1976-05-31

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In order to mark the opening of what is perhaps the most important and certainly the biggest conference in the history of the United Nations, to which Canada is today playing host-and this motion will commend itself to the support of the House-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That this House supports the aims and objectives of the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements opening today in Vancouver as it attempts to cope with the growing problems of shelter, diet and environment for the peoples of the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, under Standing Order 43, to move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That this House orders that Canada, in view of the decline in fish stocks off our coasts, and the lack of precise information regarding existing stocks in the areas to be retained under Canadian jurisdiction, should immediately announce its intentions with regard to establishing a 200-mile limit, as well as Canada's related position in ICNAF, and
that announcements concerning these matters should first be made in this House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD   PROPOSED COLLABORATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND BOARD TO PRODUCE EQUITABLE WAGE SETTLEMENTS IN MINING INDUSTRY-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the growing portion of the mining industry which is tied up by strikes against rulings of the Anti-Inflation Board. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That this House direct the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to collaborate with the Anti-Inflation Board in producing a formula which would bring equitable wage settlements in that industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CONGRESSMAN PAUL ROGERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call to the attention of hon. members the presence in our gallery of a distinguished visitor from the Congress of the United States, Congressman Paul Rogers who is chairman of the subcommittee on Health in the Environment and of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
95568-50'/2

May 31, 1976
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs but in his absence I shall put it to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the statement made by the Prime Minister of Pakistan this week-end that Canada and his country were virtually at the stage of signing an agreement on nuclear exports and nuclear activity, and that the delay that has taken place so far has been on Canada's part only, until the resolution of the problem of India; now that that is behind us can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House how close we are to entering into an agreement with Pakistan?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be sure about the time it will take to conclude negotiations but I can assure the hon. gentleman that we have not had the same problem in dealing with Pakistan that we had with India.


James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Given the fact that the Prime Minister of Pakistan made the statement after the explosion of the Indian nuclear bomb that they were in fact looking for nuclear devices in order to balance the weapons situation between the two countries, what assurance do we have in Canada that we are not going to see a repetition of the Indian situation if we go ahead with negotiations with Pakistan? May we not find at some later date that Pakistan has built a bomb? What assurance are we going to have from the government of Pakistan before an agreement is signed that that is not going to happen?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman will recall the agreement we had with India said that the co-operation between Canada and India could not be used in order to enable India to produce a nuclear bomb. We had assumed from that agreement-and it turned out that our assumption was inaccurate-that it would also prohibit a nuclear explosion of any kind. In any negotiations with Pakistan, we will ensure there is no such ambiguity.


James McPhail Gillies: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that the terms of the safeguards agreement between Pakistan and India will be tabled in this House before that agreement is signed?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I could not give that undertaking. The government takes responsibility for agreements of this kind and for all agreements with sovereign countries. This is a long standing rule that has prevailed in Canada, that the government does take responsibility for such transactions. I can assure my colleague, however, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have no objection after the agreement is reached, of tabling it and having whatever discussion is necessary.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS AND SANCTIONS IN EVENT OF NUCLEAR SALE TO PAKISTAN
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister with respect to the present negotiations with Pakistan concerning nuclear assistance. I wonder if he could give an assurance to this House that if it is not possible to table the actual agreement that the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs will make a statement on motions shortly indicating what improved inspection procedures might be in effect with respect to Pakistan? Could he also inform the House whether any sanctions will be imposed in light of the completely unacceptable situation, and apparently unworkable situation, with respect to sanctions applying to India?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said in answer to the previous question, in any agreement we have with Pakistan there will be no ambiguity on this point of confirming that nuclear explosions will be prohibited under the agreement.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary question. I am not sure that the Acting Prime Minister fully understood my question. I am interested to know whether in this case-as was not present in the agreement with India-there will be sanctions that will have some impact? Perhaps either he or the Prime Minister would elaborate on the question I asked the Prime Minister on May 4 with respect to some kind of collective agreement and sanctions resulting from the London Club agreement. I believe the Prime Minister at that time offered to give me that kind of indication or assurance, so that we might know that negotiations with Pakistan would provide real protection.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take that request under consideration and discuss it with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I return to my previous answer to the hon. member's question. In the case of India, the problem was that India claimed that it had not broken the agreement it made with Canada and therefore that it had not in any way merited the kinds of sanctions we found it necessary to employ by way of withholding aid for certain purposes and denying further nuclear co-operation. That arose because India would not agree with our interpretation of the agreement. Therefore, on this occasion, we will try to enter into an agreement with Pakistan, if one emerges, an agreement which avoids the ambiguities which led to the difficulties with India.


POSITION OF PAKISTAN ON NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As President Bhutto has said that there would be an attempt to achieve nuclear parity with India, I wonder if the Prime Minister can say if the government of Pakistan, as an indication of its own intentions, has made any decision regarding the ratification of a nonproliferation treaty, and would this be in conformity with Canada's own condition concerning any final agreement with Pakistan.
May 31, 1976


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about the ratification process. Certainly, any indication by Pakistan that they intended to go the route of having nuclear weapons would make it impossible to have the kind of co-operation between Canada and Pakistan that they desire.


FINANCE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Considering the finding of the C.D. Howe Research Institute that data used during the past many months for comparing United States and Canadian levels of productivity increases was in serious error, that instead of Canadian productivity increases being half that of U.S. for the period 1969-74 Canadian productivity increases were twice as great as the United States, would the minister confirm that the government itself based a number of its recent major economic decisions on that erroneous data?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the economic review dealt with the updated United States information pointing out that the disadvantageous situation which had appeared to exist as between Canada and the United States was not as severe as we had anticipated.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM ALLEGATION WRONG DATA USED AS BASIS FOR IMPOSITION OF PROGRAM
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, that is some understatement. We have gone from a claim to being only half as productive to being twice as productive in terms of increases. That's some difference. As the minister, when introducing the wage and price control program last fall, said that cost-push inflation threatened to price our goods out of world markets, will he now admit that his data then was wrong and that it was the major justification for a wage and price control program? If that is so, if he has now changed his mind, as he just acknowledged in his answer and admitted that the data was wrong, does the program have any further justification?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I had occasion last fall and many times since, both inside and outside the House, to point out that until the middle of the summer of 1975 we could not justly blame wage settlements in Canada as being the basis for the creation of inflation in Canada. As we pointed out in introducing the anti-inflation program, we were concerned because in the fall of 1975 the level of demands in wage negotiations and, indeed, wage settlements themselves, running up to between 20 per cent and 30 per cent had created, in the words of the hon. gentleman, a threat which would put the Canadian economy, in time, in a disadvanta-
Oral Questions
geous position. We were faced with the threat of a substantial cost addition to the Canadian economy which would affect our competitive position. As I pointed out many times, for that reason we introduced the program not because of figures existing prior to the middle of 1975.


FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. For the first time in five years Canadian wage increases were running ahead of United States wage increases for a number of months, and the minister says the government had to bring in a program to deal with that. We do not agree. The minister said more recently that 50 per cent of the goods we produce is intended for export. I point out that only 28 per cent of the manufacturing sector in Canada is in the export business, or primarily in the export business. Considering this correction of his own recent figures, will he now reconsider the government's position announced in the budget on the issue of the tax cut and bring forward a tax cut soon for the average and low income people as the principal means of stimulating the Canadian economy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on the first assertion made by the hon. member, indeed it had to be of concern to a great many Canadians, if not to the hon. member and his colleagues, that the rate of inflation last October was 10.6 per cent. There was a widespread feeling in Canada that action should be taken, if necessary by direct controls. It was not as the hon. member seeks to represent. Simply the fact that there had been this move in the wage rates in Canada had to be of serious consideration. The fact was that a 10.6 per cent rate of inflation was more than we felt Canadians should bear. The hon. member has never given any indication as to what, if anything, he would have done about the increase.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Could the minister tell the House whether he has received some complaints lately from Quebec Frenchspeaking railwaymen apparently frustrated since, as a security measure, they are unable to use French in their work? If so, does the minister soon intend to make an inquiry in this connection to avoid similar conditions as those which have prevailed and still do in the airports and which could extend in the near future to the entire communication sector?

May 31, 1976
Oral Questions


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly inquire to see if such a complaint has been registered. I have not seen it personally, but I will check to see if it has been received in my office.


AIR TRANSPORT
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. The other evening I saw on television that in Italy, for example, in aviation, English and Italian and elsewhere English or Spanish, English and Chinese and English and Japanese are used. I accept his premise and recognize that English is the international language of aviation. Is the President of the Treasury Board in position to state that there is no cowardice on the part of the government, because it is serious to hear the member for Matane say that the cabinet is cowardly or unreliable when it comes to bilingualism. Is he in a position also to say whether indeed French will be recognized in Canada as in other countries as a second language in aviation?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the facts are self-explanatory. There are already five bases in Quebec where French is officially used. The question, as so aptly explained by the Minister of Transport, is that in large airports as in Montreal, the safety problem is a very important factor and we are having an inquiry commission on that matter. I wish to confirm to the hon. member that bilingualism in Canada is non negotiable, it is a Parliament legislation and we will abide by the legislation voted by the House of Commons.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence, I will direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. He has been given notice of the question. Has the United States been testing or are they going to test their new sleeping torpedo, sometimes called the Captor, at the underwater test station at Nanoose Bay?


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of the question. The delivery system of the Captor is indeed being tested at Nanoose range. I might point out that the Captor carries a charge of approximately one pound.


J. Michael Forrestall: One pound is about all that a nuclear warhead weighs. Can the parliamentary secretary advise

the House as to the financial arrangements between Canada and the United States for the use of the Nanoose installation? We carry out so little in the way of weapon development ourselves that I imagine it is used mainly by the Americans. Can the parliamentary secretary tell us just what are the financial arrangements between the two countries with respect to the use of this station?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The
Nanoose range is an acoustic range for testing underwater devices; its facilities are shared between the Americans and ourselves. We supply the range itself and half the personnel, while the Americans supply the test equipment and the other half of the personnel. There is a sharing of information. The range is used for underwater testing because the water there is relatively quiet and deep and because it is one of the few sites available on the West Coast for such a purpose. It is not unusual for Canada to share the range with other nations. As a matter of fact, not too long ago the Russians, with Canadian concurrence, used the range for testing the Pisces.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REASON BOARD USES PERSONNEL LENT BY PRIVATE SECTOR-POSITION OF PRIVATE SECTOR ON REMUNERATION AND LOSS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance with respect to hiring practices under the Anti-Inflation Board. Can the minister confirm that major banking and trust institutions have on occasion been approached by government to lend personnel to the Anti-Inflation Board on the basis that the employers will be reimbursed for salaries paid to their personnel in their absence while working for the Board? Is this done in order to give the appearance to the public that the AIB has, in fact, less staff and expenses attributable to its operations than is actually the case?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to confirm whether or not there has been an approach to that specific area of industry. The principal purpose, in going to the private sector is, of course, to obtain the services of people who are familiar with the private sector costing and pricing practices so that the Board can act on the basis of actual experience in the private sector, rather than a view of the private sector as seen by various departments of government.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I thank the minister for his answer, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask him by way of a supplementary question whether or not he is aware this subject has been under discussion at meetings of financial institutions and that the question of remuneration for the loss of employees' services while employed by the AIB as well as disruption to the particular companies involved, caused by the loss of these key personnel, was a matter of concern. Would the minister be good enough to check on this matter and report to the House in due course?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that this matter has been discussed by any financial insti-
May 31, 1976

tution. It seems to me it is both in the interests of the program and of the private sector itself that a program for which the private sector has expressed support should be made to operate most effectively with the help of experienced people who have been in a particular line of business. It has not been unusual in the past, and I hope it will not be in the future, to get the benefit of the private sector in formulating and carrying forward government programs.


FINANCE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to address my question to the Minister of Finance. It has to do with the recent budget. Since there appears to be unanimous agreement among industry spokesmen that the tariff changes brought about in the budget will have a detrimental effect on the pork industry in Canada, would the minister tell us why the government felt it necessary to make these changes, bearing in mind that the pork industry was just recovering after two poor years and the proposed tariff changes will certainly set back that recovery?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do
not believe that would be a universally accepted opinion, Mr. Speaker. The change involves an amount of half a cent per pound, which is not considerable, but the feeling was that it would be of some assistance from the consumers' standpoint in protecting them from an increase in food prices.


WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
James Aloysius McGrath: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, recognising that the minister shares responsibility in this area. During the committee hearings on the resolution on metric conversion an undertaking was given by the government that there would be surveillance in the marketplace to ensure that metric conversion would not be used as a means of ripping off consumers. Since evidence is now coming to light that this is occurring in certain parts of the country, may I ask the minister what steps he and his colleague have taken to ensure that this consumer rip-off does not continue in the name of metric conversion?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of the question. Unfortunately, there was not an opportunity for me to consult over the last few days with the Minister of Consumer and
Oral Questions
Corporate Affairs. In a general way, however, we have talked about it and I understand that the program or system of surveillance is conducted by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and it is, of course, open to anyone to lodge a complaint with that department.
I am not sure whether I am anticipating a supplementary question so perhaps I had better let it go at that for the moment.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. What procedures are entailed in this system of surveillance for laying charges, since evidence is now coming forward that retailers, especially food retailers, are in fact using metric conversion as a means of packaging smaller quantities while charging either the same price or one which is higher?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, so far as the conversion to metric is concerned, I believe that the hon. member is aware that it is essentially a voluntary program. There are, therefore, no penalties within the metric conversion program itself. I would ask him to have a little patience and to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs directly whether there is any other legislation under which action could be taken. I would also say to him, because I think it will be of interest, that it is my intention to bring forward the first of what will be four omnibus type bills which were recommended unanimously by the committee last fall. I shall be doing this during 1976, but I do not anticipate it is likely to happen before the summer recess.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. On May 20, as reported in Hansard at page 13700, the minister confirmed to this House that he had sent a Telex to Lockheed on December 3 authorizing them to begin work on the LRPA and saying that the government intended to sign a contract with them if certain conditions were met. I wonder whether the minister would tell the House what these conditions were?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, one of the conditions was that Lockheed would have to get permission from the American government to transfer to Canada the equipment to be used for the manufacture of part of that plane as well as that of a similar plane to be supplied to the American Department of Defence.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-REASON MINISTER UNAWARE OF DEFENCE DEPARTMENT'S LACK OF FUNDS AND COMPANY'S ASSURANCE OF FINANCING
Allan Bruce McKinnon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday, May 25, the minister

