERMIT PROPER DISCHARGE OF RESPONSIBILITIES
Reginald Cyril Symes: I welcome that initiative by the ministry. In view of the fact that these conditions existed for many years before we realized the seriousness of the situation, and in view of the testimony of Mr. Prince, the President of AECB, before the Senate Science Policy Committee that the board does not have sufficient money to do its job properly and that the situation in Elliot Lake is a result of underfunding and understaffing, will the minister urge his cabinet colleagues to allocate adequate budgets to the AECB so that appropriate examination can take place not only in Elliot Lake but in other communities in Canada as well?


Alastair William Gillespie: I can assure the hon. gentleman that my cabinet colleagues are fully aware of this situation and of the urgent need to clean it up. There is more than one department of government involved. The Department of Labour is another department which is very much involved in this whole question.

December 14, 1976
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON PAYMENT OF COST OF DEALING WITH HOMES CONTAMINATED BY RADIATION
Reginald Cyril Symes: In view of the fact that the government is now paying for any remedial action which has to be taken in these homes, I wonder if the minister can assure residents of Elliot Lake and elsewhere that the policy of paying for corrective action will continue to be followed by the government. What is the attitude of the minister toward residents in Port Hope and elsewhere who are finding difficulty selling their homes because of the existence of radiation contamination? Is there to be any offer of government assistance in terms of compensation to these residents?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely complex and difficult question, as the hon. member will appreciate. He knows the situation in Elliot Lake. He knows that most of the houses which have been found to contain radiation above normal limits are houses which have been built not upon any waste fill but on ordinary rock. The radon concentration is a result, not of any act of man, but from the presence of radioactivity in the rock itself. The question then is: should the Government of Canada now assume responsibility for cleaning up a situation for which it had no responsibility in the first place?
The second point I wish to emphasize is this: we will not delay introducing the clean-up measures while we argue about whose responsibility it is. We have not done this in Port Hope and we will not do it in Elliot Lake. We will, of course, go to the companies in Elliot Lake, particularly those companies which own property, and we shall certainly say to them that we expect them to pay for the clean-up of their property.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Last Friday I asked the minister whether he had been in touch with any new ministers of the new Quebec government concerning the general agreement that had been signed in March 1976, the minister answered that he would be in touch with them in the next few days. Could he indicate to the House today whether he has anything new to report, whether he did get in touch with the Quebec ministers and whether the latter submitted specific projects within this general agreement and whether they are progressing in a normal fashion?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House and the hon. member that I did meet last Saturday the Quebec Minister of Justice, Mr. Bedard, and yesterday the Minister of Industry and Commerce, Mr. Tremblay, in Montreal. During these two meetings we reconsidered some files and priorities.

We agreed to maintain some priorities that had already been identified by the previous government. I hope that within the next few weeks, both federal and provincial officials will meet to implement these agreements.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary.
I thank the minister for his very specific answer and using his words, I would ask him whether in setting the mechanism in action he has in mind a very specific project affecting the south shore area. I would very much like that the area be set in regular action.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the concerns of the hon. member for Bellechasse, and I can assure him that I will bring them to the attention not only of my department officials but also to the attention of the provincial government, as well as the needs of the people of the St. Lawrence south shore.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister shed some light on questions that I asked Mr. Cousineau, chairman of Loto Canada, during a miscellaneous estimates committee meeting on June 14, 1976, at which time Mr. Cousineau had been appointed for approximately one week and did not have the answers to our questions. Did the government accept the organization of the Olympic lottery, and to what extent was that organization integrated into Loto Canada? What organizational guidelines were established to avoid the difficulties which so often beset lotteries?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think Loto Canada has interviewed all the Olympic lottery employees, and all those deemed qualified to hold positions with Loto Canada have been hired as it should, since they had developed expertise in this field. Mr. Cousineau assured me he has taken all necessary precautions relating to the incident mentioned previously. However, I find it totally incredible that the RCMP had been making investigations for six weeks without Mr. Cousineau, the chairman of Loto Canada, having been informed about it, while the information gathered by the RCMP was in the hands of opposition members.
December 14, 1976


PROPOSED INVESTIGATION OF OPERATION
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister cause the same type of inquiry to be made into Loto Canada's operations as he has recently had into the operations of Statistics Canada, an inquiry he initially resisted, to ascertain whether all operations of Loto Canada are entirely in order according to the guidelines he has just outlined?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I promised to send the annual report of Loto Canada, when it is published, to the committee for study, and I intend to stick to that promise. I do not know when it will be ready, but when it is Mr. Cousineau and I will be very happy to have hon. members ask all the questions they want.


MANPOWER
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. As Dr. Murphy of the conference board stated yesterday that the outlook is for continuing high unemployment rates, and as the May budget forecast that the Canadian economy would produce 250,000 new jobs in 1976 yet we find only 100,000 new jobs were created between December last year and November this year, would the minister now concede that the budget forecast will not be met, and can he provide a new estimate for the House, now there are only two weeks to go this year, as to how many jobs will be created this year and what is his forecast for 1977?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on predictions made by one of my colleagues. We are doing in our portfolios all we can to find jobs for Canadians who are unemployed. We have announced the $100 million increase in the LIP program, and some $350 million next year for direct job creation. I think this is my responsibility, and that is where I intend to place my emphasis.


MEASURES TO STIMULATE ECONOMY AND CREATE JOBS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and it follows from his answer. As it is clear that the May budget has generated at least $1 billion in excess personal income tax revenue which in turn is a drag on our rather sluggish economy, will the minister indicate whether he has made any representations to the Minister of Finance suggesting there should be a tax cut, particularly for those in the lower income bracket, in the hope that such a tax break
Oral Questions
would reignite economic activity and create the needed jobs through greater consumer confidence and spending?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the recommendations I have made to my colleague are to the effect that he must keep in mind constantly the fact that we have the twin problems of inflation and unemployment, and when he is directing his mind to the new budget both must be given equal priority.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-USE OF MONEY RETURNED BY CONSTITUENCY ADVISORY GROUPS
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the shortness of time involved in the announcement of additional money for LIP programs, and in view of the stringent regulations placed on additional money, will the Minister of Manpower and Immigration tell us what he is going to do with the millions of dollars that may be turned back by the CAG committee?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it would be my hope that there will be some initiative shown in various areas so the money will not in fact have to be turned back. If it is turned back and the hon. member cannot find use for it in his riding, I have all kinds of representations from other ridings.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact the Minister of Justice has made statements in reference to the reintroducing of Bill C-83 in a form similar to that which was produced last session, which was received with public wrath such as no other piece of legislation, is the minister still going to introduce legislation to abolish the giving of 90-days' notice as prescribed by Section 178.23 dealing with the law of privacy as prescribed by the Criminal Code of Canada?


Mr. Horner:: After the election, not before.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly if I took the advice of the hon. member for Crowfoot I might wait until after the election when I would be introducing it with a great deal more support than I have now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You won't be around, Ron.


Stanley Ronald Basford: It is my intention to introduce legislation on this subject. With regard to the specific proposal by the hon. member for Calgary North, I have indicated to him privately that I am examining the provisions relating to wiretapping to
80005-571/2

December 14, 1976
Oral Questions
determine whether there should be any changes in the amendments.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister takes some of our advice in the committee. Without going into detail, there are many reports in various provinces of wiretapping being used and abused in reference to communications between solicitors and clients, and also in reference to innocent people. Will the minister not now change his opinion in reference to the repeal of this notice section so that the civil rights of the average person in Canada are not usurped under the guise of criminal investigation and general criminal law administration?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, in reference to the alleged abuses to which the hon. member refers, there have been incidents which have received considerable attention in Manitoba, Ontario and elsewhere. They have prevailed and occurred under the existing law which, of course, provides for notice, so the notice provision the hon. member is talking about is obviously not the device to prevent these alleged abuses. The Solicitor General and myself have been reviewing these particular cases. We are preparing guidelines for the use of our officers, and, as I have indicated to the hon. member and to the public, I am looking at the privacy provisions of the Criminal Code relating to privileged communications.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister not admit that if there are abuses under the law as it now stands, there would be greater abuses if notice is done away with altogether?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Trinity.


CUSTOMS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue, and it concerns the amendment to tariff item 69605-1, removing customs exemption for "scientific preparations" unless used for research. Does the amendment mean that products used by hospitals, such as laboratory chemicals, X-ray contrast media, diagnostic products and drug preparations, will become dutiable whether made in Canada or not, and if so, was the effect on hospital costs considered in arriving at that decision?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister might be invited to answer that in some other way.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that employees of the Bell Telephone Company have been without a contract now for over a year, in view of the fact that Bell was granted a rate increase last year which made allowance for an increase in labour costs and none of that money has been paid out, and in view of the fact that the whole matter was in the hands of a conciliation commissioner until December 2 and that the report from the commissioner is due this Friday, can the minister assure this House that the report will be handed in on time and that there will not be an exemption of the conciliation period, which so far has only allowed Bell to escape its bargaining responsibility?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to assure the hon. member unequivocally that there will not have to be a few days tacked on for the production of the commissioner's report. As I understand it, the commissioner enjoys the confidence of both parties. He is a very able commissioner. What we are primarily interested in at this particular time is a good report, which is in the interests of the Bell telephone workers, but certainly I do not want any further delays, any more than the hon. member does.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that last year the Canadian Transport Commission granted Bell Telephone an increase in rates which allowed for about $80 million in increased wages and salaries and that that company has not yet spent one nickel of that money on its telecommunications employees, will the minister assure the House that no further rate increases will be considered by the CRTC until such time as Bell has provided it with audited statements showing its financial position over the last year?
Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): No, Mr. Speaker. I have no authority over the decisions of the CRTC, but I would like to take notice of the question.
December 14, 1976


INFORMATION
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader. It being over two months since government undertook to lay its proposals for freedom of information before the House and seven months since the then government House leader stated that legislative proposals were being drafted with some priority, will the government House leader put these proposals before the House prior to the Christmas recess?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think they will be forthcoming before the Christmas recess, but they will be forthcoming in the New Year. The subject matter of the question is still under consideration by the cabinet, but I hope we will be making a major step forward in the field of freedom of information by authorizing the televising of the proceedings of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Taking into consideration the morass of hidden documents and the deception which has become apparent in this government over the last period of time, and that the people of Canada are now demanding a workable law, will the government not indicate its intentions in this regard and when it does intend to move?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe the hon. member mistakes his own voice for the voice of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: That is going to come back to haunt you.


Mr. Clark:: We will remember that one.


INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCES CONCERNING PROGRAMS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State in charge of Fitness and Amateur Sport.
In reply to a question I put to the minister on October 27 last, she told us that, in December, she would launch a series of meetings with her provincial counterparts and that she would let us know the schedule of those meetings. Is the minister in a position to tell us today whether that round of meetings with her provincial opposite numbers has started, and what her schedule is, which we have yet to be advised of?
Oral Questions


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that the meetings will commence during the third week of January and will continue until February 4, and I will at that time be informing the hon. gentleman of the undertakings which will be made.


AMOUNT TO BE DEVOTED TO AMATEUR SPORT PROGRAM
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
I should like to ask the minister, who also confirmed to me in answer to another question that her department was now in the process of formulating an amateur sport policy, the implementation of which would normally entail additional funds, whether she can tell us what additional funds will be allotted to the application of a real amateur sport policy in this country?


Iona Campagnolo: In answer to the hon. gentleman's question, I know he will be pleased to know that 5 per cent of the Loto Canada funds will be coming to fitness and amateur sport for use in new projects we will be undertaking in the New Year.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the hon. gentleman received a reply from the United States government to his note requesting a moratorium on the construction of the Lonetree diversion in connection with the Garrison dam project, and if so, will he table that reply, as he did his own memorandum?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker. To this moment there has been no official reply from the United States government to the note which I tabled in the House. I have no way of knowing the reason for the delay. I have asked that inquiries be made. I suspect the delay may be to some degree involved with the transition which is taking place there with regard to the new administration.
As for tabling the note, I see nothing wrong with that in principle, and when it arrives, I will be glad to consider it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the fact that the Lonetree diversion construction is proceeding and the passage of time makes the matter increasingly urgent, could the hon. gentleman make

December 14, 1976
Oral Questions
further inquiries to see if we could at least get an interim response?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: As I indicated a moment ago, I have already done that, and I will let the House and the hon. member know when I get a report from Washington.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, of which my office gave his office notice last week. My question arises from the fact that last summer the Foreign Investment Review Agency did not even bother to rule on an application by John B. Stetson Canada Limited to buy Biltmore Hats of Guelph. In view of the fact that FIRA knew that the offer to purchase Biltmore Hats was subject to a deadline, can the minister tell the House why FIRA did not get around to making a decision on the application during the 103 days between the time the take-over application was filed and the date on which the offer to purchase expired, despite the fact that that negligence could have damaging effects upon the jobs of the workers at Biltmore Hats?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I read articles on this matter and sought information from the Foreign Investment Review Agency. I am told that as of September 1, 1976, the Foreign Investment Review Agency had not received from the applicant the information required to make a decision on this matter, yet the agreement was expiring on August 31, 1976. Under the circumstances, I was told that, as they did not have all the required information, it was impossible to act more expeditiously and that it was the applicant himself who did not act rapidly enough.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The application was first filed on May 21.
In light of the description of FIRA's involvement in this incident by the president of Biltmore Hats as "bungling" and "an unbelievable lack of action," will the minister undertake to look into FIRA's activities to ensure that in future the agency does not prevent acquisitions which are in the national interest because of its tardiness in considering applications placed before it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, since my appointment as minister, I instructed the Foreign Investment Review Agency to act as rapidly as possible. I hope I will be able to submit to the House the administrative decisions which will greatly shorten the delay for I realize the problems which may result. But in

the case of Stetson, according to the information I have, on September 1 the Foreign Investment Review Agency had not received all the explanations and the information needed to make a decision and Stetson withdrew its application on October 1.


HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It concerns the report of a study done at Northwestern General Hospital in Toronto by his department which showed a high incidence of industrial accidents caused by operator carelessness. Would the minister collaborate with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to study this report with a view to determining what relationship, if any, exists between accidents due to carelessness and job satisfaction?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the report was the result of a pilot study done at the Northwestern General Hospital. Regrettably, the report did not contain, among other things, a gesture of thanks to the hon. member who was principally responsible for urging that a report be made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: However, I would say that the principal purpose of the report was to institute studies under the Hazardous Products Act, and it was only as a by-product of this study that some evidence of industrial accidents was discovered. I certainly look forward to discussing the matter with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but meanwhile I thank the hon. member for her help.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBILITY OF CHANGES IN TEXTILE IMPORT QUOTA POLICY
Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister now prepared to advise the House what specific changes, if any, he proposes to make to the textile import quota policy in order to relieve the hardships and inequities imposed on small importers and retailers which were drawn to the attention of the minister's parliamentary secretary in the House on December 6?
December 14, 1976


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I reviewed this problem last night. I must ask further questions of my officials and before the end of this week I hope to be able to make a statement related to this issue or to publish a press release. However, we must also understand that if we bring too many changes to our policy we are going to ruin our original policy, according to which it is important that our country give Canadian industry a wide enough range for it to flourish, otherwise we are going to have even more unemployment. I hope to be able to announce administrative changes which will take into consideration some difficult cases, but of course Canadian importers must understand that in the future they will have to go back to 1975 import levels, because if we keep the same levels as in 1976 that will spell the early demise of the Canadian textile industry.


TEXTILE IMPORT QUOTAS-REQUEST FOR RELIEF FOR SPECIALTY SHOPS-LONG-TERM POLICY FOR TEXTILE INDUSTRY
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since the recent move alluded to by the hon. member for Regina East has created hardship for certain sectors of the clothing industry, namely, the high fashion industry and specialty shops, will there will be relief for these groups and when will this relief be forthcoming?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I intend to make some announcement on that before the end of the week, if I can, but I have to inform hon. members that, as I said to the hon. member for Regina East, if we cope with all those requests, it will mean that the policy we enunciated ten days ago will not be effective. While it is important to make sure that there is enough room in Canada for the Canadian textile industry, one need not be too worried about those $200 blouses that some are preoccupied with.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I have one final supplementary question. Since it appears certain that there will be shortages in some lines of clothing at the retail level because of the inability of the Canadian garment industry to keep up with the demand which will be created, what does the government intend to do about the inevitable price increases which will surely occur, and also, does this whole question not lead up to the fact that the Canadian textile industry needs some longterm policy decisions and long-term planning which it has not had up to this point?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The long-term policy we have developed is to assure the textile industry in Canada of a market in this country.


An hon. Member:: What about your tie?
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is a perfectly good Canadian tie. What strikes me is that the opposition cannot make up its mind about any policy on anything. They want to be on both sides of the street all the time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In his reply to a question put to him yesterday by the Leader of Her Canadian Majesty's Loyal Opposition on the matter of the presence in Canada of Mr. Daniau and Mr. Rossillon, the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated, as reported at page 1912 of Hansard, that he would be more forthcoming-


An hon. Member:: Here comes Pierre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: I wish to thank hon. members for their applause.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: I had not realized that my designation of the Leader of Her Canadian Majesty's Loyal Opposition would be received with such favour. However, the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated yesterday, as I was in the process of saying, that he would be more forthcoming on the matter of the presence in Canada of these two gentlemen after, as he said, he has had a chance to secure more information. Is the minister now ready and willing to be more forthcoming?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I did as I undertook to do yesterday and made some further inquiries. To the best of my knowledge, and as a result of the information I have been able to obtain, I find that the two gentlemen in question were in Canada last month entirely legally, and there is no suggestion of any improper conduct on their part. Subsequently, this morning I was advised that the French government indicated within the past 24 hours that neither of the gentlemen concerned had any mandate to act officially or in any other way on behalf of the government of France. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not propose to make any representations or to discuss the matter formally with the French representative in Ottawa.

December 14, 1976
Oral Questions


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON RESULTS OF FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I appreciate that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.


Charles Joseph Clark: I appreciate that applause, even though I have not said anything to Charlie Lynch.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question is to the Prime Minister who has just come into the House. In view of the tremendous importance that we all attach to the first ministers' conference which has just ended, will the Prime Minister make a statement today on motions at three o'clock to inform the House of the outcome of that conference and the decisions that have been reached?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I had not planned to make a statement. I had hoped to be in time to answer every and any question that was asked, but in view of the late termination of the conference I am prepared to do whatever the opposition wishes and to make a statement-


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the opposition wanting to form the government without having to ask the people-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -but we on this side are prepared for the time being to discharge our duties. If the opposition is really unanimous about having a statement made, I will make it at three o'clock. I will just return to my office and get some figures which are relevant.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House obviously cannot have it both ways. There are less than ten minutes left in the question period. It might be well for the House to continue to occupy itself with other matters and have the Prime Minister make a statement on motions. This is certainly preferable to attempting to compress questions into the few minutes remaining. That might be the best practice to be followed. Of course, the usual procedures would prevail; that is, a statement by a representative of each of the opposition parties would follow. Then, there would be a period of questioning the Prime Minister to continue at the discretion of the Chair.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the minister's musings about the role of our forces in Europe, has he any knowledge of the increasing probability that NATO forces could face an intense war of two or three weeks preceded by only a few days' warning, rather than the longer duration of both phases that has characterized military strategy up to now?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize. I could not hear the hon. member's question because of all the darn talking around here.


An hon. Member:: It is from your side.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that the minister is complaining about the talking around him. The hon. member for Dauphin.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's return and his musings about the role of our forces in Europe, has the minister any knowledge of the increasing probability that military circles consider that NATO forces could face an intense war of two or three weeks preceded by only a few days' warning-


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. The talking is still going on.


William Gordon Ritchie: -rather than the longer duration of the phases that has characterized military strategy in the past? Will there be further changes in the Canadian make-up?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I find the question a very complex one, to talk about the future make-up of Canadian forces. Naturally, as Minister of National Defence, I look at the whole broad picture. I am sorry if I missed the essence of the hon. member's question but there is still too much talking around me.


William Gordon Ritchie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate as a result of his visit to Europe whether the NATO forces would face a much more intense and immediate war from the Warsaw pact forces than was anticipated in the past?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is a very broad one. If he wants me to give an indication of what I see as the nature of our defence tasks, I would be happy to do that but it would encompass much more than I could put into an answer to a question in the House today.

December 14, 1976


POST OFFICE
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that a freeze has been put on additional postal walks in cities all over Canada for some time now and there are many large new suburban areas without postal walks and thousands of families in many cities have to go downtown to the post office to get their mail, can the minister advise the House if there is going to be an end to the freeze and additional postal walks or is it the intention to continue this policy?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I have to inform the hon. gentleman that the Speech from the Throne indicated a freeze on the total manpower allocation available to the whole public service. As the hon. member knows, the post office is a government department and is subject to the same freeze as other departments.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Post Office Department can find funds for automated equipment when they do not have an agreement with their employees on technological change but they cannot find money for adequate postal walks, would the minister take up the matter of a change in policy and priorities with his cabinet colleagues? We worry as much or more about delivering the mail as we do about sorting it.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, both delivery and sortation are of primary importance in the post office. I should like to indicate to the hon. gentleman that the decision on mechanization was made some time ago and has nothing to do with the question of manpower allocation.


