1976-12-10

Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Whereas recently released figures show the government spent in a few days nearly $803 million of our U.S. dollar reserves supporting the falling Canadian dollar, but those figures do not include the final day of transactions in November, net future forward positions and the impact of our chartered banks losing $925 million in their net foreign currency assets in recent weeks, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House request the Minister of Finance to table the day to day exchange fund deliveries for the month of November and the first ten days of December, for which there is a precedent in that on October 18, 1962 this House ordered such a tabling pursuant to the motion of John N. Turner, a subsequent Minister of Finance, following a dollar decline of minor importance in terms of reserve spending compared to our reserve outflow of recent weeks.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In light of the difficulties currently being experienced by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in investigating the events surrounding the sale of nuclear reactors to South Korea and Argentina, and in light of the fact that much of this
difficulty arises from the unwillingness of the government to provide the committee with adequate documentation with regard to these events, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the government be instructed to transmit to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts as soon as possible the minutes of AECL meetings of the directors at which these sales were discussed; copies of all contracts and correspondence between AECL and Shaul Eisenberg or any of his companies; all contracts signed for the sale of such reactors to date; and all correspondence between AECL and its Italian partner in the sale of a nuclear reactor to Argentina.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Because of the uncertainty surrounding a posh hunting and fishing lodge 250 miles north of Winnipeg built with federal government money, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That a full investigation as to the funding, the reasons for the lodge itself and a possible conflict of interest be started into the $450,000 Thunderbird Lodge.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE SENATE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my motion, which I ask leave to present under Standing Order 43, is based on a candid statement attributed to an aide to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who is quoted as having said, "There is only one criterion for appointing senators; they have to be friends of the Prime Minister."

December 10, 1976
CBC Programs


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[DOT] (UlO)


Mr. Clark:: That is why there are so many vacancies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of this admission I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House deplores the fact that the Senate is used only for the purpose of rewarding the friends of the Prime Minister and calls for its abolition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 requires that there be unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[DOT] * *


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) misinformed the House yesterday when he said that the pesticide leptophos is applied only to the soil and not to crops, in view of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) told the House that even though he had not yet arrived at any conclusion about leptophos he had made a recommendation to the Minister of Agriculture that Canada ban the chemical, and in view of the reluctance of the Minister of Agriculture to follow the unclear advice of his colleague, I moved, seconded by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty):
That the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of National Health and Welfare make a statement on motions to clarify the gibberish they uttered on the subject yesterday.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.
[DOT] * *


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I should like to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since it filled a huge information gap in terms of objective and

factual reporting about what is going on in the New Brunswick potato belt I should like to move:
That this House congratulate the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for its program "The Fifth Estate" on "Citizen McCain" earlier this week.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral Questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Now that the Prime Minister has taken another two steps toward his goal of Senate reform, I should like to ask him a question about patronage. Yesterday in this House the hon. member for Ottawa West, a former Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board made substantial allegations about the degree to which what he called "bureaucratic patronage and nepotism" were eroding the merit principle in the Canadian public service. Can the Prime Minister advise the House whether he accepts this allegation by the former Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised those questions a couple of days ago in my presence and, because of his knowledge and his seriousness on this whole matter, I take his views very seriously. I have undertaken to look into the matter. Of course, I should remind the House that the allegations are of patronage by the bureaucracy or of nepotism by the bureaucracy in order to help each other. I have always taken the view, and I believe it is the view of the hon. member for Ottawa West, that we have a very high standard of civil service in Canada, and if there were any such practices it would be in the interest of everyone to find them out. I have taken his advice very seriously.


Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am interested, as I am sure the House is, to know that the hon. member for Ottawa West spoke to the Prime Minister and apparently received an undertaking that there would be some investigation prior to the speech made by the hon. member in the House because in the speech the hon. member said, as recorded at page 1848 of Hansard:
But no corrective action is under way to deal with the problems which are arising under delegated authority in the Public Service.
December 10, 1976


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition is engaging in debate.


Charles Joseph Clark: Having set that necessary background, my question is this: Can the Prime Minister tell us specifically what is the nature of the investigation that he has under way into the problems raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West. Will he give us the undertaking now that there will be a report to the full House of Commons, where these allegations have been raised, on the results of that investigation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa West raised the matter two days ago. His speech was made yesterday; I have not had the opportunity to read his speech but his allegation was based on the annual report of the Public Service Commission. The Leader of the Opposition is able to consult that report himself. It was based on testimony given by the head of the public service in a standing committee of the House, and this, too, is available to the Leader of the Opposition. It was made in the context of the application by the government of the Glassco commission recommendations that the public service should be decentralized and managers allowed to manage; more precisely, that deputy ministers should be given more authority to run their own departments, not only in financial areas, which question has been before the House in the last few days, but also in the areas of hiring, firing and promoting.
It was in this context that the recommendation concerning decentralized departments was implemented following the Glassco commission report, a commission instituted, I believe, by the Diefenbaker government. This whole process is being reviewed. It has been under way, I repeat, on the financial side, and the President of the Treasury Board has been commenting on that. Now, I would add to that review process the consequences of decentralized hiring and firing. I will find some way of informing the House in due course of the results of our findings.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister has time to read the speech made by the hon. member for Ottawa West, he will find that the allegations made by that hon. member were based on much more than the basis cited by the Prime Minister. Precisely to avoid a situation in which there might be a review that is too narrowly based, I ask the Prime Minister now if he will give the House of Commons the specific terms of reference of a review which might be undertaken of all the allegations made by the hon. member for Ottawa West and if he will give us a commitment now to make a report to the House of Commons on the success of that review? Can he give us those two specific commitments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will consider the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition. I repeat, the allegations were brought to my attention by the hon. member for Ottawa West the day before yesterday. I am looking into ways of finding out and ascertaining the extent of the evil, if any, of which he complains. I must extend an invitation to hon. members opposite. If they know of any instances of nepotism and of avoid-
Oral Questions
ance of the rules of the civil service, I would be grateful if they would draw those instances to my attention.


Charles Joseph Clark: Perhaps we will have to wait another two and a half years.


ALLEGED EROSION OF MERIT PRINCIPLE-POSSIBILITY OF INVESTIGATION BY COMMITTEE AND LEGISLATIVE ACTION
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister is supplementary to that asked by the Leader of the Opposition. In the review of the speech made by the hon. member for Ottawa West, the Prime Minister will see that the hon. member based his questions on a special audit which had been undertaken and on his personal knowledge and experience of these matters. After all, he was formerly Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. This being so, would the Prime Minister consider a review by way of a special committee of this House on the one hand, and would he, on the other, consider legislation with respect to the powers, authority and practices of the Public Service Commission. Has he consulted the chairman of the Public Service Commission who, according to the hon. member, is having eroded the regulations meant to ensure careers and maintain the merit principle?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Walter David Baker: In view of the importance of these matters would the Prime Minister inform the House, perhaps next week after he has consulted again with those who know, what form the investigation is likely to take?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my first move will be to ask the hon. member for Ottawa West to read the remarks of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton and of the Leader of the Opposition. It will reassure the House to know that members on this side are taking very good initiatives and that the opposition is grabbing onto their coattails. I am very pleased to see the interest of the opposition in trying to grab onto the coat-tails of the hon. member for Ottawa West.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can assure them that the hon. member for Ottawa West does not need this afterthought in order to pursue this work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the hon. member for Ottawa West has provided more information on the hiring practices of the government than the government itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 10, 1976
Oral Questions


Walter David Baker: I hope the Prime Minister will treat the matter with the seriousness it deserves in view of the importance of maintaining the merit principle in the Public Service of Canada. In light of that, will the Prime Minister consult with his seatmate, the government House leader, with respect to the legislative priorities of this government so that we may deal with more important matters than the Historic Sites Act amendments and such things, perhaps bringing in at a very early date amendments to the Public Service Employment Act which might well help to rectify the position that is so serious that the hon. member for Ottawa West brought it to the attention of this House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the concern expressed by the Auditor General regarding the sales of CANDU reactors by AECL and the business practices arising therefrom, and in view of the fact it is important that the people of Canada be assured that investigations by the Public Accounts Committee are not being obstructed in any way, shape or form, is the Prime Minister prepared to arrange to have tabled in this House or before the Public Accounts Committee a copy of the agreement and the correspondence between AECL and Mr. Shaul Eisenberg and also a copy of the agreement between AECL and its Italian partner, Italimpianti? Will the Prime Minister undertake to see that this data is available so that the investigation will be thorough and complete?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding the minister undertook to answer that question when he appears before the committee next Tuesday. He invited the opposition to draw up a list of the documents in which they will be particularly interested. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands is beginning to contribute to that list.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: According to reports from those who were attending that committee, they have been told that many of these documents, particularly the correspondence with Mr. Shaul Eisenberg and the minutes of AECL meetings at which the sales were discussed, are being denied to the committee. It is important that the committee have all the data if the Canadian people are to be convinced that the investigation is not merely a sham and a whitewash. Will the Prime Minister give serious consideration to asserting the authority which is undoubtedly his to instruct his ministers to see that this documentation is made available to the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This whole matter is before the committee itself and I am puzzled that the hon. member should find it appropriate to make a representation here about the matter in these circumstances. It is one which will be properly discussed in the committee.


NAME OF RECIPIENT OF MONEY DEPOSITED IN BANK IN LIECHTENSTEIN
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May
I direct a final supplementary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? It is now two or three weeks since the hon. gentleman undertook in the House to find out the identity of the recipient of the $2.4 million which was put into a bank account in Liechtenstein. He assured the House that the president of AECL had written a letter to ascertain the name of this elusive Scarlett Pimpernel. Has the minister been able to secure this information and, if he has not, is he prepared to put one of his top officials on a plane to Genoa to talk to the president of Italimpianti and get this information?
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): The chairman of Atomic Energy of Canada was on the telephone within a matter of a few days to find out where that answer was. He was informed by the president of the Italian partner that a letter had been dispatched containing information having to do with the request which had been put to him. I would expect to receive that information during the coming week.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
As a result of the agreement signed this year with a Quebec minister, an agreement providing for the establishment of plans and development programs with the financial contribution of the federal government, could the minister tell the House whether since the signature of that agreement Quebec has actually submitted some projects and, if so, have those projects been accepted and are they now under way?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say to the hon. member that indeed since the signature of a general framework agreement of development with Quebec nine agreements were signed and some temporary agreements practically dealing with every economic field in Quebec have been amended. We signed agreements on major routes and the development of minerals in Quebec. We also signed some on agriculture and the development of specific industries.

December 10, 1976

Finally, we have signed nine agreements to date with the province and in most cases, it was as a result of lengthy negotiations at the level of departmental officials and ministers concerning several proposals made by various departments of the provincial government. Finally, we have accepted several if not all provincial proposals and Quebec has approved some of the proposals we had put forward.


INQUIRY IF TALKS WITH QUEBEC HELD AFTER ELECTION ON SOUTH SHORE PROJECT
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Among those nine projects that were accepted, would the minister tell the House whether one of those projects relate to the economic development of the south shore and, second, did he have further discussions on this subject since the new government in Quebec was formed?


Marcel Lessard: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I must admit that none of the agreements signed related directly to the region to which the hon. member is referring, that is the south shore. 1 mean from Quebec City to Riviere-du-Loup probably, if that is what the hon. member is referring to. I do believe no agreement relates specifically to that area of the province of Quebec.
As to the second part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I will answer by saying that so far I have not met any of the representatives of the new government of Quebec. Within the next hours I will be having a meeting with the Quebec Minister of Justice, and Monday I will meet Quebec Industry and Commerce Minister, Rodrigue Tremblay.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture relating to current beef import negotiations in Washington involving most of the major beef exporting countries to the United States. In view of the fact that Canada appears to be somewhat reluctant to enter into these negotiations and in view of the status of the temporary quotas now imposed by both Canada and the United States, will the minister tell us whether Canada is asking for some special bilateral arrangement between ourselves and the United States? If so, will such arrangements ensure continued two-way fair trade in beef between Canada and the United States?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, many products are traded between United States and Canada,
Oral Questions
not just beef, differently than with other countries. However, we think we may have to have a different kind of arrangement for this kind of trading to continue. We thought we had made an arrangement about a year ago in beef trade between the United States and Canada; agreement was reached between the former secretary of agriculture and myself, a voluntary arrangement under which when our trade becomes exorbitant to them or their trade becomes exorbitant to us so far as beef is concerned we would notify one another. That procedure was not followed and they did not notify us. In the interval the President of the United States introduced the new import law, so we feel we were not treated in the way that we agreed upon.
We are still in negotiation with the United States at the present time. Whether we are going to come up with some mutually agreed, voluntary type of agreement, I do not know, but I am not too happy with voluntary types of agreements made verbally. The same thing happened to us with Australia and New Zealand; a verbal agreement was entered into with them on the pricing of beef into Canada to the effect that it would not be priced more than six cents below the price in the United States. I am sure the hon. member knows that they sold beef into Canada as much as 39 cents a pound less than they sold to the United States. Consumers never had much of the benefit and it caused a disruption of the normal marketings of meat in Canada. So, I do not look too kindly on verbal agreements.


BEEF-NEGOTIATIONS ON OFFSHORE IMPORTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very obvious problems brought on throughout all of 1976 by offshore beef imports from Australia and New Zealand and correspondingly heavy exports of our cows and beef to the United States, would the minister indicate whether separate negotiations are also underway with respect to these offshore imports so as to restore such beef imports to reasonable, historical levels effective the first of 1977 by using, if necessary, a Canadian meat import law, since our Export and Import Permits Act does not seem to do the job, especially when we need prompt action?


Eugene Whelan: This is our concern, Mr. Speaker. The United States of America, Australia and New Zealand are members of GATT, as is Canada. In addition, Australia and New Zealand are fellow members of the Commonwealth. We have trading agreements in the Commonwealth giving preferential treatment to our Commonwealth partners. So it is difficult to say that we will treat Australia and New Zealand differently from the United States of America. Even if we think the situation is a little different, one has to consider all these things when one is trying to make a proper trading arrangement. If we are going to have a hidebound written agreement with Australia and New Zealand on pricing and on how much is imported into Canada, it will be difficult to have a different arrangement with the United States of America and that is our problem. We are

December 10,1976
Oral Questions
trying to solve the problem and are taking a friendly attitude, but as I have said, my past experience with the United States and with Australia and New Zealand has not been pleasant so far as their living up to verbal agreements is concerned.



ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In the interest of expediting the work of the Public Accounts Committee, and particularly in view of the personal pledge of the minister that he wants to have an open and complete investigation of the operations of AECL, has the minister instructed Mr. Campbell to bring before the committee on Tuesday the relevant minutes of AECL dealing with the deal in Korea and the deal in Argentina?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been present yesterday at the committee hearings he would have been aware that certain requests were made respecting board resolutions dealing with this matter. That information will be submitted to the committee on Tuesday. I cannot promise that it will be submitted in the form of a detailed, verbatim account of the board minutes; clearly the implications of that have to be considered. But I think we can provide the committee with the kind of information the committee is looking for in that particular area. There were other documents that Mr. Campbell also agreed to bring before the committee, and they will be presented on Tuesday.



AVAILABILITY OF LETTER OF NOVEMBER 28, 1972, FROM DR. GRAY TO MR. EISENBERG-ALLEGED FAILURE TO IMPOSE SAFEGUARDS ON SALE OF REACTORS

Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Will the minister ensure that these documents include the letter of November 28, 1972 from Dr. Gray to Mr. Eisenberg, since in his testimony yesterday Mr. Campbell stated that the terms and conditions referred to in that letter to Mr. Eisenberg related in particular to Canada's obligations under the nonproliferation treaty? Would the minister say whether in addition to its admitted failure to draw up commercial guidelines in this case the government abrogated its responsibility to negotiate safeguards for the CANDU reactor sale to a foreign agent, as was indicated by Mr. Campbell?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has completely misconstrued the comment that was made.


Walter David Baker: She took the plain meaning of the words, that is all.


Alastair William Gillespie: If the hon. member had been following the testimony, she would have realized that Mr. Campbell made it very clear that one of the conditions that an agent will have to accept from the government of Canada is the government of Canada's condition regarding safeguards on the contract.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister undertake to make public the letter of November 28, 1972 so that members can judge for themselves just how much authority was given to Mr. Eisenberg to discuss safeguards?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already indicated to the House that I have asked for a list from the committee. I should like to see the list, and I have said that I will be as forthcoming as I possibly can, consistent with the established practice of this House.


Charles Joseph Clark: Just answer that particular question.


Alastair William Gillespie: As soon as I have the list, I will be very pleased to provide an answer to the committee.



GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ASCERTAIN TO WHOM AGENTS PAID


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister respecting the commission and other matters arising from sales to the Argentine and Korea. May I ask the Prime Minister a very friendly but very direct question. Does he really expect me or other members of this House to believe that the government of Canada is unable to find out where this money went if the government of Canada really wanted to report to the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member can believe what he wants, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT ON SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTORS

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. In view of the very large losses that have been incurred in some of the CANDU sales due to the mismanagement of the government's Crown corporation AECL, would the Prime Minister come before the House on Monday with a balance sheet showing whether or not the sales of CANDU reactors abroad have resulted in an over-all profit or an over-all loss to the country and, if so, how much?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking for a balanced statement. The Auditor General signs reports annually of AECL and the hon. member should be able to look them up and try to read them.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As so much has been concealed by the government and has not been brought out by the Auditor General, and could not be, I would just ask the Prime Minister whether he would really bring us
December 10,1976

up to date and show the House whether we have been making money or losing money on these sales. Just say so plainly and simply.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says plainly and simply. What he is implying is that the Auditor General does not know how to do his job.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker my question is for the Prime Minister. Since I understand that the Prime Minister is not making a statement today on guidelines respecting future operations of Crown corporations, and since a week ago yesterday he very definitely told the House that instructions and guidelines were circulated by his cabinet ministers to these Crown corporations, in order that we may better understand his statement on future policy when it comes, would the Prime Minister undertake to table today those past guidelines so we can all better appreciate the changes in policy which obviously must now come?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as to the date of the statement, there was never any question of making a statement either privately or publicly today, and anyone who issued that bit of news could have avoided doing so by simply calling my office. As to producing the documents, if the hon. member reads Hansard of yesterday he will find that I answered that.



INDIANS AFFAIRS


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It might also be directed to the minister responsible for DREE, but I hope the Minister of Indian Affairs will be able to answer. My question is related to my Standing Order 43 motion regarding a very expensive resort in northern Manitoba that will have a very limited use by some United States fishermen and very wealthy Canadians. Would the minister indicate what reasons were given for the need for this type of facility in northern Manitoba in the first place, and would he not agree that the money that went into the facility, some $500,000, could have been better spent in some other way to help the native people of Manitoba?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, this particular Thun-
Oral Questions
derbird lodge was financed in part by my department, through grants and loans, and also by DREE and by the government of Manitoba. It started off as a simple hunting lodge, but then the concept was changed to enlarge it to a hunting and tourist lodge. We support this type of development with the Indian people because we feel they have just as much right to be in the hunting and tourism business as anybody else.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly agree with the premise that the Indian people have the right to run a lodge, but I do not know whether the particular lodge in question is exactly the kind of vehicle about which we should be talking. In any event, in December 1975-


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


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, in December 1975 questions were raised in a memo as to the project's viability, and the government did not take any initiative to question that particular memo. Would the minister indicate why this was the case, why the project went ahead and why $200,000 more was put into it after questions as to viability were raised?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, a study was made in respect of the viability and possible success of the lodge. After that study was completed it was found this was a good risk that had a good chance of being successful, and only time will tell-


An hon. Member:: You know that is not true.


William Warren Allmand: Well, that is the advice I have, and only time will tell whether it is correct.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. I am sure the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) might like to answer it. It deals again with the question of water transportation on the B.C. coast, and I am hopeful that the parliamentary secretary will answer this as I know he is quite knowledgeable concerning it. On November 3 the minister's office issued a press release indicating that three B.C. coastal MP's, the Hon. Iona Campagnolo, Jack Pearsall and Hugh Anderson, had assisted in producing the new plan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In view of the threat by the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) to resign, which was reported in yesterday's paper, would the parliamentary secretary take this opportunity of advising the House whether that initial press release was correct and in fact the minister participated in the

December 10, 1976
Oral Questions
plan over which she now threatens to resign? Would you explain that? Is that correct?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any comments to make on this personally, but I would like to refer the hon. member to the fact that the question has been raised on the late show, I think at the beginning of November, and I think the answer was given at that time.



POSSIBILITY OF COAST FERRIES RESUMING SERVICE IF NORTHLAND NAVIGATION RESUMES ITS SERVICE

Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, Coast Ferries have indicated that they are going to discontinue their service on December 31 to 100 isolated B.C. communities. In their indication of the withdrawal of that service they have said they will bring their services back if Northland Navigation is brought back into providing services on the coast. Would the parliamentary secretary advise whether either he or the minister have been back into consultation with Northland Navigation to determine whether Northland is willing to come back into service and bring Coast Ferries back with them to provide that service?
[ Translation]


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have anything to add to the reply I have already made. If the hon. member requires further information, he should seek it from the minister responsible.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Would he kindly advise why a government agency, the post office, took out a one-third page advertisement as shown on page 6 of the November 22, 1976 issue of Time magazine? Would it not be more appropriate to support a Canadian magazine in view of recent legislation by the Secretary of State purported to support-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Evidently the type of advertisement must have been very appealing, because as a result of it I have received a number of inquiries. I should like to point out that there was no request by the post office to have it placed in Time magazine, nor was it paid for by my department. This is what is referred to in the trade as a "freebee"; it is a gesture by Time magazine, and I am sure the

taxpayers of Canada would not be critical of me accepting an overt gesture of this nature in order to try to improve services in the post office.



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: 
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much the minister's Mickey Mouse approach to this very serious question. It is a very serious question. Now that negotiations between France and Canada have been concluded and the minister has recommendations for his colleagues, and in view of the fact that the islands have now been elevated to a department of metropolitan France, thereby making a European Common Market presence a real fact off Canada's east coast, is the minister now prepared to report to the House on the recommendations that have been agreed to by both countries, and how this will fit in with French surveillance off the east coast?


An hon. Member:: What is French for Mickey Mouse?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, officials who are having more conversations with the French delegation at the ICNAF conference now going on in Spain will be returning early in the week. The Secretary of State for External Affairs will also be returning at that time. As for the other problem raised by the hon. member, I must really say that we have no indication whatsoever of problems in respect of fishing relations with the French community. We made it very clear
December 10, 1976

that the 1972 treaty, which changes our relationship with France, is not applicable to the community.



PROPOSED PLAN FOR COMPENSATION FOR FISHERMEN


Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment knows, the fish plants on the south coast of Newfoundland opposite Saint Pierre-Miquelon have not been able to catch redfish since the end of September when their quotas ran out. The plants are running one or two days a week and their owners are having financial difficulties. Is it correct that officials of the minister have devised a scheme to provide compensation to them for switching their fishing operations to other species, and that the decision awaits the minister's approval? Would the minister say when he might give a decision on this compensation plan?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: The quota did in fact run out. We did not want to over fish because we wanted to save some fish for next year's season. We did encourage the vessels with financial incentives to fish in waters where traditionally they had not fished. Some of the trips have been highly successful, but others have not. However, everyone in the industry agrees, and so do officials in the region, that this experiment is not only worthwhile but should be pursued for the first months of 1977.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the fish operators have reported that there is no scheme of compensation in operation now and they await the minister's decision. Has there been a decision since last Monday when Mr. Harold Lake made that statement?