May 31, 1976
Oral Questions
told this House that the representative from his department on the LRPA project team was not aware that Lockheed had given a verbal assurance that it could provide funds to meet DND's shortfall. On March 29 the minister told the House that he himself was unaware that DND had a shortfall when he authorized work to begin. Would the minister tell the House whether his deputy minister prepared for him a brief prior to the Treasury Board meeting of December 1, a brief which specifically discussed DND's shortfall? Would the minister also tell the House whether he attended that Treasury Board meeting and, if so, how was it possible for him to remain unaware of the fact that DND lacked funds and that Lockheed had given a verbal assurance it could provide these funds, given that both these facts were mentioned in the brief to Treasury Board?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making very gratuitous statements; it is a serious matter for him to put questions in that fashion. I shall reply simply and briefly that, before December 2, neither myself nor my deputy minister nor my representative on the management team of the LRPA project were aware of the possiblity that Lockheed might supply the money required to finance the project.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-ALLEGATION MINISTER BLAMING DEFENCE DEPARTMENT FOR NOT INFORMING HIM ABOUT LACK OF FUNDS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. As there appears to be a continuing disagreement between the minister and the Minister of National Defence about the Lockheed deal, and since the minister has expressed the view that General Allan should have gotten assurances about the financing in writing and that General Allan was guilty of a fundamental error resulting in the government having to assume a liability for $16 million or thereabouts, would the minister say what was the function of the Department of Supply and Services in this field, and was it not to check on the financial details? Was not his representative, Mr. L. H. Stopforth, a member of the special interdepartmental committee on the project, and did he know or should he have known of the financial difficulties in question?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to refresh the hon. member's memory. In every reply I have given to the questions put to me in this House, I have indicated clearly that financing is always the responsibility of the purchasing department. The hon. member should learn how the government operates: that is elementary. Second, the hon. member should refer to the answer I have just given. Third, I would ask the hon. member to consult Hansard for March 30, 1976, where, on page 12265, the Minister of Defence mentions the part played by General Allan.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether it would not be reasonable for him, instead of talking about attempted blackmail by the military, to accept at least some of the responsibility for his department's failure to fulfill its financial responsibilities?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is being very generous in trying to cast blame right and left. I will do just that for him since he has asked. The hon. member should know that the government operates in such a way that whenever a department asks us to proceed with a purchase, it must ascertain that it has sufficient funds to do so. The hon. member will understand that we have no other alternative since there are hundreds of purchase contracts each year and since we cannot possibly go back to the purchasing department and check its books to see if the funds are available. Perhaps the hon. member could check his own books to learn how the government operates.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the legislative assembly of New Brunswick will be considering a motion later this week dealing with an airport development in northwest New Brunswick, which development is almost entirely within federal jurisdiction, would the minister now inform the House of recent developments and plans by his department to build an airport at Saint Leonard, New Brunswick, with jet capability?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being given responsibility for the main part of the judgment in relation to this airport, though I would see also a certain involvement for both the province and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in this connection. However, I can tell the hon. member that following the very strong representations that I have received from him and other members of this House from northern New Brunswick, I have been re-examining the position of the Saint Leonard airport and have asked my department to put before me a possible plan from which I can attempt to sort out the terms of funding, either by ourselves or with the co-operation of the other agencies to which I have referred.


HAMILTON-DECISION ON FUNDS FOR UPGRADING AREA FACILITIES
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. In view of his interest in airports, may I ask the minister whether in fact the government is still committed to $25
May 31, 1976

million with respect to the upgrading of airports in the Hamilton area, or has restraint allowed the government to have second thoughts? This matter is a little fuzzy back in Hamilton.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we are still committed to providing adequate service in the Hamilton area and would want to do that as soon as we can reach some conclusions about the forward look of their airport services in that area. There is at the present time a committee, including a strong community involvement, determining such issues as the location and the timing of an airport, and obviously we need that kind of input before making a final decision. But certainly it is our intention to offer improved airport service to the Hamilton area.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the answer that the minister gave but I specifically asked him about the $25 million which was offered by his counterpart some two or three years ago. I am asking the minister now whether the commitment of $25 million still stands, in light of the fact that inflation could have some bearing? I just want a yes or no, I do not want a long answer as to what the minister intends to do in certain circumstances. Is there a commitment?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I hope he will accept this slightly longer answer. The amount involved is probably higher than that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is great.


FISHERIES
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of State (Fisheries). In view of the fact that Canada's fisheries resources are constantly declining, while at the same time Ottawa is making bilateral fisheries agreements with foreign countries without knowing the actual amount of existing fish stocks and, I might add, without consultation with the premiers of the provinces concerned, will the minister give an early indication of what the Canadian posture will be concerning the future of ICNAF after we secure the 200-mile fishing limit?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, we have made it clear that the regulations will be consistent with the regulations that would normally apply to a coastal state for the coming year, that is 1977. As to the statement by the hon. member about bilateral treaties, I wish he would read those treaties very carefully. They make it clear that the allowable catch would be fixed by Canada and not by an international organization. They make it clear that Canada would have its needs completely satisfied in relation to conservation measures, and that surpluses will be allocated by Canada to foreign fishing fleets. We are trading away nothing. To the contrary, we are claiming what will be ours within that zone.
Oral Questions AIRPORTS


CALGARY-DATE OF COMPLETION OF FACILITIES- POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE IN PLANS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact the Minister of Finance has talked about an expansion in exploration and development of natural gas, and in light of the fact that over 2 million people visit southern Alberta as tourists, will the Minister of Transport now tell us, and he has been promising this since 1965, that the air depot in Calgary will be completed for use? I would point out that at the present time there is still a question about sanitation and working conditions at that depot.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, regarding the more detailed and different phases of construction at Calgary I will be glad to report to the hon. member. There is, of course, a massive amount of construction going on there which I think is on schedule, but I will be glad to look at the schedule of the particular items to which he refers.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, while he is checking that perhaps he might look to see whether the original plans have been scrapped because the facilities have now been found to be too small, requiring a redrafting and complete change of the whole plan? Will he check that out also?