FISHERIES
Mr.   Albert@: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of State responsible for Fisheries and the Environment.
Does the minister intend to change the regulations governing seal hunting for the next season? If so, could he summarize its content and does he plan to publish these regulations in the near future?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, there will be a meeting of the advisory committee on seal hunting tomorrow in Ottawa with officials who were present at the recent ICNAF conference in Spain. I hope that after the meeting I will be in a position to advise fishermen, including those in the gulf, of the quotas and conditions of seal hunting for the next season.
Oral Questions HEALTH


ALLEGED CONTENT OF ANTIBIOTICS IN FOOD IN QUEBEC- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister tell the House whether he soon intends to deal with the requests made by the Professional Corporation of Veterinary Surgeons of the Province of Quebec concerning the establishment of a toxicology centre and the accelerated programs for detecting the content of antibiotics in food such as those found last week by federal inspectors?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to study further the proposal referred to by the hon. member. We should inquire whether this matter is under provincial or federal responsibility. If it is under my responsibility, I can assure the hon. member that I shall consider the proposal very seriously as soon as possible.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is responsible for Statistics Canada.
In view of the answer given to my question by his predecessor last June about the specific guidelines relating to the dismissal of 39 Canadians from Statistics Canada as a result of a work reduction, can the minister tell the House whether those positions remained closed or whether they have been filled by other civil servants with the same qualifications and coming from other divisions? Can the minister also tell us whether the number of employees is the same today as before these dismissals?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am told that the positions have been closed and that no other civil servants were hired to replace those people alluded to by the hon. member.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and I apologize that I was not able to give notice of it because he has been very co-operative. My question concerns
1986

Oral Questions
the millions of dollars which Canadian taxpayers have invested-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order. A question is being put to one of the ministers.


Robert Jardine McCleave: My question arises out of the fact that millions of dollars have been invested by Canadian taxpayers in mortgages through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in my constituency, more particularly at Lower Sack-ville in the Quaker Crescent-Polara Drive area. Since homes there are now threatened by landslides and the lives of children are threatened by a man-created trap, namely, a 16-foot deep excavation in clay, may I ask if CMHC would do what it can to protect the interests of the public from the slap-happy excavating operations of Seaport Construction Co. Ltd. and the J. W. Lindsay Co. Ltd. in building a shopping centre which CMHC never approved?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to check the hon. member's remarks and try to follow it up if possible.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who is responsible for national parks. Will the minister place the recent rent increases imposed on housing within the national parks of British Columbia before the B.C. rentals man for adjudication, as these rates seem to be well in excess of the rate of rent increases allowed for any other landlord in that province?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will give consideration to that suggestion.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on behalf of my colleague from St. John's East who is attending a conference on urban planning in Montreal. A conflict arises as a result of an exchange which took place on December 10 between the hon. member for St. John's East and the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. The question asked by the hon. member for St. John's East dealt with the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon and the new approach to surveillance by the French government within our 200-mile limit which would not be complementary to our activity there.
The minister replied that discussions with the French government over fishing relations around St. Pierre and Miquelon

are going extremely well, and later he stated that we have no indication of problems in respect of fishing relations with the French community. However, on the same day, in Brussells, the Secretary of State for External Affairs reportedly stated that fishing treaties with Canada could spark a dispute within the European Economic Community. He cited the 1972 fishing treaty with France and said the French ICNAF quota could be shared among several other EEC members, a proposal which is opposed by Canada and is also resisted by some EEC countries, especially France. In light of the conflict between these two statements would the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment take this opportunity to correct the impression he left in the House on Friday?


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, this can be done quickly. Perhaps I should not have spoken of the French community, but should have spoken of the French nation. Surely there is no difficulty between ourselves and France. Perhaps in that sense I used the words "French community." However, within the European Economic Community, not the French community, there are some difficulties on the matter of their common fisheries policy. We have made it clear, and my colleague the S.S.E.A., with whom I discussed this matter during the question period confirms this view, that in the government's view the treaty with France is not a treaty with the European Economic Community.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the first ministers' federal-provincial conference which just concluded has dealt essentially with two subjects: the arrangements between provinces in fiscal areas and the broader economic situation. May I comment first on the second aspect because I will be able to do it more briefly.
The second item on the agenda had to do primarily with inflation and the control system that the federal government brought forward before Parliament and the country about a year and a few months ago, and I must say that the provinces seemed unanimous to recognize that the program had worked and should be maintained.
I must say without false modesty, Mr. Speaker, that some provinces have plainly recognized that essentially the federal government must be credited for that success, but I must also state the fact that a good part of that credit must be given to the provinces which have strongly supported the control program.
December 14, 1976

May I say also that I hope the opposition parties will now start to admit that the program was necessary for the country and that they have to give it support.


Mr. Fairweather:: That is hypocrisy with a capital "H".


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I object to the statement of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal who calls this hypocrisy.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I went through the 1974 election, too, you know.


Walter David Baker: He said it was hypocrisy with a capital "H".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Hon. members opposite want a statement, but they do not want to listen.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member was more of a gentleman; this does not seem to be the case. I simply ask him to refer to the premier of his own province and verify the facts as I have stated them. As the first item on the agenda, we discussed fiscal arrangements, and the essence of the proposal we put to the provinces bore on the problem of established programs of financing. I would add, before discussing that, that we covered a series of other subjects, notably the equalization payments, and our discussion consisted of putting before the provinces three options whereby these equalization payments would be continued by the federal government. The provinces agreed to choose one of those three options, and that is the way in which parliament would be asked to approve the continuation of these equalization schemes.
The more difficult problem concerned the financing of established programs. The essence of these proposals was to provide, since they were successful, one joint step toward decentralization in Canada. I am talking of fiscal decentralization, not administrative decentralization. I have had occasion to discuss this program, of which the House is aware, in other forums and at other times following, particularly, the first ministers' conference last spring. At that time, I believe it was in June, I put a proposal before parliament and the first ministers. In essence, point one of that proposal is that it will provide more money to the provinces than if we were to continue the present schemes as they concern hospitalization, medicare and post-secondary education.
I have some simple figures on that, Mr. Speaker. It would suffice if I said that in 1977-78, as a result of this established program financing proposal, the provinces next year will receive some $221.2 million more than if we were to continue with the present schemes. By the year 1981 they will be receiving more than $1 billion more annually, and of course the figure will continue to grow. During the negotiations we added another two tax points to the federal offer, plus a levelling of payments, with the result that next year the provinces will get some $460 million more than had been the case before we began these discussions yesterday. When I say
Federal-Provincial Conference
that there is more money for the provinces than they would get under the existing arrangements, I mean that next year they will get, as a start, some $681 million more than under the present arrangements. This amount, if it is projected five years to 1981, will be to the extent of $ 1,718 million a year.
I do not add to this sum $130 million that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has also offered them under extended health care proposals. The provinces have asked for some more weeks to consider whether they will accept that or not. However, they have all accepted these established program financing schemes. I repeat, the effect of it will be some $681 million more next year to the provinces.
The advantage of this scheme is that there will be greater equality between the provinces due to the fact that up until now shared cost programs meant that the federal government was giving 50 cent dollars to the provinces. After they spent 50 cents to get our 50 cents, they were permitted to do certain things in the areas of hospitalization, medicare, post-secondary education, and so on. The advantage of these programs is that even the less wealthy provinces, which sometimes could not match this 50 cents with the federal government, will now receive the money regardless of what they themselves spend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They will receive it on a per capita basis, regardless of what they spend. Half of it will be paid by way of tax points. This will total some 13'A tax points which the provinces will now be able to levy, painlessly, if I can describe it that way, by the fact that we will make that room by withdrawing to that extent from the present tax field. These tax points will be equalized to the average value in Canada as the equalization calculations are made.
The other half will be paid in cash on a per capita basis. This tax allowance will grow year after year on a three-year moving average based on gross national expenditure. It will also be equalized so that all provinces receive the same amount per capita, regardless, once again, of their tax base and particular wealth. These arrangements also provide greater flexibility to the provinces in the use of their own funds. There will only be very general conditions attached to the payment of these funds. The House knows the type and conditions to which I allude. For example, in medicare it will be the general conditions of transportability, universality, and so on.
The provinces will no longer have to submit their accounting to the federal government, or submit to a detailed set of rules as they have been up until now under, for example, hospitalization insurance. This will also mean there will be greater stability in the arrangements, since the provinces will be receiving fixed and known tax points and variable cash amounts but predictable based on the moving gross national expenditure. Therefore, the provinces and the federal government will have a much greater budgeting predictability. I might add that because we will no longer have to ask for detailed audit records from the provinces on how they spent
80005-58%

December 14, 1976
Federal-Provincial Conference
the funds in the previously shared-cost fields, there will be much simpler administration of the programs.
That is the essence of the established program of financing schemes. It will have the great advantage of us now being allowed to bring before parliament a system of assisting the provinces in the health area and in the area of post-secondary education. The system which will have all of these advantages will permit us to go to this scheme even in the area of hospital insurance. The House knows that the Hospitalization Insurance Act is due to expire in 1980. However, the provinces have now agreed to come into the operation of this scheme, even with hospital insurance, in the next fiscal year beginning in 1977.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe I have covered the main aspects of this discussion of the past few days. There are a great number of details and I will not burden the House with them. I will gladly answer questions on the various subjects that might interest the opposition parties. If that is a good enough base for the opposition to ask questions, I will merely sum up the conference to repeat that we have taken a giant step forward in decentralizing fiscal arrangements in Canada, an arrangement which is consistent with the repeated expression of the wish by the provinces to have greater autonomy in the administration of their programs and greater room in which to levy their own taxes.
This is a further step forward in the application of the belief that both the federal government and the provinces should be free to tax to fulfil their own needs. We are departing from previous regimes where the federal government was doing most of the taxing and the provinces were receiving the money to spend. We are returning ever more closely to the principles of fiscal responsibility whereby the taxing authority is also the spending authority. By transferring to the provinces these 13 Vi tax points, there will be a great transfer of the taxing authority to the provinces. We believe this is consistent not only with the wish of the provinces but in the direction in which the federal government has been going in the past several years.
I would merely add that there is a limit to the rule that can be followed in this regard. That limit is due, of course, to the fact that all provinces and all regions in Canada are not equally wealthy. As long as we are the government, we will consider it our duty to retain a sufficiently large section of the tax field so that we can make equalization payments to the provinces and transfer funds, as it were, from the richer to the poorer regions of Canada. In order to do this, of course, we must keep sufficient tax room for the federal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss MacDonald:: Mr. Speaker, while 1 have not had an opportunity to analyse all the fiscal details just revealed to the House by the Prime Minister, to determine whether or not they will benefit or be detrimental to the provinces or to the

federal government, and while I particularly noted the omission from his remarks of any reference to the revenue guarantee, it is the process by which these decisions were arrived at, and not the particulars, to which I wish to make reference. The Prime Minister's statement has revealed, once again, that given the will and the determination, Canadian federalism works.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The machinery may be creaky, the process may involve considerable tension and frustration, the eventual settlements may leave none of the partners fully satisfied; but federalism does produce something all the partners can live with until the next round of negotiations. To paraphrase Churchill's well-known remark about democracy, it is the worst of systems except for all possible alternatives.
The latest round of negotiations has shown a recognition of this essential fact on the part of both the provincial and the federal governments. The provinces were the first to recognize the necessity of accommodation. For the first time, they were able to reconcile their diverse particular goals-initial goals ranging from Ontario's desire for the transfer of 20 tax points to the desire of some of the less wealthy provinces to maintain an all-cash payments system-into a common provincial position they could all support.
The federal government was slow to respond to this example of accommodation and at various times in the past month, even as late as yesterday afternoon, it appeared to be taking a position that the maintenance of confederation was not worth a single tax point. The Minister of Finance earlier this month, and the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon, seemed prepared to call into question the effectiveness of our federal system in order to achieve a $215 million saving-the value of a single tax point-in compensation to the provinces in lieu of the revenue guarantee.
I am pleased the federal government has pulled back from the brink of such folly. I welcome its last-minute recognition that accommodation is the essence of the process in which we are engaged. The rigidity which the Prime Minister has displayed in the past has been extremely dangerous to the concept of federalism. I trust that while defending the legitimate interests of the national government, he and his colleagues will act on the basis of acceptance of the reality of Canadian federalism in the future.
But while the abandonment of folly is the cause for relief, it is no ground for congratulation. I say this because the government came very close, dangerously close, to handing the new government of Quebec exhibit A in the case it is amassing against federalism. The federal government was set on a course which would have enabled the advocates of separatism to say that our system of federal-provincial accommodation was bankrupt, that its inevitable products were deadlock and confrontation, and that the interests of the various levels of government could never be reconciled as part of national solutions acceptable both to the individual partners and to the nation.
December 14, 1976

All of us who sit in this House know how false a picture that is of the reality of Canadian federalism. We appreciate that the tension of honest disagreement may be a creative force as well as a frustrating obstacle to consensus. Equally, we all appreciate, I hope, that the government of Quebec will take every opportunity to add substance to its own particular analysis of our federal system. These people want to show that the break-up of that system is already a fact-that they have simply been the first to recognize that reality, and that the division of the country is the logical and inevitable next step.
It is vital that all of us in Canadian political life lay new emphasis on the fact that our system, despite its imperfections, does work. It is incumbent on all those in positions of power who share this view to see to it that the system is seen to be working. Once again, we have seen that system work. But in the process, the reluctance, the hesitation of the federal gover-nemnt to recognize its legitimate role added needless strains to federalism and raised doubts about its viability. I commend those responsible at the federal level for finally playing the role which they are duty-bound to play. I am concerned that they took so long to grasp their duty.
In the drama of conflicting goals which is a necessary reality of federal-provincial negotiations, it is only too easy for players and spectators to lose sight of the fact that the essence of the game is not to achieve victories for one side at the expense of the other but to reach a viable accommodation through which both levels can pool their powers and resources to benefit the people they ultimately represent. Between them, the federal and provincial governments have all the legislative power necessary to undertake any task they can agree upon. Federalism is the process through which they maximize their capacity to serve our people. This is too vital a responsibility to pursue frivolously or in an adversary spirit. That is obvious common sense. Now, more then ever, is the time to preach that common sense, in word and in deed. May we have more such preaching by example?


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House appreciates the Prime Minister coming from a very exhausting conference and making a statement in the House today regarding the proceedings of that conference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is unfortunate that it was not possible for us to get a copy of the statement he was going to make, but I can quite understand that this would not have been practicable because of the shortness of time. I am sure members will have ample opportunity to ask the Prime Minister questions, and I hope the right hon. gentleman will table documents giving full details of the fiscal arrangements which have been made between the federal government and the governments of the respective provinces.
The Prime Minister divided the agenda of the conference into two parts. First, he dealt with the area of economics and began, with becoming modesty, by saying that all the prov-
Federal-Provincial Conference
inces were agreed as to the success of the controls which were imposed by the government a year ago last October. He did not add, of course, that some of the provinces have already announced that they do not intend to renew their agreement with respect to the controls. So it would appear that their conviction as to the value of the controls did not go very far. The Prime Minster said he hoped this would convince the opposition parties of the value of these controls. I want to say that as far as this party is concerned, we have never objected to an incomes policy. What we objected to was an incomes policy which was weighted almost entirely against people who work for wages and salaries, while allowing the corporate and professional groups to get off comparatively scot-free. That situation has not been rectified, and until it has we will continue to oppose a system that is both unjust and inequitable.
I was surprised that the Prime Minister said nothing about what I would have thought would have been two very important matters at a federal-provincial conference. The first is unemployment. Was that not discussed? Did the federal government not put forward any plans? Did it tell the provincial premiers what it was going to do about Work Canada and what kind of program the government will undertake this winter to put unemployed people to work? Was that passed by as a relatively unimportant subject?
Were there no discussions with respect to energy? This country, whether it knows it or not, is heading for a precipice when it comes to energy supply. The provinces, particularly those provinces that produce the energy resources, have a very just complaint about how they have been dealt with by the federal government. Were no steps taken at the conference to resolve the problems of the energy producing provinces and to work out a fair accommodation between them and the federal treasury? Nothing was said about that. It would be very interesting for us to find that out during the next few weeks.
The second part of the Prime Minister's statement had to do with fiscal arrangements. He made no mention of the revenue guarantee provisions which have been giving a good deal of concern to the provinces. I hope we will get some further elucidation on that matter, if not from the Prime Minister, at least from the Minister of Finance. With reference to an equalization formula, the Prime Minister said that three options had been placed before the provinces. It would have been useful if the Prime Minister had told us what the three options were, but I am sure he will do that in answer to any questions which are asked following the statements by the various parties.
The Prime Minister said that one of the steps taken at the conference was to introduce a greater measure of financial decentralization. There is a considerable amount of merit in financial decentralization, just as there ought to be a good deal of merit in flexibility in a federal system with respect to preserving the culture, traditions and languages of the founding races of this country. One of the reasons fiscal decentrali-

Federal-Provincial Conference
ration is necessary is that under the agreements entered into- and they were very good agreements in the main-the provinces were paid a percentage of a stipulated sum of money for a specific purpose. Sometimes that money was paid for a service which was already adequate but the province could not spend the money on some other service which was inadequate. Therefore, the idea of flexibility is something that is necessary and which we support.
The danger, Mr. Speaker, is that when we introduce flexibility and fiscal decentralization, we must not lose sight of two basic principles: the first is that the provinces must be assured of sufficient revenue to discharge the responsibilities which have been allocated to them. That is why, for instance, we objected so strenuously to the government's proposal that the contributions to medical and hospital insurance and postsecondary education should be tied to the gross national product, because there is no relationship whatever. In 1975 the gross national product rose less than 1 per cent, but the cost of providing health services rose by 16 per cent. How could the provinces discharge their responsibilities in a situation like that? The other rigid principle which must be adhered to in any financial decentralization is to see to it that the principle of making available to every citizen of Canada, irrespective of where he or she may live, an equal standard of services is applied. I am still not satisfied from the statement we have had from the Prime Minister that these aims are going to be fulfilled.
The Prime Minister said the government is going to give the provinces some 13'/2 percentage points, but it is only going to equalize those to the average for Canada. I think the provinces have been asking for a long time, quite justly, that it should be equalized to the two top provinces. I think that would be much fairer. The danger with tax points is that if revenue drops drastically, the federal government has other sources of revenue on which it can call to meet the situation, but the provinces that depend on these tax points will still have to provide services even though their revenues are either standing still or declining. So I think we can say of this conference that every member of this House, irrespective of party, hopes that its outcome will mean a strengthening of the bonds of confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We want to hold this country together, but it is not going to be held together by rhetoric, by confrontation or by debate between the head of the Canadian government and the heads of provincial governments. In the main, Canada will be held together if the people in the respective provinces feel that they are getting fair and just treatment and that there is equality of treatment for all sections of this country.
I want to remind the House that we have moved a long way since the report of the Rowell-Sirois commission. That was the first charter of provincial rights and services for the people of Canada which was written in this country. That commission, which sat for several years in this city and produced what I

think is a monumental report, laid down principles which I urge the government and the House, as well as the provincial governments, not to forget, namely, that every Canadian, no matter where he or she lives, no matter their race, colour or religion, should be entitled to the same level of services with respect to health and education and their general welfare.
I submit that we should examine the proposals which are coming out of this conference in light of that basic principle laid down by the Rowell-Sirois commission. Because if we are not able to adhere to those principles, then instead of having strengthened confederation we will have weakened it.


Mr. Beaudoin:: Mr. Speaker, first I thank the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for coming in this House and giving the results of that important federal-provincial conference. I think that the first step was made, as the Prime Minister just said, towards the good understanding that the federal government wishes to establish with the provinces.
However there is a question I ask myself: If the Bourassa government had maintained itself in power in Quebec I do not know if the Prime Minister would have been so open at that first ministers' conference. I think the province of Quebec gave itself the tools needed to open a door that had to be opened. Also, I think that the Prime Minister said in his statement that from now on, and particularly from 1980, the provinces would have more taxation powers.
I think it was the wish of the Fathers of Confederation and that tax equalization, that is taxation power, should be for the most part in the hands of the provinces and that the federal government should be more favourable to it. I congratulate the Prime Minister for having said that the door should be opened "slowly". I believe the Prime Minister is right to say that, as there are poor and rich provinces. I think it would be absolutely wrong and even harmful for the federal government to open its purse too easily as it would create a precedent and would not prevent some provinces from using it to dismember Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. He made reference in his remarks to the hospital insurance plan and the agreement to have participation start on April 1. I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell us whether the agreement to that starting date was a condition required from the provinces before the government of Canada would agree to the transfer of the two tax points referred to?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, in part, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: This is really another question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would like to take the opportunity to correct an impression I think he left on the record in his earlier remarks when he suggested there would be a net gain to the provinces of some $630 million as a result of this arrangement, when in fact what happens is that the

provinces will be receiving in the neighbourhood of some $270 million less next year than they would have had the existing arrangements remained in effect. I wonder if the Prime Minister would like to take the opportunity of correcting that misimpression he left on the record?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I can say unequivocally that the Leader of the Opposition is wrong.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we can say unequivocally that the Prime Minister and I disagree, and I certainly am prepared to carry the case both in and beyond this chamber. There is one other matter I should like to raise at this point. This conference was originally called some time ago to discuss constitutional matters. It is our understanding that the question of constitutional matters was delayed to a later point on the agenda, to be reached if possible. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could tell us if there were discussions of plans relating either to the content or possible patriation, or the nature of an amending formula relating to the constitution and, if so, what was the nature of those discussions? If that was not the case, has there been a date established for a meeting of the first ministers on that question, and when will that occur?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did canvass the premiers informally on the subject. It was not on the agenda, as the House knows. I got from them what I believe to be a consensus that in this area they would want to make haste slowly, and apparently not take any immediate initiative in this regard. For that reason I did not propose a date to them for a federal-provincial conference on the constitution. I will be having further contact with the chairman of the provincial premiers, Premier Lougheed, about the possibility some time in the new year of looking at a date.


