1976-02-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion is prompted by the most recent tragedy off the coast of Newfoundland in which two Canadian fishermen were lost, which once again highlights the inadequacies of present search and rescue procedures. My motion, for which I ask the unanimous consent of the House, is as follows: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) immediately order a special judicial inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the foundering of the fishing boat San Juan on February 23, 1976, with the loss of two lives, and the response of the Canadian Coastguard Ship Bartlett in relation thereto.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 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.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion concerning an urgent and important matter. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni):
That in view of concerns expressed in Canada that the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe signed at Helsinki may be regarded as having given legal status to the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into the Soviet Union, and in view of statements by the leaders of the Soviet Union that suggest that they so interpret the Final Act, it is moved that this House supports the Canadian government's position, as expressed in the House on December 2, 1975 by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen), that the Final Act in no way confirms the territorial status
quo in Europe, and that in particular the status of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as it is at present recognized by Canada has in no way been altered thereby.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43 this motion requires unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the CNR has announced the transfer of 11 jobs in their accounting department in Capreol, Ontario, to Toronto in the next couple of months as part of a centralization program, and in view of the fact that this represents a serious blow to the town's economic health, and in view of the fact that, contrary to centralizing its various services, the corporation should be decentralizing into areas like Capreol, and in view of the fact that the CNR is supposedly the people's railway, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to approach the CNR with a view to having these job transfers halted.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

February 26, 1976
National Parks


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since the Olympic Games which will be held in Montreal in 1976 concern all Canadians, since Canada as a whole will profit by the publicity and the international prestige of these games, since the cost of the games will reach about $1.2 billion while until now the participation of the federal government totals only $200 million, leaving a balance of $1 billion which Quebecers will have to pay because of these games, and since the federal government grants interest-free loans to foreign countries, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That, through the Bank of Canada, the federal government grant to the City of Montreal a loan covering the deficit incurred because of the games, at a rate of interest not superior to the administration cost and repayable in 50 years.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to propose under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the dramatic decline in the number of visitors to Lower Ft. Garry and other national historic parks in 1975 compared with previous years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development act immediately to rescind all regulations regarding the admittance fee structures to Ft. George, Ft. Langley, Fortress of Louisbourg and Lower Ft. Garry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I should like to propose a motion on a matter of some urgency to a large body of Canadians. In view of the fact that base closure or base consolidation programs being planned at the present time by the Department of National Defence could affect upwards of 7,000 civilian employees, and because approximately 42 per cent to 44 per cent of these people have grade ten education or less and have more than ten years service, in large part are veterans and are over 50 years of age, and because these people by government definition are technologically redundant, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That the House direct this government to establish a special committee of Cabinet and direct that committee to review any such plans prior to their submission to Cabinet, and where such a special committee finds that undue hardship will result from such plans, that they be empowered to refer such plans back to DND with instructions to find other solutions to the problems brought about by this government's failure to adequately fund the Canadian armed forces.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The said motion can only be debated with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
There is no member in this House who knows the government's intentions regarding the increasing rate of unemployment, particularly among people within the 18-30 age range, which is very high in Canada. So I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the government inform this House as soon as possible of their legislative intentions to check unemployment in order to give real hope and opportunity for work to all our young workers across Canada, so that we set ourselves to build this country rather than merely fight against inflation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 26, 1976


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY OF GENERAL DR. KARL SCHNELL
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure hon. members would want to join with me in calling attention to the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor. I refer to a very distinguished German general, who is at the present time commander in chief of our allied forces in Central Europe, General Dr. Karl Schnell.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture based on allegations contained in a brief by the Consumer Association of Canada to the Farm Products Marketing Council that Canadian consumers are paying anywhere from 15 cents to 19 cents more for a dozen eggs than can be justified. Does the minister intend to review the so-called P. S. Ross formula now in operation within CEMA so that both the consumers and farmers in Canada may receive optimum benefits of supply-management?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the reason the hearings are being held is that we asked for hearings and representations to be made about the price of eggs to find out the facts. I hope the hearings will bring out the facts. The National Farm Products Marketing Council is holding those hearings and will be holding them in several places in Canada. I think at this time it would not be proper for me to make a comment until those hearings are completed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he has satisfied himself in respect of the $11 million administrative and promotional budget for CEMA, which is pushing the cost of eggs in Canada to the point where they are approximately 30 cents more per dozen in this country than in the United States, that what would appear to be a disproportionately high administrative cost factor is in fact justified.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as I said, if facts are brought out at the hearings which indicate this is not a proper formula to follow, it certainly will be changed because the National Farm Products Marketing Council, which is made
Oral Questions
up of producers, non-producers, consumers and labour, I am sure will do its job in a diligent manner.


REASON FOR IMPORTATION OF EGGS FROM UNITED STATES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he can explain to the House why it has been necessary for CEMA to import 7 million dozen United States eggs for the breaker trade in this country when the cost to the breaker trade has to be subsidized through CEMA and that additional cost is being passed on to the Canadian consumer?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is trying to import the suggestion that eggs were never imported before; that is not true. The main reason eggs are being imported is that we have an agreement with the United States as to how many thousands of cases they can export into Canada. The program is there, and the main reason they had to do that is that the consumption of eggs went up 9 per cent in the month of January in Canada over and above any other January for which we have kept records. The final thing is that the eggs were such a good buy.


FOOTWEAR-REQUEST MINISTER DISCUSS IMPORTS WITH ASIAN COUNTRIES AND POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING QUOTAS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will the minister discuss with trade officials of the Asian countries he will visit next month our deep concern over the high level of imports into Canada of footwear from their countries where applicable.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the question of the so-called preferred tariff structure and so on is on the agenda for discussion with the countries concerned.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, will the minister discuss either voluntary or mandatory quotas of footwear with the various countries he will visit before our domestic industry is completely on its uppers.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure just what form the discussions will take. Obviously I will convey our concern about the impact of the so-called cheap imports on the footwear industry in Canada. But of course, as I said in answer to a question a few days ago in the House, this is only one portion of the problem. I also have a meeting scheduled immediately upon my return with the footwear industry-I believe it is the Footwear Industry Council-in order to discuss other aspects of the problem as well.

February 26, 1976
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


POSSIBILITY OF SAFEGUARD AGREEMENT WITH COUNTRIES SUPPLYING NUCLEAR MATERIAL
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was, "Here we go" and I am tempted to say the question today is: "Where has he gone?" My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister inform the House whether or not a safeguard agreement has yet been reached with other nuclear supplier countries and, if it has not been reached, could he tell us when the government of Canada expects this to take place? Will he reconsider his position and arrange for a debate to take place in the House outlining Canada's position before the signing of such an agreement?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: It is true that there have been a number of meetings among the concerned countries, namely nuclear suppliers, in which the question of international standards has been discussed. What has emerged from this meeting has been that Canada, along with certain other countries, has made a unilateral declaration of the safeguard standards which it proposes to follow. These standards have been substantially outlined in the background paper which I tabled earlier. No international treaty was signed nor was any secret agreement of any kind reached. What has happened has been that a number of countries, including Canada, have made a unilateral declaration of the standards which they propose to apply. We hope that on review further countries will subscribe to these standards which we have been advocating in the world community.


PAKISTAN-APPLICATION OF CANADIAN SAFEGUARD STANDARDS TO ALL NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES
John Edward Broadbent: With direct reference to those standards to which the minister has referred and following questions put to the Prime Minister yesterday, can the minister assure the House that the standards unilaterally imposed by Canada in terms of its sale of nuclear equipment and supplies will apply in the case of Pakistan, not only to nuclear equipment made in Canada and used in Pakistan but also to equipment that has been purchased by Pakistan from other countries, more specifically France?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We are presently engaged in negotiations with Pakistan with the object in mind of increasing the level of safeguards on the reactor that is presently in Pakistan. These negotiations have not yet been completed. It is public knowledge that discussions have taken place between Pakistan and France on the provision by the latter of a reprocessing plant. That plant which is to be supplied by France, as I understand it, would be covered by safeguards negotiated between Pakistan and France as certified by the International Atomic Agency. We certainly cannot negotiate with Pakistan with respect to a facility provided by a third country. We are at present engaged in discussions with Pakistan with respect to this, what hap-

pens and under what conditions material coming out of the Canadian reactor may be subsequently used.


John Edward Broadbent: I have a final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Once again the minister did not answer the question. Will he assure the House that as a precondition laid down by the government of Canada for sale of uranium to Pakistan, plutonium, which can be produced by the Canadian reactor, in Pakistan, could not be used by Pakistan on the French reprocessing equipment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I understand it, the plutonium itself would be the end product of a reprocessing facility supplied by France, if and when it goes into production. What is of concern to Canada of course is the spent fuel that comes out of the Canadian reactor which may subsequently be reprocessed in the facility provided by France. It is with respect to this spent fuel that we are presently negotiating with Pakistan, with which country we already have a safeguard provision with respect to the use of that spent fuel. We are attempting to arrange new safeguards or additional safeguards with respect to that spent fuel, but not for plutonium, which is a separate process.


RESEARCH
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board. I wonder where he is now: he was there a moment ago. In his absence, I shall put it to the right hon. Prime Minister. Here comes the President of the Treasury Board: I shall therefore address my question to him, since it deals with university research assistance.
As there is pressing need for new knowledge to develop with efficiency our natural resources, renewed and renewable, and as scientific conferences are an indispensable source of knowledge to all our scientists, does the minister not feel that the new directive designed to limit our expenditures to a single scientist in a given discipline, at future conferences, constitutes a step back for Canada in the field of scientific research, which dealt a fatal blow to our researchers?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I do not agree with the assumption of the hon. member. The Canadian government contributions to research have always been quite considerable in the last few years. Unfortunately, this year we have had to reduce our investments in that field, strictly because of budgetary restriction measures.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I admit, as the minister said, that subsidies were made in years past, but does the minister not agree that, in spite of the act imposing restrictions, it is more pressing to give research the money it requires than to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to open new income tax offices?
February 26, 1976


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we have an excellent tax levy system if we want to spend money later on.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Faced as we are with international balance of payments deficits amounting to billions of dollars, would the minister indicate if he does not think that the anti-inflation export levy is acting as a deterrent to expanding our export sales abroad? Specifically, would he indicate if there is any evidence that multinational corporations active in Canada are diverting business to their subsidiaries in other lands to avoid the impact of the current export levy in Canada?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the second part of the question, we have certainly seen no evidence of that to this point. With respect to the first part, I anticipate being able to make a statement before very long on the question of the export levy.


IMPACT OF ANTI-INFLATION REGULATIONS ON SMALL BUSINESSES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In view of the answer of the minister that he will be making a statement, would he also refer to the lot of the small businessman with respect to the export levy and the anti-inflation regulations themselves, bearing in mind the statement made by Mr. Biddell of the Anti-Inflation Board that he felt small business was being hurt by the impact of the anti-inflation regulations, and that if it was not to be hurt, he hoped the regulations would be amended forthwith?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have not seen that particular statement, but I remind the hon. gentleman that on the private sector side the mandatory aspect of the regulations applies only to firms with 500 or more employees unless they are in the construction trades. We hope that all firms would accord in their pricing and compensation policies with the standards we have set, but with respect to the mandatory provisions of the law prima facie, small business would not be affected by it.

[DOT] (M30)


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fisheries. In light of a report received today from the President of the Sea-
Oral Questions
food Workers Union in Nova Scotia that the government plans to exclude deep-sea trawlers from fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which at present produces more than 50 per cent of the production processed by fish plants in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, what compensation will be provided to the Canadian fishermen and fish plant workers as a result of this action? Will all foreign trawlers be restricted from fishing in the gulf? On what scientific research was such a move predicated? Finally, why has such a move been initiated against Canadian fishermen prior to any agreement being reached on a 200 mile economic zone?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather lengthy question and I hope I can cover all the points. There will be discussions between government officials and representatives of the unions and the companies tomorrow, I understand. The problem is one of preserving the spawning stocks of red fish which are required to have another generation class growing up in the future. The other problem is that because of light ice conditions the fishery has gone on considerably longer than usual. The foreign vessels which are fishing in the gulf are there under the phase-out agreement and may not take red fish as a directed fishery. The 200-mile economic zone matter does not apply in this case.


CLOSING OF FISH PROCESSING PLANTS IN NOVA SCOTIA- GOVERNMENT ACTION TO AVOID
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. At the present time, the Nova Scotia Port Bickerton Co-operative Fish Plant is operative under the management of the provincial government and the same government is looking for owners for the bankrupt fish processing plant at Petit de Grat Bridge previously owned by Richmond Fisheries, Ltd., and on which 1,000 residents of Isle Madam depend directly or indirectly for their livelihood and they are looking also for new operators for the Booth fisheries plant at Canso and the Swim Brothers plant at Lockeport. My question to the minister is, how many processing plants must be closed in Nova Scotia before this government takes some action which will be helpful in expanding rather than closing down this important primary industry?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that the management of the gulf has been ours for a certain number of years. The problem of the red fish stocks which are there now, these two years classes, is one which is completely familiar to the industry. I would also say to the hon. member that unless we manage our own gulf properly we will have more bankruptcies.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT

February 26, 1976


RAILWAY SERVICE TO CHATEAUGUAY AND SOUTHWESTERN QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO IMPROVE
Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. It relates to the negative decision of the Canadian Transport Commission made public yesterday concerning an application for restoration of the passenger train service between Valleyfield, Chateauguay and Montreal. I want first to give notice that I intend to appeal to the Governor in Council for a modification of that decision on the grounds that the CTC erred in its appraisal of the facts submitted to it as well as in its conclusions. My question is this: would the minister undertake to review with his officials and the CTC possible initiatives whereby the existing rail facilities presently owned by the Penn Central can contribute to the solution of the atrocious transit problems affecting Chateauguay and southwestern Quebec residents.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated having the opportunity the other day to go over the issue of the use of this particular railway for a commuter type service with the municipal representatives of the Chateauguay area. While we ordinarily expect a significant involvement on the part of the municipality and province in commuter services, I will certainly follow up with the CTC the question of the future use of that track.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Having regard to the proposed changes in the Air Canada Act, could the minister tell the House, in the interests of achieving a more effective and ongoing mechanism of Air Canada's accountability to parliament, whether we could expect any changes in the Air Canada Act in this regard and, hopefully, some mechanism to ensure that the annual reports of Air Canada are referred to the Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications on a regular basis? Also, has the minister explored the possibility of appointing the auditor general as a joint auditor of this major Crown corporation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we expect to have amendments to the Air Canada Act come before the House within a number of weeks and to have an opportunity at that time to look at the changes in detail. I had discussions with Air Canada about the possibility of looking at the annual report for 1974-75 which may be available at the same time. I shall be glad to make that a general practice. I would reserve comment on the question of the auditor general, however. Our general tendency has been to move more in the direction of giving broad guidelines to Air Canada, but then to let it run very much on the basis of the best possible business management.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question. May I ask the minister if he or his officials have had discussions with the auditor general with respect to looking at the possible advantages that could occur as a result of this joint audi-torship of the auditor general and the private auditing firm?


Otto Emil Lang: No, I have not.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since the Canadian government and the government of Pakistan are discussing the sale of a nuclear reactor and in view of the fact that two things concern a great many people in Canada-first, the fact that Pakistan has not signed a non-proliferation treaty and second, that it has not cancelled its order to purchase a reprocessing plant as South Korea did-I want to ask the minister if the government can assure this House that the signing of the non-proliferation treaty and the cancellation of the contract to purchase a reprocessing plant will be conditions which Canada will impose before it will agree to sign any such agreement with Pakistan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is based upon a mistaken premise. We are not discussing the sale of a nuclear reactor with Pakistan; we are not discussing at all the sale of a reactor or any other facility.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing with them the sale of nuclear technology and uranium; they already have a reactor. I am perfectly aware of that. I ask the minister the question with respect to these two things: is the Canadian government prepared to impose the two conditions I have suggested?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the second question is also mistaken.



FISHERIES


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of State for Fisheries with respect to the announcement made some time late last year that a number of lobster fishermen who, in the eyes of the department, are moonlighting in the lobster fishery would be removed from the fishery. In view of the number of requests that have come from fisheries associations, as well as from provincial governments, that there be some form of compensation due to the heavy capital investment

that a number of these lobster fishermen would have, I wonder if any understanding has been reached with the provincial governments with respect to this matter or the fisheries associations that have made requests to the minister?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, it may be that the hon. member, in relating this matter to provincial governments, is speaking of a possible buy-back program that has been discussed with the provincial governments. This matter will come on course eventually as the moonlighter problem is solved. For those who have had the extra privilege of fishing for lobster while they had full time jobs, I believe it is the general consensus that they have had access to a fairly rewarding privilege, and that they should not be compensated.



CHANGES IN LOBSTER FISHING LICENCE POLICY-CLARIFICATION OF GUIDELINES

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question. I am sure that the minister will be hearing more from the various fishermen about this. With regard to those people who received letters about a month and a half ago about the loss of their fishing licences and the meeting the minister had with a number of hon. members concerning a second letter that was to go out as well as the clarification of the guidelines defining who in effect are moonlighters, can he tell the House what action has been taken on both those matters in order that the very serious situation affecting a number of fishermen can be alleviated?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I have approved the content of the second letter which is to be sent out. The criteria have also been clarified and appeal boards are being set up. In some cases they are already looking at the appeals, so the procedure is proceeding rather well at the moment.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I did not bring my whip with me today, but I will bring it every day after today.
My question is addressed to the Minister of Labour, and has to do with the statement that rail workers are urging conciliation commissioner Emmett Hall to disregard federal inflation guidelines. Has the commissioner asked for the clarification of the Anti-Inflation Board on just what would be the maximum permissible settlement?
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his new appointment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: To answer his question; no.



CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES- GOVERNMENT POSITION ON ESSENTIALITY OF RAILWAY SERVICE

Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government taken a position with regard to the essentiality of rail service and, if so, indicated that position to those involved in this dispute?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, they are certainly aware that the government considers rail service very important indeed in Canada.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, the answer to which may assist us in the second reading debate on the peace and security bill. As sportsmen of Canada assess that about six million guns will be affected by the legislation, has the minister assessed how many public servants, including police officers, will be needed to issue permits for restricted guns and licences for all guns, and what the cost in this regard will be to the Canadian public?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a careful analysis, but it is impossible to say what the result will be and how many people will be involved because this will depend to some extent on special arrangements made in each province. Naturally, we hope to keep the administrative and licensing staff to a minimum, but, at the same time, make licensing personnel available in communities throughout Canada so that there will not be difficulty in obtaining licences. I anticipate that we shall use provincial and federal police forces and, hopefully, with the co-operation of some provinces, wildlife officers. It is impossible for me to be specific about these matters until these arrangements have been entered into specifically and the provisions are proclaimed in each province.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The police associations of Canada having said in their brief that there would not be enough police personnel to handle the program-and I do not think the Minister of Justice would seriously consider transferring the cost of the program to the provinces-may I ask if he has considered how many people will be needed for the program and how the
11270

February 26, 1976
Oral Questions
increased expenditure will fit into the anti-inflation program?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that the Prime Minister in his December statement indicated that law enforcement would be given a special place in the expenditures of the government. Secondly, the legislation provides for a licensing fee and a licensing scheme. It is designed to be self-financing or self-supporting. The bill provides that the regulatory power may divide the licence fee between provincial and federal governments, depending on the work each level of government does in this field. With regard to the number of police officers available, I refer the hon. member, for example, to the statement made yesterday by the attorney general of Ontario, who is responsible for the police in the province, indicating his full support for the scheme.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister consider changing the name of the Canadian Egg Marketing Association, known as CEMA, so that those in this House who cannot properly pronounce the name of the member for Vancouver-Kingsway will not continue to mistake her for an egg.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ANTI-INFLATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL DESIGNATION OF DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL AS LEGAL COUNSEL-POSSIBILITY OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and relates to the rules of procedure in an appeal to the anti-inflation tribunal from an order of the administrator. Since the legal counsel to the administrator is designated to be the deputy attorney general of Canada, under the statute, is the minister prepared to assure the House that the legal contest which could develop between the appellant and respondent will be conducted on an impartial basis? More specifically, can the minister assure the House that the opponent of a corporation in an appeal tribunal hearing will not be more than the administrator and that the corporation will not be doing battle with the whole legal force and might of the federal government, which, of course, has a vested interest in enforcing the program? Really, is there not a conflict of interest contained in the regulations or statute?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks a most technical question.


Walter David Baker: With respect, it is not technical at all.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I should like to review the wording of the regulations to which the hon. member refers. I have no

hesitation in assuring him that any conflict of the kind the hon. member suggests I will undertake to avoid.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In the interests of sharing whatever transportation dollars can be made available among the Canadians, would the minister and the government consider measures which will keep goods moving into or out of Canada moving as much as possible through Canadian transportation systems, not United States ports?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that we aim to have good Canadian port facilities well used in the trans-shipment of Canadian goods.


Robert Jardine McCleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the somewhat Draconian measures which will be presented and which will affect east coast ports, will there also be included counter-measures, to make certain that goods moving into or out of this country move through our east coast ports rather than through New York, Baltimore, Boston, etc.?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to be party to any Draconian measures.



FREIGHT RATES-POSSIBILITY OF CHANGES IN LEGISLATION TO ACCOMPLISH CHANGES IN RATE STRUCTURE

J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport? In changing the freight rate structure, does the minister contemplate amendments to the freight rates legislation, in order to achieve the general, broad policy the government has set forth?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, yes, several legislative changes are necessary to accomplish the changes in rates anticipated.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question, also, is addressed to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that the proposed new landing charges at airports for light aircraft call for increases ranging from 30 cents to $1.90 an hour? This represents an increase in levies of more than 500 per cent which, by my reckoning, somewhat exceeds what the AntiInflation Board will allow. Is the minister aware that these increases will reduce if not altogether eliminate pilot
February 26, 1976

training in this country? Is the minister satisfied that we have an over-abundance of pilots?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am told that the fee increase over-all, if one does not isolate one particular aspect, represents an increase in the order of 5 per cent. Therefore, it is a modest change in a fee which has not been changed for a long time.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's answer, I think my supplementary question is very much in order. Will the minister tell the House, perhaps by making a statement on motions, the basis on which the new rates have been established? Plan one, or phase one, is now in effect, and calls for increases from 30 cents and 60 cents, to $1.30 for the last landing, and so on. I do not see how the increase is 5 per cent. Will the minister explain, also, what phase two and phase three mean?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member surprises me. Hon. members opposite have been rather critical at times of government spending balances; yet here is a situation where, in a particular area, it seemed reasonable for those who use the service to pay a greater proportion of the cost of the service rather than letting the burden fall on the general taxpayer who is not making use of that service. That is a general principle you will see applied in many more places.



SARNIA-MONTREAL PIPELINE-GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO ASSURE SUPPLY OF OIL

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. A news story appearing yesterday indicated that oil was expected to flow into the Sarnia-Montreal portion of the pipeline within five days. Will the minister explain why no oil has been offered, why the pipeline cannot purchase any, and advise the House what efforts he is bending to getting the six refinery consortium in Montreal to make nominations so that oil will flow for May delivery?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The story which appeared in the press was in error in a number of important particulars. Oil will not be flowing until some time in May. Activities right now are being devoted to completing the line; the National Energy Board has not yet given it formal approval. We are also working out with the various refineries a system to handle tariffs on the through-put to Montreal.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the minister first advise us how he proposes to see that some two million barrels of oil will come down at the rate of 40,000 barrels a day to fill the pipeline when no nominations have been made and nobody will buy the oil and, second, whether he feels that the Montreal refineries are too comfortable on the nipple of the ample breast of federal subsidies to balance off sources?
Oral Questions


Alastair William Gillespie: I am overwhelmed by the eloquence of the question. Discussions are under way at the present time.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I wrote to him over a month ago expressing the concern felt by myself and fishermen on the West Coast in connection with the herring boat fishing disasters. The season is due to start on Sunday. Apart from the usual acknowledgement of the receipt of my letter, I have received no reply. Can the minister inform the House what he has done to prevent a recurrence of last spring's disasters when 19 boats went down with heavy loss of life?