Roméo LeBlanc: I do not know what Mr. Lake is referring to. We have made it clear, as we did in the past two years, that when the industry runs into trouble, we would bring in considerable financial assistance, which this year amounted to $41 million, to the whole groundfish industry in Canada. We will review the situation in the industry every three months, as we have in the past, and if further assistance is required, further assistance will be provided.



FINANCE


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As figures released last week reveal that $803 million of our U.S. dollar reserves, about 23 per cent of the total, was used in late November to resist a fall in the Canadian dollar, yet the final day of transaction in November was not included nor was our net forward position disclosed, would the minister table the daily
Oral Questions
trading figures and forward positions for the past 20 trading days so that we might better understand the magnitude of the drain on our dollar, for which there is a 1962 precedent inspired by his predecessor, Mr. Turner?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the position has been adopted for a long time by the bank and by the government that to indicate our day to day position in the exchange fund in either direction would not be in the best interests of Canada.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question again is directed to the Minister of Finance. As it is now apparent that not only did our foreign exchange reserves dip by $758 million in November but it is also apparent from figures released yesterday that the net foreign currency assets of our chartered banks fell by $925 million in recent weeks, would the minister comment on this and relate these two figures so that the House may be better informed as to what has been the full net change in our foreign exchange position in recent weeks?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The foreign exchange position is published every month for the information of hon. members and of the country. It seems to me that the hon. member can draw whatever conclusions he wants from that.



EXTENT OF SUPPORT OF CANADIAN DOLLAR

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As the minister stated on November 30, the Bank of Canada intervenes in price movements of the dollar in order to maintain an orderly market. Would the minister regard an outflow of at least $1 billion in a few days merely maintaining an orderly market, or was it in fact a massive support of the dollar, and would the minister indicate to what extent such support continues?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I
indicated, the policy continues. There was a substantial change in external value of the Canadian dollar, and most serious students of this question would regard the bank's action as being reasonable.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS   FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE-SUGGESTED POLLING IN PUBLIC OF PREMIERS TO ASCERTAIN IF MEETING SHOULD BE OPEN OR CLOSED

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a question for the Prime Minister, if he has finished getting his information from the hon. member for Ottawa West. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he is prepared to open the federal-provincial first ministers' conference to the public and poll the participants in public as to whether they want the meetings open or secret.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe I dealt with this question yesterday, but because of the interest

December 10,1976
Oral Questions
of the House I checked again into the matter. Every premier was asked whether he wanted the meetings opened or closed. A few of them sat on the fence, as I do, and certainly could go either way, but twice as many wanted the meetings closed as wanted them open. It seems to me that that should settle the matter.



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, I should like to direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. CMHC has sent a letter to all subscribers to its monthly supplement to Canadian Housing Statistics stating that it plans to review its published series in order to improve their usefulness and timeliness and that research data will be supplied on an ad hoc basis only. Is CMHC working out a system by which direct expenses will be charged to those making the special request? Is this an attempt by CMHC to be more secretive about activity in the housing market, and can the minister give assurances that information which was previously made available to the public will still be available and at a price that is not prohibitive?


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Actually, the ministry and CMHC are reviewing the information published. CMHC has been doing a lot of work in setting up better information channels for people to get good information. There is no need and no intention on the part of CMHC to withdraw or withhold any information.


Stan Darling: Can the parliamentary secretary give us an assurance that any new published data will be comparable with previously published data so that comparisons between current and historical activities in the housing market will be possible?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We will do our best to keep up the good work we have been doing in the past.



MULTICULTURALISM


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the federal government's policy on multiculturalism and today's special commemoration of the universal declaration of human rights, I should like to ask the minister responsible for multiculturalism whether efforts will be made to achieve a
more just ethnic balance in appointments made by the federal government?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government is very conscious of the necessity to have adequate representation.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. As the minister has been reminded on several occasions, he told me in answer to a question on October 18 that the report on railway pensions by Dr. Noel Hall would be ready in a couple of weeks. Since on Monday it will be eight weeks since he gave that assurance, can he tell us now when we may expect the tabling or the publishing of this important document in which there is a great deal of interest?


John Carr Munro: I did meet with the officials of my department concerning this matter. We regard the delay very seriously. The translation of the document into the other official language is very difficult indeed in terms of the complexities of actuarial tables, and so on. We do not anticipate it to be finished before another month. Let me assure the House and the hon. member that the minute it is ready in both official languages and if the House at that time is adjourned, I will make it public and send it immediately to all the interested parties.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to put my question to the government House leader as former secretary of state for external affairs who was involved with the following matter. In view of the government's decision to expel from Canada the assistant air attache of the Soviet embassy in Ottawa for activities "inconsistent with his diplomatic status", and this six months after the matter was brought publicly to the attention of the government, could the minister explain to the House his interpretation of the very phrase he used six months ago, namely, "inconsistent with his diplomatic status" when it did not apply at that time? Could he at the same time explain why the other so-called diplomats in the same category, such as Vladimir Vassiliev, are allowed to remain here under false pretence?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question as acting minister. It is true that the diplomat in question has

December 10, 1976

been asked to leave because of activities incompatible with his role as a diplomat. It has not been the custom in the House of Commons to provide details with respect to matters which relate to Canada's international security.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. Because there continue to be a number of other agents posing as diplomats within the Soviet Embassy- even according to the RCMP, who have admitted knowledge of the presence of highly trained espionage personnel belonging to the KGB-and thus because it can be clearly concluded that their postings here, based on their backgrounds, are inconsistent with their diplomatic status as well, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if perhaps he could put his personal sympathies aside and take the necessary steps to have the remaining-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lanark- Renfrew-Carleton.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the Communications Workers of Canada, representing workers for Bell Canada, and the Bell Company Limited have not been able to come to an agreement after almost a year of negotiations, and as a result of that a conciliation commissioner, Mr. Pierre Dufresne, was appointed and still they have not been able to come to an agreement, does the minister have any updated information as to whether Bell will be in a position to sign an agreement, or has he any other information which might avoid a strike?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, of course it is our hope that a strike will be avoided in an important industry such as this. As I think the hon. member may be aware, the report of the commissioner is not yet in. If he is unable to bring the parties together in a settlement-and that appears to be the case-we expect that he will make his report. I am expecting it shortly, within a matter of days. I cannot accurately forecast at the moment what will happen then, other than that the parties will look at the recommendations. They may call for further mediation to see if that report could be the basis for a settlement.
Oral Questions COMMUNICATIONS



SUGGESTION NO RATE INCREASE BE GRANTED BELL CANADA UNTIL AGREEMENT SIGNED WITH EMPLOYEES

Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Perhaps the Prime Minister could direct his mind to the problem between Bell Canada and its employees, to the fact that they have not been able to come to an agreement and that Bell Canada has made application for a rather large rate increase, which would have a bearing upon the salaries it is going to pay its employees. Would the government make a commitment that it will not allow a rate increase to Bell Canada until it has reached a settlement with its employees so that we can know what expenses are going to need to be covered.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this rather silly suggestion will be referred to the CRTC.



ATTENDANCE OF MINISTER AT CANADIAN OUTLOOK FOR AGRICULTURE CONFERENCE

Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will the minister inform the House if it is his intention to boycott the representations scheduled to be made at the Canadian Outlook for Agriculture conference here in Ottawa next week?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know anything about this. I shall inquire and report to the hon. member.



INDUSTRY


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the minister is probably aware, Domtar intend to close the Domtar Fine Papers Limited plant in Georgetown, on February 25 next. Since 176 employees will be laid off, I would ask the minister whether the government is willing to explore new ways of maintaining the Domtar operations in Georgetown. If not, will the Canadian government endeavour to attract new industries in Georgetown, so that those employees are not forced to move out or join the unemployed?
Hod. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I have learned that unfortunately Domtar intend to close their fine coated paper plant in that

December 10, 1976
Privilege-Mr. Gillies
location. We are talking of a very old plant, and the competition is now severe in that market in Canada, because the industry went through a protracted strike. I am informed by my officials that the prospects of keeping that industry running are rather slim, but the department would be willing to help local authorities look for alternative employment. Anyway, the Department of Manpower and Immigration will be available to the employees, and we will do everything in our power to help make the transition the easiest possible.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of a series of answers given by the Minister of Finance with regard to Canadian international monetary exchange activities in the past few days. I raise this question of privilege because hon. members of the House of Commons ask questions which they consider to be significant, and expect and count on the fact that when answers are given people across Canada can rely on those answers in making very important decisions.
On November 30, 1976, the minister said, as reported at page 1498 of Hansard, in reply to a question about the activities of the Bank of Canada in the exchange market, "we would accept to let the Canadian currency go to whatever level international trading would take it". Obviously, many significant Canadian investors had a decision to make with respect to how to deal with the Canadian dollar. The figures are now out, and it is quite apparent that there was massive intervention by the Bank of Canada to support the dollar at a certain level. I raise this matter only to find out whether the minister would be prepared this weekend, or in the House, to make a clarification of what is clearly a contradictory situation, so that people involved in international trading can rely on the information elicited in the House of Commons as being an accurate reflection of the policy of the government.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it does not seem to me that there is any substantial point, either of privilege or of substance, raised by the intervention of the hon. member. As the House knows, and as has been long-standing practice as stated by successive governors of the Bank of Canada and as supported in that respect by successive ministers of finance, the Canadian dollar being in a floating position, the government of Canada through the Bank of Canada would not intervene for the purpose of holding it at any particular value.
At the same time, the position has been taken that given the erratic nature of the international market in currency, the Bank of Canada should intervene from time to time to smooth out transactions which would occur while not counteracting the direction in which the currency is being taken at a particular period of time. The hon. member for Don Valley knows that very well; certainly, the money market generally knows that very well, and I would regard any suggestion otherwise as being mischievous.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Don Valley has raised, under the heading of a question of privilege, a disagreement not only on the substance, which might perhaps be more fundamental, but in any case upon the quality of

an answer of the minister. It has been long established that a disagreement either as to the substance or the quality of answers given by ministers during the question period is not a matter of privilege. No motion, in any case, is attached to the alleged question of privilege of the hon. member for Don Valley. I allowed about an equal input from both sides, and I really see no point in permitting the discussion to go any further, for to do so would only open debate on the subject which is not procedurally correct.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-382, respecting the National Food Week.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to set aside one week every year, to be known as National Food Week, during which Canadians could discuss particular topics or issues related to the food system in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


TRUTH IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING PROGRAMS ACT
Gerald William Baldwin: for leave to introduce Bill C-383, to provide for an economic impact statement to accompany government bills when introduced in parliament, and statutory instruments and regulations when issued, made or established.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, this is, very simply, a bill to provide that each time the government introduces a bill involving a program of expenditure of money, or a statutory regulation along the same lines, it will be compelled to File an economic impact statement which would include the initial
December 10, 1976

costs and the impact upon the people affected by it, and that it be debated before it receives third reading.


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

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, a request has been made by the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts to have a number of sittings on farm broadcasting. I have been informed by the committee that the proceedings should take place in this calendar year. With that in mind, I would be prepared, with unanimous consent, to move a motion that the committee host sittings on farm broadcasting. If there is consent, we could do it without debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) seeks consent to move such a motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for London West (Mr. Buchanan):
That the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the arts be authorized to consider during 1976 the subject matter of farm broadcasting.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 51, 519 to 545 inclusive, 548 to 573 inclusive, 689, 732, 733 and 1,029.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all persons interviewed for employment at the Federal Building in Brockville, Ontario during the month of April 1976?
Order Paper Questions
2.	Were such interviews held to fill a vacancy created by the retirement of Mr. MacNamara and (a) if so, what is the effective date of his retirement (b) if not, for what reason were they held and who conducted them?
3.	Was Mr. Richard Jenkinson interviewed and, if so (a) on what date (b) by whom?
4.	Was Mr. Jenkinson told that he would be notified the same afternoon of the outcome of the interview and, if so, who told him?
5.	Did Mr. Jenkinson receive notification and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: 1. Having regard for the right to privacy of candidates and the possibility that the release of information could prove not only embarrassing but prejudicial to them, the department holds in confidence information concerning candidates whose names do not appear on the eligibility list.
2.	The interviews were held to hire a casual sick leave replacement for Mr. J. S. McIntyre effective from April 20, 1976. (a) Mr. McIntyre was scheduled to retire on May 20, 1976, at which time a formal closed competition was held, (b) The interviews were conducted by the Supervisor for Building Services for Brockville.
3.	(a) Yes. Mr. Jenkinson was interviewed on April 15, 1976. (b) The supervisor for Building Services for Brockville.
4.	Mr. Jenkinson was not told that he would be notified of the outcome of the interview that same afternoon.
5.	No, Mr. Jenkinson did not receive formal notification. This was an administrative oversight.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Matsqui?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: 1970: 1. Eighty-six.
2.	(a) 46, (b) 40, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 63, $5,736.22-58,127.97; 14, $8,100.23-58,629.91; 7, $8,658.08-59,229.93; 1, $9,256.02-59,827.87; 1, $10,900.08-512,100.13.
1971: 1. Ninety-three. 2. (a) 42, (b) 51, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 69, $6,309.64-58,940.88; 14, $8,921.05-59,492.90; 8, $9,523.69-$10,152.93; 1, $10,181.62-510,810.87; 1, $11,990.04-513,310.09.
1972: 1. Ninety-three. 2. (a) 41, (b) 52, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 69, $6,688.44-59,477.25; 14, $9,456.38-510,062.66; 8, $10,095.01-$10,762.34; 1, $10,792.61-511,459.41; 1, $12,709.55-514,108.91.
1973: 1. One hundred seven. 2. (a) 43, (b) 62, (c) 2, (d) 0. 3. 77,	$7,022.89-59,951.01;	20,	$9,929.09-510,565.64;	8,$10,599.55-511,300.28;	1,	$11,332.11-512,032.31;	1,


[Stage Direction]
1974: 1. One hundred nine. 2. (a) 24, (b) 74, (c) 6, (d) 5. 3. 80,	$8,425.38-511,705.16;	19,	$8,638.78-512,061.53; 8,
[Stage Direction]
December 10, 1976
Order Paper Questions
$12,431.45-$13,216.18;	1,	$13,251.66-$ 14,035.87;	1,
[Stage Direction]
1975: 1. One hundred nine. 2. (a) 23, (b) 76, (c) 7, (d) 3. 3. 80, $9,099.49-$12,641.72; 19, $12,615.11-$13,384.71; 8, $13,425.93-$14,273.77;	1,	$14,311.88-$ 15,158.69;	1,
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Mountain Institution?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Francis Fox: 1970: 1. Thirty-three. 2. (a) 23, (b) 10, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Twenty-two, $5,736.22-$8,127.97; 4, $8,110.22-$8,629.91; 1, $8,370.07-$8,889.74; 5, $8,658.08-$9,229.93; 1, $9,256.02-$9,827.87.
1971: 1. Thirty-three. 2. (a) 23, (b) 10, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Twenty-two, $6,309.64-$8,940.88; 4, $8,921.05-$9,492.90; 1, $9,206.98-$9,778.83; 5, $9,523.69-$10,152.93; 1, $10,181.62-$10,810.87.
1972: 1. Thirty-three. 2. (a) 22, (b) 11, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Twenty-two, $6,688.44-$9,477.25; 4, $9,456.38-$10,062.66; 1, $9,759.52-$10,365.81; 5, 762.34; 1, $ 10,792.61-$ 11,459.41.
1973: 1. Thirty-three. 2. (a) 22, (b) 11, (c) 0, (d) 0, 3. Twenty-two, $7,022.89-$9,951.01; 4, $9,929.09-$ 10,565.64; 1, $10,247.37-$10,883.91;	5,	$ 10,599.55-$ 11,300.28;	1,
11,332.11-$12,032.31.
1974: 1. Fifty-nine. 2. (a) 17, (b) 40, (c) 2, (d) 0. 3. Forty-seven, $8,425.38-$ 11,705.16; 5, $11,680.64-$ 12,393.37; 1, $12,037.00-$12,749.73; 5,	$ 12,431.45-$ 13,216.18; 1,


[Stage Direction]
1975: 1. Fifty-nine. 2. (a) 15, (b) 42, (c) 2, (d) 0, 3. Forty-seven, $9,099.49-$ 12,641.72; 5, $12,615.11-$ 13,384.71; 1, $13,000.17-$13,769.77; 5, $ 13,425.93-$ 14,273.27; 1, $14,311.88-$15,158.69.
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Agassiz Correctional Camp?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Francis Fox: Note: This institution was converted to a living unit organization in 1974. 1970:
1.	Thirteen. 2. (a) 5, (b) 7, (c) 1, (d) 0. 3. 13, $8,370.07-$8,889.74.
1971: 1. Thirteen. 2. (a) 5, (b) 7, (c) 1, (d) 0. 3. 13, $9,206.98-S9,778.83.

1972: 1. Thirteen. 2. (a) 5, (b) 7, (c) 1, (d) 0. 3. 13, $9,759.52-$10,365.81.
1973: 1. Thirteen. 2. (a) 5, (b) 7, (c) 1, (d) 0. 3. 13, $10,247.37-$10,883.91.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Williams Head?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Francis Fox: 1970: 1. Twenty-six.
2.	(a) 17, (b) 9, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 19, $5,736.22-$8,127.97;5, $8,370.07-$8,889.74; 2, $8,658.08-$9,229.93.
1971: 1. Twenty-five. 2. (a) 17, (b) 8, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 19, $6,309.64-$8,740.88; 5, $9,206.98-$9,778.83; 1, $9,809.61-$10,438.85.
1972: 1. Twenty-six. 2. (a) 17, (b) 9, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 19, $6,688.44-$9,477.25; 1, $6,870.01-$9,780.39; 5, $9,759.52-$10,365.81; 1, $ 10,398.16-$ 11,064.96.
1973: 1. Fifty-six. 2. (a) 21, (b) 35, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 49, $7,022.89-$9,951.01; 1, $7,213.33-$10,269.28; 5, $10,247.37-$10,883.91; 1, $ 10,917.83-$ 11,618.03.
1974: 1. Fifty-one. 2. (a) 12, (b) 38, (c) 1, (d) 0. 3. 34, $8,425.38-$l 1,075.16; 3, $8,638.78-$ 12,061.53; 7, $11,680.64-$12,393.37; 5, $ 12,431.45-$ 13,216.18; 1, $ 12,787.82-$ 13,572.02; 1, $13,251.66-$ 14,035.87.
1975: 1. Fifty-one. 2. (a) 10, (b) 41, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 34, $9,099.49-$ 12,641.72; 2, $9,330.11-$ 13,026.26; 7, $12,615.11-$13,384.71; 1, $ 13,000.17-$ 13,769.77; 5, $ 13,425.93-$ 14,273.27; 1, $ 13,810.99-$ 14,657.80; 1, $14,311.88-$ 15,158.69.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Bowden?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Francis Fox: Note: This institution was purchased from the province of Alberta and staffed with C.P.S. personnel in 1974 and 1975. 1974: 1. Thirty-six. 2. (a) 16, (b) 18, (c) 2, (d) 0. 3. Twenty-four, $8,425.38-$ 11,705.16; 8, $ 11,680.64-$ 12,393.37; 3, $ 12,431.45-$ 13,216.18; 1, $13,608.02-$14,392.23.
1975. 1. Thirty-five. 2. (a) 15, (b) 19, (c) 1, (d) 0. 3. Twenty-one, $9,099.49-$12,641.72; 9, $12,615.11-$ 13,384.71; 4, $13,425.93-$14,273.27; 1, $ 14,696.41-$ 15,543.75.
December 10, 1976


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Drumheller?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Francis Fox: 1970: 1. One hundred two. 2. (a) 32, (b) 70, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Eighty, $5,736.22-$8,127.97; 13, $8,110.23-$8,629.91; 7, $8,658.08-S9,229.93; 1, $9,256.02-$9,827.87; 1, $10,900.08-$ 12,100.13.
1971: 1. One hundred two. 2. (a) 31, (b) 71, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Eighty, $6,309.64-$8,904.88; 13, $8,921.05-$9,492.90; 7, $9,523.69-$10,152.93;	1,	$ 10,181.62-$ 10,810.87;	1,


[Stage Direction]
1972: 1. Seventy. 2. (a) 21, (b) 49, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Forty-eight, $6,688.44-$9,477.25; 13, $9,456.38-$ 10,062.66; 7, $10,095.01-S10,762.34;	1,	$ 10,792.61-$ 11,459.41;	1,
[Stage Direction]
1973: 1. Eighty-three. 2. (a) 26, (b) 57, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Fifty-seven, $7,022.89-$9,951.01; 17, $9,929.09-$10,565.64; 7, $10,599.55-$l 1,300.28;	1,	$11,332.11-$ 12,032.31;	1,
[Stage Direction]
1974: 1. Ninety-one. 2. (a) 11, (b) 80, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Sixty-five, $8,425.38-$l 1,705.16; 17, $11,680.64-$ 12,393.37; 7, $12,431.45-$13,216.18; 1, $13,251.66-$ 14,035.87; 1, $15,505.18-$17,151.81.
1975: 1. Ninety-one. 2. (a) 11, (b) 80, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Sixty-five, $9,099.49-$12,641.72; 17, $12,615.11-$ 13,384.71; 7, $13,425.93-$14,273.27; 1, $14,311.88-$ 15,158.69; 1, $16,746.93-$18,524.00.
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at British Columbia Penitentiary?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Francis Fox: 1970: 1. One hundred sixteen. 2. (a) 73, (b) 43, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 83, $5,892.23-$8,387.81; 21, $8,370.07-$8,889.74; 10, $8,917.92-$9,489.77; 1, $9,515.85-$10,088.22; 1, $11,349.84-$ 12,549.89.
1971: 1. One hundred twenty. 2. (a) 72, (b) 48, (c) 0, (d) 0.
3.	87, $6,481.30-$9,226.80; 21, $9,206.98-$9,778.83; 10, $9,809.61-$10,438.85;	1,	$ 10,467.55-$ 11,096.74;	1,


[Stage Direction]
1972: 1. One hundred twenty. 2. (a) 72, (b) 48, (c) 0, (d) 0.
3.	87, $6,870.01-$9,780.39; 21, $9,759.52-$ 10,365.81; 10, $10,398.16-$11,064.96;	1,	$11,095.75-$11,762.56;	1,
[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
1973: 1. One hundred twenty-nine. 2. (a) 77, (b) 52, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 96, $7,213.33-$10,269.28; 21, $ 10,247.37-$ 10,883.91; 10, $10,917.83-$11,618.03; 1, $11,650.38-$ 12,350.58; 1, $13,895.51-$15,364.78.
1974: 1. One hundred sixty-three. 2. (a) 85, (b) 73, (c) 2, (d) 3. 3. 19, $8,425.37-$l 1,705.16; 111, $8,638.78-$ 12,061.53; 21, $12,037.00-$12,749.73; 10, $ 12,787.82-$ 13,572.02; 1, $ 13,608.02-$ 14,392.23; 1, $ 16,122.90 $ 17,769.53.
1975: 1. One hundred ninety-seven. 2. (a) 40, (b) 146, (c) 7, (d) 4. 3. 146, $9,330.11-$ 13,026.26; 35, $ 13,000.17-$ 13,769.77; 10, $ 13,810.99-$ 14,657.80; 5, $ 14,696.41-$ 15,543.75; 1, $17,412.69-$19,189.81.
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit-officers at Matsqui?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Francis Fox: Converted to a living unit in 1972.
Year No. Education
1972	44	(a)	19
		(b)	25
		(c)	0
		(d)	0
1973	42	(a)	17
		(b)	25
		(c)	0
		(d)	0
1974	55	(a)	11
		(b)	42
		(c)	1
		(d)	1
1975	55	(a)	10
		(b)	41
		(c)	4
		(d)	0


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit officers at Mountain Institution?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Francis Fox: 1970 to 1975-There was no living unit program at Mountain Prison.

