1976-02-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of false and misleading advertising regarding the Olympic lottery program in that unsold tickets have in fact been picked as winners, thus reducing the chances of those individuals who saw fit to support the Olympic program by purchasing their tickets under false impressions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs be instructed to take steps to have the Olympic lottery program altered in accordance with its advertising campaign.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of statements by officials of National Revenue and by the former minister, Mr. Basford, to the effect that under existing tax laws multinational corporations operating in Canada are able to divert funds to subsidiaries outside of Canada, thus escaping paying hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, and in view of the announcement by Revenue Canada that it has shelved plans to close these loopholes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House condemn the government for its shortsighted approach to government finance as demonstrated by its refusal to close tax loopholes which cost the Crown hundreds of millions of dollars in foregone revenue and, further, that this House instruct the government
to undertake immediately whatever studies and monitoring programs are necessary to end this circumvention of the law.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada 1970, to lay upon the table of the House a certified copy of the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion devised any new initiatives, such as greater use of loan guarantees, to get more mileage out of industrial incentive grants now that his budget for industrial incentives is frozen at less than the Department of Agriculture spends on research?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the aid formula reflected in loan guarantees or industrial incentive grants is one of the rather interesting formulas the department is applying, however, not as regularly and frequently as it should perhaps do. Surely the hon. member's suggestion to consider this proposition as a way to increase our incentives and our aid could be examined and probably applied more generously.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.

February 27, 1976
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would permit me to allow his supplementary in a moment. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the Napoleonic retreat last night of the Minister of Finance from the silly and unworkable export tax on resource industries, would the Prime Minister now give an answer to my proposal of December 19 last which I will repeat for him:
... would the Prime Minister give serious consideration over the next three or four weeks to re-examining the whole course that the government is taking because I believe it is heading us toward a recession, and would he turn the whole program of the government around into one of expansion so as to give the government time to get at the basic cause of inflation, which this program is not doing?
Could 7 have an answer to that question.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer in terms of the reference in the preamble to the question. The hon. member surely is aware that one of Napoleon's most spectacular retreats, one of several days, ended in the greatest of his victories at Austerlitz and this is the way-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I could remind the Prime Minister that following that victory at Austerlitz there was also the defeat at Waterloo.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Because he attacked.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister did not see fit to answer the serious proposal I made to him on December 19 about the direction in which he is taking this country, I should like to ask him another question. In view of the fact that current economic indicators show that the recovery of Canada from the recession of 1974 was checked in the last quarter of 1975 by the application of the traditional prescriptions of the mandarins of the civil service, which have been wrong consistently over the last 30 years, would the Prime Minister himself read Chapter 20 of the Porter Royal Commission, particularly the second last paragraph which reads:
The full growth potential of the economy will only be realized if appropriate monetary and fiscal policies are combined with measures to develop the economy's skills and levels of education, to encourage saving, investment and risk-taking, and to ensure that production is organized efficiently.
Would the Prime Minister commit himself to reading this chapter 20 of the Porter Royal Commission report?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-RECONCILIATION OF EIGHTEEN-MONTH AGREEEMENT WITH PROVINCES WITH THREE-YEAR PERIOD FOR PROGRAM
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question also is addressed to the Prime Minister. Since he seems determined to head either for Austerlitz or Waterloo, I should like to give him an opportunity to explain to this House how he has managed to reconcile agreement on an 18-month basis, as adopted by the four provincial governments with which some sort of understanding has been reached, with the three-year duration of the anti-inflation program under federal law? Does this mean that the program can last for no more than 18 months or is there some secret renewal agreement proviso included in the present agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no secret renewal agreement. It seems to me this question is in essence almost as unreasonable as the preceding one. It shows a lack of understanding of the approach of the government to this whole matter. We think three years is the appropriate time. That is why it is written into the law. The provinces in many cases just wanted to sign for 18 months. Surely it was proper for us to say: "Okay, sign for 18 months. There is an effective provision for a re-debate of the question in the House of Commons. We believe you will have to sign for another 18 months, but we will cross that bridge when we come to it." The important thing is to make the program work now, to have the co-operation of the provinces, and this is what is happening in both cases.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-DATE OF SIGNING AND DURATION OF AGREEMENT WITH PROVINCES
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is further to this whole debate. Can the Prime Minister say whether he anticipates early settlements with the other six provinces on either a three-year term or on an 18-month basis and can he feel even reasonably certain that the program will really get under way and be effective even if the remaining six do not sign? What about the 100 per cent rate hikes by the British Columbia car insurance corporation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that the federal government was enjoined by the provinces at two interprovincial meetings of premiers in a row, last year and the year before, to do something very energetic, to take leadership in fighting inflation, and so on, and they indicated that they would co-operate. We took the decision in the month of October last. The provinces and the federal government have been putting together these agreements. Three or so have been signed, and several others will be signed in an interim form. It is possible that we will have difficulties with one or two signatures-they might take more than a few days to get, but the program is in place; it is working; it is the federal law and it is compelling on the Canadian people.
We hope the provinces will co-operate with us in every way, as they have indicated their intention of doing and as the premiers indicated their intention of doing at the
February 27, 1976

meeting at my house at 24 Sussex on October 13. They are taking some time to get around to signing some of the agreements, but the important thing is that the program is in place, the Anti-Inflation Board is operating, and inflation is being tackled in a most serious way.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the House yesterday with reference to negotiations that are going on between Canada and Pakistan concerning nuclear safeguards, the minister said:
What is of concern to Canada ... is the spent fuel that comes out of the Canadian reactor and that may subsequently be reprocessed in the facility provided by France.
I should like to ask the minister now whether he will assure the House that no further shipments of uranium from Canada to Pakistan will take place unless Pakistan accepts the point that Canadian safeguards apply not merely to the CANDU reactor provided by Canada but also to the use of spent fuel from the Canadian reactor now in Pakistan.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations between the Canadian team and the Pakistani team are still underway. I had a detailed report this morning about the progress that has been made, and of course one of the items still under negotiations is the very point that the hon. member has raised this morning and to which I referred yesterday. The hon. member is suggesting that Canada withhold its supplies of uranium or fuel to Pakistan in order-


John Edward Broadbent: Unless you get that guarantee.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -in order to bring Pakistan to the point of cancelling a contract which, I understand, has been entered into with the French government. That is a possibility, but I think the hon. member should understand the implications for Pakistan if Canada at this point withdrew its fuel from the CANDU power reactor and cut off the supply of electricity for the city of Karachi. I believe that is a step which the hon. member and I would like to ponder very carefully before it is taken.


John Edward Broadbent: Notwithstanding the legitimate concern which the minister expressed about the power situation for the city of Karachi, I should like to ask the minister the following question. Given, to say the least, the equal concern from the point of view of everyone in the world to stop the development of nuclear weapons, would the minister not agree that unless we get the most stringent guarantees from the government of Pakistan which would totally inhibit the use of Canadian-provided material for the development of nuclear weapons, we should not proceed in any way with further shipments of uranium material to that country?
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, the hon. member understands that there is presently in Pakistan the Canadian supplied power reactor. At the time that reactor was put in place certain safeguards were negotiated between Canada and Pakistan, and at this point the purpose of the Canadian effort is to upgrade existing safeguard agreements which were previously entered into between Canada and Pakistan affecting that particular installation. We are doing our level best, and I believe we will make considerable progress in upgrading those safeguards.
I believe the hon. member should bear in mind as well that, as I understand it, there has been a safeguards agreement negotiated between France and Pakistan relating to the processing plant. These safeguards are of London Club quality and have been approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency, so that processing plant is actually safeguarded under internationally approved standards.


Mr. Stanfield:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Halifax
grumbles, but that is a fact, and it is a very important fact which has to be taken into account. Canada is not supplying the reprocessing plant to Pakistan.


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that the minister has been quoted as saying that the safeguards agreed to by a number of countries in London were in fact lower than the safeguards expected by the Government of Canada, I should like to ask the minister whether he is now saying that the Government of Canada is prepared to accept what I understand to be the Pakistani position, namely, that the safeguards expected by the Government of Canada for Canadian provided facilities will not be applied to facilities provided by another country, even if that means that those facilities are going to be using spent fuel provided originally by Canada and processed on the Canadian reactor in Pakistan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member has rather ambitious plans for Canada in that he expects Canada to direct the nature of an agreement between two other countries, in this case between Pakistan and France. I believe that is quite a silly proposal made by the leader of the New Democratic Party.


John Edward Broadbent: That is nonsense.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The question which is relevant, and which the hon. member has raised, is the safeguards with respect to the Canadian reactor which is presently in Pakistan. It is with respect to that reactor-


John Edward Broadbent: And the use of fuel.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: And the use of fuel. I heard the words of the hon. member, and I will probably return to those words at a future time when it will be appropriate. It is on that point that negotiations are currently under way, and at the moment we are considering what our total approach will be depending upon the results of these negotiations. With regard to Pakistan, we are insisting on the highest possible safeguards. However, please do not ask Canada to

February 27, 1976
Oral Questions
determine what arrangements ought to exist between Pakistan and France. Surely, the French government has something to say about that.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
I shall spare the minister the official figures concerning the increase in unemployment rate, particularly among people from 18 to 30 years of age. The minister is surely aware of the difficult situation prevailing in Quebec regarding job opportunities. Will the minister tell the House if his department or any other will be able to announce shortly an integrated policy aiming at creating jobs to help those Canadians who urgently require work and must at present depend on unemployment insurance?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has very specific policies. We have general agreements for development with all the provinces, in particular with Quebec. Within the framework of those agreements it is possible to set up developmental programs for specific areas of the Quebec economy. Of course there is the Regional Development Incentives Act which aims at creating more job opportunities. But even so, we still have to wait for entrepreneurs to act because we cannot be expected to take the initiative since we are not given any authority. We can do some research and make suggestions and indeed this is precisely what we have been doing in many areas but we have not always been able to persuade potential employers to avail themselves of those opportunities which would be conducive to some degree of expansion and hence of employment. As for our policy, I can assure the hon. member that we are doing everything possible within the limits of our jurisdiction to bring down unemployment which, we admit, has reached an abnormally high rate.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE PROGRAM WILL NOT PERPETUATE LOW WAGES IN NEW BRUNSWICK
J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since wage earners in New Brunswick earn up to one-third less than the national average and the decision of the administrator in the Irving case involving New Brunswick workers has caused considerable concern, will the Prime Minister relieve some anxieties and state quite clearly that the operation of the restraints program will not be allowed to freeze New Brunswick wage earners in the position of disparity in which some now find themselves?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not the purpose of the board or

indeed the whole anti-inflation program to prevent various regions of the country from seeking a greater and more fair proportion of the national revenue. On the other hand, the hon. member has to realize it is not the purpose of the board and the program to alleviate regional disparities which have existed in our economy for 100 years and more and which are being tackled, if I can use that expression, by such instruments as the Department of Regional and Economic Expansion. The anti-inflation program itself, however, is not there in order to help or hinder that process.


J. Robert Howie: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The point of my question was that New Brunswick certainly appreciates the excellent work of DREE but I want to be certain that the program will not work contra to the avowed purpose of DREE.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of past reaction, especially in the Atlantic provinces, to the department's proposed national parks entrance fee policy, will the minister be making a statement in the near future to clarify the policy since the tourism campaign is or will be getting into full swing shortly?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will be leaving after the session this morning for the Atlantic provinces, and that is one of the matters I hope to clarify during my visit.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I should like to put my question to the right hon. Prime Minister, particularly in view of its importance. In view of the fact there were not as many Olympic lottery winners as advertised by the lottery program through its now obviously false and misleading advertisements, can the Prime Minister advise the House whether he is prepared to instruct the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or others in this government to take immediate steps to rectify this very serious problem in time for the next draw? At the same time will he remedy the unjust manner in which the program has been run vis-a-vis the advertising campaign?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the federal government does not operate the lottery. If there has been some malfunctioning, I am sure it will be drawn to the attention
February 27, 1976

Oral Questions
of the malfunctioners. As far as the advertising is concerned, if any of it is contravening federal policy or legislation I will, of course, draw it to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


DATE ON WHICH OPERATION OF LEGISLATION TO ASSIST GAMES WILL CEASE
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Because it has become evident that facilities for this year's Olympics in Montreal will unfortunately not be totally completed on time, and in view of the fact that legislation approved by this parliament for the various fund-raising schemes is intended for the games themselves and not for facilities to be completed at a later date, could the minister advise this House whether the various pieces of Olympic legislation and other direct and indirect co-operation will cease by the end of the games on August 1? If not, how can he justify their continuation?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we do intend to follow the legislation as enacted by the House. And I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that we should repeal legislation because the stadium will not be fully completed for the Olympics.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the President of Treasury Board.
Could the minister tell the House whether he invited the Anti-Inflation Board to make a decision on the bilingualism bonus in the public service and, if not, does he intend to do so?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, first of all that is not quite where the issue lies. It is whether the description of duties for civil servants should account for the additional complexity due to the fact that they must speak both languages. That matter has been referred jointly by the union and the Treasury Board to the AIB and so far we got no information in that respect.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Given the objective of this bonus, to the extent that the government will favour payment of this bilingualism bonus within the civil service, does not the minister feel that this bonus should come under the anti-inflation law?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the government has decided to apply the legislation passed by the House with respect to compensation which must be paid to its employees across Canada.


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As Statistics Canada reported yesterday that the index of industrial production took a serious drop in December, the year ending disastrously in this regard, will the Prime Minister undertake next week to outline to the House what the government intends to do to reverse this serious situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member always does his homework, but he must be a slow reader, because he only read half the report. If he had kept reading Statistics Canada, he would have realized that the new business conditions survey covered 5400 firms across the country and showed an upturn in business expectations, indicating that confidence in the economy may be on the upturn in the business community.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister knows well, I read those reports thoroughly. The fact remains that the index of industrial production fell seriously in December, the year ending disastrously in this regard. I ask the Prime Minister again, will he come before the House and outline procedures the government intends to take to reverse this trend? Industrial production was down seriously in December and during all of last year.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my point is this: If the hon. member read the report, obviously he did not understand it all. He is asking us to reverse the trend, but the figures indicate that the trend has already been reversed. If any additional action is needed, I suppose the announcement last night by the Minister of Finance will give further encouragement for increased industrial and raw material production.


CLOSURE OF HOSPITALS IN ONTARIO-SUGGESTED WITHHOLDING OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO PROVINCE
Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: February 27, 1976
Oral Questions
areas the valuable and economical health services now being provided?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I sympathize very much with the problem put forward by the hon. member, especially in his own area, but the hon. member should realize that under the law, the federal government must contribute 50 per cent of hospital operation expenses and that the federal government, and I, as minister, have no authority to do what the hon. member suggests in his question- unfortunately.


INQUIRY WHETHER ONTARIO RECEIVING THE FULL FIFTY PER CENT CONTRIBUTION
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Wealth and-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Wealth and Helfare.


William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the province of Ontario receiving under the present formula the 50 per cent it was promised when it came into the contract? Is it receiving that amount in respect of present day medicare expenditures?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the province of Ontario receives every dollar and cent to which it is entitled under the law. The money is provided under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act by way of agreements with the province of Ontario. I have never had a complaint about this from the province of Ontario since my appointment as Minister of National Health and Welfare or, for that matter, from any other part of the country.


William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question? Does the minister not agree that under the formula now used, the province of Ontario is receiving less than 50 per cent of its actual cost?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the province of Ontario is receiving exactly what it is entitled to under the law passed by this parliament. The law provides for a costsharing formula for hospital operations, under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. The province of Ontario has never complained that it is not getting every penny to which it is entitled.