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member from that area has been pressing me very hard for consideration of safety measures. I have told her on a number of occasions that we shall be trying to do a variety of things to assist. We are arranging a meeting in short order in an attempt to assist in introducing the best possible techniques to deal with these risks, including some improvement in communications. There has been some improvement in the equipment in the area. We are trying to make sure that as far as possible we have, on our side, done what can be done. A good deal depends, of course, on the precautions which are taken by the fishermen themselves. We can only be helpful to the point of trying to ensure that they are aware of the necessary precautions and take as many as possible.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I received a reply from the Minister of National Defence who merely listed the equipment available on the west coast and there is no change from last year. Can the minister tell us specifically whether he feels the recommendations of the V'.ust Coast Fishing Vessels Casualties Inquiry which the Department of Transport convened, have been carried out? In particular, has anything been done to ensure the co-ordination and positioning of defence and rescue services?


Otto Emil Lang: Well, Mr. Speaker, work has been going on in an attempt to ensure that as many of the recommendations as possible are carried out.



RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR TORONTO-DATE OF DECISION ON GOVERNMENT PLANS

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. I have not given him notice but I am sure he is familiar with the subject. In the light of the promises made by the Prime Minister that the federal government would extend financial support for the development of urban transportation systems, and in view of cutbacks in government spending on the development of such a transport system in metro Toronto which are likely to destroy the whole plan for the extension of rapid transit lines in east and west Toronto,
11272

February 26, 1976
Oral Questions
has the government decided to postpone indefinitely its promised contribution to capital or operational costs of rapid transit in the Toronto area and elsewhere, and, if so, will it reconsider this decision?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have not taken such a decision. We did some time ago indicate we were willing to provide a special type of assistance for commuter programs over a five-year period. That leaves out a significant piece of action in relation to urban transit generally. We are considering the approach we should take to that situation and I hope it will not be very many weeks before we can announce definitively what we believe we can and should do in that area.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Will the minister and the cabinet bear in mind when making a decision on this matter, that the conservation of fossil fuels is more dependent on the extension of rapid transit than almost any other form of fuel saving?


Otto Emil Lang: We always take the energy issue, the cost issue and other issues into consideration when determining the appropriate course of action.



BILINGUALISM


Mr. Gilbert Parent (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President of Treasury Board.

Since the hon. gentleman's department is in charge of the implementation of the policy on biligualism, and in view of the fact that the bilingual advisory board's report outlining possible areas to be designated as bilingual districts in Canada was tabled in the House as long ago as November, 1975, is there any indication when the minister or the cabinet intend to make a decision and subsequent announcement with regard to the recommendation of the advisory board?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the report has been received three months ago. We are now considering it, but no decision has yet been taken about the date when we will be able to determine by order in council which districts will be bilingual in Canada. As soon as we are ready to say so, we will advise the hon. member in the House.



COMMUNICATIONS


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Communica-

tions. During the latest conference of ministers of communications, the province of Quebec deemed it advisable to elect a different course than the one which the nine other provincial governments adopted. Considering the situation which now prevails in my own area of Rimouski with respect to cable TV, can the minister advise the House whether she recently held discussions with her Quebec counterpart? If so, can she tell the House what was the essence of the discussions?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I recently met with my Quebec counterpart. We discussed all the problems pertaining to cable TV and to the whole sector within the jurisdiction of our two departments. We also studied the Rimouski problem but I would like to remind the hon. member that the only reason why there is a problem in Rimouski is that the Quebec Public Service Commission has chosen to disregard a federal agency's regulation.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of Treasury Board. I should like to ask him to clear up an apparent discrepancy between the estimates blue book and the guide "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent". Can the minister explain why this guide reports that the estimates of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources have provided for increased payments under the oil price subsidy program while the blue book says there has been a $250 million decrease in expenditure on that same program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member realizes that this is a question which ought to be put to the minister when he is before the standing committee.



RED FOOD DYES-SUGGESTED BANNING UNTIL AGREEMENT REACHED CONCERNING DANGER TO HEALTH

Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the government does not seem at this point to be able to clear up the confusion as to whether or not red food dyes are harmful to the human system, would the minister not agree that there should be a ban on the use of all red food dyes until there is agreement as to whether or not a danger to human life exists?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker.
February 26, 1976



SAFETY OF GREEN DYE ADMINISTERED TO SEALS

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: question to the same minister, or to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that the Greenpeace organization has indicated that it will interfere with the seal hunt by administering a green dye to the bodies of the seals, would either the minister of health or the Minister of Fisheries adopt my suggestion that an analysis should be made of that particular green dye to see whether it really harms the bodies of the seals? If this is proven to be the case, does the government not feel that the Greenpeace organization ought to be brought to trial?


Marc Lalonde: I think the hon. member can keep on eating seals.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: May I direct my question to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker? It arises from the fact that the Minister of Labour has refused an application for consent to prosecute pursuant to Section 194, part V of the Canada Labour Code by the Canadian Air Line Employees Association regarding alleged improper labour practices by representatives of Air Canada. Can the minister say briefly why he refused and what criteria he used for witholding the granting of consent pursuant to section 194, part V, of the Canada Labour Code?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, in this particular case I think the hon. member will agree that I should accept the independent legal advice of the law officers of the Crown regarding the adequacy of the grounds for this application. I shall be pleased to give the hon. member further details, perhaps tomorrow, but I do believe there is other recourse for the union in question in terms of the Canada Labour Relations Board.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the 24th report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition laid upon the table by the hon. member
Business of the House
for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and finds that it meets the requirements of Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, might I ask the government House leader the business for the balance of this week and perhaps next week, and as far ahead as he can see.


Mr. Sharp:: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate my hon. friend on his elevation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I should just like to offer him some advice, and that is in most respects to follow his predecessor in office-not in all respects but in most respects.
I should like to designate the remaining allotted days for the period ending March 26, pursuant to Standing Order 58(5), as follows: Monday, March 1; Friday, March 12; Tuesday, March 16; Friday, March 19; Tuesday, March 23; Wednesday, March 24; and Thursday, March 25.
Today, as first order of business, it has been agreed among the House leaders that we will deal with all stages of Bill C-85, including consideration in committee of the whole rather than the usual reference to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. When that bill has been disposed of, we will resume consideration of second reading of Bill C-68.
May I also indicate the date for the beginning of the debate on Bill C-83, which will be the first of the criminal law amendment bills to be called, the other being Bill C-84. This is a complicated bill and the government has been prepared to let some days elapse between first and second reading. Originally we felt that a week might have been an appropriate interval. After discussion among the House leaders, we have agreed to a few additional days. It is therefore my intention to call Bill C-83 for second reading on Monday, March 8.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. gentleman for his kindness and also for his advice, which I will follow to the degree suggested by the hon. gentleman. Might I ask him one further question with respect to the consideration by the House of Bills C-83 and C-84. The Department of the Solicitor General and the Department of Justice have a number of statistical analyses relating to crime, and I am sure there are a number of studies being undertaken with respect to various kinds of crime. These reports would be very helpful to members of the House as well as to members of the public as the debate proceeds.
It is difficult to know how long that debate may go, but I think it would be important to members of parliament as well as members of the public that the government House leader and the ministers I have mentioned consider the tabling of those reports, having regard to the extent of their availability. There are certain issues involved on

Business of the House
which a lot of work must be done by the public and by members of parliament. As I say, I think it would be facilitating the work in the House as well as the consideration of the public if the government were prepared to give this matter consideration.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I appreciate the hon. member's remarks. We have not prepared a special study or compilation for publication, but we will go through the material that we have and see that we table everything we possibly can. I did intend, as did the Solicitor General, putting in as much information as possible of an even more detailed nature for all members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for the actual clause by clause study of the bill.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I join with the government House leader in extending congratulations to my hon. friend, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, on his promotion. If the hon. member is looking for advice, I should be glad to offer it to him, but rather than giving it to him here on the floor I would be happy to give it to him behind the curtains or some day out on Commanche Drive.
Since I know what is coming in a moment or two I do not need to ask my usual Thursday question, the one I have been asking every Thursday since last October, so may I ask the government House leader whether he can tell us when we are going to deal with a bill which is of interest to all members of the House, Bill C-81, which goes part way toward freezing the incomes of members of parliament at the level of our income in 1975?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have given some consideration to this measure, but when I looked at the other bills that were before us it did not seem to me that I could give it that much priority as to assign it a place on the agenda yet. At any rate, I do not think any of us is getting the extra money that the bill would deny us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On that point, Mr. Speaker, if the bill is going to be delayed, since the cheques that we are now receiving have frozen one element of our pay and not the other, would the government indicate what its intention is with respect to our proposed amendment to freeze our entire income?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when the bill is introduced for debate, that indication, of course, will be given.


Mr. Holmes:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not use this privilege very often, but I am quite concerned. My point of order relates to the inappropriate answer given in response to a follow-up to a question I raised in this House yesterday. To refresh Your Honour's memory my question was to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and in his absence I directed it to the Acting Prime Minister. It relates to the TV program on Tuesday evening about the terrible situation in Moosonee.
I asked, very simply, that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs meet immediately with the appropriate minister in the province of Ontario to work out an agreement so that the facilities available there could be used by these native people. We know that the native people in that particular

area are living in squalor. We know that in terms of educational facilities students must travel literally hundreds of miles. My point of order is simply this. In view of the answer given by the parliamentary secretary, that a response would be made to me, and in view of the seriousness of the situation, I feel at this period in time that the information should be available by now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Campbell.

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report in both official languages of standing committee on employer-employee relations in the public service-Mr. Herbert (Vaudreuil)
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, since the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs reported its recommendations to the House on the report of a study on European prisoners of war, hon. members and many veterans have been eagerly waiting for an announcement of the government's reaction to the committee report. It is, therefore, with considerable pleasure that I am able to inform the House that the government intends to introduce a bill to provide special compensation for former prisoners of war.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The proposed bill will provide additional benefits for those who were prisoners of war of the Japanese and who suffered so severely at the hands of their captors. The malnutrition, personal indignities and the harsh conditions of imprisonment left effects and scars on these gallant people which were not always identifiable.
It will also provide for similar compensation, but to a lesser degree and on a sliding scale relating to the period of time spent as a prisoner of war, to those who were captured in other theatres of war during or after World War II. While it is intended, for example, that those who were captured at Dieppe in August, 1942, will receive less than the former prisoners of war of the Japanese, they will receive greater benefits than those who became prisoners

of war later in the war. This compensation which will be of benefit to former prisoners of war and their families will be indexed to keep pace with changes in the consumer price index.
In making this announcement, I must again pay special tribute to the lead taken by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs which, in its usual non-partisan manner, heard evidence and made the report on which the government's decision is based.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should first say that all good things come to those who wait. We have certainly waited for some time for this statement by the minister. Let me say at the outset that we appreciate the advance notice given by the minister of the contents of his statement, as well as the statement itself which reached my office this morning. That advance notice came in the form of very careful discussions with the minister in his office and critics from the opposition parties in this House. I think this ability of the minister to speak freely with us indicates the mutual understanding and respect we have for one another, as well as the non-partisan nature of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
The one sentence or phrase from the statement, that "many veterans have been eagerly waiting for an announcement" is an understatement of considerable magnitude. The minister might be considered a conservative, with a small "c", in putting it that way. The constant prodding by members of the opposition parties, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and, if I may not be too immodest, myself has been aimed at the minister to bring forth a statement or the legislation.
The prodding has not been aimed so much at the minister, because we understand his concern about this problem, but more especially at his cabinet colleagues who the minister had a great deal of difficulty convincing as to the necessity of bringing in something for these prisoners of war. I make one notable exception, his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen), who was a member of the committee on veterans affairs and was instrumental in bringing about some consensus which enabled the committee to bring in the report on which this statement is based.
We in the opposition will certainly expedite the passage of the bill which will implement the proposals in this statement. In fact, I think we are willing to do that in a matter of hours when the legislation is brought forward.


An hon. Member:: Minutes.


William David Knowles: I have discussed this matter with some of my colleagues on this side and I am almost certain I can give this assurance to the minister. I think we are right in asking how soon the legislation will be prepared and introduced to the House. The veterans referred to in the statement are in advancing years, and because of that the grim reaper is taking his toll year by year-as a matter of fact, month by month-with increas-
Veterans Affairs
ing frequency. While we are setting aside "X" millions of dollars to finance this program, I think it will be a decreasing amount year by year as these men pass on to their reward. This is something that should be kept in mind when we talk about the number of dollars the program is going to cost the government.
I do not wish to take too long, but I think I should point out that the report on which this statement is based had three main proposals: an adjustment to pensions received by Hong Kong veterans, compensation to prisoners of war other than Hong Kong veterans, and an adjustment to widows' pensions whose veteran spouses received less than 48 per cent.
It is obvious from the statement that it takes into consideration compensation to prisoners of war but omits widows' pensions. We have agreed to pass the bill, but I do not think we need gag ourselves by not asking the minister at some time down the line to keep this in mind. The Minister of National Revenue indicated that they had flagged this particular recommendation of the report, which indicates to me that they had it in mind and I sincerely hope that is the case. The minister explained earlier the reasons for this omission. We accept those and will not press the point now. When'another budget comes down and we are again reviewing government spending, I give the minister notice that we will be asking more questions about this matter.
Again I say to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that we welcome this statement and will do everything in our power to expedite passage of the legislation which we hope will come in at the earliest possible moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as my first word I should like to thank the minister for the tribute he paid in his statement today to the members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. It may be that some of us have been doing the prodding in public about this matter, most of us being on this side of the House, but I know I speak for every member on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs when I say that we have been unanimous in our anxiety to get this legislation, and we are all delighted the minister has finally got cabinet approval and has been able to indicate that the legislation will be brought in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Coming as I do from the city of Winnipeg, I know a good many Canadian veterans who were at Hong Kong, and a good many who were at Dieppe as well as in other prison camps in Europe. That experience enables me to confirm that those who suffered the experience of being prisoners of war in Hong Kong, after Dieppe and at other prison camps, went through something for which they should have been compensated long, long ago. It is too bad we have had to wait this long, but now that the legislation has been announced we welcome it.
I join with my namesake who spoke just now in saying that once this bill is brought in the minister will be surprised at how little time it will take to get through. I hope it has an effective date with some retroactivity to cover all the time that these veterans have had to wait. In

Veterans Affairs
the main, since we are led to believe that the pension proposals for Canadian veterans who were former prisoners of war will be more or less those that were set out in the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, we welcome the proposed legislation and we shall give it our full support.
Like the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), I regret that there are certain things that were in the report which have not been mentioned today by the minister. One of those is any reference to escapees and evaders. In our report we expressed the hope that this legislation would cover them as well. I believe we have at least one member in this House who would be covered by that provision. I am sorry that is not included in the minister's statement.
I also express my very deep regret that there is no reference in the statement to anything being done for widows of veterans generally, having in mind widows of all veterans who are on disability pensions. On at least three occasions in recent years the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs has recommended that the Pension Act be amended so that widows of veterans where the veteran's pension was 48 per cent or less be given a pro rata pension as of right. This was also strongly recommended some years ago in the Woods report. I would hope that some time this will be implemented. As it is not mentioned in the minister's statement, I suppose we will not see it in the bill, but I join with my colleague who spoke before me when he said that down the road we shall keep the pressure on for this improvement in respect of the widows of veterans who were on disability pensions.
In the meantime, we are glad that this long, long wait is over. I refer particularly to the time that has elapsed since the committee made its report on June 12, 1975. If the minister can just get this bill on the order paper in a very few days, we will have it passed in almost no time at all.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to join the previous speakers to extend my sincere thanks to the minister who quickly sent us a copy of the statement on the government's reaction to the report from a study on prisoners of war.
Moreover, I am very glad to see that the government at last decided to implement the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs with the firm intention of putting forward a bill giving deserved compensation to prisoners of war. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the prisoners of war suffered greatly by their captivity and that, in my humble opinion, we have a responsibility towards these prisoners, as most of them grew old very quickly, or are handicapped because of malnutrition or of the cruelties they endured.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government will consider the distress of the widows, of the orphans and of the families of these prisoners because, in a way, they also had their share of distress and misgivings.
Once again, I agree with the minister's statement considering that the bill which he intends to introduce shortly will result in reducing the hardships of those prisoners. I

hope the government will keep worrying about those prisoners who left a part of themselves in enemy prisons. Somebody said a moment ago that everything comes to him who waits. I would add that it is never too late to be right. So once again I thank the minister and I hope that this bill, as the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said so well, will not raise too many objections and will be passed as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the Standing Order there is discretion to allow questions, or to limit them as the Chair sees fit. The statement made today by the minister proposes the introduction of legislation which has been anticipated, and obviously questioning should be carried out when the legislation is presented. Also, there does not seem to be much disagreement; therefore, I intend severely to limit the questioning.
Since I realize two or three members have waited here with the intention of asking questions, I think the purpose would be served if each member were allowed to put one question. I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As you know, Mr. Speaker, it would have been rather difficult to keep me down today since I am the only person in this chamber directly interested in that I might, shall I say, benefit from this announcement. Beyond that, however, may I say, in welcoming this statement and finding myself among many relatively latter-day advocates of prisoner of war compensation, that I am wondering whether the minister, in his accolades in this regard, would not remember the Dieppe veterans and their prisoner of war association which was among the first to go after this legislation.
May I ask the minister whether, in establishing the gradations of entitlement, adequate regard has been paid to those men who were prisoners of war for up to four and five years in Europe, the early RAF and RCAF prisoners of war who spent, as I have said, four or five years in prison camps and who suffered the early rigours of prisoners of war in 1939 and 1940. If the minister wants any description of them, I am quite prepared to fill his ear for a couple of hours, because their treatment in many ways in the end was comparable to that of the Japanese starting in December, 1941.
So I ask the minister if special attention is being paid to those former prisoners of war, and also what attention is being paid to the first three months of one's prisoner of war treatment, because I have heard that those who do not have a three-month period may not qualify under the legislation. The toughest time, psychologically and physically, is in the first three months.
February 26, 1976


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there is no particular reference to those who served five years. So far as the European prisoners are concerned, we seem to have uppermost in our minds the Dieppe prisoners who, as we know, were prisoners for approximately three years. In respect of those with longer periods, as yet the legislation is not drawn with anything specific in it about them. What was the other question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Whether there is to be a qualifying three months' period and whether those people with less than three months would not qualify under this compensation legislation.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The reason the period is there is that, for instance, many people may have been prisoners for only half an hour. I refer to those people who got away. This is the reason the period was put in the first place.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I shall abide by your request in respect of a short question. I had a short, five-part question but the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) pre-empted two or three parts. Would the minister give us an indication of the status of the drafting of this legislation at the present time, when he expects to introduce it, and whether any consideration is being given to First World War veterans who were prisoners of war?
Also, will he tell us whether any consideration, before the legislation is drafted by his officials, is being given to escapees and others who may have suffered comparable or even worse hardships by avoiding capture? Can we expect, in the future, consideration of pensions for widows of veterans who had disability pensions below 85 per cent, and is consideration being given to retroactivity? Might I say I am very pleased that the rates are to be indexed. I have one final question. Will the schedule and recommendation indicate that the graduating scale will be in accordance with the recommendations of the committee on veterans affairs? That supplements the question of the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I should have had someone taking shorthand. The answer to the hon. member's question with reference to First World War veterans is that they are not considered in the legislation. The chief reason, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is that the treaty with regard to the treatment of prisoners in the First World War was pretty well adhered to so far as we know. They were not subjected to malnutrition or other suffering such as World War II veterans were.
So far as benefits for widows are concerned, no, this is not in the legislation. It will be considered at a later date. This matter is always under consideration. As far as retroactivity is concerned, it is not being considered at this time. I have felt a wee bit lucky to get this without going back. How far back would you go-one year, two years, five years, thirty years? The graduating scale as recommended by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is to be considered in the bill.
Veterans Affairs


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I put one
question to the minister? In effect, it is supplementary to the one he has just answered. Even if he feels he cannot win a substantial amount of retroactivity, can he tell us what the effective date of the legislation will be? It may take perhaps a few days before the government brings in the bill. Surely veterans who have been waiting for this should get it backdated to January I, or even as far back as last October-some such date as that. Can the minister give any indication as to what the effective date of the legislation will be, so that it does not get lost in further delays on the floor of parliament?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) asked me a question about the legislation. As hon. members know, I have received permission today to have the legislation drafted. Hon. members can rest assured that this will take place today. As to the effective date of the legislation, I would be inclined to think that when it is passed by the House it will be proclaimed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the minister has misunderstood me. I know the legislation comes into effect on proclamation, but what will be the effective date of the payments?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: It would be hard for me to say for sure, but I suggest that the effective date for payments will be when the legislation comes into effect.


Mr. MacFarlane:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak in line with questions on the same subject. The minister mentioned the effective date. Having listened to the discussion in which hon. members have participated, I am sure he is aware that we are very concerned about the fact that so many of those who were prisoners of war seem to be disappearing from our numbers at a very early stage in their lives, in my view. So I have some concern, as hon. members have said, with regard to the effective date. Possibly the minister cannot give us an answer at this time, but perhaps at a later time, if he foresees any long debate on the legislation or any delay, he could make a statement concerning the effective date.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I will be glad to, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I have a supplementary question to that posed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The minister has given us no word to take to the veterans regarding when their benefit cheques will start to go out. Perhaps the minister could give us a firm assurance with regard to the date on which he will bring the legislation before the House. We had an example today from the House leaders regarding Bill C-71 which was brought in for first reading more than two months ago and has not been spoken of since. It affects the pay of members of parliament. We know he is a well intentioned minister in this regard, but if he cannot give us the effective date on which the payments will be made, surely he can give us a ballpark guess as to when he will bring in the legislation and then we will see to it that it is passed quickly.
11278

February 26, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: My answer to that is, as soon as the legislation is prepared and brought before the House, in a matter of days, I suggest.


Stanley Haidasz: In thanking the Minister of Veterans Affairs for announcing to us the good news of special compensation for former prisoners of war, including European prisoners of war, I should like to ask the minister whether he will take into consideration compensation for former prisoners of war who are Canadian citizens, and who during the time of war fought under Canadian command but were not Canadian citizens then.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Veterans from other countries who fought with the allies are generally looked after by the country from which they came.



VETERANS INSURANCE ACT AND THE RETURNED SOLDIERS' INSURANCE ACT MEASURE TO PROVIDE SETTLEMENT OPTIONS

Daniel Joseph MacDonald: for leave to introduce Bill C-86, to amend the Veterans Insurance Act and the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['1. Yes. However, the fact that there are no lifeboats based on the west coast of Newfoundland does not mean that fishermen in that area are without protection. The law requires that all mariners help one another in case of distress at sea and this obligation has long ago developed into a tradition. Fishing vessels off the west coast of Newfoundland can rely on assistance from other fishing vessels, government vessels and commercial vessels of any nationality that may be in a position to render assistance, (a) The need to establish additional marine search and rescue facilities is under consideration for all Canadian waters including waters off the west coast of Newfoundland, (b) Yes.\n2. No. The review was carried out in Transport Canada to gather facts and information necessary for developing a new national search and rescue policy. A revised policy on search and rescue which will be based on the results of the review is now being prepared and will be placed before the cabinet for approval as soon as possible.']
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following ques-
(a) Prime Minister's Centre Block Office, including offices	1969-70	1970-71
Occupied by his staff (b) Prime Minister's East Block		$1,512
Office Prime Minister's Centre and East Block Offices (not possi-		2,228
ble to split expenditure) (i) Office of Prime Minister's		5,753
staff in East Block (ii) Offices of Members of Privy	$1,756	
Council in East Block	-	1,973Total	$1,756	$11,466
tions will be answered today: Nos. 3,602, 3,655, 3,833, 3,913, 3,938, 3,947, 3,976, 4,020, 4,041 and 4,052.



Mr. Brisco: 1.	Did the Department of Indian Affairs fund the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada for the Heritage Stoney Wilderness School and, if so, on what date?
2.	Did the Department actually fund this project and, if so (a) on what date (b) in what amount?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.	In early 1974, the Stoney Wilderness Centre requested that the Department contribute to a maximum of $75,000 for an advertising program.
2.	On May 8, 1974 the Department disbursed $48,000 against invoices for advertising and promotion from the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada. On June 4, 1974 another $27,000 was disbursed against properly receipted invoices.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE-COST OF FURNISHINGS SINCE 1968
Mr. Cossitt: Since April 20, 1968, what amount of public funds was spent on furniture, equipment, fixtures, carpets, etc. for the Prime Minister's Office in the (a) Centre Block, including offices occupied by his staff (b) East Block, including all offices occupied by (i) members of his staff (ii) members of the Privy Council staff?