December 10,1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit officers at Agassiz Correctional Camp?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Francis Fox: The living unit program began November 15, 1972.
Year No. Education
1974	12	(a)	2
		(b)	10
		(c)	0
		(d)	0
1975	13	(a)	2
		(b)	10
		(c)	1
		(d)	0
Year No. Education 1973 and
1974	13	(a)	2
		(b)	11
		(c)	0
		(d)	0
1975	15	(a)	1
		(b)	13
		(c)	1
		(d)	0


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit officers at Williams Head?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Francis Fox: There was no living unit program until the end of 1974.
Year	No.	Education	
1974 and			
1975	12	(a)	2
		(b)	10
		(c)	0
		(d)	0


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit officers at Bowden?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Francis Fox: 1970-1973-Not open.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit-officers at Drumheller?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Francis Fox: No living unit program until 1972.
Year No. Education
1972	55	(a)	2
		(b)	53
		(c)	0
		(d)	0
1973	56	(a)	2
		(b)	54
		(c)	0
		(d)	0
1974	70	(a)	2
		(b)	68
		(c)	0
		(d)	0
1975	67	(a)	2
		(b)	60
		(c)	3
		(d)	2


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Ferndale and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (f) indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institutions was as follows: 1970-1971-1972 (Not opened). 1973, 24. 1974, 39. 1975, 33. The information
December 10,1976

required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service inmates information system for the years 1973 and 1974. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publication of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its inmate information system are as follows: (a) First degree murder (capital and non-capital): Nil. (b) Attempted murder: Nil. (c) Manslaughter: 1. (d) Rape: Nil. (e) Breaking and entering: 1. (f) Indecent assault: Nil. (g) Robbery with violence: Nil. (h) Drug or drug-related crime: 1.


Mir. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Matsqui and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (0 indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970, 516. 1971, 575. 1972, 335. 1973, 386. 1974, 351. 1975, 340. The figures for 1970 and 1971 include satellite institution. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service inmates information system for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publication of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its inmate information system are as follows: (a) First degree murder (capital and non-capital): Nil. (b) Attempted murder: Nil. (c) Manslaughter: 9. (d) Rape: 1. (e) Breaking and entering: 16. (f) Indecent assault: Nil. (g) Robbery with violence: 1. (h) Drug or drug-related crime: 28.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Mountain Institution and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (0 indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970 and 1971: Not available*. 1972, 188. 1973, 200. 1974, 184. 1975, 189. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service inmates information system for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the
Order Paper Questions
annual publication of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its inmate information system are as follows: (a) First degree murder (capital and non-capital): Nil. (b) Attempted murder: Nil. (c) Manslaughter: 1. (d) Rape: 2. (e) Breaking and entering: Nil. (0 Indecent assault: 1. (g) Robbery with violence: 1. (h) Drug or drug-related crime: 5.
* For the years 1970 and 1971 information not available as population figures were included in the parent institution (Matsqui Institution).


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Agassiz Correctional Camp and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (0 indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-rdated crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970 and 1971: Not available*. 1972, 72. 1973, 79. 1974, 62. 1975, 54. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service inmates information system for the yars 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publication of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its inmate information system are as follows: (a) First degree murder (capital and non-capital): Nil. (b) Attempted murder: Nil. (c) Manslaughter: Nil. (d) Rape: Nil. (e) Breaking and entering: 8. (f) Indecent assault: Nil. (g) Robbery with violence: Nil. (h) Drug or drug-related crime: 2.
*For the years 1970 and 1971 information not available as population figures were included in the parent institution (Matsqui Institution).


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Williams Head and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) first degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (0 indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970, 103. 1971, 126. 1972, 143. 1973, 154. 1974, 147. 1975, 142. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available

December 10, 1976
Order Paper Questions
from the Penitentiary Service inmates information system for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committee by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publication of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its inmate information system are as follows: (a) First degree murder (capital and non-capital): Nil. (b) Attempted murder: Nil. (c) Manslaughter: 1. (d) Rape: 1. (e) Breaking and entering: 8. (f) Indecent assault: Nil. (g) Robbery with violence: 1. (h) Drug or drug-related crime: 12.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Bowden and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) First degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (f) indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970, Nil. 1971, Nil. 1972, Nil. 1973, Nil. 1974, 40. 1975, 73. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service inmates information system for 1974. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for that year is included in table 2 of the annual publication of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its inmate information system are as follows: (a) First degree murder (capital and non-capital): Nil. (b) Attempted murder: Nil. (c) Manslaughter: Nil. (d) Rape: Nil. (e) Breaking and entering: 9. (f) Indecent assault: Nil. (g) Robbery with violence: Nil. (h) Drug or drug-related crime: 1.
Note: Bowden Institution opened in 1974.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at Drumheller and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) First degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (0 indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970, 353. 1971, 342. 1972, 447. 1973, 493. 1974, 439. 1975, 486. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service inmates information system for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publication of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published

by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its inmate information system are as follows: (a) First degree murder (capital and non-capital): Nil. (b) Attempted murder: 4. (c) Manslaughter: 10. (d) Rape: 4. (e) Breaking and entering: 88. (f) Indecent assault: 2. (g) Robbery with violence: 4. (h) Drug or drug-related crime: 29.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of inmates at British Columbia Penitentiary and, in each case, how many were convicted of (a) First degree murder (b) attempted murder (c) manslaughter (d) rape (e) breaking and entering (0 indecent assault (g) robbery with violence (h) drug or drug-related crime?


Francis Fox: As of December 31 of each calendar year, the number of inmates on register at the above mentioned institution was as follows: 1970, 470; 1971, 539; 1972, 578; 1973, 522; 1974, 516; 1975, 373. The information required to answer paragraphs (a) to (g) is not available from the Penitentiary Service inmates information system for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive. However, a general indication of offences committed by inmates admitted to penitentiaries for these years is included in table 2 of the annual publication of "Correctional Institutions Statistics", published by Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 85-207. The statistics for the year 1975, as compiled by the Canadian Penitentiary Service through its inmate information system are as follows: (a) First degree murder (capital and non-capital): 13. (b) Attempted murder: 1. (c) Manslaughter: 5. (d) Rape: 15. (e) Breaking and entering: 30. (f) Indecent assault: 9. (g) Robbery with violence: 2. (h) Drug or drug-related crime: 53.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time classiFication ofFicers at Ferndale and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualiFications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: 1970-1973: This institution was not open. 1974 and 1975: (a) One Classification Officer, (i) BA; (ii) Canadian Mental Health Service, Royal Canadian Navy; (iii) $13,658-$15,519. (b) None.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time classiFication ofFicers at Matsqui and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: (a) 1970: Three Classification Officers. No. 1 (i) BA-BSW. (ii) Social Worker, B.C. Government of Nelsen, B.C. Vancouver School Board Teacher, (iii) $11,799-$ 13,408. No. 2 (i) BA. (ii) Social
December 10, 1976

Worker, B.C. Government, Vancouver, B.C. (iii) $10,143-$11,525. No. 3 (i) BSW. (ii) Faculty Social Work, University of British Columbia, (iii) $11,799-$ 13,408. 1971: Three Classification Officers. No. 1 (i) and (ii) see 1970, No. 1. (iii) $12,448-$ 14,145. No. 2 (i) and (ii) see 1970, No. 2. (iii) $10,701-$12,159. No. 3 (i) and (ii) see 1970, No. 3. (iii) $ 12,448-$l 4,145. 1972: Three Classification Officers. No. 1
(i)	and (ii) see 1970, No. 1. (iii) $13,070-$14,852. No. 2 (i)
and (ii) see 1970, No. 3. (iii) $13,070-$14,852. No. 3 (i) BA Psychology, (ii) Security Officer, Matsqui Teacher, Fort Churchill, Manitoba, (iii) $11,236-$ 12,767. 1973: Six Classification Officers. No. 1 (i) and (ii) see 1970, No. 1. (iii) $ 14,442-$ 16,411.	No.	2	(i)	and	(ii)	see	1970,	No.	3.	(iii)$14,442-$ 16,411.	No.	3	(i)	and	(ii)	see	1972,	No.	3.	(iii)
$ 12,416-$14,108. No. 4 (i) BA. (ii) Department of Attorney General, B.C. Government. Security Officer, Armed Forces Headquarters, B.C. Teacher in Teacher Training School, (iii) $12,416-$14,108. No. 5 (i) BA. (ii) Summer student, University of British Columbia, (iii) $ 12,416-$ 14,108. No. 6 (i) BA.
(ii)	Summer student, Undergraduate teaching University of
British Columbia, (iii) $ 12,416-$ 14,108. 1974: Nine Classification Officers. No. 1 (i) and (ii) see 1970, No. 1. (iii) $ 15,886-$ 18,052.	No.	2	(i)	and	(ii)	see	1970,	No.	2.	(iii)$ 13,658-$ 15,519.	No.	3	(i)	and	(ii)	see	1972,	No.	3.	(iii)
$13,658-$15,519. No. 4 (i) and (ii) see 1973, No. 4. (iii) $ 13,658-$l 5,519. No. 5 (i) and (ii) see 1973, No. 5. (iii) $ 13,658-$l 5,519. No. 6 (i), (ii) and (iii) see 1973, No. 6. No. 7 (i) MSW. (ii) Research Assistant, Department of Health and Welfare, Vancouver, B.C. (iii.) $13,65.8-$15,519. No. 8 (i) BSW. (ii) Faculty Social Work, Province of Manitoba, (iii) $15,886-$ 18,052. No. 9 (i) Grade 12. (ii) Correctional officer promoted to Living Unit NCO, Canadian Armed Forces, (iii) $11,336-$ 13,500. 1975: Nine Classification Officers. No. 1 (i), (ii) and (iii) see 1974, No. 1. No. 2 (i), (ii) and (iii) see 1974, No. 3. No. 3 (i), (ii) and (iii) see 1974, No. 4. No. 4 (i) and (ii) see 1973, No. 5. (iii) $ 13,658-$ 15,519. No. 5 (i) and (ii) see 1973, No. 6. (iii) $13,658-$15,519. No. 6 (i) and (ii) see 1974, No. 7. (iii) $15,886-$18,052. No. 7 (i), (ii) and (iii) see 1974, No. 9. No. 8 (i) BSW. (ii) Social Worker, Province of Manitoba, (iii) $13,658-$ 15,519. No. 9 (i) BA, B Ed. (ii) Burrard Centre, Counsellor R.C.M.P. (iii) $13,658-$15,519. (b) None.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time classification officers at Mountain Institution and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: (a) 1970-1972: One Classification Officer. No. 1 (i) Grade 12. (ii) Sergeant, Canadian Army, Public Works, B.C. Government, (iii) 1970, $10,143-$11,525; 1971, $10,701-$12,159; 1972, $11,236-$12,-767. 1973-1974: Two Classification Officers. No. 1 (i) Grade 12. (ii) Sergeant, Canadian Army Public Works, B.C. Government. (iii) 1973, $12,416-$14,108; 1974, $ 13,658-$ 15,519. No.
Order Paper Questions
2 (i) BA. (ii) Research Assistant Teacher, B.C. Schools, (iii) 1973, $10,035-$12,273; 1974, $ 15,886-$ 18,052. 1975: Five Classification Officers. No. 1 (i) Grade 12. (ii) Sergeant, Canadian Army Public Works, B.C. Government, (iii) $13,658-$15,519. No. 2 (i) BA. (ii) Research Assistant Teacher, B.C. Schools, (iii) $15,886-$18,052. No. 3 (i) BA, MA, M Ed. (ii) Researcher, National Defence Research Work- Criminology Editor, Catholic Religious Paper, B.C. (iii) $13,658-$ 15,519. No. 4 (i) BA. (ii) Assistant Professor, Social Psychology University of Manitoba. Counsellor; Pandora Centre, B.C. (iii) $ 13,658-$ 15,519. No. 5 (i) Grade 12. (ii) Group therapy worker, B.C. Staff trainer, New Westminster, B.C. (iii) $13,658-$15,519. (b) None.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time classification officers at Agassiz Correctional Camp and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: 1970-1974: (a) One Classification Officer, (i) BA, BTH. (ii) Historical Research, Social Welfare, B.C. United Church Minister, (iii) 1970, $10,143-511,525; 1971, $ 10,701-$ 12,159; 1972, $11,236-$ 12,767; 1973, $ 12,416-$ 14,108; 1974, $ 13,658-$ 15,519. (b) None. 1975: Two classification officers, (i) and (ii) see 19701974; (iii) $13,658-515,519. (i) BA. (ii) From the University of British Columbia, (iii) $13,658-$15,519. (b) None.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time classification officers at Williams Head and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: (a) 1970 and 1971: One classification officer, (i) BA; (ii) B.C. Penitentiary, University of British Columbia, (iii) 1970, $10,143-$ 1 1,525; 1971, $10,701-$12,159. 1972 Two classification officers. No. 1 (i) BA, MA. (ii) Chaplain, Canadian Armed Forces Minister, United Church, (iii) $1 1,236-$ 12,767. No. 2 (i) BA. (ii) Assistant Supervisor, Ottawa Social Welfare Council, (iii) $11,236-$ 12,767. 1973: Four classification officers. No. 1 (i) and (ii) see 1972, No. 1 (iii) $ 12,416-$ 14,108. No. 2 (i) and (ii) see 1972, No. 2 (iii) $12,416-514,108. No. 3 (i) BSW. (ii) Deputy Supervisor, Yellowknife, N.W.T. goal, (iii) $12,416-$14,108. No. 4 (i) BA. (ii) Corrections Officer, Mountain Prison Living Unit Officer, Agassiz U.B.C. Summer employment. (iii) $ 12,416-$ 14,108. 1974: Five classification officers. No. 1 (i) and (ii) see 1972, No. 1 (iii) $ 13,658-$ 15,519. No. 2
(i)	and (ii) see 1972, No. 2 (iii) $13,658-515,519. No. 3 (i) and (ii) see 1973, No. 3 (iii) $ 13,658-$ 15,519. No. 4 (i) and
(ii)	see 1973, No. 4 (iii) $ 13,658-$ 15,519. No. 5 (i) BA. (ii) Officer, Air Force, R.C.A.F. (iii) S13,658-$l5,519. 1975: Seven classification officers. No. 1 (i), (ii) and (iii) see 1974,

December 10, 1976
Order Paper Questions
No. 1. No. 2 (i), (ii) and (iii) see 1974, No. 2. No. 3 (i), (ii) and (iii) see 1974, No. 3. No. 4 (i), (ii) and (iii) see 1974, No.
4.	No. 5 (i), (ii) and (iii) see 1974, No. 5. No. 6 (i) MSW. (ii) Executive Director, John Eloward Society, Victoria, B.C. Representative, John Howard Society, Alberta, (iii) $13,658-$ 15,519. No. 7 (i) BA. (ii) Department of Veterans Affairs Welfare Programs, B.C. Government, (iii) $13,658-$15,519. (b) None.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time classification officers at Bowden and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: This institution opened in 1974. There were no classification officers appointed in 1974 or 1975.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time classification officers at Pandora Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: For the years 1970 to 1975, this institution had no classification officers on establishment. Duties were performed by a Counsellor.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time classification officers at Grierson Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: For 1970 to 1975, this institution had no classification officers on establishment. Duties were performed by a Counsellor.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time classification officers at Oskana Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: This institution opened in 1973. There were no classification officers on establishment. Duties were performed by a Counsellor.
[Mr. Fox.)


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time classification officers at Altadore Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: This institution opened in 1974. There were no classification officers on establishment. Duties were performed by a Counsellor.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time classification officers at Scarboro Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: This Institution opened in 1971. There were no classification officers on esta-blihment. Duties were performed by a Counsellor.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time classification officers at Burrard Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: For the years 1970 to 1975, this institution had no classification officers on establishment. Duties were performed by a Counsellor.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Matsqui and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Francis Fox: (a) 1970: One fulltime psychiatrist, (i) MD, MBCHB, DPM, FRCP; (ii) Psychiatrist London Hospital, London, England; (iii) $23,278-$25,668. 1971: One full-time psychiatrist, (i) and (ii) see 1970;
(iii)	$25,000-$30,004. 1972 to 1975: No psychiatrists appointed. Matsqui Institution receives psychiatric assistance from the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Abbotsford, B.C. (b) None.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Williams Head and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Francis Fox: 1970 to 1975: There were no psychiatrists appointed. As required, psychiatric treatment is given at the Pacific Medical Centre, Matsqui, B.C.
December 10, 1976


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Bowden and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Francis Fox: This Institution opened in 1974. None. Cases are referred to psychiatrists at the University of Alberta in Edmonton.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Drumheller and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Francis Fox: 1970 to 1975: (a) None, (b) One part-time psychiatrist under contract, (i) MD, FRCS; (ii) Calgary City Hospitals, Mental Consultant, Private Practice; (iii) Salary contract, 1970 and 1971, $28 per consultation plus one dollar per mile. 1972 and 1973, $30 per consultation plus one dollar per mile. 1974, $33 per consultation plus one dollar per mile. 1975, $38 per consultation plus one dollar per mile not to exceed $11,000 per year.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at British Columbia Penitentiary and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Francis Fox: (a) 1970 and 1971: One full-time psychiatrist, (i) MD, MBBS; (ii) Has taken several courses in psychiatry, is working on MSC at the University of Saskatchewan specializing in psychology, registered practitioner in the province of Nova Scotia, lecturer at Mysore University in India, worked for B.C. Mental Health Services; (iii) $23,278-$25,668. (a) 1972-1975: None, (b) 1970-1975: One part-time psychiatrist, (i) MD, Certificate in Psychiatry, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons; (ii) Graduated in 1939, joined Army during World War II, has been with the Penitentiary Service since 1951; (iii) $70 per session.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Grierson Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Francis Fox: None.
Order Paper Questions PSYCHOLOGISTS-FERNDALE


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Ferndale and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: There were no psychologists on establishment from 1970 to 1975. Referrals were made to the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Matsqui, B.C.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Matsqui and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: (a) 1970-1974: Two psychologists, (i) BSA. (ii) Teacher, Merritt School Board, B.C. Teacher, Bavaria, Germany. Self-employed consultant, (iii)	1970,	$ 12,973-$ 16,218;	1971,	$13,751-$17,191;	1972,
$14,441-$18,051; 1973, $ 15,416-$ 19,269; 1974, $16,911-521,-
005.	(i) BA, MA Psychology, (ii) Mental Health Service, B.C. (iii)	1970,	$ 12,973-$ 16,218;	1971,	$ 13,751-$ 17,191;	1972,
$ 14,441 -$ 18,051; 1973, $ 15,416-$l9,269; 1974, $16,911-$21,-005. 1975: Three psychologists, (i) BSC, MA Psychology, (ii) Teacher, Merritt School Board, B.C. Teacher, Bavaria, Germany. Self-employed consultant, (iii) $18,771-$23,316. (i) BA, MA Psychology, (ii) Mental Health Service, B.C. (iii) $18,711-$23,316. (i) BA, MA Psychology, (ii) Clinical Division, Department of Justice, Fredericton, New Brunswick. Teacher, Fredericton School Board, Fredericton, N.B. (iii) $15,634-520,384. (b) None.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Mountain Institution and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: There were no psychologists on establishment from 1970 to 1975. Referrals were made to Matsqui Medium Institution or to the Regional Psychiatric Centre at Matsqui, B.C.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Agassiz Correctional Camp and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: There were no psychologists on the establishment of thisvinstitution from 1970 to 1975. The cases were referred as necessary to psychologists at British Columbia Penitentiary.
1882

December 10, 1976
Order Paper Questions PSYCHOLOGISTS-WILLIAMS-HEAD


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Williams-Head and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: There were no psychologists on establishment for this institution from 1970 to 1975. The cases were referred as necessary to the British Columbia Penitentiary psychologists.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Bowden and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: This institution opened in 1973. There were no psychologists on establishment for 1974 and 1975. Cases were referred as necessary to the Drumheller Institution psychologists.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Drumheller and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: (a) 1970: One psychologist. (i) MA. (ii) Direct entry from university, (iii) $12,973-$16,218. 1971: Two psychologists. No. 1 (i) and (ii) see 1970. (iii) $13,751-$!7,191. No. 2 (i) MA. (ii) Direct entry from university, (iii) $ 13,751-$ 17,191. 1972: Two psychologists. No. 1 (i) and (ii) see 1970. (iii) $14,441-$18,051. No. 2 (i) and (ii) see 1971, No. 2. (iii) $ 14,441-$ 18,051. 1973: Two psychologists. No. 1 (i) and (ii) see 1970. (iii) $15,416-$19,269. No. 2 (i) and (ii) see 1971, No. 2. (iii) $15,416-$ 19,269. 1974: Two psychologists. No. 1 (i) and (ii) see 1970. (iii) $16,911-$21,005. No. 2 (i) and (ii) see 1970, No. 2. (iii) $16,911-$21,005. 1975: One psychologist, (i) and (ii) see 1970. (iii) $ 18,771 -$23,316.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at British Columbia Penitentiary and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: 1970-1972: (a) Two. (i) BA, PHD; (ii) Lecturer at University of British Columbia, Psychologist, Haney Correctional Camp, B.C. (iii) 1970, $ 12,973-$l6,218; 1971, $13,751-$17,191; 1972, $ 14,441-$ 18,051. (i) BA Psychology; (ii) Selkirk Hospital, Manitoba Psychiatric Intern, Manitoba Teacher-Vice-Principal, Winnipeg, Psychologist, Saskatchewan Penitentiary, (iii) 1970, $12,973-$16,218; 1971, $ 13,751-$ 17,191; 1972, $14,441-$I 8,051. (b) None. 1973 and 1974: (a) One. (i) BA, PHD; (ii) Lecturer at
[Mr. Fox.)
University of British Columbia Psychologist, Haney Correctional Camp, B.C. (iii) 1973, $ 15,416-$ 19,269; 1974, $16,911-$21,005. (b) None. 1975: (a) Two. (i) BA, PHD; (ii) Lecturer at University of British Columbia, Psychologist, Haney Correctional Camp, B.C. (iii) $ 18,771-$23,316. (i) BA, MA Psychology; (ii) Coordinator of Psychology Studies, University of Guelph, Assistant Professor, Psychology, University of Kitchener-Waterloo. (iii) $15,634-$20,384. (b) None.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Pandora Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: This institution opened in 1973. There were no psychologists on establishment from 1973 to 1975. Referrals were made to local Military facilities on Vancouver Island.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Grierson Centre and, in each case, wHat were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: This institution opened in 1972. There were no psychologists on establishment from 1973 to 1975. The cases were referred as necessay to the University of Alberta, Edmonton.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Oskana Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: This institution opened in 1973. There were no psychologists on establishment for 1974 and 1975. The cases were referred as necessary to local psychologists.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Altadore Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: This institution opened in late 1973. There were no psychologists on establishment for 1974 and 1975. The cases were referred as necessary to the Forensic Psychology Faculty at the University of Calgary.


