1976-04-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in view of recent confirmation by Statistics Canada and Canada Manpower of sharply increased unemployment in Atlantic Canada over last year, in some instances one third greater, as in my own area; the urgent demand by the premiers of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island for assistance for unbearable electrical costs; and the federal government's announced intention to increase transportation costs in Atlantic Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean):
That the Prime Minister convene an emergency meeting of first ministers of the Atlantic provinces to deal in particular with the alarming situation in respect of seriously deepening unemployment, escalating electrical costs and impending transportation cost increases;
that this House instruct the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to report within thirty days on the impact of the government restraint and anti-inflation programs which are creating increased regional disparity;
that the President of the Treasury Board be instructed to present a re-allocated program of government expenditure which recognizes the necessity of flexibility to assure that regional disparities will not continue to increase.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since the footwear and textile industries as well as poultry farming in Canada are all three threatened by
massive imports, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, responsible for licences on import quotas, suspend for a three-month period all import licences on those products to undertake a complete review of any import policy to stabilize the Canadian production for threatened producers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a very urgent and important motion.
Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture made public the new dairy policy for the coming year. Considering that the minister's proposals will force consumers to pay 5 cents more for a pound of butter, considering also that the policy as a whole will mean a sure loss of $2,000 or more for milk producers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey):
That the House unanimously request that the minister responsible summon the CDC before the Committee on Agriculture to reconsider the announcement made by the minister yesterday and which is totally unacceptable at the moment to consumers and producers.


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.

April 14, 1976
Aboriginal Rights


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion is prompted by the fact that as of Friday, April 9, approximately 3,500 pilots whose licences have expired are breaking the law, in particular the Aeronautics Act. Air regulations section 400 states that, except as provided in this part, no person shall fly or attempt to fly as a flight crew member of an aircraft unless he is the holder of a valid and subsisting licence or permit appropriate to his duties issued under this part.
Because this law is being broken, there being no air safety inspectors because of the strike in Ontario and Quebec, and because of the safety hazard, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That the Minister of Transport take immediate action to enforce the Aeronautics Act, air regulation-section 400 and that the appropriate action be taken to see that this law is not broken again.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Native Council of Canada presented a position paper on aboriginal rights to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the cabinet on April 15, 1975, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has not yet responded to the Native Council of Canada position paper although an answer was promised within three months of presentation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth):
That this House urge the government of Canada to recognize the aboriginal rights of native peoples, including Metis and non-status Indians, and enshrine these rights in the Canadian Constitution in a way which will enable them to preserve and protect their languages and cultures.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter. As the United Kingdom pound has plunged one third in value in the past year, the Italian lira is falling to new lows, while the French franc is under severe pressure, it is urgent that the government inform this House and the Canadian public if any call has been made or any commitment given by Canada to support or indirectly aid any foreign currency and, secondly, review what consequences, if any, may develop in the Canadian economy as a result of this international currency turmoil. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies):
That this important matter be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs with a view to hearing the Minister of Finance, his officials, the governor of the Bank of Canada, his officials, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, his officials, and other authorities, on the topic and that there be provision for the committee to make recommendations to the government on this subject.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONGRATULATIONS TO PRESIDENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL ON MARRIAGE
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather special question of privilege. I hope I may have just one minute of the time of the House. There is precedent for this. On March 5, 1971, the then Acting Prime Minister felt compelled to take note of a certain event. I want to do the same today and return the favour. I will do it by replacing my name with his name in what he said on March 5, 1971 in Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House for not having given notice yesterday of the intention of our esteemed government House leader to get married . .. The trouble is he did not consult the members of his Cabinet on this essentially private affair, but I am sure all members of the House will join me in wishing great happiness and long life to the happy pair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. On behalf of the members of the opposition, I want to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for bringing this event to our attention in this almost unique way. I ask him to express the very best wishes of the members of the opposition on this act of great wisdom by the government House leader. I
April 14, 1976

ask him to express to his seatmate our very best wishes for a long and happy married life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) rose I had the rule book in my hand. I was thinking of proposing a motion under Standing Order 5 to give the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) leave to be away. However, since he has taken that leave himself, we join with the Prime Minister and with the spokesman of the official opposition in extending our best wishes to the Honourable and Mrs. Mitchell Sharp.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, with my colleagues of the Social Credit Party of Canada, I join the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as well as the official opposition and hon. members of the New Democratic Party in extending to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) our best wishes of happiness on the occasion of his wedding and we hope he will enjoy many happy and gratifying years.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DR. G. S. DHILLON, MINISTER OF SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT FOR INDIA
Mr. Speaker:: Before beginning the oral question period, which I will extend for a few minutes after three o'clock so that before we are away for a few days, hopefully, hon. members will enjoy a full and ample question period, I draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor who is here today in his capacity of Minister of Shipping and Transport for India. He is much better known to us in his former capacity as a very distinguished Speaker. He was one of the Commonwealth's most outstanding Speakers for seven years in his role as Speaker of the LokSabha, Dr. G. S. Dhillon.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, after the announcement of dairy policy by the Minister of Agriculture yesterday I will put my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and ask him whether he will inform the House why we are faced with the worst of both worlds, namely, an increase in dairy prices to the Canadian consumer at a time when the Minister of Agriculture is asking dairy producers to reduce production?
Oral Questions


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: First, allow me to congratulate the hon. gentleman for his new role in the shadow cabinet; I hope he remains in the shadows for a long, long time. As a member who represents a farm region he is in a position to understand the intricacies which have resulted in this situation. The dairy farmers of this country have been victims of a world-wide phenomenon, basically that of a world-wide surplus of skimmed milk powder which has unexpectedly reduced their incomes. Accordingly, all segments of Canadian society have been asked to help the farmers in this situation.
The Treasury Board has aided substantially, farmers themselves are voluntarily cutting down production in this coming year and we have asked the public to absorb 5 cents on the price of butter, knowing full well that if the price of butter continues to rise farmers will eventually see a diminishing market at home, something which would only add to their problems in the long run. I can only hope that the announcement made by the Minister of Agriculture yesterday, with the object of avoiding this situation next year, will have a beneficial effect on prices as well.


William Heward Grafftey: Before I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Consumer Affairs on his appointment and assure him we shall not be in the shadows for long; I shall keep galloping along with my leader.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: In the hope, again tentative, that for the next two weeks, hon. members may be deprived of the scintillating questions asked during the question period, perhaps members on both sides would agree to stay with questions and answers.


AGRICULTURE
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Agriculture. Because of the disastrous dairy policy announced last April setting the target support price too high for dairy products, which resulted in over-production, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture why the Canadian consumer and producer should pay such a penalty for his mistakes? Considering the price increase anticipated for Canadian consumers and the fact the individual producers will suffer to the extent of $2,000 to $3,000 a year, would the minister refer his announced dairy policy to the appropriate standing committee of this House, and if not, why not?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost the dairy farmers of Canada last year presented figures to justify their request for $14 a hundredweight for milk. We did not give them what they wanted and they are still condemning us for that. I would
12808

April 14, 1976
Oral Questions
dare the hon. member to go into his constituency and tell the dairy farmers that I paid them too much, which is what he has suggested. There is nothing stopping the agriculture committee dealing with dairy policy. I understand that they were supposed to deal with it today but they could not find a quorum since not enough members were going to be present.
Some of my officials are meeting at the present time with some of the dairy farmers of Canada and discussing the proposed policy and program for this year which I announced yesterday in the House. If it is creating a hardship on farmers, then I did not tell them to produce over 100 million hundredweight of milk last year. If the hon. member would read the announcement I made last April, he would find that I told them to produce 100 million hundredweight of milk and no more.


William Heward Grafftey: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister explained to the Anti-Inflation Board how the consumer can pay more at a time when he is asking the producer to restrict production; and in view of the anticipated increase in the price to the consumer, has the minister referred the proposed dairy policy to the Anti-Inflation Board?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Anti-Inflation Board has been having discussions with the Canadian Dairy Commission and is perfectly aware of the formula the commission is operating under. Let me tell the hon. member that if labour and business in this country were like the dairy farmers, who are operating under a stricter program than we are suggesting for labour or industry, there would be no need for an Anti-Inflation Board.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Considering that the storage of butter surpluses is extremely expensive and that the price of butter increased by 5 cents a pound, which may well reduce consumption, how can the minister justify in the eyes of the consumer such an increase in the price of butter when we have surpluses which cost us so much?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have not tried to justify to the consumer why our dairy policy has resulted in a five cent increase in the price of a pound of butter. On the contrary, I have expressed my regret that this is one of the end results of the policy. Having said that, I am pragmatic enough to know that the farmers, as a result of a worldwide surplus of skim milk powder, are facing extraordinary storage charges. We are asking all segments of society to bear the cost of that particular problem which is bearing on a particularly important group of people. We cannot develop the type of society in which each and every one of

us would be selfish enough to share the benefits and not be prepared to share some of the problems of other segments of society. We have helped the dairy farmers, even if the opposition does not agree.


AGRICULTURE
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a second supplementary for the Minister of Agriculture.
Considering that, according to what he said yesterday, it seems already certain that the credits for storage cost are insufficient, will the minister ask the producers to pay for the storage cost if necessary or is he prepared today to ensure that this will be provided by the government?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am confident that if the dairy farmers do what they have said they are going to do about production and domestic consumption, they probably will not need all the money we are providing. I am hoping this is going to be the fact. My officials and our dairy farmers, yours and mine, advise us that they are going to adhere to this kind of program but they are not going to produce for waste, and are not going to produce to give away their products. We do not ask anybody else in our society to do that.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN DECISION ON WAGE SETTLEMENT OF URANIUM MINERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that workers in Canada who work for the uranium mines are subject to a totally disproportionate degree of risk of acquiring both silicosis and lung cancer, and given the fact that the trade union negotiating for such employees in the Elliot Lake region negotiated as part of the package an early retirement provision, designed precisely to protect the health of those workers, will the minister assure the House that the government will intervene in the extraordinary decision of the Anti-Inflation Board that held down the proposed negotiated settlement to 12 per cent, the bare guideline in this case, thus putting in total jeopardy the package negotiated by the union, accepted by the company, and intended to protect the health of those employees?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the assurance that we will intervene, although my colleague, the Minister of Labour, in particular, has been concerned about the efforts the federal government would like to take to assure better safety standards in uranium mines at Elliot Lake and elsewhere in Canada. I should say that the Anti-Inflation Board will be meeting on Tuesday next, April 20, with parties to this particular settlement for the purpose of clarifying the

decision. I will be looking forward to a report from the board after that time on reactions expressed at that meeting to see what further action might be taken. I might just add in this regard that as soon as Bill C-89 is adopted by the House that would provide a route for either the company or the union to seek a review of the decision. For the time being, the board has agreed to meet with the parties to discuss it further, and I will await the results of that discussion.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the board, of course, refused to meet with those workers in the first place. Considering that one of the provisions of the law now on the books would enable the board to make a ruling that would provide for an increase beyond the 12 per cent level, that is the provision relating to the fact that the 12 per cent increase might result in a lack of workers going into the industry, in which case they would be exempt, and given the fact that everyone knows there is a profound health hazard associated with working in uranium mines, rather than waiting for the results of that meeting next week or two weeks, will the minister assurp the House that the government will make known to the Anti-Inflation Board that it does not accept this extraordinarily bad ruling in this instance?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that the hon. gentleman is correct when he says there was a refusal to communicate between the board and the union in question. It does seem to rne, however, that the board has been given the responsibility by parliament for negotiating between parties in this kind of situation. It does remain sensible for the board to engage in that kind of negotiation such as the kind of discussion that is implied next Tuesday. Under the circumstances, I think it would be far wiser to await that discussion and see what the conclusions would be. As to the application of the particular exemption referred to, that of course is a matter which will be before the Anti-Inflation Board and it will want to take it into account in its decision on this matter.


POSSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN DECISION ON WAGE SETTLEMENT OF MINERS AT THOMPSON, MANITOBA
John Edward Broadbent: As a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a question with reference to another decision made by the same brilliant board. Does the government plan to take any action concerning the settlement the board has deemed to be appropriate for miners working at Thompson, Manitoba which again has been set at the 12 per cent level and will leave miners in the Inco Corporation in that part of Canada being paid substantially less than the miners in the Sudbury region who work for precisely the same company? I should like to ask the minister if the government will not make it clear to the board that the same provision for companies to be able to ensure a supply of workers, and thus have an exemption under the guidelines, applies in the Thompson case and that here again the decision should have been one that would have provided workers there with an increase well above the 12 per cent limit.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the board would have
Oral Questions
taken into account that particular consideration, but certainly I would be glad to mention that point of view to the board. It seems to me, however, that the same principle applies where parliament has given this board this authority that it should have the opportunity to exercise its best judgment on the matter.


AGRICULTURE
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
According to the law of supply and demand prices would tend to drop when supply exceeds demand. This is the case with the dairy industry.
The second part of my question is this: since the government dairy policy was announced yesterday and in view of the reports we have received and the pressure we are made to feel, did the minister have any communication with the APU asking for a meeting for today or so, in order to discuss this overall policy concerning the dairy industry in Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware if UPA has made that request. We have met with representatives of La Belle Province industrial milk producers at the Sir John Carling Building this morning.


REQUEST THAT PRODUCERS BENEFIT FROM INCREASED PRICE OF MILK
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary, which is also directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
Given the fact that the support price for butter has been increased by five cents a pound and that the price for milk powder has been raised by four cents a pound, which represents roughly 50 cents a hundredweight to be absorbed by the consumers, may I ask the minister, even if he would be tempted to answer that this is not under his jurisdiction, whether he would be prepared to exercise his influence in order that processing plants give industrial milk producers the benefit of the full amount of this price increase as compensation for producers having to pay the 70 cents a hundredweight increase for export?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, that is the general intention, but I would just remind the hon. member that over 80 per cent of the dairy products which go to the industrial markets are marketed by co-operatives owned by the farmers themselves.
12810

April 14, 1976
Oral Questions


METHOD OF DISPOSING OF SURPLUS MILK
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I too, would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a supplementary.
Could the minister tell the House how the Canadian Dairy Commission will dispose of the surplus milk subject to the $8.60 a hundredweight penalty? Will these surpluses be turned into butter or some other products to be marketed at the same prices as those for milk subject to quotas?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, any surplus milk that the hon. member talks about that will suffer a penalty of $8.60 per hundredweight will not be wasted. We are hoping that it will just not be produced because farmers will be producing it for a few odd cents a hundred. This just does not make common sense or economic sense.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the temporary absence of the Minister of Finance I should like to direct to the Prime Minister a question arising from the sharply increasing unemployment level in Atlantic Canada as indicated by Statistics Canada yesterday. Since one purpose of the control program was to contain inflation without increasing regional disparity, would the Prime Minister give us a commitment or advise the House whether the Minister of Finance will hold formal talks prior to final budget preparations with all four governments of the Atlantic region to reach some kind of open understanding on employment goals and on common fiscal action.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that such talks have been held by the Minister of Finance with all the provincial ministers of finance just a few weeks ago.


SUGGESTED NARROWING OF REGIONAL DISPARITY AS GOAL IN PREPARATION OF BUDGET
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister indicate to us whether the Minister of Finance in going into the preparation of his budget now has some common understanding with the premiers of the four Atlantic provinces regarding the impact of the federal policy upon those regions, and if he has not will the Prime Minister give us an undertaking now that there will be that kind of consultation prior to the final preparation of the budget so that the budget will not have another devastating impact upon that region of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can give the House the assurance that the finance

minister's budget will take into account not only the effect of that budget on the maritimes but on all parts of Canada. The Leader of the Opposition knows that the unemployment figures fluctuate from time to time. In the past two years the growth in investment in the maritimes has been much higher than the national average and employment growth has been much higher than the national average.


An hon. Member:: That is silly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not silly. Those are the facts. These figures vary from time to time. I am rather surprised that the Leader of the Opposition wants a budget to be designed only for the maritimes. Surely all parts of Canada are important.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is losing his touch even in diversionary tactics. I would invite him to read the documents prepared by his colleague the minister responsible for DREE which indicate that capital formation in Atlantic Canada will continue to lag substantially behind the national average. In light of that I wonder whether the Prime Minister can assure us now-and I stress that I am not asking him to anticipate any specific budgetary decisions-that the goal of narrowing regional disparity this year will be a priority consideration-I emphasize "priority" consideration"-in the over-all approach of the Minister of Finance to the forthcoming budget.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would want to point out to the Leader of Opposition that the very documents to which he refers if he looks at them well will indicate that my statement about capital formation in the past two years is correct and that it is higher in the maritimes than in the nation as a whole. The hon. member cannot quote a document and then deny what is in the document.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister depart from these diversions and answer the question as to whether or not the Government of Canada is going to follow the goal of narrowing regional disparity this year as it applies to Atlantic Canada and take that as a priority consideration in the preparation of the budget which is to be presented sometime in May. Will he answer that question.


An hon. Member:: Yes or no.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes.


PROPOSED RECONSIDERATION OF SPENDING PRIORITIES TO BETTER AID THE ATLANTIC REGION
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might direct a supplementary to the Prime Minister with regard to the economic slowdown possibly as a result of the controls where the impact has been severest, in Atlantic Canada. Can he say whether there is now underway a reconsideration of the spending priorities of such key departments as DREE, Industry, Trade and Commerce, Transport or Manpower with a view to a possible redistribution of their existing budgetary allotment to better aid the Atlantic region in at least regaining the ground it has lost this past two years and if such a review is not now
April 14, 1976

underway what type of immediate assistance is the government contemplating?


An hon. Member:: Yes or No?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes or No,
Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Petulant child!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. members opposite should know that.