Mitchell William Sharp: The "General Records Disposal Schedules of the Government of Canada"-Amendment No. 3 requires that we keep records only for six years; therefore information is not available prior to April 1, 1969. Insofar as the Department of Public Works is concerned, our expenditure was as follows:
1971-72	1972-73	1973-74	1974-75	1975-76 to November 30/75$70,052	$11,458	$5,193	-	-13,372	60	-	-	-20,802	-	-	-	--	-	-	$980	-8,819	4,490	-	-$113,045	$11,518	$9,683	$980	-
(Mr. McKinnon.)
February 26, 1976

In so far as the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices are concerned: (b) (i) Prime Minister's East Block Office: nil. Prime Minister's Office, Staff East Block: 196869, $7,921.00; 1969-70, $16,829.00; 1970-71, $5,749.00; 1972-72, $3,189.00; 1972-73, $14,904.00; 1973-74, $5,878.00; 1974-75, $12,044.95; 1975-76, $1,701.00. (ii) Privy Council Office, Staff East Block: 1968-69, $7,745.50; 1969-70, $17,651.00; 1970-71, $18,232.00; 1971-72, $10,603.00; 1972-73, $15,621.00; 1973-74, $30,772.00; 1974-75, $21,820.00; 1975-76, $7,835.00.


TRANSFER OF LIP EMPLOYEES FROM MONTREAL TO OTTAWA
[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
employees from the Quebec Provincial Office who were knowledgeable about the Program and the Quebec region were assigned to these duties on a temporary basis during the peak period of operation of the LIP Program until such time as the positions could be filled through regular staffing action. In addition to meeting an immediate requirement, the Department believed it would be advantageous for Regional staff to obtain Headquarters experience. The remaining officers will complete their assignment on January 30th, 1976.
5.	No.
6.	No.
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were three employees transferred to the Local Initiatives Programme's Ottawa Headquarters located at 400 Cumberland Avenue from the Regional Office in Montreal in July, 1975 and, if so (a) what were their names and job designations (b) did their duties consist of performing in any way liaison work involving contacts with Members of Parliament, LIP Regional Offices or the office of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration?
2.	In each case (a) for what period of time did they remain in Ottawa (b) what were their annual salaries (c) did the government pay their hotel accommodation and, if so (i) in what hotels did they stay (ii) at what cost?
3.	In each case, did they receive a daily food or meal allowance and, if so, what was the (a) amount per day (b) total amount?
4.	What were the reasons they were brought to Ottawa and was personnel not available in Ottawa with sufficient qualifications to fill the particular positions?
5.	Were any Programme Officers with LIP or any other persons working with LIP in Ottawa relieved of their duties during this period of time in order to make way for the three employees from Montreal and, if so, what were the reasons justifying such a step?
6.	Before being transferred to Ottawa did any of the three employees challenge or disobey directives from LIP Headquarters in Ottawa and, if so, to what extent?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Yes. (a) Andre Aubry, program officer (acting PM-3); Jacinthe Brunet, program officer (acting PM-3); Christiane Peloffy-Dostie, program officer (acting PM-3). (b) Yes.
2.	(a) A. Aubry, July 7, 1975 to present; J. Brunet, July 7, 1975 to present; C. Peloffy-Dostie, July 7, 1975 to July 25, 1975; September 15, 1975 to October 31, 1975. (b) $14,054- $15,930. (c) Yes. (i) Until suitable single bedroom apartments could be found, the three employees stayed at the Carleton Towers Hotel, with the exception of July 29, 30, 31, 1975, when A. Aubry used the Park Lane Hotel, (ii) A. Aubry, hotel $526.11, apartment $2,661.24; J. Brunet, hotel $894.72, apartment $2,661.24; (Calculations to December 19/75); C. Peloffy-Dostie, hotel $410.08, apartment $900. (Calculations to October 31/75).
3.	Yes. (a) The meal allowance paid each employee was $12.45 daily up to September 30, 1975. This rate became $13.25 on October 1, 1975. (b) A. Aubry, $1,736.90 (Calculations to December 19/75); J. Brunet, $1,804.25 (Calculations to December 19/75); C. Peloffy-Dostie, $765.75 (Calculations to October 31/75).
4.	At the inception of the 1975-76 Local Initiatives Program there was a need for additional staff to deal with an increased work load at the National Office. In view of the immediate need to fill these positions, three experienced


CONSUMER ASSISTANCE GRANTS PROGRAMME
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Under the Consumer Assistance Grants Programme, what contact has been made with consumer groups in the Province of Newfoundland?
2.	What staff is provided by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in the Province (a) what are their names (b) what is the distribution of such staff across the Province?
3.	What organizations have been formed as a result of information directed to the citizens of Newfoundland since the inception of the Programme?
4.	What funds have been allocated in the Province to encourage the formation of groups to encourage consumer complaints and how many meetings have been held with such groups?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Under Consumer Assistance Grants program, the only contact with consumer groups in the province of Newfoundland has been the receipt of a grant application from the Consumers' Association of Canada, Newfoundland, on February 2, 1976. This followed their request for grant information in September, 1975.
2.	The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has the following staff members located in the province of Newfoundland.
Name
Noel Hurley P. Cloutier E. Parsons W. D. Jardin M. Byrd J. W. Strachan
S.	C. Crisby R. Fiefield
3.	None.
4.	None.
Location
St. John's St. John's St. John's Corner Brook St. John's St. John's St. John's Corner Brook


COMMITTEE ON ABORTION LAW STUDY
Mr. Reid: 1.	Did the government appoint Dr. Marion C. Powell, Toronto, Ontario to the Committee on Abortion Law Study and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Was the government aware at the time of the appointment that Dr. Powell was a member of Doctors for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws at least as of June 21, 1975?
21419-22)4

Order Paper Questions
3.	Is it the policy of the government to appoint individuals to commissions of inquiry and investigation who are known to have stated specific views on one side of the issue under inquiry?
4.	Was there consultation or discussion with members of the (a) Doctors for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (b) pro-abortion groups (c) pro-life groups before the appointment of Dr. Powell?
5.	Has the government appointed anyone holding contrary views to Dr. Powell to the Committee and, if so (a) who is the person (b) what organizations does the person represent (c) what consultations took place and with whom, before the appointment was made?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. The then Minister of Justice, the Hon. Otto Lang, announced the appointment of a Committee on the operation of the Abortion Law on September, 26, 1975. Those individuals appointed to the Committee were Dr. R. Badgley as Chairman, Dr. Marion G. Powell and Mme Denyse Fortin-Caron. Each appointment, including that of Dr. Powell, was made on the basis of the professional qualifications and expertise of each member in the areas to be studied by the Committee.
2.	I am informed that Dr. Powell has never been a member of Doctors for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	See reply to Part 1 above.


COMMUNICATION BETWEEN VESSELS AT SEA AND LIFEBOAT BASES-CANADIAN COAST GUARD FLEET
Mr. Marshall: 1.	What is the drill for communication between vessels at sea and Lifeboat Bases in the Canadian Coast Guard fleet?
2.	What are the details of the logs of missions carried out by Lifeboat Bases and areas covered by CG 107-108-109 and CG 114?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Canadian Coast Guard search and rescue lifeboats are equipped with radiotelephones covering very high, high and medium frequency bands assigned for marine communications. They are also equipped with radiotelephones enabling them to communicate with aircraft and small vessels. Lifeboats monitor all the radiotelephone distress frequencies 24 hours a day. The coxswains and assistant coxswains hold the required Radiotelephone Operator Certificate and conduct communications with ships in accordance with procedures laid down in the Radiotelephone Operator Handbook.
2. The log books of lifeboats 107, 108, 109 and 114 contain entries on the following: (1) Name or license number of vessel assisted, her position, number of people on board, her port of registry, her particulars, the name of her master and names of other persons in distress. (2) Names of coxswain and assistant coxswain of lifeboat. (3) Times of receiving distress calls, departures and returns, duration of mission. (4) Geographical area of search, state of sea, wind, visibility, etc. (5) Names of other vessels involved in mission. (6) Communications with Rescue Coordination Centres and Radio Stations. (7) Other entries necessary to prepare a full report on completion of each mission.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Masniuk: 1.	What was the cost of (a) printing (b) issuing of the 1976 calendars by the Post Office Department?
2.	How many were (a) printed (b) distributed?
3.	Where were the calendars printed?
4.	Who did the art work?
5.	For what reason were the calendars produced in multi-colour, rather than in a one-colour or two-colour?
6.	Was the printing done by (a) government printers (b) private printers and, if so (i) were tenders issued (ii) was the work given to the lowest bidder?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. (a) $98,355. (b) They are distributed through major post offices across the country.
2.	(a) and (b) 750,000.
3.	Ashton-Potter Ltd., Toronto, Ontario.
4.	B. & B. Advertising Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.
5.	To reflect established corporate identify and conveniently illustrate our postage products.
6.	(a) No. (b) Yes. (i) Yes. (ii) Yes.


NEWS RELEASE &quot;STOL EXPERIMENT&quot;
Mr. McKenzie: With reference to the January 30, 1976, News Release from the Department of Transport entitled: "Stol Experiment", how many of the 100,000 travellers were public servants travelling on official government business?


Ralph Goodale: While we are unable to answer the question exactly as posed, we do know that 13 per cent of Airtransit Canada passengers to date have used the Central Travel Service of the federal government, and are therefore civil servants deemed to be travelling on official government business.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Matte: What is the (a) name (b) classification (c) level or group of post offices in each municipality in the Constituency of Champlain?


Paul Edmund McRae: Group
Name	Classification	or GrLa Tuque	Staff	7Batiscan	Semi-Staff	1Auvergne	Revenue	4Lac aux Sables	Semi-Staff	3Parent	Semi-Staff	2Grondines	Revenue	4Deschambault	Semi-Staff	2Montauban	Revenue	4Montauban Les Mines	Revenue	2Casey	Revenue	2Lac Edouard	Revenue	5
February 26, 1976

Hervey Jonction	Revenue	3Herouxville	Revenue	4Grandes Piles	Revenue	3Champlain	Semi-Staff	2St. Stanislas de Champlain	Semi-Staff	3Proulxville	Revenue	6La Croche	Revenue	2Ste. Genevieve de Batiscan	Semi-Staff	1Lac aux Brochets	Revenue	1St. Narcisse	Semi-Staff	4St. Alban	Semi-Staff	2St. Ubald	Semi-Staff	3St. Thuribe	Revenue	4St. Tite	Semi-Staff	6Ste. Thecle	Semi-Staff	4La Tuque	Sub 1	-St. Prosper	Semi-Staff	2Portneuf Station	Semi-Staff	4St. Maurice	Semi-Staff	3St. Gilbert	Revenue	2Ste. Anne de la Perade	Semi-Staff	5Vincennes	Revenue	4St. Marc des Carrieres	Semi-Staff	5Riviere Mekinac	Revenue	4Portneuf	Semi-Staff	5Cap de la Madeleine	Sub 9	-St. Adelphe de Champlain	Semi-Staff	4St. Casimir	Semi-Staff	4Riviere Matawin	Revenue	2Sannaur	Revenue	3La Tuque	Sub 2	-


APPLICATION FOR FUNDS UNDER FLIP
Mr. Corbin: Did the regional office of the Department of Transport in Moncton request or apply for funds under FLIP in either 1974 or 1975, for the creation of jobs on a site near St. Leonard, New Brunswick, designated for airport development and, if so (a) on what date was the application made (b) what amount was requested (c) how many man years would have been created (d) what was the response?


Ralph Goodale: The Atlantic Regional Office applied for funds under FLIP in 1975 for the creation of jobs on a site near St. Leonard, New Brunswick, (a) September 10, 1975. (b) $300,000. (c) 18.3 man years, (d) The project was not among those approved under the FLIP program.


STARRED QUESTION
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Would you be so kind, Mr. Speaker, as to call starred question No. 3,919.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Immigration Security Act


LOCATION OF LIFEBOAT BASES ON ATLANTIC COAST
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Does the location of lifeboat bases on the Atlantic Coast show a gap of some four hundred miles along the west coast of Newfoundland and, if so (a) is the Department of Transport considering adding bases to this area to protect fishing vessels (b) is a promised review of the national search and rescue policy to determine marine vehicle systems requirements and jurisdictional areas related to search and rescue operations completed?
2.	If such a review has been completed, will it be Tabled in the House of Commons and, if so, on what date?


Ralph Goodale: 1. Yes. However, the fact that there are no lifeboats based on the west coast of Newfoundland does not mean that fishermen in that area are without protection. The law requires that all mariners help one another in case of distress at sea and this obligation has long ago developed into a tradition. Fishing vessels off the west coast of Newfoundland can rely on assistance from other fishing vessels, government vessels and commercial vessels of any nationality that may be in a position to render assistance, (a) The need to establish additional marine search and rescue facilities is under consideration for all Canadian waters including waters off the west coast of Newfoundland, (b) Yes.
2. No. The review was carried out in Transport Canada to gather facts and information necessary for developing a new national search and rescue policy. A revised policy on search and rescue which will be based on the results of the review is now being prepared and will be placed before the cabinet for approval as soon as possible.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Knight Andras: that Bill C-85, respecting immigration security, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I believe the House leader indicated earlier today that rather than have this bill referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, it should go to the committee of the whole following second reading.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to confirm that that is the understanding.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: If that is the agreement of the House, the motion will be changed.

Immigration Security Act


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I should like to start by thanking hon. members, particularly the House leaders and hon. members of each of the parties who specialize in immigration matters, for their co-operation and accommodation in dealing with this bill with dispatch today. This bill is significant, although it is a short and temporary measure, and if approved it will facilitate the exclusion from Canada of persons who might engage in violent criminal activity in this country. It provides for the minister of manpower and immigration to make a deportation order against any person-other than a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident of Canada, in other words, a landed immigrant-who, in the opinion of the minister, is likely to engage in violent criminal activity if admitted to Canada.
As some hon. members already know, this bill was prepared primarily to enable my department to deal more effectively with potential threats related to the forthcoming Olympic Games in 1976. At present, I am empowered under the Immigration Act to order deportation of such dangerous people if they are detected while within Canada as visitors. I say that to illustrate that in effect there is no change in principle inherent in the proposal in the bill today. That principle has been long established in Canadian immigration law.
However, there is the rather alarming and peculiar situation that I have no equivalent power to deal with such people at ports of entry. Dangerous aliens detected at ports of entry cannot summarily be refused admission but must be dealt with in accordance with normal deportation proceedings, including a formal inquiry at which evidentiary requirements must be met. This is known usually as a special inquiry. This is the nub of my problem. In the case of suspected terrorists-if I may use that expression, although we have accommodated one party with a revision in the draft bill-it is often impossible to meet such evidentiary requirements since the information available to me and my department is obtained from sensitive or protected sources which, frankly, cannot be revealed at an inquiry hearing.
In addition, not all those who pose a threat are covered by the existing prohibitions of the Immigration Act. Persons who might engage in violent activity directed against democratic states or governments are quite clearly prohibited, but there is no clear prohibition against the admission of persons intending to carry out such acts against representatives of governments other than democratic governments or even against individuals without political motivation.
I intend to be very brief in my elaboration on the reasons for bringing this measure in, and I will be glad to answer questions when we get to the report stage. As I have indicated, this measure will be temporary in nature, with the expiry clearly indicated to take place at the end of 1976. There are two reasons for that date. As I have indicated, one is that we are concerned primarily about threats relating to the forthcoming Olympics and possibly at the Habitat conference which takes place a little later. The second reason is that I will be presenting a major bill to the House during 1976 which will propose new immigration legislation. At that time the House will have the opportunity for a full debate on all aspects of immigration, including the

types of people whose admission to Canada will be prohibited.
Before I sit down I want to clarify one point which I think is very important. I have seen some allusions in the press which are incorrect. This bill does not in any way abrogate appeal rights as they now exist in the immigration Appeal Board. This bill is applicable to visitors to Canada, it does not affect landed immigrants, and in no way affects Canadian citizens who are either naturalized or native born. It will apply only to those people who come to Canada temporarily as visitors. Even in that case there is one class of visitor who will still retain appeal rights even in face of this power I am asking for today, and that is the visitor who was screened abroad and received a non-immigrant visa before coming to Canada. In that case, I would still have the power to order deportation but the right of appeal would be there. In current practice this amounts to about one-tenth of 1 per cent of visitors to Canada. There are about 40 million visitors annually, plus the additional visitors we think we will have for the Olympics.
Only those coming from certain countries are now subject to previous screening under visa requirements. I want to establish that no appeal rights are affected in any way by the provisions of this bill. This bill simply gives me the power to turn people away at the border where we have, in my opinion, satisfactory evidence of the dangers they might present to this country. As I have said, this bill expires on December 31, 1976. When we come to the committee of the whole House, I will be glad to respond to questions which may arise.


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-85 I first should like to thank the minister for the manner in which he approached representatives of the opposition with regard to this bill. Discussions have taken place as to how the bill should be introduced. The minister has been very candid as to the provisions of the bill. When we called them, his officials and staff were more than helpful in explaining the purpose and the provisions of the bill. I should like to thank the minister and his officials for that co-operation.
I suppose there is a natural hesitancy on the part of many hon. members to give what might almost appear to be blanket approval to any legislation which is introduced in the House of Commons, especially legislation which would increase the discretionary power of any individual, in this case the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras). However, I appreciate his assurances relating to the appeal procedure and that it has not been abrogated in any way. On that basis we have given assurances in private that we will allow speedy passage of Bill C-85.
One need only look at the events surrounding the October crisis of 1970 and the use of the War Measures Act to feel somewhat uneasy about giving speedy passage to this bill. But notwithstanding that, it is my view and the view of my party that it is incumbent on all of us to co-operate in every way with the government to enable our security officials in the RCMP, in the Department of Manpower and Immigration and in the armed forces to prevent an incident such as that which occurred in Munich during the 1972 Olympics.
February 26, 1976

At the present time the deportation procedures are fairly clear. One procedure is the special inquiry whereby a special inquiry officer presents evidence at a hearing which would then affect whether a deportation order would be served. The second procedure is possibly more obscure. A minister can also make a deportation order. That is outlined in section 7 (4) and (5) of the Immigration Act. However, in that case a person must physically be in Canada and must be, in the opinion of the minister, a person who, as outlined in section 18, violates the Immigration Act.
Madam Speaker, under present conditions, where there are grounds for suspicion that someone at a port of entry might be a member of an international terrorist organization, it appears this is hardly a case to be presented at a special inquiry and it is to cover such cases that Bill C-85 is before us.
This year two international events will turn the eyes of the world to Canada: the United Nations Habitat conference to be held in Vancouver in June, and the summer Olympics to be held in Montreal in July. With these in mind, this party gives approval to Bill C-85 notwithstanding some of the caveats I have placed before the House. Personally, I should have liked to see the expiry date changed from December 31, 1976, to July 31 or the end of August. Those of us who sat many long hours on the joint committee to study immigration policy-I know some of us have not recovered from that exercise yet, and probably never will-are anxiously awaiting the new Immigration Act which we hope will reflect some of the recommendations of the committee. Meanwhile, we accept the minister's explanation for the December 31 date.
I was gratified and immensely relieved when the winter Olympics at Innsbruck, Austria, concluded recently without any terrorist incidents. Those of us who watched television could tell there was a lot of security evident, but nothing happened such as happened in Munich in 1972. I hope the spirit that was evident at Innsbruck will prevail in Montreal in 1976. We all know that international terrorists can strike anywhere with lightning speed. With international jet travel it can happen in the Netherlands, Vienna, the Philippines or, for that matter, in North America. Any attempt to prevent incidents such as have been experienced in the past has the support of this party.
One thing that concerns me deeply is the tremendous outlay of funds and manpower on the summer Olympics of 1976. In the two-week period of the Olympics we will spend more on security than has been spent on physical fitness or amateur sport in a year. Maybe that is an indictment of our society. It is obviously not the fault of the minister, and I am not trying to suggest that. However, it is a sobering thought and a terrible testimony to the society in which we live in 1976. Possibly we on this side of the House differ from the government about the cost of the Olympics and the benefits that may accrue to Canadians generally. Many of us are resolved that the Prime Minister's statement that Canadian taxpayers generally will not be asked to pay for any deficit incurred will be adhered to.
Despite the differences that there may be, despite the construction delays, strikes and the clouds that have sur-
Immigration Security Act
rounded the Olympics, I believe we are all agreed that every precaution must be taken and no effort spared to prevent an incident such as that which occurred at the 1972 Olympics in Munich. If this bill in some small measure can assure that prevention, it has our support. While many of us might have reservations about the discretionary powers that the bill embodies, we nevertheless pledge our support and will see that it receives speedy passage.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Madam Speaker, we are also anxious to expedite passage of this bill. We appreciate that there will be a large number of visitors coming to Canada this year to see the Olympic Games and for other purposes. On the basis of experience there is real danger, in such circumstances, of acts of violence. We agree that whatever is possible should be done by our security forces and by the law to enable the government to deal with these threats and to ensure that as far as possible no disorders occur. We believe the provisions of the present Immigration Act dealing with this matter are entirely inadequate.
Included in the prohibited classes under the present act are people who committed crimes or admit having committed crimes, people who are members of so-called subversive organizations or who are supposed to be involved in sabotage or activities detrimental to the security of Canada. These provisions were drafted a good many years ago, however, and are quite unsatisfactory now. The definitions are vague and in some cases virtually meaningless. There are gaps which make them quite inappropriate to present conditions.
The joint committee on immigration has recommended changes to these sections. We would therefore have preferred that the Immigration Act itself be amended on a permanent basis to take care of the new order of things in which it seems there are groups of people in different parts of the world anxious to secure their political ends and to attract attention to their political causes by acts of violence, hijacking and other forms of terrorism. However, we are persuaded by the minister that there is a necessity for speed, and we have been impressed by the fact that the minister has made it clear that the Immigration Act is to be revised and comprehensive legislation introduced before the end of the year. Notwithstanding that, it is necessary to deal with the special sections of this legislation because of the Olympics situation and the unusual circumstances.
When we had the opportunity to see the earlier draft of this bill, we had two objections. One was the word "terrorist" which was used to define the persons liable to be deported under the act. We thought this was too vague. However, the government has seen fit to expand the definition and we are perfectly satisfied with the new version which refers to acts of violence which would, or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada. We appreciate the minister's action in this respect.
The other objection, however, remains. The present wording confers on the minister and, what is more important, in effect his officials, the right to deport on the basis of purely subjective judgments, without review or appeal. I say it confers this power on the officials because there will be perhaps thousands of cases and the minister cannot deal with all of them himself. We do not think this is