Mr. Reynolds: 
Francis Fox: This institution opened in 1972. There were no psychologists on establishment from 1973 to 1975. The cases were referred as necessary to the Forensic Psychology Faculty at the University of Calgary.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Burrard Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Francis Fox: There were no psychologists on establishment from 1970 to 1975. The cases were referred as necessary to the Regional Psychiatric Centre or local hospitals.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government giving consideration to exempting money obtained from the sale of farm lands from capital gains tax if the money is reinvested in similar property for the purpose of farming within three years?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: It would be difficult to justify such exemptions to farmers without extending similar treatment to other businessmen who may wish to expand or relocate their businesses. Taxation of capital gains is essential if we are to have an income tax system which is genuinely equitable among taxpayers. The exclusion of capital gains from the tax base discriminates unfairly between the person who receives part of his income as capital gains and the man who derives the same amount from taxable sources, such as wages. Since a farmer earns income from his farmland in a way similar to any businessman earning income from the use of his capital assets, it is appropriate to apply capital gains tax on the increase in value when such income-producing assets are sold. Any change in this system to exempt gains reinvested in farmland would treat farmers much more favourably than others on the voluntary disposition of property and reinvestment of proceeds. It would create a preferential precedent and would not likely be acceptable to a majority of Canadians. It should also be pointed out that farmers are the only group that enjoy a special capital gains tax deferral on an intergenerational transfer of farm property, whether that transfer is by way of bequest or inter-vivos sale.


Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the final cost of the new federal building at Amherst, Nova Scotia?
2.	What is the breakdown between payments made to the architect, contractor and property costs?
3.	Who was the architect and the contractor and were there any payments over and above the original contracts awarded to either and, if so, what was the reason for the extra costs in each case?
4.	(a) On what date did the Department of Public Works first begin plans for the new building (b) how many changes were made and what was the cost to the taxpayer of all such changes?
Order Paper Questions
5.	How much of the total space in the new building is (a) occupied (b) vacant?
6.	Was the drawbacks office of the Department of National Revenue located in the building and, if so, how much space will become vacant when the office is transferred to Halifax?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: 1.


[Stage Direction]
2.	Architect, Nil. Contractor, $2,160,530.02; Property, $71,404.25; Miscellaneous, $3,432.19; Total, $2,235,366.46.
3.	Architectural work was done internally by the Department of Public Works' Design and Engineering staff. The contract was awarded to A.C. Mallet Ltd. in August, 1974. Payments of $126,000 over and above the original contract were made to the contractor due to the installation of paraplegic ramps, mechanical and electrical revisions and changes made to suit the operational requirements of the occupying departments.
4.	(a) The development of the plans, specifications and preliminary cost estimates were begun following confirmation of the client department accommodation requirements in July, 1973. More definite plans, specifications and cost estimates were completed as the basis for getting Treasury Board approval which was received in March, 1974. Tenders, with Final plans and specifications, for construction were then called in May, 1974 and a contract awarded in August, 1974. (b) None, except for those indicated in Part 3.
5.	(a) Space occupied, 35,763 square feet usable, (b) Space vacant, 5,100 square feet usable which was included to allow for future requirements of government departments.
6.	The drawbacks office of Revenue Canada is presently located on the second floor of the building. If relocated, 1,265 square feet will be vacated.
Mr. Coates: 1.	Is the federal building that formerly housed the Post Office at Amherst, Nova Scotia being renovated at the present time?
2.	(a) What was the original estimate for renovations of the building (b) how many such estimates were made before tenders were called (c) how many times were tenders called (d) what was the amount of the contract finally awarded and to which firm was it awarded?
3.	(a) How many bids were received for the renovation (b) what was the name of the company and the amount of each bid?
4.	What will be the date of completion for the renovation work?
5.	Who will use the renovated facilities and what is the square footage required?
6.	What is the amount of vacant square footage in the new federal building?


J. Judd Buchanan: 1. Yes.
2.	(a) $232,500. (b) One estimate, (c) One tender call, (d) $259,369. Arrow Building Corporation Limited, Darmouth, N.S.
3.	(a) Eight bids, (b) Acadian Construction, Dieppe, N.B. $266,889; J. Heber Brown Ltd., Moncton, N.B. $294,400;
80005-51'/2

December 10, 1976
Order Paper Questions
Basic Construction Ltd., Moncton, N.B. $331,500; Roscoe Construction Ltd., Cambridge Station, N.S. $271,900; Arrow Building Corp. Ltd., Dartmouth N.S. $259,369; Norcon Construction Ltd., Moncton, N.B. $265,600; A.C. Mallett et Fils Ltee., Moncton, N.B. $284,766; Century Construction Ltd., Moncton, N.B. $299,990.
4.	February 15, 1977.
5.	U.I.C. occupy 1st floor, 1,885 square feet; U.I.C. occupy basement (boardroom), 376 square feet; total 2,261 square feet. M. & I. occupy 1st floor, 3,580 square feet; M. & I. occupy basement (boardroom), 656 square feet; total, 4,236 square feet. Also occupied in basement area jointly by U.I.C. and M. & I.-lunchroom and two washrooms approximately 750 square feet.
6.	5,100 square feet usable.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Have priorities been established in a summary of anticipated CBC site requirements for (a) Cow Head (b) Hawke's Bay (c) Portland Creek (d) Port Saunders (e) Trout River, Newfoundland and, if so, what if any, are the completion dates for installation?
2.	Has an application been made to CRTC to extend TV(E) coverage in line with the priorities and completion dates and, if so, what is the date?
3.	As a result of installation of sites at the above mentioned locations, what communities will be served in the Constituency of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. See reply to Question No. 5,689, June 29, 1976.
2.	It is expected that the applications will be submitted in December, 1976.
3.	Surveys are now being carried out in order to establish the theoretical contours for these transmitters.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 546 and 547 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time classification officers at Drumheller and, in each case, what were their
(i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?
Return tabled.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time classification officers at British Columbia Penitentiary and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?
Return tabled.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Roméo LeBlanc: that Bill C-7, respecting the administration and development of certain fishing and recreational harbours in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to present for second reading Bill C-7, the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act. A new act is required to give the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment the necessary legislative authority to develop and administer the commercial fishing and recreational boat harbours in Canada so as to meet the changing requirements of the commercial fisheries and the growing needs of sports fishing and recreational boating. There are some 2,300 of these small harbours and wharves located across the country, with some ports comprising several wharves and other marine facilities.

Mr. Speaker, legislative authority for the administration of these ports is now granted under the Government Harbours and Piers Act and the accompanying government Wharf Regulations. The act, which dates back to 1895 and was revised in 1937, is mostly regulatory and is not flexible enough to be adapted to modern technology and the development requirements of fishing and recreational harbours.
The clauses of Bill C-7 concerning expansion provide for an extended choice of measures through which we shall be able to come to the best possible arrangements, which will enable us

December 10, 1976

to meet as best as possible requirements for commercial fishing and recreational harbours. These clauses offer more flexibility in the choice of types of programs which will be needed in the future to meet changes. This is seriously lacking under the present legislation. I would like to speak further on this question since it concerns the projects that we would like to suggest after this legislation is passed.
Commercial fishing is an important industry in the Canadian economy. This industry concerns about 38,000 fishing vessels which employ more than 77,000 men and women if we count the fish processing sector, and pumps more than $700 million a year into our economy, including $400 million from exports. The industry has an especially important role to play in the economy of the Atlantic provinces and British Columbia. For these reasons, the government must continue to be concerned about the welfare of commercial fishermen in the Canadian fishing industry.


James Aloysius McGrath: Does that include Eagle River?


Roméo LeBlanc: Yes. One of the essential elements of a prosperous fishing industry is of course the development of a sufficient number of ports and port facilities, well located in fishing zones and of maximum quality. The government will therefore continue to build, maintain and administer these ports by giving priority to these operations when allocating budgetary funds.
More specifically, this includes first the planning and development of a national network of fishing harbours under policies and provisions put forward to meet the changing and diversified needs of the fishing industry in Canada. Second, the repairing, maintenance, extension and upgrading of existing facilities and the creation of new ones. Third, the operation of such facilities; and finally, the continuous management of the network, both nationally and regionally.

The general rise in the Canadian standard of living over the past two decades has contributed to increased and widespread recreational activity. This, in turn, has stimulated the growth of secondary industries such as recreational boat building and the manufacture of related equipment. In 1974 there were approximately 800,000 Canadian-based pleasure craft and 70,000 tourist craft visiting Canada from abroad. It is estimated that these numbers may increase by at least 50 per cent by the end of the 1970s. Neither the private nor the public sector is adequately meeting this rapid increase in demand for marinas and launching ramps catering to recreational boating.
As a result, the proliferation of recreational boats has caused acute congestion in many parts of the country, particularly in Ontario and British Columbia where the bulk of the recreational boating activity is concentrated. In many cases this congestion represents a hazard to life and property, adds to the pollution and threatens to despoil the natural scenic attractions of the environment. Although we are conscious of the fact that outdoor recreational activity and preservation of the environment are of great concern to all levels of govern-
Fishing and Recreational Harbours ment, we recognize the very special interests of the provinces and municipalities in these areas. Our policies in regard to the provision of harbours and associated facilities for recreational boating, such as marinas and launching ramps, will therefore be directed toward promoting development, rather than the direct involvement which I have described in the case of the fishing harbours. Programs will emphasize joint planning and co-operation with the provinces so as to provide a national system of harbours which will meet the needs of recreational boaters with minimum disruption of the environment. Construction, operation and maintenance of facilities providing access to the water, such as launching ramps, will be primarily the concern of provincial and municipal levels of government. We will be proposing some cost-sharing arrangements to encourage this type of development.
In the area of administration, the bill contains enabling provisions to lease property, which will allow the minister to manage and maintain harbours under his jurisdiction, to make and enforce regulations and to prescribe and collect charges for the use of the harbours. Within this consolidated authority we will be introducing a number of new innovations to improve the administration of harbour facilities. For example, under the Government Harbours and Piers Act the minister is restricted in the leasing of wharves to any provincial government, municipal council, harbour commission, shipping company or railway company. As an example, recently we received a request from the Sans Souci and Copperhead Association in Ontario, supported by the local member of parliament, to lease the Sans Souci wharf. This area has no municipal government and, therefore, the wharf could not be leased to the association under the authority of the Government Harbours and Piers Act, even though this was a very legitimate and worth-while proposal. Answers to this type of situation are provided for within the enabling provisions of Bill C-7 and should not arise in the future once this legislation is in force.
At the present time, the majority of our harbours and wharves have no day-to-day supervision but are managed directly by the small craft harbours regional managers in each region. A small number of locations, about 200, have wharfingers who are appointed by the minister "at pleasure" and derive their remuneration from the berthage fees they collect. Their authority to enforce regulations is minimal and is based on procedures which are, at best, cumbersome. Such a system, combined with an inadequate fee structure, has resulted in ineffective and spotty management. I intend to introduce an improved management system which will be flexible and responsive to the needs of the fishermen. Harbour managers will be given the authority required to properly manage their harbours and facilities, and will be provided by the regulations with adequate means of enforcement.
Charges for berthing as now prescribed under the Government Harbours and Piers Act have resulted in many problems due primarily, but not solely, to the failure to recognize the difference in the nature of the fisheries between the various regions of the country. For example, no charges are presently levied against commercial fishing vessels under 45 feet in the

December 10, 1976
Fishing and Recreational Harbours Atlantic fishing areas and, in general, charges are not collected in a consistent and equitable manner across the country. The fishing and recreational harbours act will enable us to introduce a new system of harbour mooring fees which will be sensitive to market demand, will recognize regional differences and relate to the level and quality of services provided. Moreover, I hope to change the present inequitable method of collection to include a simplified fee structure including, where possible, an annual or seasonal charge which will permit vessels to berth at any federally-owned facility without additional charge.
I have outlined, Mr. Speaker, the philosophy and main enabling provisions of this bill to provide legislative authority for the development, maintenance and administration of fishing and recreational harbours. At the risk of repeating myself, I would like to conclude with an observation. The promotion of a vigorous and efficient commercial fishery in Canada is an important goal of this government. To achieve this goal requires a variety of policies and programs, including the provision of adequate and properly managed harbours, so as to give the industry and the fishermen the harbours they need when and where they are needed.
Mr. Speaker, I recommend this bill to the hon. members of this House. I readily recognize that discussions in committee can lead to positive and useful suggestions.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Roméo LeBlanc: Certainly.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of the charges which have been made concerning the operation of a sports fishing camp on the Eagle River, Labrador, by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson), and is he aware that these sports fishermen whose expenses are underwritten by the taxpayers of Canada, because they are military brass and their friends, are ignoring the fishing and game laws of the province, and, more particularly so far as the minister is concerned, interfering with the activities of commercial fishermen in the area who have to make a living? Is he aware of this? If not, will he undertake to make an investigation of the matter?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, briefly, I have heard references in the House to the matter of that fishing lodge, as has the hon. member, but I have not been apprised by my officials about problems of interference with the commercial fishery. I will certainly undertake to ask questions about it.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-7 entitled "an act respecting the administration and development of certain fishing and recreational harbours in Canada." This bill, on the surface, would appear to be nothing more than a housekeeping bill, a bill which transfers from the Department of Public Works and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) administra-

tive responsibility to the Department of Fisheries and the Environment. However, upon close examination I cannot help noting that this bill adds still further financial burdens to an already over-burdened fishing industry. I understand-and I am supported by the minister's statement of this morning- that legislative authority for administration of our small craft harbours was provided by the Government Harbours and Piers Act and its accompanying wharf regulations, as well as various orders in council. Because it was drafted in 1895 and revised in 1937, the act does not focus on the present-day administrative needs of fishermen and recreational boaters and does not include provision for the development of these harbours.
It is interesting to note that when programs and administrative responsibilities for these harbours were transferred to the Department of Fisheries from the Department of Public Works and the Minister of Transport in June, 1973, the transfer was brought about by order in council. Obviously, our fisheries interests have suffered because the minister's authority over small craft harbours has been derived from an order in council rather than from a legislative enactment. I am informed that one Transport official actually refused to acknowledge the transfer and sent his files to the minister a little more than a month ago. The interpretation clause of this bill reads in part:
"scheduled harbour" means any fishing or recreational harbour included in a schedule prescribed by the regulations.
That definition covers any harbour, wharf, pier, breakwater, slipway, marina or part thereof, together with machinery, works, land and structures related or attached thereto, and any other facility, installation, work or part thereof located on or adjacent to water. That is a tall order, Mr. Speaker. When we examine the regulations included in the bill to see what it meant by a scheduled harbour, we learn, as set out in clause 9:
The governor in council may make regulations (a) prescribing schedules naming and delimiting or describing the fishing or recreational harbours that are under the control and administration of the minister for the purposes of this act-
It can readily be seen from the wording of the bill that the minister has been granted wide powers, and although we are not opposing this legislation, we would be remiss in our duty if we failed to register our concern over the wording of some parts of this bill. For example, the budget for small craft harbours this year is in the order of $35 million. Some of this money will be used for repair and modernization of government fishing wharves on the east coast.
As the minister has stated, there are some 2,300 government facilities covered under the small craft harbours legislation. Of these, approximately 1,500 are used for fishing and some 800 for recreation. From the figures we can readily see the number of people who are affected by this legislation, yet the minister gave no indication either in his remarks this morning nor in the bill as to the government's intentions with regard to increased sums of money to be made available for needed improvement of the many facilities which this bill places under his care.
December 10, 1976

If we look at the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, we find that the total budgetary amount for the fisheries and marine program under the heading of "Environment" comes to $261,016,000. There are many comparisons that can be made with that figure and the amounts allocated to other government departments: namely, the CBC, $416 million; Atomic Energy of Canada, a department which we are hearing quite a bit about these days, $97 million; the National Capital Commission, $53 million; the National Arts Centre, $8 million. We spent something like $50 million on erecting the building, and now it cannot operate without a subsidy of $8 million just so people can see the show.
The CBC will receive from the public purse in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, a hand-out of $416 million. This amount is in addition to any they may take in from any other source through the sale of advertising. The payola works out to $8 million a week for programs whose content is very seriously questioned by my constituents on an almost monthly basis. The CBC receives more than one and one half times the amount of money allocated by this government for its fisheries and marine program on both coasts and in central Canada. In my opinion, this is too low a priority rating when one considers the vast areas of Canada covered by the fishing industry and the large number of men, women and children who are entirely dependent upon this primary industry for their very survival.
I believe the minister is working hard. He is making an honest effort. He is trying. I believe he is hoping for a better future for our fishermen. I give him credit for that. However, many of the people in the area covered by this legislation have survived for many years on hope. But that hope, I say to the minister sincerely, is now turning to despair. At the present time, on the Atlantic coast there are approximately 39,000 fishermen of whom only about 3,000 are on the offshore fleet. The rest are all inshore fishermen, dependent on small craft harbours as a base for landing their craft. They hope to have security for their ships and fishing equipment when high winds and heavy seas force them from the fishing banks.
Under this bill, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) is given a sacred trust. He is being given a responsibility to ensure that adequate facilities will be provided for the safety, lives and equipment of some 36,000 inshore fishermen in Atlantic Canada alone. Since fishing markets are mostly external to Canada, it is essential, indeed, vital that this nation keep its fishing industry as efficient as any in the world. Up to this point I have been speaking only of the inshore fleet. However, our offshore fleet also requires consideration by this government.
At the present time, some 12 companies, owning approximately 50 plants, of which some 25 are served by the offshore fleet, account for approximately 80 per cent of Canada's fresh and frozen groundfish production and about 45 per cent of the total fishing production of Atlantic Canada. This fleet is struggling today. The captains are struggling to find the large volumes of raw materials required for 12 months of operation on a mass production basis. What does this bill do for them? If they increase their costs, it will knock Canada out of the
Fishing and Recreational Harbours highly competitive world markets it presently enjoys as a seafood supplier. Both our inshore and offshore fleets are vitally important to the Canadian economy. However, I say to this House that our only chance to exploit the fisheries resources to the extremities of our 200-mile zone and beyond this area is with a modern, efficient fleet working on a 12-month basis.
We have the expertise; we have the know-how in Atlantic Canada. We need only a management team interested in the recovery and harvesting control of our resource to give Atlantic Canada a restored and thriving fishing industry. As the resource recovered, we could triple our present volume without adding appreciably to the number of ships in operation today, thereby assuring steady employment for our Fishermen and plant workers.
Here I must mention a very important adjunct to the fishing industry, our plant workers. Shore plant workers in our east coast fishing plants are facing economic hardship today due to the mismanagement of our fisheries resources by this government over the past ten years. Recently, a weekly newspaper printed a cheque stub from the pay cheque of an average wage earner in an east coast plant. The cheque stub showed 34.25 hours worked at regular time, $3.90 per hour, and 12 hours of Saturday overtime at $5.85 per hour. The gross earnings were $207.53, while the net earnings were $171.43. Even you, Mr. Speaker, might say that is not bad for a week's work. However, you would be,adopting the wrong premise because the figures I have just quoted cover a two-week work period. It works out to $85.71 per week. Out of this amount, he or she has to pay the rent, or mortgage, food, fuel oil, clothing, electricity, operate a car to and from work, plus gas and all the rest of a family's expenses. This, I say, is about average for plant workers as a whole.
When there are no fish to process, the work force is sent home as the employees are paid only for the hours worked. The Anti-Inflation Board obviously did not take that factor into consideration when it made decisions about wage levels. The Minister of Fisheries and his officials obviously did not take it into consideration when they established fisheries quotas for 1976 and 1977, quotas which force the fisherman to limit his fishing activities, quotas which force him to spead out his fishing effort over a longer term. This action will in the long run spread out the economic and social hardship for shore workers over a longer period.
Only this week I asked the Minister of Fisheries a question in the House about discussions he was having with the industry concerning quotas. He replied that he was hopeful that he could spread the quotas for the next year over a 12-month period. That, I know, was not an intentional statement by the minister. It could not have been. It shows a gross lack of knowledge of what happens when you encourage men who want to go to sea, men who want to work to the best of their capability to catch the biggest catch available to them, telling them to spread out their capability, spreading out the Fishing quotas so that they will only land smaller quotas per trip. Think of what this is doing to the shore plant worker. I just

December 10, 1976
Fishing and Recreational Harbours gave a classic example of what is happening at present and has been happening throughout 1976, yet next year they are not promised more of the same, but even a little less of the same. The minister is, in effect, saying that $85.71 a week is enough for a shore worker. Surely we can do better than that.
We are establishing a 200-mile limit, hopefully for the benefit of Canadians and not entirely for the benefit of foreign nationals. Hopefully, it will be for the benefit of shore plant workers in Atlantic Canada. However, this is the ultimate result of the minister's action when he says we will spread out quotas. He is simply spreading out inefficiency. It is not encouraging initiative. It does not encourage people who are ambitious and want to work. This is making it more difficult for our people, both ashore and afloat, to earn an honest living. The fishing industry of Canada obviously requires a higher profile. It needs a spending priority equal to or higher than that of the CBC, since the fishing industry directly and indirectly affects the livelihood of so many Canadians. Unfortunately, Bill C-7 gives little or no recognition to the validity of many of the points I have raised. It does, however, grant the minister wide powers. Clauses 5(1) reads as follows:
The minister may undertake projects for the acquisition, development, con-truction, improvement or repair of any scheduled harbour or any fishing or recreational harbour to which this act applies.
Clause 8 provides:
The minister may, subject to the regulations,
(a)	lease any scheduled harbour or any part thereof to any person,
(b)	grant a licence to any person for the use of any scheduled harbour or any
part thereof, and
(c)	enter into any agreement with the government of any province or any
agency thereof for the occupancy or use of any scheduled harbour or any part
thereof.
Knowing the character of the minister, and knowing the character of various members on this side of the House-one of whom, I believe, will be the minister of fisheries after the 1978 election-I am sure these wide powers will not be abused. However, this does not mean they should remain on the books. I was always of the opinion, for example, that our harbours belonged to the public. I cannot understand how any minister could believe he had the right to lease harbours or any part of a harbour to one person. Surely, limits should be set on the application of clause 8 when the measure is sent to committee.
Under this bill, the minister can build recreational harbours wherever he chooses, without regard for provincial or municipal desires. What has happened to the view that the provinces should be consulted on matters which affect their interests? I say to the minister most sincerely that lack of consultation over fisheries matters with provincial ministers is a major criticism of him, and that it is advanced not only by Conservative provincial ministers but by Liberal provincial ministers as well. The government is becoming increasingly involved in the building of recreational harbours. It has taken the path of shared-cost programs with the provinces; it pays up to 50 per cent of the cost, but only for breakwaters and dredging.