FISHERIES
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the minister in charge of fisheries? In view of the imminent spring run-off and consequential threat of further flooding in the Fraser

Valley, what decision has the minister's department taken with respect to requests for necessary dredging of the Vedder River in the municipality of Chilliwack?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I thought that, after consultations, this matter had been sorted out. I will check into it and inform the hon. member. I am sure that he will accept that we must protect spawning grounds.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Secretary of State arises from the announcement with respect to the termination of funding to school boards for second language training in the national capital area. As Mr. Spicer, commissioner of official languages, suggested that we ought to emphasize language training in our school system, perhaps as opposed to emphasizing it in the Public Service of Canada, will the minister explain the contradiction inherent in the dropping of this program, when it had been generally agreed by all parties that it was one of the finest programs the minister's department has brought forth? Dropping the program will jeopardize the future of those in the national capital area already involved in the immersion program.


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no termination of funding, in the sense that the formula payments will apply to the national capital region, as they apply across the country. This involves the federal government paying 9 per cent of the cost per student in an extended French program. What has come to an end is an experimental program which the boards of education and the province of Ontario agreed, in the beginning, would be a two-year program. Last year they came to me and said, "Listen, we have not completed the experiment; would you help us through a third year?"
I agreed. Therefore, the suggestion that we have now terminated the formula payments or payments for the support of extended French training in the national capital region is false.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I concede that it was an experimental program and extended. Judging from the reaction of the boards, there is a necessity for its continuation. As the program will cost about $4 million, whereas the government is prepared to spend $8 million refurbishing the East Block, and as this language program in the national capital area may be the forerunner of similar programs in other parts of Canada if it is allowed to continue, would the minister consider giving the program as high a priority as the government is giving the refurbishing of the East Block?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
February 27, 1976


INCOME TAX
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. On June 12, 1973, the minister's predecessor announced in a speech to the Inter-American Centre of Tax Administrators that the government was launching a campaign to crack down on multinationals evading taxes. On November 19, 1975, the current minister announced the formation of a joint U.S.-Canada committee to study the same question. On February 23, 1976, the minister's department announced that because of spending restraints, all such plans had been shelved. While a penny saved may be a penny earned, in this case, does the minister feel that the savings in wages and salaries outweigh the loss of foregone corporate taxes?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, within a month after my appointment to this portfolio, I met with Don Alexander, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service in the United States. We set up a committee to look into how we might act under the Canada-United States tax treaty to get at multinationals and transnationals which are using the tax haven to avoid taxes. Mr. Alexander will be back here following the report of that committee. We will be meeting again. I, like every other minister, would like to have all the resources necessary. Personally, I do not think it is a waste of money. I think it is an investment to get back the hundreds of millions of dollars. To me, a tax haven is anathema. Within the scope that we have, both the resources, financial and man-years, we will do our best to plug these particular abuses.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of a tax haven. It is a question of transfer of income from the Canadian tax collector to the United States tax collector. Is the minister so naive as to believe that the government of the United States is going to help us reduce their tax collection in favour of Canada?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I am not so naive as to think we are going to get any co-operation by the use of this anti-American nonsense we hear from time to time. We are trying to work together in the best interests of taxpayers of both countries.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Denis Ethier (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General.
After a raid in a Hawkesbury home on February 19, 1976, at 4.20 in the morning, even though the RCMP had
Oral Questions
been misinformed by the local police, can the minister tell the House if he will personally apologize on behalf of the RCMP to the members of Mr. Georges Therien's family who, beyond all question, have been deeply humiliated, and particularly for the messy condition in which their home was left, as he will find out when he reads the report.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has pointed out, the RCMP took this action on the advice of the local police. As he said, it was unfortunate that the wrong address had been given. I will bring this matter to the attention of the RCMP and see that a proper apology is made to the people involved.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister assure the House that when Canada sells a nuclear reactor abroad, there is inherent with the sale a moral obligation to assure that nuclear wastes from that same reactor will not harm the international physical environment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are arrangements within the nuclear co-operation agreements covering the security of the plant and the waste factor involved. There are provisions for continuing consultations to overcome such difficulties.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of the Environment. Has the minister been consulted regarding the safeguards for disposal and storage of nuclear waste as it relates to the protection of the Canadian environment? Does his department have the technical capacity and expertise to adequately advise the government with regard to the return and reprocessing of nuclear waste from reactors sold abroad?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, in that field, we advise Energy, Mines and Resources and the provincial governments. That is all we do. We see that they respect the standards of the government.

February 27, 1976
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, might I be permitted to make this preamble, because from what I read and hear there seems to be some confusion between the peace and security bill, C-83, and the bill to abolish capital punishment, C-84. They are two distinct bills. I would have directed this question to the Minister of Justice, but I will put it to the Solicitor General because I think he has knowledge of the subject as well. This is a serious question. Apart from the report that was filed yesterday, have there been any studies prepared or background information obtained to the effect that the abolishing of the 90 day mandatory notice to the subject of a wiretap has been detrimental to crime detection and prevents law enforcement officers from doing their job? I would also ask another question since there might be a lengthy debate on this bill because of the problem with civil rights. Instead of repealing the notice section, would the minister consider that the police can always apply to a judge to either extend or abolish the notice?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, some of the material on this subject is available in the annual reports on the Privacy Act which were tabled in this House on February 13. In addition, a study was made, following the passage of the Privacy Act, with all provincial governments and police forces on the efficacy of that act. Some of the recommendations and provisions we have in the bill are a result of that study. In a general way, the police advise that it often takes a considerabL time, sometimes several years, to investigate the major figures in organized crime. Consequently, they hesitate to request authorizations for electronic surveillance under the Privacy Act due to the short period of authorization and the fact they may have to notify the suspect before the criminal investigation is completed, which would be a counterproductive measure.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Solicitor General's answer. I can see that problem arising. In the face of that problem, does he not feel that he could produce a section in the bill whereby the Crown, on behalf of the police officers, could apply to a judge to extend the time, unknown to the subjects being investigated, or abolish the notice altogether in the case of syndicated crime? That is my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect, the question concerns the bill itself which will be before the House shortly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I then put this question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I honestly fail to see how the question is relevant to the question period as opposed to the bill itself which is to be before us shortly.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he is going to have the time limit of 36 hours between feedings for cattle in transit extended so that the total travelling time of the cattle will be less? If so, when will this provision be put into effect officially? This provision may come under the Minister of Justice, but I am sure the Minister of Agriculture knows about it.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that new legislation was passed. The regulations and so on are being put into force. I hope, as does the hon. member, that this will be one of the best systems we have ever had for transporting live animals.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, there has been a problem of cattle having to wait too long on sidings during peak traffic periods. Will more facilities be made available at main points from west to east for cattle that have to stop for feed and water in order that they will not have to wait so long on the sidings during peak traffic periods?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, these matters are all being considered. I hope the hon. member reads the report of the Western Economic Conference which states that all these cattle should be processed at their source. In western Canada there are some of the best processors that we have. Maybe more will be processed there into a finished product and shipped to market.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I am talking about feeder cattle.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue involving the other end of the income scale. Many single parents supporting children are experiencing great difficulty because people providing day care services will not provide receipts or their social security numbers so that these working single parents can deduct these expenses from income. Will the minister give consideration to increasing the basic exemption for single parents supporting children as a resolution to this rather serious social problem?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I think that question may be more properly directed to my colleague, the Minister of Finance. He passes the laws and we administer them. I will bring this to his attention.
February 27, 1976


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It is in relation to the government's aging rail passenger equipment, some of which is well over 20 years old and is rapidly becoming obsolete. May I ask the Minister of Transport why the government has not made formal commitments to the railways to replace old, outdated railway passenger equipment, which certainly the railways must if they are to provide any kind of credible rail passenger service in Canada?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the policy indicated a short time ago assured the railways with respect to the passenger services which are needed and which will be retained in Canada that they will be receiving an adequate return from a combination of passenger fares and a balance subsidized by the government. Therefore the railways will have the incentive to acquire equipment, and as fast as routes to be served are assessed they will be placing orders for equipment for those routes.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Surely, he must know that it takes well over four years at the present time before this kind of equipment can come into service, and the railways have had no indication whatever from the Minister of Transport that they should go ahead. Is the Minister of Transport using this excuse for not purchasing equipment as the basis for the intent behind the rail policy that was announced, and that is the phasing out of rail passenger services in Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, that was not the intent behind the policy. It was stated quite clearly in the policy that it is our intent to have good passenger service where it is retained and to phase out passenger service that simply cannot be supported on any basis because of available alternative service at much lower cost. I hope the hon. member will appreciate that principle and understand its implications. Obviously, it takes time between ordering equipment and acquiring it. The several weeks of time that has elapsed in this process will not make very much difference. Even now, of course, the railways, with assurance of support from fares and subsidy, could be making plans to acquire the equipment they will need to replace aging equipment.


DATE AND PLACE OF HEARINGS INTO RAILWAY PASSENGER SERVICE
Jack Burnett Murta: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I do not agree at all with the minister and his assumption, but can he inform the House when the CTC hearings into rail passenger service will commence, and can he also inform the House in what parts of the country they will be held?
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to make sure that as soon as dates and places are known the information will be made available to hon. members. It was not on the basis of assumption that I was asking the hon. member to agree with me, but simply a question of reading the policy statement and understanding it.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD DATE OF DECISION ON INCREASES IN INSURANCE PREMIUMS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance may I direct my question to his parliamentary secretary? Three insurance industry executives have criticized the indecisiveness of the Anti-Inflation Board regarding future premium increases in both property and auto insurance. They have stated that: "We anticipated a continued upset market in the short term", adding that they are still seeking clarification regarding the AIB ground rules. Would the parliamentary secretary to the minister inform the House when he expects the Anti-Inflation Board to make a decision regarding insurance increases?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I take the question as notice and I shall ask the minister to reply to the hon. member as soon as possible.


Stan Darling: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the President of the Treasury Board also get an answer to this question. Does the minister not agree that Anti-Inflation Board indecision and inability to clarify its regulations is generating a serious lack of confidence in the efficacy of the board?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, again I will be delighted to be the messenger of the member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Considering that the government has established an embassy in Saudi Arabia but that that country has not reciprocated, can the minister advise whether he has any indication as to the appointment of a resident Saudi Arabian ambassador to Canada; and to balance our representation with Jordan, when will Canada appoint a resident ambassador at Amman?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, when I visited Saudi Arabia a few weeks ago the foreign minister told me that it was the intention of the government of Saudi Arabia to

Oral Questions
open an embassy in Ottawa and establish a full time ambassador within a few months. That was an extremely welcome development and indicates the interest that Saudi Arabia is taking in Canada.
I believe the hon. member asked about whether we proposed to establish a resident ambassador in Jordan. On that point, we have not yet reached the decision to take such a step in view of the many priorities that face the department; but I can tell the hon. member that, as a result of my visit to Jordan and my discussion with King Hussein and the Prime Minister, I am satisfied that there is expanding opportunity for co-operation between Jordan and Canada.


RHODESIA-POSSIBILITY OF INVOLVEMENT IN SETTLEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS AND AID TO REFUGEES
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister please inform the House whether, in view of the deteriorating political situation in Rhodesia, the Canadian government, as a leading Commonwealth influence, is involved in the planning for a constitutional settlement in Rhodesia; and is the government preparing any special contingency plans to help minimize tragic events and relieve an emergency refugee situation in that country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the political developments in Rhodesia, but as a member of the Commonwealth we are not playing any particular role in the direct search for a political solution at the present time. Obviously, if a refugee situation develops I am sure my colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration would consider what could be done under the refugee criteria, but it is not apparent at the moment that such a situation will arise.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statement yesterday by Gordon Park, president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, that "consumers may never again see beef prices as low as they are now as producers are reducing their herds", because of low prices for the producer himself, and in view of the fact that there will be a shortage unless something is done to improve prices for the producer, can the minister give us a commitment today that he will very soon be announcing a national stabilization program or some kind of program for the cow-calf operator?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the hon. member would quote the president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. He did not quote the full text of what that gentleman said because he said he did not want the government to do

anything. He did not want any kind of plan at all for the cattlemen of Canada. I must say I disagree with the president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, because if you followed his philosophy people would not be able to buy beef.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. That is precisely why I quoted the president of the Cattlemen's Association. Even he is forecasting a shortage. My supplementary question is to ask the minister to answer my question. Can the minister give us a commitment that there will be a program so that farmers can plan, and when will he make this announcement?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question several times in the House. I said earlier in the year that there would be a program for beef from January 1 to the end of December for the year 1976. We had a meeting with the minister of agriculture from the province of Saskatchewan, I believe-I have forgotten his name right now-


An hon. Member:: Whelan.


Eugene Whelan: -but he is having problems with his own provincial treasury board which seem to me to be even much greater than those I am having when it comes to helping the farmers.


REDUCTION BY CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION IN TIME ALLOTTED TO FARM NEWS BROADCASTS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to CBC farm broadcasting, particularly farm news, on CBC radio. In light of the steady reduction in time allocated by CBC radio to farm broadcasting right across the country-for example, there has been a 50 per cent reduction by CBL in Toronto in the last ten years-would the minister advise the House whether this broadcasting time reduction by the CBC has either his acquiescence or support and, if not, what representations he has made to the Secretary of State in regard to restoring a reasonable and acceptable level of farm news broadcasting on the CBC?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps what I said to my colleague the Secretary of State concerning my view of what they are doing would not be considered Parliamentary language. I think it is deplorable that they are curtailing farm broadcasting, especially in the Toronto area. It has been good in a way because now the private sector has started broadcasting farm news and found it is one of the most popular programs they have. They went from ten minutes to 50 minutes in a few short weeks and have a listening audience of over one quarter of a million people in that area, and it is expanding very rapidly. So, if the private sector can do this, and maybe better than the CBC, more power to them.
February 27, 1976


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is obviously for the Secretary of State. Does he support the CBC position that farm programs are "ghetto" broadcasting and therefore ought to be eliminated, even though eliminated gradually to avoid the obvious uproar which would occur if such programs were axed overnight?


James Hugh Faulkner: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. I do confirm what my colleague the Minister of Agriculture said, that the language used in his representations to me on this matter transgress normal parliamentary usage. Nevertheless, this message was conveyed to the corporation. I think this is a question that maybe members will want to raise with the corporation when its estimates are before the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a Friday morning question for the Prime Minister in the interest of historical perspective. Considering that the right hon. gentleman is bolstering his office with those splendid retreads from the Pearson years, Mr. James Coutts and now Mr. Richard O'Hagan, I would ask if Walter Gordon and Judy LaMarsh have been asked to rejoin the government?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was shown the press clipping which spoke of Mr. O'Hagan joining my office, of which I am very pleased. I noticed that right next to it there was an item concerning one Bill Neville, who had been with Judy LaMarch and who is now being reused by the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council) moved:: That commencing on March 1, 1976, and for the remainder of the session, Standing Order 15(6) be suspended.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the government House leader for acceding
Private Members' Hour
to the suggestion I made under Standing Order 43 some days ago, to which I understand he was personally agreeable at the time but unfortunately someone said "No". Despite our diligent efforts, he and I have not been able to trace down the person who said "No". It is important we recognize that what has happened here is that this particular session of parliament has reached record limits, as you yourself indicated the other day, Mr. Speaker. We have now reached the point where in order to preserve the rights of the private member the government has seen fit, in this long session, to put this motion forward. If there is a message in this, that message is twofold. It is, first, that the private member is important in parliament. Parliament is not just to serve the government's interests, but to serve as well the interests of the private member.
More important than that, I think there is the message here, as well, that it does not sit well for this institution, for the public it serves or for the members who serve here, that a session should go on and on indefinitely with no opportunity in the normal course of a throne speech debate for backbenchers on all sides of the House to engage in an examination, on behalf of their constituents and the country, of the government's handling of all its affairs.
While this motion is welcomed, I think it points up the fallacy of this government's thinking in terms of this parliament. This parliament is not the tool of the government; this parliament is the servant of the people of Canada and the people who send us here. The people of Canada are anxious to have members here, not just in the opposition but on the government side, examine the government's economic record, its statements and the direction in which it is going, as well as how the economy is going and all the other things. Because of this long session, this fundamental right of private members, in our free society under the parliamentary system, is being denied. I want to take this opportunity to protest the tactics of the government in respect of this long, long session, which you yourself indicated a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, had broken all records.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, if the government and the official opposition are both in support of this motion, there does not seem to be much point in leading a campaign against it. I want to make the point, however, that it is nothing but a sop and I am shocked that the official opposition has bought it so easily. The proposal in this motion is to restore one of the losses that flows from our not, by this time, having begun a new session. The one loss it would restore is that of having private members' hour on Mondays and Tuesdays. That is all it is. It is just a sop. I was surprised that my friend, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), asked for it and I am surprised that he bought it so readily.