Charles Joseph Clark: One last question, Mr. Speaker. Is it, then, the position of the government of Canada that it will not be moving unilaterally on any matters relating to the constitution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did not say that, Mr. Speaker. I indicated that if we were going to have a federal-provincial conference, the dates would be discussed with the first ministers. I would certainly want to do one thing, and perhaps this means moving unilaterally in a very restricted sense: I would want to put on the record an answer to Premier Lougheed's letter of last October.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister in respect of the agreement on the two tax points in place of a revenue guarantee, and the particular apprehension that was shared by some of the poorer provinces in respect of the federal proposals. I believe there were some studies done concerning the impact that these new fiscal arrangements would have, particularly on the five eastern provinces.
I wonder whether the Prime Minister would indicate if there will be any direct shortfall to these provinces, whether the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will be expected
Federal-Provincial Conference
to enter into new arrangements to offset any economic difficulty and, in particular, whether the two tax points were considered effective in respect of these provinces when additional tax points are usually not beneficial in terms of provincial tax revenues?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the last part of the question, or remarks, I would indicate that the two tax points are to be paid, one by way of a tax point which will be equalized to the national average, and the other half-or the other tax point, as it were-will be paid in cash. These cash payments will be the equivalent, at the outset, of one tax point and will vary from year to year in the way indicated earlier.
On the general subject of revenue guarantee, Mr. Speaker, I did not touch upon it in my opening statement for the very simple reason that we have always stated in this House and outside that this revenue guarantee was for a period of five years. The provinces hoped that this guarantee program for five years would be prolonged, and it was in that sense that they were asking for four tax points. There had never been any commitment or indication that we would give that, but naturally the provinces were trying to get it. We took the view that the revenue guarantee was finished, as we have said it would be. The provinces had five years to adapt to the tax reform, and now under our system they are free to modify their taxes and increase rates as they will.
The two points that we put on the table and which the provinces accepted can be considered by them, if they wish, as a final phasing out of the revenue guarantee. We did not put it forward in that spirit, Mr. Speaker. It was a way of enriching, at least in part, the established program of financing sufficiently so that they would have no hesitation in coming into the scheme, because they would be so much better off, as I have indicated by the figures, by coming in under the scheme than by not doing so.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not totally answered my question in respect of the economic situation of the poorer provinces. Perhaps he might answer that, in addition to answering clearly whether, as a result of the settlement on these two tax points, which the Prime Minister suggested may or may not be regarded as being in place of a revenue guarantee, particularly in view of the expression of opinion by some premiers following the conference that they were still considerably short in terms of their revenue expectations from the federal government, there will be further negotiations regarding the revenue shortfall from that under the revenue guarantee which the federal government is now discontinuing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the premise of the question as stated regarding a shortfall. I repeat, the result of this conference is that the provinces, including the five easternmost ones the hon. member mentioned, are in a substantially better position than they were before. Just to refer to the established program of financing, in the case of one province, because of this program, it goes away with $40 million more next year and in five years this will be $188

December 14, 1976
Federal-Provincial Conference
million. That is in respect of Quebec. So there is no shortfall; it is benefiting from this change.
In so far as the two points are concerned, and once again to take the largest of the five easternmost provinces, it gets $ 117 million more because of these two tax points and the levelling provision. So the total in the case of that province is $160 million, at the end of a day and a half of conference, over what it had when it went into the conference. So there is no question of shortfall.
The hon. member asked questions about DREE. Of course DREE will continue to operate in the provinces of Canada under its mandate, but this will be regardless of the results of this conference. This was not a subject which was discussed. The provinces come out of this better off than before, but we still feel that there is ample room for the operations of DREE.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to put a question to the Prime Minister. Granted that the government is trying to maintain a balance between fiscal decentralization and the responsibility of the federal government to maintain equal standards across the country, may I ask if there have been any studies or projections as to what will happen to the levels of health and education in the various provinces under these new arrangements? When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is answering that question, I wonder if he would answer this one also: Is the federal government prepared, or does it stand committed, to come back into the picture if it is necessary to maintain equal standards across Canada in the fields of health and education?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is a very intricate question, and I will attempt to do justice to it as simply as possible. The very title of the program, Established Programs Financing, indicates that in mature schemes like hospital insurance, post-secondary education and medicare, we are in a sense gambling that the provinces will want to continue to be deeply involved and that they will not go back on the high standards of service which have been established over the past decade and a half in Canada in those three areas. They are established programs. They were started with shared-cost programs. We now feel that they are sufficiently established that the provinces can be trusted, as it were, to continue putting a lot of their own money into these programs, and that is why our payments by way of tax points and of cash grants lets them float free, as it were, and administer these programs without detailed federal overseeing. So there is a trust in the provinces that they will act in the way in which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre hopes; and we share that hope.
In so far as whether we can at some stage down the road correct a deteriorating situation, if such should develop the answer is yes, in part. The hon. member will realize that we tranferred tax points and cash grants. The hon. member will realize, also, that the programs are for five years, but they can be, I think, terminated with a three-year notice provided the three-year notice is not given before two years from now; that

is a more correct way of saying it. But these programs can come to an end, at which point, if some provinces are not doing their share and are just using the federal share in order to fund post-secondary education, and so on, we might want to review the situation. I say this not by way of threat but to indicate that the parliament of Canada will certainly want to look down the road some distance at whether the federal funds which are given to the provinces for these three programs are spent in a way which shows good will on the part of the provinces. That will be for the House to judge.
I repeat that there is no detailed accounting required, but the provinces will be obliged, in the area of medicare and in the other areas, to follow certain broad conditions. I mentioned affordability, universality, and so on, so that the programs can come to an end. They are not for ever. But, of course, if they are, it will mean that we would want to review our paying of cash in so far as the tax room which we have granted is concerned. Of course, there is no way in which we can get that back from the provinces. They will occupy that tax room, and that is forever in the sense that if we want to get back into that tax room we cannot do it painlessly by expecting them to withdraw as we have withdrawn today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not want to make too much of the word "gambling", which the Prime Minister used; I realize he just used it off the cuff. But when there is talk about gambling with health and education, some of us get a bit concerned. However, is it clear that if the provinces are not able to maintain equal standards of medicare, hospitalization and education across the country the federal government will recognize its responsibility and its commitment to see that those standards are maintained for all Canadians, wherever they live?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will give a very short answer. Perhaps the situation the hon. member envisages a few years down the road is correct. Perhaps it is not a gamble because we do not think the provinces will behave in the way the hypothesis of the hon. member suggests, but if somewhere down the road it appears that the provinces are not satisfying the hon. member's conception of what they should be doing-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or if they are not able to do so.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Or indeed, if they are unable to, the program can come to an end. We do not see it as being terminated by the federal government, but there is provision that with two years' notice it could come to an end, and arrangements which the hon. member might explore and find more equitable could be studied.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, given the outcome of this first ministers' conference and the concessions made to the provinces by the federal government, would the Prime Minister tell the House whether Quebec Premier Rene Levesque seemed enthusiastic about or at least satisfied with the result of this conference?
December 14, 1976


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I suggest it would be a euphemism to say that the Quebec premier had not in mind to depict federalism in a most constructive and effective light. Therefore, he said of course at the outset of the conference that it would not succeed, and at the end of the conference he said that it had been a failure, but nine other provinces said it was successful and that they agreed to the scheme we have put forward. I would even add, and this is important, that the province of Quebec itself agrees to these schemes in the area of hospitalization. This leads us to believe the province sees some advantage in them.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, considering his mood throughout the conference, before leaving could the Prime Minister tell the House whether he tried to come to an agreement with one or two provinces or a province in particular, and I am referring here to Alberta, either to place a veto or submit another formula to frustrate that conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know whether I understand the question but surely the federal government did not want the conference to fail and I do not think that the provinces had an understanding to that end. On the contrary, as I said earlier all provinces without exception accepted the financing of the established programs and consequently I suppose that they are deriving some advantage, a fact which appears to be confirmed by the figures I just gave. This prompts me to question the figures of the leader of the opposition. Had the provinces thought as he did that they were losing money, they would not have accepted those programs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In an effort to recognize a rather high level of regional interest, naturally, in the conference which is being reported by the Prime Minister here, and recognizing those who have sought to be involved in the questioning from the beginning, I think it would be appropriate to allow the following members to conclude the questioning: the hon. member for Joliette, the hon. member for Levis, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, the hon. member for York-Simcoe, the hon. member for St. John's West, the hon. member for Athabasca, and the hon. member for Moncton.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) has asked a question somewhat similar to mine, that is if the Quebec premier had accepted readily enough the government proposals. In any case, as regards the current situation of Quebec versus the federal government, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister if there is talk of reevaluating the basic fundamentals of federalism and, considering the importance of achieving and maintaining this national unity, if the Prime Minister intends honoring the wishes of the provinces and going ahead with a basic reevaluation of all aspects of our federalism by means of a federal-provincial conference?
Federal-Provincial Conference


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I must state from the start that I do not concur with the views of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) when he states that the current situation is that of Quebec versus the federal government. Unless I am mistaken, the members on this side of the House who were elected by Quebec residents maintain they represent that province in the same way as do the members elected to the provincial legislature. Then it was a question of provincial governments and the federal government striving to achieve, each at its own level, the maximum benefits for the Canadian population. The hon. member's proposal is very vague and very general. If he could be more specific, I could try to answer him. But, Mr. Speaker, I can only answer in the negative for the time being when he speaks of a general conference to reevaluate our Confederation.
We all know very well that the Quebec premier is saying right and left that his main purpose is to separate his province from the rest of the country, and achieve independence. Whereas I take for granted that it is not in the best interests of his government to try to revamp the Confederation as we know it now, if such an operation did not result in the separation of his province and it is a subject I do not wish to discuss with him for the moment.


Mr. Guay (L6vis):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet who accompanied him for the tremendous success of this conference. Therefore, in view of the success fo these discussions, would the Prime Minister be willing to consider calling it "the birthday of a new Canadian federalism"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that I am an unpretentious man and perhaps I would not dare call the conference by that name, but I did not hesitate to say in the same sense as he did that it was an impressive step towards a more decentralized constitution at the fiscal and administrative levels.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I will try my best to be as gentlemanly as I am capable of being.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The Prime Minister raised some doubts as to this. The Globe and Mail calls me "courtly"; surely the Prime Minister can do better than that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is a misprint.


An hon. Member:: "Portly".


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Both are accurate. I am interested in the question raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Perhaps it is hypothetical, but what guarantees are there that the undoubted national interest in post-secondary education will be assured? Will the country have a place, as asked for by the Minister of Finance, at what he called "the education table" in his interesting speech to the

Federal-Provincial Conference
Canadian Tax Foundation in Vancouver a couple of weeks ago? Is there any assurance that Canada has a place, which it has not had up to now, and surely must have in post-secondary education, more than just a money place?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think the question is a very important one indeed. I am informed that the Secretary of State has the assurance from the provinces that he will be invited to sit on certain agenda items at the council of education ministers of the provinces. We think that there is a recognition by the provinces of the very great interest that the federal government has in this subject beyond its monetary participation. It is not an attempt by us to assert jurisdiction but, rather, an attempt by us to discuss matters of great importance to Canada as a whole. Much in the same way as the provinces like to discuss with us tariff matters before we go to meetings of GATT-although those are clearly within federal jurisdiction-the provinces have been willing to recognize that the federal government is justified in wanting to discuss certain educational matters with them.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in his statement the Prime Minister indicated that economics in general were discussed at the conference. I wonder if the Prime Minister could elaborate on that and indicate to the House the federal government forecast, for example, with regard to the real growth in the economy in the coming year, the inflation level and the unemployment level. I say this in view of Dr. Murphy's statement in the Chateau at the same time as the conference was going on that in these three respects real growth would be a disappointing 4 per cent, unemployment would hover in the 7.5 per cent range, and inflation would be 7 per cent. Would the Prime Minister indicate his advice to the premiers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has prepared a detailed statement on the subject of the economy, but because of the shortness of time and the fact that some premiers had to leave before the day was more than half over, he did not deliver it in any detail. I believe I have a copy before me now, and if the hon. member for York-Simcoe wishes I could give him a copy of the statement of the Minister of Finance which he could read with great benefit to his economic views.


Mr. Crosbie:: Mr. Speaker, the situation about which the Prime Minister has been speaking is a very complicated one, but if I understood him correctly he said that the provinces were going to receive $460 million more than when the discussions first began-presumably that is in connection with the revenue guarantee-and they would receive $231 million more next year in established program financing in shared-cost programs, or $681 million more than under the present arrangements; but at the same time they will lose $900 million which they received this year in revenue guarantee. Would the Prime Minister agree that over-all the provinces will suffer a decrease of $219 million in their financial ability to meet these programs next year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Carnell Crosbie: May I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question? One important feature of the case the provinces made at this conference was that they wanted to have health insurance provisions and hospital insurance arrangements reviewed in 1980 because of their great concern about hospital costs, particularly in view of the ever-increasing wages and salaries of hospital workers. Has the Prime Minister agreed that this arrangement will be reviewed in 1980, so that the provinces can have an assurance they can carry on those services after 1980 if this formula is not adequate to meet their ever-increasing costs in hospital care?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The provinces, including the province of Newfoundland, have agreed that the agreements which exist now under the act which expires in 1980 would be changed so that they would come in as from now under the established program of financing.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker, my question deals with medicare. If I recall the statement by the Prime Minister, he suggested that cash contributions would continue to be conditional upon the provinces meeting broad health program conditions or the five conditions which have always applied to medicare. Since, under the new agreement, the provinces will not have to report the details of their expenditures to the federal government as they have in the past, could the Prime Minister, or perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare, outline what mechanism will be used to determine whether these conditions are being fulfilled?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, the procedures are very narrowly defined under the Standing Orders and on a ministerial statement questions can only be put to the minister making the statement, and answered only by that minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if I could answer in general terms, the conditions which have existed will continue to exist in general terms. They can be verified without any detailed accounting. Whether the programs are portable, whether they are universal, whether they have unacceptable deterrent fees, and so on, will be public knowledge. If such public knowledge indicates any province is departing from the conditions, we will have recourse because of the fact that we have cash payments which can be withheld if that province does not stick by the agreement.


Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I am not quite happy with that reply because I am not sure how one goes about determining what is public knowledge. Be that as it may, I wonder if the Prime Minister could clarify when we could expect to see legislative proposals in this chamber relative to the Medical Care Act which will be required following the ending of the agreements?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The present agreements expire at the end of March, Mr. Speaker, and we would therefore want to hasten
December 14, 1976

to pass the new legislation before April 1. Now that there has been agreement, we will proceed with drafting and bring the legislation before the House as soon as possible.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister, his colleagues and all provincial representatives-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard C. Jones: -for having concluded an agreement, apparently, of course, with some stick-handling on both sides. If these negotiations and arrangements are such a great deal for the provinces as the Prime Minister said, I should like to ask him what the real fiscal advantages, the administrative advantages and disadvantages are to the federal government and to the public generally, on a national basis.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the federal government is concerned, there are advantages. One will be greater predictability in our own budgeting. As the hon. member knows, in the past, under the shared-cost programs, we did not have much choice. It was open-ended in the sense that if some province decided to spend a great deal of money on hospitalization, we had to match that with 50-cent dollars and, therefore, could not predict from province to province what they would want to spend.
Budgeting will be much more certain now that tax points will have been transferred and the value of the money will be known from year to year based on a three-year escalating average. So there is greater certainty and much greater accounting simplicity from both the point of view of the provinces and the federal government. We will no longer have to enter upon detailed audits of the books of hospitals, school systems, university systems, the medical profession, and so on. It will be much simpler to operate. As a general advantage to the people of Canada, I would say it is a step toward a principle which I believe is recognized in our democracy, that as far as possible the government which spends should also be the government which taxes. This is a joint step in that direction.


Leonard C. Jones: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister be in a position to indicate whether any figures or estimates were made of actual savings by the federal government, if any? Also, what savings are there likely to be from any reduction of duplication of services and staff?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: May I apologize, Mr. Speaker: I was sent a note which I found too amusing to be able to read at the same time as listening to the question. It was to the effect that the press was so anxious about having an open conference that there are only four of them in the galleries now to hear the results of that conference?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard C. Jones: I did not intend my question to be that amusing, Mr. Speaker. I asked if the Prime Minister or the federal government had made any calculation as to what estimates
Constituency Records
there were of possible savings to the federal treasury, and what exactly would be the savings resulting from the slowing down or duplication of services.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a very good point, but I do not think one could give any estimate of that beyond the wildest conjecture. In the strictest possible sense, there is no saving for us because as a result of this we are putting more money in the provinces than before. But I understand the hon. member's point: the fact that the provinces will now be more responsible for administering their programs will result in savings in the medium and longer term because now they will not be spending 50-cent dollars; they will be spending one-dol-lar dollars-their own dollars. I believe the hon. member's point is well taken, that they will probably embark upon less costly or expenditure-oriented schemes. In that sense there will be a saving by all the people of Canada, but I could not give a precise figure.


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK ACT
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-384, to amend the Federal Business Development Act (corporate objects).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment to the Federal Business Development Bank Act is to encourage the development of Canada by Canadians and to ensure adequate assistance for this effort by providing financial assistance, management counselling, management training, information and advice to Canadian citizens, landed immigrants under the Immigration Act, and Canadian companies of which 51 per cent of the equity voting shares are beneficially owned by Canadians. This bill, in effect, will provide assistance and encouragement for Canadian ownership of the Canadian economy.


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

[Stage Direction]
PASSING ON OF MPs FILES RELATING TO CONSTITUENCY PROBLEMS
Paul Wyatt Dick: for leave to introduce Bill C-385, respecting the preservation and surrender of constituency records.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.

December 14, 1976
House of Commons Act


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the intent of this bill is to require members of parliament to pass on to their successors any files they possess dealing with matters relating to constituency problems. The bill, in effect, provides that a member of parliament is holding any records, documents or correspondence in trust for the constituent to whom they pertain. The bill also provides for the arbitration of disputes arising out of the operation of the act and imposes appropriate fines for non-compliance.


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

Paul Wyatt Dick: for leave to introduce Bill C-386, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the intent of this bill is to bring the practice that exists in the province of Ontario and in the province of British Columbia in regard to minors being sent to reformatories in line with the other provinces.


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

Paul Wyatt Dick: for leave to introduce Bill C-387, to amend the House of Commons Act and the Canada Elections Act (by-elections).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I know you will be pleased that this is the last bill to be introduced today. The House of Commons Act provides that in the event of a vacancy in the House of Commons occurring, a writ shall be issued within six months after receipt by the Chief Electoral Officer of the warrant for the issue of a new writ for the election of a member to the House of Commons. The Canada Elections Act provides that the governor in council shall fix the day upon which the poll shall take place. In essence, this bill would require the governor in council to call by-elections at an early time, so that the situation will not arise again where the electors of St. John's West were forced to wait one year.


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

Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting to the House of Commons a petition by a citizens' group organized in the constituency of Battle River that expresses its view on the marketing of beef and veal in Canada, with particular comment to supply-management systems and the importing of offshore beef. This petition contains in excess of 5,000 names, and the citizens' group obtained these names from British Columbia, the prairie provinces and Ontario.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 126, 287, 624, 756, 960, 990, 1,130 and 1,131.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	Since the inception of the Canada Council Programmes, how many applications for grants have been received from the Constituency of Kootenay West?
2.	For each year to date, how many were (a) accepted (b) denied and, in each case, in what amount?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1 and 2. Council data has not been maintained in a form that would make retrieval by constituency possible. However, since 1969-70, some Council programs of aid to individuals have been computerized as part of an operation that will eventually include all Council programs. The following table was compiled from this limited computerized data with respect to the Constituency of Kootenay West.
December 14, 1976

		1969-70		1970-71			1971-72
Program							
Appl.	Awards	Appl.	Awards	Appl.	AwardsNo.	No. $'000	No.	No.	$'000	No.	No. $'000Doctoral Fellowships	ii	7 32	7	6	28	6	4 18Post-Doctoral	Research Fellowships	Special M.A.	Arts Grants	-	5	-	-	2	1 4Senior Arts Grants	-	2	1	7	2


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


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: 1. Nil.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Dinsdaie: 1.	For what reason is July 1 designated by the Canadian Flag and not by name on the 1976 Post Office Department calendar while it shows June 24 as St. Jean Baptiste Day?
2.	Is consideration being given to the issuance of a special stamp to mark the celebration of Her Majesty's Silver Jubilee during the course of the 1976 summer months?
3.	What are the regulations for the use of special postmarks such as that used on the occasion of the 125th Anniversay of Etobicoke, Ontario?
4.	Does the brochure on the pre-stamped envelopes and postcards read in part: "The design of the new postage indicia was developed to improve the quality of the postage impression on pre-stamped envelopes and postcards for printing by lithography." and, if so, for what reason was the desired quality of the postage impression not achieved with a portrait of Her Majesty?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1. It was deemed most appropriate to identify this very special holiday with an illustration of our National Flag. For that matter, New Year's Day was indicated by a pair of church bells "ringing in the new year."
2.	Not in 1976. The Silver Jubilee of Her Majesty's accession to the throne occurs in 1977, and we plan to have a special stamp issue to mark the occasion.
3.	The policies governing the use of cancelling dies are internal. The dies are authorized to advertise charitable campaigns, community activities and special occasions of national or localized importance.
Order Paper Questions
1972-73	1973-74	1974-75	1975-76Appl. Awards Appl. Awards Appl. Awards Appl. Awards No. No. $'000 No. No. $'000 No. No. $'000 No. No. $'000 4294	1	5	1-	-	22	134.	The design of the new postage indicia was developed to improve the quality of the postage impression on pre-stamped envelopes and postcards for printing by lithography. The brochure also states that the new design "requires accurate colour control and inhibits counterfeiting." A design incorporating a portrait, for printing by lithography, would be much less susceptible to visible changes in appearance under conditions of less accurate colour control during printing. A portrait printed by lithography would therefore be easier to counterfeit and less likely to be detected as such.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	Flow many applications were received from the Constituency of Kootenay West for grants under Canada Council programmes since the inception of the programmes?
2.	Flow many were (a) accepted (b) denied and, in each case, for how much each year?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1 and 2. See reply to Question No. 126, answered this day. The amounts shown therein are based, for each year, on the average value of the fellowships or grants.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Do development plans exist for expansion of the airport building at the DOT airport at Fredericton, New Brunswick and, if so (a) what are they (b) what is the time schedule?
2.	Are there any plans to extend or improve runway, taxi runway or apron facilities and, if so, on what date?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes. (a) Enlarge terminal building, acquisition of furnishings and modifications to car parking area, (b) 1979/80, depending on availability of funds and national priorities.
2. Yes. Construction of a parallel taxiway and extension of aircraft parking apron are also scheduled for 1979/80, subject to availability of funds and national priorities.