February 26, 1976
Immigration Security Act
necessary, and we will move an amendment to add after the words "in his opinion" the words "on reasonable grounds". It would still remain basically the minister's judgment as to whether a person should be deported, and we doubt very much whether, with the amendment we propose, the courts would be disposed to interfere. We think it wrong that the minister and his officials should have the unfettered discretion to order deportation. We think it wrong that even in clear cases, for example, of mistaken identity the right of the court to intervene should be entirely removed.
Many hundreds of thousands of people come to this country as visitors and it is often said that they have no rights. We repudiate this theory. Of course they have no rights except those given to them by parliament and this country. If we choose to confer on those who come to Canada for the Olympic Games or other purposes the right to question the objective opinions of the minister or his officials, we shall, in that sense, give them rights and in that sense they have rights and deserve consideration. We believe it would be well for us, in our laws dealing with visitors to this country, to continue to show respect for the judicial process, individual rights and human dignity.
We have included in the proposed amendment a new subsection which would protect, as the minister says, against disclosure of information prejudicial to the security of Canada. I understand that there is general agreement for this bill to be dealt with promptly. We do not intend to make our contribution lengthy on second reading or in committee. We hope to see the bill passed promptly but believe it would be much improved by the amendment we suggest.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak briefly on this bill which, although not long, is significant. I listened carefully to the minister's introductory remarks and reasons for introducing this bill. Let me say here and now that I concur with the remarks of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). This bill has been introduced to cope with security difficulties. Soon, two major events are to take place in this country and acts of terrorism might be anticipated. On the whole, the minister's arguments did not convince me, but I will not go into detail. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood addresses itself to the problem of security. If necessary, I shall be happy to speak on the amendment later at greater length.
Proposals for dealing with visitors to this country who may contravene our laws, without reasons being given for the actions taken, are dangerous. Such legislation would constitute a dangerous precedent which we should not accept lightly.
I realize that the reasons for this legislation are of the utmost importance. Nevertheless, despite the most strenuous security precautions, as the hon. member for Provencher said, one cannot be certain that acts of violence will not occur at either of the two major international events which will take place in this country. I call as my witness the events of the last decade and a half. We have seen the assassination of a president, of a president's

brother, and of other outstanding citizens despite stringent security precautions. In the final analysis, there is little one can do to prevent the most tragic, the most diabolical of incidents occurring.
Therefore, even though we will give this legislation speedy passage, we shall not ensure that which the minister seeks when asking for approval of this bill. The minister suggested that this bill, a most illiberal measure in parts, is to be temporary. We know only too well how this government's temporary measures tend to become permanent. It gives me little pleasure to say that this government's track record in keeping so-called short-term, temporary measures short term and temporary is not good. The public order bill passed in the latter part of 1970 was to be a short-term measure. Yet shortly after it was rooted there was almost universal rejection of its principles which were not acceptable to those concerned about civil liberties in this country.
Because of the public outcry against that legislation, the government so far has not introduced what it called a permanent replacement for the War Measures Act. However, it introduced the temporary public order bill. Frankly, I am worried about this short-term measure. It is not that I do not trust the present minister; I have the greatest respect for him. All the same, I think it unwise to give any minister a blank cheque, which is exactly what this legislation asks of us.
The minister assured the House that this legislation will not abrogate normal appeal procedures. That is an important assurance, confirmed by the third paragraph of the bill. I remind the minister, it is one thing to maintain appeal procedures but quite another to deny evidence and material which is necessary if the appeal procedure is to work fairly. Therefore, the minister's assurance is not plausible. I say this with the greatest respect. The assurance cannot be effective if the most vital ingredient of all, the evidence on which the deportation order is based, cannot be made available to the individual involved.
I am as anxious as anyone to give the minister full opportunity to deal with potential or actual acts of violence or terrorism. We hope such acts will not occur in our two forthcoming major international events. Of course, we must consider this kind of legislation in its correct perspective. When people remember what happened at the Munich games, at the international conference of oil ministers, and to other athletes who were either kidnapped or murdered there is a terrible tendency for them to think that we can prevent a repetition of these tragic events by suspending the normal workings of the immigration process or the process governing the movement of individuals across our national borders. The danger is that we shall take the simplistic view and legislate against that which has already happened.
I know that officials may have convinced the minister he needs this authority. I would urge all members to take into account the significance of what the minister said in connection with this legislation. Perhaps later this year, when we are dealing with the permanent legislation which is to be presented to us, we could be given a detailed report telling us how important this legislative provision really was. Indeed, we might receive a report from others, not just from the minister, so that we shall not too easily be
February 26, 1976

led into passing legislative measures similar to this one which I think would not be in the best interests of the country and which would certainly not provide the rights which individuals have come to expect from Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Morin in the chair.
On clause 2-Minister may make deportation order.
Francis Andrew Brewin: Madam Chairman, I move:
That the Temporary Immigration Security Act, clause 2, be amended by adding after the words in line 10 "in his opinion", the words "on reasonable grounds" and that subclause (2) be added as follows:
"Nothing in this section shall be deemed to require the production before any court of tribunal of any sources of information whose disclosure the minister certifies would be prejudicial to the security of Canada."
I have already sought to explain the reason for this amendment. It is to introduce into this process something of a judicial nature so that the discretion of the minister or of his officials will not be absolute. I appreciate the danger which may exist if some of the information secured by the minister came from confidential security sources whose disclosure would be damaging or prejudicial to the security of the state. That is the reason for subclause (2).
I merely want to add that when one is thinking in terms of perhaps a million visitors-I do not know the exact figure; certainly it is likely to be hundreds of thousands- it is of the utmost importance to Canada's international relationships and friendships that the rest of the world should have an opportunity to see our judicial process in action. I am sure all members will agree we should do our best to prevent any possibility of arbitrary action. I do not accuse the minister of being disposed to arbitrary action in any way and, indeed, I have some respect for our immigration officials, but I do know that mistakes can be made, that prejudice can exist and that things can be done that should not be done. This is why I have moved the amendment which has just been read to the House.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Chairman, I have a word or two with respect to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood. I should state from the outset that it has our support. This matter was of concern to us earlier in our discussions with the minister. The minister felt he would be placed in an untenable position if we simply added the words "on reasonable grounds", but I believe the subclause referred to by the hon. member for Greenwood takes care of this objection and that the powers of the bill will remain. Reasons must now be given, but a person to be expelled or deported does not have the right to a hearing by a tribunal.


Robert Knight Andras: Since the question raised by the hon. member for Provencher pertains, in the main, to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Greenwood, perhaps I could respond to both hon. members and also take an opportunity to deal with other comments made on second reading. I might say they relate to concerns which I share. The hon. member for Greenwood, if I understood him correctly, indicated that there might be thousands of cases. Frankly, we anticipate that this power would rarely
Immigration Security Act
be used. I hope to goodness it will be rarely necessary to use it: I say this because of reasons for it. I can tell hon. members, from where I have sat as minister of immigration for some three years, that there is no question in my mind as to the need for this provision. I speak in terms of the current situation, and I shall obviously not deal with that aspect in detail. We need this provision now.
The hon. member for Egmont expressed concern about the implications of such an amendment in the long term. I simply say to him that to extend the period for which provision is now being made would require further legislation. As I have said, there will be an opportunity when a significant and, I hope, profound immigration bill is placed before the House, to deal with this kind of question and other aspects of security as related to immigration in the wider context of a more general debate. The bill before us is not, by its nature, a permanent one. Of course, its very existence opens up debate on these issues, but there is no way in which it could be extended beyond the envisaged date in the absence of parliamentary approval.
Of course, action of this kind brings no surety that we can avoid violence or problems of a security nature at the Olympics or elsewhere. But with my awareness of the situation, one which I have shared with hon. members even during the course of this brief debate, I believe this is a reasonable measure to take and I would certainly not want to stand before Canada eight or ten months from now without having taken the action I am proposing. Nor do I think any other hon. member would wish to share the ignominy of having neglected to take that measure, recognizing full well that we cannot plug every hole or apprehend every person who might be a danger to us. The bill is not a blank cheque. I say this in the sense that it does not extend powers which I do not already possess. I already have the power to remove a person who has been admitted to Canada, but there is a weakness in the act which in the past, I suppose, we really did not realize existed. I suppose we were not alerted to the new wave of terrorism and violent acts that have already been alluded to by hon. members in their comments, but the impending Olympics did alert us to the fact that there is a soft spot in the act.
I already have the power, Madam Chairman, arbitrarily at my discretion, to deport persons after they have been admitted to Canada. As the act now reads, at the border, at the port of entry, it requires our officers, who would not be in possession of this evidence for reasons already placed before you, to admit in the absence of a reason not to. So I would be in the silly position of having to let a person in and then having to trump up or find a reason later to apprehend him and turn him around. But I can do that now without appeal, so there is no change whatever in the appeal structure.
This power, which bothers all of us-this question of arbitrariness-already exists in another form, too, in our immigration law, and that is in the application of section 21 of the act. Even where the appeal right does exist, as it does now for landed immigrants, for refugees, for Canadian citizens where there is a doubt about their papers or the validity of their claim to citizenship, and for non-immigrants with a visa, we can and still do-and unfortunately

February 26, 1976
Immigration Security Act
have had to in some 40 cases in the last eight or nine years-submit to the Immigration Appeal Board what we call a section 21 certificate, which in fact is a guillotine on the use of the Immigration Appeal Board's compassionate and humanitarian jurisdiction. It is based totally on a statement by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, with the co-operation and collaboration of the Solicitor General, that evidence available to us of a security and intelligence nature indicates that this person should not be granted that compassionate jurisdiction because of a threat to the security-criminal, subversive or terrorist-of the state.
As I say, Madam Chairman, the principle really has been established. One can argue that it is Draconian, but it exists in almost every state in the world that I know of. In Britain the Home Secretary has more Draconian powers than those I am asking for here. The same applies in the United States, I believe in Sweden, and I think in all countries that we are inclined to agree fit into our pattern of democratic, civil libertarian traditions. We are certainly not stretching beyond that.
The appeal right where it exists, and we are not changing anything there, of course, would be more in the sense of identification. Is this the person to whom my evidence or my decision applies? That already exists in the Immigration Appeal Board so we are not changing anything there. Already visitors can be deported or prevented from coming in where there are other reasons to refuse them, without appeal rights, so it is not a question of access to identification. That is the Immigration Appeal Board Act argument which again we will have the opportunity of dealing with when the main bill is before the House.
Coming now directly and specifically to the amendment that has been placed before us by the hon. member for Greenwood, we had a pretty fair discussion about this, as indeed I had with members of the official opposition and others, and I really did search my soul to see if we could accept this amendment. I am not a lawyer, but I have been advised-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Good for you.


Robert Knight Andras: I say that with respect to the many in the House who are. However, I have sought independent confirmation of the advice given me by the law offices of the Crown, because it was a legal debate, as I recall in our private discussions, as to where the words "on reasonable grounds" would fit, what they actually did in the end. I regret to say that I only saw the amendment itself in the last few minutes when the hon. member for Greenwood tabled it. I have looked at it to see if the additional subclause would in fact relieve me of the difficulty that the additional words "on reasonable grounds" would have placed me in, and I regret to say that I do not think I can accommodate him. It will, of course, be for the will of the House, but I must oppose it. First, with regard to "on reasonable grounds", that seems like a very fair expression. But the very nature of my dilemma is that I cannot produce that evidence, those reasonable grounds, in a court or before a special inquiry. It is the nature of the source and type of information that I have; this is where the dilemma lies.

I am told by the legally trained people that there is an implied requirement for the minister and for the Crown to act in a responsible manner. If there were an overt abrogation of that, with or without the words "on reasonable grounds" in the amendment there is some recourse, and I presume there is the general constitutional, Bill of Rights approach to it. That is implied. I think it has been accepted by the courts that a minister, given that kind of power, must in fact use it honourably, or sooner or later, through public opinion, etc., he and the government are going to get it in the neck.
Unfortunately, I think the subclause (2) proposed in the amendment, which has been designed, I know very sincerely, to relieve me of the problem I have described-that is, of producing the evidence-is itself a contradiction. If, on the one hand, there are reasonable grounds, which is assumed anyway, that on their own would require deportation, how are you going to establish that? I cannot produce the evidence before anybody, for reasons which I have described. The amendment goes on to say:
Nothing in this section shall be deemed to require the production before any court or tribunal of the sources of information whose disclosure the minister certifies will be prejudicial to the security of Canada.
With respect, I think that is meaningless. The hon. member is saying you have to establish reasonable grounds and then is saying, "Don't produce any evidence". There are reasonable grounds and I cannot produce the evidence. That is the nature of the evidence that I have. So I think the amendment is a little off base there. There is a more precise and narrow limitation to the amendment, I think, had I been able to accept it, or if the House were able to accept it-which I hope will not be the case-which is a little bothersome too. The amendment makes reference to "prejudicial to the security of Canada". There are incidents or situations, I hope hypothetical and which I tried to describe in my opening comments on second reading, which I suppose would be indirectly prejudicial to the security of Canada. But we could have dangerous people motivated to attack individuals in this country which might not necessarily endanger the security of Canada. One questions whether the events at Munich, as reprehensible and tragic as they were, endangered the security of West Germany.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Not in total, but surely partially.


Robert Knight Andras: I agree. As I say, if I could find my way to accept the general intent of the amendment, I would suggest that that wording "prejudicial to the security of Canada" be tidied up a little.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, "security in Canada", not "of Canada".


Robert Knight Andras: The amendment I have reads, "security of Canada". Anyway, by virtue of my argument I regret I cannot accept the amendment, and I therefore look to the House to join me in my views and not vote for the amendment. When we come to the measures that we will be proposing in the new main immigration legislation, I shall very much value the points that have been made and I shall see what I can do. We shall have the opportunity of considering alternatives to this temporary bill.
February 26, 1976


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich I should like to put the amendment to the House. It is moved by the hon. member for Greenwood-
-that the Temporary Immigration Security Act, clause 2, be amended by adding after the words in line 10 thereof, "in his opinion", the words, "on reasonable grounds"; and that a subsection (2) be added as follows: "Nothing in this section shall be deemed to require the production before any court or tribunal of the sources of information whose disclosure the minister certifies will be prejudicial to the security of Canada."


Donald W. Munro: Madam Chairman, I should like to say a few words in the general context of this amendment. Bearing in mind that deportation has a long-term effect on the individual concerned, it would mean that the person would never again have the chance to apply for admission to Canada, unless of course the minister gave his approval. I am wondering if this "reasonable grounds" notion that has been put forward in the amendment might not be a safeguard against an unintended misuse of the statutory discretion that is given the minister now, under this particular bill, to deport a person. If there were a mistake made-and one could be made, with all the best intentions in the world, on the part of the minister-and an individual were deported but a year later sought admission to this country, how could that person again get in?


Robert Knight Andras: Madam Chairman, any person deported cannot enter the country again without the consent of the minister. I can tell you from practice that from time to time, where a person has been deported, a deportation order executed and the person removed, and circumstances have changed and an appeal has been made to me or my predecessor-this goes back perhaps to the days when Ellen Fairclough was sitting here, so I am not talking about parties-the minister has the power to admit that person who had been deported. Indeed, in some cases people who have been deported have applied for landed immigrant status and have been granted such because of rehabilitation or other reasons. These are individual cases, and one has to examine the facts.
The fact is that visitors in the category to which this bill will apply do not now have appeal rights. This contemplates no change whatsoever in the appeal system. It does not add or subtract from the category of people who have the right to appeal to the board or the courts. It makes no change there at all. There is no change to the principles that already have been established, as I indicated earlier, under which I can summarily deport such people from the country. What I cannot do is stop them at the border. The bill extends that power so I can do this at the border.
I do not want to go into too much detail, for rather obvious reasons, but I have experienced situations where time is of the essence. I assure hon. members, with every degree of sincerity I can muster here, without going into too much detail, that time is of the essence in some of these situations. It is not good enough, if we believe in the power that is already in the act under which I can deport visitors who are dangerous, to do it after the fact rather than before. That is what we are asking for here.
Immigration Security Act


Mr. Lachance:: Madam Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Charles Robert Turner: The hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) on a point of order.


Claude-André Lachance: Would it be possible to know whether we on this side of the House can be recognized at the same rate as the other side of the House, Madam Chairman? I have been rising for about four or five minutes.


Charles Robert Turner: Government members will be recognized at the same rate as members sitting on the other side of the House. For the time being I recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Chairman, I will be very brief. However, I wonder whether the minister is not influenced by the general attitude in his department.

What I am saying is that this almost becomes an occupational hazard in the department and that practically any information is withheld even from the people concerned. If it becomes a matter of health or some physical disability that is discovered on examination, the whole blessed rigmarole has to be gone through again, with doctors consulting doctors; but the person involved cannot be advised. If it is a matter of assigning points, and so forth and so on, that again is not disclosed. It formerly was disclosed, but this immigration process has gone into a shell, which I submit is totally wrong.
There should be a fairness in this matter. I know the minister takes the view that this sounds to be fair. With the greatest respect, this has coloured the minister's reaction to what I think is a very legitimate proposition by the hon. member for Greenwood. Perhaps the language of his amendment might be more felicitous in respect of one or two points which might take away from the difficulties the minister foresees, but surely to goodness it is fair.
We are dealing with a very tough thing. We saw the excesses of October, 1970. There is a tendency here, when dealing administratively, nicely and neatly, to overreact. The minister admits he is not a lawyer. The giving of reasons is not giving of the evidence; that is the point I want to make. The minister does not have to disclose the source of information or the nature of the danger a person involved poses to security in Canada-not security "of" Canada, security "in" Canada. This covers Canadians and visitors here under the umbrella of security. I would not expect the minister to disclose the evidence.
The proviso introduced by the hon. member for Greenwood is correct because it leaves to the minister the discretion he desires in relation to a duly signed certificate under which the minister exercises his responsibility. It would not be in the public interest to disclose the information or the source of that information, but surely that is all that can be expected. The individual and the public surely must, and should, know that an individual has been deported or barred from Canada because his presence here could pose a threat to security in Canada. That is a reason-

February 26, 1976
Immigration Security Act
able suggestion and I find the reasoning of the minister somewhat difficult to understand.
There was another point I wanted to cover, but it has slipped my mind for the moment. Perhaps it will come back to me later. In the meantime, I will yield the floor to other hon. members who want, and have, the right to speak on this matter.


Claude-André Lachance: The minister said there was no doubt in his mind that the powers Bill C-85 gives him were absolutely necessary to fight possible abuses that could occur during the 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal if known terrorists had access to the Olympic site, for example, via the US-Canada border which is relatively easy to cross.
My question is as follows. First, since this bill is meant to cover the 1976 Olympic Games and to protect both athletes and Canadians in 1976 why-and it would seem the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) knows the answer but we on this side do not-why is the expiry date of Bill C-85 December 31, 1976 rather than the actual end of the Olympics? I do not know that date. Will it be in late July or early August? And second, does the minister consider-he did not say in his remarks-that the powers granted under Bill C-85 could be included in the new version of the Immigration Act that should be before the House at the end of the year-a revised and corrected version, of course, and hopefully with sophisticated powers? Furthermore, is consideration being given to including those powers in the future Immigration Act because I consider it to be necessary for the protection of Canadian citizens to control arbitrarily the entry into Canada of terrorists or other undesirable aliens?


Robert Knight Andras: Madam Chairman, I think earlier I indicated the answer to that question. I believe the hon. member has in his final comments indicated the reasons. This weakness in the act, if it is a weakness-and of course we were stimulated by our concern about the Olympics particularly and primarily, and Habitat, as well as some other events scheduled for this year-is because we wanted to bridge that period until such time as this House could deal permanently with the matter.
This is emergency legislation, but we have made the commitment-and I feel very definitely that the commitment will be met-that we will be placing before this forum the more profound immigration bill and new policies which are being developed now. Unquestionably, this area of concern will have to be dealt with. I want the House to have the opportunity to deal with it in a broader context than this particular situation permits, or the time or emergency permits, and indeed I want to bridge that period but with a definite expiry date which is December 31, 1976. With this time-frame and these conditions and events, we had in mind the setting of the date. We looked at 60 days, or even precisely the end of the Olympics. We felt we needed a clean-up period and thought it would be wise to provide for the other bill to come in, at which time the matter in broader context than this will be placed before the House.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with what I think is at the heart of the minister's objection to placing in this particular legislative provision some protection against abuse. At one point in his speech the minister, in speaking to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood, said his problem was that he cannot in this current situation reveal either the nature, the source or the type of information he would have with regard to the possible exercise of this provision. I think that is at the heart of what we are trying to deal with this afternoon. The minister stated this as being the prime reason for requesting these Draconian powers.
I think he is assuming something all members of the House are supposed to assume, which is that indeed the sources and the information in themselves would be impeccable. I think this is what disturbs many members and quite a few people in the country. We know only too well that what is being dealt with often by way of information that would come to the minister is not in fact information that would come from convictions, from events that would be well known and for which individuals would have been convicted in their own country. We are not, I expect, in effect dealing with people who are so well known to the police authorities that it would be obvious they are people who should not be admitted to our country.
What we will be dealing with, and what I suspect the minister is dealing with in the way of privileged information given to him by his officials, is in the nature of dossiers, information and reports acquired not only by police officials but by various kinds of informers in other countries. It is not necessary to mention the countries from which this information comes.
We know that in many instances the information that is relayed is information as much of a political nature as of a criminal nature. This is what makes the exercise of this act so difficult. We are being asked to give the minister power in respect of information which can, and frankly will, be coloured by the nature of political opinions and political authorities in a host of different countries. The minister receives this information, often filtered as well by those who exercise positions of responsibility, particularly in situations where there may be a considerable amount of political turmoil in their country, which suggests to the minister that certain people are not appropriate to be admitted to this country and could in fact endanger the lives of others.
Of course, the minister will have to take his responsibility. No one, certainly not myself, would deny him the full ability to take that responsibility. What concerns many of us, I believe, is the very fact that the minister feels there might be a certain endangering of our citizens in making this information public-I know he must be very concerned about this-and that he could on occasion in fact not only be poorly advised but could be given information which could be, in effect, largely untrue.
In trying to deal with this legislation, I attempted to see whether there was no other way to get around this problem. I had hoped that the minister's consultations with the law officers of the Crown, and independent legal advice, Would have indicated that he had some safeguards for these difficulties. He might have suggested, perhaps in place of the recommendation of the hon. member for
February 26, 1976

Greenwood, that the responsibility might be shared for this brief period by someone who has full knowledge of the immigration laws of this country and great responsibility for them. In this case I think of the chairman of the Immigration Appeal Board. In that way at least there would be one additional safeguard.
Quite frankly, this is the part of the legislative initiative which concerns me most. I have seen certain aspects of this over the past few months in respect of communications being transmitted. Let us take, for instance, Interpol. It is well known that Interpol has received a good deal of criticism in recent months, particularly in the United States where there have been certain congressional investigations. Because Interpol is not a public but is, rather, a private police agency it can, in effect, be used by those who would not have the best interests either of their country or a number of individuals at heart.
That is why I am not at all happy with the provisions being requested by the minister. There are no safeguards whereby Canadians can be assured that the minister will not make decisions on the basis of information which is heavily politically coloured and may therefore, in effect, deprive individuals of rights which they would normally expect to receive from this country. I know the nature of the problem here is most serious and requires the responsibility of all members of this House, but without some kind of assurance concerning safeguards I am not happy to leave the bill in its present state. I hope the minister, with his officials, will find some acceptable compromise which would give the assurance which I think members on all sides of the House seek.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Madam Chairman, if we had unlimited time I would find it very interesting to discuss with the minister some of the legal opinions he seems to have received from the law officers of the Crown which I find mystifying in the extreme from my experience as a lawyer. I shall confine myself to considering, with the hon. member for Edmonton West, some of the real points which exist here. There is a distinction that has been drawn between evidence, certainly the substance of evidence, and the reasons for taking an action which could be disclosed in many cases without revelation of the confidential sources. The minister has a perfect right in those cases, under the amendment we propose, to file a certificate in respect of the security of Canada.
There was a very clear illustration of this on an even graver matter, and that was the internment of people during the war who were suspected of being close to one of the powers we were fighting against. Originally, under the defence of Canada regulations, when many people were interned nothing whatever was disclosed as to the reasons. The minister was not required to say a word. But a tribunal was set up which was given the power to require the minister or his officials to give general particulars without giving details of names or sources. This was done and it worked perfectly well. That is the procedure which I think would be highly appropriate in this particular situation. It is not every fact that comes under the provisions of subclause (2), not everything that affects security. There may be the most open evidence of certain acts of violence which have nothing to do with confidential sources. Why, in those cases, should there not be disclosure?
Immigration Security Act
There are other matters which I would rather like to discuss with the minister, but in view of our undertaking to be brief I will not pursue them at this stage. I am glad he thinks the debate has been useful. Certainly when we get on to permanent legislation we may have to debate this matter at greater length and with greater care than we have today, when the circumstances require us to act quickly.


Robert Knight Andras: Madam Chairman, I am attempting to resist the temptation to rise again because, as we have all indicated privately and publicly, we have time problems. I will simply say this. The hon. member for Egmont has put his finger on the problem. I do not think he has resolved it.
I am trying to. We already have the situation in section 21, and it is more Draconian there if one accepts that a landed immigrant has acquired more rights by far than a temporary visitor to this country with whom this act deals. I totally accept the necessity to take my responsibility under section 21. Believe me, both he and I have been through this on a few occasions and have looked very carefully at that evidence.
With respect to the point made by the hon. member for Edmonton West, the possibility exists that you do get influenced by your officials, and indeed my concern is that the train of events can lead to that. I am totally conscious of that. I will say this much, that when we come to the immigration bill I will have some ideas which we are exploring now. Unfortunately, time does not permit their association with this quick job which I have to do because of the Olympics coming up. We are exploring avenues and mechanisms by which to lessen the confidentiality aspect of sources of information and yet try to get an independent view of the judgment which must be applied to that information. I am totally conscious of that and I have some ideas which I am discussing with my colleagues. I assume they will surface when we present the package to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Bring on the package.