Walter David Baker: I did not buy it readily at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member says that by passing this .motion we are asserting the fact that this parliament is not a tool of the government. The very opposite is the case. The willingness of the government to present this motion is based on the fact

February 27, 1976
Private Members' Hour
that the government has decided that this session of parliament is to go on and on. Parliament is being made a tool of the government.
As the government House leader knows, whan I had words with him about this matter of the session going on and on his reply was that in cabinet they had wrestled with this issue long and hard, but this was the decision. Was there any consultation with parliament about it? Surely if parliamentary sessions are to become two-year propositions, or maybe three or four years, instead of one, that should be a matter about which parliament should at least have something to say. But we have been completely denied any such opportunity. I doubt whether even the Liberal backbenchers are having any say about it. They are losing heavily by there not being a new session. The decision about the length of the session has been made by the government. Parliament is just a tool in the government's hand so far as the length of this session is concerned.
My main complaint is that we have no input insofar as this decision is concerned. It is a governmental decision which affects the length of the session of the Parliament of Canada. You, sir, pointed out a few days ago that we had reached the number of days that was the maximum number of days for a session up until that point. We have now exceeded it. Today we are in the 254th sitting day. Not only is this the longest session in terms of number of sitting days; it is also the longest session in terms of elapsed time. This session commenced on September 30, 1974. In a day or two, whenever this 29-day month ends, this session will have endured through 17 months. That has never before happened in Canadian history.
Indeed, sir, during the first 30 years of the history of the Parliament of Canada each of the sessions was always within the same calendar year. It is only in latter years that there have been four or five occasions when the length of the sessions, whether in two or three calendar years, has been more than 12 months. I point out that in Britain, where they do not even have a constitution about these things, they nevertheless have rules and traditions which are such that in May's eighteenth edition the reference is clearly made to annual sessions. A session starts in October. The book says that even if there is an election in the meantime, so that a session cannot start in October but has to start later than that, it must end prior to the next October so that there can be a new session commencing in October.
As I say, May points out that this is provided, not by a constitution, since the United Kingdom does not have a regular constitution, but by rules affecting financial enactments, and so on. Indeed, there is a very interesting bit on this in May's in which it is pointed out that even the Crown's prerogative has been circumscribed in this respect. If the British tradition is worth anything, it is a fact that we should get a new session of parliament at least once every year. In our own case it is dealt with in an oblique way in the constitution. Section 20 of the British North America Act provides:
There shall be a session of the Parliament of Canada once at least in every Year-

I think if it had stopped there we could say that there has to be a session and that indeed a session must begin at least once in every year, but the illustrious Fathers of Confederation went on and added these words:
-so that twelve months shall not intervene between the last sitting of the Parliament in one session and its first sitting in the next session.
I have to say that legally all that guarantees is that there shall not be 12 months between the end of one session and the beginning of the next. I think the reason for that was that in the early days sessions lasted only two, three or four months and the Fathers of Confederation wanted a guarantee that if there was a session in January, February and March of one year, the government could not get away with the one session per year proposition by holding one in October, November and December of the next year. There had to be not only a session every year but those sessions had to be called so that there would not be a full year's absence at any time.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to listen to an argument that perhaps all of this should be changed. I can even imagine arguments being made in favour of having only one session for the whole four or five years. I can think of arguments against having speeches from the throne, speech from the throne debates, and so on, but if the traditions of this place are to be changed, let parliament be in on it. But parliament is not in on it. The government is making the decision and the official opposition is swallowing this sop to parliament which is being offered in lieu of starting a new session.


Mr. Paproski:: Stanley, you know we are with you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good. The idea of the Speech from the Throne is that once in a while the government has to set down its program for the year. We are operating on a program for the year that was given to us on September 30, 1974. The government is bringing things in now that were not in that Speech from the Throne, as well as things that are the very opposite to those mentioned in the throne speech. The whole principle of the Throne speech is being thrown to the wind.
It is also part of the tradition that once a year members of all parties on both sides of the House-I mention particularly members on the government side-should have the right to discuss the government's program in general, and that comes in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. As a matter of fact, my friends on the government side are losing more by this than we are. We have opportunities to speak, but the opportunities that are there for government members in the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne are being sacrificed by this. It is being said in the House, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is quoted as having said outside, that this session will go on until June. If it is to be June, why not the fall; and if the fall, why not go on and on? We are completely changing the whole tradition about annual sessions and annual throne speeches without any parliamentary input whatsoever.
I come back to the words of my hon. friend when he said this parliament is not a tool of the government. That is precisely what the government is doing to us. It is using us the way it wants to. The government says it does not have time for the debate on the address in reply to the Speech
February 27, 1976

from the Throne, that it cannot afford the eight days. I suggest that we might compromise, reach an agreement to cut the eight days to six days, or something like that. But we should not do away with it all together without any consultation with parliament. The government House leader can say that he told us about it. But he did not ask our opinion. He just told us that the government had wrestled with this issue and had made the decision.
I know one of the arguments the government uses at this stage of a session is that there has been parliamentary time invested in some legislation, and that if the session prorogued and we started a new one, some of these things would have to start all over again. About the only bill that that would affect is Bill C-68 which has had a fair amount of parliamentary time devoted to it at second reading. It should be shelved in any event. It has no value, anyway. The government ought to recall the whole business. As we have heavy legislation coming up such as Bills C-83 and C-84, now is the time to start a new session. Let us not start this debate in this session. Let us have a speech from the Throne, a new session next week and then take that new legislation at the start of another new session.
There are quite a few other things. One of the problems around here is the amount of paper we have at our feet under our desks because the session is lasting so long.


An hon. Member:: Mine is bilingual.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If it is in both languages, the volume is that much greater. Another thing, of course, is that decisions taken in this session cannot be the subject of motions again in the same session. Some members have private members' public bills or private members' resolutions which they would like to get a crack at once a year. However, they will not get a crack at them once a year but, rather, once a session. Then there is the problem of the budget, and so on. I know there can be half a dozen budgets in one session, but surely there is some sense in the tradition of a session each year and budgets, and so on, being contained within that session. Frankly, I do not like the change that is being made, and this little sop of giving us back an hour on Mondays and Tuesdays does not answer the proposition at all.
Sir, it will be no surprise to you when I say that I have studied the authorities on this quite thoroughly, and if I could find a point of order or a question of privilege on which I could contend that you should tell the government it has to close the session, I would be presenting it to you. I know that neither in our books on procedure nor in the British books can this be found. But the tradition is so clearly established and the years of our history are so much on the side of parliament that I think what is being done is completely wrong.
I am not against getting private members' hour back, although it is not a great deal of help if you have already had a shot at your bill and you cannot get it again in this session, just to get the days back, and there are some problems that arise. What concerns me most of all about this is the high-handed, dictatorial way in which the government is making the decision. When I came in this morning, one of the elevator operators or one of the mess-
Private Members' Hour
engers said to me that he had heard on the radio that such and such was going to happen, that the session would be continued, and so on. I asked him where he heard all that. He told me that it was attributed to the Prime Minister. Who is this Prime Minister? This is parliament. We should have some say about our own operations-and we are not having any say about it; we are not even being permitted to follow the traditions of Britain for hundreds of years, or the traditions of this parliament since 1867, because the government finds it inconvenient to stop for a throne speech debate thereon and inconvenient to have to transfer some legislation from this session to the next.
I think this is wrong, I think this is another example of the high-handed, dictatorial attitude of this government and I protest it as strongly as I can.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a few words because the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) just presented us a fantastic account of all parliamentary traditions concerning the Speech from the Throne. First we were surprised to hear the rumour that there would be no Speech from the Throne, something which has just been confirmed.
I think this is another failure of the government to direct the discussions in the House. As you said recently, this is the longest session ever as a result of the lack of planning of the government business and of its stubborn refusal to accept the decisions of the majority in the House. Once we start rejecting the decisions of the public and then those of the majority of the members, we get the results we have today-we extend the session. I am afraid this extension will last one year, for when the attorney general introduces the same legislation three times because 90 per cent of the population disagree with it, and when he insists on having it passed, such stubbornness, as we know him, will last for a year.
We are talking about the end of this session, Mr. Speaker, and we are sure that it is not near completion, taking into account the government's stubbornness in having these ridiculous bills passed, bills that are anti-social and that are against the will of 90 per cent of the population. We would have preferred a Speech from the Throne to know at least where the government wants to lead us. We now have the impression of running to disaster. I believe that is what is in store for us. That is why we are against the government's motion. All we ask for is that the usages and customs of this House be respected and that people know what the government seeks to introduce in this House and what we will be doing in the next twelve months, in order to plan work and thus take a direction. At the present time, we are completely in the dark and every day the government introduces a new matter. As I said, that is why I am against this motion.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the House leader has brought all the members of parliament into this problem of the length of sessions and the problems which develop from it. It seems to me it would have been much more advantageous not to have raised the subject at all. This gives members an opportunity to object to some of the things that have

February 27, 1976
Private Members' Hour
happened as a result of this long session and some of the problems that this has caused.
Hon. members will remember that when the Standing Orders were changed, they were changed on the basis of the fact that we had had a number of long sessions and many of the changes that were brought in were to assist the government to wind up the business of the House on an annual basis, which was not possible under the old rules. Originally, there was no limit under the Standing Orders as to the number of days when private members' and public business could be brought in under private members' hour.
One of the reasons the 40-day limit was put on private members' hours was to allow the government, in the last two or three months of the session, to be freed from private members' hour so that this extra hour could be used for government business. It was not, as I think the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said, to take any of the privileges away from private members. It worked that way, but that was not the purpose of the change. The purpose was to assist the government. I have been here long enough to know that we never do anything in this parliament to help private members or to help the opposition. But I have never seen the opposition House leader go so far to help the government run its own affairs.
We have always made concessions which have resulted in the cutting down of rights of private members and have been to the advantage of the government. The new rule, under the Standing Order, to put the 40-hour limit on private members' hour was to help the government and it was certainly detrimental to members. It was never anticipated, when the rules were changed, that we would have a five-year session. There is some comment in the press that it may not only be a five-year session but that we may have seen our last election, that we may continue indefinitely until some other justification forces a change in the situation. I do not think that we have gone quite that far, and I doubt whether many hon. members will agree that we have, but if we have a five-year session, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has pointed out, it is only a matter of degree. When you waive the rules and you make changes of accommodation for a specific purpose, you should look very carefully at that purpose.
The system under which we operate is not just one word for the opposition and two for the government: it is considerably more than that. What are we really saying? We are saying that if we do like the "fighting opposition", which today appears to be a quiet little pussy cat, and if on the part of the backbenchers we agree to this small concession, it seems to me that we will also have agreed, without any discussion, that this session will continue and that there will be no throne speech.
What is the throne speech for? As I understand it, it gives the government an opportunity to come before parliament and to state its agenda for the months ahead, to indicate to him what direction it is going and to outline what kind of program it will have for the future, usually for a period of less than one year. The throne speech originally started out for sessions which were only a 
month or two long, but that period of time has grown considerably.
If the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton had been in the House for a considerable period of time, he would know that one of the greatest advantages a private member once had in this House was his opportunity to reply to the Speech from the Throne. In their replies to the Speech from the Throne, hon. members could air their own views and those of their constituents. I remember that when I first came here everyone was able to go on a tour of the riding of the hon. member who was speaking. They learned how nice the people were, how beautiful the scenery was, what type of industry there was, and in a social sense it was a helpful, geographical trip around and hon. member's riding. That was really the only time an hon. member could make a speech which outlined the direction in which he wanted to go. This has changed, but so have conditions. I think it would be very hard to find a time, with the exception of wartime, when a government has made the major changes in its philosophy that this one has in the last six months.
It is interesting to consider the direction in which the government was going in the last throne speech. At that time it was against wage and price controls, and very much against many of the things which have been implemented since. The country has a right to know what the government intends to do.
We will certainly miss my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The history of parliament follows him back many years, many generations, and sometimes many centuries. He made a very astute observation a moment ago. The government House leader walked between Mr. Speaker and the member speaking.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Between Mr. Speaker and the mace.


William Arnold Peters: More than that; he walked between the mace and Mr. Speaker. We have moved so far away from observing the rules of parliament that before very long it will be difficult to run parliament in a way in which we can depend on the rules and regulations. Parliament has in the past always been accustomed to altering the rules by unanimous consent only, but today we are not being asked for unanimous consent. We have a motion before us in which, in effect, the government asks for a very small concession, and in return for that we are to give up the right of having the throne speech. It has been pointed out that there has already been some concession made in this discussion, and I hope that very small concession which has been made will be repeated by the House leader and that he will give us an indication, before this motion is passed, that there is an intention at some point in time of having another session of parliament and another throne speech.
I believe that a throne speech serves a purpose. I believe that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, who initiated this concession, will agree that many members of his party would like to raise matters in the House which are not directly related to legislation which will be before parliament. They may be issues which greatly affect their ridings and which they would like to bring to the attention of the nation. The throne speech is one of the few
February 27, 1976

times during a parliament that they have the opportunity to do so. The hon. member may have provided a slim substitute for that type of representation to a very limited number of his colleagues who have private members' business on the order paper, in lieu of the right which he may give to a large number of our members, particularly on the backbenches, who have to use this method to get messages across which may or may not be connected with the legislative business of the House, which may be rather parochial but which are very important to their ridings.
The throne speech used to be followed by a very long debate. That debate has now been cut to eight days. The length of the speeches has been curtailed by the new Standing Orders. There have been limits of all kinds applied to the individual backbencher and it seems to me that in view of the concessions which we have made, a fair and reasonable government should retain for us at least a regular forum; and the elimination of the throne speech and a new session appears to me not to meet that purpose.
I am sure there are other factors involved. I am sure there are arrangements which have been made for operations in this House which are still on a sessional basis and which will continue unrenewed as long as this session lasts.
There may be others apart from members of this House who are affected. I do not like to appear, as some of my hon. colleagues may, to be a traditionalist and always to honour some of the traditions which have been built up, but I have found that every time we have given up some traditions, we really have given up the privileges of private members of this House and strengthened the hand of the government. This always happens.


Walter David Baker: Did you hear that, Stanley?