Mr. Howie: 1.	What is the schedule for extension or implementation of new postal carrier walks in (a) Fredericton (b) Oromocto, New Brunswick?
2.	Are any studies related to these matters underway?

December 14, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1. (a) and (b) There is no schedule. In line with the Federal policy of restraint in spending and authority to hire, limitations imposed on our Department preclude us from extending or implementing door-to-door letter carrier delivery service beyond existing route boundaries, for an indefinite period.
2.	No.


Mr. Yewchuk: Is there evidence in the Department of the Environment weather records of a long-term deterioration of climate in the Peace River district of Alberta and, if so, what is it?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: No long-term deterioration is discernable.


Mr. Yewchuk: Is there evidence in the Department of the Environment weather records of a long-term deterioration of climate in the northeastern agricultural districts of Alberta and, if so, what is it?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: No long-term deterioration is discernable.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 915?


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence provide extra staff for Olympic duties on the understanding that DND would be reimbursed by COJO and, if so, what was the amount involved?
2.	Has COJO reimbursed DND and, if not, on what date does DND expect to recover the amount?
3.	Will DND be forced to lay-off civilian personnel before the end of the 1976-77 fiscal year because of shortage of funds?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part is no; to the second part, not applicable, and to the third part, no.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, December 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-9, to approve, give effect to and declare valid certain agreements between the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, the Government of Quebec, la Societe d'energie de la Baie James, la Societe de developpement de la Baie James, la Commission hydro-electri-que de Quebec and the Government of Canada and certain other related agreements to which the Government of Canada is a party, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity for taking part in this debate on a bill which has been of great concern for some time to the House of Commons and on a process which has been of great concern to us all. I might be pardoned if I digress for a moment to draw to the attention of the House the fact that in the last few moments the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) introduced more legislation into the House of Commons than the government has introduced in the first months of this session.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I want to deal in a serious manner with Bill C-9. I believe that this legislation and the process which brought this legislation to the House of Commons is an example for us all to note and, in the future, for us all to avoid, in that it amounts to a shameful betrayal of trust and responsibility by the government of Canada for native peoples who are under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada. I want to begin, sir, by reviewing for members of the House of Commons the history of the James Bay agreement, an agreement to which this legislation would give effect. That history began in April, 1971.

When former Quebec premier Bourassa made a statement on a hydro electric development in the James Bay area, he did so for political reasons. There had been no consultations, no study on its impact on the environment, the Indian population or other people living in the area. Nor were there any negotia-
December 14, 1976

tions up to the time when the Indians instituted legal proceedings before the courts of the province of Quebec.

As all of us know, the Cree people of the James Bay region won an injunction in November, 1973, in a court in Quebec. That injunction was suspended weeks later by the Court of Appeals of that province, and the Supreme Court of Canada refused the Council of Cree leave to appeal in the Supreme Court in December, 1973. As a consequence of that, as members who followed the matter will remember, the native people were forced to negotiate the manner of their response to the James Bay project which had been forced upon them by a political decision of the government of Quebec.
I should draw to the attention of the House, for emphasis and to refresh memories which might have faded in the intervening two years, that the native people of James Bay, people whose lives were spent, by and large, in an atmosphere distant from the metropolitan centres of Canada, were forced to negotiate under circumstances that were very difficult to all of them. The negotiations did not occur on their land. The negotiations about their land did not occur on their land and did not occur in circumstances or an environment with which they were familiar. Instead, the native peoples were hauled down to Montreal and forced to deal, they being people accustomed to a very different way of life, with the accumulated might of Crown corporations, the government of Quebec and other agencies. This might was brought to bear against them and against their hereditary practices and dealt with the future of that land which had been traditionally theirs in the James Bay region. The negotiations into which they were forced to enter did not occur where they were comfortable. They occurred, instead, in downtown Montreal. It is important for all of us to recognize that these negotiations occurred under the gun of a general deadline.
It was clear from the outset that it was necessary for the native people concerned in the James Bay region to come to an agreement by November 1, 1975, and it was clear from the outset, certainly to them, that if they did not come to an agreement by that time a settlement would be imposed upon them. Indeed, so rigid was this government which had the responsibility to protect these people, so rigid was it in the imposition of that deadline, that it refused even the simple request for the deadline to be extended by a month, a matter of 30 days, when we drew near to the November 1 deadline. The native people of the James Bay region were negotiating under the gun of a deadline to which they had to adhere. If they did not adhere, they and their people would suffer serious consequences.
They were negotiating also under the gun of a very difficult internal deadline. For example, one of the matters of the James Bay situation as those familiar with the facts know, had to do with the classification of various types of land and the limitations of use which would be applied against these various classifications. But the native people of that region were forced to settle the land classification questions early before the deadline, and they knew very well that if they did not meet
James Bay Agreement
that deadline, the decisions as to their land classification would be taken unilaterally by people who did not have, as they have demonstrated throughout this affair, the interest of the native peoples at heart. Nor did they understand the circumstances and history of the native peoples of that region.
Finally, they were forced to negotiate under the gun of extraordinary conditions, conditions to which people of a different kind of background would probably not have been subjected. One of those, for example, had to do with the fact that the government of Quebec made it clear from the outset that there would be no agreement by the government of Quebec without the consent of Quebec Hydro. Quebec Hydro indicated that it would agree only if the Inuit people who were affected would accept conditions which denied in advance their right to invoke social impact factors of proposed future hydroelectric projects. In other words, when the native people came to the table to negotiate, they were told that the negotiation would proceed only if they agreed to give up their right to raise objections to the social and environmental impacts of unspecified future hydroelectric developments. That was a great deal to ask! It was, in my judgment, an unreasonable imposition to place upon the native peoples of that place at that time. But that was another of the conditons into which they were forced to enter in those negotiations.
That combination of deadlines and special conditions, imposed upon an unsophisticated people forced to negotiate about their future and their children's future in the middle of a modern metropolis, was bad enough in itself. That would be bad enough to raise the concern of any Canadian interested in justice. What makes the matter worse and makes it a matter for the attention and concern of the House of Commons of Canada is that the people who are involved here are by law the trust responsibility of the government of Canada.
Throughout this event, from the day the Liberal prime minister of Quebec decided to proceed until there was an agreement acquiesced in by the Liberal government of Canada, there was an abdication of federal responsibility that is simply repugnant to anyone who honours the law or wants to establish a basis of trust on which we might build respect and strength for the native people in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: As I have said before, a great number of the people in the James Bay region fall directly under the responsibility of the government of Canada. That is made explicit in section 2(c) of the 1912 Quebec Boundaries Extension Act, which states in subsection (e):
That the trusteeship of the Indians in the said territory, and the management of any lands now or hereafter reserved for their use, shall remain in the government of Canada subject to the control of parliament.
That is absolutely clear. There can be no doubt about the responsibility of the government of Canada for the people who were involved in the James Bay region. However, instead of exercising that responsibility to a people who were imperilled,

December 14, 1976
James Bay Agreement
the federal government abandoned its solemn legal trust and adopted, instead, a policy which they called alert neutrality. Alert neutrality is hardly an adequate way for this or any government to carry out fundamental responsibilities to people in a field where progress will be made only if there is active trust and active co-operation instead of alert neutrality.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Instead of sending moral support and federal expertise, expertise of the law officers of the federal crown which the natives in that region had a right to expect, the federal Liberal government sent money by the back door in dribs and drabs and in amounts of which the total was insufficient. In the debate in the House of Commons at that time, I called it conscience money because this government knew that they had not done their duty. They had abandoned the people to whom they had responsibility. They felt sufficiently guilty about if that they dribbled in some public payments in the form of conscience money. In retrospect, when we look upon the precedent that might have been set and the extent of abandonment of responsibility, that was far too generous a term.
We all recognize that in the circumstances the native people who were abandoned by their guardians did very well in the negotiations they were able to cause by their actions in the court, negotiations that they carried on in unfamiliar circumstances and under very difficult conditions. They won many concessions. I and my colleagues in this House of Commons want to pay tribute to the tremendous effort that was made by the members of the Grand Council of the Cree. They clearly worked against extensive odds. They did a very good job in achieving concessions under those kinds of circumstances and those unrealistic deadlines imposed by the Liberal government. However, the process itself simply does not merit the approval which is asked for in the title of this bill. 1 suggest it does not even merit the tolerance of the parliament of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I will not take a great deal of time reviewing all the aspects of this legislation. However, I want to draw to the attention of the House some of the serious deficiencies that exist in the provisions of the agreement-deficiencies, as the minister suggested in his opening remarks-that might be corrected, or at least some of them. These deficiencies cause us as a parliament exercising our responsibility to take a very serious look at this bill.
In passing, I want to make it clear that whatever the content of the bill, it is our judgment that this parliament cannot let pass the process which gave rise to this bill without protest. As the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, in a very eloquent speech the other night, made clear and as I and others who take part in this debate today and later will make clear, we intend to protest to the extent of our ability the irresponsible way in which the government of Canada abandoned its responsibility to the native people of the James Bay region.
(Mr. Clark.]
Let us look at some of the deficiencies that now exist in the agreement. I will not try to enumerate all of them. However, they include the fact that two small tribes, the Naskapis and the Montagnais, are not included in the agreement. They are nomadic and follow the caribou herd between Quebec and Labrador. They are people whose traditional roots are in that region. They belong as much to the James Bay region as others who are there. The government maintains they are covered under the agreement, but the Indians concerned believe that they are not. While they are not recognized as treaty Indians specifically, it is clear that the federal government had been involved with them before. It had accepted a certain responsibility for them when their problems were minor. However, when their problems became major, when it became a question of their future and their very right to carry on in the traditional way they and their forefathers had known for generations, they were cut adrift by the government of Canada. They are left adrift by the agreement we are called upon to approve today.
In his opening remarks, the minister said he was prepared to again sit down with them to see if some sort of amendment could be worked out. However, at the very most that involves inclusion after the fact in an agreement that they had no opportunity to influence. Another of the deficiencies in the agreement before us is that it has become the cause of very serious reservations among certain of the Inuit communities which are involved in the land, in particular the residents of three communities, Sugluk, Ivugivik and Povungnituk. They are concerned about the effect of this legislation upon their future. The government might say, "What matter are they? There are only 1,200 people in these three communities, out of a total community of 4,000." However, I say to this parliament and the government of Canada that when this parliament and this government begins to count as inconsequential 1,200 native people, we have betrayed the responsibilities that we as legislators have in a free society.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The people of these three communities are sufficiently unhappy with this agreement that they are now seeking to sever their relationship with the Northern Quebec Inuit Association.
In terms of deficiencies in the bill, the minister in his speech boasted, and 1 think it is fair to say it was a boast, that the native people in that region were given what he called an equal voice in certain development matters: they were given an equal voice in the industry in determining ways to remedy the impact of hydro activities south of the fifty-fifth parallel; they were given an equal voice with government in administering and supervising the social and environmental impact studies throughout the region. That is one way of phrasing it the way the minister did. The other way, the honest way, is to say that the companies and the governments have an equal voice with the natives. It requires no imagination to know whose will is going to prevail when questions arise regarding the social and environmental impact of proposals brought forward by the
December 14, 1976

companies and the governments which are granted by this legislation an equal voice with the native people whose lives are affected.
It is very clear that as hard and as effectively as the Grand Council of Cree worked throughout this, it is highly likely that the agreement we are dealing with today would be very different if the native people involved had had adequate resources and were not forced to meet deadlines of the sort imposed upon them under the threat of imposition of conditions. It is also quite clear, in my judgment, that if they had received the support of the federal government to which they were entitled, instead of this cop-out policy of alert neutrality, we would today have been dealing with an agreement very different from this one, an agreement which would have been much more in the interests of the native people involved.
Another area of concern is that the ratification vote was rushed through. The agreement was translated into the native tongue only at the last minute, and only under pressure. Then the translation document was circulated in conditions under which it was difficult to ensure adequate information or real consensus. The document was circulated in abbreviated form.
Another matter which must be of concern to us was drawn to public attention by Mr. John Ciaccia, a member of the national legislative assembly for Mount Royal who represented the government of Quebec in these negotiations, having previously served as assistant deputy minister for Indian affairs in the government of Canada. Mr. Ciaccia said, in an article quoted in the Montreal Gazette of November 6, 1975, that "in effect the agreement would have precedence over the federal Indian Act". That is a statement by a member of the provincial legislature, then the provincial spokesman for a government, which must cause concern to members of a parliament of Canada which under the British North America Act retains exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the native people under section 91 of that act.
As I say, there are a number of specific areas in this bill which require correction. But it is the whole process of the approach to this legislation which is unacceptable to anyone who takes seriously the responsibility which falls upon the parliament of Canada for the native people as spelled out in the BNA Act. Even more important, we are not lawyers here: this is not merely a court or a house of lawyers; this is a body which is supposed to be concerned about social justice and it is supposed to come to the protection of any people who are seriously threatened, whether or not there is a legal obligation.
Against this background, we cannot allow to pass quietly a process which has involved the abandonment of people whose rights it was our responsibility to protect, a process which has involved taking advantage of people unaccustomed to the ways of lawyers and of Crown corporations, people whose leaders were brought down and forced to bargain away their heritage under pressure in the centre of a metropolis.
What most concerns me and members of my party is not just the content of the agreement, although we have some
James Bay Agreement
reservations about that. We are concerned particularly about the events which led to this bill, not because they stand alone but because they are, unhappily, symptomatic of the way the white majority society has earned the mistrust of the native people. We in the white majority talk a great deal about the rights and needs of native people. We do that in the abstract. But when the crunch comes and when the contest is between the Cree people and Quebec Hydro, it is Quebec Hydro which wins. When Ottawa is asked to exercise its solemn responsibility in the name of the principles it espouses, Ottawa backs down and abandons the people for whom it is responsible.
I recognize, as do others in the House, and as do many of the Indian leaders themselves, that native people are not always right.

Now and again their demands have been excessive. At times, their positions were based on nostalgia. Of course, there are those who have had some experience with the Indians in Canada. A minority of them are becoming extremists, and they have imported confrontation tactics from the United States.

But we must also recognize that whatever the weaknesses, whatever the problems, some of which individual native people may have brought upon themselves, to whatever degree they have failed to resist the slide into dependency which has been created for them by white society, they are working hard and seriously now to improve their situation. It is clear to anyone who has dealt with native people in Canada that native leadership has in the last two decades been exceptional in its sense of responsibility and in its wisdom, in its capacity to articulate its concern and its case.
While this example of leadership has been forthcoming from the minority, the majority in society, as demonstrated recently in the events leading up to this bill, has continued to apply a double standard of morality to these issues, using one standard when they talk and another when they act. Some of the glamour has gone out of the issue of native rights in the past few years. It is not the fashionable issue it once was. But it remains, for any Canadian parliament, a fundamental issue, one which tests the capacity of our society for justice and honest compromise. The government opposite has, throughout the life of its mandate, earned the mistrust of the native people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: This was the result not of any one isolated act. It did not come about simply in the course of the shameful process of abandoning responsibility for the James Bay affair in the name of alert neutrality. It happened, also, because of the infamous white paper of a few years ago which the government put forward and was forced to withdraw in the face of the overwhelming opposition of the Indian people. It was contributed to by the flip-flop on the question of aboriginal rights and aboriginal title. Every time there has been an interface between the government and the native people on a

James Bay Agreement
question of policy, the government has earned the mistrust of the native people. This is particularly important to those of us whose interests go beyond the passage of a bill through this House today, to those of us whose interests go beyond the fate or future of Quebec Hydro. It is clear to all of us who have face up to the difficult challenge of working with native people toward a more responsible and participatory role for them in Canadian society that one elementary requirement from the government of the day is not money, but trust.
The native people of Canada require a government on whose word they can count. They have had demonstrated to them amply in recent years, certainly in this decision, that this government is not one that possesses that basis of trust which is the element, and the only element, on which we can build a co-operative and better future for the native people of Canada within the Canadian context.
I believe that perhaps one of the most fundamental challenges that we face as a people is to develop a sense of self-respect among Canadian native people as individuals and as groups. It is clear that the only way we can do that is to demonstrate our own respect for these people. Instead, throughout our history the North American white majority and the Canadian white majority have treated the North American native as an inferior, winning our way with trickery, with superior force or, as in this case, an outright abdication of a federal responsibility.
We all know that the history of this country is full of treaties which were signed in bad faith; reserves which were established on bad land; administrators who created among Indian people a sense of dependence because they were treated like children. I am not suggesting, because it would be silly to suggest, that we in this chamber have to assume some sort of historic guilt which we have to expiate by accepting unacceptable claims. I do not propose that at all. I recognize, as I am sure we all do, that we cannot change history in a single stroke.
Perhaps the most difficult social challenge that Canada faces is to help native Canadians develop the confidence and the capacity to become a productive community in contemporary Canada. It will require on the part of all of us a hard-nosed approach, a willingness to deal with reality, but a willingness and a determination also to deal in a spirit of compassion and of justice. This is going to be difficult for us to do, Mr. Speaker.
I had the opportunity during my first three years in this House to serve actively on the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I represent native people in my own constituency. I have worked with them on local levels. I know the extent of their problems and something of the failures we have created in the way we have responded to those problems in the past. I believe, and I reiterate, that this is one of the most fundamental challenges that we face as a people and it is going to be difficult for us to make progress. But the way to start is for the white majority to reject the
(Mr. Clark.]
double standard, to stop treating native people as though we can take their land for trinkets or treat their lives as pawns.
In Bill C-9 we have an agreement that arose out of a process that is simply unacceptable to a civilized country. It is not acceptable to me as the Leader of the Opposition in this parliament or as a member of this parliament that the government of Canada should be allowed to get away with abandoning people for whom it is responsible under law. We on this side of the House will not accept that kind of practice by the government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is not acceptable to me or to my colleagues-I hope it is not acceptable to the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) or to other members of the House of Commons who smile when we debate matters of social justice-that we approve of a process which has had the effect of forcing upon native people in a distant part of this land agreements which in all reasonable likelihood they would not have accepted had they been able to negotiate free of the constraints that were placed upon them.
It is not acceptable for us to have the government of Canada abandon its responsibility and retreat to a position of alert neutrality. We owe more to the native people of Canada; we owe more to the concept of social justice; we owe more to any minority which could be the next victim of a government that is prepared to abandon its responsibilities in the name of alert neutrality. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I simply cannot accept the process which has led to the agreement which is enshrined in the bill before us today.