An hon. Member:: Remember your blood pressure.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the House is very serious, judging by the interventions.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am really quite disappointed that the Prime Minister feels unable to answer a basic question with respect to what he considers to be so fundamental. The reason I am so concerned is that in my area unemployment has risen.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary question, will he put it.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the more than one third increase in unemployment which has occurred in some areas, I should like to ask whether the Prime Minister would establish some form of interdepartmental or government co-ordination specifically addressed to the problem of rising unemployment and, if not, would he convene at the earliest possible moment a meeting of first ministers from the Atlantic provinces to consider these major problems in unemployment, escalating electricity costs, transportation, etc., which are crippling the economy of the Atlantic region?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am really amazed at the opposition members making suggestions now of things which the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has been doing for several years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is the reason for the higher growth which has taken place in the Maritimes in the past few years. I am pleased that they are jumping on our bandwagon. Of course, we will continue our programs.


An hon. Member:: What absolute balderdash!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Labour met with Air Canada and CALEA last night. If that is so, I should like to ask the minister if he could inform the House of the results of that meeting?
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Could you not have asked it in caucus?


John Carr Munro: I thank the hon. member very much for his interest in this troublesome dispute. I would indicate that the parties did meet last night and they are continuing to talk now.


An hon. Member:: Oh, bully for you!


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister in view of the absence of the Minister of Public Works. Has the Prime Minister been advised that a company whose principal owner is a fairly senior employee of the Bank of Canada has been awarded at least four cleaning contracts in federal government buildings in Ottawa since 1972 and, if so, does the minister consider that to be a conflict of interest?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of these facts but I will take note of them.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Unfortunately the Solicitor General is not here either, so I will direct my supplementary question to the Acting Solicitor General. Has he been advised that the RCMP investigation into the awarding of cleaning contracts in Toronto has now been expanded to include Ottawa, and if this is the case, can he tell us what the terms of that investigation are?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is not the practice of the House to report on RCMP investigations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ELECTIONS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask this question of the Prime Minister in view of his reference to the bandwagon. Is the reason he is holding back in providing for an election in Ottawa-

April 14, 1976
Oral Questions
Carleton that he feels the Liberal bandwagon will turn out to be a funeral procession?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I want to answer this, Mr. Speaker. It might be a funeral procession and we will bury some of the hon. members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Let us have the election.


An hon. Member:: You won't need an ambulance.


Mr. Lawrence:: Actions speak louder than words.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD SUGGESTED REFERENCE TO BOARD OF PRICE INCREASE BY &quot;MACLEAN'S&quot;
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance. It concerns the responsibility of the Department of Finance for antiinflation measures. My question arises from information in yesterday's press stating Maclean's magazine is raising its price from 50 cents per copy to 60 cents per copy, and the question is this: Since Maclean's magazine is the chief calculated beneficiary of recent legislation passed by this government and since they have recently stated that they wish to serve urban areas in Canada, abandoning any rural contact, will the government and its Anti-Inflation Board allow that magazine to benefit from this 20 per cent price hike which I am sure is far above any permitted increase according to anti-inflation guidelines?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the guidelines apply to corporations as well as to other sections of society and most generally they apply through the profit margin. I imagine they have raised their price because they want to maintain their profit margin after the publicity they gave the Tory leader in one of their recent issues.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Bryce did all right.


An hon. Member:: Mackasey for leader.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The president of Lockheed stated yesterday that Lockheed has agreed to the investigation of itself as a necessary prerequisite to finalizing their recapitalization plan with 24 banks. Lockheed is clearly in the throes of a very difficult

financial reorganization. Does this reduce the minister's enthusiasm for the Lockheed contract, and, if so, is he going to do anything about Lockheed's worsening situation?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: The government has an option to complete the contract, an option which terminates at the end of this month. Our objective is to achieve the contract before that time. We are now in the process of holding discussions with the U.S. government to receive the assurances that we need before signing the contract, and Lockheed itself is discussing the financing arrangements with the Canadian banks.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-RETENTION OF RIGHTS IN ELECTRONIC PACKAGE IF DEVELOPMENT COSTS PAID
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, apparently yesterday's sad financial news for Lockheed makes no difference to his determination to deal with them. If the Lockheed LRPA contract is signed, I understand that Canada will be paying all the research and development costs of the S3A electronic package, which may be as high as $100 million. Is the minister ensuring that Canada will retain residual equity rights to these technical developments if there are future sales beyond the Canadian 18?


James Armstrong Richardson: It is obvious that Canada is not paying for the development of the S3A. The S3A equipment is already in service in the United States in their carrier borne aircraft. It must have been developed long before Canada got into the picture. We are, of course, putting that type of equipment into the new aircraft, and there will be one-time engineering costs involved, but we are certainly not involved in the development of that equipment.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister inform the House whether there is a conscious effort on the part of his department to employ the handicapped, and if so, would he use his influence with his cabinet colleagues so that they might follow his laudable example within their respective departments?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is a conscious policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It just makes good sense that people who have minor handicaps-we all have one handicap or another; look at the opposition-should be helped in this way. For example, some changes should be made in buildings so that people who are handicapped and have to use
April 14, 1976

wheel chairs can move about. Perhaps we should take some initiative in that area.


CONSULTATIONS WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS TO DESIGNATE SPECIFIC POSITIONS FOR HANDICAPPED
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue. Would he consult with his colleagues, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, in order to have specific positions in the public service designated for handicapped people, including members of the opposition, who always have aspirations to get to the other side of the House, and will he follow the example of other countries which have advanced social policies in this respect?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No,
Mr. Speaker. I do not agree with designating certain jobs and saying that they will be done by the handicapped. My experience has been that the handicapped can handle most jobs, and we should not limit them by setting quotas or designating jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday the minister tabled in the House the summary report of the in house investigation into the sinking of the fishing vessel, the San Juan, off the east coast of Newfoundland. It followed on the heels of a statement the minister released last week in which he admitted that present marine search and rescue capabilities are inadequate. Since this in house investigation raises more questions than answers, does the minister now intend to order a full scale inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the sinking of this vessel and the loss of the lives of two fishermen which would address itself to the whole situation?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker. It is my view that the investigation answers the questions raised by the events surrounding the sinking of the San Juan. The hon. member is quite right that there are other questions in relation to the total search and rescue capability, and as he knows, at the moment we are making a very determined effort to take those in hand and to ensure that there will be improvements. Those improvements will be announced in due course.


MEASURES TO ENSURE EFFICIENCY OF SEARCH AND RESCUE ORGANIZATION PENDING REPORT OF TASK FORCE
James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact that the statement of the minister last week indicated that the report of the task force on search and rescue
Oral Questions
procedures, to which the minister just referred, will not be ready for the cabinet before mid-summer, and in view of the fact that we are now embarking on another full scale fishing season, what immediate plans does the minister intend to put into operation to cover the inadequacies to which he referred? Surely there will be maximum efficiency in whatever search and rescue capability we now have.


Otto Emil Lang: The statement from my office, which was a very long one outlining all the things which have been done and some very fine improvements in our basic qualities, did indeed indicate the need for additional efforts. I know the hon. member is disturbed that that straightforward statement on my part left him without a charge to lay, but I would say that I believe the hon. member is misreading the statement which, as I recall, said the report would be presented before mid-summer, which is rather different from his statement, which was "not" before summer.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The minister has indicated that because of his timetable he would be preparing a submission to cabinet by the end of March. Would the minister advise whether the cabinet now has the schedule of reductions in military bases, and in particular, when does he expect a definitive decision? Will it be made during the parliamentary recess, or will it be deferred so that we can discuss it in the House?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure rationalization paper is now before a cabinet committee. There will be no announcement during the recess.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. What possible reason would Miss Carmel Carriere, then the executive assistant to the Minister of the Environment, for whose actions the minister obviously must be held responsible, allegedly send a handwritten note on ministerial stationery to Andrew Chatwood, executive assistant to the then minister of transport, under date of October 26, 1971 pertaining to the Sky Shops lease?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I missed the first part of the question, but if the hon. member is asking about a matter which is under investigation, I told the House yesterday that the RCMP had made their report to the office of the provincial attorney general, that it would be up to them to assess the evidence they have, and if they laid charges, we would await the verdict.

April 14, 1976
Oral Questions
If they do not lay charges, I hope the opposition will stop laying charges.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You know it's true.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I have no knowledge of the RCMP investigation because we cannot get that information. However, I wonder if that handwritten letter would have anything to do with an alleged letter written on November 23, 1971- obviously in reply-by Mr. Chatwood to William Huck in the air transport division of the Ministry of Transport with a copy of the letter going to O. G. Stoner, deputy transport minister, saying that the hon. Mr. Marchand was insisting that no competitive bids for that lease be called.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would not know, but I would be glad to draw that piece of evidence to the attention of the RCMP, in whom I have confidence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, come on.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government of Canada directly or indirectly, through the Export Development Corporation, the World Bank or the Inter-American Development Bank, assisted in financing a very large proposal by Noranda Mines Limited, a Canadian corporation, or any of its subsidiaries for a copper mine and smelter in Andocollo, Chile? If it has not done so, has it undertaken to do so?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no approval by the government of Canada to support financially a copper project by Noranda in Chile. I understand there may be some such proposal in mind, but to my knowledge no application has been made by Noranda for government assistance or government assurance through the EDC.
In order to complete the picture and to avoid misunderstanding later, I should say that Canada has joined the World Bank in support of a loan for copper development in Chile, but it is not, to my knowledge, the Noranda development. It is a globally supported development in that country.


Francis Andrew Brewin: In light of the fact that this government, as well as the United Nations, has condemned the regime of terror and torture in Chile, and in light of the economic situation there, where there was a 340 per cent inflation rate for 1975, will the minister undertake, as far as he can do so, that the Canadian government will not directly or indirectly support investments by Canadian multinational corporations, which would have the effect of bolstering the regime in Chile?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As the hon. member knows, we have consistently condemned the denial of human rights in Chile, and we have made our voice clear in the United Nations in that respect. However, we have not reached the conclusion that the discussion on multinational subjects at the World Bank or other international agencies ought to be politicized in the way the hon. member suggests. Nor do I accept the notion that these investments are directed to the maintenance in power of the present government. Rather, they contribute to the maintenance of the social and economic development of the country.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the documents tabled in the House by the Prime Minister last Friday when he gave details on the correspondence exchanged since April 9, 1975 with regard to the avenues open for patriating the Canadian constitution, and bearing in mind that two federal-provincial conferences are to be held grouping the Prime Minister and provincial premiers in early May and around the middle of June can the Prime Minister tell hon. members of the House whether he intends to broach the subject at one or the other conference, or whether he plans to convene s special conference to discuss this subject alone? If so, when would he propose to do so? If not, does he intend to ask the Clerk of the Privy Council to go and meet the premiers of the Canadian provinces to get their points of view and agree with them on the steps to be taken further to the proposals made in his letter of March 31 last?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, to answer the last point the hon. member brought up, I must say that the secretary to the Cabinet for federal-provincial relations is now visiting one of the provinces to discuss this matter, at the request of its premier.
As for the first part of the question, I suggested to the premiers that we discuss the matter when we meet early in May. However, I have yet to receive replies from all premiers and, for the time being, I do not know whether this question will be on the agenda or whether we will have to discuss it at a later date.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. The upcoming United Nations Conference on Human Settlements will place great emphasis on problems

urban areas of the future will face, but the agenda places little emphasis on the problem of rural housing. As the minister has said that the vast majority of the world's poor live in rural settlements, why is more emphasis not being placed on solving the housing problem in rural areas, a problem which applies not only to agricultural land areas but also to small villages and towns?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the agenda for the conference is set internationally by the United Nations itself. There is to be great emphasis on rural settlements, an emphasis which I welcome, as do both developed and developing countries. That matter will certainly be emphasized and included in Canada's position as presented to the United Nations.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Without commenting on the specific appointment of the new commissioner to the Yukon, in view of the concern expressed by the people of the Yukon about the appointment of an individual who is not a resident of the territory and a similar concern expressed by the residents of the Northwest Territories, will the Prime Minister assure the House and people of the Northwest Territories that, when the present commissioner of the Northwest Territories retires, his replacement will be a resident of the territories and that the wishes of the elected representatives of the Northwest Territories will not be ignored, as happened in the Yukon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my information is that the newly appointed commissioner of the Yukon had been a resident of the Yukon for many years.


An hon. Member:: Had?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, yes. I think he moved out last year to Edmonton, which is not so remote from the Yukon, because Albertans are often seeking jurisdiction over the Yukon or the territories. I do not think a man is disqualified, and his knowledge of the area erased, just because he has been away from it one year; otherwise, hon. members on both side of the House would be disqualified.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At the end of this month further aid to the stricken people of Guatemala will be shipped from the east coast. Included in that aid will be building and medical supplies. I might say that this special shipment co-
Oral Questions
ordinated by the Diocese of Hamilton would not have been possible without the extraordinary efforts of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Labour. I congratulate them both for their humanitarian efforts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to go a step further. In the shipment there is room for ten tons of skim milk powder. Will he make representations to the Minister of Agriculture, so that there may be included in the shipment ten tons of skim milk powder, as this commodity, contrary to earlier reports, can be consumed by the people of Guatemala who need it desperately.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments about efforts being made in Guatemala. I shall not have any difficulty in making representations to my colleague about skim milk powder. He has frequently made similar representations to me and I am happy for a chance to return the compliment.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. If the federal government were to patriate the constitution unilaterally, in line with the Prime Minister's suggestion, the British parliament would need to amend certain key provisions. I ask, how would these key provisions be amended when the provinces cannot agree on the amending formula?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had dealt in detail with that matter when I answered in the House last week. The short answer is that we have three formulae whereby patriation would be possible. All three indicate a procedure for amendment which, in first instance, would be based on the unanimous consent of the provinces. That is to say, all provinces would be involved when any amendment is adopted or when any amending procedure is adopted. Surely, the hon. member would not expect more than this. You cannot have more than unanimity.


OIL-INCREASED COST TO BRITISH COLUMBIA CONSUMERS AS RESULT OF SARNIA-MONTREAL PIPELINE-REQUEST FOR SUBSIDY
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister has been advised by the minister responsible for energy in British Columbia that the phasing out of oil exports through the Trans Mountain Pipe Line to the Pacific northwest will increase the tariff per barrel for
12816

April 14, 1976
Oral Questions
B.C. consumers by an estimated 74 cents per barrel, for an estimated total cost of $37 million in the year 1977. As this volume will be flowing through the Sarnia-Montreal pipeline, to an area receiving a $20 million pipeline subsidy and an area which also benefits from subsidized, imported oil, can the minister say if the federal government will subsidize this new $37 million annual cost to B.C. consumers, a cost caused by this new direction of flow?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the same story said that the B.C. minister was writing to me, to set out his arguments. I have not yet seen his letter.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Does the minister know that high powered, national week-end advertisements for the $100 Canadian Olympic gold coin represented that the coin is destined to become one of the most exciting coins in history and that all previous Canadian gold coin issues have increased dramatically in value? But that same advertisement did not say that all previous Canadian issues contained gold content equal to their face value. The currently issued gold coin sells for $105 but contains only $32 worth of gold. If the minister is aware of these advertisements, is he satisfied that they are fair representations to an unsuspecting public? As Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, can he assure the House that this does not constitute misleading advertising?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, it is not misleading advertising to say that it is one of the most exciting coins we have ever produced. The fact that the coin has virtually sold out indicates that. It is not misleading advertising to say that all previous coins, or any coins produced in the past by the Canadian mint and circulated by the Canadian government, have appreciated in value. These are facts.


Peter Colwell Bawden: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would appreciate the minister's comment on the gold content. While he answers, will he say if he was consulted prior to the publication of this slick gold coin advertising which calls the coin a solid investment and suggests that there may be gains of up to 37 times the original investment, without explaining the difference between the value of gold content and the price at which the coin is being offered. Will the minister assure the House that this shabby and misleading advertising will not reflect on the international standing of our currency?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the only thing shabby is the question. If people want to buy pure gold, they can do it. However, when you buy a Canadian gold coin with a face value of $100, we do not pretend there is $100 worth of gold in it anymore than with any of our other coinage. You are buying what the hon. member fails to appreciate; the 
beauty of the coin, the fact that it is related to a once in a lifetime event, the Olympics, that it is a work of art and that it is appreciated all over the world. It is very much in demand. That is one of the reasons it will appreciate in value. This may just reflect the lack of cultural value of the hon. member when putting his question in such a manner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, the advertising virtually assures buyers that their $100 coins will be worth something in the order of $3,000 or $3,500. I think the minister will agree that is going too far.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, it is true that it is almost equal to the percentage increase reaching the oil industry through drilling.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-Mr. Dupras.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table today in both official languages three reports from the Textile and Clothing Board. There are reports of an inquiry respecting outerwear, men's and boys' shirts, and acrylic yarns.


OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement which I hope will be encouraging news to over one half million residents of Canada who are presently deprived of social security benefits earned in other countries because of the absence of reciprocal agreements with those countries.
I wish to announce the government's intention to submit to parliament, in the coming months, legislation amending the Old Age Security Act. Parliament will be asked to
April 14, 1976

adopt measures, first, to increase the flexibility of the residence requirements relating to eligibility for a pension; second, to remove the all-or-nothing feature of the present legislation, thereby relating the pension to the beneficiary's association with Canada and bringing the legislation into line conceptually with the CPP; and third, to build into our program the possibility of its inclusion in international reciprocal arrangements with other countries, such as Italy, the United States, and the United Kingdom, so that our residents who have earned social security rights in foreign countries can receive them in Canada. [Translation]
Canadians haves good reason to be proud of the present old age security program. It is a generous, non-contributory universal program which few other industrialized countries can match. The changes which I propose will not affect the conditions under which lifetime residents of Canada, or those in their immediate pre-retirement years, can qualify for or enjoy their pensions.
Its essential features will remain: universality, payable at age 65, or 60 in the case of the spouse's allowance, eligibility subject to a minimum of ten years residence after age 18 or a minimum of twenty years residence in Canada if it is to be paid on a permanent basis to a beneficiary living abroad. The proposed changes I am announcing today are to enable the program to address the inequities which are arising because of the increasing number of persons whose active working life and retirement are not all spent in Canada. When the program was first introduced, mobility across international boundaries was much less, and migration was usually once-in-a-lifetime event. But the situation is changing and the present act, which takes no account at all of the pension credits which Canadian residents may have acquired in other countries nor provides for international agreements, should also be changed.