William Arnold Peters: I can think of no example in the changes we have made to the rules which has improved the lot of the individual member in relation to his duties to parliament. Where there has been a change, it has been in favour of the government rather than of the individual member. There is no question about that. Our country has grown in size. All one need do is look at the map of my riding to realize there might be a better way of handling some of this growth. However, leaving that aside, the country has grown, budgets have grown, the number of people has increased and so has our wealth. Obviously, the problems have increased. However, I think of many of the traditions we observed, and of which one was an annual session with a throne speech at the opening of parliament and getting from the government a new direction.
We are now getting direction by changes in legislation. Recently a totally new approach to the penal system in Canada was introduced under the guise of changes to the Criminal Code. These did not flow from the last throne speech, but have developed since and do not relate to anything in the past. But they are major changes, Mr. Speaker. The anti-inflation legislation did not relate to social changes indicated in the throne speech for this session. None of the changes we are now facing in legislative procedure flow from that source.
While members always want to co-operate with the government, and while members always want to make it
Private Members' Hour
easier for the government to get its business done, we will find that not only are changes being made but we will shortly be asked by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) to lengthen the hours to sit on Saturdays and to extend the hours on Friday evening. These changes will be introduced for the benefit of the government. I am surprised at the "pussy cat" official opposition and their smooth and purring manner toward the way in which the government is going to govern and operate this House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It takes a cat to know a cat.


William Arnold Peters: There are different kinds of cats.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Just different from the pussy cat.


William Arnold Peters: There may be some desirable ones that are a little more fighting than others. It just seems to me that a pussy cat can be too quiet, particularly when someone may be near to stepping on its tail-and that may happen at any moment.


Mr. Ellis:: You never saw the leopard change its spots, either.


William Arnold Peters: That is another kind of cat. If the adjective were applied to me, I would be quite happy with it. I have always been afraid that there are factors that can make one change one's spots after a while.
I have come to the conclusion that many of these rules that we have in this House were designed originally for the benefit of the individual member. As the British system started out originally, it guarded the supremacy of the individual member. It made the individual member paramount in the parliamentary structure. Over the years we have given away some of those rights for cabinet government. Now cabinet government is not really cabinet government; it is run by experts behind the cabinet, and the experts have decided not to spend time on a new throne speech and go through the process of having a new session. Whenever the end of this session does come, it will be interesting to see the picture that is taken. A picture is generally taken each session, and in the next one some members will have long, white beards because of the length of the session. History will be interested in the decline of the Rip Van Winkle attitude of the official opposition to some of the rules they should be defending, but are not.
There is another side to this coin. I hope I am misrepresenting the official opposition and some of the pussy cat backbenchers on the government side as well. There appeared to be considerable objection from the official opposition yesterday to a private member's bill. I would not like to think that IAC Limited had persuaded some members of the opposition and government backbenchers that more time was needed to introduce that particular bill. Obviously, it should have been introduced very early in the session if there was to be any hope of getting it passed. I hope there are no ulterior motives in the introduction of this amendment that seems to get so much support from both sides of the House.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated that he had looked through all the rules and precedents and had examined our pseudo constitution-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!

February 27, 1976
Private Members' Hour


William Arnold Peters: My hon. friend laughs; maybe he has never looked at what we call the constitution. It is not a constitution in the sense of constitutions that are written for other countries; it is a statute of Westminster given to us by the British parliament on agreement of the provinces and the federal government. It certainly does not cover many of the things a constitution should cover, which obviously would establish in the regulations for parliament the length of sessions and many of the other rules that are not written into our Standing Orders and flow only from the British practice adopted by us as being applicable to Canada.
Looking back over those precedents, Mr. Speaker, I think there has been a tendency in Canada-and at one time there was a practice-of having a throne speech and then a budget. Both debates were fixed and were held very early in the session. Only in relatively recent times have we had more than one budget in a session, and those budgets do not necessarily follow the throne speech but come at various periods during the session. To some extent they do the same thing as the throne speech; in a financial way they outline the changes of attitude of the federal government, the cabinet and the government's financial advisers.
As conditions changed oftener than once a year, we ended up with a major budget and a mini-budget. Recently we have had more than one mini-budget in one session. While that is not a bad thing, it is a change that has developed without taking anything away from the operation of parliament. In fact, it allowed parliament to know the new direction the cabinet was taking and allowed members the full right of addressing themselves to the financial matters in the budget.
If records are kept, I think it will be very clear that whenever a mini-budget has been produced all parties have been in agreement with reducing the number of days required for discussion. This has been possible by members making concessions to the government. In some instances the government may have felt that some of its own members and the opposition were being conciliatory in considering requests to shorten the speeches and the length of debate when a budget was introduced for a specific purpose that might have limited application. That cannot be true of a throne speech, however.
Major changes have taken place in the direction of this government. The government has moved from one side of the street to the other, adopting a program with which the Conservative party went to the people in the last election. Strangely, the opposition now opposes the implementation of that proposal.


An hon. Member:: It isn't in the same form.


William Arnold Peters: Of course it is not in the same form. Probably it is worse. But the people gave no mandate for this program: they rejected it. The Liberal party fought wage and price controls during the election, and the people decided to reject controls.


J. Robert Howie: Then why are you giving the government a vote of confidence?


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member's party is showing confidence in the government. It is saying, in so many words, that the government need not give us a blueprint of its proposals, that it need not call a new session and can continue the present session. In return, the hon. member's party wants private members' hour Mondays and Tuesdays in addition to the Thursdays and Fridays private members' hour allowed in this part of the session.
The NDP say there should be a new session. The opposition has elected a new leader and it may change direction to the right, not to the left. I think the country is entitled to know what the opposition proposes, as well as what the government proposes. If both parties have redrafted their blueprints for action since the last election, the country is entitled to know. In which direction are the parties going? This point is important. It should be debated at length and, as far as I am concerned, voted on. I suggest that the opposition House leader misled his party-unintentionally, because he does not understand what he proposes. Perhaps, on reflection, he and his party will reconsider the proposal. I suggest it runs counter to their philosophy and therefore ought to be reconsidered.
A speech from the throne allows the government to state its position and also allows the opposition parties to set out their positions and criticize government policy. As a rule, the speech from the throne reflects the government's assessment of the situation only a short time ahead. In my opinion, it should look no more than one year into the future. Originally, it applied only to the next two or three months. As I say, it should cover no more than the following year. The opposition has the right to make counterproposals. Certainly the Conservative party would want to do this at an early date.
The throne speech, apart from allowing the government to tell the country what it intends to do, gives rise to debate in which backbenchers can voice the problems of their constituents. Not for a long time have backbenchers been given this opportunity. At one time backbenchers were given many opportunities for raising the problems of their constituencies. I can remember many fruitful debates on the estimates, sometimes lasting several months, in which private members could speak about the problems of their constituencies. Those debates were wide-ranging. There was a grievance period connected with committee of supply proceedings when backbenchers could raise grievances. I am sure many hon. members would welcome the opportunity to voice the concerns of their constituents and to comment on forthcoming legislation. They will be denied that opportunity unless we decide to begin a new session.
All the machinery for beginning a new session is in being. The Governor General is well, the necessary functionaries are available, the Queen's Printer's department has been enlarged, and speech writers have been hired. No doubt the speech from the throne would be interesting. In recent years it has been the practice of the government to print, along with the speech from the throne, background documents setting out the government's philosophical position. We need to know the government's philosophical position.
The Conservative party and my party were intrigued that certain statements made recently over the broadcast
February 27, 1976

media and heard nationwide could lead one to conclude that this government is leading in a certain direction. Frankly, there is little danger of parties in this House amalgamating. But there may be reason for thinking, on the strength of some philosophical pronouncements made publicly, that the government is going far to the left, in a socialistic direction. Possibly the Liberal party is going far to the left. This could become a socialist government. If so, we should look at its program.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, now that members of the official opposition have had an opportunity to contemplate over refreshment, I am sure they will agree that any concession offered in lieu of a formal throne speech and the beginning of a new session, with a blue print of where this government is going, is not a good deal. I am convinced they will support members of my party who believe it is in the interest of parliament and the country to have this blueprint, and the opportunity for that should be provided in a new throne speech. For that reason, we are opposed to making this concession in lieu of a throne speech.


An hon. Member:: He usually has a lot to say.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) to resume his seat so soon. Characteristically, I thought he would take the full time allotted to him. As such, he has another five minutes.


James Aloysius McGrath: As the hon. member just interjected, he usually has a lot say. He seems to have wandered all over the place today.
I find it a little difficult to understand what this debate is all about. It seems that what we are debating is a move which should surely meet the general consensus and approval of the House. Let there be no mistake about that. I would have expected hon. gentlemen who are distinguished members of the New Democratic Party to be foremost in the advocacy of the rights of private members of this House and the right of private members to have their day. Surely that is what this resolution is all about. Hence, I find it very difficult to understand the position taken today by the NDP, particularly the position taken by the NDP House leader, that great expert on parliamentary procedure, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
I suspect that perhaps the position of the NDP with respect to Bill C-68 may have something to do with the debate that is now under way. They might be a little worried that they do not have enough troops here today to
Private Members' Hour
carry the debate. In that regard, I wish to assure them that we have no intention of allowing Bill C-68 to pass without proper debate.
I would like to say this to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who is an expert on rules and on parliament: surely he should be the first to know that the government not only has the right, but the responsibility to manage the business of the House. If the government decides that the session should be two years long, that, in fact, is the right of the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame!


James Aloysius McGrath: No one can question the right of the government to manage the business of the House. Consequently, we can have one parliament comprising one session, if that is the wish of the government and their management of the business of the House and the business of the country. Of course, they have to account for that management and stewardship. Let us set the record straight as far as this session is concerned. This has been a long session. Nobody will deny that. However, let us not be hypocritical about it. We have had very useful debates and we have had extended debates.
Let us take Bill C-2, for example. No one can say that we did not have an opportunity to debate the amendments to the Combines Investigation Act. We had an extended debate. Indeed, in that regard the government showed great patience. The same can be said for Bill C-58. It was a long debate, and rightly so because it was an important bill. Of course, the same can be said for Bill C-68 which is now before the House.
Let us not get hung up on this nonsense, this hypocrisy about having to terminate the session. What is so special about a Speech from the Throne? The government usually ignores what is in it, anyway. It is usually filled with platitudes that they recycle at the beginning of each session. What is so sacrosanct or special about terminating the session to get another Speech from the Throne? There is nothing special about that at all. I suggest that we get on with this.
I commend the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) for standing up for the rights of private members in this House and for getting this agreement with the government to restore private members' hour by waiving the provisions of Standing Order 56. I say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that many private members' bills have yet to be brought forward in this session, and who knows how long the session may last? Only the government can determine the length of a session. Only the government has responsibility for managing the business of the House. Let me say to the government that we should get on with it.
My principal reason for interjecting in this needless debate is to suggest to the government House leader that he give consideration, since he has already given an undertaking to look again at private members' hour, to providing some kind of mechanism within the government structure whereby private members' bills are vetted by law officers of the Crown to make sure they conform to the laws of the country and are procedurally and constitu-

Private Members' Hour
tionally acceptable as well as in the public interest, so they can receive second reading and be referred to a committee. Then, during examination by the committee, witnesses can give evidence with respect to particular bills.
Many good bills and excellent ideas are put forward during the course of private members' hour. It is generally the case that these bills are deliberately talked out. Every government does that. We did it when we were sitting over on that side. Nevertheless, the time has come, perhaps, when we should reassess the role of the private member in this House without in any way taking away from the principal responsibility of the government to legislate and manage the business of the House.
I believe that a reassessment, indeed a redefinition of the role of private members' hour on the part of the government, would be very productive and useful to the House. I hope the government House leader, who more and more impresses me with his patience-not necessarily with his wisdom, but with his patience-will give serious consideration to having this question referred to a cabinet committee, to a committee of the Department of Justice or to a committee of the House, to see whether the government can come up with a more useful and productive way of handling private members' business. This would be in the best interests both of the government and of the House.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief, but I should like to rectify some of the impressions hon. members may have got this morning from hearing certain remarks. There was talk of the unusual length of this session. Still, my own research reveals that though we are breaking all records in terms of the length of the session or number of days on which the House has sat, in fact as far as sessions are concerned, the second, third, fourth and fifth of the 19th Parliament lasted quite a long time.
The second in fact, that goes back to 1940-42, lasted 441 days, that is, over a year, the third of the same Parliament, in 1942-43, lasted 371 days, the fourth, in 1943-44, 364 days and the fifth, in 1944-45, 371 days. Recently, in 1964-65, the second session of the 26th Parliament lasted 411 days. The first session of the 27th Parliament, in 1966-67, 476 days; and there are the more recent examples that were mentioned earlier in the debate. For instance, in 1968-69, the first session of the 28th Parliament lasted 406 days and the third session of the same Parliament, 497 days.
To my mind, we should not be influenced by the length of sessions, or fear them as such. What counts, is that Parliament should continue to work productively as the case has been in this session. There is still much to be done. I feel the argument is totally false whereby we should have a new session because the session has lasted long enough or there is not enough work left to do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member allow the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to ask him a question?


Eymard G. Corbin: I shall try to answer him, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is it not correct that the figures that the hon. member has now given regarding certain sessions relate to the total number of calendar days between the day the sessions started and the day they ended? On that basis, this session is well over 500 days.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely righ ... I did say that it was the length of the session in days. I refer to the column "number of sitting days". I could have said for example, that in the second session of the 26th legislature, in 1964-65, there were 248 sitting days. Perhaps it is not a record but it is not far from being so and this is quite a lot of days.
In 1966-67, in the first session of the 26th legislature, we did sit for 250 days which was the record until this week. In the third session of the 28th legislature, from 1970 to 1972, there were 244 sitting days. So there is no reason for getting nervous or scandalized by the length of the present session.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of my party in opposition to this motion. We think that all it is is a sop to those who previously argued for the need for a new session. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am not persuaded by the argument that it has been the longest session in history and therefore we should depart from tradition. I have some Conservative elements in my bones, but certainly not to that extent.
Therefore, one has to look at the reasons for having sessions roughly of the order of 12 months; that is the crucial point. Why is it appropriate to have a new session of parliament with a new throne speech? I was amazed by the contention of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) that a government could come in with a session lasting five years. Sure, they could from the constitutional point of view; there is no question about that. The question is, is it appropriate, in a parliamentary democracy, to do that? We most categorically say "No". We say "No" because of the changing circumstances in this country, particularly the country's economy, which require a government to come back at more frequent intervals to propose means for dealing with the country's problems. This is precisely why we think a new session is required, and required now. The last throne speech was delivered on September 30, 1974, nearly a year and a half ago. The problems of the country are substantially different now-I shall come to this point in a moment-or at least their manifestations are different. Part of what the government said in its throne speech has been denied-particularly what it said about wage and price controls-by the action the government has taken since then.
February 27, 1976

I say, with all the emphasis I can bring to bear on this point, that the reason we are opposing this motion is that we want a new session with a new throne speech which will deal with the following pressing problems. There are
800,000	Canadians looking for work. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who need housing in virtually every city, town and small village in the country. There is the shambles that is passing for a nuclear policy. Quite hypocritically, the government has day after day this week pretended to the people of Canada that it is going to introduce a nuclear policy. The purpose of this policy is to control and maintain nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, but in my view the government has virtually made up its mind to embark upon a deal with Pakistan which will lose all control for Canada over nuclear technology and set the stage for the development of a new nuclear weapon elsewhere in the world. There is no nuclear policy at all. The transportation minister has outlined in general form his current views, which in terms of the reaction of many people in western Canada is a potential dismemberment of the national railway system that we now have in this country.
Last, but not least, there have been the philosophical meanderings of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on television during the past month when, in typical sophistical fashion, he has raised more questions than he dares provide answers to, and has been interpreted as being everything from a facist on the right to some kind of Stalinist socialist to the left.
The people of Canada have every right to expect this government now to come up with a new throne speech outlining in detail what it wants to do about unemployment, about housing, about nuclear policy and about transportation policy, and putting in more precise terms the framework the Prime Minister thinks he is going to use in developing his new society. We want action on these matters now, and that is why we oppose this motion.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, this parliament has never-


An hon. Member:: Now you are going to get it.