PENSIONS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. I believe at the end of the question period last Friday the minister had the answer to the question I asked earlier during that question period and also on Wednesday last.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Mr. Speaker, following the questions asked by the hon. member for Edmonton West on May 26 and 28, I checked, and all the payments have been made by the treasury. We have met all our obligations as far as the pension funds mentioned by the hon. member are concerned, and I have made a check for the previous years. The last time a government did not meet their obligations for pension funds was under the Conservative administration, in 1958 and in 1962.
* *
*


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ENSURE PURCHASERS THAT AUTOMOBILES WILL PRODUCE ADVERTISED GASOLINE MILEAGE
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has demonstrated his intention to clobber the automobile owner through taxation, and particularly those with large

May 31, 1976
Oral Questions
families who must possess larger cars, what steps does he or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs intend to take against the automobile industry to ensure that a customer is guaranteed at the time of purchase that a particular vehicle will produce a certain mileage per gallon? What protection does the purchaser get if it does not perform, or is the automotive industry too big to tackle?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear that the automobile industry will be required to label all new automobiles; that is, to say 1977 models, as to mileage standards.


POSSIBILITY OF CONSERVING GASOLINE BY DISCONNECTING EMISSION CONTROL DEVICES
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, since the minister indicates he is interested in the conservation of energy, is there any intention to conserve further energy by allowing the owners of vehicles operating in sparsely populated areas the right to disconnect emission control devices which also increase consumption of gasoline by 15 per cent to 20 per cent, or is this just a revenue producing exercise rather than an energy conserving one?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I know of no proposal to remove the emission control standards the government has imposed. They have been imposed for very important reasons, namely, to support and protect the environment.


INQUIRY AS TO PLANS FOR PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources developed any master plan for the most efficient production, transmission and distribution of electric power in the Atlantic provinces? Does he have a system of incentives to encourage the provincial governments to follow such a plan and, if so, what are those incentives and where is this plan?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there are a series of incentives already in place, as I think the hon. member knows, including studies and inter-regional connections and plans of that kind. I hope to meet with the premiers of the Maritime provinces within about ten days' time to discuss with them an over-all approach, which perhaps might be described as the Atlantic-Canada approach, to problems of electrical generation and transmission. I very much hope it will be possible to work out a plan with them to deal on a long term basis with their indigenous resources and their transmission.


REQUEST FOR INCREASED FUNDS FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH-EFFECTS OF REDUCTION IN FUNDS ON HEALTH PROGRAMS
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the devastating effects the freeze on the Medical Research Council budget has had on research in this country, and in view of the fact that the addition of $2 million covers only about one-third of what is required to bring research up to last year's level, will the Minister of National Health and Welfare reassess his ill-considered decision, and increase the budget by the $4.6 million which will be required to bring the activity up to last year's level?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the hon. member's assertion, the budget for medical research has not been frozen, it has increased by $3.4 million over last year.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could clarify for the House and the country whether he feels that freezing the budget, or, if he insists, raising it by $1 million this year, will in the long run save money in health expenditures throughout the country?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for me to answer the hon. member's question since I have just said that, contrary to what he said, the budget for medical research has not been frozen.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of speculation over the weekend, could the Acting Prime Minister confirm whether a settlement of the native land claims in the Yukon has indeed been reached and, if so, what are the terms of the settlement?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think this question should be answered by the minister on his return.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact a draft agreement has been submitted to Cabinet, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House when the Cabinet hopes to reach a settlement?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that both negotiators requested an extension of time we do not as yet have the date the hon. member requests. The speed of negotiations has been somewhat slower than anticipated, but I believe

May 31, 1976

some action will be forthcoming within the foreseeable future.


TRANSPORT
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Transport assure the House and the country that it is not the intention of the government in the near future to terminate freight assistance on feed grains going to the Maritimes and the province of Quebec?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it has always been known to hon. members that our policy on feed grain contemplated a retention of feed freight assistance into the Atlantic area and eastern region of Quebec. As to a termination in respect of the major feed consuming areas of the country, an announcement on this subject is expected very soon. Indeed, there will be discussions on this subject this evening.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications, and I should like to welcome the lady back from her travels. Is she going to be making an announcement this week, either in the House or at a meeting in Toronto, on the policy of the government regarding pay television?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, indeed I am scheduled to make a speech on Wednesday to discuss the problem of pay television, as well as other problems relevant to the meeting which will take place in Toronto.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am not trying to anticipate the lady minister's speech, but will it be a statement of firm policy or will it be a statement inviting those interested in this very complex question to submit briefs either to the minister or CRTC?


Jeanne Sauvé: I think the hon. member can wait until Wednesday when he will find out.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It better be in the House if it is policy.


DISPUTE BETWEEN NEWFOUNDLAND AND QUEBEC OVER CHURCHILL FALLS POWER-ACTION OF MINISTER
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy,
Oral Questions
Mines and Resources. The minister indicated earlier that he would be meeting with the Atlantic ministers on energy problems. In view of the fact that tonight is the deadline in the dispute between Newfoundland and Quebec, would the minister indicate whether he will meet with the two ministers from Quebec and Newfoundland before that deadline to resolve the problems existing with the Churchill Falls power?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the question is whether I am going to meet the ministers of the two provinces before the deadline tonight, the answer is no.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I certainly could not expect the minister to meet with them today, but have representations not been made to the minister on behalf of either Quebec or Newfoundland asking the minister to enter into the dispute to try to resolve the problems which exist?


Alastair William Gillespie: There has been no formal communication to me asking me to intervene in any way or arbitrate the dispute. There has been some indication that the over-all plan might be the kind of approach they would like to discuss. But I go on to say that such indications are very tentative and I would not want to raise expectations unduly with respect to that.


Jack Marshall: Could the minister indicate what is the latest progress with regard to the National Energy Board and its relationship to the holding of power by the province of Quebec on the granting of export permits?


Alastair William Gillespie: Those areas are to be discussed in hearings about to get under way before the National Energy Board.