These proposals will make the present residence rules fairer and will also make them simpler over the long run. I would like to sketch out the changes and explain our strategy for implementing them.
The government will propose that the old age security pension be "earned" by residents at the rate of one fortieth of the eventual full pension for one year of residence in Canada after age 18. This would mean that legal residence in Canada for 40 years would qualify a person for the full OAS pension, and residence for less than 40 years after age 18 would qualify a person for a portion of the full pension. This change will achieve several worth-while objectives. It will eliminate the inequities which result in a small but significant number of cases from the rigorous application of the current eligibility rules.
At present to qualify for the pension at age 65, one must (a), have resided in Canada for 40 years after age 18 ("40 year rule"); or (b), have resided in Canada for any consecutive 10 year period from age 55 onward ("10 year rule"); or (c), qualify under the "three-for-one rule". This last eligibility rule is a formula under which three years of presence in Canada between age 18 and 55 will count for one year of residence under the ten-year rule provided that the applicant resides in Canada during the year preceding commencement of the pension.
Old Age Security Act
These rules created an all-or-nothing situation. The changes we will propose will relate the amount of the pension to the degree of association that the individual has had with our country. This will create a stronger program, and in fact one which is more consistent with the Canada Pension Plan in which benefits relate to contributions made here.
At the international level the changes which we will be proposing will enhance the government's ability to protect the acquired social security credits of our residents who migrate across international boundaries during their active years, by providing for the negotiation of reciprocal agreements. These would be similar to those already entered into by many countries.
There are a great variety of rules in different countries pertaining to the payment abroad of acquired social security benefits. We will seek enabling amendments to include the OAS program in international social security agreements to be negotiated with other countries. Therefore in addition to the authority which the government presently has to negotiate such agreements in respect to the Canada Pension Plan, we will be proposing to acquire such authority in respect to the Old Age Security Act.
Representations have been made constantly over the years by people who do not receive in Canada payment of pension credits accumulated in their country of origin. I have also received frequent representations concerning this issue from members of all parties, and in particular from members on this side of the House. The proposed amendments should facilitate the payment of such pensions through the negotiation of reciprocal agreements. I am convinced that this measure will be welcomed by the many thousands of Canadians of British, Italian, and other origins. Assuming the co-operation of the foreign governments concerned, it would be our desire to reach early agreements with these countries.
It is our firm intention at the same time to protect those who now have the possibility of eventually qualifying for a full pension under the present rules. Our implementation strategy for the new policy will ensure this. For residents who are 25 or over and in Canada at the time the amendments come into force, the more beneficial set of rules, either the present or new ones, would apply. They too would have the opportunity, as they now have, to qualify for a full pension. This choice of alternatives would also apply to those not now resident in Canada but who have had prior legal residence here after the age of 18. To all others, only the new rules which I have just sketched would apply.
I am announcing our intentions as proposals because I will be consulting with the provinces prior to introducing legislation. I would like, in closing, to ask the unanimous consent of the House to table background information on the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
2! 804-5014

April 14, 1976
Old Age Security Act


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity of replying to the minister. May I say first of all that I do not understand why, having looked at the matter over the years, the minister is so late in coming up not with some concrete proposals but suggested proposals which have to be accepted by the provincial governments before he can move a step further.
Secondly, I take an extremely dim view of the attitude and partisanship shown by the minister on page 4 of his statement, where he says:
I have also received frequent representations concerning this issue from members of all parties, and in particular from-
Then he did not want to read the next part, which mentions the hon. member for-


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps to shorten the matter I anticipate that the point concerns the fact that the minister did not speak those words when he made his statement.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we distribute proposed statements to opposition parties as early as possible as a matter of courtesy. These are "proposed" statements. Obviously it is the right of a minister to modify these proposed statements after they have been sent out, especially on matters of detail. It is really in rather poor taste to raise this point, and I take the strongest exception to the hon. member's trying to use a draft that he has received as words I have actually uttered in the House. If he wants to quote the text, I have no strong objection. Indeed the three members whom he wanted to refer to have been very articulate- and I am glad that they are all on this side of the House- in pressing for changes in this area. However, I felt that in terms of good relations with all members of the House, particularly members on his side, I would not mention individual members. I find the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) acting in rather poor taste.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the fact that the minister gave me notice of his statement, but I very much resent that part of the statement which he now finds extremely important was left out. Surely the minister should have the courtesy to advise me that he was not going to mention the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), and the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Parent). He might have called me about it, or his office might have called me.
My point is that there are members on this side of the House who should equally have been singled out if the minister is going to single anybody out. He should also have singled out members from the NDP. He could have referred to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) and to the hon. member for Hamilton West. All I am saying is that if in the future the minister is going to mention names, to be fair he should mention names of members from all parties.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are into a procedure that has been set down in our Standing Orders since last Easter, almost a year now. The minister has made a statement and the opposition parties are given time to comment on it. It seems to me they can comment on any part of the statement or omission from the statement that is relevant, and this is now taking place.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I can have order. What I have to say is for the edification not only of those on this side of the House but those on the other side as well. This statement is obviously a reaction to a bureaucratic oversight and is an attempt to give legitimate power to make international reciprocal agreements, a power that now exists in the Canada Pension Plan. There has now been a recognition of the need of some 500,000 people. It is an astonishing revelation that there are some 500,000 people who are deprived of benefits as a result of the lack of reciprocal agreements. That is the key phrase.
How long has the minister been involved with old age security legislation? Certainly he has since 1973. The act was first brought in in 1951. Now, in 1976, the minister is taking a pie in the sky approach in these proposals, and in the meantime a lot of people are suffering. There has been a cavalier disregard for the plight of thousands of people whose incomes have diminished because of the erosion of the dollar and the high cost of living. Now at long last the government has awakened to the fact that there is significant mobility across international boundaries, and that migration is not a once in a life time matter.
With all respect to the minister, Mr. Speaker, I must say I am somewhat hesitant to give him any praise, even though I like him. He is a nice chap, and although we had a few words of disagreement at the beginning he is trying to do his best. But what disturbs me is the patchwork, ad hoc approach of the minister to our social security programs. At the same time the government is advocating an integrated approach to the entire social security program, and work has been going on now for three years. There is no integration in the minister's proposals; rather it is a patchwork approach that can only lead to further confusion and frustration by denying the rights not of doctors, lawyers, and members of parliament, but of the working poor. This is what I find most discouraging.
We now have a three tiered approach to social security. First there is old age security, and this is going to be affected by the proposed legislation. Old age security is granted universally. We then have the Canada Pension Plan to which a person must contribute. The third tier is private plans. The disturbing thing about private plans is that they are not working. Those who contribute to a private plan are locked in for a 10-year period, and some people leave their employment after five years. I want to know whether the minister is concerned about this. Is he examining the inequities, injustices, and the discrimination that is taking place? I would have thought the minister would have dealt with these questions in his statement.
The minister has now really brought in a fourth tier. The first tier is old age security, the second tier the CPP, and the third private plans. The minister is now taking another approach which puts forward options, and this is why I call it a fourth tier.
April 14, 1976

Let me just refer to what the minister said on page 5 of his statement:
For residents who are 25 or over and in Canada at the time the amendments come into force, the more beneficial set of rules-old or new-would apply. They too would have the opportunity-as they now have-to qualify for a full pension. This choice of alternatives would also apply to those not now resident in Canada but who have had prior legal residence here after the age of 18. To all others, only the new rules which I have just sketched would apply.
What kind of a mess are we getting into, Mr. Speaker? Once again the government is bringing in confusing, frustrating proposals that are extremely complex. I have every sympathy with the minister, but I must inform him that the members on this side, although very sympathetic to the approach to the over-all picture of social security, want something that is easy to understand, not complex, and, unlike what we have now, non-discriminatory.
I note that there are three objectives in the minister's proposals. The first is to increase the flexibility of the residence requirements relating to eligibility for a pension. There is no question that there is a need for equity and fairness in this regard. The second objective is to remove the all or nothing feature of the present legislation, thereby relating the pension to the beneficiary's association with Canada and bringing the legislation into line conceptually with the CPP. I question whether that is fair or just. We are anxious to meet the minister in debate on this floor and in committee so that the many questions that have to be asked can be answered.
Under this proposal you have a partial payment. Some of those who reach 65 will get full payment and others will not. I do not know how many are involved, who they are, or really what is going on. These are some of the many questions that we must ask. I know the minister will be able to answer them as a result of consultation with his assistants.
There is another question in respect of which one must register some concern. The minister has talked about reciprocal agreements, and I think this relates to Italy, the United States, the United Kingdom, and others. I do not know who the "others" are, and I hope the minister will give us some indication.


An hon. Member:: And Germany.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I know we have been involved with Germany, both east and west, but I do not know what the particular situation is right now. The minister is involved with a number of countries and perhaps he could be of some assistance to us in this regard.
The minister also said:
I am announcing our intentions as proposals because I will be consulting with the provinces prior to introducing legislation.
I should like to know what that particular sentence means. This minister has been consulting, consulting, and consulting, for over three years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That sounds like the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) interjecting, and I have no idea why. I have
Old Age Security Act
no idea why he would interrupt as I have not referred to him. I am talking to you, Mr. Speaker, in order to get to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), not the Minister of Justice.
Has the minister been consulting with the provinces in respect of the introduction of this legislation? Is there agreement right across this country? Is Ontario in shape for this, and what about British Columbia? Are all the provinces in shape?
In conclusion, and I know I have over-stepped my bounds-


Mr. Paproski:: No you haven't.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I know the minister would like to hear what I have to say. There are many questions that have to be asked and answered. Therefore we are hesitant about giving the minister a blanket endorsation of the proposals at this time. We appreciate what the minister is doing, but there are a lot of questions we have to ask, questions that we hope will be answered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I want my first words in response to the Minister's statement to be that it is a welcome statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suppose I can say that I have had as much to do with old age pensions over the years as anyone now in this House of Commons, and I take second place to no one in calling for improvements and in pointing out deficiencies and inadequacies.
And the same time, I have to say that in respect of the two matters the minister is now seeking to do something about, his proposals deserve the endorsation of the House. His proposals deal in the main with the residence requirement for old age security on the part of persons who are Canadians, and with the question of reciprocity in the pension field between this country and other countries.
I hope it is not too immodest for me to say that I was asking questions about the residence requirements and pressing for changes at least 30 years ago, and that I started pressing for the government to do something in the field of reciprocity nearly 20 years ago. I recognize that it has taken the government a long time to get to this point, but certainly in the field of reciprocity this does involve negotiations with other countries. Even after this statement the minister may have difficulty achieving as many reciprocal agreements as he would like. So, even though it has taken all this time. I am glad this bit of progress is being made.
I said that the statement deals with two matters: one having to do with reciprocity, and the other having to do with changes in the residence requirements that have to be met in order to qualify for old age security and, consequentially, the guaranteed income supplement.
Despite the fact that my friend who just spoke thinks it is complicated, the general formula that is proposed is better than the one we have now. At the present time we have, as the minister pointed out, the ten-year rule, the 20-year rule, the 40-year rule, the three-for-one-rule, and the last-year rule. It is awfully difficult to explain these

April 14, 1976
Old Age Security Act
various rules to people. Now we are going to have a rule that says that you earn one fortieth of the old age security pension for each full year you spend in this country as an adult. That will have a particular advantage for persons who spend part of their time in Canada and go to other countries, and it also will have advantage in the long run for those who come from other countries, particularly if reciprocal arrangements can be made with other countries.
Before I go any further in commenting about the new rule, I do hope the minister will let the country know what is happening through the facilities to which he has access. I do hope the press will make the point, and make it absolutely clear, that this change in the legislation does not affect by one cent the pension of any person who is now drawing old age security or the guaranteed income supplement. The minister said that.


Marc Lalonde: Anybody who is 25.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will get to that in a moment. The minister said it does not affect anyone who is 25 or over. However, when persons start to hear about the pension being based on the number of years you have been here out of 40 I am sure there will be some senior citizens drawing their pensions, having been here 12, 15 or 20 years, who will wonder whether their pensions are to be reduced. The formula as outlined by the minister says that will not happen. I am satisfied it will not happen and I hope that will be made crystal clear.
The minister has also emphasized by his interruption that neither will this affect anyone in Canada today who is 25 years of age or over. He will have the right if he is not here from 25 to 65 years of age, but meets the other rules, to get the full pension.
The only persons living in Canada who are going to get something less than full pension, that is ten fortieths or twenty fortieths, will be those who come here from other countries. But under the reciprocal arrangements it will be possible for them honestly and openly to receive social security from two countries.
At the present time this matter is abused and is the source of confusion. Some people manage to get old age security in Canada and social security from the United States, going one way or the other. Other people get caught and do not get either, and this is because of the all-or-nothing arrangement, which is now to be changed.
I believe that what is being proposed is something that has been thought out carefully, and something in the long run which will be a lot better. As I say, the provision for basing the pension on the number of years out of 40 that you have been here will make it possible for persons who have been here to age 40 or 50 to go elsewhere and get their share of the Canadian pension along with what they pick up in other countries. It will also be possible for those who come from other countries, under the reciprocal arrangement, to get a total pension income that will be to their advantage. This will be more fair and more equitable, and I congratulate those in the department who have worked this out, and I congratulate the minister for accepting and putting this proposal forward.

At the same time, and even at the risk of saying what the minister thinks he has already said, because people can get concerned and excited, let it be the clearest word that comes out of this House today that no one who is drawing a pension will suffer any loss whatsoever in that pension and that no one who is over 25 years of age will have any different possibility than he now has.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think this will solve many problems. It will certainly get rid of that terribly complex situation we have with the ten, 20, 40, three-for-one, and final year rule. So, in the main I think it is a good arrangement that is being put forward.
If I may go back to the reciprocity question which is half of what is before us today I do urge the government to push this. I know the government has been pushing it for a long time and that other countries have been reluctant to enter into agreements because we were not able to make an agreement involving our old age security.
I know there was the problem when reciprocity was provided in the Canada Pension Plan and not with respect to the Old Age Security Act. This scheme will work satisfactorily and effectively only if we do achieve reciprocal agreements with other countries. The minister mentioned the United Kingdom, Italy, and the United States. I wonder what has happened in respect of the West German situation. I know there is an agreement, but there is much dissatisfaction with it. I hope that that agreement might be renegotiated under the terms of this program. I also notice that France has not been mentioned. I think that is another country with which we should have a reciprocal arrangement.
I press that this be done and that there be pressure to achieve reciprocal agreements because, without this, the whole arrangement has no value for those who come to this country. The new l/40th per year rule is good for Canadians who go elsewhere, because at present they either get all or nothing. But if this legislation is to have advantage for those who come to this country there have to be more reciprocal agreements.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are getting to your favourite position in your chair, at the forward edge. If you sit back I will be through in just a minute. I simply want to say to the minister that although I welcome what he is doing as announced today, I regret that he tells this House he intends to bring in legislation to amend the Old Age Security Act but has not touched on some important issues, namely, the basic amount of the old age security which should be increased substantially, and the question of the eligible age which, in my view, should be 60 for all those who are out of the labour market. Neither has he told us what he intends to do about the discrimination in respect of the spouses' legislation against spinsters, widows, bachelors and widowers, and I hope that when he gets around to bringing in this legislation these shortcomings will be corrected. It is fine to have the improvements which are proposed today, but surely when the minister brings in the actual bill he will have in it some of the substantial improvements that are needed with regard to senior citizens in Canada right now.
April 14, 1976


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall do my best not to abuse your patience. However, I would like to thank the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) who in today's statement informed us that amendments will soon be made to the Old Age Security Act to allow greater continuity of old age protection by transferability of acquired credit, through the agreements that he will be able to negotiate and ratify with other governments.
I agree with the minister that the present plan lacks flexibility. This is what my party has always maintained. In the field of old age and social security, there is also a lack of flexibility, as in the income security system, which is outdated. This is why we have long urged the minister to consider seriously the very simple non-bureaucratic and less costly formula of a guaranteed annual income, which would allow each Canadian citizen to be spared the problems of an increasingly costly and inefficient bureaucracy.
Instead of aiming at gradually correcting the present income security program in general, which includes the old age security program, the minister would have advantage, so as to present a comprehensive guaranteed annual income program and improving at the same time the old age security program, the minister, as I say, would have advantage to consider more seriously our proposal so that all Canadians can be ensured of a guaranteed annual income and an old age security pension.
The minister has informed us that 500,000 Canadians are now deprived of benefits which they could receive from other countries and a great number of Canadians who have emigrated abroad cannot receive benefits concerning security of foreigners. This is what caused the minister to propose today amendments which will eventually rectify this situation. When the amendments are introduced, we shall be able to study the proposals in detail, but we still want to thank the minister for having at least taken one step forward in this area today, since, according to what he said, at least 500,000 Canadians cannot receive their old age security pension under the present Old Age Security Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The procedure which we have been following in respect of ministerial statements calls for a statement by the minister and then brief responses by members of the opposition. The response from the last member of the opposition, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), was indeed in keeping with those guidelines. The response from the first two spokesmen for the opposition parties was uniformly about twice the length of the minister's statement. I did not intervene, but at this point it is an exercise of my discretion under these practices as to what questions should be allowed.
Bearing in mind those speeches, and also bearing in mind the fact that the purpose of the statement is an announcement of the introduction of legislation which will be coming before the House at another time when there will be a response to questions, I really think that I should extend questions only to allow the minister to make some retaliation to some of the things that have been said about him during the course of the comments. Perhaps one
Old Age Security Act
spokesman for each party would be more than adequate under the circumstances.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I accept your admonishment and will try to be as responsible as I can. I shall ask as few questions as possible in the knowledge that we will be getting the legislation.
I should just like to ask the minister some questions regarding the reciprocal agreements, which is a subject with which we have all been involved, particularly in respect of the United Kingdom. I know I have been involved with it since 1973. I think the step that is being taken certainly is in the right direction. The minister mentioned the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy. What are the other countries to which he is now directing his attention in terms of agreement, so that we can have something on the record in that regard?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the countries which have been most persistent and pressing in terms of reaching an agreement are the three countries I have mentioned. We already have an agreement with Germany. That is open for revision if the legislation is passed. Obviously France also would be a natural candidate for negotiation.
Frankly it is a matter of dealing with priorities. I must say that the cases of the United Kingdom, Italy, and the United States have been the ones that have been most urgent. However, we will proceed in respect of any country that is ready and willing to sit down and start negotiations.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I will just leave that. I think the minister has answered it adequately for the time being. What about consultation with the provinces? I am wondering whether the minister has had some agreement. Is there some unanimity concerning this particular proposal and will there be an opting out formula in respect of it? Is it a shared cost program?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a slight misunderstanding as to the meaning of the consultation with the provinces. However, before I answer that I might add with respect to the previous question that we will carry on with these foreign countries the exploratory talks that we have been having for the past couple of years in some instances.
Obviously if we cannot find agreement we cannot make anything formal until the law is amended, but we are open for exploratory talks at the present time. So far as the consultation is concerned, this type of amendment does not require consent in respect of anything over which any province has any veto. It does not imply participation as such by the provinces. It is more a matter of courtesy and common sense, since we are discussing the whole field of social security, that I should have a word with them to see whether they have any specific concern with regard, for instance, to some aspects that might have some implications for social assistance, and about which they might want to draw specific points to my attention.
In addition, the fact is that this type of amendment will facilitate reciprocal agreements with other countries. It