Provincial and municipal governments pay the other costs, as well as the cost of annual upkeep.
Unfortunately, the number of recreational harbours is increasing while the number of government fishing wharves is decreasing. I am not opposed to recreational harbours being established, since they are beneficial to the tourist industry, to visiting yachtsmen when they come to Canada from the United States or other countries. However, I submit they should not be built at the expense of our fishermen or of our fishing industry which is presently being denied adequate facilities in many parts of Canada. In my own town of Lunenburg, for example, there is a desperate need for further docking space for our scallop fleet. In Vogler's Cove, Nova Scotia, the inshore fleet requires another 60 feet added to the present wharf in order that the longliners may have adequate protection. In the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of October 30, we read, under the heading "Smithville fishermen still waiting for wharf', the following report from Shelburne county:
Four years after being promised a new wharf by the federal government to replace the existing decrepit structure which is the focal point of fisheries activities in this small Atlantic coast port, Fishermen are still forced to operate from the same primitive facility which has been in existence for many years.
"Any good storm or even a high tide could easily wash this wharf out tomorrow and then where would the fishermen tie up?" asks Kendrick Sears, a veteran fisherman and operator of a small handling plant by the wharf. "Conditions here are unbelievable. Several years ago one section of the docking facilities completely collapsed under the weight of a hundred lobster traps. Although recovered by their owners, the traps were damaged beyond all recognition." Mr. Sears says instances like this have not been uncommon and as a result fishermen in the area were notified five years ago that a new wharf was on its way.
I did not check, but that must have been an election year. The report continues:
"Our wharf was supposed to be constructed immediately after the wharf at Shag Harbour, Shelburne county", he said. "It's been four years since then and we still have no decent facilities."
I hope the minister will put that one in his little black book when he starts in on his new duties. Last week I was privileged to visit Newfoundland. The Newfoundland members are quite capable of calling attention to the lack of facilities in their province and laying deficiencies at the door of the minister. But I hear, from discussions with the fishermen, that they have been waiting for ten years for a slipway and wharf at Wild Cove, White Bay; they have been waiting at Nipper's Harbour for a comparable period of time without either hauling facilities or landing facilities.
My hon. friends from other provinces intend to speak today. They will deal with their own areas, so I shall deal only with the figures provided to me as they relate to Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia-and these figures were provided to me by the government-how do we fare on the list of expenditures by provinces in connection with the harbour development program? In 1973-74 we received $1,607,181. The year 1974-75 was an election year; we received $5,814,000. In 1975-76 we received $4,625,400. That is little more than half the sum the government made available to keep the National Arts Centre show going just down the street. If you want to see Liberace there, you only pay $6 or $7 because the people in Nova
December 10, 1976

Scotia, the people in Atlantic Canada help pay a subsidy to keep the show going in a place they never even see. They never even see the building, still less do they have an occasion to see a show there.


James Aloysius McGrath: The mandarins see it.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: That is correct. It is a national disgrace that we should be held in such contempt by the government of Canada because this is the smallest amount they can conceivably give us. It is unreal when one reads reports as to the effects of this type of policy. I could give many more examples, but it seems to me that the Department of Fisheries, which is now responsible for small craft harbour development, hopes to abandon or destroy obsolete wharves and, instead, arrange that a whole area is served by one central government facility.
Since government wharves are essential to the livelihood of many of our small fishing communities-and this is true whether one is considering the coastal areas of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec or British Columbia-I ask the minister this question: Does he have a master plan for the future of small craft harbours? If so, it would be most helpful if he laid his cards on the table so that this plan could be discussed when the bill before us goes to committee.
At the same time, since it would appear that the government is becoming increasingly involved with recreational harbours, it would be interesting to know the extent to which it proposes to stretch its powers in this field. How far, for example, does the government propose to go in carrying out its marina assistance program which was established to encourage the construction of marinas by local municipalities and private developers? The federal government pays for the construction of a breakwater and for dredging, while the municipality or the developer, sometimes both, pay the other costs plus upkeep. The government pays 50 per cent of the cost, yet despite this receives no compensation in return for its contribution.
Many fishermen are asking why the government should spend the taxpayers' money in this manner. Is the department at least taking steps to ensure that these marinas will be open and available to all boats, at reasonable cost? I have a further question for the minister. If the yachtsmen pay nothing to the government for the use of marinas, by what yardstick should fishermen be taxed when they tie up their boats to a government wharf? I should like that explained in detail, Mr. Speaker, either here or in committee.
This bill gives the government power to make regulations for the control of mooring, berthing, loading or discharging of vessels, for controlling pollution, for prescribing standards for the accommodation and services provided, for prescribing charges for the use of any scheduled harbour, for prescribing the duties of persons appointed to supervise or manage any fishing or recreational harbour to which the act applies, and for prescribing the remuneration to be paid to officers or
Fishing and Recreational Harbours employees appointed to carry out the provisions of the act. Those powers, under the regulations in this bill, can only mean one thing, Mr. Speaker; namely, more civil servants, more inspectors and still more expenses loaded on to the backs of Canadian fishermen-and all of this, I submit, at a time when their burdens were never greater, when their fisheries resources were never smaller, having been raped, pillaged and plundered by foreign nationals.
These are new charges by this government in an area where 14 per cent or more of our people are unemployed. It is an area already suffering under the burden of unfair and unjust transportation charges, an area, I submit, in which energy costs are higher than in any other area of Canada. This type of thinking, Mr. Speaker, this type of legislation, represents the lack of concern shown by this government for the needs of our people.
It seems to me that this bill can only be classed as an extension of the user-pay concept proposed to our people by the Minister of Transport, a concept which will bring ruination to our farmers, our fishermen and to many of our industries in Atlantic Canada. It is a concept that is not enforced on the users of our airports, or the St. Lawrence Seaway, the cost of which already is in excess of $800 million. It does not apply to the CBC. Why does the government subsidize Mirabel, for example, to the tune of $46 million for one year's operations? That is $16 million more than the government is going to give to all of Atlantic Canada, to all of central Canada and to all of western Canada for harbour development. It is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker.
Why single out our fishermen and require them to bear such an unfair burden? We in Atlantic Canada have to look at this legislation in the light of what the government is doing to our people, and this is the way it comes out at our end. Call us what you will. Say that we are looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope, if you like; but that is the way we see it, Mr. Speaker. It is away past the time that this government woke up and did something concrete and in a responsible manner for the people in our area along the lines that I have been suggesting.
I realize that at the present time there are wharfage charges on the books which were determined in the 1880s and they are clearly out of date today. There are men who are supposed to collect wharfage fees, but since this is a low paying job not every government facility is manned and this collection is not being made. This has resulted in a situation where most fishermen have paid no fees. However, under Bill C-7 the government plans to appoint zone managers and they will look after a general area. They will have broad powers of enforcement, with the right to board any vessel and seize, detain or sell any ship whose owner does not comply fully with these regulations. I submit that if there is one thing that the fishing industry does not need at the present time, it is a whole new army of inspectors and officers who will have the right to fine a fisherman for any infraction of these new rules. There will be a minimum fine of $50. It may not sound like much to a bureaucrat in Ottawa, but sometimes $50 is very difficult to come by if you are a fisherman in Atlantic Canada.

December 10, 1976
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
In addition, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the minister plans a special treat for our fishermen. Instead of having people collect daily wharfage fees, an annual licence will be required, I understand. The figure that I heard discussed is $1 per foot per fishing vessel per year. This licence will allow the fishermen to use any government wharf at any time. However, in my view this is simply another unfair tax on Canadians using public facilities in Atlantic Canada, while people in more prosperous areas of our nation are provided public facilities free of charge.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that we would support the bill because there should be consolidation, in our opinion, in one act for all the policies and programs that now exist. The authority of the minister over small craft harbours, which he has had since 1973, has only been derived from a letter or warrant from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). This bill at least gives him the proper authority to carry out his duties in the area of small craft harbours. However, that does not mean that we on this side totally agree with the wide powers that are being granted to the minister. We want to see changes made in the bill, changes which will make this legislation more acceptable to our Canadian fishermen and recognize their valid needs without placing unjust charges upon them or their families.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I have had a brief opportunity to review the bill presently under discussion. The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), I believe, described this as a housekeeping bill. It does not do anything particularly significant in terms of assisting those who are in the most difficult position of trying to make a living from our oceans. It is interesting to note that there has not really been any change in government policy or in the way it assesses transportation needs in Canada or how we should go about satisfying them. What the bill says, in effect, is that we are going to promote recreational harbours on some kind of an agreed formula at some other time, and at some indefinite point in the future we might come to some agreement in terms of providing additional fishing harbours.
This is exactly the kind of pig-in-a-poke we have been getting ever since I came to this place in 1972. The people, specifically fishermen, want to know how much the federal government is going to pay for these fishing harbours. We have received this kind of promise and suggestion in the past,
[Mr. Crouse.J
especially before an election when our friends in the cabinet travel to various small ports in British Columbia saying, "Here is another little place where we are going to have a dock, and for all you fellows who are having trouble on the other side of the bay, we are going to look after it."


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We will build the breakwaters.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It is like the annual promise. I hope the people of British Columbia will not be fooled by this little piece of housekeeping legislation. There is no significant change in this government's failure to provide meaningful tie-up facilities for small boats in British Columbia. The reason there is no change is, quite frankly, that this government does not understand anything about water transportation in B.C. If you go out to B.C. and you go to a small place such as Pender Harbour-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: -you fellows from Ontario definitely need some instruction on the needs of water transportation in B.C. I would like to take my good friend out to a place called Pender Harbour. You cannot get from one point to another in B.C., in some places, without taking a boat. If I happen to drive my car, I drive on a subsidized piece of pavement, and if I take the good doctor-who is listening attentively to what I have to say-out to B.C. in an aircraft from his city of Toronto-


An hon. Member:: It's not Toronto; it's Welland.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Yes. He will have to get down to Toronto on a subsidized road. Then we go from Toronto to Vancouver on a subsidized aircraft and land at a subsidized airport where the people of B.C. continue to funnel money for those kinds of transportation. But the man who is running the little boat in B.C. whom you are going to visit is getting darned little in terms of his transportation needs. Who will pay for getting this man from one small port to another? Not only is he getting darned little, but the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has even taken away the little bit he used to get, which was a subsidy of about $4 million-peanuts for this government. That minor subsidy was removed, causing tremendous chaos in the water transportation system in B.C.
The reason this is a housekeeping bill and the reason it does not meet the needs of small boaters is that the government still does not basically understand water transportation in B.C., and it does not have a policy. The government is ideologically locked into a philosophy which will not work in transportation.
I might say that my friends to the right are operating under exactly the same kind of delusion, namely, that you can run a transportation system in Canada on the basis of the user-pay concept. We have never done it yet, and we never will. If this government wants to talk about user-pay, it should have started with the CPR when that railway spanned this country with a piece of rail. We gave them massive amounts of wealth for that. Now we are talking about user-pay. Why does the government not start asking CPR to give back some of the
December 10,1976

millions of acres and tremendous resources that the people of Canada gave them in order to put that ribbon of steel across the country? Only then should we start talking about the user-pay concept.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Plus all the cash grants.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Yes, plus the fact they are able to spin off their profits into their subsidiaries and still show the rail service to be operating at a loss. We are still subsidizing them. Let us not start with the idea that a transportation system can work on a free enterprise basis, unless you rationalize it with other countries which have our huge spaces. If you fly over it, you realize it is still a string of settlements and we are trying to connect the people together. The user-pay concept means one thing; it means that the rich will fly and the poor will walk. It means that the poor people who live in villages in B.C. in the isolated north will suddenly find the cost of everything they buy and everything they ship out has gone up. The cost of their goods competing in the south is going up. When we try to encourage people to develop the northern areas of the country, we penalize them because their salaries are not any different; they make the same amount as people do in downtown Vancouver-and they want a break from the endless rain that they have in B.C. We get a lot of rain in the wintertime.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Let me tell you that if you live in Ocean Falls, as the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. Pearsall) knows very well, and you do not see a major vessel come into that port, it is not a very good place to be. I know; I used to work on the coast. It is not a good place to be only because the government does not understand the necessity of holding down the cost of living in those communities for people to live there and to enjoy it. I want to get back to the bill, because if you live in a small community surrounded by water and you expect this bill to help you, you should know what the facts are.
First, you do not know how much the federal government is going to pay. The first thing you will need is dredging; then you will need a breakwater if you live, for example, in the Gulf Islands. In most cases you need a breakwater because the wash takes away most of the docks. Fifty per cent of that cost, if you can get approval, will be borne by the government. Most of these breakwaters cost $3 million or $4 million. Are you asking the local residents to pick up the difference? Don't be ridiculous. There is no way you can ask those people, who quite often are on low incomes and quite often struggle to make a living from the ocean or from the forest, to find that kind of money.
But then you think about what we have spent at Mirabel airport for members of the House of Commons to fly around, and for others. When you think of what we are proposing to spend at Vancouver international airport for a third runway, $500 million for people like me and the rest of us, you realize that perhaps we should think about the people who do not fly all the time because, believe it or not, only about 10 per cent of
Fishing and Recreational Harbours the Canadian public flies on any kind of regular basis. The rest of the people are struggling with other forms of transport which are being frozen out, denuded.
What is happening is that alternate forms of transport, such as rail and water transportation, are being wiped out because of lack of attention by this government and, to some extent, by the provincial government. In order to understand the current emergency in B.C., one has to look briefly at the history. Somehow or other everybody seems to think that this happened suddenly in November when the minister decided to end the subsidy to Northland Navigation. Some of us who have worked on this since last July have written letters to the minister. We warned him about what would happen, and so did trade unions, businesses and chambers of commerce. It is not as though this government did not know. They had every opportunity to admit they had a problem and that they knew this policy would not work. They could have said, "Let us go out to the coast and find out what has happened". What are they doing now? They are going there after the mess has been created, after they find out the major shipping company there, Northland Navigation, may not be interested in coming back because they have lost all their employees.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I understand it, we are dealing with Bill C-7, an act respecting the administration and development of certain fishing and recreational harbours in Canada. I know that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) is interested in Northland Navigation on the west coast. Since he started his speech he has been trying to smuggle it into the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I ask the minister to make his point quickly and not engage in debate.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I am quite serious. After dealing with Bill C-19 in this House and permitting-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. What is the minister's point? I cannot deal with two points of order at the same time. I would like the minister to come to the point. I know that he has the rule of relevancy in mind, but I have been following the speech of the hon. member and his remarks were, to my satisfaction, related to the bill before us.


Jean-Jacques Blais: With respect, I suggest-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Stick to the Post Office.


Jean-Jacques Blais: -that the argument advanced by the hon. member has nothing to do with the administration of small harbours. The situation is such that the hon. member ought to be called to order.
80005-521/2

December 10, 1976
Fishing and Recreational Harbours


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Again, the minister is making an argument. He can seek the floor and make his speech after the hon. member has completed his remarks. Does the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) still want to raise a point of order?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, all I was rising for was to point out to Your Honour that the remarks being made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) have to do with the whole question of water transportation, which certainly affects both fishermen's harbours and recreational harbours, and I suggest that the minister pay attention to the Post Office, which will fully occupy his time, rather than interfering in something about which he knows absolutely nothing.


Mr. Paproski:: Shot down again, J. J.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Thank you very much for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to confirm the relevancy of my remarks because at this point I want to deal with over 100 small harbours. There are over 100 small harbours, and the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) should listen to this part of the debate because it seems that he cannot relate water transportation to harbours and I want to explain to him that there is a connection. Boats have to be tied up somewhere.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What kind of postal service do they get at those small harbours?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Sometimes these boats have to pull into a harbour, and we must have a government which has the foresight to build a few harbours so that those boats can be tied up. I am sure the Postmaster General understands that. Surely he can connect those two things.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This question affects the privileges of all hon. members of this House. The remarks which are to be addressed on a particular bill should deal with that particular bill. The argument being advanced by the hon. member deals with navigation in a particular area of British Columbia. The point is that this particular bill deals with the administration of small craft harbours within areas which are not at all involved-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the hon. minister will allow the Chair to make its own decisions and that he will give the Chair a chance to listen to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). I do not think these repeated interventions are helping the debate or the progress of the debate, and if the minister is not interested, he can do something else.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I can understand the minister wanting to interfere on this particular subject, in view of the clear embarrassment this government has been suffering over the past three months. I almost think he has been assigned to this task today, and I can certainly understand the motivation for the interference.


James McPhail Gillies: It's to keep him out of the Post Office.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: To get back to the point I was trying to make, there are 100 small harbours served by a company called Coast Ferries in British Columbia. I have a map of these harbours; they are scattered from Burrard Inlet right up the inland passage to the north tip of Vancouver Island. Those 100 isolated communities will no longer be served by Coast Ferries, as a direct result of the decision of this government to withdraw the subsidy to Northland Navigation and its refusal to investigate the financial situation of Coast Ferries. That is a tragedy and a shame. The minister might suggest that that has nothing to do with this bill, but that is exactly the point about the bill.
We wanted a piece of legislation which would bring some help in terms of providing harbours and transportation facilities. If we give people a harbour, they are inspired to buy a boat; and if they are inspired to buy a boat, they might be inspired to carry some of their own goods. That could reduce some of the load on the transportation system, and that is completely and directly related to the legislation before us. However, I can understand the embarrassment of the government in trying from day to day to defend an indefensible decision with regard to the province of British Columbia.
I want to go over the brief history of this. After telegrams and letters from trade unions and chambers of commerce asking the government not to make this stupid decision, the government made it anyway and on November 3 announced, and I am now quoting from the news release-
The new arrangement has been worked out in cooperation with the B.C. government. Mr. Lang acknowledged that some residents of the area have reservations about the new system. He added that three B.C. coastal MPs, the honourable Iona Campagnolo, Jack Pearsall, Hugh Anderson, had assisted in producing the new plan-
To give the hon. member for Coast-Chilcotin some credit, I believe he dissociated himself from the release of November 3 almost immediately-


Mr. Pearsall:: Right on.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: -and raised some very interesting questions regarding who approached Northland, when, and who approached Rivtow, the competitor, when. However, I must say that the decision of the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo) to tender her resignation if her plan does not work is a little bit strange. It is a little bit like Orville Wright telling Wilbur Wright, "I am getting out of the plane now because I think it is going to crash". That is what happened in this case, and my good friend who represents the people of Skeena assumes a strange position indeed in saying that she will resign from a plan which she was a party in creating and was a part of the chaos. I certainly respect her attempt to pull the chestnuts out of the fire at this point.


James McPhail Gillies: It's to save her seat.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I can understand that, but it is passing strange that when her plan does not work, she has to resign. The lack of gratitude among hon. members opposite is surprising. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is being criticized from

December 10, 1976

absolutely every direction. He has problems taking his help back and forth across the Atlantic, he has difficulties on the prairies, and the bill assigned to his aircraft is terribly high. We all understand that some of his flights are necessary; but when we have an emergency situation, what happens? He does not only get criticism from this side of the House-my gosh, his fellow ministers are threatening to resign. Where is that Liberal solidarity and the gratitude one can expect from the Liberal party? Things must be in a terrible shambles if that kind of thing can happen.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It's the only way to go, down the tube.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I dealt briefly in the question period in this House with another ramification of this decision, but it really has not been examined in depth and it still applies directly to the problems of water transportation. Before this decision was made, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) was telegraphed and told specifically by Northland Navigation how many people would be laid off. Northland pointed out that 75 seamen and 8 foremen would be laid off. To be a little more accurate, I will quote from the telegram.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) should stand now and bring the hon. member to order, because I think the hon. member is getting further and further away from the bill before us.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Hon. members can tell that the Postmaster General's mind has wandered from my speech. On this occasion he might have a valid point. I will certainly follow Your Honour's direction and deal with the merits of the bill. I will not talk any more about the 300 poor souls who do not have a job as a result of that decision.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that today I am wearing my deputy House leader's hat.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You don't need a hat; you need a head to put it on.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I must move quickly away from these 300 people who were promised other employment by this government and have not been able to obtain it, except for six who have been promised jobs in Halifax. We are now finding, as a direct result of this decision, that there was without any doubt a lack of planning. The history of past events should have shown the government what was going to happen. Issues were raised by members on both sides of the House concerning the peculiar circumstances under which it was alleged that a company called Rivtow wished to buy one called Northland, and when they could not, suddenly at a later date-by coincidence or otherwise-they did not receive a subsidy and were out of business. Northland is worth less today than it was some time ago. That same company is now operating the same service.
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
The circumstances of that kind of decision and this kind of mess cry out for a parliamentary inquiry. The public needs to know how this mess came about. The hon. member for Coast Chilcotin has called for a special kind of inquiry in which members of parliament would travel up the coast to visit the regions and listen to the people in an effort to find out the answer. I give him credit for the suggestion. It is a good suggestion, but not the only one. The place for an inquiry is in this House and in the Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications. That inquiry could look into this bill which goes to the question of providing harbours. I am glad to see the minister is in the House, Mr. Speaker, and I want to tell him he did not miss too much.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) on a point of order.


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to relevancy. First of all, this is a bill about small craft. I suggest the craft the hon. member is speaking about are not small craft. Second, it is a bill about harbours. I suggest the point the member is making is about transportation between harbours, and not about harbours themselves. Therefore, I suggest the hon. member is out of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The point has been raised before, but some of the remarks are related to the bill which not only refers to small craft but also to certain fishing harbours. In that sense, part of the hon. member's remarks were related to the bill directly or indirectly, but his latter remarks were not. A few minutes ago, on a point of order raised by the Postmaster General, I brought the hon. member to order, and I hope he will come back to the bill.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I will try to direct my concluding remarks to the bill and explain again to the hon. member who intervened that boats do have to pull into harbours, even mixed harbours. These harbours take the kind of vessels that coast ferries ply, and this is directly related to transportation on the coast. The bill itself is a double platitude respecting a subject about which we should get serious. I do not really believe the minister is serious until he gives us a dollar figure, until he says the federal government is ready to pick up, let us say, 75 per cent of the tab for the provision of these small harbours. Then we can get the local people going with some organization, because they will know where they stand.
What we have now is a pig-in-a-poke, a vague generality about organizing harbours and having a national scheme. It sounds like a plan, but it is not. It is something that will happen if you go out and make sounds about harbours, but until the dollars are on the table and the minister says how much-of course, if he has said it or if I have misinterpreted it, I will be happy to correct this if he will stand up today and commit himself to a specific percentage for the provision of these harbours. British Columbia is a water transportation province, but money is being thrown away on air transporta-

December 10, 1976
Fishing and Recreational Harbours tion. Water transportation is what is needed to get people from one place to another.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be fair to say that fisheries in general has tended to be a low profile ministry. I do not think it has been low profile just in the last few years, however, but since confederation fisheries has not been one of the "gutsy" departments that has caused a great deal of soul-searching in Canada or has gripped the imagination of central Canada. Perhaps that is a shame. I think the fact that the two extremities of the country, the maritimes and British Columbia, are the regions most concerned may explain why it has not been a high profile ministry. I can only congratulate the minister because I think we are becoming a little higher in profile.
Should we have a low profile when 77,000 people are employed in the fisheries of Canada? Should we have a low profile when approximately $700 million is accruing from commercial fisheries, and out of that $400 million goes directly into exports to help our balance of payments? I wonder if we should continue to have a low profile when there are over
800.000	pleasure craft in Canada and 70,000 visiting tourist craft? Are we talking about something that should continue to have a low profile? The minister has indicated there are approximately 2,300 harbours under his jurisdiction and
38.000	fishing vessels in Canada on both coasts. Is it perhaps time for the low profile to be discarded and for the people of Canada-not just of the maritimes and British Columbia-to become a little more interested in what is happening in those two areas with respect to transportation and fisheries?
I think the profile has been raised, if for no other reason than we took one of the most momentous decisions in our history when we declared, in Bill C-177, that we would extend our jurisdiction to 200 miles off the Pacific and Atlantic coastlines and in March will extend it to 200 miles in the Arctic. I think many people, whether they be in Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan or Manitoba, are beginning to realize the untapped wealth of our coastlines and how it will not only benefit British Columbia and the maritimes but all Canadians. The question of the 200-mile economic zone has focused the attention of Canadians on an area where there was not much interest before. I trust this will give a much higher profile to the minister and his department, a profile that I think they deserve.
As a result of negotiations carried on by the federal government and the distant water fishing nations, a treaty has been signed between 90 per cent of those nations and Canada. This will enable Canada, not to go into a 200-mile cod war or any other kind of war but to go in with signed agreements. I am sure our United States friends wish they were in Canada's enviable position, because this government has done an excellent job in laying the groundwork for the 200-mile economic zone.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Stick with the bill.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I congratulate the minister for his initiative in proposing the salmon enhancement program for British Columbia. Although not from British Columbia, the minister recognizes the importance of enhancing that industry which is, by virtue of its exports, a great dollar earner for Canada. The program for increasing the landed catch of salmon in the next ten years is well worth while and I hope hon. members of this House will support it.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to do so since I was brought to order myself for not keeping my remarks within the confines of bill. Really, I do not know how the hon. member's remarks about the salmon enhancement program are relevant to the terms of this bill. It seems to me that the hon. member is defending this government when it needs such defence, but that is not relevant to this bill. I thought that the Chair or the deputy House leader would intervene much more quickly to suggest to the hon. member that he should keep his remarks relevant to the bill.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Since the hon. member argued that as little boats must go from harbour to harbour his remarks concerning administration were relevant, I argue that since little salmon have to go from harbour to harbour the remarks of my colleague should be held as being relevant, according to that same principle.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Yes, but they only move about that way once they leave the boat.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is gratifying to note that hon. members are paying such close attention to speeches. I must say I had noticed that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) was straying somewhat from the provisions of the bill. Perhaps he will confine his remarks more closely to the bill.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) made it a point to relate harbours with navigation and shipping. The hon. member for New Westminster should know that our small harbours will only be viable if they are used by small boats which catch salmon.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How about sardines?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That sounds fishy to me.