Mr. Neil:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might be permitted to call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Veterans Affairs-Proposed establishment of district offices-Request for office at Brandon, Manitoba; the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Transport- Possible shortage of refigerated cars for movement of potatoes-Suggested purchase of additional cars; the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone)-Agriculture-Beef- Possibility of prohibiting imports from Australia and New Zealand.
December 14, 1976

It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore) moved: that Bill C-209, an act respecting noise in factories, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is spelled out in the explanatory notes. Bill C-209 would require that the government of Canada stipulate as a condition of acceptability of any contract that the firm considered comply with the regulation that none of its workers would be subjected to a noise level greater than 85 dBA for an eight-hour period. Let me explain, Mr. Speaker, that dBA is the abbreviation for decibels on the "A" weighted scale. This scale is commonly used in measuring noise levels both of industrial and domestic articles. Noise is, up to a point, a qualitative category. Electronic rock music is to some unbearable and consequently noise, while to others this music is extremely pleasant and is not considered noise. However, the sounds we are talking of today, industrial noise, do not fall into this contentious area.
My remarks this afternoon will not be of a technical or jargonistic nature. I have neither the expertise nor the inclination to become involved in a discussion concerning the finer points of the scientific arguments in this area. Far too often, in my opinion, these exchanges are used to obfuscate the true issue concerned; that instead of proceeding to decide on the issue of noise abatement we would contribute to the already existing din. Talk thus far has provided very little protection for the people working in noisy industries. I hope some action today will help soothe their aching ears.
The fundamental issue to be resolved here is one of rights. I am sure that my hon. colleagues agree that workers should not have to risk one of their God-given senses as the price they must pay for the jobs they hold. There can be no question that a person has the right to work in an environment that is not harmful. Deafness is not a fair exchange for a job, Mr. Speaker.
Many doctors and scientists disagree about the short and long-term effects of noise. Some contend that illnesses exist, such as ulcers, which come as a direct result of continual and unwanted noise. Some argue that loud sounds cause nervousness, hypertension, mental exhaustion and high blood pressure. Researcher Hans Selye has suggested that noise may also cause stress that can result in a lowered resistance to infection.
Social Health
These theories are advocated by some physicians, others do not accept them. However, there can be no dispute that hearing impairment is a result of living and working in an industrial society.
Medically speaking, it is recognized that auditory loss is a result of damage to the minute hair cells in the inner ear. These hair cells transmit sound pressure along nerves to the brain. If they become impaired the connection will be faulty and even incomplete. High noise levels play a large role in damaging these hair cells. If a person is exposed to a loud sound, these cells tire and a temporary hearing loss could follow. When the noise is removed, hearing usually returns. On the other hand, if the noise is consistent for a period of months or years, these hair cells are destroyed and hearing damage is permanent. A medical official of the Ontario Workman's Compensation Board reported that if workers were subjected to greater than 95 decibels for an eight-hour period, it could be predicted that the worker very well could be deaf in five years, if the sound was maintained at that level.
Reaction to noise falls into two categories. If a person is exposed to constant noise, his ear has the ability to adjust for a short period of time. In an article entitled "Noise is a Health Hazard" Dr. Roy Chatterton explains that while an ear can cut off some of the unwanted noise, after a half hour this reflex fatigues. There is no natural protection for impulse noise, however. Impulse noise is defined as sudden unexpected and irregular sound, such as gunfire. The ear cannot protect itself from this type. It cannot turn off; consequently far more damage is done. Impulse noises produce vibrations so intense that tissue inside the ear can be literally torn apart.
The obvious solution to these problems would be to prohibit sounds that induce this reaction deafness. Unfortunately, there is no universal benchmark for the beginning of hearing loss. Each person reacts to sound differently. Some people are more sensitive to noise than others. Some regulations do exist to provide a modicum of protection for workers in noisy industries.
The Canadian Labour Code noise regulations, which apply to federal government's businesses, allow a worker to be exposed to 87 to 90 decibels for an eight-hour day. For six hours he may be exposed to anything from 90 to 92 decibels. The provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec have similar regulations that allow for eight hours per day. The province of Alberta is, however, a forerunner in worker protection.


Mr. Paproski:: Naturally.


William Kenneth Robinson: You might say "Naturally", but at least it is the forerunner. Regulations under the workman's compensation act and the public health safety act in this province specify that a sound level of 85 decibels is permissible for an eight-hour day, and at 90 decibels the permitted exposure time is four hours. Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland do not have stipulated sound levels. Rather, they

December 14, 1976
Social Health
require protective equipment where noise levels are judged to be excessive, harmful or injurious. The absence of established statutory exposure levels leaves the efficacy of these regulations open to subjective interpretation.
In the United States, the Walsh-Healey regulation sets maximum levels of 90 decibels for an eight-hour shift. However, the environmental protection agency has been charged with the responsibility of carrying on research into environmental noise and has, as a result, advocated a reduction to 85 decibels. In support of this is the occupational safety and health administration. A survey completed by the occupational safety and health administration came up with telling and, I believe, convincing results. Taking into account extra work noise, the occupational safety and health administration discovered that of the 14 million workers studied, 1.7 million or 12 per cent would suffer from hearing impairment after 40 years of work. If the decibel was strictly limited to 90, this number would be reduced to 1 million or 7 per cent. If, however, an 85-decibel limit was maintained, only 200,000 of those 14 million, or 1.5 per cent, would incur hearing damage. Certainly this is not perfect, but a 1.5 per cent margin is a reasonable target that should not only be aimed for but achieved.
Some hon. members may well wonder whether a five-decibel decrease will change anything. I say it will, for this reason. The method used to compute sound pressure levels is calculated logarithmically. When the intensity of a sound is doubled, it appears only as a three-decibel increase, that is, from 85 to 88 decibels. Five decibels, therefore, represents a considerable decrease in the noise level, a decrease that will benefit workers immensely.
As the occupational safety and health administration study indicated, a reduction of the acceptable noise level would drastically decrease the number of potential cases of hearing impairment. When the province of Ontario has paid out an average of $910,000 per year for the past five years to workers suffering from some sort of hearing impairment, something must be done. When in Ontario, in 1975, there were 639 pensions granted because of hearing loss, this situation must be remedied.
As I stated earlier, it is the intention of Bill C-209 to set guidelines for potential federal tenders. Noise regulations do fall under provincial jurisdiction. This does not mean, though, that the federal government can ignore its responsibility. There are precedents for provinces accepting the form of federal legislation and incorporating it into their own statutes. A current example is consumer protection legislation. Consequently, the federal government's adoption of this measure may well encourage provinces to follow suit, and in the meantime could protect industrial workers who it would otherwise be powerless to help.
So far I have discussed the causes of short and long-term deafness, noise-related illnesses, provincial and U.S. regulations, and the effects the reduction would have. It is necessary to examine the consequences an 85-decibel limit would have on the industries concerned. Objections have been raised that this

noise level would impose serious hardships on industry; that 85 decibels is technologically or economically not feasible. Industry spokesmen contend that, particularly for older plants, this program would be prohibitively expensive. Their complaint bears some consideration.
I would recommend, if hon. members see fit to send this bill to the committee, that when a regional safety officer states it is not reasonably practical for an employer to comply with the 85-decibel limit, the employer would be required to provide hearing protectors for his staff. The protectors would have to be of the variety that reduce the sound reaching the employees' ears to less than 85 decibels.
Several factors must be considered with regard to the cost to industry. However, Dr. Nicholas Ashford, from the Centre for Policy-Alternatives at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has made a study comparing health costs and industry's cost to comply with the 90 and 85-decibel limits. Dr. Ashford discovered when a dollar value was placed on workmen's compensation, absenteeism, and mental annoyance, after 40 years an 85-decibel limit would in fact be cheaper than a 90-decibel limit. Dr. Ashford, who prepared his brief for the Ford Foundation, said:
-many companies could save more (by reducing noise) than the workmen's compensation premiums associated with claims relating to occupational deafness. Noise also reduces the level of visual acuity, with the result that the cost of accidents and shoddy workmanship, is likely to be higher in noisy shops.
The American department of labour, in a report completed by acoustic experts, concluded that an 85 decibel limit could be achieved for at least 92 per cent of production workers. If hon. members so decide, I would recommend to the committee that 85 decibels be the maximum allowable level in industries having federal contracts. I would also suggest that if workers had to perform in noisier conditions, time of exposure should be reduced in accordance with the intensity of sound.
It is also necessary to ensure that industries do not have to bear excessive responsibilities. Consequently, when it is beyond the ability of employers to reasonably reduce sound pressure levels, I would suggest that the employer provide the staff with CSA approved hearing protectors and that warning signs be posted explaining noise levels. It is also advisable that anyone employed in an excessive noise area undergo regularly audiometric testing so that early signs of deterioration can be detected.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that legislation of this kind is long overdue. Too many people fearing loss of their jobs have tolerated noise levels which have permanently damaged their hearing, rather than seek aid and compensation. At a time when the technology exists to prevent such tragedies, we should make as great an effort as possible to provide protection for people who work to provide so many of society's necessities.
At 85 decibels a conversation can be carried on at three feet, shouting, so what is being suggested is not the quiet of a library. High noise levels have proved dangerous to hearing;
December 14, 1976

they also impair efficency and industrial safety. I urge my hon. colleagues to support this measure which will put a little humanity into the workplace. With regard to deafness, Helen Keller said:
Ours is not the silence that soothes the weary sense. It is an inhuman silence which severs and estranges. It is a silence which isolates cruelly and completely.
Let us protect as many as possible from this unnecessary burden. The Chair indicated that the bill should be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, but I ask that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak briefly on Bill C-209. I want to commend the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) for proposing this legislation. I must confess to him that when I first saw that there was a bill dealing with noise pollution, I thought it was to reform the rules of the House. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the bill deals with the problem of noise pollution in factories.
The hon. member deserves a great deal of credit for the comments in his speech on second reading of the bill. 1 think he explained the bill extremely well. He made a good case for its passage, or at least for allowing it to be read a second time and to go to the committee where members can hear representations from labour and business as to the effects of the bill, and particularly the representations of business. As the hon. member explained, the purpose of the bill is to deal with the problem of noise pollution in industrial plants. He explained the bill quite fully, and I do not propose to take a great deal of time. I certainly do not want to be responsible for preventing the bill from coming to a vote this afternoon.
There is a growing recognition on the part of Canadians throughout this country that there are tremendous problems caused by noise pollution in factories and by noise pollution generally. In recent years there has been an awareness of the problems of environmental health hazards and of the effects that noise pollution can have on one's hearing, on one's general health and also upon one's ability to work. The fact is that studies have shown that where workers are asked to work under conditions which are unfavourable and which are very unpleasant for them, the quality of their work deteriorates. Anything we as a parliament can do to improve employment standards for people in Canada and to improve their productivity and health should be done.
I think there is also a general recognition on the part of business that anything that can be done by businesses to improve the working conditions of their employees should be done, and I think there is a willingness to comply wherever possible with what is being suggested in this bill. 1 think the hon. member recognized in the comments he made that there would be instances in which there would be difficulties for industries in complying with the provisions of the bill. Obviously, there are some industries in which it is simply impossible-for example, in heavy industries dealing with metal or in industries where people work around aircraft-to lower the noise level to below 85 decibels. However, the hon. member
Social Health
quite properly suggested that in those instances the employees involved should be provided with protective devices which would give some protection to their eardrums and which would prevent them from being damaged. If the provisions of the bill were applied flexibly, no undue burden need be put upon employers. The bill could also do a great deal to encourage employers who really are not concerned about the well-being of their employees to take some action.
The hon. member noted that under the terms of the British North America Act it is likely that the responsibility for legislation with regard to noise levels in industry falls under provincial jurisdiction. Obviously, the parliament of Canada cannot legislate a national standard for noise pollution in factories and force it upon the provinces. To do so would be improper and an intrusion on provincial jurisdiction. It would obviously be illegal, as well. However, what the hon. member tries to do in his bill is come in, perhaps through the back door, and set standards of behaviour for factories which are doing work on behalf of the federal government. That might encourage the provinces to take some action as well. I think that is a sensible way of dealing with this problem.
This bill would only take effect in cases where there are federal contracts involved with industries, and this could be a condition of the contracts. I do not think, in my reading of the bill, that this maximum noise level is compulsory in all contracts, but it could be a condition of a contract between the federal government and a private employer that the noise level in the factory to which employees would be subjected would have to be 85 decibels or lower. I think the hon. member is acting in a responsible way.
At the outset I promised that my remarks would be very brief. Let me just say again that the hon. member deserves credit for having introduced the bill. I think it would be worth while to have a much closer study of it. At the committee stage it would be possible to call expert witnesses who could testify as to the health hazards involved and as to whether the level of 85 decibels is a sensible level, and it would also be possible for us to have representatives of business and labour explain their perspectives on the problem.
I recommend that the House give favourable consideration to this bill, and I want to say, again, to the hon. member that I feel he has made a good start on the bill. I hope the House will look favourably on allowing the bill to go to committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to commend the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) for introducing this bill and thereby giving us an opportunity to discuss the very important question of noise pollution. Excessive noise is hard on anyone, whether it is in a work place or anywhere else, but certainly the place where the most damage to hearing is done from excessive noise is in factories of one kind or another, and the hon. member is right in his decision to concentrate on that aspect of the matter.
I join with the last speaker in expressing the hope that the House will give this bill second reading and let it go to the

December 14, 1976
Social Health
standing committee, and I agree with the sponsor of the bill that it would be prefereable to have it go to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration so that the whole matter can be discussed by its members.
In private members' hours I like to support what my fellow private members produce rather than saying they have a good idea but have not dealt with it in quite the right way, but I confess that in this instance I have a suggestion or two I should like to make to the hon. member, which, of course, could be carried out in the standing committee. The bill would provide some control over noise in factories and work places, but only in those places which happen to get federal government contracts. What about all the other places? Surely the way to deal with this effectively and properly is by way of the necessary amendments to provisions in the federal labour code and in the provincial labour codes of this country. The hon. member has already referred to regulations under the Canada Labour Code, in the safety section, which he says do not go far enough in that they set noise levels which are too high.
It would seem to me that the more desirable course would be to get those levels in the regulations under the safety sanctions of the Canada Labour Code brought down. The hon. member may say to me, that is fine as far as it goes, that deals with the work places where about 10 per cent of the work force is employed, but what about the 90 per cent who come under provincial jurisdiction? I think it is a fact of history in this country that the federal labour code and the provincial labour codes tend to run along in parallel courses. There is a fair amount of co-operation between the federal Department of Labour and the various provincial departments of labour, and I think that if pressure could be exerted for all of these codes to establish more effective regulations regarding noise, we would be doing the right thing.
The last speaker had some doubt as to whether the parliament of Canada can legislate in this field at all. I suggest to him that we already legislate with respect to safety in work places for that portion of the working population which comes under federal labour jurisdiction. This includes people in railway shops, banks and a number of other places, adding to about 10 per cent of the labour force. Whether you deal with it in provincial or federal labour codes, you are missing some people, just as my hon. friend's bill misses many because it deals only with those who are working in places that have government contracts. We have to act on all fronts.
Despite these shortcomings, I still think the bill is a good idea because it raises the issue, and I would like to see it go to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration so that there can be a thorough and, I hope, effective study and discussion which will lead to changes in our legislation, both federal and provincial, to deal with this problem.
The hon. member made the excellent case that is there to make about the damage that is done to hearing by excessive noise. He made the economic case that it would be cheaper to do something about noise than to pay so many pensions for

deafness. There is no argument about his case. What is needed is that we do something about it, and I hope that something will not be talking out another private members' bill but that we will send this bill on this important subject to the appropriate standing committee.


Mr. Jacques Olivier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like first of all to congratulate the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) for having introduced Bill C-209 which will allow us to explain what this bill is all about and what the government is doing to reduce noise in factories.
The purpose of this bill is to find a way to reduce industrial noise in establishments having contracts with the government of Canada or provincial governments. In most of these establishments, the type of work, undertaking or business do not fall under the legislative authority of Parliament, that is under federal government jurisdiction to which federal laws apply generally.
Except in broiler manufactures and other establishments of this type which are always extraordinarily noisy, the adverse effects on human hearing has not been understood until recent years, and therefore no one was greatly concerned about controlling this occupational risk before 1956. Considering the circumstances outlined in the above paragraph, it is not surprising that only two provinces, British Columbia and Alberta, prescribed and energically enforce noise control regulations as detailed as the Canada Noise Control Regulations which have been in force since November 2, 1971 and which apply to all work sites subject to federal authority and governed by Part IV of the Labour Code of Canada, entitled Safety of Employees.
In most provinces, general noise regulations have been implemented, the main principle of which is as follows:
All employers must ensure that all measures which are practically achievable, in the opinion of an inspector, are taken to prevent any impairment of hearing in an industry, by reducing or eliminating the noise produced by any machine or device.
An important step toward the universal adoption of detailed noise control regulations was made with the issuing of a standard noise code by the federal-provincial committee of deputy ministers of labour. This standard code is used as a guide by various authorities to draft noise control regulations. Companies or entreprises which are not subject to federal authority and which carry out projects under federal contracts must conform to the local or provincial conditions that apply in their case. The contractors concerned have to comply with provincial regulations and, under the contract, they may also have to comply with any additional requirement the federal government might impose if provincial regulations were considered inadequate.
Bill C-209 is inadequate because it provides only for one noise ceiling. The evaluation of the dangers of hearing impairment due to noise is a very intricate process and it must take into consideration not only the intensity of the noise but also its frequency, its acuity and the length of the period of
December 14, 1976

exposure to this noise. For example, in many plants, the intensity of the noise could exceed 85 decibels without being dangerous to the employees because of its intermittence. The sound levels, the details of exposure and the other requirements of Canada anti-noise regulations are the outcome of ample research and consulting and they are based on international standards which proved efficient in ensuring some protection against hearing troubles attributable to noise in the working environment.
In addition to the inspector service to ensure compliance with Canada anti-noise regulations, federal or provincial security agents and other experts are available to analyze the problems caused by noise and to advise as to remedial actions to be taken where necessary. Bill C-209 tends to solve the problem of jurisdiction posed by its predecessor, Bill C-247, by requiring that the provisions relating to noise level be part of any government contract for the performance of work. So, this bill is in fact directed to the government and its purpose could be met through administrative channels.
As the present bill would have the effect of requiring that the evaluation of health and security conditions on the working sites of the contractor be considered as a factor in awarding government contracts, it would then be in line with the government objectives for health and security matters in working places under its responsibility.
To achieve this, however, the bill should provide for the inspection of working areas of other contractors, so that comparative assessment of respective conditions could be made. This would necessitate the establishment of criteria more detailed than the mere 85 decibel level indicated in Bill C-209 to evaluate hearing damage hazards. Appropriate criteria could be found in the Canadian regulations governing the fight against excessive noise.
Since the introduction of Bill C-209 has been clearly prompted by a concern for the health of plant workers, we can certainly wonder why it has been set on such a narrow basis which causes it to deal only with noise. It should conceivably deal also with the many health hazards which are likely to be found in the working areas of government contractors. Any effort to force these contractors to comply with Part IV of the Canadian Labour Code and the relevant regulations would face strong opposition from the provinces, which would accuse the federal government of meddling with matters under provincial jurisdiction.
While I appreciate the hon. member's concern, I feel this bill is not acceptable, because its aims could better be achieved by extending the area of application of the current legislation and by seeking the adoption of universal health and safety standards by all authorities concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to give a number of examples which we come across in our every day life. There are days when there is so much noise in the House that, if we were to apply the 85 decibel level criterion, the House would be compelled to adjourn. Yet, no one could claim that the current noise level should prevent us from sitting. I should like also to suggest to the hon. member that noise level inside an industry
Social Health
or a plant can reflect on productivity, and that it will not necessarily limit the capacity of an employee or help him earn a living.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in spite of some flows we have every power from an administrative point of view to implement proposals expressed in Bill C-209 and it is not necessary to pass another legislation to spell out the rights of plant employees when it comes to noise level.


Mr. Bernard Loiseile (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) for what I think is a most timely legislation in a period when we must question all our labour union system in Canada.
I also want to congratulate the member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) for his outstanding speech, which was both technical and very sound, and I believe that his last words prove the deep concern of a man who was himself a former trade unionist. When he mentioned the word "productivity" in relating it with the quality of life which must be granted to workers inside a plant, we see in this man someone who knows the interests of Canadian workers and continues to defend them.
Mr. Speaker, in answering the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, I pointed out at some length this question of productivity and of quality of life for the workers. I mentioned that we should question all our process of collective negotiations, and to realize this we should have both employers and unions sit and reestablish priorities which are usually negotiated. Unfortunately, these last years in Canada we have been negotiating collective agreements in which labour demands were mainly aimed at salary increases, without considerations being given to the well being of workers.
Bill C-209 concerns noise. We can also talk, as in the case of Thetford Mines, about the hazards threatening those who work in asbestos mines. In fact, according to some statistics, it is interesting to note that Canada now enforces ever more severe security standards and yet never has the rates of accidents been so high. It is thus difficult to understand that although our security standards are more consistent and better than in the past, the accident rates are spiraling upwards, which obviously has a direct effect on productivity which decreases day after day.
So I believe that the crucial problem we will face within a few years will concern productivity. It is thus necessary that governments, employers and unions meet around a table to redefine better means to improve productivity, taking into account the quality of the worker's life and respecting the human being and not only worrying about the use of capital. In fact, I think that money, though important, does not give the estimated results if not used while respecting the individual.
Now I think that bills such as this one should be incorporated into a series of measures that would go far beyond that, which would try to give the average worker a sense of dignity, so that he may give his best and contribute more to the Canadian economy.