April 14, 1976
Old Age Security Act
will be easier to achieve these agreements if we can include Workmen's Compensation which is under provincial jurisdiction, as well as other federal programs, so this is the purpose of the consultation. The purpose is not to give the provinces a right of veto over our formal approval of these proposals, but to ensure that these amendments will be harmonized with whatever the provinces are doing at their own level.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister has answered the question that there is need for provincial consultation and that it will be high on the priority list. I have just one last question. I am a little confused. Suppose someone comes from Italy and someone comes from the United Kingdom, and they are both eligible under the new legislation. If Italy has no reciprocal agreements with Canada but the United Kingdom has, then one of the two people, regardless of his eligibility, will be denied his benefits because his country has no reciprocal agreement. Is that how it will work?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, the hon. member understands it correctly. In that sense, I could go back to something he said about the half a million people who are not enjoying the full benefits which they have earned in the foreign countries. The proposed amendments will not guarantee to them that they will receive such benefits because we obviously cannot legislate for foreign countries. But we will do everything we can in terms of our own legislation and in terms of opening the doors for negotiations and agreements to ensure a reciprocity of benefits so that there will be what we call prorating and totalization of benefits, both those earned here, and those earned abroad.
Obviously, if a foreign country does not want to pay such pension credits to its former citizens, there is not much Canada can do. In fact, there is nothing preventing any of those countries from paying those benefits at the present time to the roughly 500,000 residents of Canada of whom we spoke, and there is nothing in the present Canadian legislation that would prevent this from taking place. However, those countries are saying that they will not pay unless they have an agreement.
Since our system is based on an all or nothing formula, they say that since we are paying a full pension by Canadian standards, why should they pay anything. That is the situation at present. What we are proposing is to make it much easier for these foreign governments to start paying pensions to their former residents who have earned them abroad in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, you will be glad to know that the minister in answering the previous questioner has answered a number of my questions, so I shall be brief. I am glad to know that a possibility exists that an agreement with West Germany can be renegotiated, and I am also glad to know that France is on list as well. Can the minister say whether there are consultations taking place with other countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries, areas from which we have many people in this country?
When he answers that I should like to ask him a question about the provinces. He has made the point that it is

consultation, not a case of their approval having to be obtained. In doing that he referred to such things as workmen's compensation being in the total picture of reciprocity. Is he having consultations with his colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), with the same idea in mind?
I can get all my questions in at once, unless something comes out of what the minister says. The big question is, when will this legislation be introduced?


Marc Lalonde: In answer to the first question, I am not aware of current negotiations taking place with any of the countries which the hon. member has mentioned. Obviously we are open to such negotiations, but I am not aware that there are such active negotiations at present.
With regard to the second point, when this matter was considered, it was obviously considered by cabinet and all the ministers involved, including the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). In the course of our negotiations we will take into account all the federal programs which include the possibility of reciprocal agreements such as the Unemployment Insurance Act which has provisions in that respect. We hope to be able to put in the basket all the various federal programs in the field of social security that provide for reciprocal agreements.
Finally, there is the question of when this legislation will be introduced. I hope to introduce it as early as possible during the course of the next session. I would like to be told that there is a possibility that it could be passed before June 30, but knowing what is on the agenda and the difficulty of getting it through the House, I am skeptical that it can be introduced before the fall.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that the date of a new session is an unknown quantity, can the minister give us his answer in terms of a month? Will it be brought in in 1976?


Marc Lalonde: I would hope to be able to introduce it some time in the fall.


MAGNA CARTA DAY ACT
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-435, respecting Magna Carta Day.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to afford to Canadians, as beneficiaries of the gradual development of representative parliamentary democracy, the opportunity to commemorate, with the appropriate ceremonies in schools and other public places, the signing of the Magna Carta on June 15, 1215, an act which marked the beginning of the decline of arbitrary power and the emergence, in Britain, of responsible government from which the entire democractic world has benefited.
April 14, 1976



I take the liberty of reminding hon. members that King John who signed the Magna Carta was one of the first French-speaking monarchs of Britain who eventually became bilingual.


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


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 99 I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Del-ta (Mr. Reynolds):
That the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders be authorized to consider and make recommendations upon the fees paid by the British Columbia Telephone Company in relation to Bill S-ll.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion can only be put forward by the hon. member with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by the hon. member.


Walter David Baker: I am prepared to second it, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: The mover of the motion left the Chamber, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Hughie, you blew it again.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I was called out of the Chamber.


An hon. Member:: Stay in your seat.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Make your motion.


Mr. Epp:: You haven't written it out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) stands.
It may be that during the balance of routine proceedings there will be some questions on the order paper or other items which might be dealt with. Presumably, however, if the debate on the motion standing in the name of the President of the Privy Council concludes, the rest of the routine proceedings will not be reached.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is to be some debate on that motion, so I suggest we deal with the questions on the order paper and notices of motions for the
Order Paper Questions
production of papers first, and then carry on with debate on the motion.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to lose the opportunity to present a petition, of which I have given notice.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously it is the desire of hon. members that we conclude routine proceedings before embarking on the motion standing in the name of the President of the Privy Council. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition containing the signatures of 17,612 Manitobans who are asking the government, and specifically the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), to reconsider the freeze on medical research funds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['Agreed.\nApril 14, 1976']
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,995, 4,055, 4,078, 4,081, 4,444, 4,767, 4,924, 4,941, 4,959, 4,988, 5,004, 5,121 to 5,127 inclusive, 5,139, 5,140, 5,184, 5,198 and 5,209.



Mr. Saltsman: What was the amount of location subsidies granted under the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Act for each year 1970 to 1975 or for the last year for which information is available by (a) type of industry, (b) province?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: The total estimated amount of development grants under the Regional Development Incentives Program, for net accepted offers as of November 30, 1975, is $534.3 million. This amount is broken down on the attached table as follows: (a) by fiscal period in which an offer was accepted, (b) by type of industry, (c) by province. More recent information is not currently available.

April 14, 1976
Order Paper Questions
Estimated amount of development grants under the Regional Development Incentives Program for net accepted offers as of November 30, 1975 by fiscal year of acceptance of offer
Industry	1969-70	1970-71	1971-72($000)	($000)	($000)Food Manufacturers	5,522	5,103	6,709Fish Processors	306	3,248	5,114Beverage	644	875	1,040Tobacco	-	33	163Rubber	18	1,599	1,058Leather	-	166	1,696Textile	760	2,530	8,482Knitting	166	1,411	4,063Clothing	113	908	3,108Wood	3,903	12,009	11,170Furniture	706	502	1,834Paper-Allied Ind.	445	13,991	14,902Printing-Publishing	134	1,925	1,324Primary Metal	-	20,159	7,462Metal Fabricating	252	890	4,815Machinery	674	1,094	1,513Transportation	2,561	6,115	4,310Electrical	304	4,800	4,545Non-Metallic	269	410	1,022Petroleum	-	-	20Chemical	64	11,617	2,001Misc. Manufacturing	526	2,441	2,948Other Manufacturing	-	409	2,030Total	17,373	92,234	91,329Province	1969-70	1970-71	1971-72($000)	($000)	($000)Newfoundland	203	1,161	5,722Prince Edward Island	-	887	799Nova Scotia	1,039	19,590	6,803New Brunswick	5,251	6,294	8,874Quebec	5,601	25,239	54,598Ontario	920	12,286	4,967Manitoba	1,899	6,124	3,342Saskatchewan	619	3,806	1,125Alberta	1,510	16,698	2,802British Columbia	331	177	2,297Canada	17,373	92,234	91,329


CBC PROGRAMME &quot;BYE BYE 1975&quot;
Mr. Cyr: 1.	(a) What was the cost of the Programme Bye Bye 1975, (b) what were the salaries and travelling expenses of the artists, (c) what was the number of artists involved in the Programme, (d) what was the number of persons who produced the Programme?
2.	What was the cost of (a) Bye Bye 1973, (b) Bye Bye 1974?
3.	Did CBC ask producers to submit a Programme project for 1975 and, if so, what were (a) their names, (b) the prices submitted?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. (a) and (b) and 2. (a) and (b) It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details of its internal management and administration. The background of this custom is explained in detail in the reply to Question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.
1.	(c) 101, including 86 actors and 15 musicians, (d) one.
3. (a) No. The CBC assigned producer Richard Martin to the production of the program.
April 1 to
1972-73	1973-74	1974-75	November 30, 1975($000)	($000)	($000)	($000)4,922	6,548	9,408	3,8972,524	3,414	1,220	3,912427	704	456	1,12610,304	1,301	3,544	3,360463	716	905	4365,999	3,378	1,439	5091,438	204	-	752,840	3,233	1,821	61330,939	21,395	22,858	8,2222,144	3,435	3,690	9512,139	8,063	2,994	1391,138	876	1,146	1,03117,735	8,096	11,829	2,6105,729	3,907	4,676	3,3684,271	3,175	8,204	3,8454,733	4,696	4,271	1,5983,075	4,893	2,345	4,6152,275	1,485	6,943	6,50659	11	-	-4,077	1,313	1,588	4551,488	1,245	771	1,1151,015	130	515	2,330109,735	82,219	90,621	50,755April 1 to1972-73	1973-74	1974-75	November 30, 1975($000)	($000)	($000)	($000)1,651	1,958	1,612	4,3952,124	1,131	481	1,21512,613	4,769	7,625	3,3766,149	13,643	11,091	4,67841,290	38,270	40,017	23,90021,209	9,653	8,474	3,10918,036	7,031	7,913	4,3741,998	3,258	4,069	4,4243,938	949	9,050	1,066728	1,558	289	218109,735	82,219	90,621	50,755


GREENLAND SEAL CATCHES
Mr. Matte: 1.	Has the number of Greenland seal catches declined during recent years and, if so, what was the reduction for each year from 1970 to date?
2.	By year from 1970 to date, what was the maximum number of catches permitted?
3.	By year from 1970 to date, how many seals were lawfully taken by (a) large Canadian boats, (b) large Norwegian boats, (c) coasters and small boats?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: 1. The
number of Greenland seal catches has not declined since 1970 but there has been some fluctuation from year to year.
Greenland Seal Catches 1970-75
Year	Harps	Hoods	Total1970	5,747	1,367	7,1141971	5,001	1,405	6,4061972	5,591	2,232	7,8231973	8,700	2,300	11,0001974	6,422	2,456	8,8781975	Not	available	

April 14, 1976

Order Paper Questions
The Greenland seal catch has, however, declined since the early 1950's when the catch annually ranged between 10,000 and 20,000. It should be noted that catches referred to are taken entirely by landsmen and small boats operated from Greenland.
2.	By year from 1970 to date the maximum number of seals permitted to be caught is as follows:
Year	Harps	Hoods1970	No quota	No quota1971	245,000	"1972	150,000	"1973	150,100	"1974	150,100	"1975	150,100	15,1001976	127,100	15,1003.	By year since 1970 the following number of seals has been taken by (a) large Canadian vessels, (b) large Norwegian vessels and, (c) coasters and small boats:Year	Harps	Hoods	Total1970	(a)	95,217	1,043	96,260(b)	115,200	4,321	119,521(c)	47,078	1,826	48,904Total	257,495	7,190	264,6851971	(a)	85,463	348	85,811(b)	98,306	14,514	112,820(c)	47,197	84	47,281Total	230,966	14,946	245,9121972	(a)	52,455	278	52,733(b)	53,300	12,178	65,478(c)	24,128	144	24,272Total	129,883	12,600	142,4831973	(a)	20,160	174	20,334(b)	58,290	6,255	64,545(c)	45,382	138	45,520Total	123,832	6,567	130,3991974	(a)	51,630	178	51,808(b)	55,585	9,796	65,381(c)	40,420	25	40,445Total	147,635	9,999	157,6341975*	(a)	60,663	5,038	65,701(b)	60,161	10,226	70,387(c)	56,571	348	56,919Total	177,395	15,612	193,007
*Preliminary data


SEAL CATCHES
Mr. Matte: 1.	Has hooded seal catching been authorized on the Atlantic coast for several years and, if so, how many were caught in each year from 1970 to date?
2.	For the same years, how many hooded seals have been caught in the frontier area, and of that number how many were by (a) Canada, (b) Norway?
3.	How many baby seals were killed on the Atlantic coast in each year from 1970 to date?


George Baker: 1.
Hooded seal catching has been authorized on the Atlantic coast for several years and since 1970 the catches of hooded seals are as follows:
Year	Catch
1970	8,557
1971	16,351
1972	14,832
1973	8,867
1974	12,455
1975	15,612'
*Canada and Norway catch only. Does not include Greenland catch which is unavailable at this time.
2. Canada and Norway have caught the following number of hooded seals in the front area since 1970:
Year	Canada Norway	Total1970	1,043	4,321	5,3641971	348	14,514	14,8621972	278	12,178	12,4561973	174	6,255	6,4291974	203	9,796	9,999*1975	5,364	10,226	15,590
*Preliminary data
3. The following number of baby seals (less than one year old) have been caught since 1970:
Year	Harps	Hoods	Total1970	221,544	5,320	226,8641971	210,579	8,041	218,6201972	116,810	6,928	123,7381973	98,335	4,602	102,9371974	114,825	5,991	120,816*1975	140,629	7,652	148,281


CBC-DISTRIBUTION AND COST OF POSTER &quot;UNE RADIO BIEN A VOUS&quot;
Mr. Lachance: 1.	Was a poster entitled line radio bien a vous distributed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in early 1976 and, if so, what was the cost of its (a) design, (b) production, (c) distribution?
2.	To what individuals and organizations was the poster distributed and how many were sent to each?
3.	Did the artists mentioned in the poster receive a fee and, if so, what are the details?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. (a) and (b) $8,248. (c) $950.

April 14, 1976
Order Paper Questions
2.	The poster entitled "Une radio bien a vous" is one of the elements of the promotion campaign conducted by the CBC to create audience interest in the programs of the FM network and at the same time to stress the importance of Canadian talent in radio programming. Five thousand copies of the poster were produced. They were distributed as follows: Educational Institutions-conservatories, universities, CEGEPs (junior colleges), and composite schools: 2,500; Advertising agencies and unions: 650; Theatres, libraries, night clubs, record shops, book stores: 250; Newspapers, periodicals, critics: 400; French network stations for distribution in their locality: 700; Political figures: 241; Reserve: 259.
3.	Yes. It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details as the fees paid to artists. The backgrounds of this custom is explained in detail in the reply to Question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.


ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF EMBASSIES
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the government aware of reports of a form of electronic surveillance of the United States Embassy in Moscow involving a form of radiation and, if so, has it any official information on the matter?
2.	Is the government in possession of any information to indicate whether or not any similar radiation situation has existed or does exist in regard to the Canadian Embassy in Moscow and, if so, what are the details including (a) on what date such information came to the attention of the government, (b) all actions taken by the government since learning of such information?
3.	If the government is not aware whether there has been any such radiation problem in regard to the Canadian Embassy in Moscow, has it recently taken any steps in an effort to determine the existence or non-existence of such a situation and, if so, what are the details?
4.	Has the Department of External Affairs made any check of health records of persons who have served at any time in the Canadian Embassy in Moscow, and (a) if not, does it plan to make such a check, (b) if so, what do such records show in regard to any evidence of disease that could be directly or indirectly connected with radiation?
5.	Are the incidents of cancer or cancer type diseases more prevalent among personnel who have served at the Canadian Embassy in Moscow than other Canadian personnel who have served elsewhere abroad?
6.	Other than the Canadian Embassy in Moscow, has the Department of External Affairs investigated, or is it investigating, possible radiation surveillance of any other Canadian diplomatic establishments abroad and, if so, what are the names of all the countries involved?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. The government is aware of reports of a form of electronic surveillance of the United States Embassy in Moscow. It has no official information on the matter.
2.	The government has no information in its possession to indicate that a similar situation has existed or exists in regard to the Canadian Embassy in Moscow.
3.	The government is not aware of any radiation problem or hazard affecting the health of its employees at the Canadian Embassy in Moscow and has received no information that would warrant an investigation of such a situation.
4.	All employees of the Government of Canada are subjected to medical examinations prior to and on return from postings abroad. Postings to Moscow are usually for a period of approximately two years and medical examina-

tions of those concerned have not indicated any need for special investigation of diseases attributable to radiation.
5.	There is no evidence to suggest that cancer or cancer type diseases are more prevalent among personnel who have served at the Canadian Embassy in Moscow than among other Canadian personnel who have served elsewhere abroad.
6.	No, the Department of External Affairs knows of no reason to undertake such investigations.