Hugh Alan Anderson: The point is that the government for the last number of years has laid the groundwork for the well-being of our fishery. Its programs include establishment of the proposed 200-mile limit and the salmon enhancement program. The bill the House is debating relates to part of that industry's infrastructure. The government seeks to provide better ports, better harbours and better conditions for commercial fishermen and those using small harbours for recreation. Those facilities are part of the infrastructure, and I am sorry the hon. member for New Westminster cannot see the whole picture. The hon. member, like many of his party, suffers from tunnel-vision. He can look in one direction only.
December 10, 1976

I wish his party could look at the broad picture, because this government has acted to improve fisheries and natural resources both on the east coast and the west coast. For goodness sake, let us not look at one small point and then throw up our hands and say, "The sky is falling." The sky is not falling upon us, and merely because the hon. member cannot see the over-all situation that does not mean we are in bad shape. We are in very good shape. We have laid the groundwork.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Tell that to Ocean Falls.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Fishermen of Comox-Alberni, an area which juts out into the Pacific, have been doing very well. Our fishermen recently landed the largest catch of salmon in our history. If the hon. member for New Westminster were to examine the facts, he would find that more has been done in the last two years than was done in the previous 20 with regard to our fishery.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is an awful condemnation of the Liberal government.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, if I may return to this bill, in 1971 investigations were initiated into the administration and development of small craft harbours and harbour facilities provided by the federal government in support of the commercial fishery and recreational boats, and as a result of this examination Bill C-7 was brought forward for our examination. It is fair to say that legislative authority for the administration of these harbours is provided by the Government Harbours and Piers Act, the accompanying government wharf regulations and various orders in council. This act was originally drafted in 1895 and revised in 1937. I trust that the hon. member for New Westminster realizes that Bill C-7 is not a cosmetic measure but will introduce some badly needed changes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Such as?


Hugh Alan Anderson: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), for whom I have respect and who is most knowledgeable about the fishery, asks, "What will be these changes?" Representing a British Columbia coastal constituency, the hon. member is interested in the fishery. I ask the hon. member, is it not about time that we brought in a rational system of licensing for berthage? In other words, we have many harbours and wharves in Vancouver Island. Some of them are run by wharf managers and some are not. Where managers run wharves they, the managers, take a fee for berthing ships or boats. On wharves where there is no wharf manager, no fee is collected. Now, if fisherman "A" and fisherman "B" both land the same sort of fish in approximately the same quantities, does the hon. member think that it is fair to collect a berthage fee from the fisherman but not from the other?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a rhetorical question. I assume he wants me to answer. The answer is that certainly both should
Fishing and Recreational Harbours pay the same fee, provided they get some service. But the trouble is that in many cases they are not getting any service, whether or not they pay wharfage fees. Nothing in this bill will deal with that matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I thought the hon. member had risen to ask a question, which is permitted under the rules. He may not answer a question. If he does, he will lose his right to speak.


An hon. Member:: He is new around here!


Hugh Alan Anderson: The hon. member has sat in this House for I do not know how many years. I welcome his intervention. The hon. member suggests that wharfage fees should not be collected unless services are provided. I presume he was referring to electrical and water services. May I point out that the provision of wharf facilities costs this government a great deal of money. If a fee were not charged, it would mean that some users would get a much better deal than others. We should not do as the hon. member suggests. Instead, I suggest that we should approach this matter as we approach the licensing of motor vehicles. I submit that once you have paid your annual fee, you should be entitled to tie up at any federal wharf or port.
I hope the minister will introduce that system, which would be fair. This system should be run in the way motor vehicle licensing is run. For example, in certain outlying parts of British Columbia motorists are forced to drive on unpaved roads or gravelled roads. But all motorists, no matter what kind of roads they drive on, are forced to pay a licence fee for the motor vehicle. Part of the licence fee will be used, hopefully, to improve road facilities. Similarly, I hope a standard system of collecting wharf fees will be introduced. At the present time it is eminently unfair to charge some and ten miles away charge others. We should have a user fee on a yearly basis. Those people should use government facilities on an equal basis. I trust that those fees will then be turned back into small craft harbours to improve and upgrade the present facilities. I hope that is the system.
I hope I have answered the hon. member's question, because I think it is a very important part of this legislation. In the two and one half years I have sat on the fisheries committee, I have asked for that sort of system. I think we are now getting it. Therefore, that is an improvement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Where is it in the bill; what clause?


Hugh Alan Anderson: The infrastructure I referred to earlier seems to be all coming together. The small craft harbours, law of the sea, and salmon enhancement are all part of what I call the infrastructure which provides a system of national management of the oceans' resources. I take the sea salmon as one part of this infrastructure. It is a great pleasure to have that sort of rational management going forward with all these items being brought together. It is nice to have jurisdiction over the

December 10, 1976
Fishing and Recreational Harbours 200-mile limit, but you need other things in place. I was pleased with the announcement that search and rescue facilities on both the east and west coasts will be increased. This is, again, putting it together because they are all related.
I was pleased with the announcement by the minister that Bill C-7 would go ahead. I realize that on the east coast of Canada there are some problems in so far as concerns charging fees at certain government installations. In British Columbia we have a system whereby commercial fishermen as well as sports fishermen pay for the use of government facilities. The problem there is that some have paid and some have not. I suggest we should have a system whereby fishermen and people in the recreational boating field are treated equally. Rather than some paying and others not, all should have the same responsibility. After all, they are all users of the system. If you are going to use the facility, you have some responsibility toward contributing to its upkeep as well as making a contribution toward upgrading the facilities. I hope the hon. member for New Westminster will agree with that.
The upgrading and creation of new wharf facilities, new rafts and new boat docking facilities is something that members of all parties would like to see. There may be some question as to implementation, and that is a valid point. However, all members should realize that this bill is an attempt to improve upon something that has existed for many years, but it has not given the minister a cohesive or rational method for planning. Recreational boaters will be pleased that community, municipal and provincial governments will be allowed some flexibility with regard to promoting recreational boating on the east and west coasts as well as Ontario.
Twice today the hon. member for New Westminster mentioned my name. I am not sure whether he did that in a disparaging manner or another manner.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In an
affectionate manner.


Hugh Alan Anderson: To be perfectly fair and honest, I cannot claim credit for being the architect of the November 3 release. I cannot take full credit for what the minister devised for the west coast of British Columbia.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question? I appreciate that my good friend is allowing me to ask a question at this point. Does he now wish to make a public statement in which he dissociates himself entirely from the press release of November 3 in which he was named as being one of those who planned the decision?


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I would state the following: in general, I believe in the philosophy of the minister to remove the subsidy system in British Columbia where Northland Navigation, a company owned by Dutch interests, has been given a monopoly in the trade and passenger business. Monopolies cause distortions. If we are to have a free enterprise society, you cannot give one company, firm or group of people economic power over people in the same industry. That would distort the system. In that I agree with the minister.
On that point, I would first urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to undertake a joint federal-provincial study of transportation on the west coast of British Columbia, including not only water but air and, in specific cases, both rail and land. Second, I urge the minister to hold public hearings in the affected areas and also other areas where there is an interest in this problem. Third, I urge the minister to involve members of parliament from all parties in this study. I believe it is important that members of this House take an active role in an area of transportation which affects the livelihood, both social and economic, of those on the west coast of Canada.
The minister should implement the recommendations of such a study as soon as possible. Members of all parties should look in a non-partisan way at how we can improve transportation on the west coast of Canada. It should not be just a band-aid approach looking at one small segment, but looking at the over-all picture in co-operation with the province of British Columbia. Essentially, we are dealing with transportation within a province. It is under provincial jurisdiction, but the federal government has some responsibility in that area. If by working with the provincial government a better system will evolve, I am all for it.
I congratulate the minister on the introduction of Bill C-7. I trust that all members will facilitate its being sent to the committee as soon as possible. On the other problem, I hope that the hon. member for New Westminster and all those who are interested in British Columbia will work alongside with us.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I and a good many people connected with the fishing industry have a very high opinion of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: He is a good minister, but unfortunately the majority is not always with him. He has a hard job to deal with them. He is one good apple in the barrel: I suppose one out of 32 is not bad with Liberals. In any event, we are dealing with a bill presented by a Minister of Fisheries who is highly regarded. I wanted to say that at the start. Having been a provincial minister for a year, I found he and his officials to be most co-operative.
As was mentioned by other speakers, this bill just provides a framework for a more efficient and sensible administration of small harbours and fishing and recreational facilities across Canada. It is what happens under that framework that really counts.
Before getting into my main comments, I want to deal with one or two observations of the hon. member for Comox-Alber-ni (Mr. Anderson). He said the groundwork had been laid. Well, from what I have heard in this House recently about the harbours and transportation system of British Columbia, the political future of the hon. gentleman has certainly been laid as a result of the user-pay policy of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). It is obvious that the new Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo) is going to

December 10, 1976

take up a new sport and recreation in Canada-that of Otto-bashing. And a lot of people in the country will be more than willing to join her.
The hon. member also told us that the sky was not falling upon us. I was delighted to hear that, because whetever fell on the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) today, it was certainly not the sky although he appeared to be quite dazed in the question period. Perhaps it was the Atomic Energy Control Board which fell upon him.
The hon. member also gave us to understand he was not in favour of answering a question from one of his colleagues who is also a member from British Columbia. He said that subsidies cause distortion. I presume he was attempting to support the user-pay concept of the Minister of Transport. He made the point that subsidies cause distortion. Perhaps they do. But in Newfoundland we would prefer to have a rail system or a harbour system or a transportation system with subsidies, even if it is a distorted one, than have no system at all. If subsidies cause distortion, then certainly the railway which was built across Canada in the 19th Century must have been a terribly distorted one.
This is a bill which deals with fishing harbours. It also deals with recreational works. I do not know what criteria govern the hon. gentleman with respect to how he spends his money. If he takes my advice he will spend 99 per cent of it on fishing harbours and not more than one per cent on recreational facilities. If people want recreational facilities they should pay for them. That is where the user-pay concept should come in. Let the cost of these things be paid for by the public which want to come in their speed boats or on their yachts or in their sailing ketches. Let the minister spend his money, 99 per cent of it at least, on harbours and works which will assist our fishermen.
The fishing industry is still the most important in Newfoundland in terms of the numbers who work in it and who are affected by it. It is not the biggest in terms of the amount it produces or the proportion of wealth it adds to the economy. Part of its importance comes from the fact that in at least three quarters of the area of Newfoundland, unless you are engaged in the fishing industry you have no other economic activity open to you. It is an awful disappointment, Mr. Speaker, to see the measly, the mingy, the mean amount spent on small craft and harbours work by the government in the last several years. Now I am all for restraint in expenditures- theoretically.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: But not when it comes to marine works. I perceive the problem differently. I am quite prepared to save the $740,000 which the Minister of Transport spends in his trips about the continent and spend that on small craft and harbours. In 1973-74 the sum of $2,894,000 was spent on small craft and harbours in Newfoundland. I am talking about the whole of Newfoundland; I am not talking about my
Fishing and Recreational Harbours constituency only. Hon. members might have thought I was talking about my riding alone. It is such a paltry amount- $2,894,000. In 1974-75, for some reason, it may have been there was an election in that year-I do not intend to allege that, Mr. Speaker; I know it would not be statesmanlike to make such a suggestion-the amount spent rose to $6,801,000. That is a bit better. But this year, when the election frenzy is over and election fever has subsided, the amount spent is $4,263,000. This is criminal. There are some 12,000 fishermen in Newfoundland. I do not know how many harbours and ports there are. There must be around 600 or 700-the minister might know exactly-and only $4,263,000 is to be spent on them all.
I was delighted to learn the other day in connection with the amount voted by us yesterday to the Treasury Board in connection with the $50 million LIP program, which the Board is going to supervise, that some $5 million of that is to be spent on small craft and harbours, and $1,700,000 of that in Newfoundland. In the constituency of St. John's West alone, the whole of that $1,700,000 could be utilized simply to repair storm damage which occurred during the fall during two or three great windstorms we experienced,
I say that the minister is a good minister, but when he gets to the Treasury Board he is butted head on with the Treasury Board staff and other ministers, all of whom have got boondoggles they want to support; I shall not repeat them all, we have heard of them often enough in this House. But the name Mirabel certainly rings a bell! This was a project supported by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) when he was minister of transport. I say, shame on him. The money spent on Mirabel would have been better spent on small craft and harbours in Newfoundland, and if the minister is in trouble with his colleagues and wants support from the flenching knives on this side of the House he has but to send us the message.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Don't be so parochial.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. whip from Hamilton had better keep quiet in his seat or he will be dealt with most severely.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I spent three summers at Williamsport and I have flenched many a whale at Williamsport. So the hon. gentleman had better watch it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland House of Assembly was a gentlemanly place to be in compared to this.
The hon. gentleman's bill is a good one but if the only funds he is going to get to spend on this program are comparable to those to which I have drawn attention, he will not get very far. The figure for the whole of Canada is not gigantic-$20,719,-000 in 1973-74; $29 million in 1974-75, and $28 million this year plus the supplementary estimate we voted yesterday. This

December 10, 1976
Fishing and Recreational Harbours is not a great amount, and as my hon. friend from South Shore pointed out there are 2,300 harbours and ports involved.
So I hope that we pass this bill-and I, for one, intend to vote for it unless the Whip forces me not to do so-I think I got my instructions right. I hope that when the estimates come up next year we shall get some real money to spend and do the work which needs to be done. On that point let me emphasize that the public works expenditures in Newfoundland and the marine expenditures over the last few years have been cut pretty close to the bone. There has not even been enough to maintain existing facilities properly.


An hon. Member:: Another election should change that.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, another election should certainly shape up that situation.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps you'll get Joey Smallwood.


John Carnell Crosbie: An hon. member opposite mentions Mr. Smallwood. There's a fit candidate for the Senate. There is also a vacancy, Mr. Speaker. It would help their leader in Newfoundland, Ed Roberts, tremendously if they flipped Smallwood into the Senate. There is a vacancy and it would get him out of their hair down there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: This bill proposes a system of zone managers. I would like to ask the minister whether this is going to be a refuge for old Liberal poll captains and the like. Is this another opening for patronage? When the minister answers I want him to inform the House whether the zone managers who look after public harbours are going to be appointed through the Public Service Commission on the merit system, or are they going to be another example of the patronage system in Atlantic and Pacific Canada, the patronage system that was referred to by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis). Are we going to have zone managers whose only qualification is that they are ex-Liberal supporters? The government will not find an active Liberal in Newfoundland so it would have to be an ex-supporter, and even then the government will have a job to find one. I should like to know whether the zone managers are going to be political appointments or public service appointments.
Let me warn the hon. gentleman that if he tries to impose a system for collecting fees for small craft using harbours in Newfoundland and the poor fisherman comes in with his 25 foot or 30 foot vessel, and the minister is going to ask him for $20 to tie up his boat, then he is going to be in severe difficulties.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He had better watch out for harpoons.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, he will have to watch out for harpoons, because our fishermen are not used to having to pay anything to tie up their boats at public wharves. The wharves and their facilities will have to be simply magnificent if the minister is to

persuade them to pay something out of their meagre earnings for a licensing system. I suggest to the minister that on political grounds, if for no other reason, he will have to tread pretty carefully in this regard. I believe that in theory everyone should pay for public facilities that are provided to them, but that is not the way it has been in the past in Newfoundland, and it will be a pretty difficult system to institute.
I believe that the Minister of Transport's user-pay principle is like a disease which seems to be spreading to other ministers. I suggest to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment that he take an inoculation so that he will not catch the user-pay disease of the Minister of Transport.
There are a number of places in the constituency of St. John's West where wharves and harbours do need some improvement now. I will not list every one of them, but there is Tors Cove, Point Lance where they have just suffered tremendous damage from a wind storm three or four weeks ago and the wharf facility and community stage were pretty well destroyed, St. Bride's, Southern Harbour, and several other places in the district. I hope that the minister will tell the House that some of the $1.7 million will be used in these areas to help repair the damage that has been suffered.
I would also like the hon. gentleman to keep in mind that a fishing operation is still being conducted from the port of St. John's. There are some 40 to 50 fishermen who fish from St. John's and the facilities they use for tying up their boats are very poor. There is no room for them to haul them out of the water. Although St. John's is not a small harbour, the facilities there for the fishermen are very inadequate. If the minister would see whether he could help out in this regard with the port authorities, it would be much appreciated and would fit within the scope of this legislation. I ask him not to forget the city of St. John's just because it is a large urban area.


James Aloysius McGrath: He did not forget Port aux Basques.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am glad the hon. member mentioned that because it is a sore point with me. You cannot get to a port or a harbour, Mr. Speaker, unless you can safely navigate your way there. A problem has been caused in Placentia Bay because of the downgrading of the traffic control system for vessels using Placentia Bay. I should just like to give some figures to the minister. On the east side of Placentia Bay there are 56 long liners. The west side of Placentia Bay is in the constituency of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson); the east side is in my district.
These 56 long liners have to cross the tracks that are set for tankers and other vessels moving up and down Placentia Bay in order to get to their fishing grounds. In addition to these 56 long liners, a 1972 inventory showed that from St. Bride's to Woody Island there were 284 motorboats and 1,136 rowboats, small boats which are used for fishing. Placentia Bay is known to be a bay which often has fog.
There was a vessel traffic control system established there with headquarters in Argentia, which had particular connections with the opening of the oil refinery at Come-by-Chance. When the oil refinery suspended operation last February, the
December 10, 1976

Minister of Transport and his minions in Newfoundland lost no time dismantling this traffic control centre in Placentia Bay. Presumably they have no faith in the oil refinery reopening. In the last couple of days of the election campaign, I discovered on October 16 that these scoundrels were dismantling the radar facilities at Cuslett in Placentia Bay.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John Carnell Crosbie: Do you know what they were doing with them, Mr. Speaker? They were taking them to Port aux Basques, which is in the constituency of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The people of St. John's West showed what they thought about that; the Liberal candidate got 16 per cent of the vote, and that was a miracle. They biodegraded-a good bureaucratic word-the radar facilities at Cuslett and moved them to Port aux Basques for a traffic control system there. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what kind of government is that?
Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but as I have said a memorandum was sent round to the coast guard telling them that the candidate for the P.C. party had raised this issue publicly, that he had asked for a public inquiry, and that they were not to say a word to anyone. Everything was to be referred to the head of the coast guard in Newfoundland. I am not going to forget that, Mr. Speaker. I have asked the minister questions about it in the House, I have written two letters to him about it, but I still have received no answer from him. What kind of traffic control system is there now at Placentia Bay so that we can know that our 284 motorboats, our 1,136 rowboats and our 56 long liners, the CN coastal boats, the phosphorous ships that go back and forth along the harbour carrying a most dangerous cargo-


James Aloysius McGrath: And the minister's yacht.


John Carnell Crosbie: -and the minister's yacht which docks at Sound Island, are safe? The minister has a summer place now at Sound Island, appropriately named. He is in danger too. What kind of a traffic control system do we now have in Placentia Bay? Is it safe, and is navigation safe? I did not want to bring this matter up in the House because I thought I might irritate the hon. gentleman who is Secretary of State for External Affairs, but it is safe for me to do it today because I understand he is in Europe and he may not notice my comments in Hansard. I do not want to incur the hon. gentleman's wrath but I will be reminding him about this matter in the future.
How are the fishermen going to get back and forth to their ports and harbours in Placentia Bay safely? If the Minister of Transport will not give me the answer, I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment to satisfy himself that the downgraded, cannibalized traffic system in Placentia Bay is still adequate to protect the fishermen of Placentia Bay. I would like the minister's assurance that he is satisfied that it is so, because I am having difficulty getting any assurance from the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Smith (Churchill):: It is safe only for the fish.
Fishing and Recreational Harbours


John Carnell Crosbie: The fish were not even safe a few years ago when the Erco plant distilled some material into the water and the fish turned red.


An hon. Member:: They were redfish.