Robert Knight Andras: I respected the admonition of the joint committee that I not develop policies in the back room and then spring them on the people of this country. That is the reason we have this time lag to a degree. As the hon. member for Greenwood has indicated, I will welcome a debate at greater length on the permanent legislation. I am quite sure it will be a more detailed debate, with more concrete proposals to try to resolve to some degree this dilemma of the confidentiality of this kind of information, and therefore evidence that I can present now because these matters are all interrelated.
There are many versions of what that mechanism could be and how it could work. I do not have the final version in my mind, frankly, although I have definite ideas. I am in a position to say that that debate, on the permanent legislation, will come later. Regrettably, I cannot become enthusiastic about the proposals in the amendment because if I were asked by a court for reasonable grounds, and then said to the court that I was not required to produce evidence, they could say, "Therefore we will reverse the deportation order." I would be in a real jam then.
As to the comments made by the hon. member for Edmonton West, he is right. I worry sometimes about

Adjournment Motion
confidentiality throughout the whole government on some occasions when we are a little cautious. But the particular case of certificates under section 21 and what I am proposing here is quite different from the matter of how many points a person has accumulated. I am open to see how we can open that area of information more, but I know that this one must be kept confidential although I do want to find some cushion of independent examination which can help me make those kinds of decisions without the concern I have often felt when I have been looking at these files in the middle of the night and have had to make a decision rather quickly as a lonely person, and I know that my colleague has felt the same way. I have some ideas on that question but I cannot put them in place at this time; they will have to await the major legislation.
Amendment (Mr. Brewin) negatived: Yeas, 26; nays, 32.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath)-National Defence-Reason for delay in starting search for missing fishermen-Possible reassessment of search and rescue capability; the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie)-Regional Economic Expansion-Liaison with Manpower in reporting job opportunities in companies funded by department; the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)-Transport-Possible discussions on use of Manhattan to move oil through northern waters.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has been agreed that for private members' business we will proceed to private bills and to Bill S-30 which stands on the order paper for Thursday, February 26, at page 13.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it understood and agreed that the House will proceed to the consideration of Bill S-30?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand, however, that there are some procedural arguments to be put forward in respect to the consideration of that bill.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-30, to incorporate Continental Bank of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: There are a number of motions placed on the order paper at the report stage the first of which is in the name of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I may use a phrase our new leader used yesterday, "Here we go." That is so because at this point I suggest that all the motions appearing in the name of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) are out of order in the place in which they are positioned. If one consults our Standing Orders, chapter III of Standing Order 75, and bears in mind that the order paper posts these private bills under Standing Order 75 and then gives notice that there are motions under Standing Order 75, I suggest first that that is an abuse of language. All the rules under chapter XIII come under the heading of proceedings on public bills.
Then chapter XVIII appears at page 91 of our Standing Orders, and it deals with private bills. Chapter XVIII specifically states that any bill dealing with incorporation of a bank shall be a private bill, and the reason private bills dealing with the incorporation of banks or dealing with insurance companies go to the Senate first is the difficulty of incorporating them in this House, or proceeding with them in this House and getting them before this House for consideration. There used to be so many private bills here with regard to divorces which were dealt with in this chamber, that a private bill to incorporate a bank just could not be considered. So the procedure always was in reverse.
I suggest that the chaptering, paging and numbering of our Standing Orders has meaning and relevance. I think it is quite wrong to consider a bill which comes down the route from the other place, a private bill sponsored in this House, coming through the private members' channels, being considered in committee, coming back and then suddenly appearing under provisions which deal with public bills. I suggest that that is wrong. There is Standing Order 75(5) under which we are alleged to be working with the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge. The procedure at this moment under which Your Honour is proceeding is 75(8), but of equal import is Standing Order 109, which is found in chapter XVIII, and I cite it as follows:
No important amendment may be proposed to any private bill in the House unless one day's notice of the same has been given.
I agree that the hon. member has conformed to notice, but under a heading dealing with public bills and rules of procedure purporting to deal with public bills. I remember the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) many years ago, when a bill was coming down the pipe from the Senate and there was an amendment suggested which
February 26, 1976

went to the heart of the bill, quite successfully utilizing what is now Standing Order 109 in order to block the amendment, as he quite properly was entitled to do. This is quite a meaningful amendment, but Standing Order 109 says that no important amendment may be proposed to any private bill in the House unless one day's notice of the same has been given. I also draw to the attention of the House Standing Order 116 which provides:
Except as herein otherwise provided, the Standing Orders relating to public bills shall apply to private bills.
However, our Standing Orders do apply with regard to amendments to private bills; therefore, Standing Order 116 is exhausted and cannot be used to bring in Standing Order 75(5), which apparently someone thinks is the procedure. What we have before us is a committee report and the motion should be as to the acceptance of that committee report with any rights of debate or amendment, which I do not think exist, at that time for the adoption or the rejection of the report. What the hon. member is trying to do indirectly, he cannot do directly: he is trying to kill the bill.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He is trying to kill the bill, because his second amendment deletes any reference to provisional directors, which is required under the Bank Act. He moves to delete the whole of clause 2(2) which names by reference the provisional directors and a number of other things. I suggest that the only avenue open to the hon. member is not putting down those amendments, but to vote against the motion to adopt the report, and at a latter stage, at third reading-if we reach that-then the hon. member is limited to third reading amendments and recommitment with a recommendation. Then he can draw up all the amendments he wants.


Mr. Peters:: Why do we have report stage, then?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member asks why we have report stage, but he is confusing it with the procedure on public bills. Our rule book has particularly divided chapters, some dealing with public bills and some distinctly with private bills. I ask, why proceed, under public bills, with a private bill? My final argument is that if we are proceeding with a private bill under the public bills section, then the government should adopt the bill because public bills, if they are of this nature, and government bills should appear under government orders, not in the Thursday afternoon slot every second week. This is the point I want to have clarified.
It has been pointed out to me that there have been previous occasions on which a private bill has been proceeded with under the report stage procedure. That was Bill S-7, in February, 1969; and Bill S-6, on February 13, 1969, to which the same hon. member put down an amendment that clause 1 of the said bill be deleted. I recall the incident, Mr. Speaker. It was soon after this new procedure had been adopted. With the greatest respect, the Table and the Chair misled themselves in that the bill in each case was a one-clause bill, as I recall it. One was providing a French name for the Canada Trust Company, and the
Continental Bank of Canada
other concerned its affiliate, the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation. Those amendments were put down in the name of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There was one reason why the amendment should not have been accepted. The amendment was an expanded negative. The alternative was to vote against the bill, because deleting the one and only clause in the bill was, of course, negating the bill. It was an expanded negative and should not have been accepted. I say, with the greatest respect, if this is to be the principal precedent on which this present procedure is founded, then it is extremely thin ice on which to walk. I think it must be established once and for all that there are rules for public bills and rules for private bills. Each must be respected and they must not be confounded. With the greatest respect to all, sir, it is my view that they have been terribly confounded on this particular occasion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before hearing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I want to be clear that we are not dealing with an argument about the individual motions themselves, which were referred to by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) in his presentation, as attempting to do indirectly what the hon. member could not do directly; that is to say, indicating they were in fact negativing the provisions of the bill rather than voting against it.
That may be an argument when the House moves to individual motions, but I take it that is not the point at this moment. The procedure which is being proposed by placing the motions in the name of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) on the order paper pursuant to Standing Order 75(5) is the procedure used in public bills for report stage after consideration by committee. The point made by the hon. member for Edmonton West is that that procedure ought to be followed on public bills and not on private bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, even though I disagree with the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), I appreciate the clear way in which he has stated his case and I appreciate also the fact that he has forced us to consider the very point that Your Honour has now identified. At this point the hon. member for Edmonton West is trying to argue that it is not open to a member of this House to put down report stage amendments to private bills. I disagree with him thoroughly and I thank him for drawing attention to the Standing Orders and citations and precedents-which I think are on my side of the argument rather than his.
As for the argument that Standing Order 75 is in chapter 13 of the book which is headed proceedings on public bills and that therefore you cannot use any of the rules or rights in that chapter on private bills, may I point out there are all kinds of rules all though the book that are not repeated in the chapter on private bills. There is no repetition of the rule about 20-minute speeches, voting procedures or any of those things. They do not need to be repeated. As a matter of fact, I do not think the chapter headings can be used to any great extent at all as to what is meant. The very

February 26, 1976
Continental Bank of Canada
Standing Order that the hon. member quoted, namely, Standing Order 116, the last one in the book, it seems to me was put there to answer the very point the hon. member is now raising. It says, in very clear language:
Except as herein otherwise provided, the Standing Orders relating to public bills shall apply to private bills.
If it were not a tradition around here that when you have an argument you develop it and use all the words you can think of, perhaps I should sit down on that point. Standing Order 116 says that the rules of chapter 13 apply.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It says "except as herein otherwise provided."


Stanley Howard Knowles: But there is no provision in the chapter on private bills which says that the rules regarding report stage amendments do not apply to private bills, any more than there is a provision in chapter 18 which says that the rules on 20-minute speeches do not apply. You do not have to repeat all of the rules in every chapter. I suggest it is clear that unless there is a rule somewhere that says there shall be no report stage amendments to private bills, report stage amendments are in order by virtue of Standing Order 116 and also by virtue of the language in Standing Order 75, which in all its parts refers to bills. Also, the standing order does not talk about public, private or government bills; it says "bills".
By the way, is my hon. friend going to make a distinction some day between public bills and government bills? When a private member has a public bill before the House, it comes under Standing Order 75 and a report stage amendment can be moved with respect to it. Likewise, a government bill is brought back at the report stage. Government bills are brought back subject to report stage amendments, and I have not heard anyone say, "It is a government bill and you cannot do this, because report stage amendments are provided in chapter 13, which has to do with proceedings on public bills."
Sir, you have identified this as the important point. It seems very clear. I am surprised that my hon. friend quoted Standing Order 116. I think the whole case is right there. By the same token, I was surprised that he quoted the precedent of February 13, 1969. The bill before the House then was Bill S-6, an act respecting the Canada Trust Company. It was a private bill. It had been through committee and was brought back for the report stage, as all bills must be. There is nothing in the chapter on private bills which says that private bills must be put through the report stage. You do not need that. That provision is in other parts of the Standing Orders.
On that occasion, the hon. member for Waterloo-Cam-bridge (Mr. Saltsman) put down his report stage amendment. At the moment we are not discussing what that report stage amendment was. He did put it down. It was seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Timiskam-ing (Mr. Peters). The then hon. member for Grenville-Carleton-not the present House leader for the Conservatives, but the hon. member from the other side who has gone to his reward on the bench-raised a point of order against the amendment. Mr. Speaker Lamoureux had trouble with it and admitted he saw difficulty. He said,

"Suppose there is a three-clause bill and three different members put down three report stage amendments to delete one clause after the other:	there would be
difficulty."
Mr. Speaker Lamoureux said that the matter gave him great difficulty, and then said that he could not see how he could deny the procedural admissibility of the report stage amendment. My friend from Edmonton West tried to argue that the ruling was wrong; that the Chair and Table were wrong. He has argued that before. I sometimes think the Chair and the Table are wrong, but, I am smart enough not to say so. I rely on the good judgments of the Chair and the Table. The fact is, there is a precedent. It was allowed, and not just by chance. There was argument, Mr. Speaker saw the problems, admitted it was a new situation created by the rules we had passed only a few months before, but admitted the report stage amendment to that private bill as in order.
On the notice paper of that day there was another amendment, also in the name of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge, to Bill S-7, an act respecting the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation. I do not know what happened to it, whether it was reached or not. On May 28, 1971, a report stage amendment was put down by Mr. Skoberg, the then member for Moose-Jaw, to Bill S-12, an act respecting Canada Del Rio Oils Limited. I have not had the opportunity to check what happened to these amendments. But in the one instance, when an hon. member questioned whether there was this right to put down report change amendments, it seems to me that the ruling made was correct.
I go back to the question to which you asked us to address ourselves, Mr. Speaker, the question the hon. member for Edmonton West has raised. We have provided for a report stage; we have provided for report stage amendments. Nowhere in the book have we said that report stage amendments apply to only one class of bill. No. They apply to private members' public bills. That has not been questioned. They apply with respect to government bills. That has not been questioned. In the one instance to which I alluded, that right has been applied to a private member's private bill. Whatever Your Honour may have to say later about the subject matter or content of some of the amendments, the question we must consider is very simple: Does the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge have the right to put down a report stage amendment to a private bill? It seems to me the answer to that question is beyond doubt.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question, for clarification? Can the hon. member clarify the apparent conflict between Standing Order 109 and Standing Order 75(5), (7) and (8)? The conflict is this: Standing Order 109 mentions "important amendment". Presumably, there are unimportant amendments to private bills which can be in manuscript form. Yet Standing Order 75(5), (7) and (8) indicates that notice is required and that only those amendments may be debated with respect to which 24-hour notice has been given. How can the hon. member explain this conflict?
February 26, 1976


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was mystified at the hon. member's raising that argument in his principal submission. I see no conflict. Standing Order 109 speaks of an important amendment. I ask, who moves an amendment that is not important? The Standing Order says that one day's notice of such an amendment must be given. The various subsections of Standing Order 75 say the same, that there must be one day's notice with respect to report stage amendments. The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge gave that one day's notice. He gave it to the Table yesterday and the amendment is printed in today's order paper. I may be slow, but I see no conflict. Both Standing Orders say the same.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What about unimportant amendments?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We must be clear. I understand the argument of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), but there is one point on which I should like to receive further comment. It was my impression that Standing Order 116, in which there is no provision for the elimination of the report stage, would apply. The argument of the hon. member for Edmonton West is that Standing Order 116 is ruled out because it uses the words, "Except as herein otherwise provided." Standing Order 109 makes a provision with respect to notice of amendments that is different from the notice required with respect to report stage motions. It seems to me that the difference, if any, is one of notice, not of procedure.
It may be argued that there is some conflict with respect to Standing Order 109. There may be some argument as to whether at the report stage, if there is one, a member is bound to give 48 hours' notice or only 24 hours as contemplated in Standing Order 109. That question involves only a question of notice.
There is another difficulty to which hon. members have not addressed themselves and about which we must be clear. At the report stage we deal with motions, not amendments. That point has not been touched on. The intent of a motion may be to alter a bill. The fact is, these are not amendments; they are motions. We must make that clear distinction.
[DOT]


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I suggest we are dealing with a problem similar to the one the hon. member for Edmonton West raised when he opened up the question of chapter titles. Perhaps the motion put down by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge should have been listed on the order paper under some heading other than Notices of Motions pursuant to Standing Order 75(5). Maybe it should have been put down under the terms of Standing Order 109. I do not find any greater difficulty there than I do about those chapter titles generally.
There is no doubt that under S.O. 109, if it is an important amendment-and they are all important-24 hours' notice is required. Mr. Speaker, the necessary 24 hours' notice was given yesterday in writing to the Table. The item appears in print; it is on the order paper. Surely it is not invalidated if it has been placed under a heading which does not altogether attach to it. It seems to me that if we go
Continental Bank of Canada
back to the original proposition, namely, that any bill is subject to a report stage amendment-I am thinking now of Your Honour's distinction between an amendment to a bill and an amendment to a clause in a bill-if any bill is subject to a report stage amendment, then private bills are covered, and my hon. friend has met the relevant provision by giving notice under 75(5).


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take part in this very important procedural debate dealing with the amendments moved by my hon. colleague for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) to Bill S-30. I was impressed by the arguments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who referred to Standing Orders 109 and 116. Mr. Speaker, having heard your own arguments in reply to that intervention, it seems obvious that the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge has the same right as any parliamentarian, namely to take an active part in presenting the amendment if he so wishes, and he may do so at any stage of the bill. That is the case of Bill S-30.
The subject of the amendment is of no consequence at this point. The fact remains that Standing Order 109 stipulates that an hon. member cannot move an important amendment to a private bill, in the House, unless he has given one day's notice.
That is how I see it, and so does the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, according to his testimony.
This is perfectly in keeping with Standing Order 109. As far as Standing Order 116 is concerned, it says the following:
Except as herein otherwise provided, the Standing Orders relating to public bills apply to private bills.
Mr. Speaker, this means that the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) is entirely right in introducing an amendment at this stage of the study on Bill S-30. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, the result would be that the report stage for the study of this kind of bill would not exist at all. If an hon. member cannot put forward an amendment at the report stage of such a bill, it means this stage simply does not exist. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you, with all due respect, to quote the Standing Order which would enable you to assert that, in effect, this stage does not exist. If it does, this means that the hon. member enjoys the same rights for this kind of bill as for a government bill. This is the essence of Standing Order 116.
Standing Order 116 is a basic protection for hon. members whether they are backbenchers, opposition or government members, in that sense that they can participate in the study of legislation and this means that not only can they speak on it but also bring forward amendments.
At that stage we run across Standing Order 109 which states that in this particular case a major amendment cannot be brought to the House unless notice has been given 24 hours before, a rule which the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge complied with. In other words, Mr. Speaker, your decision is extremely important. If you deny

February 26, 1976
Continental Bank of Canada
the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge the opportunity to oppose this bill in any manner through amendments, regardless of their contents since it would be another matter, that means you are giving a member the right to intervene at the report stage. For us, Mr. Speaker, this matter is paramount and deserves our consideration for an additional reason and this constitutes my second point which I wish to bring up before concluding.
Right now, we are not dealing with just any bill, we are dealing with a bill which will make it possible for the IAC finance company to become a chartered bank. As everybody knows, chartered banks will be reviewed soon. It is a study undertaken every ten years and referred to Parliament. It is an open secret that this bill clashes with the Bank Act on at least 16 specific points. We can, Mr. Speaker, even if this is not the substance of this argument, prove that Bill S-30 is an exception, and I repeat an exception to the Bank Act on at least 16 points. And Again I refer to the Standing Orders. This bill is out of order. A member, such as the sponsor of this bill, cannot introduce in committee a bill which goes beyond the law. In our opinion, Bill S-30 is a derogation to that rule. It provides preferential treatment for the Continental Bank.
Mr. Speaker, on several occasions my Social Credit and New Democrat colleagues have tried during the consideration of such bills to introduce amendments which were called out of order by the Speaker because they went beyond the scope of the bill. Now Bill S-30 goes 16 times farther than the Bank of Canada governing the chartered banks. It is an exception. This bill-and this is my last argument Mr. Speaker-is especially important because if it were passed today and that tomorrow we were reviewing the Bank Act and the Bank of Canada Act, we would have to take into account in such a revision the decision taken today about Bill S-30, since despite the amendment to be introduced, those 16 exceptions would have to be included. Morever my comments were included in the arguments brought forward by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge.
Mr. Speaker, for this reason your decision is extremely important since, first of all it might be interpreted as a way of disregarding a member's right to take part in a debate at the report stage and, second it enables any member to move an amendment which will be placed at any time within the framework of a public bill and in this sense, Mr. Speaker, we will reverse all precedents.
That is why I believe, given the importance of the subject concerned as well as the sound arguments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and the content of Standing Orders 109 and 116 with which the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge complied very well, and given the precedents on which this House has taken a stand for hundreds of years-thousands of years, if I refer to the slowness of some of our procedures-Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge will be entitled to move his amemdments.
As for the content of the amendments that is an entirely different story. At that time, it will be possible to consider them by seeing how far Bill S-30 goes.


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I take part in a procedural debate, and I hope you will excuse me should I experience difficulties in expressing my views. But I will try to say properly what I have to say.
In my opinion, there is no problem as regards the interpretation of Standing Order 116.1 quote:
Except as herein otherwise provided, the standing orders relating to public bills shall apply to private bills.
Now, Standing Order 75(5) provides, I quote:
If, not later than twenty-four hours prior to the consideration of a report stage, written notice is given of any motion to amend, delete, insert, etc....
Then, in the present case, we can expect Standing Order 75, but this does not solve the problem of Standing Order 109 as raised by the hon. member for Hamilton. Then, we get to a point which, in my opinion, was not sufficiently discussed, that is: what is an "important amendment"? Why have this small book's authors used the terms "important amendment"? Has this ever been defined by anyone? I do not know.
In my opinion, there should be once and for all a definition of what exactly is an "important amendment" as mentioned in S.O. 109. I submit respectfully, whatever that is worth, that an important amendment would be one which relates to the very integrity of a bill in its wholeness and in its substance. For example, we would have an important amendment if, on third reading, we had an amendment to give a bill a six months' hoist or an amendment to send back a bill to a committee for a new study, or some amendment of this kind, but not a motion as defined in S.O. 75(5). That would be a motion to amend a part or a clause or a subclause of a bill.
In my opinion, S.O. 75(5) applies in this case because of S.O. 116. And since in the chapter on private bills there is no section which stipulates explicitly that S.O. 75(5) does not apply, S.O. 109 would thus have been included by the authors of our Standing Orders to cover precisely those cases where there is a special amendment, an "important amendment", which relates to the very substance of a bill in its integrity, namely, an amendment which would give the bill a six months' hoist, or have the bill examined anew in committee.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on the second point that Your Honour raised, the problem I am facing is that under Standing Order 75(5), 75(7) and 75(8) no private member, other than one who has given notice of a motion under 75(5), may make a motion during the debate. There is the exception that he may make a subamendment to an amendment made within the 24 hour time limit.
To turn to Standing Order 109 dealing with private bills, the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) referred to what is an important amendment and what is not. Under Standing Order 75(7) amendments can be of a consequential nature arising out of another amendment that has been carried, but must be moved by a minister of the Crown on a government bill. There is no provision

whatsoever, in the case of a private member's public bill, for making amendments that are clearly consequential. The note clearly explains the relationship to public bills only.
If Standing Order 109 is to mean anything, it means that there are two categories of amendments, important amendments and ones not so important. Therefore since notice is required of important amendments, obviously no notice whatever is required of unimportant amendments, not even 48 hours' notice. It is that problem which is at the root of it. There may be a conflict in our rules.
With regard to the second point to which you adverted, Mr. Speaker, as to whether these amendments are in order having regard to the motion being put, it is my understanding that the motion the Chair will now be putting is the adoption of the committee report. My memory may be at fault, but if the motion to the House is that the committee's report be adopted, I find it extraordinarily difficult for the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Salts-man) to come up with a single amendment which attempts to modify a clause of the bill. It does not attempt in any way to modify the report.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I make a brief comment?