OIL IMPORT COMPENSATION-NEWFOUNDLAND REFINING COMPANY
Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	In the past five years, has the Newfoundland Refining Company, at Come-By-Chance received any subsidies as part of the compensation programme for oil imports to Eastern Canada and, if so (a) in what amount, (b) what were the repayment clauses?
2.	Has there been any delay by the Company in repaying (a) monies owed, (b) subsidies received and, if so (i) what is the amount in arrears (ii) for what reason?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Energy Supplies Allocation Board reports as follows: 1. Yes. Paid as compensation to oil importers in Eastern Canada under Section 76 of the Petroleum Administration Act. (a) $108,523,841. (b) Section 76 of the Petroleum Administration Act.
2. (a) No. (b) Yes (i) $15,913,148. As at February 13, 1976, company records showed approximately three million barrels of petroleum or petroleum products in inventory. If this material is consumed in Canada, the Board's position is that their claim for a refund of $15,913,148 would be reduced by approximately $12 million, (ii) Newfoundland Refining Company Limited and Provincial Refining Company Limited are each subject of a petition in bankruptcy dated February 13, 1976.


NUMBER OF PUBLIC SERVANTS ENROLLED IN FRENCH AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE TRAINING
Mr. Reynolds: For the year (a) 1973, (b) 1974, (c) 1975, what was the total number of public servants who enrolled in (i) French (ii) English language training?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows:
Year	French English training training	Total1973	5,655 948	6,6031974	7,466 1,271	8,7371975	8,921 1,043	9,964
Notes:
(1) Figures are for calendar years, and include both cyclical and continuous/intensive courses.
April 14, 1976

(2) Many public servants take training in consecutive years, carrying over from one year to the next, and are counted in each year's total.


LES EQUIPEMENTS LAPORTE INC., GRANBY, QUEBEC
Mr. Kempling: Was a grant, loan or other assistance given to Les equipements Laporte Inc., Granby, P.Q., by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the fiscal year (a) 1974-75, (b) 1975-76 and, if so (i) in what amount (ii) for what purpose?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: (a) 1974-75, no. (b) 1975-76, yes. (i) An offer of $65,502 was accepted under the terms and conditions of the Regional Development Incentives Act. (ii) For the establishment of a new factory for the manufacture of clay pigeons.


DIXON REDIMARK PERMANENT FELT TIP MARKER
Mr. Brisco: 1.	Did the Department of National Health and Welfare examine the Dixon Redimark Permanent felt tip marker for possible harmful effects by inhalation of chemicals and, if so, was it (a) approved, (b) disapproved?
2.	What chemicals are contained in the marker and are they harmful to the user by virtue of inhalation?
3.	Has the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs examined the marker and, if so, did they direct that such harmful effects be noted on the marker?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of National Health and Welfare and Consumer and Corporate Affairs as follows: 1. No, this specific brand has not been examined.
2 and 3. Dixon Redimark Permanent felt tip markers contain xylene solvent which does not presently come within the purview of the Hazardous Products Act. The subject has been discussed with the manufacturer who stated that no user complaints have been received. Cautionary labelling will be the suject of further investigation by the department.


CBC EXPENSES SINCE 1973
Mr. Matte: What were the annual expenses of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation since 1973?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1972-73, $193,634,000; 197374, $228,395,000; 1974-75, $241,712,000. These amounts represent the net cost of operations, less depreciation and amortization for which funds are not provided. They include the operations of the following networks and services: English AM radio, English FM radio, English television, French AM radio, French FM radio, French television, the Northern Service, Armed Forces Service, regional networks where applicable, and Radio Canada International.
Order Paper Questions


PRIME MINISTER'S TRIP TO ANTICOSTI ISLAND, AUGUST 14-17,
Mr. Cossitt: What is a detailed description of the purpose of the trip when the Prime Minister travelled by Department of Transport aircraft at public expense from Ottawa to Anticosti Island from August 14 to 17, 1974 and (a) what was the total cost to the taxpayer, (b) what are the reasons justifying the expenditure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See reply to question 69 answered February 3, 1976. Cost of aircraft, $778 per hour.


PRIME MINISTER'S TRIP TO ST-SAUVEUR, QUEBEC, NOVEMBER 10,1973
Mr. Cossitt: What is a detailed description of the purpose of the trip when the Prime Minister travelled by car at public expense from Ottawa to St-Sauveur, Quebec on November 10, 1973 and (a) what was the total cost to the taxpayer, (b) what are the reasons justifying the expenditure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See reply to question 5,121. In addition to gasoline, the chauffeur's expenses, $8.


PRIME MINISTER'S TRIP TO FRENCH RIVER, JUNE 15-17, 1973
Mr. Cossitt: What is a detailed description of the purpose of the trip when the Prime Minister travelled by Department of Transport aircraft at public expense from Ottawa to French River on June 15, 16 and 17, 1973 and (a) what was the total cost to the taxpayer, (b) what are the reasons justifying the expenditure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See reply to question 5,121. Cost of aircraft, $586 per hour.


PRIME MINISTER'S TRIP TO ST-SAUVEUR, QUEBEC, JULY 7, 1973
Mr. Cossitt: What is a detailed description of the purpose of the trip when the Prime Minister travelled by helicopter at public expense from Ottawa to St-Sauveur, Quebec on July 7, 1973 and (a) what was the total cost to the taxpayer, (b) what are the reasons justifying the expenditure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See reply to question 5,121. Department of Transport all inclusive cost, $154 per hour.


PRIME MINISTER'S TRIP TO ST-SAUVEUR, QUEBEC, JULY 12-15,
Mr. Cossitt: What is a detailed description of the purpose of the trip when the Prime Minister travelled by helicopter at public expense from Ottawa to St-Sauveur, Quebec on July 12, 13, 14 and 15, 1974 and (a) what was the total cost to the taxpayer, (b) what are the reasons justifying the expenditure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See reply to question 5,121. Department of Transport all inclusive cost, $170 per hour.

April 14, 1976
Order Paper Questions


PRIME MINISTER'S TRIP TO CAMPOBELLO ISLAND, AUGUST 14-20, 1973
Mr. Cossitt: What is a detailed description of the purpose of the trip when the Prime Minister travelled by Department of Transport aircraft from Ottawa to Campobello Island from August 14 to 20, 1973 and (a) what was the total cost to the taxpayer, (b) what are the reasons justifying the expenditure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See reply to question 5,123.


PRIME MINISTER'S TRIP TO ST-SAUVEUR, QUEBEC, SEPTEMBER 25-26, 1973
Mr. Cossitt: What is a detailed description of the purpose of the trip when the Prime Minister travelled by Department of Transport helicopter to St. Sauveur, Quebec on September 25 and 26, 1973 and (a) what was the total cost to the taxpayer, (b) what are the reasons justifying the expenditure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See reply to question 5,124.


PRIME MINISTER'S TRIP TO MONT-TREMBLANT, QUEBEC, MARCH 21-24, 1974
Mr. Cossitt: What is a detailed description of the purpose of the trip when the Prime Minister travelled by car at public expense from Ottawa to Mont-Tremblant, Quebec from March 21 to 24, 1974 and (a) what was the total cost to the taxpayer, (b) what are the reasons justifying the expenditure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See reply to question 5,121. Cost of gasoline only.


PRIME MINISTER'S TRIP TO NEW YORK, AUGUST 24, 1974
Mr. Cossitt: What is a detailed description of the purpose of the trip when the Prime Minister travelled by Department of Transport aircraft at public expense from Ottawa to New York on August 24, 1974 and (a) what was the total cost to the taxpayer, (b) what are the reasons justifying the expenditure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See reply to question 5,121.


DONATIONS FOR SWIMMING POOL AT 24 SUSSEX DRIVE
Mr. Cossitt: Have any Members of the Senate been involved directly or indirectly with soliciting donations of money or materials, or in making donations themselves, to the swimming pool at the Prime Minister's official residence, 24 Sussex Drive and, if so, what are their names?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See third paragraph of reply to question 1,233 answered October 28, 1975.


MAN-HOURS OF TEMPORARY LABOUR
Mr. Rodriguez: . 1. For the fiscal years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76, by month and by department and agency, how many man-hours of temporary labour were provided by private employment agencies?
2.	For each department and agency (a) what were the names of the private employment agencies, (b) what was the percentage of manhours provided by each?
3.	For the same period, by department and agency, what (a) was the total amount paid to private employment agencies, (b) percentage of the money went to actual temporary employees, (c) percentage of the money went to the company in the form of commissions or other payment?
4.	For the same period, by month and by department and agency, what was the number of persons working on a contract basis?
5.	For the fiscal years 1974-75 and 1975-76, by month and by department and agency, what was the total number of (a) man-hours worked by permanent employees excluded from collective bargaining, (b) hours worked by permanent full-time or casual employees?
6.	For the fiscal years 1974-75 and 1975-76, by month and by department and agency, what was the (a) total number of man-hours worked by all permanent full-time or casual employees who were considered clerical or secretarial, (b) percentage of the total number of man-hours worked?


Mitchell William Sharp: The information requested is not readily available. To provide an accurate reply in its entirety, would entail a lengthy and costly examination of the accounts of every department, which would be exorbitant or prohibitive.


RENOVATIONS TO EAST BLOCK
Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the estimates for 1976-77 which show a sum of $8 million as the estimated requirement for alterations, repairs, renovations, etc. to the East Block of the Parliament Buildings (a) how much will be spent on the part of the building now occupied or to be occupied by the Prime Minister and members of his staff, (b) what is a detailed list of the proposed items for the area occupied or to be occupied by the Prime Minister and his staff together with the estimated cost in each case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See Report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates for April 5, 1976.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 14, 1976



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Stanley Ronald Basford: That when the House adjourns on Wednesday, April 14, 1976, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, April 26, 1976, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for all purposes of this Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree to adopt the motion?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that the acting government House leader has not seen fit to get up on this motion and defend the record of the government.


An hon. Member:: How could he?


Steve Eugene Paproski: That's why he didn't get up.


Walter David Baker: Perhaps the reason he did not get up and defend it is that he is basically an honest man, and when he looked at the record he really had nothing to defend.
What really does surprise me is the courage of the government in deciding to adjourn the House today. This motion, unless hon. members opposite hive themselves off in their hotel rooms and in their offices, will set them out in the streets, highways and byways of their constituencies to meet the people of Canada.


Mr. Goodale:: They are anxious to see us.


Walter David Baker: I am sure hon. members opposite are anxious to see the people, and I am sure the people of Canada are anxious to see them, to ask them what has gone wrong with the ship of state here in Ottawa and why the government is shambling and moving seemingly without rudders or leadership with respect to all kinds of matters.
While it has always been the usual attitude of the opposition to fight adjournment and to make the government stay and tackle the problems for which governments are basically responsible because of their own neglect and dereliction, our attitude today will be a little different because we feel it is a good thing for this complex of dispensables, this shambling group which masquerades as a government, to go out and meet those for whom they say they speak. They pound their desks and say aye when the time comes to say aye, and nay when the time comes to say nay. I think that group which masquerades as a government should go out and meet the people of this country and find out just what the people really think of their performance.


An hon. Member:: It would ruin their holiday.
Easter Adjournment


Walter David Baker: I should like us to consider for a moment the members of the government. Let us think about the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). This morning in the Globe and Mail someone called him a "dyed in the bull" politician. Let us think about what he did. He carried off a masterpiece today and yesterday with respect to the dairy policy he introduced. He managed to do what no other minister of agriculture has ever been able to do, and that is shaft both producers and consumers at the same time. That takes some doing.


John Edward Broadbent: That is known as the Whelan principle.


Walter David Baker: Perhaps it is known as the Whelan principle. It is not the principle of relativity, in any event.
Then there is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), who has no energy and who is prepared to let the Atlantic provinces heat and light themselves "at twice the price."
The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) is the minister who has forgotten that when you build jails and penitentiaries you are supposed to put locks on the doors to keep the inmates in. He has forgotten the problems which are faced by his own staff. He has been condemned by the leadership of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. When I think of the morale of the RCMP, the morale of the people who work in our prisons and the dreadful conditions in them- if we believe half of what we are told, and I suggest we can believe at least that-I wonder why the minister should be in that portfolio at all. I wonder why he should be supported. If hon. members cf the government are going to speak today, they should tell us why the Solicitor General should be supported, except that he happens to be one of their own.
If there is any situation in Canada which needs a clear investigation by someone who is prepared to look at all sides of the issue, it is the situation in our penitentiaries and the situation with regard to the RCMP, to which the government is prepared to give lip service, but in terms of the rumblings of discontent within that latter service there is an indication that something is wrong, and I suggest something is wrong with the government, not just with the Solicitor General. Surely the shoulders of the Solicitor General are not broad enough to bear all the results of the acts of omission and commission of the government.
If this is the season of tranquility and peace, I think we should leave this House and hope that in the spirit of Easter we might see a government returned refreshed. But I do not think there is very much left to refresh in terms of this government. With such a ministry is it any wonder that this country is in such difficulty?
[DOT] <1610)
Can any good Liberal be proud of the government's legislative accomplishments? What have hon. members opposite contributed to debates in this House? What has been the contribution of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), apart from the occasional reply? For most part it has consisted of "Oh, oh!" or "Hear, hear!" Is it any wonder our people question the wisdom of the government? We are going through an economic crisis, a crisis

April 14, 1976
Easter Adjournment
involving the Solicitor General's department, and a crisis relating to the government's moral and ethical standards.


John Edward Broadbent: What standards?


Walter David Baker: Apparently, in matters of ministerial ethics, the government considers the Criminal Code as the basic guide, not the guidelines set down by Lester B. Pearson. As the ship of state plows ahead, bumping a shoal here and a shoal there, with nobody at the helm, is it any wonder people think the government is a drifting mess.
In his year-end oration the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said parliament is irrelevant. The people of this country now think the Prime Minister himself is irrelevant. I ask hon. members to cast their minds back. When, in modern parliamentary history, have two ministers submitted their resignations in such circumstances as we witnessed? When has it ever happened that one resignation was accepted, and one not accepted on such specious grounds? When has a ministry been involved with matters like Sky Shops, the dial-a-judge affair and other, similar matters which have come before the House?
If government supporters are dismayed by opposition charges, I merely say that the opposition cannot make bricks without straw. The actions of the government, or its lack of action and-I use the word in its parliamentary sense-the wrongful acts of the government and those beholden to it have created the straw. We merely brought these matters to the attention of the House. When did you ever see such evasion? Certainly not in my time here. Perhaps others, who have been here longer, remember similar instances, but I do not.
When did you ever see such posturing as went on in the last year and a half, such empty posturing? Why, it has become necessary for the government to invent reasons for avoiding the public inquiries which we asked. Only when those involved in the matter were not in the government or closely connected with it was an inquiry granted. Otherwise, when we have asked for people unbiased politically to inquire into important public matters, we have been refused and stonewalled. Other times the government asked us to lay charges; but the government would not provide information which would allow us to make a judgment. Government members have tried to intimidate opposition members in a question period, and failed. This government has much to account for to the people of this country.
Why is the government afraid to face the people of Canada? The Prime Minister spurned the invitation to face the public in St. John's West, until he could spurn it no longer. We shall know the people's answer to the government when the people of St. John's West speak. Yes, the Prime Minister will have his birthday present in October, 1976. And what is to happen in Ottawa-Carleton? How can the Prime Minister justify leaving over 100,000 people in Ottawa-Carleton without representation in this House? Why has he refused, despite the pressure put on him by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and other opposition members, to say when an ordinary process in a democratic society is to take place, namely, a by-election?

The Ottawa Journal, a newspaper known for its unbiased approach to public matters-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: -said, in an editorial printed on April 12, 1976-


John Edward Broadbent: It's about as unbiased as the Daily Worker.


Walter David Baker: -as follows:
Of course no justification is possible. Mr. Trudeau is willingly sacrificing the interests of parliamentary democracy for the perceived selfinterest of the Liberal party. His political advisers are worried about an Ottawa-Carleton by-election, as well they should be. The delay in even announcing its date is entirely for partisan reasons.
Before Mr. Trudeau next talks about the irrelevancy of parliament, he might contemplate his own contribution to that sad fact.
With every passing day the government exposes its weakness. Although ministers demonstrate their technical knowledge and managerial ability, their credibility inexorably is lessened. The government is becoming less and less realistic in its assessment of the problems we all face. A government like that should go out to the people of Canada-


Mr. Stanfield:: It should go out, period.