John Carnell Crosbie: There are a number of ports on the south coast opposite the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, which for the information of the House are two French islands. We are rather puzzled about what is happening to St. Pierre and Miquelon and the fishing harbours that lie across from St. Pierre and Miquelon. Is the issue settled or not settled? Does the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment realize the danger that, if St. Pierre and Miquelon declare a 200-mile limit, the district of Burin-Burgeo will disappear and with it the Secretary of State for External Affairs? I admit that this could be a blessing in disguise, Mr. Speaker, but what is the position in regard to St. Pierre and Miquelon?
Where is the boundary line between Saint Pierre and Miquelon and the coast of Newfoundland, and what is being proposed as the fisheries arrangement between Saint Pierre and Miquelon and Newfoundland? I will not pursue that further because I know I may be straying a bit from the main principle of this bill. I would ask the Minister if he could deal with that as it would be of help. When he replies perhaps he would also deal with the traffic system.
Soon we will not have any inshore fisheries in Newfoundland. This will have gone the same way as the animals which have now disappeared; the same way as the whooping crane, the American buffalo, and the Canadian Liberal. They will all have vanished if the hon. gentleman opposite does not do something to preserve our inshore fisheries. If the fish do not come inshore the inshore fishermen cannot catch fish. That would appear to me to be something that does not require very much elucidation. This puzzles me, and perhaps the minister can deal with this too when he answers.
What puzzles me is what consideration is given to the inshore fishermen when the quotas are set at ICNAF for various specimens of fish. Fish can only come inshore if they are not caught offshore. My concern relates to the subject of a question I asked today about redfish. That is a species caught mostly for the plants on the south coast of Newfoundland. It is difficult to understand what has happened in respect of quotas for redfish.
As the minister knows, the Canadian quota for redfish was used up by September of this year. That left three months when these plants in the Burin-Burgeo area, also the area of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, had no supply. This also affected several other plants on the south coast. The boats could no longer go out and fish for the redfish. Their gear and vessels are not suited for fishing for other species, although they are now attempting that. Since the end of September these plants have been operating one or two days a week. The plant workers only have one or two days' work each week. The owners are losing money when their vessels only get

December 10, 1976
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
40.000	or 50,000 pounds or less a trip rather than the 150,000 or 200,000 they should have been getting. The minister said today there was going to be no special program to assist in these circumstances. At least he has not made any decision on that.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a simple question? I apologize for interrupting. I do not want to take issue with the hon. member, but I certainly did not say that. I said this was subject to review every three months. We have done this in the past and we certainly do recognize this type of problem.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am glad to hear that, Mr. Speaker. If I have the position correctly, there has been no decision made regarding a special program as yet, but the minister will be carrying on a review every three months. What puzzles me is that this year, 1976, the quota accepted by Canada for redfish was 43,300 tons, while for other nations fishing in this area 200 miles offshore the quota was 76,700 tons out of a total catch of
120.000	tons. Those were the figures for redfish for 1976 in ICNAF sub-areas, 2, 3 and 4. For 1977 Canada has apparently agreed that our quota will be 62,950 tons out of a total of
116.000	tons. This is certainly an improvement, but there will still be 53,000 tons allowed for other nations in sub-areas 2, 3 and 4. I would ask how we can contemplate allowing these foreign countries to catch even that much redfish in view of our experience this year when plants had to close because they used up their quota of redfish in nine months?
When the minister replies and deals with the general situation, I would like him to deal with what puzzles me in respect of inshore fisheries. Are the inshore fishermen taken into consideration in these computations and when the quotas are decided upon? If the fish do not come in for them to catch we do not need any small craft harbours, and we will not need the expenditure of these moneys. We are not being asked to vote the money now, but we will certainly not need this kind of a structure. We will not need the money if there is no inshore fishery.
There is a clause in the bill that gives the minister the right to lease facilities. I do not know whether the legislation requires this, but the minister will be empowered, if he wishes, to lease what I presume are wharves and other facilities. I personally feel it would be a very good idea if the legislation required the minister to table copies of any leases that are entered into for facilities. These leases should be filed here in the House. We should not have to ask about them, this should be automatic. If the minister leases any facility, a copy of the lease should be tabled automatically in the House of Commons. When the bill goes to the committee I will be asking about this and I would like the minister to consider it. The bill does not now provide for it, as far as I know.
There are a number of other matters I could touch on and address in respect of this bill, but there are other members who are anxious to speak this afternoon, so let me just reiterate.
One of the danger areas here, and I suggest the minister is going to have some difficulty, is in a licencing system which
involves the payment of fees by inshore fishermen who do not average a very high income per year, as the minister knows. This is going to be one area of danger.
I would also like to touch on the question of whether this bill indicates greater attention in respect of small craft harbours, and I would ask whether the minister is going to institute a program involving icemaking facilities which can be used in connection with these small harbours and the community stage program? Will the minister also let us know at what stage the community stage program for Newfoundland is at this time? Does he think that next year he will be able to go ahead with the agreement to turn over the federal community stages to the province once they are put into proper repair, or once proper repairs have been done?
There are some LIP projects being carried out with the assistance of the small craft and harbours branch. This is making it possible for a number of small jobs in local communities to be carried out, both in St. John's West and other areas of Newfoundland. These LIP projects could not be carried out without the help of the department in obtaining the materials required. In practice this is a good program because this small craft and harbours branch makes sure the projects are sensible and keeps an eye on them to see that they are carried out properly. The only thing is, of course, that we should not leave it to LIP projects to provide for the building and repairing of wharves, breakwaters, and other facilities of that nature. Really the government should be doing this. However, in the circumstances there is not a sufficient amount of money being voted. I would like to express my thanks to the minister and the small craft and harbours branch for the facilities they are providing in Newfoundland. Many of these facilities would not have been provided without the LIP program and without the assistance of this branch.
I will end my comments at this stage by saying that this bill is going to establish a much better administration structure for small craft harbours. I am glad to see it is in the hands of the Minister of Fisheries. He is a man who will be interested in seeing that the moneys are properly used. I hope we will see more money voted in respect of small craft harbours next year when the estimates come before us, as well as more money for public works expenditures in Newfoundland generally, where our unemployment rate is ferocious, being in excess of 14 per cent; actually much higher because of our low participation rate. These are the kinds of projects we need to get us over this difficult period.
I congratulate the minister on his bill. The only thing I worry about is whether the rest of his colleagues will give him the financial means to carry out the job properly. I congratulate the minister on his actions. He is a highly regarded Minister of Fisheries. It is too bad we cannot say the same thing for some of his colleagues, and it is too bad that fisheries does not get more attention from the Government of Canada.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?
[Mr. Crosbie.J
December 10, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Does the hon. member agree to entertain a question from the minister?


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes.


Roméo LeBlanc: I really do not want to take issue with the hon. member, but 1 am sure he would not want to leave a wrong impression on the record. For that reason I will ask him this question. Is he aware of the fact that the quota which ran out early in the year because of heavy fishing by fleets from outside the Gulf was in fact the Gulf quota, totally under Canadian jurisdiction, and that the plants which ran into difficulty did so not because of foreign fleets but because of our management of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which is ours to manage or mismanage?


John Carnell Crosbie: I know that the quotas are the Gulf quotas which ran out early this year, but I do not understand how it fits in with the rest. Perhaps when the minister has a chance to speak next, he can explain this.


Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I want to echo some of the comments that my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), made about the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc). There is no question that he is a great Minister of Fisheries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: I would almost go so far as to say that he is the greatest Minister of Fisheries, except that there have been some other distinguished Liberal ministers of fisheries of note in this country, so I have to content myself with saying that he is one of the greatest. There is no question about it and I agree with my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West, on that point. When he gets to cabinet he is head-on-gut-in, and I fully understand what the hon. member means by that term. However, I take issue with him on one point, and although he is reputed to have a great memory, his memory must be short on that point.
Some years ago the Newfoundland fishing industry was in great danger. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for St. John's West was at that time minister of fisheries in Newfoundland. 1 am not saying that the Newfoundland fishing industry was in great danger because he was minister then, and I would certainly not attribute that to him at all. He is one of the best ministers Newfoundland had. As a matter of fact, he will be sorely missed. I do not know why he chose to come to the House of Commons. Perhaps it is because many of the programs that were promised by the government in Newfoundland have not come to fruition, although it is no secret that many of the policies were designed by the hon. member for St. John's West. Be that as it may, the fact is that the fishing industry in our province was in grave danger, and it was the federal Minister of Fisheries who went to the cabinet and received something like $80 million to support and uphold that industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Fishing and Recreational Harbours


Bill Rompkey: Is that head-on-gut-in, or is that a man who was able to get cash when the chips were down and when it was time to get the cash? He is a minister who can do his job, not only in terms of designing policies but in terms of backing them up with cold, hard cash when the time comes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: The budget for small craft harbours may not be as big as we would like it to be, but it is certainly much bigger than it used to be. Three years ago it was tripled. When we look at the budget for small craft harbours in relative terms, there is no question that it is much greater than it used to be, and we hope it will be greater still in years to come.
In addition to paying tribute to the Minister of Fisheries, I also want to pay tribute to his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Fleming), the first parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries in history to come from the city of Toronto.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: He comes from Toronto where, of course, there are about 100,000 Newfoundlanders, so there is no reason why in that sense he should not be Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries. But we have to do some initiation, so we in the Newfoundland caucus decided that we will buy him a sou'wester and a pair of oilskins. We will take him to Newfoundland and throw him over the nearest wharf, and when he comes back to Ottawa he is to be known as Jimmy Ba'y. The most important letter in that name is the apostrophe. He will get his initiation in the near future, and I want him to know that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You did
that once to Jack Pickersgill.


Bill Rompkey: It is important to see this bill in context. I do not want to make lengthy remarks on it, but I think it is important to note some points.
It is important to see this bill in the context of what is happening in fisheries, and indeed in the context of the 200 mile limit. That limit is important. It is important to control foreign Fishing, to be able to tell foreign fishing fleets where they can fish and how much they can Fish. Also we should be able to control our own fishing because we have to provide for the replenishment of stocks. The Hamilton Bank is not far from the coast of my own riding, and I and my fishermen are well aware of the importance of that area as a spawning ground, as is indeed the whole of the northeastern shore of that coast. It is important to have that 200 mile limit and to be able to control our quotas so as to allow our stocks to build up again.
But we must realize the inherent conflict between the offshore and inshore fisheries. That is true whether foreign fleets fish off our shores or indeed whether Canadian fleets do so. I think this bill is an indication of faith in the inshore fisheries. The hon. member for St. John's West mentioned in his speech the necessity for building up those stocks, the necessity for

December 10, 1976
Fishing and Recreational Harbours setting quotas to allow for the prosecution of inshore fisheries. I want to make that point and make it as soundly as I possibly can.
There will of course be an offshore fleet-nobody will turn off the machine. The machine is with us and is going to be used. The offshore fleet is there and supposedly it is going to grow, but it is going to grow according to our regulations and policies, and according to our say-so. But there is conflict between the offshore and inshore fisheries, and in setting the quotas we must provide the necessary protection for inshore fishermen. There must be some fish left to escape inshore because there will certainly be an inshore fishery along the northeast coast of Newfoundland and the coast of Labrador for some time to come. We must protect our fishermen and we must support them, and I see this bill as an indication of support for them.
Joint ventures have been mentioned, particularly by the government of which the hon. member for St. John's West was formerly a member. I do not know what the specific plans are for joint ventures. We have not heard them enunciated in detail, but I think we should look at them with some caution. I think we must have a Canada first policy with regard to our catching capability, and our efforts should be directed to building up our own fleet. If there are to be any joint ventures, they must of necessity be very short-term and for very specific reasons and in specific areas, with proper safeguards built in for the build up of the Canadian fishing industry. This is one of those plans enunciated by the provincial government in Newfoundland which we have not seen come fully to fruition. The $40 million plan for trawlers was another one we did not see come to fruition, but if it comes to life and we know what the details will be, we will have to look at it with some caution because 1 think it will be important for the Canadian industry and, as I said before, important for inshore fishermen.
The small craft harbours branch in our province is doing a fantastic job, in my view. The hon. member for St. John's West has already mentioned some of the points I was going to make with regard to FLIP, the federal Local Initiatives Program, which is in addition to the regular budget for small craft harbours. He also mentioned LIP, and he questioned whether LIP should become involved in the building of harbours, breakwaters and other port facilities. That is a good idea. The criticism I have been hearing over the years-I do not know if it is the same as the hon. member has been getting-is that the budget is allocated, tenders are called, and contracts are let to contractors outside the community who have their own permanent work force which they keep on month after month throughout the construction season. They bring this work force into a community and they build a structure. The structure is there for the community, but very little employment is created in that community in the building of that structure.
I see LIP and, I hope, the Canada Works program when it gets into place-that kind of initiative in job creation-as a very important step not only in designing and building these necessary facilities in the communities but in involving the people in those communities in the design, in the location and
in the actual construction. There is a real effort to be made in job creation, and it has been done under LIP. I hope that the principle can be followed and applied when the Canada Works Program is designed. I think it is a good thing, and I think the people in the community think it is a good thing. Those people who criticize it and abuse it should see some of the projects which have gone on in my constituency and which have been of enormous benefit to the fishermen and to other people in that kind of community.
I could go on to ask what more needs to be done. I think this is a good bill, and I think it is very necessary. As far as I am concerned, one of the most important aspects of it is the management capability which it gives to the minister. One real difficulty with regard to the operation of harbour and port facilities, and particularly wharves, has been the whole wharfinger system, and this applies not so much to the Department of Fisheries as it does to M.O.T. We have not been paying them enough.
We have not been making it attractive for people to become managers in those communities, and as a result not only are the harbours not well managed but, in fact, the freight which comes into them and goes out of them is spoiled and poorly handled in many ways. I think one of the most important things here is the clause regarding harbour management. We are looking for an improved system of harbour management, with trained harbour managers who have responsibility, enforcement authority, and adequate remuneration. That may be a small thing, but little things mean a lot, and if we can do something along that line alone, we will do a lot to improve our harbour facilities.
We need to rationalize community stages. The hon. member for St. John's West brought that up, but that control is now passing, as I understand it, from the federal government to the provincial government. I do not know what is happening, but I have not seen very much in terms of a definitive policy with regard to the upgrading and development of community stages. That needs to be done in conjunction with the building of wharves and breakwaters.
This bill is a good thing for the inshore fishery, as far as I am concerned. It follows a number of other initiatives this government has put into place with regard to the fishery. Earlier I talked about the price support program. There are fishermen in my riding who are making as much as $5,000 or $6,000 per year by way of income support through the price support program the minister has instituted, and that is a good thing.
The Salt Fish Corporation, another creation of this government, is doing a fantastic job in terms of the buying, processing and selling of fishermen's catches in areas where nobody else will do these things. The sin in Newfoundland is that there are still areas where fish are being thrown overboard, basically because nobody will buy them, and we need a rationalization of the fishplant operation in our province, but in the meantime and until such time as private enterprise either will, is made to,

December 10, 1976

or is given the incentive to get into these areas it is not into now, I think the Salt Fish Corporation is doing an excellent job. We need to rationalize our catching capacity, we need to improve our buying methods and, as I said before, we need to give as much protection as we can to the inshore fishery.
This is a little bit off the topic, but not entirely. We have to protect the inshore Fishermen from the offshore fishermen, and not just from the draggers and trawlers, but in some cases to protect the trap fishermen from the longliners. That kind of regulation has to be put in place applying to specific harbours and ports, and it is still not in place certainly in many places in my constituency right now and in other places in my province.
I wanted to make these few remarks on this bill and to congratulate the minister for bringing it in. 1 wanted to congratulate him also on the general job he is doing and the job that he seems to be doing in Newfoundland. I do not need to say this because it is well known in the province. There is an optimism among fishermen in Newfoundland for the first time in a long time. When I was in my riding this fall, this was plainly evident to me. In this past year the fishery in Newfoundland was possibly the only bright spot in the province, and I can only hope that this will continue to be the case.
Newfoundland is a fishing province and will continue to be a fishing province. It will continue to be primarily dependent on the fishery, and from a psychological point of view, if nothing else, I think this spirit of optimism now among the fishermen is a good thing and is something we have to encourage. Young people are now going into the fishery for the first time in a long time. In many cases they are being driven to it because of things like the close down at Come-By-Chance, the close down at Gull Island and the close down at Labrador Linerboard. The hon. member for St. John's West is well aware of these things, but it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good, and possibly the salutory thing which has come about because of these close downs is the fact that more people are turning to the fishery. In the long term I think that our economic base has to be designed with that particular industry in mind, so in that sense I say again that it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good.
There are those in my province who will say that the federal government has not kept faith with Newfoundland and Labrador, but this bill and this minister give the lie to those arguments. Although this bill is not major in proportions, it is another indication that in terms of fisheries certainly this government has kept faith with Newfoundland.
I would like to close by giving the minister the traditional Newfoundland toast, "Long may your big jib draw".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, it certainly gives me pleasure to speak on Bill C-7 because we have gone from the east coast to the west coast, and of course there is also a large part of Canada which holds those two coasts together. That is the prairies, and when we speak of harbours we must consider the freshwater fishing and the freshwater lakes in central Canada and the potential there is there for a freshwa-
Fishing and Recreational Harbours ter fishery. While the two hon. members from Newfoundland were complimenting the minister on a job that he is certainly doing well


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cecil Morris Smith: -that same sentiment is not shared by the people involved in the inland fisheries of Canada because they are being ignored by the minister. He is leaving their problems up to the provinces, and he does not seem to want to take any responsibility for them. But now that the fishermen from all the prairie provinces and the Northwest Territories have banded together and formed the Inland Fishery of Canada, the minister will have to pay more attention to them.
The fishing industry on the prairies, and especially in Manitoba, is very important to the economy of the country. That is a natural resource upon which many people in the north depend, and we must remember that the waterways in the north, especially through Hudson Bay, were the waterways which brought the first settlers to central Canada and to the west coast.
The wharves of many of the fishing harbours throughout my constituency were constructed by the Department of Public Works, but there was never any maintenance work carried out on them. They were constructed and just left to rot. Many of them, of course, were constructed right at election time, or their construction was promised at election time. That is similar to what is happening right now.
With regard to expenditures for fishing harbours and recreational harbours across Canada, I would like to refer to the year 1973-74. At that time in the province of Manitoba there were expenditures of $18,879. In 1974-75, an election year, there were expenditures of $357,200. In 1975-76 expenditures dropped to $215,200. We were not very good to this Liberal government in 1974 and did not send any new Liberal members to this House.
Of course we have to compare this with Quebec. I can be called bigoted if you like, but in 1973-74 Quebec received $887,000, in 1974-75, $4,361,000, and in 1975-76, the grand total of $10 million. They were certainly rewarded for voting the right way in 1974, Mr. Speaker. These are the figures I have in front of me and maybe in committee we will get down to the reason figures like this were used. I brought this matter up in the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development and asked why $67 million was being spent on community affairs in Quebec in a particular year, and of course I was severely reprimanded by the minister. However, it took some real scratching to justify that amount being spent in one province while other provinces received less than half a million dollars. This shows what is happening across Canada, Mr. Speaker.
The fishing industry, recreational facilities, the small harbours in places in Manitoba where there are fish landings, the

December 10, 1976
Fishing and Recreational Harbours freshwater inland fishery in Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba, are all vital to the economy of the province.
When the Department of Public Works transferred this mess to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) several of the wharves were already condemned and were a hazard to the area. Of course no funds are available now. Many of the residents of the area have brought this to the attention of various government officials, asking who is going to dismantle and clean up the mess created by the Department of Public Works. The new department claims it did not create the mess and cannot have anything to do with it. And so it goes around and around. It is really just a place for the polar bears.
There are harbour and wharf facilities at the Port of Churchill, but it is also a large recreational area. The Port of Churchill has some of the most exotic birds in Canada and people come to see them. We have a fort, the Prince of Wales, which took 40 years to construct. There is a conflict of interest, however, because the National Harbours Board owns the port but will not let anyone use the wharf for landing if they are taking tourists across to the other side to the fort to see part of the history of Canada and Manitoba. In many areas there should be joint use of the facilities.
In Manitoba, however, the facilities, being funded by the federal government, are minimum. Earlier I mentioned the figure $215,000. Mr. Speaker, that is not even one third of what it costs the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to fly to his constituency in the course of a few months. Our fishermen require facilities in order to land their fish at wharves along the lake front. Wharves were constructed over the years at places like Gull Harbour, Warrens Landing, George's Island, Grand Rapids, Dauphin River, Moose Lake and Le Pas. I could go on and on. These wharves were constructed by the government, and the fishermen understood that they would be maintained by the government. But today the fishermen, who are not receiving a decent price for their fish, have to maintain the wharves at their own expense. The whole set-up is false. The government comes in and spends plenty of money, and then tells the community that it has to maintain the facilities, and indeed many times the facilities are just too luxurious for the needs of the community.
It amazes me to hear members from the west coast speak of water transportation as being vitally important there. It is just as important in other parts of the country, Mr. Speaker. Water routes are the highways of the north because many areas in the north do not have roads. People depend on water when they travel, so they must have adequate facilities and protection when they dock their boats and unload their produce. There must be anchorage and fuel available. At the moment things are just like they are with railway transportation-no one seems to be interested in serving the north. They are interested in taking resources out of the north, but to get this government to put anything back in is a bit like trying to pull a hen's teeth, unless it foresees a big return.
May I call it four o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Motion No. 9. The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion stands at the request of the government.
Motion No. 10. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway). Shall the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion stands at the request of the government.


SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD DAY MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AS LEGAL HOLIDAY
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough) moved: that Bill C-211, respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I consider myself very lucky to have drawn prime time on the last two Friday afternoons. Many of my colleagues know that this is for me an old subject. They are all kind enough, however, not to say it is just an old man dealing with an old subject. Whatever they think, they do not express it that way.
In universities they used to, and I trust still do occasionally, celebrate once a year an event called "Founder's Day". I suppose the presentation of my bill for many, many years is a sort of extension into parliament of the concept of founder's day.
I would have withdrawn this particular bill and indeed once did, on the understanding that the excellent and useful compromise of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs would have combined my immortalization of Sir John A. Macdonald and the reference of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), to Heritage Day, and the reference of an hon. member from British Columbia to our native peoples, into a heritage day. This day was to celebrate a particular person or event in the national heritage. It was an excellent idea. I was pleased with the manner in which the

December 10, 1976

committee at that time brought about a really good compromise, which I think is an expression of parliament at its best.
People in our society who denigrate the concept of compromise think, generally speaking, that to compromise is to err or sin. Edmund Burke did not think so. He said that all governments, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and prudent act, are founded on compromise and barter.
I regret that the government has chosen to cast aside the excellent work of the committee and the compromise reached by the members and proponents of other bills. We are now told that the Heritage Day act or bill will be brought in by the government. Nobody has said when. That is not a good thing.
I have watched for many years private members bringing forward suggestions and bills which, when eventually accepted, have been over-ridden by the government. In such cases the government has decided to bring in an act. That, I suggest, is a denigration of the private member. As I look at the flag on your right, Sir, I think of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), who for many years had a private bill on the order paper for introducing into our Chamber our nation's flag. He also proposed, year after year, private members' bills for honouring our former Prime Ministers by putting their pictures on the paper currency of our realm. He may have drawn some satisfaction from having his suggestion adopted by the House, even though he was pre-empted. Mr. Speaker, I thought it was not a good thing. I think the government denigrates members of parliament when it over-rides the consensus which was wisely arrived at by that committee headed, if my memory serves me correctly, by the distinguished man who is now the Speaker of our House.
While I would gladly have withdrawn this measure if the Heritage Day concept had been accepted in a spirit of decent and honourable compromise, I assure you, Sir, and my colleagues, that I have no apology for bringing forward this subject today. Indeed I doubt if there ever was a time when we could and should more appropriately stop to consider the values, virtues, and verities of our Founding Fathers, chief of whom was Sir John A. Macdonald, whose name is mentioned in the bill I am proposing.
I have said many times in this honourable Chamber that there is no immutable law which decrees that the great century-old dominion created by Macdonald and his colleagues from the Macdonald party and others will stay together or remain in the form which our wise Founding Fathers created. We know, as they knew, that the pressures for division, for separation, have always been stronger than the pressures for cohesion. Indeed, political scientists have always held that the greatest challenge in the Dominion of Canada was to make sure that the force which kept the country together should be stronger than the centrifugal force which would cause the parts to fly apart and go into separate orbits. If that were to happen it would destroy and deny that which the Fathers of Confederation had created.
Sir John A. Macdonald Day
This year, 1976, did not bring the first attempt to alter the union or to have one part of the country leave it. New Brunswick was probably the first separatist province, because it voted to stay out of Confederation before 1867. Nova Scotia came close thereafter, because in the year of Confederation, 1867, the people of Nova Scotia sent to this House 19 members, only one of whom was committed to Confederation. All the rest came here to break the pact of Confederation. On the same day Nova Scotia elected 38 members to its legislature; of those, two believed in Confederation; the others were totally against it. Providence decreed that one of those two should die before he could take his place in the assembly.
Prince Edward Island, that persevering, stubborn little area, then as now said no as long as it could, and until 1873 stayed out of the union. Newfoundland stayed out until 1949. Premier Fielding in 1886 won election in Nova Scotia on his program of being against Confederation and willingness to take Nova Scotia out of it. Ten years later that same hon. gentleman sat yonder, in the seats opposite me, as minister of finance for the Dominion Prime Minister, the great Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
In reciting these early events, in speaking about Sir John A. Macdonald, our Founding Father, I am not downplaying the seriousness of today's problems or the gravity of today's crisis.
I have never belonged to the "sky is falling" group, but I am somewhat amazed at the insousiance and casual response of many people in high places, and I speak with great candour because I include some members of this House, regarding current events and the change of government in Quebec. Of course the electorate of that province exercised its democratic right in deposing what it regarded as an inefficient and corrupt government. The Premier of Quebec, Mr. Levesque, has been consistently candid in expressing his view as to the best course of action for the people of Quebec. Mr. Parizeau showed the same candour when he was in Ottawa a few days ago. Hearing it suggested that the group of fiance ministers were the "new fathers of confederation," Mr. Parizeau said, I thought with extreme honesty "It might be more appropriate to call us fathers of de confederation."
In the face of all this I am amazed at that comfortable myopia afflicting people both at national and provincial levels, by that attitude which oozes a business as usual confidence. I read what provincial ministers said when they went back; 1 read what ministers said in this House, and I was amazed that they were not aware that we had entered a new and crucial chapter in our history. I must exclude the Premier of Newfoundland who spoke the day before yesterday in Toronto, I think, with what I would call anguished realism. Sir, things are not as usual. They are not as they were a few weeks ago.
Sir John A. Macdonald possessed many qualities. Surely one of the essential qualities of a nation-builder, of a statesman, is the quality of realism. He had no capacity to put before his eyes the blinkers of non-comprehension. He saw dangers and dealt with them skilfully and wisely. He dealt with them skilfully and wisely, never precipitously, but never did he hesitate to look upon a situation which endangered the union of which he was so much the founder.