December 14, 1976
Social Health
We will have to face a labour shortage from the 80s onward. Our problem in Canada will no longer unemployment. The Economic Council of Canada agrees with that: there will be a shortage of workers. Then it is quite obvious that if we have to face that shortage and at the same time open our doors wider to immigration, we will have then to deal with people who are not used to the working facilities available in Canada. It is obvious that, in view of the scarcity of manpower, unions will no longer have to struggle so much about getting higher wages. I trust they will then be willing to negotiate working conditions that will give back some dignity to the worker and, in fact, motivate him to produce more and better.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in view of these data, I feel the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore should ask the House instead to have the committee on labour, manpower and immigration hear experts, whether they be from the International Labour Office in Geneva, or union representatives to arrive at basic criteria through which we can give back the plant worker some measure of self-respect.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, to my mind such a meeting is necessary and would be that much more timely that the wage and price control program is about to end. Obviously, ome unions are now in the process of negotiating collective agreements, and some companies are doing so, aware that when controls are lifted the workers will get increases that would conflict with present standards. Naturally, if we practice that kind of labour relations, and if the employer signs that kind of agreement, he is working against his own interests.
And to settle a particular dispute, they are going to jeopardize all the success our program has achieved since it was brought into operation. But, Mr. Speaker, it is essential that an employer-employee organization should no longer be concerned only with the individual interest of each of these groups, but also with the future of our Canadian economy. And it is not through practices as those we have known in the past that we are going to build a strong economy supported by a strong industrial framework. It would be more advisable to readjust our aims, bring work into favour again and define new priorities.
Mr. Speaker, again I want to congratulate my colleague the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore but, as I said earlier, I do not think that we should deal only with the problem of noise pollution, but also with the general working conditions, with all possible means to make the worker happier so that, by himself, he will accept to produce more and better serve his country.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to join my colleagues and commend the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) for his concern about our quality of life. This is the third time he has introduced legislation about attaining a better quality of life. I remember that one of his first bills was designed to create a non-smoker section on aircraft and public transportation systems. We are grateful to our colleague for realizing the importance of the

application of such a concept to airlines and other public transportation.
Going over the bill I see that hon. member has limited his intention to decibels, but I am sure he would want to go beyond this. That is precisely what I should like the hon. member to do, and I hope to assist him in making sure that the provisions of this bill go beyond the decibel limit to which people can be exposed for a certain period of time.
What I mean by this, Mr. Speaker, is that the definition of a work site or a contract for the federal government is a somewhat complex matter since jobs for the federal government are not done exclusively within plants.
I would give as an example the work now being done on Wellington Street, about 160 feet from my office in the Confederation Building. I am on the second floor and the horrendous noise made by the drills is simply unbearable. We had to ask the maintenance man and the Department of Public Works to install sound-proof panels against our windows to enable the young office girls to work without getting terrible headaches every day, since this noise is heard every day from eight in the morning until six in the evening. This is one of the problems about which my colleague for Toronto-Lakeshore certainly did not think sufficiently, Mr. Speaker, that is the definition of a framework of jobs to be done for the federal government.
It might also be a good idea to extend the legislation sufficiently to include other areas, not necessarily where work is done for the federal government, but where the public is exposed to unsettling noises or noises which are louder that the acceptable decibel level. I am thinking, for instance, Mr. Speaker, of what we must suffer when we enter discotheques. It is not necessarily those who go to discotheques who suffer most because they do so voluntarily to amuse themselves. But I am thinking about the employees, about the young girls and boys who wait on tables and who must endure that infernal amplified music which so very often exceeds the number of decibels we have mentioned, that is 85, 115 or 120.
There are also other places where people are exposed to noises whose frequency can do much greater damage than impulse noises and, for example, would exceed a certain number of decibels, as in the case of jet airplanes flying directly above when taking off or landing. That is one of the reasons why, when the federal government decided to set up a second airport in the Montreal area, we wanted to expropriate no fewer than 78,000 acres so that people living around the airport or under its air corridors would not be unduly affected by the noise, but if they were they could always move elsewhere without financial losses.
Mr. Speaker, this is an aspect of the problem that I do not think my colleague for Toronto-Lakeshore has considered seriously.
December 14, 1976

There is also the question of jurisdiction over working conditions in Canada. According to my sources, Mr. Speaker, conditions pertaining to work, health and security on job sites or in factories come under the exclusive jurisdiction of provincial governments. I do not think that many would accept to give up readily this jurisdiction in favour of the federal government so that it may enforce this piece of legislation limiting the number of decibels to which workers can be exposed.
Within federal jurisdiction, the Canadian Labour Code has limited the number of decibels in a work area. If we read the Canadian Labour Code of November 1971, as amended on January 1973, we see that it limits the number of decibels for the number of hours of work that may be expected of an employee.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the provisions of the Canada Labour Code are not enough because there are places where the federal government does not have jurisdiction to enforce those constraints. On the other hand, as my hon. colleague for Chambly (Mr. Loiselle) indicated earlier, and as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour pointed out, that area falls under exclusive provincial jurisdiction and it is hard to see how the federal government could impose its view in this area through legislation. Furthermore, the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the provinces to impose federal views in such areas should not be forgotten.
So I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it might be preferable for each province to pass legislation to deal with that problem and thus limit the hazards to which workers are exposed as a result of noises exceeding acceptable decibel limits.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I put the question I should tell hon. members that I understand a correction should be made to the motion presently on the order paper. The motion should be so amended as to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration instead of to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. By unanimous consent, is it agreed that the second reading motion shall be so amended?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I shall now put the motion as amended: Mr. Robinson, seconded by Mr. Roy (Timmins), moves that Bill C-209, respecting noise in factories, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
James Bay Agreement


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock and the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-9, to approve, give effect to and declare valid certain agreements between the Grand Council of Crees (of Quebec), the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, the Government of Quebec, la Societe d'energie de la Baie James, la Societe de developpement de la Baie James, la Commission hydro-electrique de Quebec and the Government of Canada and certain other related agreements to which the Government of Canada is a party, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on what I believe to be a very historic bill, historic because it is a bill to confirm a major settlement of a land claim by some 10,000 native people in the province of Quebec. I believe it is the first time since confederation that such a bill has been brought before parliament and parliament called upon to consider such a settlement.
The minister has urged a quick passage of the bill. It is not the intention of our party to prolong the debate, but I would suggest that the bill deserves very serious consideration by members on all sides of the House.
In speaking in the debate on Tuesday, December 7 last, the minister traced the history of the native claims or native rights in the province of Quebec. He spoke of a bill that was passed
2010

December 14, 1976
James Bay Agreement
in 1891, 61 Victoria, chapter three, which was a very straightforward bill. It extended the boundary of the province of Quebec at that time to the Eastmain River.
The minister also spoke of a bill of 1912, the Boundaries Extension Act of 1912. That bill extended the boundaries north from the Eastmain River to the Northwest Territories. It is interesting to note that unlike the bill of 1898, that bill recognized the rights of the native peoples of the province of Quehec, specifically in the area that was ceded to the province at that time.
I would like to read into the record the excerpt from the act that spells out and recognizes the rights of the native people. It is referred to in Section 2, subsections (c), (d) and (e). Subsection (e) reads as follows:
That the province of Quebec will recognize the rights of the Indian inhabitants in the territory above described to the same extent, and will obtain surrenders of such rights in the same manner, as the Government of Canada has heretofore recognized such rights and has obtained surrender thereof, and the said province shall bear and satisfy all charges and expenditure in connection with or arising out of such surrenders:
Subsection (e) reads:
That the trusteeship of the Indians in the said territory, and the management of any lands now or hereafter reserved for their use, shall remain in the Government of Canada subject to the control of parliament.
That was in 1912. What took place in the meantime in negotiating the claims of the native people? Nothing transpired until almost 60 years later. It was not until 1971 when Premier Bourassa, the then premier of the province of Quebec, on his birthday, April 29, announced a multi-million dollar project, the largest single industrial project ever to be conceived in Canada and possibly in North America, that any thought was given to the claims of the native people. The premier made his announcement without any thought as to the effect such a project would have on the environment. He made it without considering the obligations of the province of Quebec to the native people under the act of 1912. It was only with the announcement by Premier Bourassa that the federal government became interested. As reported at page 1753 of Hansard the minister had this to say:
In October, 1971, the federal government provided funds to the Indians of Quebec Association to enable it to inform native people in the area about the proposed development. During the next two years the main effort was directed toward persuading the provincial government to address itself more directly to the concerns expressed by the native population. In the meantime, my predecessors gave both moral and financial support to the Indians.
I should like to draw attention particularly to the words "moral and financial support". I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the government, in giving "moral and financial support" was carrying out its responsibility as laid down in the act of 1912, namely, to exercise trusteeship over the native people in the area ceded to the province?
It is interesting to note that clause 7 of the bill we are discussing tonight repeals that portion of the 1912 legislation which provides for the exercise of trusteeship on the part of the federal government on behalf of the native people. In other words, when this bill is passed the government will have

abandoned its trusteeship as far as these native people are concerned.
What was the situation in 1971 after the province of Quebec had announced the project? On one side there were 10,000 native people, 6,000 of whom were Cree and 4,000 Inuit. On the other side there was ranged the might of the provincial government and of the Crown corporations-the James Bay Development Corporation, the James Bay Energy Corporation and the Quebec Hydro Corporation. And what action did the federal government take? It gave its "moral and financial support". Notwithstanding its trusteeship obligations it took no active part. I suggest this amounted to a complete abdication of responsibility under the provisions of the act of 1912.
We all know what happened next. The Cree applied to Mr. Justice Malhouf for an interim injunction to stop the work which was taking place in the northern part of Quebec. An interim injunction was granted. The province and the various corporations appealed the decision and the Court of Appeal over-ruled Mr. Justice Malhouf. The native people were then faced with no alternative but to proceed with negotiations, and a deadline was set-November of 1976. They were told they must sign an agreement by that date or there would be no agreement and they would have to take whatever the province and the various corporations would give them. I am aware that the Cree met this deadline.
The Inuit people, whose settlements are scattered throughout the northern province, were in difficulty. In early November of 1976 it was brought to my attention that the Inuit people wanted an extension of time in order to examine the proposed agreement further and discuss it among themselves. I approached the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and asked him whether he would arrange an extension of the deadline for at least a month. On November 6, 1975, I put the following question to the minister, as reported at page 8908 of Hansard:
In view of the fact that the draft agreement of settlement with the native people in the James Bay area is being considered by a standing committee of the Quebec Assembly, in view of the fact that hearings will continue until at least the end of this week in order to deal with the matter and since meaningful negotiations cannot take place during that period of time, will the minister not consider extending the time so as to enable the Inuit people to complete their negotiations?
To which the then minister, now the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan), replied:
It is my understanding that negotiations will be conducted again tomorrow and over the weekend with the Inuit people. That was my information as late as yesterday. I think we may really find a way to accommodate the concern that they secure some additional time.
There was no additional time granted. The deadline was November 11 and that is when the native people were forced to sign the agreement. I suggest that the agreement was signed under compulsion because the feeling was that if it were not signed there was a possibility the natives would be obliged to take whatever crumbs were thrown to them by the other interested parties.
Speaking in the debate on December 7, the minister sought to indicate that the agreement had met with the approval of
December 14, 1976

the Cree and the Inuit people. He mentioned percentages of native people who had voted and percentages of those who had approved the agreement. I shall not take the time of the House to repeat those figures. They speak for themselves.
The bill is going to committee shortly and I expect there will be a thorough and comprehensive study made of it at that time. Witnesses will be called, and 1 am sure it will be interesting to listen to the evidence they give. The agreement is a lengthy one. I trust that the minister and his officials will give us detailed explanations, setting forth the responsibilities and obligations of each of the two levels of government involved. I assume they will also explain how these obligations are to be carried out.
There is another question that comes to my mind, and that is what happens to this agreement and to the native people covered by it if the province of Quebec should separate? What will the obligations be at that point in time? It might be said that this question is hypothetical. It might be suggested that separation will take place and that I have encouraged it. I am not doing that, and I will do my utmost to see that separation is avoided, but we as politicians cannot put our heads in the sand. As responsible politicians we must consider these possibilities. We must face the fact that Premier Levesque is committed to separation. We must face the fact also that the federal government is the trustee for the native people in northern Quebec covered by this James Bay agreement.
I would hope that the minister and the government do not look upon this agreement as being a precedent for any settlement that might take place in the Northwest Territories or the Yukon territory. It is my belief that the government thinks it will be. We must recognize that the situation in the Territories and the Yukon is different than it was in northern Quebec. In the Territories there is a great public awareness of the situation. For the last year and a half or two years there have been the Berger commission hearings, and the National Energy Board hearings taking place here in Ottawa. There has been an opportunity for individuals, public interest groups, and others to have their input. There has been time for a breather. It is completely unlike the situation in James Bay where an agreement was forced upon the native people by virtue of the time restrictions placed on them.
I believe, as do other residents in the north, and as I believe people in all good conscience throughout all of Canada believe, that any settlement which takes place with native people in any part of Canada must be a settlement that takes into consideration the culture and the way of life of those native people. It must take into consideration the fact that the old theory of paternalism has failed. It must take into consideration the fact that the native people must regain their selfrespect. This must be built up and encouraged, and any settlement must be based on the premise that it will provide an economic base for the native people in order that they may move away from the welfare system and dependence on the federal government.
James Bay Agreement
Returning to the bill, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned particularly with clause 4 which reads as follows:
Subject to sections 5 and 6, the Governor in Council may, by order, approve, give effect to and declare valid
(a) any supplementary agreement to which the Government of Canada is a
party that is intended to alter, revoke, replace or add to the Agreement;-
Then it goes on to refer to an agreement which may be made with the Naskapi Indians of Schefferville, Quebec, or any other group of Indians or Inuit people.
There is nothing wrong with having provisions in the bill to make changes from time to time if the circumstances so require, but what concerns me is that if you read clause 5 you will see it provides for the means by which parliament may deal with these changes. It provides for closure in that it provides for a debate of only five hours. It provides that any agreement entered into may become law with the approval of only one House. In other words, if the Commons refuses to approve an amendment to the agreement and the Senate passes it, it would become law. That is quite a change from the democratic system of government to which we are accustomed.
Any changes that may be made this agreement, or any alteration or renegotiation with the Naskapi Indians, for example, should be brought before this House and discussed like any other bill. Any means of dealing with such changes which are of vital importance, not only to the native people but to the rest of the population as well, I submit must be submitted to this House and dealt with in the normal manner, just as any other legislation is dealt with by the House and the Senate.
I see that my time is running short. There are other matters pertaining to the bill and the agreement that I could raise, but there are other members who wish to participate, so I will say in conclusion that I am looking forward to having the opportunity of taking part in committee hearings when the bill is referred there for consideration.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot conscientiously vote for this bill and approve it. We must think of its inception. In 1971, Mr. Bourassa, the former premier of Quebec, desperately needed some issue to boost his not too high prestige. He needed something with drama, so with almost historic euphoria he produced this particular plan. It was to be the largest single industrial project ever launched in Canada. Certainly it was a huge project which was to be the key to the social reconstruction of a good deal of Quebec.
At the beginning it was supposed to cost $2 billion. The present estimate is that it will cost $16 billion, and this is something not unknown when this sort of project is considered. Although there was a lot of publicity about it, the normal precautions were not taken. There were no adequate surveys, there were no consultations with the Indians, and there was no adequate debate in the legislature of Quebec nor, indeed, in this House. However, it was supposed to produce a great many jobs and so the deal has proceeded. Before it was approved, two task forces reported and advised either for delay or for abandonment of the project.
8000S-59y2

December 14, 1976
James Bay Agreement
I would like to ask the minister a few questions. He is not here, but I suppose he has good reasons not to be here when this important matter which is under his jurisdiction is under discussion.
One thing I would like to know is whether this government has consulted the new government of the province of Quebec. My recollection-and I cannot vouch for this-is that in the provincial legislature the Party Quebecois, then quite a small party, voted against approval of this particular agreement. Certainly Mr. Jacques Parizeau made many vigorous and pointed criticisms. Has the new government been consulted to see whether at this stage it is its desire to proceed? Is the new government in a position to commit $16 billion in capital to this project? What will this do to other projects the new government has? I think we have the right to know that.
I understand that the major purpose of this agreement was to provide electrical power for sale, largely in the United States of America. Are those sales going through as anticipated, or is the story we hear true, that the price being secured and the demands made are far less than expected? It may be too late to cancel the whole project, but is it too late to cut it down? I think we have the right to know, in view of the vast expansion of the expenditures, the sum to which this parliament will be committed if we pass this bill.
There is another factor about which I would like to know something. It is said that the power from this development is going to be used for the production of enriched uranium for sale to France. I understand it has been the policy of the federal government not to approve of the sale of enriched uranium to France. How does that stand? How will that affect the agreement which has been made? I think we have the right to ask that that be looked into.
I want to speak about the way this legislation has been introduced. The bill itself is very short and simple. It declares the agreement to be valid. It approves and gives effect to the agreement. Then comes this clause, which I think is significant in its tone as well as in its content:
All native claims, rights, title and interests, whatever they may be, in and to the Territory, of all Indians and all Inuit, wherever they may be, and all the native claims, rights, title and interests, whatever they may be, in Canada, of all the Inuit of Port Burwell are hereby extinguished . ..
Then it goes on to a clause which is not relevant at the present time. The main purpose of this legislation is to extinguish the rights of Indians. And what do they get in place of the rights which would be extinguished by the bill we are asked to approve? What they get is impossible to summarize. It is contained in an agreement of 452 pages, and a large number of them are totally unintelligible. I say that because I have tried to read the agreement.
This is the agreement the Inuit and the Cree are supposed to have approved. I do not know how they could approve it. Certainly I do not know how their approval could mean anything unless they understood what is in it, yet I defy any ordinary person, without calling lawyers, accountants, engineers and others, to go through the agreement in detail and to
[Mr. Brewing
say what it means. I resent, and I think this House ought to resent, the fact that we are being asked to approve of one simple little bill saying we approve of an agreement extinguishing the rights of these people in exchange for an agreement of 452 pages which is not subject to the approval, as I understand it, of this House, except in a general blanket way. It is not subject to amendment, although I understand that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) has said he would be ready to consider changes to the agreement. Of course he would have to negotiate them with the other parties to the agreement, including the province of Quebec.
We are faced with a fait accompli. We have no opportunity to get a reasonable understanding of this agreement. I know it is going to committee, but when this House is asked to deal with what has been described as one of the largest projects ever launched in this country, a project costing up to $16 billion, a large portion of which is committed by the Parliament of Canada, I think we have the right to know at least an outline of what is in this agreement. There may be a few hon. members in this House who have tried to read this agreement and who are in a position to explain it, but I doubt very much whether there are more than one or two at the very outside. Certainly the minister did not bother to try to explain it to the House.
Another thing which has to be borne in mind is whose land and whose lives we are dealing with. I understand we are dealing with only 10,000 people. Have we any right to deprive them of their livelihood? Have we any right to deprive them of their style of life just because there are relatively few of them? I acknowledge it is true that at certain stages in this agreement there are provisions for the benefit of the Indians. They are given a certain amount of local government, they are given rights of harvesting, and limited rights of fishing, hunting and trapping, but these are subject to all sorts of exceptions. I do not know whether these new rights which are handed to them are the same as, worse than, or better than the rights they have enjoyed since time immemorial. All I know is that the only place we can find them is in this long winded agreement.
This agreement is so complicated that it had to divide the relatively small amount of land involved into different categories. One category is simply for the exclusive use of the Indians, but it is interesting to note how big that category is. It is described by Mr. Ciaccia, who presented this agreement. I think he is a member of the legislature of Quebec. Certainly he was acting on its behalf. I am told he is the member of the national assembly for Mount Royal, and he was a special representative of Premier Robert Bourassa. He wrote a preface to the agreement in which he stated:
... the Category 1 lands ... represent a tiny portion of the whole territory. Approximately 3,250 square miles are to be allocated to the use of the Inuit, and 2,158 square miles to the use of the Crees. Thus, although these lands are vital to the native peoples and they constitute an essential element of the Quebec government's policy of protecting their traditional economy and culture, you will agree that they are of minimal importance in relation to the total economy 6f Quebec.
December 14, 1976

That is the kind of judgment we should be criticizing. The rights these people have depended upon for years are considered of minimal importance, and they are given a tiny proportion to use as their own in this category 1. Then there are categories 2 and 3. There are elaborate procedures with regard to the sale of bonds and with regard to the nature of compensation, and if I had time and thought the House would be interested, I would read some of the paragraphs about compensation, about the issuing of bonds and things of that kind. I defy anybody but expert corporation lawyers to have the vaguest idea of what the effect will be of words like "mortgage," "hypothec," and the like. If we cannot understand them, how can we expect the Cree and the Inuit to understand what is being done to them?
I think the minister, who is not here, is a conscientious and decent man, and he has said to this House that the Cree have approved of this and that at least some of the Inuit have signed the document. I am not so clear as to whether they have really approved or whether they do now approve. Other speakers have dwelt on the circumstances in which they had their backs against the wall when they gave their approval, and I have tried to stress the fact that approval of something you do not understand is hardly approval at all.
This is only one more chapter in the long, tragic history of the way the rights of the native peoples have been abused in this country. It is shameful episode after shameful episode. I know that some of the agreements are reasonably satisfactory, and some of the Indian groups in north Saskatchewan approve of the treaties they have. The only thing they do not approve of is that the government does not live up to the agreements, which of course is another way of making these agreements absolutely meaningless.
I want to say a word about trustees. This has already been mentioned in the House by the last speaker, I think. The word "trustee" is stricken out. What right have we as the parliament to strike out our obligation as trustees for these people? That obligation was created when this country was formed. What is a trustee? It is a person whom you can trust to protect your interests, and no trustee has any right to say he will not carry on with his obligations any further. If the subject matter of his trust has disappeared, that is another matter, but here it has not. It is still there, and the trusteeship obligation has in fact been substantially ignored.
I am tempted to read to the House some of the provisions of this agreement which we are being asked to approve. I presume that the committee to which this will be referred will have an extremely difficult job. Certainly I do not envy them their job. It was said by Mr. Ciaccia as the representative of Mr. Bourassa, in introducing this agreement:
Every aspect of the agreement must be studied in detail before it becomes law.
Can we say in the House that we will have studied every detail of this agreement before it becomes law? The answer is no. We are just going to approve it in bulk and say that that is all we have to do, all the responsibility we have in this matter.
James Bay Agreement
I do not know when this history is going to end. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development says that these people approved the agreement. Has he made any effort to discover the circumstances under which they approved, whether they understood it or not? Has he read the history of these agreements in the past whereby Indians and other native peoples were required to give up their rights, their titles and their privileges, their immemorial rights, one might say? They were asked to give them up, and in return they got pieces of paper. Has he thought of that history? I think he cannot have thought of it. Perhaps he has come to this matter at a stage when very little can be done about it. That is so typical of what happens in the House.
The very first project that I had anything to do with in the House was the Columbia River Treaty which General Mac-Naughton and others thought was a give-away of Canada's resources. But it was agreed to by the Governments of Canada, the two governments one after the other. Then we were told in the House and in the committee which studied it, "you can look at this, we do not object to you talking about it, you can call witnesses, but not one comma will be changed". At present we are not quite as crude as that, but the same effect will be achieved. Therefore I ask this House to look at this again and to reject this agreement, at least until it has received the study that it deserves and needs.