Mr. Fairweather:: Nobody is going to get anything. This parliament has never really met the issue of reform of its procedures. With the greatest amount of respect to the Pearson years, to which I alluded this morning because I was in a mood of deja vu and because of certain privileges that have returned to the scene, the requirements of these years really have not been met and, as the British had to do in the 1890s, we must reform the system.
It seems to me that the length of a session is not particularly the problem, though it does obscure the public's perspective of what we are about here. The problem, surely, is that the rules and practices, outmoded as they are, are designed for a 12-month year when you start it up in January and there is a great effort to get home at Easter. I am of an age that I still remember the predecessor in my constituency chugging in on the railway train sometime around May when he had completed the annual task, and then when there was an emergency the train would go out again and there would be a couple of months
Private Members' Hour
work here in the fall. The public is slightly confused, despite the interesting statistics of the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) because it lives in a calendar year and we seem to have slopped over slightly: we are now into the third calendar year.
It seems to me there are several reasons for really coming to grips with reform. One of them is civility to the staff of this institution, and I like to think that would be very high on our priorities. The second is civility to constituents who to me seem not to have the slightest idea, now, when their member of parliament can be expected in the constituency for any length of time.
In a philosophical political mood, I think the generosity of former of prime minister Pearson's weekly passes cannot be gainsaid; but that generosity brings with it a problem. The problem is that a good many members of parliament are constantly in the air, going somewhere or coming back from somewhere. This has had serious repercussions on their health, if I may say so, to say nothing of their consideration of legislation, and so on. Because of the generosity of our travel arrangements, people expect us to be in our constituencies to open up every gas pump and every hamburger stand. Not to be snooty about it, this means that unless we are careful-


An hon. Member:: What have they got in those hamburgers?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I am probably the product of too many hamburgers. I am not being snooty or stand-offish, but I think we have to be selective in the acceptance of invitations.
I used to feel some compassion for one of the former ministers. He is not here now, and perhaps his travel arrangements are the reason for his absence. I used to watch him leaving on Fridays for one of the coasts of this country and did not know how the man carried on his portfolio from 35,000 feet over the Rockies, week in and week out, year in and year out. I do not think it was a good arrangement for his private life, his portfolio or his participation in parliament.
There are a couple of parliaments which have dealt with this matter, but perhaps not in as dramatic a fashion as I would like. One is Australia, where every third week-and I can be corrected on this-there is a certain length of time off. The system needs time to regurgitate-


An hon. Member:: Do something about it, Mitch.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: -which means that all those pieces of paper that flow inexorably-like Tennyson's brook, this "goes on forever"-can be indexed, and so on, and brought up to date. In this way, members of parliament could make arrangements in their constituencies. Constituents would get to know that, say, every third or fourth week would in fact be constituency week. They could lay up a whole series of gas pump and hamburger stand openings and the other things we are expected to do in order to fulfil our heavy responsibilities to the state.
Thank goodness we are still operating on the Christian calendar. With great respect to the House leader, if we did not have the intervention of Christmas, Easter, and perhaps Canada, Dominion, national, or whatever day it is
11334

February 27, 1976
Private Members' Hour
now, we would not stop at all; we would just go on and on like the squirrel on a roundabout. We are still committed to several breaks a year because this is a country that pays attention to Christmas, Easter and a couple of other events.
It happened that just at noon today I had a chance of talking with that estimable servant of parliament, the Chief Electoral Officer. I asked when it would be possible for him to get for us who are democrats; and there are a few left-


An hon. Member:: They are old democrats.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: They are not necessarily the same thing. Anyway, I asked the Chief Electoral Officer to make arrangements-and I really wonder why we still fuss about this in 1976-to provide a list, on an annual basis, of those members of the armed forces who put down our respective constituencies as their place to vote. I was talking about democrats. Unfortunately, there are large numbers of people in the armed forces who are not democrats and who guard the list of their members and where their members exercise their electoral responsibility as if it were the key to security in this country.
We have a series of wonderful men and women serving Canada, and I not prepared to believe that the safety of this country is inhibited by the fact that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal knows that 200 of the 78,000 members of the armed forces have their location or their home voting place in my constituency. I said, "My dear Mr. Hamel, can you give me this list? I really resent sending somebody, every election, to appear before the returning officer to copy out laboriously by hand, the 200 or 300 names." He said, "That could easily be done, although the security of the state is involved, so the military people tell us. "He said," there is a private member's bill on the order paper somewhere, and if you could get that bill advanced, and if the committee were sitting, this could be done." I told him that with the timetable we have, and because of the length of the session, that might be pretty difficult to do, but that perhaps he could initiate a bill with the government through the responsible minister.
The reason I am on this track is that I wish to point out the dilemma in respect of this long session. The 40 days might have been very good to spend in the wilderness, although there were certain problems then, I understand from careful reading. But 40 days is a pretty difficult period for members of parliament to get their ideas through to the heads of the government. It might take more than 40 days, for instance, to get the government House Leader to agree with me that the reforms I propose are necessary. Perhaps it would not. Perhaps he would be prepared to initiate these things. I think it would involve a fairly fundamental commitment on the part of all of us.
I think this is a place that needs a few people who are prepared to go to the ramparts of parliamentary reform, and not just settle in in the committee in room 112-N. That is not the issue. The issue has to be made perceptible to the public. I think, fortunately for us-here I am perhaps being a little forthrighteous-most members of the public do not have a clue concerning what we are about, and that

keeps us safe. There is a third bit of responsibility in this regard, because I see in the press gallery one in the employ of the great monopoly, the Canadian Press, who will send a message down to Wellington Street to announce to all of Canada what is going on here today.


An hon. Member:: One man.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I wish him well, but it is even better when there is somebody else around. It must be very lonely for him.


An hon. Member:: Now we have two.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Keep it up. We might get three.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Apparently the hordes are at our
gates. Anyway, I have enjoyed this minute or two. However, I really would like, before the year is over, to see us come to grips with this matter to see whether there is some way in which the ideas of members of parliament can be sorted out and sent on to committees. Some of them, believe it or not, my dear government friends, are not bad in their concepts and the country would be better off if they were adopted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Mr. Deputy Speaker- The minister is seeking the floor at this time. In accordance with citation 166 of Beau-chesne's, he would be using his right of reply, having moved the motion, and therefore would be closing the debate. I wish to inform hon. members of that.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to prolong this debate, but I should like to make two or three comments about the purpose of putting down this motion which seems to have been misrepresented, if not misunderstood. Second, I wish to make some further comments in support of what the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) has just said. The purpose of this motion is to restore certain private members' rights that had expired because of the length of this session.
I should like to say to all hon. members, particularly those in the New Democratic Party, that this is not put forward as a concession. This problem was recognized by the government some time ago. I made clear, at a meeting I had with the representatives of the parties, that I intended to introduce a motion for the purpose of restoring these private members' rights that had expired because of the length of the session. My hon. friend, now the House leader for the Conservative party, put forward a motion under Standing Order 43 with which I agreed. Indeed, it was a bit of conspiracy on our part that it might have been put through under a Standing Order 43 motion. Unfortunately, there were some replies of "No" and I took the responsibility of bringing the motion forward.
February 27, 1976

This is no concession in lieu of a new Speech from the Throne, as has been represented by the New Democratic Party. This is what I think should be done under the circumstances. The question of whether we will have a Speech from the Throne is quite a separate question. I suggest that my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would rather have a grievance than have private member's rights restored. This seems to be the situation for which he has argued. He says, for example, that he would rather this motion did not pass the House because he would prefer to have a Speech from the Throne. What he wants is a grievance that the government has not undertaken to start another session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have lots of grievances with this government. I do not need another one.
Private Members' Hour


Walter David Baker: Don't clutch us too close to your bosom.


Mitchell William Sharp: There have been some references to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization covering some of the points that have been raised here. For example, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has been instructed by the committee to bring in terms of reference on private members' hour for the proper use of that hour, another member on the management of time, another on the work of committees. These are the fundamental questions. I do urge upon the House that this committee be allowed to make rapid progress, which is only possible with the co-operation of the House leaders and of the parties concerned, not just of individual members, and that when the report is made it will be dealt with expeditiously.


Mitchell William Sharp: I wish the hon. member had said that. I am sure members on all sides would like to have these private members' rights restored. Perhaps I might make some other comments. The first concerns the reason for the length of this session. If one looks back at the record of some recent sessions, it will be clear that a great backlog of unfinished legislation accumulated during minority parliaments.
It was the view of the government that, if possible, we should try to avoid that happening again. It has been our wish to clear the order paper of all the bills that had accumulated over a considerable period. This we have been trying to do. There have been some very contentious pieces of legislation. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre compared the situation with Westminster. I would point out to him that, of course, Westminster operates under very different rules. He knows this. The British government can put forward a firm schedule of bills to be completed within a session, in the knowledge that it has the rules for the purpose of getting it approved. We do now have these rules.
During this session there have been debates of enormous length which would never have been permitted under the rules of Westminster. So I agree with the hon. member for Fundy-Royal that surely in this parliament we should be making a fundamental review of our rules so that this sort of situation does not occur again, and so the government will know that when it puts forward a program of legislation, that program will be substantially completed within a year. We must show some restraint on our side in not encumbering the order paper with too many bills. On the other hand, I am sure hon. members would agree that the bills which have been put down have been important, essential legislation. We did not put down a lot of bills which we did not have confidence would be approved.
We believe-perhaps the NDP does not-that the time has come for some restraint in government spending. On this side I think we have the support at least of the Conservative party. Whenever we bring forward legislation to do this, it is an excuse for holding up the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had information given to me which is relevant with respect to what we have been talking about. I was given to understand that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has announced outside the House of Commons a large wheat sale to the U.S.S.R.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to prevent the hon. member from raising his point of order, but I thought the point of order was related to the proceedings of the House. If the hon. member wishes to raise that point of order, I suggest that he raise it at the end of routine proceedings just before we go on to government orders, once a vote has been taken on the motion before us. I think at that time there will also be more members in the House.
I will now put the question to the House, and after we have reached orders of the day I will call upon the hon. member. The question is on the motion of Mr. Sharp. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion (Mr. Sharp) agreeu to.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on the point of order of which he gave notice?


Walter David Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member will not mind waiting until after we have disposed of questions on the order paper.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,544, 3,908 and 3,931.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	With reference to the agricultural sector of Phase 2 of the PEI Comprehensive Development Plan, what are the working definitions used by the DREE office in PEI of a viable and a potentially viable farm operation?
2.	From 1969 to date, for each category of farm operation classified as (a) viable (b) potentially viable (c) non-viable (d) all farms, what is the (i) number (ii) total acreage (iii) average acreage (iv) total acreage under cultivation (v) average acreage under cultivation (vi) total net family income (all sources) (vii) average net family income (all sources) (viii) total farm net income (ix) average farm net income (x) distribution by county?
3.	(a) What programmes are designed primarily to help the (i) viable (ii) potentially viable (iii) non-viable farm operation (b) in what way do these programmes represent a departure from the agricultural strategy of Phase 1 of the Plan?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
1.	The terms "viable" and "potentially viable" are not used by DREE in respect to the agricultural sector of Phase 2 of the PEI Comprehensive Development Plan.
2.	(a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable, (c) Not applicable. (d) Published by Statistics Canada.
3.	(a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Howie: Did the Province of New Brunswick request funding from DREE over the next five years for (a) upgrading of Route 1, Sussex to Saint John (b) upgrading of Route 10, Fredericton to Moncton and, if so, in each case (i) how much (ii) how much financial assistance is DREE prepared to give?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is: In response to a request from the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, the province of New Brunswick submitted to the department an outline of the provincial plan for highway construction and improvement to be undertaken over the next five years. Although the projects listed in this question form a part of the overall provincial plan, there has been no specific request from the province for DREE assistance to them. The question of what assistance, if any, might be provided is being considered in the continuing process of federal-provincial discussion regarding DREE activities in New Brunswick, (i) Not applicable, (ii) Not applicable.


Mr. Reynolds: What action has been taken to date on the twenty-two recommendations made by Mr. Justice E. D. Bayda in his Report of the Industrial Inquiry Commission under the Canada Labour Code into the Grain Handling Industry in the Vancouver Port Area dated July 1975?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: The findings and recommendations of the Report of the Industrial Inquiry Commission into the grain handling industry in the Vancouver port area, received by the Minister of
February 27, 1976

Labour on July 24, 1975, were carefully considered by the government. The report was tabled in the House and released to the parties on December 5, 1975 and the Minister of Labour met the parties in Vancouver on December 10. The Minister also consulted members of the Canada Labour Relations Council on the report, its findings and recommendations. The government endorses in principle the recommendations aimed at improving the bargaining relationship but rejects those recommendations requiring heavy intervention in the labour-management relationship and a legislative approach. In keeping with the government's position, the Minister of Labour appointed an Industrial Relations Consultant pursuant to Section 197 of the Canada Labour Code on December 23, 1975. The Consultant, Mr. H. Landon Ladd, was appointed to develop in co-operation with labour, management and the government of Canada, an industrial relations program with a view to promoting conditions favourable to the attainment of industrial peace and to assist the parties in the implementation of such a program. The appointment is in the spirit of recommendations #4 and #5 of the commissioner's report but does not use the title "Federal Overseer" as specified in recommendation #4. No action has been taken on the other recommendations contained in the report.


PRIVILEGE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, while we were dealing with Routine Proceedings I raised a point of order. If it is agreeable, and I think I have the right in any event, I will now raise it as a question of privilege affecting all members of this House. I understand that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, made an announcement today in this building, outside this Chamber, about a very large, significant, and happy sale of wheat to the U.S.S.R.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I would be the first to say that we join with members on the government side in expressing satisfaction with regard to that. However, it would have been a matter of common courtesy and in accordance with parliamentary practice if, having regard to the fact that the announcement was made about 1:30 this afternoon, prior to reaching the item on the order paper for ministers' statements, the minister had made that statement in the House.
If the statement was so important that the minister had to rush breathlessly to the television cameras, why did he not rush breathlessly into the House to ask for consent to revert to the order for ministers statements, which the House would have been delighted to do? That would have been following what has been common parliamentary practice for some time.
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
I can understand the minister's joy and that of the country. However, I hope the government House leader brings it to the minister's attention that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization laboured long and hard in order to come up with a new procedure by which ministerial statements, or that which ought to be ministerial statements, could be made in the House of Commons where there would be an opportunity to reply. That would give us an opportunity to find out the terms and conditions of such an important and happy transaction. I hope that this minister, experienced as he is, will consider that. In failing to give the House that kind of information he breaches the privileges of this House. More than that, he displays bad parliamentary manners. He should know better.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the challenge of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). Notwithstanding his new duties, one has to conclude that he is far more at home with corn than with wheat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: He has, of course, not had time to examine what he calls the parliamentary practice. If he does examine it he will find that some long time ago I indicated to the House that while sales like this, which by the way was a sale to China and not to Russia-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: [DOT]-while sales like this are extremely important, it would not be my practice, in this case any more than with regard to any departmental or governmental situation, to attempt to make the announcement in the House. I suppose if there were a kind of bulletin board occasion for that, one might like to do it so that the opposition could properly respond and say that is great, wonderful, and nothing more, instead of taking up the time of the House with a lot of extraneous matters.
In this case, it is not only a case of not making an announcement. While important, it follows the pattern of sales and, therefore, involves no new policy. However it is true this sale had been made possible because of a policy of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: It allows for a guarantee by the government of the credit involved on the part of the buyer, China. However, as I say, that is a standing policy which I am sure was discussed in the House at the time it was first introduced. It is not necessary to indicate its specific use each time it is utilized.
The sale to China represents another kind of government policy, maintaining a good relationship with a country like China. We have maintained that relationship as we have done with Cuba, even though hon. members opposite may argue about specific acts on the part of the government. We have maintained the position of a good trading relationship. An open door is important.