VIEW OF MINISTER ON DESIGNATING EGG MARKETING AGENCY AS RECEIVER OF IMPORTS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that recent answers in the House by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have disclosed diametrically opposite positions between the two ministers with respect to the designation of CEMA as the receiver of imported eggs, and in view of the fact that in reply to a recent question by the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex the Prime Minister indicated that it was the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who had this responsibility, is the minister now in a position to cast the deciding vote and, we hope, break up this deadlock which apparently exists?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, without acknowledging the premise of the question, I must confess I do not relish the idea of having to cast the deciding vote between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Let me put it this way: I will try to make as constructive a contribution to the discussion as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

Oral Questions


Mr. Clark:: Maybe you could blame James Richardson.
May 31, 1976


William Herbert Jarvis: In order to determine how constructive the minister is or will be, could he tell us what his position is? Is he in favour of designating CEMA as the sole receiver of imported eggs or does he support the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who prefers to leave that to the private sector? Can we have the minister's opinion?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That is the kind of constructive opinion I am going to express to my colleagues.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD RELATIONSHIP OF RULING ON WAGE INCREASES AT THOMPSON, MANITOBA TO WAGE SETTLEMENT AT SUDBURY
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the strike by the mine workers now set for tomorrow at Thompson, Manitoba in rejection of the AIB ruling on wage increases, can the minister tell the House whether the AIB ruling on wage increases was in line with the wage settlement at Sudbury which is the historical relationship that is used in the nickel mine industry?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I could refer the hon. gentleman to the decision of the Anti-Inflation Board in this regard and he will note their conclusion that the historical relationship between the Thompson local and the one at Sudbury has been made quite clear to support the ruling. I quote: "Although a strong historical relationship with another group of INCO employees at Sudbury has been clearly demonstrated, it is not the intention of the restraint objectives of the program to permit the complete restoration of that relationship by approval of the settlement as negotiated." As the hon. member knows, in light of the additional facts the board did make some adjustments in the limits that it had set for this and subsequent years of the contract, but it felt that the amount as negotiated could not be accommodated within the over-all guidelines.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence in the absence of the minister. Is it anticipated that the Minister of National Defence will be issuing some sort of clarifying statement in the House in view of the rather alarming new doctrine that has crept into our usage in that the Minister of Supply and Services has castigated senior members of the armed forces for alleged negligence in so far as the LRPA contract is concerned. Will the Minister of National Defence come to the support of his staff?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, may I point out for the information of the House that today my minister is at the Royal Military College attending the convocation and anniversary celebrations there.


An hon. Member:: Is he that old?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, there are other people in the House who could join the class if that were the case.
In answer to the hon. member's question, I would commend for his reading the report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence of last Thursday. I think he will find the answer to his question in that report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. When does the minister intend to table the Hansen report on the Millhav-en gassings and beatings, and has the Hansen report gone to the Attorney General of Ontario, and, if so, has he replied to it in terms of criminal charges being laid against any of those involved?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received the report on the Millhaven gassings and beatings. I am meeting with Miss Hansen tomorrow to discuss the report and receive it from her.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In March the Solicitor General asked the Canadian penitentiary service to look into the continued employment of some guards in the segregation unit of Millhaven penitentiary. Apparently the same guards who administered tear gas in the November incident were still working in the unit. I assume that this study has been completed. Will the Solicitor General tell the House what the results of the investigation are?


William Warren Allmand: It has not, Mr. Speaker. Officials of the penitentiary service and I have been waiting for the report from Miss Hansen on the gasing situation. Once we have that report and have examined it, we will decide what disciplinary action must be taken. During the investigation itself some of the guards had been removed from Millhaven to other institutions, but now the inquiry is over they are back as a result of an appeal they made through the union, I believe. But we will have to examine the report before taking further action.
May 31, 1976


LEVEL OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS IN GREAT LAKES- REASON FOR DELAY IN GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: My question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that polychlorinated biphenyls have been found in the Great Lakes to be eight times higher than the permitted level of two parts per million, with the result that all fish now caught in the Great Lakes are highly contaminated and people eating these fish also become contaminated with a deleterious and toxic substance that is both cumulative and remains in the body indefinitely, I should like to ask the minister what immediate steps he is contemplating to counteract this serious human health problem?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this matter is being discussed jointly with my colleague, the Minister of the Environment. I would be pleased to consider the question and give hon. members an answer on the first occasion.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: In view of the fact that the danger in the Great Lakes has been known to exist for some ten years now, why has no action been taken before now not only to make the facts known to the public, but also to take the necessary steps to stop this dangerous pollutant from entering the lakes before it became the danger to human health which it certainly is now?


Marc Lalonde: I would first of all ask the hon. member if he has known about it for ten years, why has he not brought it to our attention before now? Secondly, it should be realized that this situation is mainly the responsibility of the government of Ontario, which has responsibility for the plants.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. On Friday last the hon. member for Annapolis Valley raised a point of order in which he was supported by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. There was a brief response by the Minister of Supply and Services. The point of order concerned a reply of the minister to which reference was made in a question today by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal and whether that reply in any way attacked the rather fundamental doctrine of ministerial responsibility and the importance of that doctrine to the practices of this House.
I want to re-emphasize, if it needs re-emphasizing, the importance of that doctrine to the practices of the House. The question was not concerned with the sanctity of that doctrine but only whether the kind of reply which was given at that time constituted disorder in the House or a matter of procedure in so far as the Chair was concerned.
In re-examining all that was said at that time, I have come to the conclusion that no question of disorder exists with respect to the reply made by the minister on Friday. That is not to say that that is any reflection on the importance of the doctrine, nor is it to say that the matter is closed, because obviously, by the question of the hon.
Business of the House
member for Fundy-Royal further questions may be put to either or both ministers involved.
If in fact there is any threat to that doctrine in the answers and the performance or attitude of the ministers, there may be other remedies. I doubt very much if they are procedural remedies, but there may be substantive remedies which would have an effect on that area, and only on the elicitation of further information might those remedies be tried. The only decision to be made is: As a result of the answer of last Friday, was there disorder created by that answer? The conclusion I have come to is no, and I think I ought to report that to the House at this moment, again subject to whatever further information may come to light or to whatever other remedies exist.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, naturally, I am not disputing what you have said. I was almost halfway to my feet when you rose to give your ruling, to suggest that it might be appropriate if the matter could be held in abeyance until the Minister of National Defence could be present. According to your ruling perhaps this matter does not involve a disorder in the House, but it certainly does involve a very important principle with respect to the relationship of the government to the people of Canada, its responsibility to the people of Canada and its relationship of the public service of this country, whether armed or otherwise, to the government. It may well be that in another context, when the Minister of National Defence is here, the matter will be raised again. I felt I should mention that.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader is prepared today to give a definitive statement-I use that word advisedly-with respect to the business the government proposes to deal with to the extent that the government intends to deal with it prior to the adjournment of this House, whenever that adjournment might occur.


Mr. Speaker:: Before hearing the President of the Privy Council on what is a separate point of order, I notice that the Minister of Supply and Services was seeking to make an intervention with respect to the previous point. I think I have clearly ruled in respect of Friday. There may be other questions to the minister and other questions to the Minister of National Defence, and certainly there is every indication that there will in fact be such questions, and on the basis of whatever information may come forward, other arguments might be made. My only decision to make was whether a point of order had arisen and whether there had been disorder on Friday. I decided I did not need to hear further interventions unless further information came to light at this time.