Mr. Penner:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened with great interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), who raised a number of very important and valid questions. In the course of raising these questions, he asked where the minister was. I should like to inform him and the House that this evening the minister is at an important cabinet committee meeting dealing with a matter of great concern to him. He asked me, as his parliamentary secretary, to pay close attention to the debate and to make a note of questions such as the hon. member has raised.
1 should like to say to him that these questions will certainly be answered. He has made a significant contribution to the debate. Perhaps the best forum, as he will appreciate, will be the committee itself.


Mr. Alexander:: That is not a point of order.


B. Keith Penner: It certainly has to great deal to do with the order of the debate. If the hon. member would rather have written answers, they can be provided. In addition to that, I would like to inform him that briefings will be arranged, and 1 will make a special point of ensuring that the hon. member for Greenwood receives an invitation to those briefings where some of these valid matters that are of importance to him will be answered.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, may I speak on the same point of order? I should like to make a brief reply to the point of order and say that I fully exculpate the minister from any failure to be here if he had this important appointment, and I am glad to see the parliamentary secretary here and to receive his assurances. But I want to say to him, nevertheless, that however

December 14, 1976
James Bay Agreement
important committees are and however kind he may be in explaining it to me, what I was trying to say is that every member of the House should be concerned about this matter. It is not something I ask; it is something that all members of the House are concerned about.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, some days ago in this very important debate a member of the opposition, the hon member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), spent some time talking about environmental concerns as they relate to this bill. I would like, therefore, to spend a few moments tonight answering some of those concerns and, if I may, as well do justice to the minister with whom I work and who, I believe, is absolutely devoted not only to the fisheries side of his portfolio but the environmental side as well.
I take personal exception to the comments of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, made on December 8, as reported at page 1787 of Hansard, when he said:
Will the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) take a stand for the environment, or will that same minister, who has been given the responsibility for the environment, literally decimate his own department by reallocating his environment budget to sovereignty patrols for the 200 mile limit? I doubt if he will stand and defend the environment of this 68,285 square miles of Canada.
That rather disappoints me because I believe the House of Commons function on the basic thesis that from all sides of the House people will responsibly criticize and propose ideas which are in the interests of the Canadian people. There is no area more important to the immediate future of Canadians than issues of the environment, and there is no issue which will focus more centrally on environmental questions than this James Bay development project. For that reason I am disappointed that the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, who has expressed concerns about environmental aspects and who sometimes addressed himself positively in his speech to the problem, could say that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment was literally decimating his own department.
Publicly, and at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry only a week or two earlier, the minister clearly said in response to the official critic for the opposition on environmental issues, and I quote from page 1:30 of the committee report dated November 23, 1976, as follows:
Mr. Chairman, unless I resort to my other official language, I do not think I can match the hon. member's eloquence and use of strong words. 1 would like to make it very clear that if what he called the rape of the environmental services took place, it was also shared in by the other branch of the department, the fisheries and marine service, which in fact absorbed $1.6 million of the additional cost; and the sacrifice, if "sacrifice" is the word we should use, was certainly equally shared.
A few moments later in addressing himself to this earlier charge by the official opposition critic on the environment, the minister said:
I also want to make one other thing clear: no section of a department owns itself. There are periods during which, in any department of government, one segment will have to move into second place in relation to another one. I can visualize the day when, for example, environmental protection services in the

area of environment and energy is going to occupy a very large place in the Department of the Environment. Now, that does not mean that atmospheric services or management services are not important; it simply means that at that point in time the priorities have to be established, and they can only be established by the one or two persons who are above the sections of a department, that is, the deputy minister and the minister.
What I want to argue in beginning my response to the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, and I hope adding some comment on behalf of my minister and his very respected department and public servants in that section federally, is that nothing could be more unfair than to accuse the minister of decimating the environmental section of his department. First of all, the minister in question did not hold the portfolio of minister responsible for the environment last March when the decision was made to give priority within the Departments of Fisheries and the Environment to the issue of adequately coping with the problem of the extension of the fisheries zone for Canada to 200 miles. It was September when the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) became responsible for both areas.
I should say, Mr. Speaker, that in these days of restraint it is very frustrating for someone on the government side to find the opposition so ready, piece by piece, section by section, to demand, with piousness and righteousness, more money and more responsibility when from the other side of their mouths they continue to demand government restraint. I believe that the people of Canada are seriously concerned about government restraint; I also believe it is a real responsibility and challenge for any Government of Canada today to meet those demands and restraints, to show visibly that we are restraining ourselves and, in turn, to meet important priorities. Surely there could be no more important, long range responsibility for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment than to cope adequately with the challenge of taking care of our responsibilities with an extended 200 miles zone for the fisheries.
As the minister said himself in committee, and as I quoted him a few moments ago, priorities do change from time to time. Yet the charge that one area of his responsibility is decimated, when he was not even minister at the time that decision was taken, and when in turn he has shown in committee and in the House a real concern not only for fisheries, which reflects upon thousands of jobs in an area of depression with high unemployment, and reflects upon a food resource not only essential to Canadians but to the world, seems to me dreadfully unfair when he has also shown this real interest and sensitivity to questions of the environment.
The extension of jurisdiction to the 200 mile limit for Fisheries is of course very important and very much a priority of this department today. I have every reason to believe, and so does the minister and members on this side of the House, that in time, and perhaps not very far ahead, the question of the Environmental Contaminants Act effectively carrying out its responsibility will be very real indeed. At that point we may find that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment will be redirecting funds under restraint in that direction. To say that any minister cannot reassess priorities within his own department, or having had thrust upon him a new and major
December 14, 1976

responsibility while we have a restraint program, cannot look within and readjust, is to deny the sensitivity that surely the official opposition demands of the government on a daily basis.
The extension of jurisdiction to 200 miles, the current major priority of the Department of Fisheries and the Environment, does not for the moment obliterate the ongoing responsibility not only of the minister but of the government to continue to give a high priority to all environmental matters. When you talk about fisheries and when you talk about the environment, you are, of course, very much talking about one and the same thing. If we talk about jobs, preserving our fishery supply, preserving a key food commodity, developing it at a time when we need more employment and more exports of goods, about the provision of a food commodity to other nations, we cannot discuss those things without also realising that environmental considerations, the health and state of our waters, the supply of our fisheries, are matters that could not make any group more aware of environmental concerns that the people involved in the fisheries industry.
So, Mr. Speaker, next month or next year the concern may well be energy and environmental concern-pipelines and environmental concern-or in fact this James Bay bill we are talking about tonight, and environmental concerns. Surely a minister must have the freedom to skim, be rigid and tough where he can, and focus where he must in order to carry out government responsibilities.
For a few moments I should like to dwell on particular criticisms made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. From listening to previous speakers you get the impression in this debate that the role of Environment Canada in the James Bay project is not clearly understood. I should like to spend a few moments trying to make it better understood.
The role of the Department of Fisheries and the Environment should be viewed in its proper context. The James Bay project is a Quebec project, being constructed by a provincial Crown corporation, financed by the province and, from the physical point of view, impacts will be largely on matters under provincial jurisdiction.
While the announcement by the former premier, Mr. Bou-rassa, in 1971 indicated that a hydro-electric project would be built in the James Bay area, the exact location was not specified at that time. Therein lay a role of major importance for the federal department at that time. Shortly after that announcement the province of Quebec asked the department to take part in a task force to determine, among other things, which alternative being considered-the La Grande or Notta-way-Broadback Report (NBR)-would be most acceptable environmentally.
With limited data, and after about two months of investigation, the task force concluded that the La Grande alternative would appear to be less demaging to the environment than the NBR. That was a major thrust and a major role played by Environment Canada.
It is interesting to note that even in 1971, five long years ago and before we arrived at this point, the task force report
James Bay Agreement
emphasized that the major impact of the development would be on the native population and not the physical environment. As far as I am aware, this was the first report to highlight the consequences to the natives-again an action by Environment Canada which played an important role of influence in this developing situation.
Shortly after the report was published early in 1972 the government of Quebec announced its intention to proceed with the La Grande development-the recommendation of Environment Canada. In June, 1972, Environment Canada officers met with officials of the James Bay development corporation to outline a program of environmental studies necessary to determine the potential impact of the project.
In November, 1972, Quebec and Canada signed an agreement to enable the necessary environmental studies to be carried out in the James Bay region. It covered the period 1971 to 1975 inclusive, and included studies already under way. Again, Mr. Speaker, this was a major role and thrust of Environment Canada. While the total program was outlined, Environment Canada accepted responsibility for the cost of studies within its jurisdiction, the province for its exclusive responsibilities, and programs of mutual interest were cost-shared on a 50-50 basis. The program was co-ordinated by a federal-provincial steering committee. So before we accept as rote the comments of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, I should like to make it clear that where Environment Canada and the government had the power, we made a major thrust in choosing the location and paying our way, and thus involving ourselves in environmental recommendations.
To carry out its responsibilities under the four-year agreement, Environment Canada committed itself to an expenditure of $6 million and to further cost-share studies in the amount of $4 million. Surely that is visible evidence that the federal government, in this period of restraint, was concerned about how native peoples would be treated and about the choice of proper locations. The department, acting under the authority of the federal government, spent money and took concrete action to bring about the most reasonable solution.
In the fall of 1972 the Indians and Inuit sought an interim injunction to halt the James Bay project. That action was significant in the development of this situation. Environment Canada made its information and experts available to all parties to the injunction. Without bias or prejudice the federal government through Environment Canada said to the Inuit and other natives, and to the government of Quebec, "Here are our facts and figures. We want to influence you because we want you to recognize the environmental problems we see."
During the court proceedings presided over by Judge Malouf, Environment Canada officials appeared voluntarily as witnesses both for the natives and the province. Between November, 1973, and November, 1974, department officials had some involvement in the agreement in principle. Unfortunately, and I say this personally, because of the split in our constitutional powers federally and provincially, limitations

December 14, 1976
James Bay Agreement
were placed on the ability of Environment Canada to be involved more directly in the issue.
Based on the information to date from their environmental studies, Environment Canada scientists prepared in 1974, and published early in 1975, a report outlining, to the extent possible, the environmental concerns arising from the proposed development. Again, further information was made available to the natives and to the developers. In that report not only were environmental impacts identified, but areas in which there would be little or no impact were outlined. In addition certain recommendations for remedial measures were specified. Acting within its jurisdiction, Environment Canada clearly carried out its mandate and clearly gave advice and direction. It is fair to say that, whether or not their recommendations were all accepted, all major parties to the agreement, including the natives, were made aware of them.
It can also be stated that most of the provisions for environmental protection and remedial measures built into the agreement were as a result of the constant participation of Environment Canada officials. To ensure a continuation of the environmental studies in the James Bay region, Environment Canada renewed the federal-provincial agreement to the end of March, 1979. Total cost of the program will be $2.25 million, to be cost shared on a 50-50 basis.
Finally, Environment Canada feels that, if the provisions contained in sections 22 and 23 of the agreement are implemented, the natives will be afforded the opportunity to participate in a fashion without precedence in the management of the environment in the James Bay region.
May I sum up, Mr. Speaker, and allow others to participate in this debate. The federal Department of Fisheries and the Environment without question by its efforts influenced the outcome of the negotiations. That input resulted in certain changes to original design. It resulted in provision for remedial works as part of an agreement with natives. That input from Environment Canada also resulted in the formulation of structures to ensure that all future development is reviewed by appropriate committees, including representation by natives and Department of Fisheries and the Environment officials.
Although hon. members of this House from time to time are partisan, angry and frustrated, it is essential for all members, in carrying out their responsibilities, to deal with issues about which they have some expertise. In this case, although the hon. member for Fraser Valley West made some positive points in his speech, I was a little disappointed that he should so personally and directly attack the minister, a minister who has such respect for members on the hon. member's side of the House. The minister has done important work in finding employment, protecting our fisheries and expanding our jurisdiction to the 200-mile limit. That minister, who is weighed down with all that responsibility, has demonstrated in committee and in the House that he cares about the environment, is willing to represent all Canadians and act, within the restraint guidelines, both to uphold the priorities of the government and demonstrate that the federal government is most concerned about the sensitive area of the environment.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to express some of my views on the subject being debated.


An hon. Member:: Briefly, I hope.


Paul Yewchuk: Yes, I shall be brief, for the benefit of those who want to go home early. I thought it might be useful to review some of the history of this matter. We know that the present Liberal government in Ottawa has not done much to recognize and protect Indian rights. Indeed that has been the history of the Liberal party in dealings with the Indians right from the beginning. We know, for example, that the Conservative party was the first political party in this House officially to recognize some years ago the existence of aboriginal rights. The other parties followed suit some time later.
Under previous Liberal administrations the native peoples of this country were not allowed to vote. The Progressive Conservative government led by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) gave the native peoples, particularly treaty Indians, the right to vote. According to my interpretation, that was the first genuine step any government had taken to involve the Indian peoples in the mainstream of Canadian life, in which I include participation in the political process. As I recall, at that time old age pensions were first extended to the Indian peoples, something which had not been done by governments previous to the Conservative government to which I referred.
The particular agreement we are debating has met with mixed reaction on the part of our native peoples. I am sure I am right in saying that, since I shall soon quote excerpts from documents expressing their views and supporting my contention. Chief Billy Diamond of the Cree Grand Council described the agreement as "the best settlement made with Indian peoples in North America." His enthusiasm was not shared by the Indians of Quebec Association. Chief Andrew Delisle expressed grave reservations about the agreement. Allow me to quote the last paragraph of the letter Chief Delisle sent to my colleague, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes), which reads as follows:
The governments may have threatened the Cree and the Inuit of James Bay that if they did not sign, they would get nothing; but they would still have their aboriginal rights, whatever they may feel them to be as well as their right to claim in the future; and the government would have been forced by moral and legal obligation to provide for them. As it stands, the government took the lands and the rights anyway. But I doubt whether they could have forced the Cree to become Quebecers who are fighting for special status because the Cree already had special status which they lost when they signed the agreement, only to get it partially returned in the agreement.
Although the Quebec Indian Association expressed reservations, to be fair we must commend the Cree Grand Council for arriving at an agreement which was an historical landmark, if nothing else. Negotiating in difficult conditions, they arrived at an agreement which was satisfactory to a substantial number of people directly affected. There was concern in case this agreement became a precedent or pattern for future agreements in other areas in which there are a good number of unsettled Indian claims. I am thinking of the Inuit claim which had been made to the Arctic Archipelago, the Northwest
December 14, 1976

Territories claim submitted in the Dene proposals, and other non-status Indian claims in the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, British Columbia and, indeed, even in my constituency in northeast Alberta.
There are claims all over this country which are far from settled. I will outline them. There was a treaty involving an Indian band located at Fort Chipewyan in 1918 or 1920. Part of the agreement was that they should be given some land of their choice. They still do not have it. They are still waiting for land which the federal government agreed to give back in 1920.
The government should bring forward legislation very soon to allocate a portion of Wood Buffalo Park which these people have chosen to satisfy this unfulfilled land entitlement in that area. It is three years since the Fort Chipewyan Crees came to an agreement with the federal government on the site and size of the new reserve in Wood Buffalo Park. However, for some strange reason legislation has not been forthcoming from this government.
Another claim has been laid to a substantial portion of the tar sands in northern Alberta by the Alberta Indian Association. In view of the importance of the tar sands to Canadian energy supplies, the government should begin talks with the native people in that area to try to come to some kind of agreement in so far as land claims are concerned. Working out some kind of settlement before a great deal of development has taken place would avoid very substantial problems that could arise in the future.
I want to make it clear that neither I nor my party are trying to be paternalistic in this debate by expressing reservations about an agreement arrived at through negotiation between Indian people, governments and other bodies, particularly since the negotiators from the Indian side appear to be satisfied in some ways, at least. However, I have to say that under the system by which this institution operates, namely, the adversary system, we have an obligation to parliament to point out the other side of the coin. Members on the government side would never do that. They always have a tendency to cover up possible difficulties that could occur as a result of their proposals. I am sure Your Honour can think of many examples of that.
We as a party are very concerned that any such proposal being debated in this House must be looked at very carefully and thoroughly from all sides. It is the job of the official opposition, indeed of all members of parliament, to ensure that all of the facts are laid on the table before a vote is taken.
I found it rather curious when the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) spoke. He talked about the settlement as an agreement covering that area as referred to in the legislation. He said:
The area covered by the proposed legislation comprises 410,000 square miles, or about 60 per cent of the province of Quebec-
I checked the minister's calculations. I found that 410,000 square miles actually amounts to roughly 70 per cent of what
James Bay Agreement
is presently known as the area belonging to the province of Quebec. By strange coincidence, it works out to about 60 per cent if you combine Labrador and Quebec. I don't know whether the minister in his proposal was putting forward a proposal on behalf of his new Quebec provincial government or not. Perhaps he owes this House an explanation to clarify how he arrived at these calculations and why, particularly when the government and citizens of Newfoundland would not take too kindly to that kind of consideration.
I am a little concerned about that part of the agreement which seems to turn over a responsibility which the laws of Canada give to the federal government. In this agreement the federal government is to a certain extent turning over its responsibility to the provincial government of Quebec, particularly with regard to health and social services. The Indian people should be very cautious in accepting this kind of proposal, particularly in view of the current level of instability in so far as the political situation in the province of Quebec is concerned.
Referring to the Indian Association of Quebec previously, I stated they had some very grave reservations about this agreement. I suppose the reasons for those reservations could be summarized in one sentence. Basically the native people have agreed to renounce all further land claims against the government in exchange for the benefits of this agreement.
The agreement contains several clauses. One deals with a $225 million tax free cash payment to the native people. It also deals with a land settlement, the land being divided into three categories and amounting to a few thousand square miles of territory. The environmental portion of the agreement to which the parliamentary secretary addressed himself raises a question about which I am a little nervous from the point of view of native rights.
Four regulatory bodies have been established to oversee development. On two of the bodies, the Environmental and Social Impact Review Committee and the Environmental and Social Impact Panel, will decide the fate of proposed new developments in areas of provincial or federal jurisdiction. They will be composed of two Cree appointments and three governmental appointees. In essence what we have is the establishment of a body where native people can make representations but they will in fact be the minority. The appropriate government official will make the final decision on development when there is a lack of mutual agreement on such developments.
There is also a provision for the establishment of local governments and the preservation of certain hunting, fishing and trapping rights, and another payment to be made under the economic and social measures clause which reads as follows:
Those who wish to earn a living from harvesting of game will get a guaranteed annual income from Quebec of $2,400 per person maximum.
I am a little concerned about that. We know that in treaties made a long time ago at that time there may have appeared to have been a substantial sum of money, but 100 years later it becomes a very insubstantial sum.
2018