Walter David Baker: As the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) says, it should go out. And I do not want anyone to think that the government neglects only the big issues. It neglects the small ones as well. In all aspects of its activities it has demonstrated the same inability, incompetence, and disregard for matters small as well as large.
I allude particularly to a matter I raised the other day as a point of order. Mr. Speaker decided that it was not a point of order, but I suggest that it concerned the smirking hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and others, as it has to do with the position of parliamentary secretary. A section of the Parliamentary Secretaries Act provides that:
There shall not be at any one time more parliamentary secretaries than the number of ministers who hold offices for which salaries are provided in section 4 of the Salaries Act.
This subsection refers to the ministers in office and not to the total number of eligible portfolios. We have, by virtue of the Government Reorganization Act, provision-for a total of 28 full ministers and, therefore, a possible 28 parliamentary secretaryships. This government has not appointed an associate minister of national defence. It only takes one minister of national defence to foul up the defence posture of the country. We do not need an associate minister. Prior to March 16 there were 27 full ministers and 27 parliamentary secretaries. The three ministers of state do not enter into these calculations because they do not fall within the definition.
When the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) resigned as minister of consumer and corporate affairs, there remained 26 ministers drawing salaries pursuant to section 4 of the Salaries Act. As a consequence there is one parliamentary secretary too many in terms of salary. There are some in this country who would say there are 20 odd
April 14, 1976

parliamentary secretaries too many in terms of the work they do. However, I am not going to raise that matter in this debate.
On Thursday, April 8, the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) was given the additional portfolio of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He has proved that he cannot run the Post Office. He is now going to prove that he cannot run that department. Consequently there is a minister for each of the 27 portfolios. However, there are still only 26 ministers holding an office for which a salary is provided for a parliamentary secretary. Since the number of ministers is operative in determining the number of parliamentary secretaries, there is still one parliamentary secretary too many as of this time. It appears that one parliamentary secretary is drawing his salary illegally.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: None of them earn the salary, but one is drawing it illegally. I raise this with the government and I was thanked by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais) for doing so. I want to know which one of the parliamentary secretaries is going to volunteer not only to give up the salary but to send back vyhat he has taken from the Crown improperly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: As I said, Mr. Speaker, the government provides an equal amount of neglect to each problem facing it. The parliamentary secretaries must be delighted to know that they are among the small problems. However, their neglect in this problem is very important in terms of proper administration under the statute. But the government ignores the problem.
We do not resist too strenuously adjournment at this time. In order for the government members to have more than a short exposure to the people on the streets of Canada we might increase the number of days. However, there will at least be time for them to understand fully that outside this lovely precinct of parliament, insulated as it is from time to time from what people on the street are saying, there are a great number of Canadians who look upon the government with the same disdain and disgust as many members of this House of Commons.
There are problems in Canada. There are great challenges facing the country. Frankly I do not believe that this shambling, dried-up bureaucratic, technocratic government, which once classed its members as great managers, is capable of managing its own affairs, let alone the affairs of a country that requires a unique kind of attention.
It would be very well if this House were dissolved and we went to the country. If this were the case today, there would be no doubt about the outcome. I would be immodest if I suggested that we might have an opportunity to go across the floor of the House, so I will not suggest it. I would rather say that members opposite will have an opportunity to test the other side of the House. With the situation in this country, this could not happen too soon. I
Easter Adjournment
do not know how long any country can withstand the neglect and lack of policy and direction. This government has ably demonstrated its incapability.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if Canadians picked at random a group of people to run the government and sit in the cabinet, they would come up with a group that in the normal course of time would make a number of decisions which would include some good results and some errors. However, it is a marvellous accomplishment of this collection of Liberals to turn virtually every aspect of policy that they have had to deal with since the Christmas break into an unmitigated disaster. No other group of Canadians could have been so successful at spoiling virtually everything they touched in terms of policy in the past few months.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), on behalf of the government, moved a motion of adjournment. We all noticed that he did not say anything. I do not mean that in the normal Liberal sense where they speak at length without any substance, but in the literal sense in that he simply moved the motion and resumed his seat. The reason is obvious. He would have had to speak in terms of pure hypocrisy about the record of the government, or tell the truth. If he chose the latter he would not have anything to say of a positive nature about the performance of the government.
In the past three months we have had the worst consecutive period of government for a three month period in the living memory of any member in this chamber.


Donald W. Munro: Even Stanley!


John Edward Broadbent: We had the judges' affair and the Sky Shops' affair. The over-riding conclusion that has to be drawn from these two episodes is that, apart from the Criminal Code, the government has absolutely no standards. If it is not illegal, for a Liberal it is permitted, unless he is caught. If caught, the principle is that they do their damndest to cover it up. If they are caught trying to cover it up, they get some minister to resign for a completely phony reason and hope that no one will notice. That is the standard this cabinet has set in the last three months. I have no doubt that it has contributed to its very significant nosedive in the Gallup poll figures recently announced.
There has been a total abandonment of the serious parliamentary tradition, both in this country and abroad, that ministers have moral responsibilities that are well above those provided in the Criminal Code. Long after the temporary illustrations of the so-called judges' affair and the Sky Shops' issue are forgotten, neither of which is comp-letedly resolved by a long shot, the permanent effect upon the government and the Liberal party will be that the people of Canada will judge them as a party that looks upon this nation in a completely cynical fashion, a fashion which states that, as long as it is not illegal, it is to be permitted. That is a standard that all parties on the opposition side made clear in the past few weeks that they categorically reject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 14, 1976
Easter Adjournment


John Edward Broadbent: As for the Defence Department, I do not know if one could get lower in any provincial or federal department, in this country or anywhere else. The $1 billion misunderstanding with regard to the Orion is almost beyond description in terms of the incompetency of the government. It is an incredible mishandling of public responsibility and public funds. All opposition parties have played a role in showing that this profound mishandling is taking place in the Defence Department by the current minister.
We are spending $1 billion on Lockheed Orions, which I suggest are not going to serve the first priority of our defence, as stated by the government itself in its 1971 defence white paper, namely, the protection and enhancement of Canadian sovereignty. We are spending millions of dollars on needlessly complex, technical equipment for the Orion, which the minister acknowledged in committee and acknowledged implicitly in the House has no other purpose but to provide the technical capacity to detect submarines in the course of supplying protective coverage for convoys carrying goods back and forth across the Atlantic in the event of a prolonged land war in continental Europe.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, could anyone other than the present Minister of Defence (Mr. Richardson) come up with such a hypothetical possibility in the year 1976 which has such absurd implications? As I said on another occasion, in the Orion deal the minister has prepared magnificently for refighting the second world war. This can be facetiously or jokingly dismissed, but we are not approaching it in that way, Mr. Speaker. Defence spending is a serious matter.
However, there is yet hope. The deal is not settled. We have suggested that the government extricate itself completely from the Lockheed deal and proceed to purchase and build planes in Canada. The Dash 7-R can be built in Canada, and given the right kind of equipment can undertake the surveillance task which, I repeat, was the number one task assigned to the defence department in the government's white paper. This can be supplemented by re-equipping the Argus aircraft, which can provide surveillance for submarines along our coast where this is appropriate. This would leave some $500 million which could be used for sensible, long-range purposes. For example, it could be used to develop inter-urban rapid transit facilities, which also can be produced in Canada and would meet Canada's urban needs.
As for inflation and unemployment, I will not go back over the origin of the anti-inflation program that was presented to the House shortly after last Thanksgiving. If one looks at what has transpired since we returned to the House following the Christmas recess, the weakness of the program in terms of its legal structure, complemented by regulations and administrative decisions, have more than confirmed our original conclusion about the program, namely, that it was primarily a wage and salary control program and not at all a price control program.
Perhaps the symbolic appointment that best characterizes the fact that the government was not serious about prices was the appointment of a man named Lasby as head of the profit control section of the Anti-Inflation Board

administrative apparatus concerned with food prices. Did the government appoint a social worker, a trade unionist, a fisherman, or an ordinary worker to this position, Mr. Speaker? No, it wanted someone Very dear to the hearts of the Liberal party and hired Mr. Lasby, who was formerly vice-president of Canada Packers. Mr. Lasby would know very well about price fixing and how the system works, but he would not be the kind of person in terms of disposition to look for profiteering and price gouging, which surely should have been the sort of person the government was seeking for this particular role in its anti-inflation program.
Perhaps it is just a mere coincidence that the board has rolled back in more than five months of existence only one price increase in Canada, and that was the price of a particular brand of beer manufactured in the province of Quebec. Some record indeed! In the meantime the board has rolled back some 100 trade union contracts and wage and salary settlements. The board has before it some 6,000 contracts, and since the program began has reached a decision on 2,000 of them. Some 4,000 remain. But overwhelmingly the emphasis of the board has been on rolling back contracts that have been negotiated and settled by the participants, not in any circumstance on improving those settlements.
The legislation that we have passed dealing with inflation was anti-working Canadian at its inception and has remained anti-working Canadian in its application. The recent cost of living figures illustrate this. There was a slight decline in the cost of living, but contrary to what certain government members have said this reduction was not at all the result of the anti-inflation program. This reduction occurred in sectors that the program does not control, namely, imported goods and food prices. The fact of the matter is that the most important price increases for Canadians are not covered by the program. I will not go into them at length but simply mention them: energy prices, mortgage costs, and food prices. These are virtually exempt in the most important respects from the anti-inflation program, yet they are most relevant to the budget of a typical family.
Another area that the government has fouled up-and I think that is the appropriate term-has been federal-provincial relations. In the last few months the government has reneged on a whole range of programs originally negotiated between the Government of Canada and the provinces during the last few years. This is the case particularly in regard to those programs involving the transfer of financial resources from the federal government to some of the provinces, which inescapably has normally meant the transfer of wealth from the wealthier provinces to the poorer. As I say, the federal government has reneged on the agreements it entered into with the provinces ostensibly in good faith. Now the financial burden has got a little tough, the federal government has turned its back.
This is particularly so in the case of health care financing, and it has had a very bad effect on the poorer provinces. The same is true of the revenue guarantee agreements entered into with the provinces some five years ago. The federal government's unilateral and arbitrary action in these areas not only jeopardizes the good relationships that are essential between the federal government and the
April 14, 1976

provinces, but it has had a negative effect in terms of the income benefits of our citizens. In all these instances it means that the poorer provinces of Canada are going to suffer and become even poorer.
Again the government's lack of action and failure to take specific steps is seen in its treatment of the native peoples of this country. Tomorrow is the first anniversary of a special submission on the aboriginal rights of Metis and non-status Indians made to the cabinet, and specifically to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), by the Native Council of Canada. At that time the Native Council of Canada was promised a response by the government within three months. That is a year ago tomorrow. I say with all seriousness that if the Government of Canada does not act, and act soon in terms of the needs and the aboriginal rights of the native people of Canada, we will experience a very significant, and I will not put it more strongly than that, level of civil disobedience in this country. It may well go beyond that, the issue is that serious.
A government that promises a year ago that it will act within three months and has yet done nothing is not a government that deserves the support either of the native people of Canada or of the rest of us. Our party believes it is time the rights of the native people of Canada were guaranteed. We believe their linguistic and cultural rights should be guaranteed in precisely the same way as the linguistic and cultural rights of French and English-speaking people are guaranteed. By that we mean they should be firmly embedded in our constitution. That is what they want, and it is time the Government of Canada gave recognition to the desire and implemented it.
Another area in respect of which the government can be criticized with complete justification is that of its neglect of women's rights. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) put on one fancy and expensive fanfare after another, along with a little bit of showbiz here at the National Arts Centre and its equivalent in Winnipeg, where there was a great production with buttons and everything, all during International Women's Year. Once the great and symbolic year was over we got no action at all.
There was a possibility within the anti-inflation program of making it clear that the women of Canada who still experience wage and salary discrimination ought not, in terms of the law, be subject to a continuation of that discrimination. The normal cop-out of the federal government was the suggestion that these people are employed within the framework of provincial law. That was the government's excuse up to its new anti-inflation law. Now that this has been brought in under the guise and within the framework of exceptional constitutional powers given to the federal government in emergency situations, the peace, order and good government clause, the government no longer has that excuse. While this legislation is on the books it provides the government with a perfect opportunity to practise this year what it preached last year when it was fashionable to talk about women's rights. It could have made it mandatory that women in Canada in the market place be paid on a full equality basis.
Easter Adjournment
Another area the government has been treating with blase indifference is that area of the automotive industry in Canada. This is a serious part of our industry, and in the province of Ontario alone one out of six jobs is directly or indirectly related to it. The government has been sitting waiting month after month, indeed, year after year in recent years, while our relative position compared to the United States automotive industry has gone down.
Last year we had a $2 billion deficit in automotive trade with the United States. That's a lot of dollars, and this affects our trade position seriously. It is also translatable into jobs. That means a lot of men and women in this country have been unemployed who might otherwise have been employed. If the trend which I understand has taken place during the first two months of this year persists, I predict that the deficit for 1976 will likely reach $3 billion. I understand we have a deficit not only in the automotive parts sector, which has been traditional over the years, but also unfortunately we have a deficit in the assembly sector in trade with the United States. I predict this with care, and with some knowledge about this industry.
It is time the Government of Canada recognized the importance of what is taking place within the framework of the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement and took steps to change it so Canadians would get, not more than their share, but at least their share in terms of jobs that were supposed to be guaranteed by that pact. In addition, the Canadian consumers would get the benefits they were supposed to get when the tax came into being ten years ago, namely, price parity in automotive production. They do not get this and, in fact, this is just as bad today as it was in 1965 when the pact came into being.
The final matter I wish to mention that is of concern to us is the decision that is likely to be reached in cabinet tomorrow concerning drilling in the Beaufort Sea. This is another example of the government plunging ahead without any thought about the consequences when it gave approval in principle to Dome Petroleum in 1973 starting some preliminary drilling there. In spite of requests from the United States government to delay, in spite of the expressed concern by the federal Department of the Environment, which has pointed out that if a blow-out occurs in the Beaufort Sea it could run wild for up to two years, and particularly in spite of the opposition by the United States government to proceeding so quickly, the government gives every indication that it will decide to proceed with that operation.
We in the NDP assert that this is a wrong decision. The technology being used, to our knowledge, is not sufficient to guarantee the kind of environmental safety that is essential. We say the decision should be delayed and that this action should not go ahead. I repeat that all the indicators seem to be that the government will proceed, as soon as it gets the opposition parties out of Ottawa, with that very important and potentially very harmful decision.


Walter David Baker: As they always do.


John Edward Broadbent: As the government always does, as the hon. member suggests.
I have touched on a number of areas: the judges and Sky Shops affair, the billion-dollar misunderstanding about the Orion, the disastrous levels of persistent high unemploy-

April 14, 1976
Easter Adjournment
ment, the betrayal of the provinces in respect of cost-sharing agreements, the ignoring of our native people's rights, and the continuing ignoring of the important principles of sexual equality.
I conclude with the point I made at the outset, that no other group of people in Canada, had it been randomly selected, could have done so badly about so many issues of such great importance as this government has in the last two months.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address myself very briefly to one question that has been raised repeatedly during this session, and certainly during the 1976 portion, and this relates to search and rescue.
Since January we have lost six fishermen off the coast of Newfoundland and four fishermen off the coast of British Columbia. In March the fisheries patrol vessel Cape Friels went down leaving 23 men in the water for 15 hours. It was just by a very happy coincidence that at that particular time there happened to be a tracker aircraft from Halifax on the ground in St. John's. That tracker aircraft was able to get in the air and succeeded in locating these men. We are told they were within one hour of being lost because of a developing weather system in the area. I am further told that the pilot of that tracker aircraft was severely reprimanded by his superiors for refusing to obey orders and insisting on staying over the area until the rescue vessel was in sight. As I say, that would have been a very serious disaster indeed.
It came as no surprise when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) issued a statement on April 7 under the heading "Marine Search and Rescue (SAR) Activities". This was an eight-page resume of the inventory of the Canadian coast guard. The minister really did not address himself to the total search and rescue effort. What really surprised me and most people was the very dramatic admission on page eight of that statement. This is what the Minister of Transport said:
It has become evident that, in spite of the provision of additional resources, facilities and coordination capabilities over the years, the marine SAR organization is no longer entirely adequate.
That is precious little consolation to the families of those fishermen who have been lost this year. Then the minister went on to state:
A Canadian Coast Guard Task Force has reviewed the national search and rescue policy and the revised policy is expected to be ready for submission to Cabinet by mid-1976.
The Minister of Transport accused me of misreading his statement. He said his statement referred to the report being ready before mid-summer 1976. That is what Hansard will show. I hope the parliamentary secretary will note that the statement of April 7 said that the submission would not be ready until mid-summer 1976.
This is a most crucial fact. It raises the whole question that, once the Minister of Transport arrives at the point in time where he is ready to admit what we have been saying all along, which is that the present search and rescue facilities are not adequate, it then becomes incumbent upon the minister and his colleagues in cabinet to assure

the House and the Canadian people that an interim measure is being put into effect which would cover, on an interim basis, the inadequacies referred to by the minister in his statement, at least until the task force makes its report by mid-summer.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, this is a most grievous thing because we are about to embark upon another fishing season on the east coast of Canada. I believe the minister has put himself in the position by that admission that, if there is another accident at sea involving Canadian fishermen, which by the very nature of the occupation there probably will be, God forbid, the government will be condemned by its own words. This government by its own admission places itself in the position of being accused of what to my mind is tantamount to criminal negligence.
I do not know what the legal position will be if there should be another accident at sea either on the east coast or on the west coast, but certainly we have a right to expect from the minister some assurance that the inadequacies which obviously have been identified will be corrected, at least on an interim basis, to ensure maximum efficiency during the crucial time when the task force is preparing its report, which report will not be ready for submission to cabinet until mid-summer, or perhaps even later.
The last tragedy at sea in my province was the floundering of the fishing vessel the San Juan with the loss of two lives. My question today to the minister was whether or not he is now prepared, in light of the submission of the report by his department into the sinking of the San Juan, to have a full scale judicial inquiry. I submit such an inquiry is warranted by the tabling in this House by the minister of the in-house inquiry report of his department.
Such an inquiry is warranted because, according to this report, only the captain of the CGS Bartlett and only the first officer of the vessel and the quartermaster were interviewed. Why were the members of the RCMP not interviewed since they were instrumental in notifying the air-sea search and rescue in Halifax that the San Juan was lost? Second, why were not the personnel of the air-sea search and rescue in Halifax not interviewed to determine what procedure was taken immediately following the receipt of this news?
What seems to be perhaps even more difficult to understand is why were not the members of the crew of the Bartlett who were on deck at the time not interviewed by this inquiry or investigation? I say, Sir, that unfortunately, because I am sure this was the conclusion of well meaning people, this investigation raises more questions than it answers. I find one part of the report particularly objectionable. On page three of the report there is a reference to the fact that the two fishermen, Mr. Coady and Mr. Ryan were on some kind of pleasure cruise. The suggestion was made that they were out sports fishing, that they were shooting birds for sport.
The Newfoundland fishermen do not venture out into the North Atlantic in the middle of February for sport. They do so because that is a crucial part of their existence. They do so for the very important reason that they have to supplement their inadequate incomes. They supplement their income by catching a few fish for their table or by shooting some seabirds to provide some fresh meat. That
April 14, 1976