December 10, 1976
Sir John A. Macdonald Day
There is much we could talk about in the bill asking this nation and this parliament to honour our first Prime Minister. There are many of the qualities I discussed before and other hon. members have discussed. I will mention only two things that strike me very much as being in the forefront in the mind of any Canadian who truly wishes to honour Sir John. A. Macdonald by following his example and seeking from his life, his career, his beliefs, something of value for today.
The first of these truly is that John A. Macdonald believed in a strong central government. In my opinion, he rightly divined the essential truth of confederation, that the whole is more important than the parts and, much more significant, is more important than the sum of the parts. Without that essential truth, there is little to be gained by talking much further about the "Dominion of the North," to use Professor Creighton's magnificent expression.
If today in response to the anxieties of the people of Quebec, and they rightfully have those anxieties and are expressing them in a very meaningful way, we so weaken the federal structure and so exalt the provincial entities as to have nothing more than a loose alliance of quasi-sovereign states, then we have in a little more than a century after his time destroyed Macdonald's work just as painfully and inevitably, as by decimating the federation.
The answer to our dilemma is not an easy one. However, I think we can all agree that whatever answers are vital, realistic and appropriate, that the one which should be excluded from any consideration is the balkanization of the country which John A. Macdonald, George Brown, Galt, Tilley and many others created for us. In my opinion, that is the way to the total loss of all that made us a great country on this continent.
My second and last extract from what I believe to be the verities of Sir John A. Macdonald's political philosophy and the realities of his political career is something else. This is even more dangerous than that which I have discussed. That is that in a country made up of many parts and different people, that any group-religious, racial, political, geographical or regional-should ever allow itself to become so brittle, bigoted, narrow or intolerant as to make it painful for different groups, classes or regions to remain comfortably in union with others.
John A. Macdonald was a very, very realistic man, not given much to talking about religion or piety. Certainly he never preached. However, he once said to someone in what is now called Quebec, and 1 quote:
The trouble is that you British Canadians can never forget that you were once supreme, that John Baptiste was once your hewer of wood and drawer of water. You struggle for ascendancy. If a lower Canadian Britisher desires to conquer he must stoop to conquer. He must make friends with the French without sacrificing the principles of his race or lineage. He must respect their nationality. Treat them as a nation; and they will act as a free people generally do-generously. Treat them as a faction and they will become factious.
Dr. Lower, once a great professor of mine, one of the great inspirers I had in my university days-not a P.C. fan-wrote of Macdonald, and I quote:
His stand with respect to the race question was consistent throughout his life whatever the cost to himself... he refused to raise the race cry at a time when he was in low political water.
This is the man I would seek that we honour. In this spirit I call on my colleagues to agree to salute the founder of our country. By renewing our faith in his broad-minded, tolerant, wise and sensible Canadianism, we may buttress the great nation which he and his associates bequeathed to us over a century ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to take part in private members' hour because if hon. members had more such hours, the country's business would often progress more rapidly.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) for introducing Bill C-211 which commemorates one of the great and famous Canadians, Sir John A. Macdonald. In my opinion, the member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) would eventually be one of the best curators of museums in Canada and he would also be an excellent cultural affairs minister because I know that he is an intellectual who is always searching for historic papers unknown to most members who are busily dealing with more practical and earthly matters which are sterile and often prematurely bring death.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the introduction of the bill is timely. However I do not think the commemoration should be on January 10 because it is too cold at that time of the year. Still if he was the unifier of Canada, it should be a lesson for our Progressive Conservative friends who should study in depth the history of Canada, especially the achievements of Sir John A. Macdonald because when he realized that Canada could no longer survive, he suggested unification. To do so, he had to create a political party and to achieve that unity, he had to have the services of another famous Canadian, namely Sir Georges-fitienne Cartier.
I think this is a lesson for today's Progressive Conservative members and for all politicians. We must refrain from trying to divide this country through all kinds of speeches which basically are made only in an effort to get some publicity. And by that I do not suggest that many members of this House would have to be commended for keeping silent since they would have taken one of the best opportunities not to say anything rather than speak nonsense. This is how we will be able to better understand the inequalities which exist in Canada and to promote some unity. The great dream of Sir John A. Macdonald was to unify Canada from sea to sea.
Of course, he was not perfect and even had vices. But he had qualities, great talent and above all, he was a great visionary. I think he is an example for all of us in 1976, given the events which are now taking place in Canada. Last night the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) gave a lecture to some students, and I understand he said that if Quebec decides to separate, western Canada would want to do the same. This is

December 10, 1976

hardly the way to materialize Sir John A. Macdonald's dream for Canada. Hon. members should take one or two hours each week to speak about the qualities, the defects, but especially the greatness and achievements of great Canadian politicians. And God knows there were quite a few! I congratulate the hon. member for Hillsborough for moving this bill which gives a deeper meaning to Canadian nationalism. A feeling which has never existed in Canada is love for one's country, pride to belong to Canada. Some provinces no longer even teach Canada's history these days. It is a shame! I think the federal government will have to do its best so that free textbooks of Canadian history be distributed throughout the country, in the west and in the east, and that all Canadians know what happened since Confederation. There have been too many different versions of Canadian history, very often biased, and we should have one which would inform people, especially the young. And I think that if we do not do this, the dismemberment of the country is possible.
It is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, after only a hundred years of Confederation, for some members of this House, seeking political gain or publicity, to advocate the dismemberment of Canada. I was happily surprised to see that the life of Sir John A. Macdonald had only one goal, the unification of Canada. He saw Canada, that big continent, divided into many small territories.
He knew we could not survive that way as a nation. Then there was the American border incident, when he became the apologist of those who invaded us: the Americans. It is Sir John A. Macdonald who defended their cause. He was not lucky, one of them was sentenced to die, and the others at least survived, but this gave him the idea that Canada should get together in case the United States decided to invade Canada. This is how the idea of getting the other colonies, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, both Lower and Higher Canadas together, crossed his mind.
Let it be a lesson for all of us. The House should consider more bills similar to that introduced by the hon. member for Hillsborough. Mr. Speaker, I know that a number of hon. members want to make a number of historic points concerning this. Although $5 bills carry the picture of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, it is no reason to assume that, just because $10 bills carry that of Sir John A. Macdonald, that one John A. Macdonald is worth two Lauriers. It only means that the decisions had nothing to do with history.
A $50 bill bears the effigy of Mackenzie King and a $100 bill bears that of Borden. This does not mean that two Kings equal one Borden. I think that things are equal and that we should not make any difference between hon. members, be they Progressive Conservatives, Liberals or New Democrats. We are here to take all the little steps that create a nation and the philosophical or theoretical speeches from hon. members, ministers or senators do not promote a nation very much. To my mind, we can build that new nation during the private members' hour. We must work hard so that tomorrow our nation will be stronger than that which existed more than 100
Sir John A. Macdonald Day
years ago. Long ago, we had great men who attempted to create unity once for all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I join with others who have or will yet take part in this debate in thanking the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) for introducing this bill again so that we can have this discussion about the great heritage which is ours as Canadians.
I believe it appropriate that the hon. member for Hillsborough should give us the dissertation he did about the contribution made to our national life by Sir John A. Macdonald. I am sure we all agree as well that the statement just made by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) helps to emphasize the fact that ours is a multi-heritage. It means a great deal to us that we have this kind of country. Anything we can do to enrich the quality of life we already enjoy because of the varied strains in our national fabric is to be encouraged, and it is good to reflect that in this place we turn our backs on bigotry and dissension, and do everything we can to achieve a united Canada.
I must say 1 differ slightly from the hon. member for Hillsborough on just one point. He expressed some concern that the outcome of today's discussion might be a bill brought in by the government rather than the passing of a bill brought in by a private member. I hope it does not sound like the boasting that I suppose it is for me to say that I have had the privilege of bringing in quite a number of private members' bills and resolutions which were never passed, but the ideas of which have been taken over and can now be found in our labour legislation, in our pension and social security legislation, and in one or two other places as well. What counts is the legislation, not whose name is on it. To me, Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of private members' hour. We have the opportunity to present ideas, and if they have merit they become popular and are in due course accepted.
So I am glad that there is a reasonably good prospect that the idea of a holiday in Canada's mid-winter, to be known as Heritage Day, will soon become something which is on our statute books. One of the members who has contributed very effectively to this is the hon. member for Hillsborough. If we do come out of this with a Heritage Day, one of the reasons that it will have that name is that members like the hon. member for Hillsborough pressed the point that we should reflect upon what has been done for our country by men like Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and even some of those of more recent days whom we remember.
The government has been very precise in its promise that we are going to get legislation along this line this session. Instead of our being given one bill establishing Heritage Day in February it is going to be one of those omnibus bills which this government is famous for, which puts all of the national

December 10, 1976
Sir John A. Macdonald Day
holidays into one piece of legislation. I hope it will be quite a few; the more the merrier.
I hope there are not too many tricks in the bill that will cause its debate to be extended. As a matter of fact the committee to which the hon. member for Hillsborough referred made the compromise suggestion so long ago that we have already missed two of the Heritage Days in February that we could have had if the bill that came back from that standing committee had been passed. The reason I keep popping up on Thursdays during the time we discuss House business, and on every other possible occasion, to try to press the government to bring in its holidays bill is that things can drag on around here and get lost. I know that February may be a couple of months away, but unless we get the holidays bill soon and pass it, we will have a third February without a Heritage Day, despite the fact that the committee unanimously recommended it some time ago.
That, Mr. Speaker, is mainly what I wanted to say. I appreciate the concern of the hon. member for Hillsborough that his particular bill may not be passed, but he has made real input into the legislation which will come. It will be a Heritage Day, the new day that is going to be added, so that we can reflect from year to year on various aspects of our heritage, one of them being the contribution made to this country by the first Prime Minister of Canada.
I just plead again that the government not stall any longer. The last couple of times I have asked the government House leader for the introduction of this bill he has come back with some notion about not being sure whether it would be passed quickly. How does he know until he files the bill, lets it have first reading, and gives the House a chance to debate it? I believe that the House will accept the bill rather quickly, especially when we see February coming close.
I think it is useful to have this debate this afternoon, not only for the purpose of pushing the government to act on its holidays bill, which will include Heritage Day, but so that we can express again our desire to have that kind of day in Canada's calendar.
I have just one other point which is a bit personal, Mr. Speaker. I was delighted to hear the hon. member for Hillsborough quote words about Sir John A. Macdonald used by Dr. Arthur Lower. He happens to be an old friend of mine from his Winnipeg days, and like my hon. friend I think he is one of the great Canadians of this century. His book "From Colony to Nation" stands out as a tremendous piece of Canadian history, and his book of a decade ago entitled "My First 75 Years" is a delightful volume. I hope that the time will come when Dr. Lower will be able to write a book on his first 100 years.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, it is good to have this discussion this afternoon, and I earnestly hope that the government will file very soon its bill which will include Heritage Day, so it can be in effect by February 1977.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Would my hon. friend accept a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) wishes to pose a question to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Does he agree?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


George Albert Proud: February 15 is a great day also in the history of Canada; it was the day of the proclamation of the new Canadian flag. If we could combine that day with the suggestion of my very good friend who proposed this bill, coupled with the very good speech of the hon. member, would February 15 be satisfactory for that kind of a day, so we could be proud of the flag of Canada, and of Sir John A. Macdonald, and of the heritage of Canada? What does he say to my suggestion that February 15 be the day that we would all wish to give Canadians?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The suggestion is not new by any means. It is a good one which I would be quite happy to accept. However, the question brings into focus the facts that led to the proposal for Heritage Day. There was a bill calling for a Sir John A. Macdonald day. There was a bill for a flag day. There was a bill to honour the right honourable Lester Pearson. There was a Discovery Day. There have been several such bills.


George Albert Proud: There should be one for Diefenbaker too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, not yet.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: We would stand that one over.


An hon. Member:: Why not a Stanley Knowles Day?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps 100 years from now.
It was precisely because there were these various ideas that the committee thought that a happy compromise would be to pick a day which was not any one of them on which, by order in council, the decision could be made each year as to which aspect of our heritage to celebrate. Some of these aspects would involve persons, and one aspect that was part of that thinking was the heritage of our national flag. I do not think my hon. friend and I should hold up the decision on this matter by worrying about the date. February 15 is a good day. It is the day after St. Valentine's day, and some members suggested that.
Our national flag is one aspect of our heritage upon which we could reflect, and I believe it would be covered in the provisions for Heritage Day. The important thing is not the precise day but to have a day that covers all aspects of our heritage, and I think most Canadians would also like the idea of a holiday in mid-winter.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to join with the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) in support for his Bill C-211, respecting Sir John A. Macdonald day, and to speak on it not in terms of a Heritage Day, or a national flag day-although
December 10, 1976

those aspects of it might well be in a sense brought in, depending on the day on which it fell- but rather in terms of Sir John A. Macdonald as the first Prime Minister of a confederated, independent Canada, so that we can remember the ranking Father of Confederation among all those visionary people who saw the value of a united nation and who looked beyond that to the possibility of a dominion from sea to sea, as Canada now is, and which I know hon. members join me in saying will be for a long time to come.
One of our problems in this country is that we have been slow to do things about our symbols, whether it has been a national flag, which we finally obtained through great turmoil, concern and agitation, or a national anthem, which we have not yet achieved. That is one of my concerns, having worked on the committee dealing with the question in my first term in parliament, coming back so many years later to find that we are no further ahead on that than we were then. Finally we have been slow in respect of the symbolic designation of a Sir John A. Macdonald Day to honour that founding Father of Confederation who first led this country.
Every independent nation, particularly on this continent, tends to honour the first, whether it be the president or, in our case, the Prime Minister-the first leader of the country. In doing that I think we would be doing something for national unity. We must remember that Sir John was a member of the Parliament of Canada in pre-confederation days, in the days when it met at Montreal. He was not a part of the sad events that led to the destruction of those parliament buildings and the eventual removal of parliament from Montreal to this location.
One cannot undo history, but it has always seemed to me that our chances for a unified Canada at this point would have been much greater if the national capital had remained in that great city of Montreal, of which I am very fond, and which is part and parcel of the united Canada that is mine and the heritage, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will have it, of all Canadians.
There is one thing about Sir John A. Macdonald that touches the heart of any member from British Columbia, and that is that he represented a constituency in British Columbia for some years. In those days elections were conducted a little differently and it was possible to stand for more than one constituency. In 1878 Sir John had a choice after the election dust had settled. He had been elected in two places, Marquette, Manitoba, and Victoria, British Columbia. As the great biographer Donald Creighton said, the choice was pleasantly easy. I am sure that a choice between that city on the Pacific coast and a city in almost any other part of Canada would have been an easy choice. Sir John represented Victoria.
Of course we know, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows, that our province has continued in the tradition of welcoming people who have been defeated elsewhere and looked to British Columbia as a possible place for continued representation. We have a rather lengthy history,
Sir John A. Macdonald Day
and I think it is an honourable and important one, of sending distinguished people to this Chamber when it seems to be necessary to follow that route. I do not know whether sometime in the future we might even have the honour of sending the present member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau) back here, but I think we would probably find it in our generous hearts in British Columbia to consider that as well.
Sir John A. later took an epic journey through the constituency that I represent, accompanied by his wife Agnes, and was so struck by the beauty of the mountains through which they were passing he rode for some time on the cow-catcher of the train which was carrying them to the coast on that great run commemorating the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Again Creighton waxed eloquently when he said:
They travelled through Rogers Pass and past Craigellachie on the buffer bar; from it they watched the great coiling valleys of the Thompson and Fraser Rivers.
Again sometimes I think we should, as well as being concerned about the history of our country on afternoons like this, be also concerned about the geography of it, because I cannot believe it in my heart that the majority of the people in my province of Canada would want to remove from the country the Rocky Mountains and that great geography beyond to the west, any more than any province would find it in the hearts of the majority of the people to remove the great city of Montreal, the great St. Lawrence River, or the mountains to the north from Canada. We are a country, and surely the glory of being a Canadian is the glory of not only the history but the geography of this vast land of ours, and any proposal that diminishes it concerns me very much, and makes the motion of the hon. member for Hillsborough even more pertinent as we debate and discuss our future as a country in these somewhat difficult times.
It seems to me entirely appropriate that we should be prepared to designate a day as Sir John A. Macdonald Day. Whether that takes the form of a national holiday at the moment is not that important, but I would feel its contribution toward national unity would be greater than designating the same day as Heritage Day, when I am afraid the very nature of the term would lead us to celebrate such a variety and multitude of aspects of our heritage that the concentration on national unity could well be less.
In Sir John A. Macdonald we had a man of wit, wisdom, and ability, and yet as one praises the virtues of that great figure one should always remember too his basic humanity, that he had frailties and weaknesses which he overcame, and the overcoming of those, I think, led to the ability that enabled him to form the kind of partnership that formed Canada. We must realize that he, through partnership particularly with Georges Etienne Cartier, was able to persuade the other parts of Canada that came into Confederation that this was a lasting nation that had room in it for the French-speaking part, the English-speaking part, and any other part that found its way in. That appeal reached my province of British Columbia whose unity as a colony predates Confederation. British Columbia had a choice in the years prior to 1871 as to how its

December 10, 1976
Sir John A. Macdonald Day
future would be developed. It chose to throw its lot in with Canada.
I know there are people in my province and in others who now consider western separatism as an alternative. I do not for a moment, and I always found when talking to young Canadians during my days teaching school that when you asked them whether they saw themselves as British Columbians or as Canadians first, when they thought about it, they said they were Canadians. They realized that the unity of Confederation had worked for them and that their country was a larger thing than just that area of the Rockies and west.
I am happy to join in supporting this bill because I think we have not had a time so propitious for marking the beginnings of this country, beginnings that were designed well, put together in strength, and built to last.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, but I did not want to let this opportunity go by without saying a few words about this bill introduced by the hon. member for Hillsborough (M. Macquarrie). I am convinced that if the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) could have been in the House for the debate on this bill, he would certainly have had very interesting things to say because he is a genuine Canadian. He said so and made it his way of life. I am also convinced that he knows by heart the history of Canada and the great men who founded and administered our country.
When I was in school I always strongly wanted to know and discover more about Canada, its beginnings, how men at that time worked to build a great country and unite all parts of a great continent, as was so appropriately pointed out earlier by the sponsor of this bill whom I congratulate wholeheartedly.
We cannot say this is an omnibus bill because it is very clear. And since I like clear legislation, I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member. He has expressed his views in a few lines but there are many things in them.
Some time ago, when I introduced a similar bill in the House, the hon. member for Bonaventure-Les lies (Mr. Bech-ard) chided me for not spending much time on the preparation of my bill. Of course he was only teasing me, but that shows once more that hon. members favour bills which deal with separate subjects.


Mr. B6chard:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) on a point of order.


Albert Béchard: I do not want to interrupt maliciously my good friend, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), but I would like to remind him and the House that the designation of my riding is Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine, not Bonaventure-Les lies.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, that is a good point. I agree with the comment of the hon. member. I will try too remember that.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) since he recognized, on behalf of French Canadians, that we are very happy to honour a man who was so far-sighted. This is why in my opinion we should immediately accept the suggestion made in this bill and chose a day to show our gratitude towards a great Canadian.
In view of the present situation and the ideas which now prevail in our country, it would be a good thing to show the young generation, to show our children what exactly is Canada, to tell of its beginning, its history, its difficulties, because there were problems at the time of Confederation and even before that. The present means of communication did not exist at the time. Today, the Prime Minister of Canada can call a conference of provincial premiers within 24 hours. It was not possible at that time because of transportation and communication problems. However they understood each other and achieved a wonderful objective. This is why the present generation should know the true history of our country instead of a fake history inspired by a spirit of revenge because of won or lost battles. If the) knew our true history they would feel more patriotic and love their country.
I always understood that my motherland begins where I first lived as a child. Then, gradually I understood that motherland is the whole territory where we live. Then our motherland is Canada. Like everybody I hope that our country will continue to grow and develop. We are surely right to be inspired by the high aspirations of Sir John A. Macdonald and by commemorating this great Canadians by a special day in his honour we could succeed in making Canadians of today aware of those very important events.
Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the history of Louis Riel. I do not want to prolong the debate and I congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) who just made a wise suggestion. I wanted to say in a few words that I support this legislation and that I am looking forward to see its proposals come into effect.


Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, it can well be said that the hon. members who have spoken before me have carried with them some truly impressive reasons and truly impressive backgrounds, such as that in philosophy of the mover of the motion. I do not have such a background. I do not have a PhD., an MD., or any of the letters that many people find important in this world. But I do have three letters that I think are the most important that a person in this country can ever put beside his name. Those letters are Cdn., the short form for Canadian.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. It being 5 o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. Monday, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 13, 1976