December 14, 1976
James Bay Agreement
We are now looking at $2,400 a year. Projecting that 100 years, and given the current inflation rate, say the average inflation rate of the past ten years which was around 5.6 per cent, $2,400 a year will amount to the equivalent of about $12 a year.
If we look at it in those terms, which we must do when dealing with agreements that are supposed to be in perpetuity, we have to look ahead 100 or 200 years or even more, because the definition of "in perpetuity" is forever. In 100 years from now, $12 a year will not go very far in terms of helping to support an Indian family. That is another area that should be reviewed. Perhaps some kind of an indexing formula should be worked out if this clause is to have any meaning whatsoever from the long term point of view.
I wish to put on record a few more quotations from the letter written by the President of the Indians of Quebec Association with reference to what the Indian people have lost through this agreement. The letter says:
We have lost the right to be Indian over all of the land, for we are Indian only on our reserves. We have lost the right to be taught by our parents and elders. We have lost the right to regulate our lives in peace and security and to judge ourselves. We have lost the right to speak our own language. We have lost the right to go into business as Indians.
We have lost many of our ways, not through the process of evolution, but by force. We have lost the right to build shelter for we have lost the animals and the trees; we cannot even build a log cabin without first having to get permission from a lumber or pulp and paper company.
Over the years we have lost mentally and physically many of our people by sickness, alcohol, drugs, bad care, misunderstanding, bad management, prejudice, discrimination, fighting your wars, mistreatment and shame. You count the ways, the time, the dollars.
Chief Delisle briefly outlines the situation which in his view the Indian people are facing. It is a situation common to many areas which are covered by treaties and to some which were not covered by treaties at all.
I should like to continue by quoting the view expressed by James Arvaluk, President of the Inuit Tapirisat. He says: "We are saddened we are giving up so much for so little." So not everyone on the native side is happy about the terms of the agreement. I might add that this agreement is of particular importance inasmuch as it might be considered as a pattern to be followed in the settlement of other claims likely to arise in the course of the next few years. Thus it is vital that the document should be fair to the native people as well as to the other parties involved.
One difficulty appears to be arising already; it relates to the process of land selection. I am informed that talks in this area have already broken down because Quebec wants to involve Hydro Quebec and is using land choice criteria which are not in the agreement. While the general terms of reference are outlined in the agreement itself, land choice may be far more difficult that anyone has predicted. The Quebec Indian Association has asked the federal government to step in to ensure that the Quebec government follows the terms of the agreement. I think this is significant in itself.
[Mr. Yewchuk-1
Charges have been made against the federal government by the native people, particularly in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, that they were living under colonial status. Charges have been laid by Indian people all over the country that the Indian Act is paternalistic, as is the attitude of the government toward the native people. When we review the developments which have taken place during the last 100 years or so, we find there is a great deal of truth in the assertion. The treaties made with the Indians are based to a great extent on the concept of paternalism, and examining the economic, social and educational development which has taken place since treaties of this kind were entered into, we can readily see that development of Indian people has not been very satisfactory.
In order to emphasize the importance of ensuring that agreements are properly made, I think I should make reference to Treaty No. 6. This is not to say that the agreement we are discussing can be classified as a treaty. But I believe we can still learn something from Treaty No. 6-this was the treaty made between the Cree Indian people, the Woodland and Plains Cree tribe of Northern Alberta and Saskatchewan, where they ceded most of their land and were placed on reserves. The terms of that treaty were as follows:
The Plain and Wood Cree tribes of Indians and all other Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter described and defined, do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the government of the Dominion of Canada, for Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors forever, all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever to the lands included within the following limits-
The treaty then goes on to describe the areas ceded. It is clear that the Indians were giving up the very means of livelihood they had enjoyed for hundreds of years. In return, they were placed on reserves, one square mile being allotted to each family of five, or each portion thereof. There was also a grant of $12 to each man, woman and child belonging to the bands, and in addition each band was given $1,500 a year for the purchase of ammunition and twine for nets. Further, they were given various agricultural implements with the idea that the Indian people, after being hunters and fishermen for generations, would suddenly become farmers. We all recognize now that this notion did not materialize.
Another thing which struck me as I reviewed this treaty was that special concessions were made to the chiefs and head men. Each chief received an annual salary in addition to the payment made to members of the rest of the band, and each subordinate officer was guaranteed an annual salary amounting to $25. I have taken the trouble to interpret that figure in terms of the worth of the dollar today. It appears the difference is not as great as one might have thought, because $25 then had about the same purchasing power as $100 today. The chiefs were also given a wagon and some horses, a set of clothing, a flag, a medal, and a number of other items which were not made available to the rest of the Indian population. It seems to me that if one wanted to be suspicious one could conclude there was an element of bribery involved. I hope that in future negotiations with native people special privileges and concessions of this kind will not be offered to the negotiators themselves, because when circumstances of that kind become
December 14, 1976

evident one is apt to wonder whether the negotiators worked as hard as they could to secure the best deal for those they represented.
I have already referred to the need, when negotiating monetary settlements which are to be in effect in perpetuity, to remember the inflation factor. Most people when they talk of long-term contracts have a period of 10, 15, perhaps 20 years in mind. If there are to be settlements made that will offer certain payments to the Indian people on an annual basis, it would be worth remembering that if we have $1,000 today, with an annual inflation rate of 7 per cent that $1,000 will only be worth $1.15 in one hundred years.
If we consider the present value of $1 million, two hundred years down the road that will only be worth $1.32 with a 7 per cent inflation rate. In considering these kind of figures we might think of a $5,000 car today which in 100 years would cost $1 million. When we talk about a settlement of $1 million it sounds like a lot of money today, but 100 years down the road it does not amount to very much. Let us consider a $10,000 car, which is not unusual at today's prices. With a 7 per cent annual inflation rate that car would cost $2 million one hundred years from now. If we take it another step, one hundred years from now we might end up paying $40 for a chocolate bar.
All these factors should be considered very carefully when we are talking about a financial agreement which will entitle the native people to certain payments on an annual basis. In order to keep everything in perspective, when this kind of agreement is made the native people should strive to have an indexing factor built in to take care of the inflationary problems which we are far from solving at the moment.
With those remarks I will conclude. There are others in this Chamber who are waiting for the vote and are anxious to get home to watch television. That probably is more fun than listening to me speak.


Some hon. Members:: Oh no!


Paul Yewchuk: Apparently there are many objections to my concluding now, Mr. Speaker, so I will carry on for another few minutes. The federal government has a direct responsibility to protect the rights of the native people. This is a responsibility usurped from the native people through treaties. This was not as a result of the wishes of the Indian people. They had no choice in the matter. The treaties were forced upon them, and the responsibility to look after them in all aspects, including education, medical care, welfare, shelter, hunting and fishing rights, was taken by the federal government of the day.
The Indian people at the time negotiated to the best of their ability, but they really did not have much choice. The land was to be taken from them in any event. In light of today's civilization there should be a conscientious effort on the part of the federal government to ensure that any settlement will be to the long-term benefit of the native people, keeping in mind
James Bay Agreement
that in every way the native people lost when the land was originally taken from them.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is some confusion in the recording of the vote of hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). It was not clear how the hon. member voted. I presume the hon. member for Crowfoot ought to be recorded as voting against the motion. Is that correct?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is correct, Your Honour. I voted with the Conservative party as always.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
And the result of the vote having been announced:


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried.


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

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

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, on November 19 I directed a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) with respect to the plan to decentralize the services of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The specific question dealt with the advisability of having a service officer in the city of Brandon to meet the needs of the large population of service men living in the western Manitoba area.
The minister indicated at that time that the matter was under consideration. In a supplementary question I inquired if he was aware that not only was there not a resident service officer for this important part of the province of Manitoba but that for the past few months it has been impossible to receive or make long distance telephone calls to the Department of Veterans Affairs in Winnipeg, which means that these veterans are without adequate service.
I know that the department is in the process of decentralization on a massive scale which, over a period of six years, will remove the headquarters from Ottawa to Charlottetown in Prince Edward Island. It seems to me, however, in the light of what has been happening in the downgrading of services to our veterans' population, that it is more a phasing out of services than a decentralization of services. This is the point I should like to make this evening, Mr. Speaker. The government has been downgrading the military service and it would appear the same process is under way with respect to the services provided for the veterans of Canada.
Mr. Bob Adams, who is the director general of veterans services, has indicated in an article in the Canadian Legion for October, 1976, that there is a plan afoot to increase the number of district officers in the area where the clients are-a storefront operation with as little support as possible. This is precisely the sort of service I am recommending and I trust whoever replies for the minister tonight will give a positive response and indicate that this is the plan for serving western Manitoba.
Part of the phasing out of services for veterans has included a decrease in travel. In Manitoba in the past several months it has been almost impossible to have the direct assistance of a service officer unless the matter was one of dire emergency. I would say that if this is the case it is all the more reason why long distance telephoning should be available. In his article Mr. Adams indicated that long distance telephoning was going to be substituted for direct travel arrangements.
I have been corresponding with the minister for over a year on this problem, Mr. Speaker, so he is aware of it. In a letter to me dated April 6, he wrote:
December 14, 1976

Thank you for writing to me about the possibility of establishing a full time departmental representative in Brandon to serve the Westman area. I assure you that this matter, and the excellent material which accompanied your letter, will receive careful and thorough review.
We are not putting forward a new proposition, Mr. Speaker. This has been under consideration for a year, and I trust that the minister or his representative will give a positive response tonight. The Canadian Legion has been trying to fill the gap by stepping up its service operation to veterans, but as Mr. Adams said in the article, some Legion service officers are just not sufficiently familiar with the appropriate legislation. The Legion has done magnificent service, but I suggest that DVA still has the prime responsibility and it would meet a real need if it provided a service officer in the Westman area.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to reply to the question raised by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), who I know is greatly concerned about this matter. He has corresponded with the department and the minister for some time. His interest goes back some years; it is an interest which the hon. member has expressed in the veterans affairs committee.
The hon. member is concerned about the phasing out of certain services. I feel that, rather than being phased out, some of the services of the Veterans Affairs department are likely to increase in volume. Therefore I think I can lay his mind to rest on that point.
The hon. member is concerned about the effects of decentralization. It has been established that during the next three of four years, when the actual move from Ottawa may take place, the decentralization of the department will have no deleterious effects on service to veterans. Actually such service may be enhanced because of the improved communications system which will be in use.
From the standpoint of the Royal Canadian Legion, Operation Service is a good idea about which we are enthusiastic, because it has brought to light cases of veterans who otherwise would not have been aware of the benefits the Government of Canada was making available to them. A great many veterans have been completely ignorant of what they should have been receiving. I congratulate the Royal Canadian Legion on the great work they have done this year through Operation Service.
If the minister were here this evening I know he would say that the officials of the department have been examining the field organizational structure, paying particular attention to service outlets in relation to client population density and related costs. This study is primarily concerned with providing easier access to departmental services for veterans and their dependants. However, it is also seeking more efficiency in operations during a period of restraint. One of the ideas which can serve both these purposes is the adoption of store front-types of operations, to which my hon. friend has referred.
Adjournment Debate
It is too early in the study to be specific as to exact locations of service outlets, but I can assure you that the Brandon, Manitoba, area is under serious consideration. Also, I should like to thank the hon. member for his helpful suggestions made in correspondence to the minister earlier this year.
With respect to the matter of long distance telephone calls to veterans outside the greater Winnipeg area, officials of DVA assure us that no such restrictions exist, nor in their recollection have there ever been such restrictions. In fact the staff of the district director of veterans services in Winnipeg make extensive use of the telephone in speeding up service to veterans, particularly those located in remote areas.
I therefore feel that the well expressed worry and concern of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris have been answered by the document which has been prepared for the minister. I assure him that both the minister and the department will do everything in their power to make sure that the hon. member's cause for worry is removed.


TRANSPORT-POSSIBLE SHORTAGE OF REFRIGERATED CARS FOR MOVEMENT OF POTATOES-SUGGESTED PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL CARS
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on November 30 last I questioned the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) about the possible-if not probable-shortage of temperature-controlled boxcars for the transport of Maritime potatoes this winter and in the immediate future. In response the minister said that he foresaw no problem this winter, but could not comment satisfactorily with respect to a longer term solution. Indeed with respect to this winter the minister suggested, and I quote, "The basic view is there should be adequate equipment and the Canadian National is looking to see if that is the case." That is less than a satisfactory answer, Mr. Speaker, in light of the rapid deterioration in the number and quality of reefer cars presently available.
I raise the matter tonight again because the minister's answer did not properly reflect the urgency of the situation, a misunderstanding at least which must be cleared up if there is to be any rational discussion and action. Markets in central Canada are crucial outlets for the maritime potato crop. Over 85 per cent of our potatoes now move to Toronto and Montreal markets by temperature-controlled cars.
Six to ten years ago there were 4,000 reefer cars in service. Today, at most 1,500 are available, and as many as 500, one third of these, will be withdrawn from service within the year. Incredibly, all are rented from an American company which finds their dilapidated state just too costly to keep in repair. In fact there are strong indications that the company wishes to abandon the whole fleet as soon as possible. This would be a catastrophe.
CN has persuaded itself, and I presume the minister too, that a very rapid transition can take place from complete rail to a mixed rail and highway transportation system for the potato bulk traffic, although the problem could be brought to crisis proportions this winter in view of the high level of

December 14, 1976
Adjournment Debate
overseas export shipment of potatoes contracted for this year. Prince Edward Island ports are virtually closed for the winter, necessitating the use of Halifax and Saint John. Compared to the normal 150 reefer cars needed for this market, an estimated 500 cars will be required this year. Clearly the system is approaching the overload point, and assurances to the contrary rest on the very dubious assumption that the rail car turnaround time can be rapidly and drastically improved, inasmuch as on an average basis some 8,000 car trips are required in Prince Edward Island alone during the shipping season.
The pressure on the decreasing number of reefer cars is alarming, to say the least. When I questioned the minister, he said he was not yet quite sure what mode of transport was most appropriate. At the end of his answer, the minister said, and I quote:
Therefore, the mode of transportation which should be used need not necessarily be refrigerated cars.
So far the minister has not stated what form or alternate form will be acceptable. He implied that rail transport was not necessarily essential to transporting the potato crop off Prince Edward Island, that highway trailers might be able to do the job. This sounds like the CN management talking. They are obviously living in some kind of a dream world, for two reasons at least. First, the present Prince Edward Island highways system is not up to the job. It has been estimated that anywhere between $10 million and $20 million will have to be spent immediately, and obviously the minister has not tried to drive on island roads during spring thaw, a time when between one quarter and one third of our crop is in fact shipped out.
In addition, in terms of vehicles available to move the amount of potatoes, this too is extremely wishful thinking. It has not even been decided who would purchase and who would own these particular trailers. CN management has also suggested that it would be an additional cost to the system to purchase new railroad cars. I find this passing strange, as I do not think that in the case of hopper cars for grain in western Canada those costs are attributable to producers.
Apart from the fact 90 per cent of P.E.I.'s potato warehouses are not properly equipped to handle trucks, which would force costly alterations on island shippers, the expense of upgrading and maintaining island roads for all-weather use would be phenomenal, and of course CN might prefer not to keep the railbeds in condition and let the province pay for highways, but obviously P.E.I. does not have that kind of money available. One is inclined to agree with the recent meeting of the Maritime premiers who stated, and I quote:
There is an alarming lack of hard evidence that transportation is being used as a positive development tool.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has recognized the grave needs that exist, and in comments both in New Brunswick and to journalists here, has indicated that he is preparing a memo to cabinet urging that 1,000 reefer cars be ordered immediately. I trust that he has already made active representation to the Minister of Transport. What are needed as a minimum, and the minister can check with the P.E.I. Potato Marketing Board if he doubts my figures, are 800

heated, insulated boxcars of about 50-ton capacity, phased in over a five-year period. These would give our rail system added flexibility in all regions, and I have not yet mentioned the uses these cars would have in permitting more efficient two-way usage between the maritimes and central Canada.
One final point, reefer boxcars offer the government the opportunity to provide a creative and integrated response to regional disparity. The minister met with representatives of the Hawker Siddeley plant in Trenton yesterday. He indicated that the government was on the verge of making a decision with respect to an order for grain cars to offset an unemployment crisis there. Obviously the same sort of decision with respect to insulated boxcars would be a tremendous boost to industrial activity in the Pictou County area of Nova Scotia, and would also establish a much firmer transportation mode for one of our basic commodities in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, that of potatoes.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to congratulate the hon. member on having raised this important question. As the minister mentioned on November 30, this question has been studied carefully by Canadian National Railways and by the Potato Marketing Board. It has also been discussed with the premier and the minister of agriculture of Prince Edward Island.
Studies with a view to determining the best form of transportation for potatoes are in progress but I cannot say at this time what decision will be taken in this regard. It is not just a question of acquiring the proper equipment for the present. It is a matter of making certain that the equipment selected is such as to meet our future needs. The Department of Transport, along with the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, is continuing to support the efforts of the various parties involved in the search for and testing of up-to-date systems. I can assure the hon. member that both the minister and the department are well aware of the present situation and are anxious to reach the best decision possible.


AGRICULTURE-BEEF-POSSIBILITY OF PROHIBITING IMPORTS FROM AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take up this evening a question which I put to the minister yesterday. I do so because I believe the answer which I received is confusing the agricultural industry and, in particular, those engaged in the marketing of beef.
The minister has once again hidden behind the veil of the GATT agreement with the Oceanic countries, indicating thereby that nothing can be done about the depressed state of beef markets in Canada. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Pelletier) knows, ranchers and farmers in this country are entering upon their fourth year of producing below the cost of production. The situation is a
December 14, 1976

very serious one, and a great many farmers and ranchers across the prairies are going bankrupt. In my own constituency, at least 17 large ranchers will be forced to sell out this year because of the devastating situation to which I have referred.
It is my hope that the parliamentary secretary will give us tonight what one might call an operational definition of what the department considers to be supply management. This is important, because there is a great deal of trepidation across the country arising from the use of the term "supply management". The concept is scarcely working in the case of the poultry industry, one in which essentially you buy a hen a year which lays, theoretically, an egg a day. That is the kind of situation which supply and management ought to be able to cover, but when one gets into the beef industry one is looking at a five-year cycle from the time the calves are born to the time the product is finally sold. In terms of such an operation the phrase "supply management" is a very dubious one as it affects quotas and controls. Yet the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in response to the question claimed that the United States has a supply-management system simply on the basis that it has quotas against Oceanic countries.
I tabled in the House of Commons this day a petition with in excess of 5,000 names. Those names were collected by a citizens' group with virtually no effort at all. All of them are saying emphatically that one thing they do not want is a supply-management system. I know full well that if the minister means that we cut off quotas from Oceanic countries, and he calls that supply-management, indeed that is exactly what we are after. What we are not after is a situation in which there are quotas put on the ranchers and they are dictated to by the government as to how to run the business in the farmyard.
Unfortunately the situation is that there has not been a definition and people are extremely confused about that which we are calling supply-management. On October 29, in response to a comment I made earlier that day, the minister stated, as reported at page 605 of Hansard:
The hon. member for Battle River is circulating a petition against the supply-management of beef. Let me tell him that 1 cannot do it to the farmers of Canada unless they want it, because it is not in the legislation. He is using scare tactics.
Let me simply suggest that one of the things the minister cannot escape is the fact that he is the Minister of Agriculture and has an obligation to the agricultural industry.
Let me ask the parliamentary secretary through you, Mr. Speaker, how it is that a basically western cultured industry that is so important to the three prairie provinces and British Columbia is unable to get the kind of protection it needs through import quotas, when in fact the textile industry in this country suffered for only a short period of time, certainly a period of only a few months, when the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) saw fit on November 29 to introduce in this House a statement and subsequent regulation to place import quotas on textiles, providing a basic protection for the central Canada market?
Adjournment Debate
I have no argument with the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce should do what is within his jurisdiction to protect Canadians, but I think it is a complete fallacy to claim on the one hand that the United States is acting illegally in terms of its agreement with GATT, while allowing Canada at a time of domestice over-supply to import the highest amount of beef ever imported into this country under the guise of making the Anti-Inflation Board look like it is working, and giving central Canada what they would assume to be a short-term cheap food policy. The fact of the matter is that in due course the consumer markets in the larger cities in central Canada will have to pay more because we will be losing the beef industry in this country, and this is evidenced by the fact that the number of heifers and cows being sent to market is at an unprecedented rate because the people are being forced out of business through the minister's failure to give protection to the industry.
What we will find in fact then is that while there may be the appearance of a short-term gain, making it look like the anti-inflation program is working, in the long-term food prices will be higher. There has been a deliberate and malicious attempt on behalf of various members of Cabinet, through the Department of Industry, Trade and others, to import many foods into this country, and I would cite honey, fruits, vegetables, pork, poultry and beef as examples, to an extent never before seen in this country so as to give the illusion that we are in fact experiencing a successful anti-inflation program.
I documented this in a speech earlier in November, Mr. Speaker, when I went through the actual import increases which had taken place in this country, showing that in virtually every one of these cases we were in excess of 100 per cent over imports of one year ago, and in some instances over 300 per cent.
With regard to beef marketing, the increase of imports from New Zealand has been 139 per cent, and there has also been an increase of imports from Australia to the point where 90 million pounds of beef are now entering this country. The Minister of Agriculture has to accept his obligation and offer some protection to the industry, and certainly he should be able to follow the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and give the same kind of protection to the western provinces which has been given to the central Canadian textile industry. There also needs to be an operational definition which tells us what in fact-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the parliamentary secretary, who is on official duty with regard to the important conference of ministers of agriculture from across the country, I should point out that I do not have time to answer all the points raised by the hon. member. However, one point raised by the hon. member reflects the minister's point of view and

Adjournment Debate
the department's point of view. The minister said that in Canada there can be found cheap food. I think that is quite right because although the Anti-Inflation Board has no jurisdiction over agricultural producers, it has control over processors and control to the point where food reaches the tables of consumers.
On December 13 the hon. member asked for a projection for early 1977 and whether there is an anticipated full cut off of quotas with regard to Oceanic beef.
No decisions have been made regarding the Canadian import regime for 1977. Obviously 1976 has been a difficult year for the Canadian beef industry, with imports at an unprecedented level. There have also been unusually high numbers of cow slaughterings both in beef and dairy herds. At the same time feed costs and other costs have been higher, with the result that beef farmers have been particularly hard hit. However, problems arising from the domestic situation will have to be addressed on their own merits.
The main determinant of the import situation will be whether Canada is faced with constraints on its shipments of beef and veal to the U.S. market. If this is so, constraints on imports into the Canadian market will be necessary to avoid further distortions in the market situation.
Consultations with the United States on this matter are currently under way and will be followed, as necessary, by consultations with our other trading partners in order to arrive at a solution in keeping with our obligations to Australia and New Zealand as members of both the Commonwealth and GATT, as the minister pointed out earlier, and a solution which meets the needs of the beef industry.
I ask hon. members to read the speech delivered by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) at the conference of ministers of agriculture yesterday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.06 p.m.

Wednesday December 15, 1976