Mr. Speaker:: By rotating again and again we are really inviting an endless discussion, and I do not want to do that. This is an important procedural point and I do not want to shut anyone off, but neither do I want it to be an open-ended debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I quite agree with you, Mr. Speaker, and I shall be quite brief. The hon. member for Edmonton West a moment ago said that the motion the Chair should be putting is a motion for concurrence in the report. I submit that under Standing Order 75(4) that happens only when it is consideration of the report stage of a bill from committee of the whole. There can be no report stage debate at that time, and the motion is put immediately.
But if the hon. member would turn to Standing Order 75(12), he will see that provides:
When proceedings at the report stage on any bill have been concluded, a motion "That the bill, as amended, be concurred in" or "That the bill be concurred in" shall be put and forthwith disposed of, without amendment or debate.
It seems to me that this is really begging the question and we are back to the question Your Honour posed some time ago, namely, does the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge have the right to make report stage amendments to a private bill? If he has, then those motions have to be put before you put the motion for the adoption of the report.
One other comment that the hon. member for Edmonton West made in his recent submission was that the way this is set up only the hon. member who put down the report stage amendment can now make one. That is true. But every one of the 264 members of the House has the right to put down report stage amendments. This is why we have rules that permit Your Honour to combine them, and that sort of thing.
I come back again to the question of what is important. That word does seem to be giving us some difficulty. I
Continental Bank of Canada
suggest that unimportant amendments are really just amendments to form, to take out a comma, to unsplit a split infinitive, or something like that. Any amendment with any substantial meaning to it would have to be treated as an important amendment. From my point of view in this whole argument, I would come right back to the original position that I took, which is that the right to move report stage amendments applies to all classes of bills. Nowhere is there a provision in the rule book which provides that they do not apply to private bills. Therefore my answer to the initial question from the Chair is that there is a right to move report stage amendments to a private bill.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I just want Your Honour to note that I have a point of order dealing with the acceptability of these amendments, both individually and collectively, in the form of an expanded negative. I wonder whether Your Honour would recognize me after you have settled this point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise two points and I will be very brief. First I would like to refer to Standing Order 75(5) which provides that a written notice of any motion to amend be given at least 24 hours prior to the consideration of a report stage and be printed on the order paper. This has been done by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman).
I would like to remind you as well of the statement the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who, I believe, does not understand the Standing Orders, because this has nothing to do with a minister of the Crown.
The question is whether a member of parliament, from whatever side of the House, is allowed to intervene at report stage.
Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, this is a fundamental question. Otherwise, depending on your decision, the questions whether we are really going to decide on the report stage and on the right of member of parliament, or whether we are going to abolish purely and simply the report state for this category of bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has put forward a very fascinating argument about the validity of in fact having a report stage in respect of private bills or private members' private bills.
The analogy, if it were not expressed in Standing Order 116, would probably be understood in any case, but in order to make it perfectly clear, Standing Order 116 says, and it has been referred to many times, that except as otherwise provided the provisions of the Standing Orders as to public bills apply to private bills. If that Standing Order were not there it might be interesting to note that there would, I suppose, be no regulation which would say that a private bill has to be read a first, second, and third time, that there are restrictions on second reading amendments, that the bill can only be amended in detail when it gets to the

Continental Bank of Canada
standing committee, and that the stages of the bill can only be taken on different days without leave, and so on.
The fact of the matter is, in other words, that there is no specific provision that I can see, as I have been scanning through the arguments and research dealing with private bills, which would provide for the regular and orderly dealing with private bills. It is done only by virtue of the fact that all of those regulations which apply to public bills have to apply to private bills as well. Since that sets up the first reading, second reading, and third reading stages of the bill it would seem to me to be unacceptable to argue that it would not apply to the report stage of the bill in the same way.
If by analogy, therefore, private bills proceed from one stage to another because of Standing Order 116 making applicable all of the rules in respect of public bills to private bills, surely that must also apply to the rules as they relate to the report stage unless, of course, there is some provision which indicates that report stage is not at the disposition of the member. I think this is the point. It is not a question as to whether the report stage follows automatically.
What we are dealing with here is whether hon. members ought to enjoy the same privileges under Standing Order 75 relating to report stage amendments with private bills as they do with public bills. It is a question of the right of the member. A member, it would seem to me, has the right as given to him by Standing Order 116 in every way to put down notice to require a report stage, to require 48 hour's notice between the placing of the bill on the order paper and the beginning or report stage, and 24 hours' notice of any amendment to be given. In order to take that right away from members it would seem to me there would have to be very clear authority somewhere for it.
The hon. member alludes to the fact that Standing Order 116 only applies except as herein otherwise provided, and refers to Standing Order 109, which is a notice provision requiring 24 hours' notice of an amendment. The fact is I must take that only as a requirement as to notice and not as to substance. Besides that, it is exactly identical to the 24 hours' notice requirement in respect of a report stage amendment, and therefore it can scarcely be taken as a departure from the Standing Orders as they relate to report stage amendments.
I therefore must conclude that since Standing Order 116 is really the only authority for setting up all of the other stages and prescribing the manner in which to deal with private members' bills, I have to accept that the same Standing Order provides in exactly the same way for the report stage of private bills as it exists in fact for public bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Water-loo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) has given the Chair notice of his intention to raise a point of order in respect of another matter. Am I correct in that? Perhaps we should clarify this. In addition to the several motions for amendments, I should say to be correct on this, that the hon. member puts forward, he also wishes to raise a general point of order about the procedural regularity of the bill.

The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) has also indicated he has a procedural argument to make.
It is now close to three minutes to six o'clock. It is obvious there is going to be much more said about the procedure in respect of this bill. Frankly I would be reluctant now to open up a new point, allowing three or four minutes on it, and attempting to pick up the thread a week or two weeks from now, as the case may be. I therefore must ask the indulgence of hon. members in calling it six o'clock.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know it is approaching six o'clock but it is my information that the House leader wanted to seek the consent of-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think this is being done behind the curtains; is that not right?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, I think it is being negotiated right now. We should be hearing during the dinner hour whether there has been a decision to bring in a verdict.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I understand there are negotiations proceeding now; therefore we can call it six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) on a point of order.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among representatives of the parties and I ask whether there would be leave to return to statements by ministers so that my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), could make a statement.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place and we are agreeable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Are you really going to resign?
February 26, 1976


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will have to disappoint the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski). I will start off, however, by congratulating him on his appointment. This is indeed evidence that the meek shall inherit the earth.
I should like to make a brief statement this evening on the subject of the export levy which is one of the measures the government proposed last fall as part of the anti-inflation program.
As hon. members are aware, the proposed features of this levy were tabled last December 18, and consultation on the
measure was invited. Since that time the government has received representations from many interested parties, both about the general nature of the levy as well as its precise details. In particular, the matter was discussed extensively at the meeting with provincial finance ministers on February 2, and I undertook at that time I would reconsider the levy and discuss it further with my colleagues in the federal cabinet.
As members will recall, under this proposal exporters would remain free to sell at international price levels so that Canada would gain the full advantage of any increase in the value of Canadian products on world markets. In the interest of equity, however, it was also proposed that any profits of Canadian exporters, in excess of the guidelines applying to firms selling in the domestic market, would be subject to a special levy. Up to 90 per cent of the levy could be refunded to companies to help finance new capital investment in productive facilities and other specified projects.
From the standpoint of equity the government felt that with respect to the work force of exporting firms or with respect to firms in Canada which sell only to the Canadian market, both of which would be subject to restraints under the control program, that some balance was necessary with respect to exporting firms which, if uncontrolled, would have the possibility of achieving substantial profit increases during the control period. While it would be difficult to achieve an exactly balanced treatment it was felt that the levy would at last provide a more even treatment as between exporting firms and others in Canada who are subject to the restraint program.

The foregoing argument has not commended itself to a majority of provincial governments in Canada who are representative of all parties and all regions. At the Federal-Provincial Conference and since, several provincial governments have expressed to me their concern that the export levy might discourage the initiative to achieve greater exports from Canada at a time when the revival of Canadian export sales is of critical importance to regional and national economy. They expressed the concern that the levy could add further uncertainly to investment decisions in Canada and might discourage new capital investment. This despite the provision in the proposal for refunding excess profits for the purpose of investment. Cleary any measure that might have an adverse impact on further investment in Canada or might check our pursuit of markets abroad would not be in the interest of anyone, neither exporters, their employees, governments, nor consumers.
Export Levy

I therefore wish to announce the government's decision not to proceed with the export levy measure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: However, the Anti-Inflation Board will be asked to monitor profits of exporting firms and, where excess export revenues are generated the way in which they are re-invested. If there is evidence of excess export profits and evidence that they are not being reinvested, the matter will again be reviewed by the government.
I would interpolate here another comment, that contrary to the opinion that has been expressed in the House with respect to the possible diversion of investment from Canada if the export levy should take place, one provincial government at least has expressed concern lest export profits not subject to the levy might be diverted to investment outside the country. I would say in respect of that particular concern that the Anti-Inflation Board and the other agencies of government will monitor with particular care the fact that the relief of export profits from this particular measure should not result in investments taking place outside Canada.
At the same time the government will follow developments in the Canadian economy for signs of diversion of goods to export markets at the expense of adequate domestic supply. There is little prospect of this developing in the near future in view of the extra productive capacity available in most sectors, but the government will be prepared to act if special situations arise.
In view of the fact that the existing anti-inflation regulations had anticipated the introduction of an export levy, a number of consequential amendments to the regulations will be required. In particular, export sales will generally be exempt from the domestic guidelines; however, where a firm voluntarily cuts back on supplying its Canadian customers in favour of foreign customers, the diverted export sales will be regarded as resulting in excess revenues and will be viewed as a contravention of domestic guidelines.
As I have had the occasion to state many times both inside and outside the House, we believe that the application of the anti-inflation program should be as responsive as possible to the concerns of the provincial governments which are participating in the program and to all those in Canada who will be affected by it. Recent developments have indicated that there are other areas of the program which also require some important change, particularly the need to ensure that people's rights remain fully protected. These issues are now under review, and I hope to be able to report to the House within the next week or two on a number of other changes which will further improve the operation of this program.
May I express my thanks to the House for the opportunity to make my statement at this time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, if I may be forgiven some expression of humour here to

February 26, 1976
Export Levy
consider the rather ludicrous situation in which the government finds itself, let me remind the House of the time in the spring and summer of 1974 when the minister and his colleagues, under the brillant leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), said precisely that a program of price and wage controls would be one of trial and error, that it would cause all sorts of problems in the country, and that we could not afford to put it into operation. We have got it now and we are experiencing those same controls.
I also had not only to smile but to laugh at the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) who was striking his desk, beating a seal-like tattoo on it, when the minister announced that he was withdrawing this particular export tax. He reminded me of the man who finds pleasure in no longer feeling any pain because he has stopped butting his head against a stone wall.
Basically I can sympathize with the minister-there is no doubt about it. I think any of us who were advocating wage and price controls or an incomes policy in 1974 were quite conscious of the fact that there would have to be some changes because there was no one who could forecast precisely what would happen. However, I suggest that there would have been a difference of approach which would not have caused as much difficulty in the Canadian economy, and such resentment by provincial governments, particularly with regard to the proposed export levy.
Any firm that was engaged in the export of Canadian commodities immediately reacted and said that these people opposite have taken leave of their senses, as indeed they have, when we consider that Canada's deficit balance on commodity exchange was not plummeting downward but was skyrocketing, if one can imagine a deficit skyrocketing. It is going to be worse in the next fiscal year because we have seen extraordinarily long strikes in the forest industry, particularly in the pulp and paper industries which were contributing so much toward our export totals. We are going to see a much wider gap between exports and imports.
The government should have known this in October. It should have known that there might be some sort of an attraction to divert goods from the domestic market to the export market. I suppose that under certain ideal conditions one could argue that this might happen, but there is not a person in the House, particularly on the government side and among any of their supporters, who could say that there is any commodity in Canada today that is in such tight supply that a diversion of any amount of it to a favourable export market could result in an increase in price to Canadian consumers under a demand pull influence in the market, the traditional inflationary demand pull. The thinking behind that was totally confused, yet it was the basic premise with regard to this proposal. I dare say that some people said, well, there is a tight market with regard to paper, and if the market in the U.S. or overseas continues to be good, we will send paper there, and there will be an increase in price or a blackmarket for it in Canada.
Some other people, again unthinkingly, because I do not think they realize just what controls apply, may have thought that with a forecasted possible shortage of petroleum products it might be more attractive for the

Canadian refining industry to send refined products south to the U.S., and that there would be either an increase in price due to the pressures of demand in Canada or there could arise a blackmarket with regard to petroleum products. There again they failed to take account of the day-today effectiveness of the Energy Resources Board of the province of Alberta which monitors the production and shipping of petroleum products out of the province, the effectiveness of the National Energy Board, and of the export tax which already exists on both crude oil and refined products destined for the United States. Therefore this export levy proposal had no justification whatsoever, and it never did.
It would have been far better for the government to have gone ahead with a freeze for 60 days or thereabouts. As the minister himself said that we are going to see some other changes. There will be some more backing and filling, which would have been unnecessary had the government proceeded with a freeze for 60 days, and consultation with the provinces within that period. It would have seen that most of the provinces thoroughly dislike and do not agree with the export levy. Then members of the government could have taken other and necessary steps. They would not have had to eat crow on this particular proposition if there had been proper consultation first. Wage and price controls across this country are not entirely a federal responsibility, but the federal government, on I do not know whose foolhardy policy, went ahead and tried to go it alone hoping it could drag the provinces along. That is the general attitude of the government, but that is not the way to do things. If there had been proper consultation with regard to wage and price controls we would be ahead of where we are now.
The minister talked about monitoring the sale of goods here in Canada and setting up domestic guidelines on goods sold in the foreign market. This is a proposal to tax additional profits of Canadian businesses working in a foreign market where Canadian economic conditions do not set the price, with the exception of the cost of production. And if our goods have a competitive edge in a foreign market which is going ahead on an inflationary basis, and our dollar return because of advancing prices in that country is higher, what right does the government have to tax and why should the government tax those additional profits on business not accomplished here in Canada? Why?
We have a tough enough time as it is working in the foreign market. Since when is Canadian business on a public utility basis? The bureaucrats are going to monitor all Canadian business, which is not going to be allowed to make one cent more than some backroom boys will allow, or some other people who want to tie up the economy so tight that it will crack.
I think it was salutary for the minister to come forward and admit the error on this occasion. I welcome this step, and I will welcome his statements in the future which may make the policy of wage and price controls more effective for the benefit of the Canadian economy as a whole.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my case on this subject can be made rather briefly, and I

will try to do so. I think the minister has put the program back to what it was in its general form before the special situation under the regulations was created to deal with the particular problems which arose for the first time with firms in the export market.
As I understand the regulation, the reason for its introduction and for this particular section to deal with exports was twofold. The export levy was intended to deal with profits which were going to be excessive for firms which were in the export market, on the one hand, and second, there was a desire to prevent the diversion of goods originally produced for the domestic market to foreign markets. There were anomalies which arose from the export levy, which the minister has dealt with by removing it, but by removing it we are back to square one with the two problems which existed before the export levy was introduced.
What are the consequences now of removing the levy? First, firms which are exporting have the right to go scot-free in terms of the regulation of their profits, but I remind the House that in statements, not made tonight but earlier, by the minister the employees in those companies will not be exempt from the guidelines.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I said that tonight.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister said that tonight. I read his statement quickly and did not notice that it was said. I stand corrected. He has said that employees will still come under the guidelines but the companies will not, which is at least a consistent application of the rough justice principle which goes with the rest of the program.
The second point to be made is that firms selling in the export market will have a clear advantage, from a profit point of view, over those selling in the domestic market in the same industry. In our view, and I suspect in the minister's as well, this leads to an unfair situation for many Canadian companies.
As the minister well knows, in virtually every province in Canada there are some firms which are now producing, within the same industry, primarily for the export market, and other firms producing primarily for the domestic market.
The paper industry is a good example of this. This means that companies which are producing just by chance-historically now with this program-for the export market are going to have profit expectations and the right to them which firms producing in the domestic market will not have. The minister may say that he is going to deal in some vague, unspecified way with requirements for reinvestment for those firms, but the point remains that even if the government produces at a later date some tough regulations about the necessity to reinvest in the Canadian economy the excess profits of these firms which produce for the export market, that still means they are given a financial advantage, under this program, over their domestic competitors. They will be able to use their higher profits to reinvest, and that will provide more jobs, but it also means they will have a greater opportunity for investing and expanding than their competitors who now happen to be producing for the domestic market.
The second point from a broader, community point of view, as opposed to that of the corporations themselves, is
Export Levy
more serious. I think the hon. member who preceded me is substantially correct that in the short run, because of a world-wide recession from which we have not yet recovered, there are few opportunities for firms in Canada to divert production from the domestic market to the foreign market and make greater profits, but I submit that that is very short run indeed. This program runs until the end of 1978, and I think every corporation worth its salt in this country, after the minister made his announcement tonight, will be looking very carefully indeed at future sales abroad as opposed to sales at home. I have little doubt that, if not in a matter of weeks, at least in a matter of months we will run into some serious domestic shortages which will be the result of firms quite understandably transferring production from the domestic market to the export market.
What this will mean is the necessity for some form of export controls, and I think the minister should have said something about that tonight. If we do not have export controls, just as sure as we are here tonight we will experience severe shortages in a number of Canadian markets in the weeks and months ahead. So the problem is simply postponed by this decision. It is not dealt with at all.
I should now like to refer the minister to page 2 of his own statement. The concluding sentence of the second paragraph reads as follows:
If there is evidence of excess export profits and evidence that they are not being reinvested, the matter will again be reviewed by the government.
What is the definition of "excess export profits?" The minister did not answer that. Does any company in Canada know what the definition will be? Previously, under the guidelines and in the special regulations for the export levy, that was made clear, but nothing could be as unclear as this phrase "excess export profits". It is completely undefined, Mr. Speaker, and I think that is unwise. The government should have produced more specific details along with the announced change in regulations.
If the government does take any action, however it defines excess export profit we are going to have a further example of ex post facto law. Companies that are now operating will gain a certain level of profit from their exports, but precisely because it has not been defined by the minister they do not know what will be seen as excess export profits and may later find that retroactive action is taken against them. I think it is extremely unwise and unfair.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the potentially serious situation that could arise for firms which under the existing law and under certain circumstances-that is, prior to the announcement that was made tonight-were going to be permitted to charge world prices in the domestic market, should be pointed out.
I refer Your Honour to page 18 of the white paper entitled "Attack on Inflation". In the section "Exports" the following appears:
If a firm can demontrate to the Anti-Inflation Board that it would be impractical or harmful to the national interest for it to price in the domestic market differently than in the international market, the firm

February 26, 1976
Export Levy
will not be regarded as having failed to follow the guidelines if it prices all its products at international prices, but would be subject to the specical levy on all its profits.
More concisely stated, this says that certain firms in Canada are going to be permitted, prior to the announced change, to charge the world price for their product. That is to say, they are to be exempt from the guidelines. The "hooker" prior to tonight's announcement was that the excess profit that might accrue from that was going to be dealt with in precisely the same way as excess profits in the export markets. That was dealt with by the special levy. The minister has removed the special levy tonight and therefore leaves this part of the program in limbo.
Certain firms are going to be permitted to charge Canadians world prices, and they are now going to be in a vacuum in terms of any regulation under the program, that is, a vacuum in terms of not having a special tax of some sort put on them to take account of the excess profit. So, Mr. Speaker, tonight we have another example of the rough justice that the minister has spoken of so often in describing his own program. I hope in his answers later this evening the minister will clarify this very important point.
The change announced by the minister has removed certain problems and certain injustices that were bound to occur from those regulations but he has put nothing in their place. The very problems about excess profits and diversion to export markets that the export levy was brought in to deal with in the first place remain, and the minister has brought in nothing tonight to suggest that the government is going to deal with them in any reasonable way at all.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the minister a couple of questions about his announcement. He said that he intends to monitor the industries that are both exporting their production and selling on the domestic market. Could the minister tell us how he intends to monitor industries that would divert products to the export market? This would be a great concern of many businesses, particularly the lumber and wood fibre industries. I can see a blackmarket developing in all corners of the country.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about firms which, because of their size, would have been subject to the mandatory control provisions. Some 6,500 of those firms have been required to file regular reports with the Anti-Inflation Board with respect to their activities. Prior to this evening's announcement they would have had to make the calculation with respect to domestic and export business for the purpose of arriving at the export levy. Now they will have to make a differentiation for the purpose of determining which is export profit; therefore the Anti-Inflation Board will have the responsibility of scrutinizing those reports and comparing the historical performance of the business as between domestic and export business with the returns as they come in. The Canadian availability of products will also be scrutinized.
May I take this opportunity to indicate to the business community that if they find their suppliers are falling short of commodities it is important that this be made known to the government. In those circumstances, as the

hon. member for Edmonton West commented, of course the Export and Import Permits Act would be available to exercise quantitative restrictions on exports so as to ensure availability.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question deals with the statement made by the minister with regard to his intention to monitor the profits that companies will make on the export market and whether they will be reinvested in their businesses. Must the investment be in the form of expansion of plants, or can it be in the form of retiring debt charges that the company has accumulated?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the primary interests is in creating additional jobs and growth in the Canadian community. We will continue to be concerned to see that there will be investment in capital expansion or in some of the other goals of the government, such as better pollution control systems and energy conservation. That will be primarily the object of scrutinizing the matter. Of course it will have to remain a matter for rather more flexible scrutiny in this case since failure to carry out this kind of investment will not result in immediate levies. But if we were to find a particularly widespread diversion of funds from constructive uses for the construction of additional facilities elsewhere, we would have to give very serious consideration to whether the proposition could be brought forward again.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this export tax was an ill-conceived idea in the first place. It shows how naive the government is when it comes to knowing what our industries have to do to achieve export sales. The government should have been aiding those industries to achieve export sales instead of prohibiting them with this proposed tax.
May I ask the minister why the government proposed this tax in the first place with the resulting difficulties that have already been shown for exporting firms and when it was brought to the government's attention by the opposition some time ago that there was little support or agreement for this measure, why was it so long in making the announcement which was made tonight?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the hon. member was not in the House when I made my statement, because I dealt precisely with the purpose of the export levy proposal. I take it that the hon. member and his colleagues are not concerned with the equity argument, the question of fairness as between the employees of exporting firms, and the capital of the firm. As I said in my statement, we are concerned about the inequity of employees having their compensation controlled while the firm's will not be controlled. That was the purpose for putting the measure into effect in the first place.
To be fair to the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. McKinley) his misunderstanding of the measure has been mirrored in other sectors. There will be this difficulty with regard to inequity. As I said, we have been prepared to be flexible and seek the co-operation of provincial governments. Provincial governments representing all parties represented in this House have spoken against the export levy. We have co-operated and withdrawn it. But the
February 26, 1976

equity difficulty still remains. I hope that the hon. member and his colleagues will not raise any criticism in future if the question of equity is raised.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer and clarification. My concern was for those people who have lost jobs as a result of this proposed tax. They are not worried about the Anti-Inflation Board controlling their wages, because they are not being paid any wages.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence at all that any have lost jobs as a result of the export levy. The levy has not yet taken so much as a nickel from any firm. What the hon. gentleman has raised, I say in all fairness, is a myth. No export business has been lost up to this point as a result of the export levy.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, in my riding it happened.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With respect, I think the hon. member is mistaken.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I must tell the minister that the proposal to impose the tax did the damage, and the damage has already been done whether or not the tax was put into effect.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is misinformed on that, just as he was misinformed about the basis for the measure itself.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, has the minister's department looked at the industrial structure of this country, for example, firms operating in the paper, lumber and auto parts sectors, and assessed the difficulties of those industries? For example, a number of firms in each of these three named industries produced substantially for the export market, whereas other firms in the same sectors produced substantially for the domestic market. Has his department looked at this question to determine whether there will be major inequities as between firms within those industries? Has the minister looked into this matter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Just so that I may understand the hon. member, is he talking about inequities as between firm and firm or as between a firm and its employees?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am talking of inequities as between firm and firm. I take for granted the inequities which apply to employees.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it would be fair to say that, although we have given this question some attention, returns from industry in general indicate an almost universal request for the export levy proposal not to be carried through. I myself have seen no evidence of any one firm seeking the continuation of the export levy because it felt that, without it, it would be put in a disadvantageous position vis-a-vis any other firm.


John Edward Broadbent: I am raising a question about the existing regulations which will permit firms under certain circumstances to charge the world price on the domestic market. The government having removed the export levy, which was an instrument for dealing with the unfairness
Export Levy
which would result from charging the world price on the domestic market, can the minister tell the House what the government plans to put in the place of the export levy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the kind of situation to which the hon. member refers affects the base metal industries. For example, copper is customarily sold at one North American price, and at a higher price on the London metals exchange. We anticipate that copper will continue to be sold on that two-price system, the lower price being charged in North America, in the United States and Canada, and the higher price on the London metals exchange, or in countries where the London metals exchange price applies. In those circumstances there could be an increase in the domestic price beyond the strict cost-pass through rules. In those particular circumstances there would be justification for the increased price, and it is this: In a saw-tooth market such as exists for a product like copper, the current price of about 53 cents is probably below the cost of production. The return on investment in that case is calculated over a period of years rather than during a single year. Therefore, within moderation, we would recognize that it would be reasonable to recover the higher price, even from domestic customers.
If there were a dramatic price increase because of a copper shortage-and I interpolate here to say that, at the moment, it is calculated there is a substantial inventory of copper overhanging the international market and we do not anticipate a price increase at this time-then indeed, we may be forced to adopt a two-price system or, in the case of copper, a three-price system, one price for Canada, another for North American customers, and a third for the London metals exchange.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I refer to the regulations and the definition of excess profit. I am referring to page 2 of the minister's statement for the latter definition. I take it that the government will practice a form of ex post facto regulation making. It will see what happens, and then it could end up taking punitive action some way down the road after the event has occurred. It will do this, apparently, instead of setting up in advance detailed guidelines, so that corporations can know in advance the rules of the game.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised the question of the definition of excess export profits. We would be looking in that case at an export profit above and beyond the sort of profit the firm in question had realized historically. Naturally not all export profits will be dealt with, only those that rise above and beyond the historic differential between domestic and foreign prices. In other words, we shall look at profits which are above and beyond those realized in an historic period.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, over what period of time?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks, over what period of time will this apply. I remind the hon. member that, in net profit margin cases, we are looking at a five-year average.
The hon. member mentioned ex post facto regulations. It will be difficult to act in an ex post facto fashion. If we find
11302

February 26, 1976
Medical Care Act
that there is a widespread policy not to put profits back to work, to create jobs for Canadians, we may have to implement our policy at that time. But I think that parliament as a whole would oppose government action which would act retroactively in this regard. I take it that business will be concerned about the fact that if they fail to put that money to work for Canadians, there could be a re-introduction of the levy. I hope they will take note of this aspect of my statement this evening.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is some indication of a disposition on the part of the minister to ask for the withdrawal from the order paper of the ways and means motion.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be much obliged if hon. members would give their consent to the withdrawal of the ways and means motion from the order paper.