February 27, 1976
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the minister will agree that he is getting far away from the point of order.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think you might find from examining the record that I have not gone much further afield than the hon. member, but I will nonetheless adhere to your good advice and stay with the question of privilege.
Announcement of this 35 million bushel sale by the Canadian Wheat Board with credit terms over an 18 month period was, as a matter of practice, made simultaneously by the Canadian Wheat Board as the selling agent and by myself because of the government policies involved, including the credit. The time for making the announcement is, in fact, determined as a matter of course by the Canadian Wheat Board. I try to accommodate their time as much as possible. I make myself available to the press because of the great interest to the nation in the matter. The House finds out about it immediately as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members will agree that the Chair should not get involved in the debate that had taken place. The question that has been raised may be of importance, but the Chair only has to decide whether a prima facie case of privilege is involved.
The question is of importance to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and other hon. members. It is of great interest to the Canadian people. However, insofar as a breach of the privileges of hon. members is concerned, all precedents indicate there is no way the Chair can make a decision supporting the arguments of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.
The Chair has to decide all breaches of privilege regarding the operations of this House or affecting the rights of hon. members in the performance of their duties. In any event the hon. member did not substantiate his question of privilege by a motion that would have required action by this House. Therefore I must reject his point.
Orders of the day.


Eugene Whelan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the House through you that none of this great debate would have taken place if it were not for the great productivity of our farmers in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Despite the minister.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, February 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-68, to amend the Medical Care Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, and the amendment of Mr. Gilbert (p. 11210).
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, when I was interrupted by the clock last evening you will recall, I was admitting to puzzlement and was asking myself why the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) chose this particular time to renege on the undertaking of a previous Liberal government, the Pearson government, to provide assistance to the provinces in the medicare field, at the same time repudiating an undertaking given ten years earlier by the Diefenbaker government to assist the provinces in the supply of hospital services. Is it, I was asking myself, because the minister feels that the basic infrastructure is now in place, and that in consequence federal assistance can now be withdrawn? Happily for me, my knowledge of the inside of a hospital is very limited, but I am aware of the lack of hospital facilities across the country.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Kaplan) on a point of order.


Mr. Kaplan:: Madam Speaker, it should be drawn to the hon. member's attention that this is not a bill dealing with hospitals. Hospitals are covered by the Hospital Insurance Diagnostic Services Act. The government is not cutting back or setting a ceiling on any kind of hospital costs. This is a medicare bill. The hon. member should be brought to order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. I merely want to remind the parliamentary secretary that Bill C-68 is an act to amend the Medical Care Act.
As long as the hon. member points out the relation with medical care, it is difficult to call him back to order.


Donald W. Munro: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I find it a little difficult to dissociate medicare from hospitals. Medicare is given in hospitals. I would remind the hon. member that hospital services came first under a Conservative government; it took another ten years before his government got around to medicare.
As I was saying, we know that the hospital situation and the provision of medical care in hospitals have not been solved at the present time. Anyone who has any cause to be admitted to a hospital has first to wait for many, many months in any province in this dominion of ours. Of
February 27, 1976

course, happily, emergency cases are generally handled quickly and taken care of, but acute cases, cases requiring an operation, sometimes these must be booked months in advance. For example, in Victoria it can be said that they have to wait six months, and I say this of my own personal knowledge. This suggests to me that there is still a great need for hospitals and hospital beds so that medicare can be properly administered in our hospitals, and nurses and doctors trained. There is also a need for a greater variety of hospital facilities, acute, intermediate, and chronic care.
Is this the time then, Madam Speaker, to cut back on assistance to the provinces, which is designed to help them meet their medical and hospital needs? I suggest quite the opposite is the case. With needs still pressing, with construction costs rising, with a government refusing to eliminate the tax on building materials, this is no time to trim back programs which, however unwillingly, were undertaken in the end in good faith 10 or 20 years ago by the provinces. This is what this legislation proposes to do.
I am at a loss to understand the government's priorities or whether it has any at all. This is certainly no time to trim programs. In a time of inflation when charges for medicare are increasing and the means whereby provinces can raise funds to meet these charges are not increasing, the federal government chooses to draw back on its program. What is needed, of course, is a proper balance between acute, intermediate, and chronic care facilities, all of which cases have to be housed in order that medicare can be administered. If once we can get to that position it might be more rational for the federal government to back out gently on a phased program from its earlier undertakings. But a proper balance is still a long way off.
Because it is a long way off, the existing hospital situation is being aggravated. Chronic care patients and patients convalescing are occupying acute bed space. The truth of the matter is that the government has done nothing to get hospital needs sorted out, thereby reducing pressures that are being exerted on acute bed facilities and permitting medicare to be properly administered to all Canadians, as was the original intention. I say this is no time to cop out. Therefore I am concerned in the first place with the drastic cutback of a needed program. This I find quite unacceptable. The amendment before us proposes a six months' hoist. Perhaps such a period would enable the government to reflect and to change its approach to this whole question, and for this reason I support the amendment.
My second concern about this measure, one closely related to the amendment and the need for a six months' delay before proceeding with this bill, has to do with the manner in which this federal cop out took place. In the minister's opening remarks we heard that lengthy consultations took place. Oh yes, they were well advertised. We had people in the conference centre and many discussions took place between federal and provincial ministers of health. Indeed the matter was raised, I am almost certain, when the premiers met with the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
These consultations were presumably designed to reach some sort of consensus. Then without any forewarning whatsoever, in a budget statement on June 23 last year, pop goes the weasel, and a cop out is upon us. Without any
Medical Care Act
warning, without telling the provinces what it was going to do, the federal government decided to back out. This legislation is the implementation of that undertaking in the budget speech.
If one could give credence to the statements of the government, Madam Speaker, it prides itself on its record of consulting before acting. It says it floats notions ostensibly to get feedback. But if we look behind those statements to the facts, we find quite a different situation. It consulted in the Liberal sense, in the sense that this government consults on the matter of price and wage controls. We all remember the discussions that were held before the implementation, the coming, or the appearance of Bill C-73. They presumed to have consultation on these matters and then, having encountered a pretty resounding opposition from labour, management, and the provinces, without any warning, zap-down comes C-73, the antiinflation measure drafted by Draco himself. Draco, for those who are interested, having been the archon of Athens in 621 B.C., whose code of laws is described-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am afraid that now the hon. member is straying from the amendment.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I was using this illustration of simple draconian measures as one form of consultation to justify the fact that this government pretends to consult but does not.
If I may continue, however, the consultation process, so-called, has taken place in other areas. I have noticed consultation on matters of airports, presumably to strengthen security measures. After full consultation what happened? They dispensed with commissionaires, hired and gave short-term training to recruits who were dressed up to look all the world like RCMP constables. I am sure they are not fully trained RCMP personnel, but this is the form of consultation. It is not consultation. The decision was taken long beforehand. They have consulted on other matters of airports, but in order to spare being called to order again I will continue.
In the final Viet Nam caper there was a form of consultation, if you like. There was the suggestion that there ought to be a group of members of parliament go over to Viet Nam to see if the situation warranted the participation of Canada. I am satisfied that the decision was taken before that delegation set out.
This time on medicare they claim to have consulted a la Liberale. The minister described how often he and his homologues had consulted with his provincial counterparts and with the premiers of the provinces, with all this discussion about a new formula for medicare. Why did they bother to consult? I have asked myself this on other occasions. It is patent now, this is the Liberal way. It is facade, window dressing, cosmetic and spurious, because they know all along what they are going to do. They had decided to get out, and now they are getting out, after all those glowing promises of ten years ago. Would Mr. Pearson approve? Would he have conducted himself this way at this time? Would he renege as this government is reneging, and in this manner, under the cover of consulta-

February 27, 1976
Medical Care Act
tion here, as in so many other cases, they have followed the course they plotted for themselves before even proposing consultation.
What about motivation; I have wondered about that. I have wondered a lot about the motivation of the government which seems determined, even motivated, to pit one part of Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member again, but the hon. member is definitely not speaking on the bill.


An hon. Member:: Oh, but he is.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I find it difficult to follow this ruling as I am merely citing examples in which the government claims to be doing one thing yet is doing another.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: With all due respect, it claims to have consulted with the provinces on medicare and then it just tears up the consultation and acts. It is quite obvious to us now that the government knew beforehand how it was going to act. Why bother going through the charade of consultation?
I should have thought in this country of ours which has such variety the government in all sincerity would have consulted and obtained a consensus, but not this government. What is the great problem? If I appear to be wandering into other fields, Madam Speaker, it is merely to show that this is not just in the area of medicare, but in all other areas where the government follows this same practice.


An hon. Member:: It is a course of conduct.


Donald W. Munro: I should like with your permission to go back to Edmund Burke, and again the Edmund Burke that so few people quote. Government and legislation, he said to the people of Bristol 200 years ago, and his words are still true, are matters of reason and judgment and not of inclination, but what sort of reason is that in which determination precedes discussion and in which one set of men deliberate while another decides? While ministers are talking, the Prime Minister is deciding exactly what he is going to do, and that is consultation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That's a leader for you.


Mrs. Holt:: Your leader hasn't been here for a couple of days.


An hon. Member:: You want to be thankful about that, Simma.


Donald W. Munro: Here we are by predetermination and farcical consultation under which the government acts. Why has the government decided to act divisively in this case and in so many instances, even on the matter of the death penalty which will come before us? The government does not consult the Canadian people, otherwise there would be no Bill C-83 or C-84. The government decides to act counter to what it ought to know the

Canadian people need and want. This is a case in point today.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Trudeau times are tough times.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You were raised in a tobacco patch.


Donald W. Munro: I am almost afraid to guess why the government acts in this way. I leave it open because to look too carefully into that grinning maw could produce nightmarish results.
Motives there must be, but for what purpose does the federal government want to antagonize all provincial governments, as it is clearly doing by introducing this measure and by announcing its withdrawal from the scheme in a budget statement, even after certain assurances had been given to provincial ministers that further consultations on the matter could be expected? Then came the bombshell of June 23, 1975, and the bill now before us. Is this an application of the divide and rule principle? If it is, it is strange now because I cannot imagine one single provincial government that is not allied in the assault with every other provincial government to oppose the federal government on its present plans. It may be dividing the federal government from the provincial governments, but is is certainly not dividing the provincial governments among themselves. This then seems to be confrontation, confusion, and antagonism leading to chaos. The government seems to thrive on this procedure.
Why would it not be better to have honest discussion, an open exchange of views, a search for concession, co-operation, and emergent order arising from consensus? The Canadian people have reason to ask themselves these questions. Surely in a country like Canada this is what we need, and it is to an opportunity to attain that blissful state that the present amendment is directed. I therefore support it and urge the government to reassess its stand during the six months' period which acceptance of this particular amendment would provide.
There are several other questions which can be asked. I have dealt only with the basic elements of the matter. Where are the provinces to find the funds to supply the services for which high expectations have been built? Are they to find them through provincial taxation? In the present circumstances of inflation the provinces have only limited taxation capabilities. Can we ensure, given provincial inequalities in respect of fiscal capacities, that even if they could raise the funds that we would have equal medical service for all Canadians which this plan originally was intended to provide. We cannot give this assurance. One of these days soon hon. members opposite perhaps will move to another province where they will require medical care and where they may find that they will not receive as much care as they did.


An hon. Member:: Let us hope it will be very soon.


Donald W. Munro: I fear that there will be a deterioration in the quality of health services and in the uniformity of health services across the country with
February 27, 1976

the passage of this measure. The government needs time to look at the whole thing again. The amendment would give the government that time. I plead with it to support the amendment.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, hon. members may have noticed a reluctance on my part to get to my feet to speak in this debate. I have had the pleasure of listening to the whole debate. I have risen at this time to announce that the winner of the study I have been conducting in respect of the most ridiculous sentence in this entire debate is the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). The sentence in his remarks which wins the prize is the expression: "This is certainly no time for the government to trim programs".


Donald W. Munro: Health programs.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I wish to quote for the hon. member some observations on whether or not this is the time to trim federal programs. Then I will discuss the programs. I quote:
The economic condition of this country demands men and women of foresight, courage and sensitivity in the highest of offices. It demands of political parties the highest level of unity, commitment and purpose. The courage to reduce government expenditures has never been more necessary.
That is Premier William Davis speaking at the Conservative convention last week. He said that the courage to reduce government expenditures has never been more necessary.


An hon. Member:: He was not talking about passing the buck.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I will continue:
In the area of health care, a matter of national concern, we in Ontario have taken the view that no province, no careful and thoughtful society, can afford a system that expands more quickly in terms of cost than that society's ability to pay.
We are proposing under this bill that medical care contributions be increased by 13.5 per cent next year. The hon. member has said that is too little. He says this is no time to trim that program. Well, 13.5 per cent is beyond what the gross national product of Canada will increase next year. It is beyond the rate of inflation we are anticipating, so we are coming within the injunction of Premier Davis that no careful and thoughtful society can afford a system that expands more quickly in terms of cost than society's ability to pay.
In talking about medical care the premier went on and added this:


An hon. Member:: He is a great premier.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: He is right about this. He said:
In simple terms that means for us, and for all Canadians that if we allow a system as critical as health service, for the needy, for the population as a whole, for the old and the feeble, for those who cannot help themselves, to become more expensive than our taxpayers can afford, then it will collapse. And if it does, only the rich and the advantaged will have care and benefit. So we must seek to trim and streamline, not because we want to, but because concern for the welfare of all who are served by the system says we have to.
Medical Care Act
I wish to deal also with the reference to the closing of hospitals. I want to make the point that the closing of hospitals is not related to the expenditure provided under the medical care bill. All of the costs for the maintenance of hospitals, the salaries, the overhead, the light bills, the heating bills and such things are covered by a statute which is not before the House now. Such things are covered by the Hospital Insurance Diagnostic Services Act. The government is not cutting back on hospital costs. Rather, five years' notice must be given of any intention to terminate the agreements with the provinces.
The hon. member said that the provinces would have to pay more. We continue to pay roughly 50 per cent of all hospital bills, no matter how much they increase. If they increase 20 per cent or 30 per cent our commitment is to pay them regardless. It must be clearly understood that this bill has nothing to do with hospital costs. The closure of hospitals in Ontario or elsewhere is not in any way related to Bill C-68 but is due to the general economic situation as perceived by that particular province and the fact that the province feels it cannot justify the cost of maintaining what it feels to be under-utilized and improperly utilized facilities when there is an ample supply of vacant beds in the same general area. The province concerned has made its decision in spite of the fact that there is no change in the federal cost-sharing under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act.
I should like to repeat that Bill C-68 contains two features that would facilitate the introduction by provinces of lower cost alternatives to expensive hospital care. This answers precisely the point made yesterday by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes). I wish he had read the bill because it contains the very provisions he was demanding. Everyone can see there are patients in general hospitals who do not need to be there and who would not be there if they as insured persons could obtain the care they need elsewhere. While most of the comments of hon. members opposite have been directed to the imposition of ceilings on the medical care program for the next two years, I should like to direct attention to the other amendments the minister announced. If I might call it four o'clock I will do so on the next occasion during government orders. May I call it four o'clock?


Steve Eugene Paproski: On what day?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Next Tuesday.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order No. 34 in the name of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Shall the order stand?
11342

February 27, 1976
Alaska Highway


Steve Eugene Paproski: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order No. 4 in the name of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid).


An hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order No. 10 in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan). Shall the order stand?