has been the traditional pattern of Newfoundland fishermen. It is unworthy of the people who prepared that report, and of the Minister of Transport who presented it, to suggest that these two fishermen who were lost were out on some kind of sporting venture.
I wonder whether the Minister of Transport would have the courage to go to the widow of one of these fishermen and adviser her and her nine children that the husband and father was lost while on a sporting cruise on that ill-fated day. How many more fishermen will have to be lost before this government gets the message that it has an on-going responsibility to protect Canadians at sea and in the air?
I venture to say that if some kook were to take it upon himself to cross the Atlantic in a balloon, as has happened on a number of occasions, and if by the very nature of that foolhardy exercise was to come down somewhere in the northwest Atlantic, the full capability of Canada's search and rescue and of the United States search and rescue facilities would be brought to bear to save the skin of that nut. Yet, Sir, we seem to be suggesting that if fishermen engage in some kind of sporting pastime with their equipment while waiting for the fishing season to commence, or if fishermen on the west coast of Canada venture out without adequate equipment, then somehow they are not entitled to the same protection as they would were they engaged in legitimate fishing activity.
I submit that all Canadians involved in fishing, be it sport or otherwise, are entitled to the protection that is their right as Canadian citizens. That is why I believe, with the admission of the Minister of Transport that the present procedures are inadequate, with the further admission that the task force report will not be ready until mid-summer, that we must have some assurance that steps will be taken in the interim to correct the inadequacies.
The minister in the report on the San Juan incident made no reference to the air-sea rescue Centre in Halifax or the responsibilities they have. The report carried with it the implication that there is a division of responsibility here which all too often has resulted in a very serious loss of time in getting the search and rescue in operation.
On the one hand we are told that the Department of Transport is responsible for the marine capability in search and rescue, and on the other the Department of National Defence is responsible for the air capability. That is not my understanding of it. My understanding of it is that the Department of National Defence, which operates the four search and rescue centres in Canada, is responsible for the over-all supervision of search and rescue in Canada. It is its responsibility to take the initiative. Indeed the initiative cannot be taken unless the air-sea rescue centres have been notified, and indeed air-sea rescue centres have the ongoing co-ordinating responsibility once a search gets under way.
Yet we have all these contradictions creeping in from time to time. For example, General Dextrase when he was before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on March 23, in his statement, which can be found in the report of the committee of that day, said:
Easter Adjournment
But I do believe the responsibility is not ours. I do not want to sound callous; somebody has to do the job. But if we are forever coming back when we are discussing estimates and having the Department of National Defence picking up whatever is alleged or considered as not being done by anyone else, then the budget will certainly have to include it.
Obviously the Commanding General of the Canadian Armed Forces does not have the same understanding of the division of responsibility that the Minister of Transport and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) have. I would say that we deserve, the people of Canada deserve, and certainly our fishermen deserve, to know exactly what interim measures the government will take to correct the inadequacies identified by the minister in his statement last week. We deserve that because, after all, if a municipality is about to acquire a new fire engine, it does not close down the fire hall because the existing equipment is inadequate. It takes whatever steps are necessary to bring the present equipment up to maximum efficiency on an interim basis until the new equipment is ready, and certainly that applies with a great deal of force and legitimacy to the whole question of air-sea rescue.
I will not take too much of the time of the House, but in conclusion I want to make reference to the report of Judge Soper who headed a judicial inquiry into the loss of the fishing vessel Enterprise, and the foundering of the Canadian National ship Patrick Morris which was engaged in the search of the Enterprise in 1970. Judge Soper released his report in 1971 and identified the problem. For example, he said:
There is one factor which should be examined by the appropriate authorities of the Government of Canada and that is the "reaction time", which is the time lag between the order to go on a mission and the take-off of aircraft.
I did some checking today with the Canadian Armed Forces and I am told that the tracker aircraft, a prop aircraft which is the kind of equipment we now have, takes approximately three and a half hours flying time to get from Halifax to eastern Newfoundland. That is a critical time factor. As I mentioned earlier, it is only by the grace of God that there was a tracker at St. John's at the time the Cape Freels was lost because, if that tracker had not been there, we would probably have been faced with a tragedy of huge proportions in that 23 men would have been lost. Yet we had to depend on the east coast of Newfoundland on an air element that is operational from Halifax or Summerside, Prince Edward Island.
What did Judge Soper have to say about that in his report? He made some important recommendations which, to the best of my knowledge, have never been acted upon. That report was handed down in 1971. In addition to addressing himself to the critical time lag he recommended that there should be greater dispersal, greater deployment of air-sea rescue aircraft to cover the Atlantic region, pointing out rightly that the area covered by air-sea rescue was far too vast to have to depend on aircraft stationed in Summerside or in Halifax. Yet to this date that recommendation has not been acted upon.
The judge also recommended that additional personnel be employed in the air-sea rescue centres to ensure maximum 24 hour efficiency. To the best of my knowledge that recommendation was not acted upon either. I think we deserve an explanation. People who depend upon the sea

April 14, 1976
Easter Adjournment
for a livelihood deserve an explanation. What is more important, we deserve from this government and from the Minister of Transport, who should have all the responsibility because he has under his command the Canadian coastguard, an assurance, while he is waiting for the report of this task force, that immediate steps will be taken to correct the inadequacies identified by the minister himself, and that they will put together some kind of interim organization to ensure maximum efficiency and capability and a reduction in reaction time until the report of the task force is received.
This would mean a few simple steps which I will suggest to the government right now. First of all, tracker aircraft should be stationed in Gander on a full time 24 hour basis. Second, lifeboats which were purchased by the government at considerable expense should be redesigned to make them efficient to the maximum, because at present they can only operate under ideal conditions. For example, when two fishermen were lost in Morton's Harbour in February there was a lifeboat standing by in Twillingate a short distance away and that lifeboat was not operational because it could not operate in more than two inches of ice.


An hon. Member:: One inch.


James Aloysius McGrath: I am corrected by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Baker (Gander-Twillingate)), and I appreciate that correction.
Second, I am told that when the San Juan went down there was a lifeboat in St. John's at that time and that that lifeboat was not operational because it could not operate in high seas. These accidents do not take place under ideal conditions. They usually take place when there are high winds, adverse weather conditions or serious ice conditions, so for God's sake let us not play around with cosmetics. Let us bring these lifeboats back, redesign them, and have the necessary additions made to them which will make them truly operational.
Third, I suggest that some kind of plan be put into effect which would maximize the use of whatever aircraft and whatever vessels happen to be in the area. For example, at any given time at St. John's or Gander there are water bombers, which are converted Cansos, which are ideal for this type of operation and which could and should be brought into force whenever there is a rescue operation under way. This could be done by a simple arrangement with the government of Newfoundland. Surely that is a simple suggestion.
Finally, whatever the task force recommends-and obviously it will have to pay some heed to the recommendations of Judge Soper with respect to deployment-let us hope the government acts on its recommendations and acts with the dispatch this situation deserves.
In this regard I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries will let his voice be heard because I know he shares my concern. I know he is convinced, as I am, that the logical location for deployment of whatever facilities we have from Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to cover the Newfoundland situation would be the airport at Gander, which has the National Defence establishment already

there. There is a fully operational aerodrome, and this could be done with very little additional expense to Canadian taxpayers. Whatever is to be done, for God's sake let it be done quickly, before someone else is lost.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), not in an effort to monopolize the debate on the adjournment motion, but simply to point out the truth which he speaks. This is a very important matter.
As the over-all arrangement for search and rescue is set up throughout this country we have four co-ordinating zones. In the case of the province the hon. member represents, which is my province, operations are co-ordinated from another province. All the aircraft which are used in search and rescue operations have to be sent from another province, and from a specific area of another province, which is perhaps quite distant.
The co-ordination presently in effect is not adequate at all. As the hon. member pointed out, division of authority between two specific departments is not acceptable. The triggering device for search and rescue is not acceptable, and I think that is the major reason why there are discussions under way regarding the whole situation.
What is it that the hon. member for St. John's East and I are basically requesting? We deserve at least an aircraft in our own province, which we do not have at present. We do not have one aircraft. They have to come from another area of Canada. The hon. member pointed out that with regard to the major disasters which have occurred that they have occurred mostly at a certain time of the year, and around the coast of Newfoundland. The hon. member pointed out the reasons for that.
We have fishermen who are licensed seal hunters and who have to go out at a time of year when the ice is in and not too far off shore. There is a regular hunting season, not for sports hunting, but to provide a food supplement to the people who live along our coast. They have to go out at a time of year when one normally would not be doing sports fishing. A sports fisherman would not want to be out among ice pans at a time of the year when any change in the weather within a 24-hour period would result in the sports fisherman being heavily iced in. Because of our geography, weather conditions, and the occupations of Newfoundlanders, I believe we deserve to have an air-sea rescue co-ordinating centre in Newfoundland.
I would not mind if the centre were placed in the riding of the hon. member, or in some other part of Newfoundland. However, Gander is a central location, and I think the government should reach that decision.
This question is important to Newfoundlanders, not just to those people working in the fishery who have to go out on these waters during the spring and winter months, but to everyone in Newfoundland. I predict that before long-I would say this summer-we will see some petitions about this matter presented in the House of Commons. I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. member for St. John's East said with regard to the need for an air-sea rescue centre in Newfoundland and also with his general com-
April 14, 1976

ment about the need for co-ordination, better aircraft, and better equipment on that aircraft.
We could learn a lot if we examined some of the air-sea rescue services which are operated throughout the world. Perhaps if we were to look at what is now available, and deployed our resources properly, the problem would be solved. In any case, the problem has to be solved, and I join with the hon. member in making that point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, it seems strange that after 17 months of a session, the longest in the history of this country, the adjournment motion should be put without any statement whatsoever from the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nineteen months.


Robert Carman Coates: Well, I made a mistake in a conservative way. After that period of time the acting government House leader comes into the House and puts this motion for adjournment without any mention of any achievements the government could lay before the people of Canada as reasons for taking a recess instead of proroguing the House and starting a new session of parliament.
It is one of the very sad commentaries on this parliament that it has been going continuously since the last general election. That is an indication of just how unco-ordinated the government has been in everything it has tried to achieve, in the name of sanity, for the people of Canada. The crown the government wears is not a crown of diamonds and rubies. It is a crown of thorns, and the people of Canada feel the effects.
I am pleased to see the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) has been present in the House all the time this motion has been debated. He is new to the department. He is a dedicated man but must clean up a terrible mess in Atlantic Canada. Eight years ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) talked about the just society, about the need to eradicate regional economic disparity. Is it not sad that the head of the Economic Council of Canada, appearing before the Regional Development Committee, said that the department set up seven years ago to eliminate regional economic disparity has not achieved its aims? It has hardly lessened regional economic disparity which has existed since Confederation.
The economic outlook for people in my province becomes worse with each passing day. They face the future with fear and trepidation. Why, Mr. Speaker? The reason is our escalating energy costs. The blame is not to be laid so much at the feet of the federal government as at the feet of the government of Nova Scotia, which did virtually nothing by way of planning to lower the costs of energy. Our energy costs have escalated because the Nova Scotia government put its faith in offshore oil. Offshore oil is used mostly for the province's energy production. The situation is similar in Prince Edward Island but could have been avoided in Nova Scotia, as the province has available other resources
Easter Adjournment
which it could have brought on stream in anticipation of present difficulties.
Ordinary Nova Scotians owning ordinary homes pay more for their electric bills than for their mortgages. Mortgage payments are lower than payments for electric power bills. And this happened almost overnight. The government of Nova Scotia, through an advertising campaign, convinced people to change to electric heating. Many people converted, and now they cannot afford to heat their homes electrically. They cannot pay their electric bills and cannot sell their homes, because no one wants to buy homes so expensive to heat. This is a terrible mess and a terrible disaster for the people.
The federal government convinced many industries to locate in Nova Scotia. The idea was to provide employment for our people. Assisted by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, some industries established themselves in Nova Scotia. They face mounting energy costs which they could not have anticipated when they first moved to Nova Scotia. I do not doubt that if something is not done soon, bankruptcies in the province will increase. This will be bad news for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the people of this country, because we shall lose the tremendous investment we made when we helped those industries locate in Nova Scotia.
I say to the minister that the Nova Soctia government's lack of planning and lack of concern for the people are reprehensible. I criticize the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for not protecting the investment the people of Canada made when they helped industries to locate in the province. My criticism is not directed at the minister personally; it is directed at departmental officials. They should have anticipated that energy costs would increase, and should have encouraged the government of Nova Scotia to provide forms of energy alternative to and cheaper than offshore oil.
Nova Scotia possesses tremendous coal resources and Devco, the federal entity, is doing its best to bring provincial coal on stream. It wants to open coal mines; we need coal both for the steel industry and thermal power production. When Devco was first established the government of Nova Scotia entered into a special arrangement with the federal government whereby Devco was to assume responsibility for the coal mines in Cape Breton and the Nova Scotia government for the coal mines in the rest of Nova Scotia. The provincial government was to pay the subventions connected with thermal power plants in the province, not the federal government. The Nova Scotia government thought it was a good deal. The federal government behaved generously in the deal which led to the establishment of the Crown corporation on Cape Breton Island. But what happened?
After the deal was signed and the Regan administration took over, the province began closing coal mines. It thought, shortsightedly, that it would save money because it would not need to pay subventions on coal if mines were closed. Now that administration would dearly love to have those coal mines in operation and dearly love to pay those subventions. In my constituency, at Springhill, a viable coal mine could be in operation. There is lots of coal. At one time the Nova Scotia government decided to open a

April 14, 1976
Easter Adjournment
new coal mine there, then, suddenly, at the whim of the premier, decided not to. In Pictou county it was the same.
The provincial government closed the mines. Because coal had no sex appeal for the premier, coal mining was phased out. He put all his eggs in the one basket. He put his faith in oil on Sable Island, until he discovered there wasn't much oil on Sable Island. There wasn't enough to make that oil commercially viable.


An hon. Member:: He showed everybody a bottle of oil.


Robert Carman Coates: Yes, he showed Nova Scotia a bottle of oil. Oil was to be the wave of the future in that part of Canada. But even that bottle of oil has become pretty expensive.


An hon. Member:: It has turned out to be castor oil.


Robert Carman Coates: As the hon. member from Kingston says, for Nova Scotia it has turned out to be castor oil.
Then the premier decided that, although we did not have offshore oil, perhaps we could develop Fundy tidal power. One minute he is in favour of Fundy tidal power, and the next he is not. Nobody knows where he stands. Despite the willingness of the federal government to involve itself in tidal power studies and bring closer the day when we can decide if we can harness the tides, the premier could not make up his mind. He could not come up with appointments to the Fundy tidal power review committee for almost a year. He messed around with the additional study and we lost months when the committee could have been working and coming up with conclusions. At this moment in time we in Nova Scotia find ourselves almost totally committed to offshore oil, and the premier now cries, asking the federal government to bail them out.
As much as I hate to see us having to pay for the mistakes of Mr. Regan in Nova Scotia, at the same time I say we have to give very serious consideration to meeting the request he is making. If not, we will only worsen the degree of regional economic disparity that exists there. We will increase unemployment in that area and there will be a further migration of our people because there will not be the possibilities to entice them to remain there. Therefore I say to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, please urge upon your colleagues to put into effect at least a short term program to help both Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island out of the terrible dilemma they are in with regard to escalating energy costs.
Let me give an example of how serious this is from a personal point of view, and I am much better able to pay my power bills than most people in my constituency. Prior to a few months ago my power bill was $24 for two months, in effect $12 a month. I have the same basic facilities now. I do not have an electric stove. I heat with oil, not with electricity. My water is oil heated. My power bill went from $24 to $83.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Did you talk to the provincial government?


Robert Carman Coates: The hon. member says I should talk to the provincial government. I agree with him from the point of view that it was the provincial government that created

the problem. However, the federal government has so much money invested in Nova Scotia through the infrastructure of DREE to try to overcome regional economic disparity that we cannot sacrifice what we have done, as well as the hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, because of the stupidity and incompetency of the Regan administration.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: It is the same in every province.