Walter David Baker: Is the minister referring to the one having to do with the export levy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
Order No. 14 discharged and motion withdrawn.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, February 25, 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).
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, last evening my remarks were interrupted by a knock at the door, after which Mr. Speaker and the House proceeded to the Senate.
I had been saying that the federal government had reneged on another pledge when this bill was introduced without warning. As has been pointed out, the federal government has on more than one occasion pledged that it would not introduce any changes in the cost-sharing arrangements in the absence of consultation with the provinces. How is it that none of the provinces are aware of such consultations having taken place? This is further evidence that the government only honours its agreements with the provinces when it is in its interest to do so. Instead of members of a party in one corner of this House

using the bill for partisan political purposes we should be united in opposing the measure; that is the only way in which we can convince the government that we intend to throw the whole weight of the opposition against this bill and other legislation of this kind.
I wanted to get some first hand information on this bill from my own riding so I got in touch with a couple of doctors in my home town. I asked one of them, Dr. Dempster, what his opinion was. "There was no doubt about it," he told me by telephone, "medicare is here to stay. There is no way we can ever go back to private billing because nobody can afford to do so. We have too many doctors being paid under the scheme now. It would make us bankrupt if we had to go back to private billing."
Medicare was aimed at helping people who could not afford medical services. That was the primary reason for starting it. It is said now that doctors are seeing people unnecessarily, that hypochondriacs are coming in all the time and that they should be discouraged by the imposition of a deterrent fee. It has not been demonstrated that this, in fact, is the case. The wealthy people who could afford to pay would pay and come anyway, and if the old age pensioners and the welfare recipients, those who, by and large, most need medical care, were required to pay they would not come because they could not afford it.
The doctor went on to say that in his opinion it had not been demonstrated that the plan had been abused significantly. "I think they could probably prove or disprove this by pulling the profiles of patients with a computer", he added. It was, he said, a time for consolidation. There was no sense in each little bailiwick carrying out a research project which was never likely to be of any significance. He further stated, "There is no way you are going to back down from medicare. As far as the federal government's contribution is concerned one accepts that it is a moral responsibility, and if you accept it you have to pay for it."
I appreciate Ontario's point of view because, as one of the have provinces, they are carrying a tremendous load, along with British Columbia and Alberta. The doctors have agreed to an increase of 8.3 per cent. They are living with it and I guess they should be commended for doing so. The doctor's comment on this point is interesting: "Well, they had to, by God!" This young doctor had attended the meeting which was held in Toronto. The doctors originally wanted an increase of 35 per cent, plus other things as well. In his conversation with me, the doctor I was speaking to commended the Ontario Minister of Health. Frank Miller, he said, must be an exorcist, having succeeded in talking the meeting out of that.
Further, in conversation, he expressed the opinion there were too many doctors in Ontario now, one for every 585 of the population, whereas the accepted average was one for every 650. There were, however, shortages in certain fields. There is a shortage of phychiatrists, anaesthetists and cancer specialists. Possibly, my contact suggested, some of the younger general practitioners might specialize in those fields. This might very well be.
I am aware that there are smaller communities in northern Ontario to which it is difficult to attract doctors, ever under the provincial scheme for this purpose which ha:
February 26, 1976

enjoyed some success since it came into operation. There are many isolated communities in which doctors are reluctant to set up practice. Their wives would probably not be too happy to find themselves in remote areas isolated from family and friends and some of the amenities of life to which they are accustomed.
I also talked to another doctor, an eminent surgeon in my constituency-and a very forceful one when it comes to speaking his mind. He declared that there were too many frills attached to the medicare scheme-frills which had nothing to do with sustaining life. Too much money was spent on lab tests, repeated and repeated. These unnecessary costs were incurred by patients referred to as "doctor hoppers"-they hopped from one doctor to another. According to this doctor-Dr. Hallam-most of the money was thrown down the drain. He said it boiled down to one thing, "There are too many frills, get down to the basics." I must say, Madam Speaker, I had to edit the good doctor's words in order to get that statement printed in Hansard.
I was interested to listen to the speeches made in this debate by colleagues who are physicians. They are very knowledgeable on this subject and they are to be commended for the part they have taken in this debate. Those of us who represent Ontario ridings are very pleased with the standard of health care we enjoy.
Some members may recall that two or three weeks ago Senator Edward Kennedy, I believe it is, came to Ontario heading a Senate committee on health care in the United States. While there he met with our provincial minister of health, Frank Miller, and was most enthusiastic about the way in which the medicare plan was working in Ontario. They have nothing as encompassing in the United States.
About ten days ago I had the honour of having the provincial minister of health speak in my riding, in my own village of Burk's Falls-


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


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


Eymard G. Corbin: Madam Speaker, I would like to know whether the hon. member is in the process of defending Dr. Frank Miller or dealing with the bill now before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Naturally, the bill deals with medical services, and it is very difficult to limit the speeches of hon. members strictly to the bill before us.


Stan Darling: I am certainly not defending the Ontario minister of health. I am pointing out certain things. I admit I have more than a passing interest in the provincial minister of health, as the hon. member probably knows, because he happens to represent a part of my own riding. I am also interested in the example Ontario is showing to others. Criticisms and suggestions have been made to help cut down costs, which is what we are all interested in, without cutting down services.
Medical Care Act
I mentioned that the provincial minister spoke in my riding to a service club, and he pointed out there had been some misuse of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. He had this to say:
My individual feelings are-and they are not necessarily those of the ministry-that we are nickel and dimed to death. You cannot control this until it comes out of your own pocket. Maybe we should use the method of billing for each visit to the doctor for those that did not use the insurance; then they should get a rebate back at the end of the year because now some people are going to the doctor for no reason whatever, and this costs all of us money.
I think we will all agree with that. As hon. members are well aware, in cutting back health costs the minister has made himself unpopular in certain areas of the province because he has closed hospitals and hospital wings, a program that he says will save between $30 million and $35 million. The minister has also ordered closure of four health laboratories, in Woodstock, St. Catharines, Kenora, and North Bay which is quite near my riding. In justification of this he said that 50 per cent of the work carried on consisted of the testing of water, milk or swabs, which were mostly sent in by mail and therefore could be returned by mail. He said that the unified labs at hospitals could handle 40 per cent of the remaining tests at no extra cost. The minister went on to say this:
If I am able to make those savings and I do not close them, I am nuts.
I expect we would all agree with that, despite the fact that the particular areas concerned were really uptight about it and naturally criticized the closures strongly.
My colleagues to my left have taken great delight in taking the Ontario government to task for closing hospitals and reducing the number of wings and beds in hospitals. Let me emphasize that the provincial treasurer of Ontario has introduced a measure of restraint in allowing only a 10 per cent increase in the budgets of all departments, though health was granted an 11 per cent increase. If hospital costs were allowed to increase to the same extent as last year, the health budget alone would have increased by $600 million. That is a lot of money, Madam Speaker, no matter how quietly you say it. As I say, the budget has increased by only 11 per cent to stay within constraints. It has been necessary to carry out bed closures, hospital closures, and also reductions in complement, not only in psychiatric hospitals but where there are excessive paid hours of employment over hospitals of comparable size. These hospitals have been asked to reduce their staffs.
Let me emphasize that these hospital closures have been carried out after a great deal of investigative work by the ministry's staff to assess the health needs of communities and to determine the physical assets of existing hospitals. If there were hospitals needing replacement within the next few years and there were nearby hospitals that had surplus beds, it would make sense just to close those hospitals and utilize nearby hospital beds to a greater extent. This will effect economies and make more efficient use of hospital facilities. This program has been carried out throughout the province on a non-geographic and nonpolitical basis, with the hope of achieving a saving of some $50 million, amounting to a little over 3 per cent of the hospital budget. Hospitals account for 53 cents of every dollar spent on health.
21419-23%

February 26, 1976
Medical Care Act
As a result of negotiations, doctors have now settled, as I have already mentioned, for an 8.1 per cent increase, which is well within the Anti-Inflation Board guidelines. Funds for new nursing beds have been frozen; no new nursing beds are going ahead. Any commitments that were made prior to this stand are being honoured. With the closing of the hospitals already announced it should be pointed out that there will still be a surplus of 3,000 beds in the province of Ontario. Ontario's health budget for 1976 will be $3.4 billion, or $400 per person.
We know there are a great many ways to control health costs, and one is to make our health care system more efficient. I appreciate the undertaking of our minister that greater emphasis will be placed on reducing health hazards in the environment and increasing health awareness among Canadians. If we are going to become more healthy and save untold millions of dollars, then we had better stand up, be counted, and be ready to bite the bullet. The minister has pointed out, and rightly so, that we must exercise more, and smoke and drink less. If I had my way, I would ban the latter two activities entirely-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Stan Darling: -though I realize I am slightly biased there. In addition, we should eat more wisely, in other words less, and I am one who is as guilty, if not more so, as the next person.


Mr. Symes:: Let us put up prices in the restaurant.


Stan Darling: I see a lot of the saintly people to my left eating there, and even eating in the cafeteria.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't look at me.


Stan Darling: I am not looking at the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). As a general insurance agent I have some knowledge of the great increase in premiums for automobile insurance policies, in spite of the fact that since my election to parliament I have not been active in this business. Nevertheless, I still receive letters and hear complaints about the high cost of automobile insurance.
Statistics inform us that traffic accidents are the second most prevalent cause of early death next to heart disease. In 1971, according to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), figures show that accidents cost us
250,000	years of potential life. Human factors are blamed for 80 per cent of traffic deaths, and these factors include drunken and impaired drivers, speeding, carelessness, failure to use seat belts and, in all probability, failure to use just plain common sense. There were 223,777 injuries on our highways in 1973.
The tremendous cost of related medical and hospital care for victims of highway accidents is staggering, Madam Speaker. Traffic accidents cost Canadians well over $2 billion a year, including cost of hospital care and treatment for accident victims who require over two million days of hospitalization. Such hospitalization is estimated to cost this country at least $200 million a year. Medical care costs amount to approximately another $100 million, and these figures do not include legal expenses, public liability, prop-

erty damage, loss of time from work, and the cost of permanent disability.
It might be a good time, Madam Speaker, to put in a plug for the wearing of seat belts, which I know is distasteful to a great many automobile drivers in my own province of Ontario where seat belt legislation has just come into force. Again speaking as an insurance agent I am well aware that wearing of seat belts does save lives as well as huge sums of money.
Australia has implemented seat belt legislation over the past three years. In its first full year of enforcement there was a reduction in fatal motor vehicle accidents of 25 per cent. A similar situation exists in France. There statistics reveal that their new compulsory seat belt legislation saved 1,200 lives in 1974.
Another staggering statistic is the great number of industrial accidents and fatalities. In 1974, 1,415 workers were killed on the job. The average over the past 10 years is 1,076. One out of 20 workers had a disabling injury in 1974, there being a total of 473,000 injuries. Industrial accidents were estimated to cost the United States $32.4 billion a year. I am sure our losses would be in the same ratio, which would mean about $3 billion a year. This certainly gives us food for thought. Something must be done to reduce these accidents. We must also consider this in terms of lost production, in human suffering, and in medical and hospital care.
We are told by experts in the field that for every dollar spent on medical research today there is a savings of $20 in health costs within ten years. I trust, therefore, that the minister will reconsider reducing the medical research budget by too much.
The bill proposes to limit the government's increased participation in medicare to 13 per cent next year, 10.5 per cent the following year, and 8 per cent in subsequent years. This will certainly be a great burden on the provinces and will be especially hard on those provinces which do not have the wealth and taxing revenues of a province like Ontario, British Columbia, and those blue-eyed Arab sheiks in Alberta.


Mr. Towers:: Take it easy now.


Stan Darling: That's O.K., my hon. friend from Red Deer.
Our minister of health in Ontario was quoted some while back in this regard. In fact I found the quotation at page 10411 of Hansard and I think it bears repeating. He said:
If I have ever seen any example of unilateral decision making without consultation with the provinces that is it. We have been negotiating patiently for four years with the federal government to get a means of sharing health care costs that would allow the provinces to use their own discretion and to set their own priorities, instead of sharing on only those most costly services, the hospital and the physician. In the face of that, without any further consultation, they unilaterally set guidelines. They started the plan; it has got out of control. They have unilaterally limited the amount they will put into it. I don't know how we will live within it.
Other provincial health ministers have voiced a similar opinion.
On July 10 this past year the Canadian Medical Association declared:
February 26, 1976

The budget controls will produce definite health hazards for Canada's health care delivery system. The Government of Canada's budget controls will have the effect of restricting the availability of health care.. . in effect, rationing needed medical care, unless additional funds are provided by the province or the public. This action could endanger the quality of medical services available to Canadians.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has come up with the magic or unlucky number 13, which may be an omen in relation to health conditions in the coming year. How do we know he will not change this figure downward this year, and more in future years? A great many of us are worried that he may drop the entire responsibility for this program on the provinces, or at least limit future contributions even more.
Newspapers all across the country have been writing editorials pointing out that great care should be taken and the government should take a second look at this. They have also suggested that the provinces must also reconsider the situation. I hope the minister will reconsider amending this legislation. I have here an article from the Toronto Star which again quotes the Ontario minister of health as follows:
Health Minister Frank Miller believes that the growth of health care costs can't be curbed unless individuals have to pay part of the cost out of their own pockets.
It's a belief shared by many people as soaring health costs undergo searching scrutiny.
Most of us are aware that the Ontario Minister of Labour, who was the president of the Canadian Medical Association, suggested deterrent fees as a way of restraining health care costs by making patients think twice about visiting doctors. This article from the Star goes on to state:
The belief is based on the supposition that individuals, because health care is "free"-that is, paid for out of premiums and taxes-use it unecessarily. People go to doctors with colds and sore throats, it's said, and others go to hospital emergency wards with minor ailments.
But something more than casual supposition about unnecessary visits to doctors and emergency wards is needed if the government is to take the drastic step of imposing deterrent fees upon individuals.
Later the article states:
These computers could produce patient profiles that would show, for example, whether Patient Smith saw Doctors Brown, Black and Green, all to complain of the same sore throat, within a 10-day period.
They could show how much use is made of the system by patients of the 800 doctors who have opted out of OHIP.
I know that one of my own colleagues who is a doctor is in that category. The article continues:
These patients have to pay themselves the difference between what health insurance pays and what the doctor charges, which in effect is a form of deterrent fee. It would be useful to know whether they see their doctors more or less than people who don't pay extra.
It's important that facts of this kind be available before a decision is made to impose deterrent fees. Otherwise what may happen is that a wealthy hypochondriac will continue to make frequent visits to a doctor, while a mother on welfare is prevented from seeking help for a fevered child.
Before imposing this kind of deterrent on people who legitimately need health care, the provinces-and this would include Ontario-should certainly provide clear evidence that this abuse is indeed occurring. If it is occurring I suggest it is on the part of a small segment of the population.
Medical Care Act
I am in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) that this bill be delayed for a period of six months.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Stan Darling: Yes.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The hon. member made such an excellent speech advocating restraint in the expansion of costs of the medicare program I could not believe it when he came to the end and asked that the matter be put over for six months, particularly since the measures of restraint he referred to are well within the responsibility of the provinces, and the user charge is entirely a provincial matter, so what-


An hon. Member:: That is hardly a point of order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Having advocated restraint as strongly as he did, what is the hon. member seeking? Is he saying the 13.5 per cent, which is the government limit, is too large or too small? He is asking for some restraint and I would like some indication of just what he thinks the restraint should be. What is wrong with the 13.5 per cent?


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that we are looking for restraint, but there are certain cases and certain fields where there should not be restraint, and this is a particular case where the government has taken a certain decision against the wishes of every province. This was a deal that the provinces were urged to get into in the first place. Now because it is costing a little more, as a great many other things, the federal government is saying: O.K. sink or swim yourself without our help.
There is another point. Although I am not sure of the percentages I can speak with some authority having been a member of municipal government and head of a small municipal council for about 26 years. A very small part of the taxpayer's dollar, I think about 10 cents, went to the municipal government which had to spread it as thinly as possible. They spent it a lot more wisely than higher levels of government. The provincial government receives a little larger share, but the lion's share of the tax dollar, about 65 cents or 70 cents, is in the coffers of the federal government, and since it has the most it should be able to return the most. Public servants do not have to live in these great palaces that are being built across the river in Hull. It is more important to spend the money on hospital beds to look after the health of the people.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a further question-


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Darling) who has the floor, but I do not think the parliamentary secretary to the minister should have an opportunity to make a speech by way of asking a question. If he wants to make a speech he should enter the debate and I will be delighted to hear him, but not in this way.

February 26, 1976
Medical Care Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I too hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Kaplan) will rise in his seat and explain this regressive and backward piece of legislation and the rationale behind it, because we on this side of the House do not accept the arguments the minister has put forward. Bill C-68 to amend the Medical Care Act and to amend the formula of payment by the federal government to the provinces is one of those backward steps this government seems to take. The government is reneging on an agreement and on a responsibility to pay half the cost of medical care in this country.
If this bill should pass it would mean that ordinary Canadians will suffer in terms of the kind of medical care to which they are accustomed, and which we hope to improve. They will also suffer because of higher taxes and deterrent fees which will be the inevitable result of this welshing by the federal government on its commitment to the provinces.
Under the formula proposed in this bill the federal government will limit its contributions to the provinces on a declining percentage formula. In the year 1976-77 the maximum contribution will be allowed to increase only by 131/2 per cent. In the year 1977-78 it will be allowed to increase by 12 per cent, and in the year 1978-79 and thereafter it will be allowed to increase by 10 per cent or less. The reason the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) gives the House is that health costs are escalating too much too fast, and therefore he has launched an attack against the provinces by saying the federal government will not match the inflationary increase in health care costs but will saddle the provinces with that responsibility, knowing full well that the provinces are limited in terms of their tax revenue.
The federal government has wider options. It can afford to continue paying half the cost of medical care, while the provinces today-and this is evident in respect of any province, and especially my province of Ontario-are feeling the pinch. If this legislation should pass we will see more hospitals closed down in this province, and not just the ten that the present Ontario minister of health has closed. We will see multiplication of that kind of indiscriminate closure in this province and in every other province throughout the country. That is a backward step.
The people of Canada can be proud of the health care system we have built, a system I need not remind hon. members that was first introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), when he was Premier of Saskatchewan heading the CCF and NDP governments. I think this bill really is indicative of the kind of commitment we have to medicare by the Liberal government. This is a commitment it reluctantly accepted. Medicare was promised by the Liberals back in 1919, but we did not get full medicare in this country on a nation wide basis until the 1960's. In light of that delay and the bill we have before us today, I do not think the Liberals are really too committed to the principle of universal free medical care.

The Liberals are committed to the dollar sign rather than health care. They try to construct the argument that because we are in an inflationary period-and much of that inflation rests with the government of course-the dollar will take precedence over health care. I say that is a backward attitude. There are other ways to cut health-care costs than to cut back arbitrarily in the funding to the provinces.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: What are they?


Reginald Cyril Symes: If the parliamentary secretary will wait I will enumerate them one by one. I hope that after I have finished he will rise in his place either to support or rebut the arguments I make. Let us first look at the components of increasing health costs one by one and then examine whether there is anything we can do to keep them in line. The most obvious reason for the increasing health cost is that more people in this country are using health services. Surely that is a fundamental objective of the program as currently designed, that is, to make the services available to people so that they will go to their doctor when they have early symptoms of illness rather than, as in the past, before we had the universal plan, hold off going to a doctor until the illness has become so complicated that they end up in hospital undergoing very expensive treatment.
If more people use the health services more people will be treated, and thus more people will be in a healthy condition rather than suffering from complicated illnesses. That is an important point to remember. We should not try to hide our heads in the sand. If we are to have a universal scheme obviously people will make use of it. That is the whole point of a universal medical scheme. The practice of going to doctors should not be limited to the wealthy. It should be available to all Canadians.
There is a second component of course to the increasing health cost. That is the wages paid to the hospital staff. Obviously the people who work in hospitals-and I am thinking of nurses, nurses aides, the technicians in the laboratory, the cooks, the cleaners and everyone else-are performing a vital job. They are facing the ravages of inflation as everyone else is, and they have quite legitimately asked for salary increases and in certain cases received at least a percentage of what they were seeking.
I remember examples that were quoted in my province of Ontario of a dog catcher or a zoo keeper who was making more than an hospital attendant. When you compare the services that those people were rendering, that was certainly a shameful state of affairs, and we have not as yet really acknowledged through the kind of salaries we provide to hospital staff the vital service that they give to patients. Therefore I do not think we can be niggardly and parsimonious when it comes to providing adequate wages for people who provide such vital services. That is something we will have to accept.
Likewise, a third component of rising health costs are doctor's salaries. In my province of Ontario in 1975 the average general practitioner was earning $58,000. The salary for the average ear, nose and throat doctor was $71,900, and the average salary of the orthopedic surgeon was $63,000 a year.
February 26, 1976

As we heard earlier, doctors in Ontario are asking for an eight per cent wage increase. They are making the argument, as is any other working person in Canada, that they face rising costs and want a salary increase. I was very interested to hear a judgment rendered by the Chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, Mr. Pepin, that doctors will be able to exceed the wage guidelines as set out in the federal anti-inflation program. An eight per cent increase on the salaries I have mentioned certainly wilj be in excess, for most doctors, of the $2,400 a year maximum increase that professionals are allowed under the anti-inflation guidelines.
When Mr. Pepin was in Manitoba he stated to doctors there that the $2,400 maximum would only be an average, that it would be averaged out among all doctors in the province. Therefore there can be doctors who will get a salary increase in excess of the $2,400. I think that when we compare that eight per cent increase on a salary of $71,000, one has to admit there is quite a difference between the 10 per cent maximum salary that a nurse's aide or a cook will get in any hospital and the increase that a doctor would get.
The other factor that causes rising health costs is rising laboratory costs. In Ontario alone in 1975 it cost $60 million under the Ontario Hospital Insurance Plan to pay for laboratory costs. Much of this increased cost, I believe is due to overservicing, and there are indications that in some of the private laboratories in the province there has been phoney billing taking place and even some kickbacks among the 282 private medical laboratories. The provincial government is in the process of conducting an investigation of the charge that some doctors in the province have ownership interests in private laboratories, are referring patients to them and having unnecessary diagnosis taking place in order to enhance their personal income. We hope to see the results of that provincial investigation very soon to make sure that that is not going on and, if it is, that it will be rectified.
The fifth reason for rising health costs is the fact that throughout Canada we are keeping too many chronic care patients in regular active treatment hospitals because of the lack of extended care units for these people.
I did some research and I found that it costs as much as $200 a day to keep a chronic care patient in an active treatment hospital. If we were to provide more extended care units, that cost could be reduced to $42 or $52 a day. We can realize what tremendous savings this would provide to our national medicare plan.
The federal government seeks to handle these factors contributing to rising health costs by forcing the provinces to carry the heavier burden of these costs. What will be the result? First of all it seems inevitable if this bill passes that the provincial governments will have to cut back on services. They just will not be able to maintain the present level of health care services, or even expand to meet growing population needs. We can see this beginning under an austerity program in the province of Ontario with the closing down of hospitals and, as I said earlier, if this bill passes we will see hospital closures and cut back of services carried out throughout the country.
Another possible result if this bill passes is that the provinces will have to raise their taxes in order to finance
Medical Care Act
the existing medicare schemes. We would have an increase in the sales tax, although this is one of the most regressive kinds of taxes there is because it hits the rich and poor within the same amount. The tax in Ontario is already 7 per cent. I cannot see the general population being able to afford an increase beyond that. We could have another kind of tax, a per capita medical tax on every family in the province. That is another way that the province would gain revenue to meet rising costs. Again that is a very discriminatory kind of tax because it would be levied on high and low income people most likely at the same rate.
The third result of this program could be for the provinces to impose deterrent fees. This means that every time a patient visits a doctor or has an X-ray, he or she will be charged a fee for that service. It could be $5 a visit, or $10 a visit, or $50 a day for having a hospital bed. If that takes place, what we are doing is taxing the sick, the ill, and the infirm. That kind of principle of a deterrent fee seems to me fundamentally contrary to the principle of universal free medical cafe, and again we would be going backward in our health care in this country if we impose a deterrent fee.
Let us not forget that deterrent fees discriminate against low income people and they will not deter the wealthy hypochondriac from visiting the doctor. But it will be a real discouraging factor for the poor. Let us remember that in Canada today there are over 5 million people living in poverty. In 1972, the last year for which we have statistics, 20 per cent of the families in this country were living on incomes of less than $5,500 a year. I ask you, how can those families afford deterrent fees? Those are the families that are most likely to have illness and other ailments among their children because of the poor living conditions in which they find themselves. That will be the effect of deterrent fees. It will hit those in the low income areas the hardest and it will not deter the more wealthy from going to a doctor. Besides, many studies have shown that deterrent fees really are not very effective, and that the rate of abuse of our health scheme is very minor indeed.
Another option open to the provinces if this bill passes is to reduce doctors' salaries. This might be especially in the maritimes. However, if that is done, what would happen is that there would be a temptation on the part of those doctors to move out of those provinces to other provinces where doctors' salaries have not been reduced. Again that would destroy another primary concept of the plan, to provide equality of health services from coast to coast in Canada.
A fifth course the provinces might take if this bill passes would be to increase premiums for medicare. There are some provinces-and I am happy to say provinces where New Democratic governments are in power-which do not have hospital premiums. That is, individual people do not pay a set fee each year for the privilege of medicare. That kind of revenue is raised through the general income tax system, which is a much fairer way of levying fees, because if there is a set fee for every person, of course low income people are hit harder than high income people. When the provincial income tax scheme is used it involves a sliding scale, and it is much fairer. However, for prov-