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, may I say I think it has been agreed so far as the business from four o'clock to closing is concerned that we would go to order No. 64.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that all the other orders stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


ALASKA-YUKON HIGHWAY AUTHORITY ACT MEASURE TO DEVELOP CANADIAN SECTION OF ALASKA HIGHWAY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River) moved: that Bill C-264, to provide for the establishment of the Alaska-Yukon Highway Authority (Alaska Highway), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
He said: Madam Speaker, it was an important decision on the part of the House of Commons to allow this bill to come before us in today's private members' hour, which was to be just about the last private members' hour in this session. I am delighted at the fact that even after this most important measure has been referred to committee it will be possible for other private members to bring other matters before the House which are undoubtedly equally important.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And get the
same treatment.


Frank Oberle: This bill is timely for another reason, because recently certain actions have been taken in the United States which have an effect on the subject which we are discussing this afternoon. The government of the United States has passed a bill, signed by the president, which concerns itself with this great and historic road link.
I have just received a report from my most distinguished counterpart in the U.S., Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska, regarding the federal action of the government of the U.S., which I would like to put on the record. It reads as follows:
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 ... authorizing reconstruction work on the Alaska and Haines Cutoff Highways, requires that prior to the expenditure of funds by the United States an agreement must be reached between the United States and Canada covering all conditions under which the highway is to be built. During discussions in January of 1975, Canadian officials advised U.S. highway representatives that
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
Canada could not agree to hold the right-of-way for this highway forever inviolate. This requirement was contained in Public Law 93-87 authorizing the reconstruction project. All other provisions of the agreement were tentatively agreed to by representatives of the Canadian and U.S. governments.
In order to remove this restriction and get the project moving, legislation was introduced on March 19 which would require that Canada provide "all necessary right-of-way". The bill passed the Senate on September 4, was referred to the House and was passed by that body on December 1. On December 12, President Ford signed the legislation into law.
With this restriction removed, hopefully the tentative agreement between the U.S. and Canada can soon be finalized. The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) reported that the agreement had been sent to Canada's Public Works Department. The agreement will ultimately come before the Canadian cabinet for its consideration.
FHA reports that the groundwork has been laid for the environmental impact study. Engineering plans for the project are also quite well along. However, until the agreement is finalized no funds can be committed and construction will continue to be delayed.
Why should the U.S. government be concerned about the Alaska highway? Later on in my comments I will touch on that briefly because, after all, it was the U.S. government which built this great road link in the first place.
The section with which the U.S. government is concerned at present is the section which would tie that portion of Alaska, which is known as the panhandle, with the other parts of Alaska. In other words, residents of Fairbanks, Cordoba and Anchorage will be able to travel to Juneau, and in order to do that they will have to travel through the Yukon territory and indeed through portions of British Columbia, through the constituency represented by the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo). I have great hope that since my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena, is in the House today and, I understand, will be addressing herself to the subject, she will probably allow this bill to go to committee for discussion as I know that she also is extremely interested in achieving the goal which my bill hopes to achieve.
If you will allow me, Madam Speaker, I would like to give a brief history of the Alaska highway. The construction of the Alaska highway had been proposed for many years before the outbreak of World War II. However, it was not until the Japanese occupied some of the Aleutian Islands and threatened the air ferry supply to Russia that a highway was actively considered.
Construction of a pioneer road by engineer troops followed rapidly on the heels of the location crews. Speed was the-first consideration and this road detoured around swamps, gullies, rock knolls and other obstructions, resulting in a very crooked road with many step grades. Many of these crooks and crannies are still in the Alaska highway today.
After August, 1942, efforts were directed to getting the pioneer trail converted to a passable road at the earliest possible moment. This road disregarded the public roads administration procedures, where design alignment and grade would delay completion, and followed the path of least resistance. In March, 1943, instructions were issued to complete the work at the minimum possible cost and standards were reduced still further. Road construction ceased in October, 1943, but bridge construction continued until 1944. The resulting highway, while passable and providing a good gravel driving surface, had geometries of a varying but generally poor standard.
February 27, 1976

After the responsibility for the highway was transferred from the United States army to the Royal Canadian Engineers, the terms of reference under which they operated did not permit major road relocations. Temporary bridges were replaced by permanent structures at many locations and some exceptionally hazardous areas were reconstructed, but the alignment of the highway is essentially that of 1943.
In 1959-1961 the highway was paved to RAU 50 standard from mile zero to 84. This standard provided two 12-foot traffic lanes and 5-foot shoulders. The British Columbia department of highways has been responsible for the maintenance of the paved section since 1962. The other portions of the highway are still a responsibility of the Department of Public Works and they are having their difficulties with the contractors who have to maintain this road. Certain other commitments have also been made to reconstruct certain sections, particularly in the lower end of the highway.
Over the years the government has studied the possibility of doing major work on the highway and upgrading it to a national highway standard. A report was commissioned. In 1966 the Stanford report was prepared for the government. It recommended that any further action in respect of the highway be shelved for at least ten years. It is now 1976 and that ten year period has expired. That again is the reason why the bill before us is timely.
It was also recommended to the government that it should not be concerned about the development of our northland and the development of our resources since the highway is an outdated mode of transportation for the movement of goods and people today, when we have jet airplanes and other more up to date modes of transportation. The report said that the highway is old fashioned. I wonder who the consultants were who worked on that report. I am sure they must have been those consultants to whom we pay one billion a year.
I am not in conflict with that statement made in the report, particularly when one considers only the need to find, extract and exploit our natural resources, and does not consider the human factor, the people who live there, our first citizens and early settlers, and does not consider that even in that region, with all the modern facilities of transportation, people would be required to develop and to populate that area.
Let us look at the highway of today. It is a road link. Mile zero is at Dawson Creek, and it goes all the way through the great territory of the Yukon and into Alaska. There are stretches of 200 to 300 miles where there are no facilities of any kind. No one ever planned or considered that there would have to be service stations to help people in distress or to supply such amenities as gasoline, tire and vehicle repairs.
No one has ever considered that accidents can happen when people travel, particularly with the climatic conditions which exist in that part of our great country. No one has ever considered that we might have to evacuate injured people involved in accidents, and there is no provision for aircraft to land to evacuate people, or for first aid posts. There are no provisions to help people who travel
Alaska Highway
this highway to meet with the natives who have lived there all their lives. No provisions were made for rest stops, parks, tourist amenities or anything else.
My bill proposes to establish an authority which would consider all these things, not only on the Alaska highway but also along all the other roads which are planned in the north as we are opening up this great northern hinterland. The hon. member for Skeena will understand very well what I am talking about because just a year ago the first vehicle went through yet another great north-south connection on the Stewart Cassiar highway, and there are no facilities for anyone travelling that road. It seems just to be an access to exploit the natural resources and the people who have pioneered and lived there and carved out an existence for generations.
I am also concerned about industries already located in northern British Columbia and the Yukon territory as well as the plight of these industries through not having a proper means of transportation for the shipment of their products and for the maintenance of the work force in their plants. All the resources of the great region of the Yukon must be shipped, or are presently being shipped, by our outmoded transportation system to a port linked to Alaska, and they end up in ports strange to our land. I am very excited about the plans announced for the northern part of British Columbia with respect to the transportation network, and I am hopeful that the government will seriously consider helping industries located in northern British Columbia and the Yukon territory by providing proper transportation facilities.
As hon. members know, the government has never been too excited about doing anything about regional economic expansion in the province of British Columbia. The reason for that has been, unlike other parts of the country, that industry in British Columbia has never asked for any help.
However, it is entitled to expect from provincial, federal and municipal governments that access is provided to the areas in which industry locates, that the infrastructure is considered by these governments, and that a quality of life is established in these northern areas which is in some ways comparable to the quality of life which other Canadians enjoy. That means many things. That means that we will have to look seriously at not just transportation facilities but also the establishment of proper towns, however small they may be.
We must provide communications systems which are much different from the ones which are being extended into these areas now. We have to make it possible for people in those areas to have access to the electronic media. Of course in many of those areas that is not possible today. We must be able to provide them with the communication facilities, telephone and radio facilities which people in other parts of the country enjoy.
I am encouraged by the plans of British Columbia railways. The line has now been extended to Fort Nelson and is enjoying the harvest of that area. It is a paying proposition. Also, the BCR has extended, or is in the process of extending, the rail link to Dease Lake, again in the constituency of Skeena, driving into the resource areas. The great mineral reserves and the great wood fibre reserves in these areas are being opened up, and nobody is giving
21419 - 2614

February 27, 1976
Alaska Highway
any consideration as to how the traveller who wishes to go there, whether he is a tourist or a person looking for a livelihood, is to traverse these road links we are constructing.
An ambitious program to extend these lines is planned, and it is hoped that eventually the rail will tie up with some sort of railway in the Yukon and that the resources of the territory will be flowing through British Columbia to the coastal ports or to the eastern industries which are in need of them.
The emphasis on northern development in that region must not be concentrated around the extraction of our resources. Any strategy in respect of the development of that region must be related to the establishment of secondary industries as well. First of all, it must be geared to the development of our renewable resources, our great timber-lands, which so richly endow the region. The type of industry referred to will require people. It is not necessary to elaborate on the importance of the development of these industries or on the importance these industries will have in helping alleviate the unemployment crisis in Canada. Furthermore, an immediate result would be a great increase in tourist traffic, which is an industry of prime importance to that area. Traffic surveys, and many surveys which have been carried out by the Department of Public Works underline this statement.
As hon. members of this House will know, a great number of our neighbours to the south use this road link in travelling to the state of Alaska. This is why the American government has expressed interest in helping us with this project. The people visiting our country who share with us the vastness and the beauty of the area of which I speak take nothing home with them but memories of a unique adventure, and pictures which they might have taken en route. However, they are contributing to the western economy to the extent that the tourist industry in British Columbia ranks second only in importance to the lumber and wood fibre industry. I have lived in that area, and I have been involved with the tourist industry for the last 20 years, so I know a little about the highway in question, as I know about other highways as well.
We are concerned about northern development. It is essential that we develop a transportation policy, and a road strategy which does not yet exist in Canada. It would help if the proposed authority could develop this strategy and a general philosophy concerning northern highway travel. This is what this bill is all about. Many people who live in the north and many leaders there have voiced allegiance to the strategy. Some people living up there will have to take a stand sooner of later. They will have to tell the government soon that there should not be more construction of roads or highways and no more development of resources unless a philosophy is developed to protect the way of life they have valued for so many years.
So far as our native people are concerned, the first wars against them in Canada were fought for roads and railways-for the iron horse that traversed our country. Madam Speaker, I can see another battle shaping up.
I had the privilege this morning of taking part in the meeting when the people of the Northwest Territories met

with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and presented a brief on how they would like to see the north developed. They are impatient about the signs they have seen recently, and totally frustrated about the hundred years fumbling by a series of governments that have not addressed themselves to the needs and desires of people in the north.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, this morning we were privileged, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), myself and others, to listen to the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada as they presented their land claims to the government of Canada. The tender regard they have for the land they live in is none the less touching for it is the same feeling which we have for our part of our country.
The hon. member and I have the distinction of sharing between us the whole northern half of British Columbia; therefore the principle which he has placed before us today, the bill which would provide for the establishment of an Alaska-Yukon highway authority, is exceptionally important in view of the other aspects that we will be dealing with in connnection with transportation and communication in the northern half of British Columbia, and in the territory as well as the state of Alaska.
It is a rather strange thing that in our part of the world Alaska, part of the United States, seems to us somehow to be closer than the southern part of British Columbia which is, of course, the continguous part of the province we live in. There are often discussions between residents of the Panhandle and residents of our area in regard to road transportation, which are carried on at great length. At times it seems we forget that two countries are talking to each other about the mutual problems of access, information, and communication.
We have in northern British Columbia some magnificent resource bases that we are aware of, and of course we are not the only ones who are aware of them. Over the years we have seen an increasing interest displayed by the mining industry particularly, but also by the forest industry in development in the northern half of British Columbia. Access through this area in part is by the Alaska highway, which the hon. member referred to in his speech. I have travelled that highway many times-in a spirit of non-partisanship of course. I know that the hon. member will recognize that as I travel through what is basically his territory, that he makes up for it when he visits Skeena.
Having travelled this particular road I recognize that it is a vital link between the eastern part of British Columbia, the Yukon Territory, and of course links up with other transportation routes. I know when I have stopped to talk to people in Fort St. John or Fort Nelson their first comment generally is, "When is the Government of Canada going to do something about paving our section of the road?"
I think it would be interesting to state for the record just what the current situation is with regard to the Alaska highway. There have been 25 miles of paving
February 27, 1976

completed in the Whitehorse area, six miles through Watson Lake, and ten miles beyond the present pavement at Mile 83 is under contract. Construction of a major structure, the Mushkwa bridge, is estimated at $2,900,000. This is under way through the bridge replacement program. Under the program of reconstruction of substandard sections, a contract for Mile 206 to Mile 232 is under way. Approval in principle has been received for construction and paving for Mile 93 to Mile 317. This, of course, is subject to some conditions; it will be used as the basis for Department of Transport negotiations of the northern roads program, and as part of the northern roads negotiations an undertaking will be sought whereby the British Columbia government will take over and fully maintain each section of the Alaska highway as it is reconstructed and completed.
This is where the problem lies that the hon. member has exposed for the view of this House today. We are not only dealing with the government of British Columbia, we are dealing with the Yukon Territorial Council, and the Government of Canada; we are dealing with the state of Alaska and the Department of External Affairs which have reference through their contacts with the government of the United States.
When this bill was called today, Madam Speaker, it was rather interesting to see the result. It was given to me as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but jurisdiction for this highway lies with the Department of Public Works. Naturally that caused some confusion because the Department of Transport also has interest in it. I believe the hon. member has brought forward a matter than can be considered. I think the imaginations of members of this House, not only of government members but all members, should be put to the test of finding ways of improving transportation communications in difficult situations such as this. There is no precedent under the British North America Act for this type of authority which would in essence point out that this is a highway which is essential to the good of Canada. That was not thought of when the British North America Act was drawn up.
We are dealing with a topic that is extremely sensitive. We have proposals for railway expansions that go from Prince George at the moment to Fort St. James, to Dease Lake. This will pass over the southern part of the area we are discussing. Hopefully, after preparations have been made and negotiations carried out on land claims in northwestern British Columbia, it will be possible for the CNR to go forward with their linkage to a place called Suskeena which I am sure many hon. members have never heard of. It is another of the tiny places with which the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River and I are familiar.
I sometimes think if it were not for the Oblate Fathers the hon. member and I would have no place to stop when travelling to visit our constituents. There generally are no hotels, no restaurants, no gas stations and no radio stations. Most parts of the area I am discussing do not have television signals. All of these things pertain to the midnorthern part of Canada which for so many years has somehow been overlooked.
As we met with the Inuit Tapirisat today I was considerably surprised to note that many of the non-Inuit people
Alaska Highway
in the room knew a good deal about what was happening in Pangnirtung or Fort Chimo, and what was going on in the northeastern part of Labrador. The names seems to roll off the tongue very easily, but if I were to say "downtown Telegraph Creek" or Iskut, I am sure people would wonder what on earth I was talking about.
I am discussing a land that is not part of the regional economic expansion textbook in the classic sense. We are not a deprived area; we are an area of the future. In the eastern part of Canada the exploitation of resources has taken its toll and these are now depleted in some cases so the government has put in place its successful DREE program, which has augmented the possibilities of economic enhancement of those areas, but in our area this part of the process has never begun.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion recently announced that western northlands roads would receive $10 million for roads expansion in the area we are discussing, $5 million to be paid in this fiscal year.
In addition to these railway expansions there are dreams which go beyond present plans, dreams which will link places I mentioned such as Dease Lake with Whitehorse, and eventually Whitehorse with parts of the south so that we can utilize our own ports. Our Port of Prince Rupert is as essential to the people of this area as it is to the city of Prince George or to Edmonton. At the moment the Department of Transport is doing a very extensive review of the Pacific rim access which will make it possible for the people of this country to have a second trans Canada highway.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: That highway will be Yellowhead 16, which presently goes from Manitoba to the city of Prince Rupert.
I know that the glamour of the Northwest Territories has for long obscured the reality of mid-northern Canada. But we can no longer ignore the mid-north because, fortunately or unfortunately, as the case may be, we are the great storehouse of resources. It is a bank of resources which must not be extracted indiscriminately. Too often in the past they were extracted indiscriminately. The people of the area now insist on their being extracted with the greatest care. Before we can utilize them properly, a massive road and communication system must be built and an infrastructure established for the people.
There was a time in the history of British Columbia when the government of the day approached resource extraction this way: "You go in and take out the resource. If the operation is successful, you build a one-resource town, and ultimately put in the infrastructure, like schools, hospitals, recreational facilities, etc." That was the theory, but often the resource was depleted, the infrastructure did not materialize, and the town disappeared.
Now there is new hope. The people of the north are conscious of their environment. It will be to the everlasting credit of this government that it established the Berger commission. Mr. Justice Berger has done much good work in the north. The people of this country, espe-