May 31, 1976
Business of the House


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I would not want that my remarks be considered as being against your decision. Of course I accept your ruling, but you referred to a question put by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweath-er) and I would simply like to draw the attention of my hon. colleagues to this so they might consider more in detail two answers given by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson), the first on March 30, 1976, as recorded in Hansard, page-12,265 ...


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect, the minister is simply enlarging on the answer he made today, and I cannot permit that unless I am prepared to permit further questions.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question put by my hon. friend, the House leader of the official opposition who gave me notice he was going to put this question to me today, it is the government's desire, and I believe it is the desire of hon. members generally, to adjourn not later than June 30.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: For that purpose, we have deliberately decided not to proceed with certain items on the order paper at this session, and we have proposed an extension of hours of sitting so that the remaining urgent business can be disposed of without an undesirable curtailment of debate. The items which remain on the urgent list are the following: Bill C-68, which is now at third reading; Bill C-81, which is now at report stage; Bill C-84, which is now being debated at second reading; Bill C-87, debate on which has not yet begun; Bill C-88, which is now at report stage; and Bill S-35, which is now before a standing committee.
These six items, all except one of which has already been the subject of extensive debate, plus the budget resolutions and supply, constitute the government's program before adjournment. Unless some emergency arises, the government has no other items which it considers essential to be disposed of before the adjournment. The parties may, of course, be ready to agree on the approval of minor housekeeping matters such as motions Nos. 33 and 34 under government business.
Let me add a word or two about Bill C-83, which is now before the standing committee. It is desirable that progress be made in dealing with this piece of legislation, and the government will be proposing amendments resulting from public representations which will, we hope, be helpful in ensuring its approval. The government, however, will not keep the House in session for the purpose of advancing this bill. If the standing committee has not reported by the time of adjournment, it may of course decide to sit during the recess. I shall be discussing with the other parties an agreement to take up the bill in the new session at the stage which is reached at the time of prorogation of the present session. To be as precise as I can be, the government will propose the adjournment of the House when the six items to which I have referred, plus the budget resolutions and supply, have been disposed of, whether that happens before or after June 30, except for the usual

provision by which Mr. Speaker could call the House back for royal assent.
Mr. Speaker, seventy speakers have taken part in the debate on Bill C-84. I am informed that there is still a long list of speakers who wish to be heard. I have proposed to the House leaders an extension of hours for the purpose of that debate only, two additional hours in the mornings on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and the temporary suspension of private members' hour.
May I also remind those who may be concerned about the timing of the vote on second reading that the House has already approved an order which avoids a quick, unexpected vote. The timing of the vote will be decided by the House leaders within a week after the end of the debate, so that those who are absent from Ottawa can get here for the occasion.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I say that we welcome the statement the minister has given us, and we hope that the necessary arrangements can be made so that the recess can begin not later than the end of June. I should like to say, once again, that toward that end we will be prepared to agree to the extra hours of sitting which the minister has proposed, although the proposal is that the extra hours of sitting are for that bill only.
However, I should like to register my objection to one little trick the government has employed. The minister says all he wants is those six bills, the budget resolutions- obviously not the bills-and supply. Supply includes, presumably, the supplementary estimate that was tabled the other day. I object very much to this tricky way to get the House to decide, without any time to debate it, a matter which some of us are opposed to in any case and which certainly should be the subject of legislation. The government is using a supplementary estimate to get at something that is difficult to get through parliament, like a state lottery. If they can do that, they could have done that for capital punishment or anything.


An hon. Member:: They did not even bring in a supplementary estimate for capital punishment!


Stanley Howard Knowles: They may just do it. I object to what I call a tricky way of dealing with this matter of a national lottery.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, about the same question put to the President of the Privy Council, I would like to tell the House that at our caucus meeting held last week, we did consider at length the possibility of extending the hours to debate Bill C-84 and we thought it proper to voice our opposition to longer sittings because Canadians are against the adoption of this bill.
So the Social Credit Party will not endorse any extension of the sittings of the House.
May 31, 1976


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
Sixteenth report of Standing Committee on Agriculture, in both official languages-Mr. Bussieres.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, just over three years ago the chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, Mr. Jacob Finkel-man, was asked by the government:
-to examine the Public Service Staff Relations Act and its administration and to make recommendations, having regard to the experience gained since that act came into force, as to how it should be amended or revised in order to meet adequately the needs of the employer and the employees in the public service and the employee organizations that represent them, and to serve the interest of the public.
This undertaking was given the full support of both government and opposition parties of this House, as well as that of the employee associations of the public service. The confidence in Mr. Finkelman which was expressed at that time was demonstrated to have been well placed when, about a year later, the results of his exhaustive study were tabled. I think it is a tribute to Mr. Finkelman, who is now coming to the end of his distinguished public service career, that this confidence should have been expressed in such a concrete way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: In recognition of the importance of the questions raised in Mr. Finkelman's report and of the many far-reaching recommendations which he made-I recall they totalled some 230 specific recommendations-the report was given very careful examination by the Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service. The joint committee involved a variety of interested parties in its deliberations, including-and I quote from its report:
Bargaining agents representing employees in the public service of Canada: unions representing views outside the public service of Canada: the Treasury Board secretariat representing the government as employer; employer groups in the private sector; the chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board and the chairman of the Public Service Commission; personnel and labour relations specialists; university professors; and interested individuals.	.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware that many people, and particularly some of those who, through interest or vocation, are closely associated with public service employer-employee relations matters, have from time to time expressed impatience at the length of time the review of the legislation covering collective bargaining in the federal public service has taken. I have shared this concern. I can only say, however, Mr. Speaker, that it is better to take the time if that time is necessary to ensure that the action proposed is the wisest and best course to follow.
The joint committee issued its report in February of this year, and since that time the government has been actively
Public Service
studying its conclusions and its recommendations, as well as going over again those proposals of Mr. Finkelman which were not touched on in the committee's report. All of this work is being conducted in light of the extensive hearings of the committee and of the many discussions which have been held informally over the past several years between government officials and representatives of the interested parties. The issues are extremely complex and the factors and considerations which must be taken account of are numerous, interacting, frequently subtle, and sometimes conflicting. In view of the time already spent in laying the foundation for definitive proposals to be put to the House by the government, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that members would not want the government to table prematurely, hastily prepared and inadequately considered legislation.
In any case, the legislative calendar for the session we are now engaged in is already very full. We have heard some protests on the six items that I thought constituted very limited scope for the rest of the session. You will not disagree with me I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that we are in a rather congested state as far as the rest of the session is concerned. The government intends, therefore, to complete its internal deliberations relating to public service collective bargaining as quickly as possible, and to introduce legislation in the next session of parliament which, hopefully, will begin in the fall.
With regard to the Public Service Employment Act, the joint committee recommended that the Public Service Commission, after consultation with the bargaining agents and the employer, develop proposals for early revision of the act and that a task force be set up to undertake a longer term and more fundamental review of the role of the commission. The consultations relating to early revisions have been completed and the commission's proposals are now being considered by the government. The related amendments to the Public Service Employment Act will be introduced in the next session, probably at the same time as new legislation covering the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
Mr. Speaker, the government will also, as part of its ongoing examination of government management and organization, be looking into the more fundamental and far-reaching questions which prompted the joint committee's recommendations for a special task force to study the role of the Public Service Commission in relation to employer-employee relations matters. The government is sympathetic to the concerns which underlie these questions and will ensure that they are examined.
Initially, an interagency task force including representatives from the Privy Council office, the Public Service Commission, the Public Service Staff Relations Board, the Treasury Board secretariat, and the Department of Labour is being set up with terms of reference authorizing it to examine the principles and practices relating to appointment, staffing and training in the public service and to make recommendations for changes calculated to serve the interests of the public, to contribute to the over-all improvement of the public service and to foster good employer-employee relations. Such a task force will obviously need to consult extensively with all interested bodies, with special emphasis on the many and varied