Robert Carman Coates: I hope it is not the same in every province. I suggest to the hon. member that everyone in this country does not have the same kind of power bill as the people in Nova Scotia. That is the sad fact. I therefore plead with the government to put forward some kind of interim plan to help the people of Nova Scotia get over the hump. The government should have some forward planning to open some coal mines, get on with the Fundy tidal power project, and get oil from wherever it can be found, but get away from the dependence on expensive offshore oil.
Even if we have to pay the equivalent for coal mined in Nova Scotia as we pay for offshore oil, it will accomplish two things. Nova Scotians will be put to work in the coal mines and pay cheques will be provided for them. Second, the money that we get for the coal that goes to the thermal power plants will stay in this country. Therefore, we must come up with some plan to try to overcome this tremendous economic burden that has quickly fallen on the shoulders of the people of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. We must try to keep the industries there viable. We must keep the people working in those industries and, hopefully, take some of the burden off the people of Nova Scotia who now are paying horrendous power rates. Many of the ordinary working people just cannot pay those rates as well as their mortgage payments. They will lose their homes.
This is a sad commentary on the shortsighted planning of the Regan administration in Nova Scotia that has now run crying to the federal government. At the same time, if we are going to protect our investment, we are forced to come up with some kind of interim plan that not only helps the people of Nova Scotia by eliminating regional economic disparity to a degree, but protects the investment the taxpayers of this country have made through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to overcome some of the unemployment that we face, and will continue to face in the days ahead.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to take only a few minutes of the time of the House to associate myself with the speeches which have been made by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the hon. member for Gan-der-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) with regard to the need for immediate action in providing an effective search and rescue service on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. I support completely the statements made by these two members with respect to conditions as they exist for fishermen on the Atlantic coast. I rise solely for the purpose of pointing out to the House that a similar situation exists on the Pacific coast and that the conditions there are equally deplorable and equally demand prompt and efficient action by the government.
April 14, 1976

On the Pacific coast last year, in a two week period during the herring fishing season, we lost 14 men and ten ships. Already this year, in the first two weeks of the season, we lost four men and six ships. When I raised the matter in the question period in the House some weeks ago, to our consternation the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) admitted that, while we have an aerial search capacity, we do not have an aerial rescue capacity after dark, and that for service during the night hours we are dependent upon the assistance of our good friends and neighbours in the United States.
During the storm which took the lives of those four men and was responsible for the sinking of those six ships, the United States Air Force was, of course, pre-occupied with events on its own coastline and we were unable to get the kind of service which might have saved the lives of the fishermen.
It becomes increasingly apparent that there are two great difficulties as far as the search and rescue arrangements on the Pacific Coast are concerned. The first is the lack of co-ordination. The Department of National Defence is involved, the Department of Transport is involved, the Department of Fisheries is involved and, in the case of night rescue operations, the U.S. Air Force is involved. It is no wonder the fishermen find the service unsatisfactory with a divided jurisdiction like that. They have complained to the government year after year, but no satisfactory action has followed.
Like the hon. member for St. John's East I was interested in the eight-page press release issued by the Department of Transport. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) seems to put the major blame for this loss of lives and ships upon the fishermen, not upon his department, not upon the government's inefficiency and incompetence, not on the fact that the operation is characterized by divided jurisdiction. I will read what the report says under the heading "Herring Roe Season":
Fishermen, in some cases, are not taking every precaution for their own safety. It is becoming evident, particularly during the herring roe season on the West Coast, that because of the cost involved fishermen are not willing to spend money to equip their boats with such safety equipment as emergency transmitter locators, flares and life jackets.
In 1975, 14 men died and 10 boats were lost in one two-week period. This year already, six boats have sunk and four men have lost their lives. However, there is nothing to prevent a novice crew from setting out under an incompetent captain on one of the many small, fragile gillnetters and running into trouble somewhere in the vast area served by the Victoria Rescue Co-ordinating Centre.
So the department is blaming the fishermen because they do not have proper equipment, because they have not taken precautions such as putting in bulkheads to prevent the fish moving and capsizing the boats. I would point out that the Department of Transport and the Department of Fisheries have been asked repeatedly by the unionized fishermen on the West Coast to make such provisions mandatory.
The fishermen have been asking the department for years to declare fish to be cargo under the fishing regulations; they have been asking the government to require that these fishermen shall instal on their boats necessary equipment such as transmitter locators, flares and life
Easter Adjournment
jackets. They have been asking that it be made mandatory for bulkheads to be put in and for the stern to be protected. Yet none of these requests have been complied with as yet.
Now, the minister, in the press release he issued, tells the country and the House that an inquiry has been undertaken. These are his words:
In July of last year, the report of the West Coast fishing vessel casualties inquiry was tabled in the House of Commons. It was initiated because of the unprecedented loss of life. The report made eight major recommendations on crew certification and training, weather forecasting, vessel regulations and inspection, fishing research, naval architecture and safety information to improve springtime operations.
I have this report in my hand. It is the West Coast Fishing Vessels Casualty Inquiry, March, 1975. It is a good report. But there is not a recommendation in it which has not been made to the government again and again over the years. The report of Mr. Justice Soper, to which the hon. member for St. John's East has referred, and the petitions and representations which have been made by the fishermen's union on the West Coast, have dealt again and again with these matters. Now the minister says he has received a report. And what does he propose to do with it? He says:
A joint Transport Canada-Fisheries working group has been studying the recommendations and how they should be implemented. The work of this group will result in meetings between senior Transport-Fisheries officials and all concerned parties, including the B.C. government, to discuss further the implementation of the recommendations. It has become evident that in spite of the provision of additional resources, facilities and co-ordination capabilities over the years, the marine SAR organisation is no longer entirely adequate.
A Canadian coastguard task force has reviewed the national search and rescue policy and the revised policy is expected to be ready for submission to cabinet by mid-1976.
They got the Soper Report in 1971. Briefs have repeatedly been presented to them by the fishermen's union. They have the report of the West Coast Fishing Vessels Casualty Inquiry in hand. And now the government says it hopes some recommendations will be ready for cabinet by midsummer of 1976. Then, of course, the House is perfectly aware that a decision made in Cabinet will not in itself do the fishermen any good because of the length of time it takes, after the time the cabinet has decided to do something, before the word trickles down through the bureaucracy and is translated into action. That interval, Mr. Speaker, is liable to be a lengthy one.
On Tuesday, April 8, I moved a motion in the House under Standing Order 43. It asked:
That the House urges the Prime Minister to order a restructuring of the search and rescue organization under a single agency responsible to one minister, and that immediate steps be taken to procure adequate facilities and equipment for air and marine search and rescue operations on a 24-hour basis.
Because it was put forward under Standing Order 43, requiring unanimous consent, the motion could not be dealt with-some Liberal members said no. I do not wish to delay the House but I do want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the members of the government, that this is not a partisan matter; this is not some economic debate. It is a matter which affects the lives of the men who make a living by going out onto the ocean to catch fish. It is a matter which concerns the welfare of human beings, and the delay which the government has shown in coming to grips with this problem is deplorable.
12840

April 14, 1976
Easter Adjournment
On almost every subject, but on this one in particular, members on the treasury benches opposite have shown themselves to be masters of procrastination. Their slogan seems to be: never do today what you can put off until tomorrow. The fishermen on the West Coast, like the fishermen on the East Coast, are sick and tired of this dilly-dallying. The government ought to take notice that members on both sides have stood up to register their righteous indignation and their protest.
We expect some action soon. By the time we come back after the recess we ought to hear from the Minister of Transport, if he is capable of coming down to earth, some information about what he and his colleagues propose to do to stop this deplorable loss of life due to the government's incompetence and to its failure to organize the search and rescue capability of our country under a single agency, and under one minister, so as to bring an end to this divided jurisdiction which has produced an intolerable situation.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 6(5)(a) I move:
That the sitting of the House be continued beyond the ordinary hour of daily sitting until this motion is adopted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has moved a motion under Standing Order 6(5)(a) which reads as follows:
When Mr. Speaker is in the Chair, a Member may propose a motion without notice, to continue a sitting through a lunch or dinner hour or beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering a specified item of business or a stage or stages thereof subject to the following conditions:
(i)	The motion must relate to the business then being considered-
-which is met.
(ii)	The motion must be proposed in the hour preceding the time at
which the business under consideration should be interrupted-
-which is met also.
(iii)	The motion shall not be subject to debate or amendment.
(b) When Mr. Speaker puts the question-
This has to be very clear to hon. members.
-on such motion, he shall ask those members who object to rise in their places. If ten or more members then rise, the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, otherwise, the motion shall have been adopted.
It is therefore my duty at this time to put the motion. It has been moved by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga), seconded by the hon. member for Huron-Middle-sex (Mr. McKinley):
That the sitting of the House be continued beyond the ordinary hour of daily sitting until this motion is adopted.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There is no debate. Are any members opposing the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion is carried.
Motion (Mr. Elzinga) agreed to.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I said yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I did explain the Standing Order. If hon. members had intended to oppose the motion, we would have called it six o'clock in five minutes' time. We will now sit until the motion is adopted.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate in this adjournment debate to review some of the actions of the Liberal administration. My main concern is the implementation of its anti-inflation program. For programs such as this to work, I believe it is essential that the public-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is rising on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interfere with my hon. friend's right to speak. In fact I would join in unanimous consent that he be permitted to do so. But did he not exhaust his right to speak in this debate when he rose to present the motion? Can he do both things, make a motion and then speak?


Walter David Baker: Surely, Mr. Speaker, he rose immediately without any debate whatever and put the motion. He sat down, the motion was put and was adopted under the rules of the House. He then rose to make his speech having been recognized by the Chair. I submit that is an end to the matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must say that the Standing Order is not really clear on this point. I think by consent the hon. member should be allowed to speak. Though his proposal might have been misunderstood, if it meets the wish of the hon. member I hope he can speak by consent. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Ronald Basford: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I agree with what Your Honour has just said. I hope the hon. member will be recognized and will make a speech, and that other members who wish to make a speech will also do so. If the motion had not been agreed to we would have adjourned at six o'clock and sat tomorrow. As House leader I would only entreat members to make their points undoubtedly, but to endeavour to make them briefly.


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether there is any broad agreement during this extended period, which I have no objection to, for the House to adopt a procedure whereby we will waive the quorum requirements during that period.


Peter Elzinga: Before I get to the crux of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to explain why I put this motion. So often in this House individuals like myself who are on the backbenches do not have a proper opportunity to express the views and complaints of their constituents. We saw a prime example of this when the Liberal administration
April 14, 1976

brought in closure on the second reading debate of the gun control legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Elzinga: If the hon. whip on the other side wishes to speak, he now has an opportunity. As I was saying, for the government's anti-inflation program to work it must have the faith of the public. This government, our Liberal administration, has lost the faith of the public because it speaks so often out of both sides of its mouth.
During the election of 1974 hon. members opposite said that our control program would not work. Now they themselves have introduced a program of selective controls for a period of three and a quarter years. This is a program with almost dictatorial powers that could lead to a state or government controlled economy. We advocated during the 1974 election campaign a 90 day freeze on everything, with a period of 18 months of flexible controls to follow.
What we wanted to do was to break the inflationary psychology that is prevalent in Canada, but we were also aware that controls were only a temporary stopgap program. However, the main plank in our program of controls was government restraint and the controlling of our money supply. This is not in the Liberal government's program.
The majority of economists today agree that the government itself bears the major responsibility for inflation because it has not controlled these two areas. What has the Liberal administration done in these two areas? It has asked the public to abide by an increase of 8 per cent while government expenditures rise to something in the vicinity of 18 per cent. I would ask our colleagues opposite, where is the fairness in that? Is it any wonder that the government has lost the faith of the Canadian public?
As I have said, in 1974 the Liberals campaigned against a controls policy. Then a year later they implement a program of controls which is full of injustices. I might also note that exactly the same thing happened in the 1972 election.
In 1972 the Conservative party proposed the indexing of personal income taxes and a modest increase for pensioners. We were criticized strongly by our opponents, but when they were elected as a minority government they accepted the guidelines upon which we campaigned. Now hon. members opposite wish to take credit for that. The other day in the House a Liberal backbencher was speaking and attempted to take credit for the conception and implementation of indexing of personal income tax, a positive platform of this party during the 1972 election campaign. We introduced that idea, and I commend the government for instituting programs we have introduced, but I think it could be a little more honest in presenting them to the people.
It is my feeling that the government cannot be trusted by the Canadian people, as illustrated by the examples I have given. In the last two elections the government has campaigned on one thing, and shortly after the election has reversed its position entirely.
There are other prime examples that leave a good many questions in the public's mind. All we have to do is look at
Easter Adjournment
the judges' affair, and there are many questions to be answered in that area, the SIU implications, the Hamilton Harbour scandal, the Sky Shops affair, the Mirabel airport inquiries, the Olympic Village and the travel agency irregularities. For any government to function properly it must have the faith of the public, but this Liberal administration does not have that faith, and understandably so.
Despite what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other members of his government have said in the past about the danger of believing in "doom and gloom" forecasts, our economy remains in poor shape, and we believe it is due to the contradictory economic policies of the present administration-
An. hon. Member: Why don't you read?


Peter Elzinga: April 14, 1976
Easter Adjournment
We have the potential to be the wealthiest people on earth if we allow our resources to be harnessed through individual initiative.
He also said that:
-left to government, our oil fields, our gas reserves and our potash industry would never have been developed to their present levels. Yet governments, in the name of progress, now stifle further advances through heavy taxation and regulation.
He told the House of Commons:
The nation has now reached a crossroads where we must decide between a more competitive more open society or accept, perhaps irrevocably, a society in which the large decisions about our economic and personal welfare are made by a central government.
This same government would like to run all our lives, but it should be remembered just how it runs its own departments such as the Post Office. The hon. member for York-Simcoe went on to state:
The past demonstrates that a system of free enterprise, despite its many flaws, is the most compatible with the protection of rights and liberties as well as the most productive of material goods.
There are two other areas I wish to deal with, and one is in respect of Bill C-83. I should like to express my deep concern and disappointment with the Liberal administration that has seen fit to muzzle members on all sides of this House on the second reading debate of Bill C-83. All this does is exemplify the attitude of the government. It does not care about what the people want. It is going to do exactly what it wants, and it does not give the members of this House the opportunity to express the wishes and the desires of the constituents they are sent here to serve.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Elzinga: In closing I should like to give a prime example of what is happening in my own constituency of Pembina. The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) said to me several months back that in the event our constituents and the people in the municipal district of Sturgeon did not wish to have a federal penitentiary located in the area, the government would not go ahead with it. What do we see happening now? The Solicitor General is pushing this down the throats of the individuals in this area, in spite of the fact there is a petition on his desk with the signatures of 248 people requesting that the government not build this penitentiary on this piece of prime agricultural land.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Peter Elzinga: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is this not being less than honest with the Canadian people regarding this issue?
In concluding, I should like to leave you on a lighter note, Mr. Speaker. I wish you, the members of the House, and the staff, all a restful and happy Easter.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the desire of many members to leave the Chamber and I will not impose upon you for very long.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: That may be the only response I get.
It probably is appropriate that one of the last speakers this afternoon intends to talk about the environment, because the environment is the last thing on the priority

list not only of the government, not only in terms of the opposition, but in terms of the public itself.


An hon. Member:: What about the NDP?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Yes, and the NDP. I am not trying to be partisan. What I am trying to do is bring the question back to the attention of the public.
As soon as the gross national product in this country drops a little bit, interest in the environment drops as well. We are all guilty in this regard. The environment was something we talked about several years ago and something the government talked about in the Speech from the Throne in 1974. This is what the government said in that famous speech about its intentions:
-stemming the despoilation of our planet and returning our water, air and land to a more natural state.
That is a very acceptable objective, but nothing has been done about it. Not only is the government not attempting to redress this process of the environment, it is participating in the escalation of the destruction of this country's environment at a rate that is disgraceful.
Let us have a look at what the government has been doing. The last thing it did was to replace the minister we had before. She was not particularly successful at her job but she could have learned, with a little time and patience. She made some very attractive speeches. Her rhetoric was very good, as were her intentions. What did the government do? It moved her out as soon as it looked like she might really start to do something in respect of the environment.
The government replaced that minister with the most moveable minister in the whole Liberal cabinet. He began his career without a portfolio. Then he went to DREE. We remember when that minister was looking after DREE. I would say that we in the New Democratic Party were thankful that he was responsible for DREE in 1972, because he was probably as responsible as any other minister for the election of many members of our party due to the way he managed that portfolio. Then he went to the Department of Transport. We remember that. After he looked around that department he said it was in a mess and that he could not do anything about it. Then the government tried to find another slot for him. I forgot for a moment that he was once in the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Finally he went to the Department of the Environment. That minister has a reverse Midas touch. Everything he touches becomes crap.
I should like to say something about the important decision the government will make tomorrow in respect of the Beaufort Sea. My prediction is that this drilling permit will be issued. The reason is that the same mistake has been made that was made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) in respect of the Lockheed Orion. Two years ago an agreement was entered into in principle with Dome Petroleum Company involving an investment of $100 million. The government locked itself into that project. Then the government received the environment studies which predict the probable disaster and high risk in terms of the use of the Beaufort Sea area. Now it is faced with either a $100 million lawsuit, or risk to the
April 14, 1976

environment. I predict the government will let the environment take the risk again despite the protest by the United States. There again the government has locked itself into a position out of sheer negligence.
Then there is the Syncrude project in which there is a conflict of interest. The environmental studies refer to 40 tons, and the emission permit is for 287 long tons. In this country we rely for our standard of living on the industrialization of the belt immediately north of us. When our standard of living results in the death of Indians from mercury poisoning the government should take another look at the environment in terms of things we should be examining in this House. Last but not least in respect of the environment is the insatiable desire we have for money. We export nuclear death around the world. The government is contributing to the greatest possible disaster the world has yet seen.


An hon. Member:: Hogwash.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It is not hogwash. We were once known around the world as a country on which one could count to go abroad and cool the fires of international tension. Now we are flooding the world with CANDU reactors. It is interesting that the United States, in terms of their sales of the Westinghouse reactor, say there is no point in bothering with unstable countries because Canada has them all locked up.
The United States takes the position that there is no point in considering sales to North Korea or Argentina because the Canadians are selling their reactors to these countries at an indecent rate. Then there is the question of our reliance on domestic nuclear sales. There is required in this country a very open inquiry so that the public will have an important input. We may be creating a nuclear industry which will be completely unnecessary if we look to alternate sources of power. If we continue to do what we are doing we will rue the day.
I must say that for the first time I am ashamed of Canada's position in the world in terms of the export of nuclear reactors. I might say that the government is a very poor inheritor of the mantle of Lester B. Pearson who went down in history as a peace maker. This country may go down in history as a war maker and a contributor to international disaster.
Easter Adjournment


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the position of being acting House Leader because Cupid has stolen my colleague, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). Because of pressing events I did not reply to all the matters raised in the previous debate. We are adjourning for purposes of the season and the Resurrection, and I am sure the President of the Privy Council will return on April 26 resurrected and ready to answer all the questions that have been raised. May I move, Mr. Speaker, that this House do now adjourn?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is hardly necessary because we have sat beyond the ordinary time of sitting. There is no need for such a motion.
Perhaps I might take this opportunity in the name of Mr. Speaker, who is unavoidably absent from this House, to invite on his behalf members and the staff of the press gallery to room 16. When the House rises it will await the Easter opportunity to rise again, when there may be another opportunity to have a good understanding of Standing Order 6(5)(a) in anticipation of a good and restful adjournment.
I am happy, on behalf of the Speaker and at his express request, to invite all hon. members as well as staff members, and members of the press, to come and fraternize in Room 16, and perhaps discuss all the topics mentioned in the last few minutes, in the spirit of Easter and the Resurrection.
It being past six o'clock, pursuant to Special Order made earlier this day, this House stands adjourned until Monday, April 26, 1976, at 2 o'clock p.m.
At 6.20 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Monday, April 26, 1976