February 27, 1976
Alaska Highway
cially the people of the north, insist on having a large say on how resources shall be developed.
Let me tell the House a story which may illustrate my point. When I was a small child and the Japanese threatened to bomb Dutch Harbour in the Aleutians, there was panic in northern British Columbia. The people moved out of their homes and took to the mountains. We were ready for the worst. But, out of that terror something happened which had been thought impossible: within a short time the Alaska highway was built, the highway which everyone said was impossible to build. That shows you what can be accomplished. Madam Speaker, the Alaska highway is built. We must improve it, and improve the network of roads to the north.
Let me tell hon. members a story about the Stewart Cassiar highway, the highway leading to the far north. I often drive on that highway. Once, when I was needed in Ottawa, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) wondered what had taken me so long to come here. I explained that I had been caught between a mud slide and washout on the highway. Fortunately, I was able to get a small aircraft to land on a lake nearby. I boarded the aircraft and came back to Ottawa in time to please the Whip. That shows the adventure which can befall a member of parliament on that highway. We need small airstrips in the area. We need better tourist amenities along the highway to make it more attractive for tourists. But we are talking not only of tourists. We are talking about the utilization of Canadian ports.
At present it is economical to ship resources through the ports of Anchorage and Juneau. This situation could be altered successfully if there were transport access from the Alaska highway to the east and from the Stewart Cassiar highway to the south as well as a railway. Hopefully, access to a railway will transform the outlook for northern development.
One can say much about the area, much about its possibilities. The hon. member mentioned the coal in his constituency. If that coal were shipped through the port of Vancouver it would need to be hauled in a train pulled by ten locomotives, each of 3,000 horsepower. You could haul the coal to Vancouver, at great cost. But if the same coal were to be taken by rail to Prince Rupert, you would need only three locomotives, each of 3,000 horsepower to pull the train, and there would be a cost saving of one dollar per ton with regard to coal delivered at the port for trans-shipment to Japan. Such savings are worth-while. We must establish the infrastructure in the north which is necessary for development along the Alaska highway. I am glad the hon. member has drawn our attention to this aspect.
The Alaska highway itself has proved to be a boon. It has been greatly improved, and the improvements are continuing. Jurisdiction over the road was transferred from the Department of National Defence, which I forgot to mention as it is no longer in the picture, to the Department of Public Works has continued to improve facilities on the highway.
All of the mid-north, in which I include northern British Columbia, the northern parts of the prairie provinces, and even northern Ontario, although I smile when I hear people of northern Ontario calling themselves northerners

as most northern Ontario lies south of most of the communities I represent-all of the mid-north of Canada above the 53rd parallel and below the 60th parallel deserves more attention than it is being given now. We need more communications in the area, even though there is a plethora of communications services. We have the CN-CP wire, the B.C.R. wire and the RCMP wire crisscrossing each other but not always helping the non-official people of the area to communicate with each other. These are problems we must consider.
Although I cannot agree with the hon. member's position, I am glad he brought to our attention a significant problem. We cannot deal with it in a committee of this House because it involves many jurisdictions. For instance, we need to consider the position of the Alaska state government and, in the long run, that of the United States government. For this reason there may be difficulty in connection with the hon. member's bill. But I congratulate him most sincerely for bringing this matter before the House so that he, and I, can remind the people of this country what is happening above the 53rd parallel.


Eymard G. Corbin: Madam Speaker, evidently we are carrying on today consideration of Bill C-264 which, if I remember well, was discussed in the House in 1973. It is perhaps advisable to recall that the purpose of the bill is to provide for the development of the Alaska-Yukon Highway as a matter of national and international importance. The bill provides that a non-Crown corporation may be established to take over the development of that highway in Canada. The bill is aimed at providing a national character to the organization taking into account the regional, federal and provincial as well as international interests, to the extent that the United States are responsible for the development of part of the highway and that American representatives are appointed as associated members of the administrative board of the authority.
I will not deal, Madam Speaker, with the appointment of some present or future members of Parliament as members of the authority as suggested by the mover of the bill, but I would say however that such a proposal seems to me at first rather unusual under our parliamentary traditions and practices, whatever may be done in other jurisdictions. Still I might add that the sponsor of the bill seems to have devoted much time to its preparation and that I do not question at all his sincerity, his objectivity and his good intentions. For all that I do not think I am an expert in these questions, and I should be interested in the progress of the bill, if it does pass this stage today. I do feel that the final product will be quite different from the text now before us once the bill has passed through the usual parliamentary sieve.
I hope the sponsor of the bill and his colleagues will forgive me if I refer to the few remarks made in this House by the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, who has come back to his first designation, namely the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson). As I said, I am not so much concerned with the specific value of the bill. I simply say that if the hon. members representing that area of the province attach enormous importance to it, I give them full marks because
February 27, 1976

after all they are here to defend their regional and provincial interests. But I was really startled, I reacted at first timidly, I should admit; I was very surprised by what the hon. member for Laprairie said in 1973 when he proposed as a solution to the problem of the Alaska-Yukon Highway a strange compromise, a strange exchange with the United States. For the information of my colleagues, I shall quote from the original speech of the hon. member for Laprairie; on March 9, 1973, as recorded in Hansard, he said:

My proposition, which I consider sound and has a good chance of success if we can convince a few more people,-
Perhaps the hon. member was referring to people like me at that time.
-involves encouraging the U.S. government to construct a four-lane, high speed highway across the top of the state of Maine, linking the eastern townships-
That is in the province of Quebec.
-auto route with a point in New Brunswick, possibly involving some part of U.S. Interstate 95,-
These are the key words:
-in return for the Canadian federal government spending an equal amount of money on upgrading and paving the Alaska Highway. The arguments in favour of this proposition are obvious. It would promote Canadian unity; it would bring Canadians closer together by reducing travelling time between central Canada and the maritimes by a minimum of five hours. I am not talking from the eastern Canadian point of view.
The hon. member for Laprairie continued:
In addition, it would reduce transportation costs between central Canada and the maritime provinces. It would make possible a large increase in tourist traffic between the maritime provinces-
It goes on and on. The hon. member for Laprairie advanced a number of arguments that, in my opinion, are more fancy than fact. I thought I would discuss that intervention here at this time.

And hon. members will forgive me if I consider quite unacceptable the trade-off proposition put forward by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) during the discussion of the question of the Yukon-Alaska Highway at that time. There was trading-off, Madam Speaker, since the hon. member for Laprairie wanted eastern Canadians to sacrifice their national interests for the benefit of the so-called national interest of western Canadians. As I said a moment ago in my remarks, there is no question of us in the east sacrificing anything whatever for the moment, for on all accounts our region is underpriviledged compared with the west. And I consider quite meaningless the proposition put forward in 1973 by the hon. member for Laprairie.
I consider that such a trade-off as the hon. member for Laprairie advocated in 1973 would require, as I said a moment ago, that we make immense sacrifices. Perhaps it would be fitting to say what would those sacrifices be.
I would mean that for all practical purposes we would abandon the idea of a national highway linking the Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast, in exchange for what? In exchange for a highway which would cross a neighbouring state and divert all commercial, tourist and whatever
Alaska Highway
traffic which now uses the Trans-Canada Highway at Fredericton, through Edmundston, which crosses the Quebec border at Riviere-du-Loup, goes through Quebec City and along the St. Lawrence River to Montreal, divert all that traffic towards an American highway. It would be an exchange to thank the Americans, to pay for the construction of a highway in certain areas of British Columbia, Alaska and Yukon, and who would be the losers and the winners in all that?
Well, I can tell you who will be the losers, and I am talking on behalf of my constituency, of at least half of the province, and even the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) who is absent today. I know that he shares my concern in that regard because he already stated his position publicly on that subject. We would be taking money from our pockets to give it to the people of British Columbia. As I said a moment ago, I have nothing against British Columbia, and it seems to me the problem we have been advised of is serious and deserves to be solved. However it should not be solved on the back of another part of the country, the east, the area which I represent here in the House of Commons.
That is what I had to say today, Madam Speaker. I wish the hon. member and his bill good luck. I hope, as he and some of his colleagues do, that we will have the opportunity of studying the bill in committee. I should be willing to sit on that committee and have a chance to dissect it, look into its intrinsic value and, if possible, work with the hon. member towards finding solutions, monetary, administrative or otherwise. I trust that, in return, at a later date, he can give me a hand in the solution of the serious highway problems we have in eastern Canada. [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) rising on a point of order?


Mr. Watson:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of clarification because my bill which I have had on the order paper was referred to just now. Remarks which I made on an earlier bill were referred to by the previous speaker, who is a very capable representative of northern New Brunswick. I would suggest, however, that some of the views he has expressed in defence of his own area are slightly parochial, even though they may be well founded from his local constituents' point of view.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. That is debate, not a point of order.


Eymard G. Corbin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Madam Speaker, I feel the hon. member for Laprairie has enough experience in the House not to take advantage of a so-called point of order to attack me personally as he has just done.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am afraid that this is far from a question of privilege.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Madam Speaker, I do not like to pursue the line of argument we have just heard from my two hon. friends from eastern Canada.

February 27, 1976
Alaska Highway
I want to compliment the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) on the bill that he has put forward for debate today. It is one that I know he sincerely believes in and on which he has obviously spent a good deal of time, not only in this debate but on previous occasions, putting forth the ideas and suggestions in this bill.
While I certainly support the thrust of his arguments and the objectives of his bill, I cannot support the manner and method in which he is trying to improve the highway in his part of the country. If my hon. friend would stop to think for a moment of the difficulties that we, as a nation, are continuing to have in repatriating our own constitution, he would realize that there are jurisdictional difficulties in trying to set up the kind of authority he is proposing here, involving provincial, territorial, and federal rights, as well as United States interests and so on. He could spend years trying to get the authority itself operational; in the meantime he would lose a lot of time and energy from the point of view of building and developing the highway. As I say, while I agree with the bill's objectives, I disagree with the route and manner he has adopted.
There are certainly precedents so far as federal participation in the construction of highways is concerned. While highways are a provincial responsibility under our constitution, they are going the route of many other services that have been primarily a provincial responsibility up to the last number of years. We can all think of examples. Social services, hospitalization, education, while under provincial jurisdiction, have received federal support and co-operation. In this respect highways are rapidly joining that particular club.
At the Western Economic Opportunities Conference of only three years ago, highways and other transportation needs were very much a priority item of the four western provinces so far as federal help and participation were concerned. I am sure the hon. member is well aware of the Northlands agreements which have been signed with the four western provinces, the most recent one signed through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion being the one signed in Victoria on February 9, earlier this month. The hon. member will have had the opportunity to see the press release that was issued and to appreciate that funds are going almost directly into his part of the province. I know he will be the first to say they are insufficient, and I agree with him, but at least this is a step in the right direction.
As a result of that agreement federal funds will be provided to continue improvements to highway 97 between Prince George and Dawson Creek, to highway 37 between Stewart and Watson Lake, and further assistance is being provided to other highways in the area. Expenditures on highway 16 between Terrace and Prince Rupert are also being made. So once again we are giving recognition to the need for highways in that province.
May I point out one other very important highway project involving his part of Canada as well as mine. One of the criticisms that I get when I go home is that we are continually funding programs in nothern Canada. My part of the country is not as far north as his, I realize, but nevertheless we require funds for development in mid-

northern areas, as the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) said. I think the hon. member was a member of the transportation committee that met a delegation from Edmonton, Winnipeg and other places-


Steve Eugene Paproski: The great Yellowhead route.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Yes, that is right; the hon. whip is aware of that. That is a route that has already received federal support, and this is one more example of the federal government's support for the kind of project that is being put forward by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River.
As I say, Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the thrust of his arguments in seeking my support for highways and communications in general in that great part of Canada, but the route and method that he is proposing in his bill are not ones that I can support.


Ian Watson: Madam Speaker, may I ask the hon. member who has just spoken whether he would permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Would the parliamentary secretary allow a question?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Yes.


Ian Watson: Would the parliamentary secretary undertake to ask his officials to study the economics, both of the propositions put forward in the bill we are discussing today as well as the possible trade-off of efforts in both east and west which would, as I have argued before in this House, provide highways for residents in Alaska, Yukon, B.C. and Alberta, as well as a highway that would be of enormous benefit to eastern Canada, despite what my hon. friend from New Brunswick has said?


Eymard G. Corbin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) on a point of order.


Eymard G. Corbin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) has just put a question to the parliamentary secretary. Having already spent several years here, he should know the Canadian government has already made a feasibility study of the construction of a high-speed highway through Maine, and rejected it.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Madam Speaker, if I may just reply to the question of my hon. friend from Laprairie, some work has been done by the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport on the projects mentioned by him. I am sure further work will be done in light of this debate and in light of any further bills and propositions put forward by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson).


Simma Holt: Madam
Speaker, I shall only make a brief intervention. I want to remind hon. members-and I never like them to forget- that there is always a woman's angle as well as an age angle to issues of this sort. I can think back to when this
February 27, 1976

highway was first started in 1942. I lived in Vegreville, 60 miles from where it all began. I well remember, when the highway started, and the U.S. Army in Edmonton. I should like the hon. members to appreciate that I well remember that era, because I do like a little respect for my age.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: Also for my maturity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: I also wish to stress the woman's angle. It was then very much a man's world and still is. Then the Highway was called the Alaska Military Highway, and "Military" then implied an all male club. A woman writer named Gertrude Baskine, of French and Irish ancestry, who had toured all over the world and wrote about her experience, was on a trans-continental tour of Canada. In Regina a reporter asked her what she planned to do next. She replied, "I will do the Alaska highway". That afternoon the papers blazed forth the news, and several hundred women shook her hand and extolled her courage. They said to her, "Are you really going up the Alaska highway? No woman would be given permission to do that; it is a military area and is impossible".
Alaska Highway
That is all you need say to a woman. Let that be a warning to you: don't ever tell a woman-the Gertrude Baskines-or me-that it is impossible. She went up the Alaska highway and was the first woman to do so.
There are many other access routes other than by the Alaska highway-by air, sea, and back-packing I do not recommend them all as the way to go. Nevertheless, this woman hitchhiked all the way over the then military highway.
I should like to make another point. They have mosquitos and black flies up there. Needless to say this creates a very trying experience. The important point about the mosquitoes and black flies is they are symbolic of what happens next. Civilization moves in, and with it repellents, insecticides, death to nature-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Monday, March 1, 1976