May 31, 1976
Public Service
employee associations. I trust that the task force will undertake its work as expeditiously as possible, and barring unforeseen difficulties that the government will be able to report on its results during the next session of parliament.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with tradition, I wish to thank the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) for supplying us with a copy of his statement in advance-by 20 minutes-of this sitting. Having read the report, I wonder why it was not possible to give it to us last Friday so that we could have looked it over, or why it was not given to us today and the statement made tomorrow.
Aside from that rather mild admonition, speaking on behalf of this party I should like to say that we welcome this long-awaited declaration, even while we confess to some dismay that it contains little more than another indication of governmental delay. At least now we have some sort of timetable, if only in the form of a promissory note. The government has produced a timetable, and that is about all. It intends to proceed in accordance with the priorities of its own program. That is about all the statement says.
At the beginning of his statement, the President of the Privy Council stated specifically that three years ago the government had asked the chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board to review present legislation on public service staff relations and its administration, with a view to making recommendations on how to improve the public service generally to better meet public interests.
That was over three years ago, Mr. Speaker, and we have just learned, with the excuses to which we have become accustomed, that for the time being the government does not want to formulate final proposals in that regard. [English]
Three years ago the government asked for an examination of this question and for recommendations. On November 13, 1974, a joint committee of this House and the other place met to study the proposals put forward by the chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board. That examination was carried out most fully. On behalf of my party, may I associate myself with the high words of commendation describing the work performed by the chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, Mr. Finkelman.
After innumerable meetings and after hearing the evidence of interested parties, the special joint committee produced a detailed report of its findings and made recommendations relating to a variety of employer-employee relations aspects in the public service, including such matters as the right to strike, managerial exclusions, designated personnel, the entire bargaining process, and so on. In February of this year the report was tabled. It included 72 recommendations or resolutions.
The government all along was aware of the proceedings of the special joint committee and could have formulated detailed guidelines to cover each of the important sectors being considered by the committee. I suggest that at the

very least the government should now have brought forward a series of broad proposals outlining the areas with which the legislation will deal when it comes forward. It would not have been necessary to put these proposals in legislative form, but they could have outlined areas with which the legislation would deal and explained omissions in the legislation of areas covered by the committee. For example, each of the 72 recommendations could have been reviewed, and in an appropriate space opposite each recommendation the government could have said, "Yes, we will accept this," or "No, we will not accept this", or "We will look into this particular matter", or "We find that it will be impossible to change this particular matter."
As matters now stand, we have nothing but another promise to consider, a not unusual performance. If the kind of broad propositions to which I have alluded had been put forward, we might have had the opportunity during the summer to elicit reactions of interested parties. Without doubt, the government will expect us to rush the legislation through whenever it chooses to bring it before the House. I assure the government, and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), that my party considers the proposed legislation so important and so serious that it does not intend to be rushed in its deliberations, but looks forward to fair and extensive consultation.

The special committee has also made recommendations on legislation governing employment in the public service, and in particular the part the commission must play. According to the government, final proposals with regard to that aspect of the report will also be postponed; we hope, for our part, that they will not be put off indefinitely. We are therefore awaiting with some impatience the two bills to be introduced by the government in this regard. Those two bills, once introduced, should enable us to solve the many problems posed by present legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since the House of Commons changed the rules and provided for a more appropriate response to statements of ministers, the government has made fewer statements than it used to, largely, I suppose, because it does not want to submit to an extra question period. Despite the admonition the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) directed to the President of the Privy Council for not having given us copies of his statement earlier than he did, I wonder why he bothered to make the statement at all. Somebody on the government side could have asked the minister something like, "How is the government getting along with the special joint committee's recommendations?" And the minister could have said, "We are not ready yet, but we hope to be ready in the fall."


Donald W. Munro: The government wants headlines.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Really, that is all the statement says.


Mr. Reid:: The question could have been planted on the opposition side.
May 31, 1976