February 26, 1976
Medical Care Act
inces such as Ontario which have premiums, the provincial governments may be tempted to increase the premiums. Again that would discriminate against low income earners.
Those are some of the possible repercussions if the bill passes. I suggest that we do not have to pass the bill and that there are other ways of cutting costs. There are alternatives to the method proposed in this bill. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Kaplan) is quite anxious to find out what other ways we can go about cutting costs.
I refer the parliamentary secretary and his minister to a publication of their own department. It is entitled "A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians". In that study there are some very important recommendations with regard to improving health standards across Canada, and in the long run to make it less expensive. The key theme of that report is to emphasize and to promote preventive medicine. Here is where the federal government could provide leadership and, in co-operation with the provinces, design plans to promote preventive medicine, which would go a long way down the road to reducing the cost.
I ask, in light of that report, where is the leadership of the government in this field? It is sadly lacking, and I think immediately of the regulations of the federal and provincial ministers of environment. Government standards at both levels are very lax.
Where is the leadership of the government in preventing mercury poisoning, which is taking place among the Indian people of Grassy Lake Narrows in northern Ontario? The mercury poisoning is coming from a pulp and paper mill which has been allowed to poison the waters and the fish which the people of that reserve depend on for their livelihood.
Where is federal and provincial government leadership in Ontario and Quebec in preventing asbestosis, where miners for generations have faced this health hazard, faced early death and forced their families on to welfare because of the lack of compensatory programs? Where is the leadership of the federal and provincial governments for miners in uranium mines such as the one in a community near mine, Elliot Lake, where it has been demonstrated that because of poor environmental regulations miners are suffering from silicosis?
Where have regulations with regard to clean air been for the coke oven workers in the Algoma Steel Corporation in my community, Sault Ste. Marie, where workers have met early death because governments have failed to force companies to provide proper environmental working conditions? Governments in those areas have let companies get away with poisoning workers. Constantly they have been given reprieves and delays with regard to cleaning up the air and water. I think that is a very sad indictment of the government and of how serious it is about providing preventive medicine in terms of promoting adequate environmental standards.
There should also be some leadership from the government and from provincial governments in promoting preventive medicine, and I think immediately of denticare programs to help children at early ages. This would be a saving in the long run in adult life. We could have proper courses in nutrition in schools, and much more information should be made available to parents as well.
Previously I have talked about long term preventive medicine, but in the immediate term we could set up local community service centres to provide social and health services at a much lower cost than at our general hospitals. I note that the province of Quebec has used this system quite widely and has promoted these facilities, which are much less expensive than the facilities provided at hospitals. Indeed in my own community of Sault Ste. Marie the steelworkers there, with other interested citizens, have set up a group health centre which provides excellent service to the people of Sault Ste. Marie at a reduced cost. This kind of health care community clinic could be expanded throughout the country and would go a long way toward cutting costs.
One of the main things which could and should be done-it may require an initial outlay in cost but will certainly result in savings in a few years-would be to set up out-patient clinics, chronic care units and nursing homes to get patients out of very expensive hospital beds. I mentioned earlier that the cost of keeping chronic patients is $200 per day in a regular hospital. That cost could be brought down to about $52 per day in a chronic care unit.
For example, the administrator at St. Luke's Hospital in Montreal pointed out recently that 105 of the 704 beds in that hospital are taken up by the chronically ill, who wait on the average five months before they are transferred out of that hospital. At the same time the waiting list of people to get into that hospital averages about 3,000. If we had the kind of out-patient facilities throughout Canada I have been speaking about, we would go a long way toward reducing health care costs.
Another thing we could be doing is making better use of paramedics. There are many examples of where doctors can delegate some of their responsibilities to paramedics. These people can be trained at less cost than doctors, paid less than doctors, and can do much of the work, so that our high salaried doctors do not have to perform it. I think these are some concrete examples and propositions which would prove very effective in reducing health care costs. These would be much more effective and equitable than the measures proposed in Bill C-68. What is at stake really is the continuation of a fine health care system throughout Canada.
I say this bill is a backward step. It is going to weaken, if not destroy in the long run, a principle which was fought for, for so long and so hard by members of my party and by many other concerned Canadians. I think all Canadians must register their protests to the government so that it cannot back out of its commitment to provide half the cost of medicare. That was a solemn commitment made to the provinces. If we are going to maintain a healthy federalism the government cannot back down from that promise. If we are going to try to promote equality of service throughout Canada we must have a national medicare scheme. It is important that this bill not be passed because that would be the first step in the ultimate reduction of health standards and health care across the country.
For these reasons I cannot support the bill, Mr. Speaker. I hope the government will seriously consider some of the alternative proposals that I have made to reduce health

February 26, 1976

care costs while at the same time maintaining our high standards.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in support of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) it is my intention to dwell on only a couple of the aspects of this measure. They are aspects which have been underlined by those who have preceded me who spoke of their failure to understand the attitude of the government in bringing forward legislation of this sort at this particular time.
Others who preceded me in the debate, particularly the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk), have gone over the history of this medical "come on". They spoke of how a universal medicare plan was thrust upon the provinces in 1968 by a federal government without any thought of permitting the provinces to determine how it was to be applied or to determine any of its principal characteristics.
In 1968 the provinces were offered the scheme on a take or leave it basis. Since the services, generally speaking, were needed, and since generally speaking the Canadian people felt they should have a general health care service across the country, and since the cost support base then proposed was very attractive, the whole scheme was accepted-on trust. I say on trust, Mr. Speaker, in the belief, presumably, that that trust would be lasting; that the trust in the Pearson government which made the proposal would endure in a successor government of the same ilk. How the provinces have been let down! That belief has been dashed. Now we have a successor government repudiating, reneging on an agreement made not ten years ago, only eight years ago, with the provincial governments.
For 20 years hospital care has been provided under an agreed 50-50 formula; for eight years medicare has also been supplied under a similar formula. They are universal schemes: no means test is needed; all treatments and semiprivate facilities are totally covered.
As the minister rightly said in his opening statement, as a result of the Conservative inspired plan of 1958 for hospitalization, and the 1968 scheme taken on trust, developed by the Pearson government and foisted on the provinces, with ample dollops of financial icing as inducements to join, the net result is, by and large, that Canada has a good hospital care and medicare system, perhaps one of the best in the world.
Is the minister suggesting, through the introduction of the present bill, that all the infrastructure is in place and therefore the financial inducements, the financial sharing arrangements may be withdrawn? Is that what lies behind this motion? If it is, such an assumption is entirely wrong-it is wrong-wrong. What was once a medicare "come on" has become a medicare "cop out". On the strength of that cop out I should like to cop out too, and call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, would the amiable Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council
Adjournment Debate
(Mr. Blais) be able to advise the House what the business will be for tomorrow?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I just knew the question was going to be asked. Tomorrow we are going to deal with Bill C-68, the same order of business as we are dealing with now. May I also take this opportunity to advise hon. members that there has been agreement that during private members' hour tomorrow we will deal with Bill C-264.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on February 24, as reported at page 11191 of Hansard, I directed a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) with respect to the air-sea rescue attempt to locate the missing fishing vessel San Juan which had been reported missing the previous Sunday.
What concerned me and prompted my question was the fact that the San Juan was officially reported missing at 7.50 p.m. on Sunday and it was not until 11.15 p.m. that night that the Canadian coastguard ship Bartlett in St. John's harbour responded to an all-ships alarm and commenced the search. Furthermore, it was not until noon of the following day, Monday, that search aircraft were dispatched from Halifax or Summerside, Prince Edward Island, to the scene which was 500 miles to the east.
I wanted the minister to tell the House, and particularly the people in my province, why it took so long to get this search under way. The minister's reply indicated that either he inadvertently misled the House or he had been misled. The information he gave to the House was not in accordance with the information that had been released by the air-sea rescue service in Halifax. Further, the information which came from the air-sea rescue centre in Halifax was at variance with information given by eye witnesses of this most tragic mishap.
This is the third fishing vessel to be lost off the east coast of Newfoundland since the beginning of this year, six people now having lost their lives. This dramatically and tragically emphasizes how inadequate is our air-sea rescue capability on Canada's east coast.
In Newfoundland, especially eastern Newfoundland, we depend on facilities 500 miles to the west, in Halifax and Summerside, Prince Edward Island. Our distance from these facilities means that there is a serious and critical time lag in getting a search and rescue operation under
11310

February 26, 1976
Adjournment Debate
way. This is not the first time that this matter has been raised.
In Newfoundland today there is indignation, and rightly so. We are a sea-going province, and a sea-going people. We do not take lightly these accidents at sea. We feel that if adequate search and rescue facilities were available, we could prevent in many instances tragic loss of life.
Today I asked for unanimous consent, under Standing Order 43, to propose a motion calling on the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to order a judicial inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the foundering of the fishing boat San Juan and the activities of the Canadian Coast Guard Ship Bartlett in relation thereto. After that unsuccessful attempt to raise the matter by way of Standing Order 43, a telegram was sent to the federal Minister of Transport by the minister of justice and the attorney general of Newfoundland asking for a judicial inquiry into this latest mishap, and asking for the terms of reference of the inquiry to include the other two mishaps which resulted in loss of life earlier this year. The inquiry was to go back to the first of this year.
A judicial inquiry was ordered in response to the foundering of the Canadian National Railways steamship Patrick Morris, which was involved in the search for the motor vessel Enterprise, which had sunk in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, or the Cabot Strait. I should like, in my limited time, to put on record some of the recommendations emanating from the 1971 judicial inquiry. The accident took place in 1970.
In his report, Judge Soper of the district court said:
The area served by the search and rescue forces appears to be large when considered from the point of view of distance from Summerside, Prince Edward Island.
The report went on to say:
It is therefore recommended that the hon. Minister of Transport through his appropriate colleagues in the Government of Canada
(a)	seek a better dispersal of search and rescue aircraft and personnel on the Atlantic coast, with no dimunition of services that will be available, so that aircraft may reach distress areas more quickly;
(b)	cause a detailed review to be made of the procedures followed so that in future search and rescue aircraft will be ordered into action earlier than they were when the Enterprise was reported lost; and
(c)	request an increase in the number of personnel that will be available in shifts at search and rescue stations so that the reaction time may be reduced to a minimum on a twenty-four hours a day basis.
These recommendations were submitted to the Minister of Transport.


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


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I just finish my remarks briefly-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to set the record straight about the efforts of the search and rescue people in this latest incident involving, as the hon. member says, a tragic loss of lives.

Earlier this week, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) undertook to examine the facts presented to him by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) in connection with the search for the vessel San Juan. As a result of this undertaking I have a report taken from the log entry of the rescue co-ordinating centre at Halifax which outlines the events as they happened during the period in which the San Juan was in distress.
The rescue co-ordinating centre received a call from the RCMP at 7.20 p.m. on February 22 to say that the San Juan was in difficulty. Twenty-one minutes later, at 7.41 p.m., the RCC issued an all-ships alert, and four minutes after that the Canadian coastguard ship Bartlett was tasked for the search and rescue mission.
The weather at that time precluded an air search. The Bartlett located the San Juan at 0400 hours on February 23 and passed a message to the rescue centres that the vessel was in no immediate danger, that sea conditions were unfavourable to passing a tow line, and that the Bartlett would stand by awaiting daylight. Shortly after that message was sent, at about 5 a.m., the Bartlett lost radio contact with the San Juan, the vessel's lights went out and it disappeared. At daybreak the Bartlett was joined by the motor vessels Sea Transport and Arctic Explorer in a search for the San Juan.
A Tracker aircraft was tasked to assist but it could not get airborne because of the weather. The weather moderated during the afternoon and the Tracker joined the search and rescue at about 4 p.m. About 6.30 p.m. the MV Sea Transport sighted some wreckage and the Bartlett proceeded to investigate. Shortly after, the Arctic Explorer sighted and recovered some debris believed to be from the San Juan. The ships and the aircraft continued to search throught the night and around ten o'clock the next morning, February 24, the Tracker aircraft found the San Juan partly submerged with no sign of survivors.
From this account it would appear that the rescue coordinating centre followed proper procedures in its attempt to rescue the San Juan. The weather delayed the initiation of the air search, but three vessels were actively searching the area. I would remind the hon. member that during the night and early morning of February 22-23 the rescue vessels were contending with waves up to 40 feet which made the rescue a near impossible task.
I wish to say to the hon. member for St. John's East that my minister did not, and would not, mislead the House-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but his time has expired.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-LIAISON WITH MANPOWER IN REPORTING JOB OPPORTUNITIES IN COMPANIES FUNDED BY DEPARTMENT
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, it is a condition precedent in the Regional Development Incentives Act that all companies which are to receive an incentive grant must report all the openings to Canada Manpower before receiving any money. Section 13(1) of the act states:
It is a condition precedent to the payment of any amount on account of development incentive that the applicant keep the Department of
February 26, 1976

Manpower and Immigration ... informed of the manpower vacancies of the applicant in the designated region in which the facility for the establishment expansion or modernization of which the development incentive was authorized is, or is to be, situated ...
The regulations clearly state the necessity of reporting vacancies and openings to Manpower.
According to the response to order paper questions 3884, 3885, 3886 and 3887 addressed to Canada Manpower, 94 companies, representative of all the designated regions of Canada, announced in the press releases of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as accepting incentive offers some time between October and December of 1975, are shown to have reported to Canada Manpower 508 vacancies.
DREE press releases indicated these same 94 companies created 2,129 jobs, or four times the number of jobs reported to Canada Manpower. Canada Manpower in the same order paper returns shows that 354 positions were filled. This is only one seventh of the total number of "jobs created" announced by DREE. The report of job openings to Manpower is a statutory requirement that must be met before one cent of DREE money is advanced. The number of jobs to be created is an important factor in determining not only how much money DREE will grant a recipient but whether or not DREE will make any grant.
The large discrepancy between DREE figures and Manpower records is very serious indeed. What is the explanation? Is there any on-going liaison between DREE and Manpower regarding enforcement of the Regional Development Incentives Act for the reporting of job opportunities by DREE funded companies? That is the question I asked the minister. Perhaps now that he is informed of the facts he will not be so proud of his answer. He said "obviously consultations are held between both departments concerned". I do not think it is so obvious. "Generally speaking," he said, "one can say that there is a close co-operation between both departments and the possible employers".
I do not know what they consult about or what they co-operate about, but I do know that DREE should be monitoring the job orders placed with Manpower by companies it funds, to be certain beyond doubt that DREE grants create jobs for people in the economically depressed regions intended.
I want to know why DREE and Manpower are so far apart in their figures when the act clearly states that, as a condition precedent to the payment of any amount on account of a development incentive, the DREE applicant not only should inform Manpower of the manpower vacancies but keep Manpower informed.
The amount of $12,342,909 of DREE grants is involved. How does DREE announce the creation of 2,129 jobs while Manpower has reports of one quarter of those positions and employs only one seventh of them? The returns and releases I cited show that some of the companies in particular were sadly deficient. Didier Refractives Corporation of Beaucancour, Quebec, were to hire 294 people, reported none and hired none through Manpower. Mac Don Industries Limited of Winnipeg, Manitoba, were to hire 276 people, reported 47 and actually hired 38 through Manpower. Targetair Limited of Moncton, New Brunswick, were to
Adjournment Debate
hire 32, reported none and hired none through Manpower. Avalon PreCast Concrete Limited of Carbonear, Newfoundland, were to hire 25 people, reported none and hired none through Manpower. Volcano Ltee of Saint Hyacinthe, Quebec were to create 88 jobs; reported eight and hired one through Manpower. The Mikron Group Electronics Limited of Burlington, Ontario, were to create 14 jobs; reported no positions open to Manpower and hired none through Manpower.
The list goes on and on; it is part of the records of the House. Out of all 94 companies only one followed the intent of the Regional Development Incentives Act.
Carter Electronics Limited of Winnipeg, Manitoba, had 13 job openings, reported 13 to manpower and hired 13 through manpower. What a record-one out of 94!


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) raises a very valid question concerning consultation arrangements between the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. To begin with, there is not necessarily any direct correlation between the figures the hon. member used in his argument.
The fact that a company accepts an offer and is going to provide a certain number of jobs does not mean that will happen the next day or the next week, as the hon. member is well aware in view of the type of question he has been asking. It could well be sometime later before these particular jobs are made available, so he cannot base it merely on the date of acceptance.
Certainly the evaluation of every project submitted for consideration under the act is done by an incentive officer who is required to ensure that the applicant is co-operating with the federal Department of Manpower and Immigration. When an offer of a development incentive from the department is accepted the applicant, being the company involved, undertakes to comply with the terms and conditions of the legislation.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under the act he should be required to do that before it is accepted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member cannot rise on a point of order at this time.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The applicant undertakes to comply with the particular Section 13, a part of which the hon. member has read. So it is up to the applicant, the company, the individual or the firm accepting the offer to live up to the terms of these regulations. It is also important to be aware that when each payment toward the incentive is made, the applicant is reminded again that he must continue to comply with these particular regulations.
As the hon. member is also well aware, I am sure, the department of manpower officials sit on an advisory committee associated with DREE in reviewing all of the major projects, and it certainly has been the experience of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, at least, that these firms do determine the availability and suitability of local manpower, and contact the local Manpower centres for this particular purpose. Certainly it is obvious also that
11312

February 26, 1976
Adjournment Debate
they may not always have available at the Manpower centres men with the necessary skills.
It is very much a requirement of the act, and it is certainly my understanding, that the Department of Manpower and Immigration also has its own arrangements for initiating contact with these particular entrepreneurs. If there are certain specific cases, such as those mentioned by the hon. member during this particular debate, I think they bear some further investigation and I am prepared to undertake that for him.


TRANSPORT-POSSIBLE DISCUSSIONS ON USE OF &quot;MANHATTAN&quot; TO MOVE OIL THROUGH NORTHERN WATERS
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, after 11,146 pages of bombast and balderdash contained in the House of Commons Debates this session, on February 23 I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) if he could give me any indication whether he or his officials had any conversations with Panarctic in respect of the removal of oil from the northern slopes of this continent. The minister said he had no such direct conversations but would check to see whether any had been held by any official of his department. I accept that and I am very pleased to see the parliamentary secretary here this evening. I hope he can elaborate on some of those discussions which may or may not be going on.
I raise this question because the minister has given an indication that every effort is being placed by the government on the use of Canadian knowledge, technology, and expertise in any activity in the north. Those are my words and I am not putting them in the minister's mouth. I am sure he agrees with the intent of those words in respect of the removal of extractive resources from the north.
In connection with Panarctic, I raised the question the other day as well because it has now been about three months, to my certain knowledge, that Panarctic officials, indeed, Mr. Heatherington and others, met with agents of Canada Steamship Lines, Camet, which is a Canadian marine architectural firm, and J. J. Henry, a firm of U.S. architects, respecting the conversion of the Manhattan for Arctic crude oil carriage.
The scheme under discussion is to have the consortium of Canada Steamship Lines, Hall Corporation, Branch Lines and Fedcom jointly lease the Manhattan and undertake the conversion, leasing it in turn to Panarctic. I am in favour of this and would argue strongly for it. I recognize Panarctic's absolute need to get oil flowing now that they have wells, and to get a cash return on their investment in the north. Indeed as a 45 per cent shareholder, the Canadian government and the Canadian people I am sure also would like to see a return.
The Manhattan is probably the first vessel we can lay our hands on that has a demonstrated capacity in the Arctic, with limitations. I think it is a good idea to push on with that. The timetable I believe for Panarctic to complete its work in the north probably is three or four years. We have the situation where the Saint John Drydock Company in Saint John, New Brunswick, has demonstrated the capacity to handle a ship in its yard up to 250,000 tons.

Tonight I should like to know whether any discussions have taken place between Panarctic and the departmental officials on the question of conversion. For the record may I say that the Manhattan was converted originally, I believe, at an estimated cost of $40 million, which in fact included not only conversion but also deconversion which was never carried out, because when it ceased to do some work it went to other carriage. I think the total cost of the program was about $56 million. It was never deconverted and the work to reconvert it for Arctic purposes could be done fairly easily and quickly, and well within the schedule of the Saint John drydock.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary to respond first of all in respect of whether or not the Manhattan is an acceptable concept to the government, and second whether or not the consortium of Canadian companies interested in looking closely at this matter could be persuaded by a 45 per cent shareholder, the Government of Canada, to do this conversion because we have the expertise and the knowledge. Indeed anything the parliamentary secretary can tell me in respect of my beloved Arctic and the use of Canadian flag vessels to remove our extractive resources is to be recommended.
I shall not continue any further. The parameters and the pieces fit into the puzzle. The work can be done in Canada. The Manhattan is acceptable to me for the time being. I just do not want to see any more after this, but if we can do the work in Canada and can get the Manhattan up there and get our Arctic crude down, then the Canadian taxpayer might see a return on his money which could be used to build Canadian ships to remove extractive resources from other areas of Canada.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to respond to the concerns of my hon. friend this evening.
The last time he and I had an occasion to discuss the matter of Arctic shipping and extractive resources was at the same point in our proceedings one evening just prior to Christmas, when we were on the eve of second reading debate in this House on a very significant piece of legislation, Bill C-61, the Maritime Code Act, in which I know he is very interested. It is a bit of a coincidence that we are back again discussing a similar topic during the course of the same week in which we have seen that piece of legislation, Bill C-61, come to a final conclusion, in the committee stage at least, and have seen it reported back to the House of Commons. So I am pleased to have an opportunity to discuss this matter with him. I hope I might be able to shed some light on the concerns he has raised.
Panarctic discovered oil at Cameron Island, which is north of Bathurst Island in the Arctic Archipelago, and I understand that drilling is continuing to determine whether there is oil in commercial quantities. In the event that there should be oil in commercial quantities in the far northern region, preliminary consideration is being given to various means of transporting it south. Among the options already considered is a pipeline system, the use of ice strengthened tankers, or a combination of these two systems.
February 26, 1976

As members may know, the regulations under the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act divide our Arctic waters into various zones, depending on the ice coverage. Cameron Island is in zone one, which means that there is maximal ice coverage, that is to say, a very short season of open water or none at all in the summer. The only tankers which could be considered for use to and from Cameron Island on a regular basis would be Arctic class ten, that is to say, vessels capable of maintaining continuous momentum in ice of up to ten feet thick. By comparison, an Arctic class six vessel could only operate there for one month a year, August 15 to September 15.
Another alternative which has been considered is the transportation of the oil by pipeline to a port on the south of Bathurst Island, which is in zone six. Zone six could be serviced by Arctic class seven tankers on a regular basis. Some consideration has also been given to the possible use
Adjournment Debate
of tankers which are simply ice strengthened as part of this system.
I would emphasize that until such time as it is determined that there is oil in commercial quantities at Cameron Island the consideration of transportation options, whether completely by pipeline, by ice class tankers, or by a combination of these two systems, is still at a very preliminary stage. The Canadian shipping industry is, however, very actively looking into the various options and is keeping officials of the Ministry of Transport abreast of its discussions with Panarctic and the other oil companies. I might add that the Canadian coastguard for some time has been proceeding with development of detailed designs for polar ice breakers in the event that these should be required.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Friday, February 27, 1976