Stanley Howard Knowles: On this side of the House planting is more difficult than it is on the other side. The statement says that the government has studied the report; it noted that the committee wants revisions made in the Public Service Staff Relations Act, that it wants a study made of the Public Service Employment Act, and that it wants the appointment of a task force. The minister now says, "We are making the first study, but we have not yet got the new bill. We hope to have it in the fall. We are carrying out the second suggestion and have had a study made of the Public Service Employment Act, but are not yet ready to introduce a bill. As for the proposed task force, one is being set up, and in the fall we hope to have a report." I do not know why the minister employed the device of the ministerial statement to put so little before the House. Perhaps he wanted to indulge in the following choice comment when he said:
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that members would not want the government to table prematurely hastily prepared and inadequately considered legislation.
You know, that sort of thing happens so often around here that I am surprised the minister would bother to say that. I suppose, as the hon. member who spoke on behalf of the Conservative party said, we now at least have a kind of timetable, a promissory note for legislation in the fall. The minister did not say which fall; I presume he meant the fall of 1976.
Sir, having said that the statement is hardly worth all this fuss, I had better be brief, and I shall be. I warn the minister and the government that the adoption of the report by the special joint committee was not unanimous. Some of us feel strongly that suggestions in the report give the government too much of a green light to go too far in terms of imposing excessive fines on union members and unions, in terms of other restrictions, enlarging the areas of designation, enlarging managerial exclusions, and so on. If the government is really concerned about good employer-employee relations, I urge it to look at the good things in the report but to beware of some of the pitfalls in it.
In the latter part of his statement, the minister said that one of the aims of the government is to foster good employer-employee relations. May I draw one item to his attention, after which I shall conclude. The matter has come to rest in the Privy Council office. I refer to a document called a "Personal history form" which many public servants are called upon to complete as part of a security check. It is being used widely in the Department of National Revenue and in other departments as well. The form has all the earmarks of a witch-hunt. One of the questions public servants are asked to answer is, "Where was your mother-in-law born?" What possible connection can that have with a public servant's right to a promotion?
I mention this today because I have been working on it, without bringing it to the floor of the House, for a couple of years. I have been in correspondence with the former chairman of the Public Service Commission. However, only recently I was told that matters have bogged down and that I had better write to an official in the Privy Council office. I did so and received a courteous reply from the official. But the writer of that reply could not tell me when something would be done about this, despite the
Public Service
many protests. I give the minister that assignment to work on since it is now in the Privy Council office. If he wants to have good employer-employee relations, he should not be asking public service employees, before they can get certain promotions, the birth place of one's mother-in law.
I said that we need to take much time on this, so I better not take any more. I am glad we shall get some action in the fall. I hope it will be the fall of 1976, and I hope the government will pay attention to some of the comments being made today.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, it is rather surprising to note that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) stated in the House today that the government is prepared to introduce measures or make recommendations about its relations with the civil service as early as next autumn.
Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council has just said to the House that more than three years ago the government gave to Public Service Staff Relations Board Chairman Jacob Finkelman a mandate to study the relations between the federal government and the civil service. Now, the minister says that a year later the chairman did report the results of his thorough study. This means that for over two years the government has been well acquainted with the recommendations of that committee appointed by the government to consider relations between the government and the civil service.
It is hoped the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) will keep his promise and bring forward next fall legislation or recommendations in the field of relations between the public service and government. One thing I wish is that we would not see on the federal level the mess we are seeing in Quebec in the relations between the public service, that is the public and quasi-public employees and the government. There has been friction for too many years already at the expense of the taxpayer who must pay for both sides, for both the employees and the employer, because it must be owned that the federal government today is the employer who levies the highest taxes in Canada, the most labour intensive industry. The same can be said for the provincial level in Quebec as well as in Ontario.
Yet we hear those public servants yelling: "Higher pay, higher pay!". They do not realize that they are not paid from the profits of a business, but from the taxes of Canadians.
When they yell rightly or wrongly: "Higher pay!", they should display at the same time cards which read: "We want more and higher taxes, so as to get higher wages". I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that we will not see that here in Canada from the government, the unions nor the public service. Let us hope that as soon as the parliamentary business will resume, the government will bring forward specific legislation to foster understanding and cooperation between the public service and itself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As this is a report indicating action in the future, and as it is a subject that has been studied rather extensively in committee, in exercising the discretion given to me under the rules I do not believe it

May 31, 1976
Public Service
appropriate to proceed to questions unless the situation is such that by disallowing questions at this time I am catching hon. members by surprise. Bearing that in mind, and the nature of the report that has been the subject of comment today, it appears the action is indicated for the future when there will be a more appropriate time for questions and comments from all sides of the House.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been some discussion among the House leaders and representatives of the parties about a special kind of procedure tonight at eight o'clock when the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture will wish to make statements on the same subject. Therefore, I would like to seek unanimous consent that the House shall revert to routine proceedings at 8 p.m. tonight in order to permit the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Transport, who is also responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, to make statements. The Minister of Agriculture will speak first, followed immediately by the Minister of Transport. This will be followed by spokesmen for each of the opposition parties. Both ministers will then be available for questions.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, we have had some consultations with respect to this. That procedure is agreeable to us. As the minister was speaking, I was trying to think of problems that might arise with two ministers making statements this evening. There may not be any, aside from the fact that they may be opposed to one another. I do not know about that. In any event, we are agreeable to this procedure. I do not know of any difficulties that will arise, except for a feeling that I have that there may be some. I hope the spirit of the rules will be observed to the greatest extent possible. On that basis, we are prepared to consent. To the extent that he can, I hope that the President of the Privy Council will ensure that the statements are delivered early, since there are two of them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we, too, are prepared, as we already indicated, to agree to this procedure. As the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has stated, a problem could arise, but we cannot tell until the two ministers speak. If they display the lack of cabinet solidarity that we see around this place from time to time, we may have to ask that two speakers from each party be permitted to respond. However, we will not worry about that bridge until we get to it. I simply want to underline the last words of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, that when we agreed to this it was on the understanding that copies of both statements would be in the hands of the spokesmen on this side of the House well in advance. I hope this can be done not later than six o'clock.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we also agreed on this procedure to enable the two ministers to make a statement this evening. As requested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), we would very much appreciate having a copy of these statements before six o'clock so that we may be able to take part in the debate following the ministers' statements at eight o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Subject only to the rather general misgivings that are harboured, there seems to be agreement that we will depart somewhat from the regular practice and revert to routine proceedings at eight o'clock this evening to permit statements on motions to be made by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Transport, followed by one spokesman from each of the opposition parties, then followed by a question period, again in the discretion of the Chair, when questions can be directed to either, or both, ministers by any questioner. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. cJ.-J. Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 4,014, 5,122, 5,156, 5,214, 5,215, 5,268, 5,312, 5,347, 5,370, 5,407, 5,418, 5,437, 5,442, 5,454 and 5,472.
M. Crouse: 1.	Was a decision made to close down the Kejimkujik Fish Hatchery in Queens County, Nova Scotia and, if so (a) on what date (b) who made it?
2.	How many permanent staff members were retained since the retirement of the Hatchery Superintendent in July, 1973?
3.	Was the Superintendent replaced and. if so (a) on what date (b) how many permanent staff were employed since the new appointment?
4.	Was there a fungus problem affecting the fingerlings at the Hatchery and, if so (a) what was its nature (b) what steps were taken to clean it up (c) what is the name of the man who assessed the depth of the problem?
5.	Was the decision to close the Hatchery based on the efficiency ratings since July, 1973?
6.	Was the assessment and the fungus problem the reason for closing the Hatchery last July and, if so, for what reason was its closure announced as due to budgetary restrictions?
7.	Will the Hatchery remain closed and (a) if so, will the house, buildings, ponds and grounds be sold (b) if not, on what date does the government plan to re-open the Hatchery?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Fisheries)):: 1. Yes. (a) the announcement of closure was made on July 7, 1975; (b) the Regional Director-General approved closure of the Station which was announced by the officer responsible.
2.	The Superintendent went on sick leave in July, 1973. At that time there were two other permanent employees (M. Hill and C. Canning) and two term employees. The Superintendent died following his departure on sick leave. One permanent employee (C. Canning) retired on December 30, 1973, and the second (M. Hill) was transferred to another station.
May 31, 1976

3.	The Superintendent's position was filled on an acting basis on November 1, 1973, by R. Eisner. He was later transferred to the Halifax office. In 1974 there were two permanent employees (A. Stannix and R. Ritcey), the Acting Superintendent and three term employees. In 1975 Mr. Stannix won a promotion to Yarmouth Station and Mr. Ritcey was transferred to Mersey Station in Queens County.
4.	(a) Eruptions on the body surface of the hatchery fish at first suggested that the outbreak was fungal in nature. It was later diagnosed by disease specialists as an internal bacterial infection (Pasturella sp.) which causes lesions on the dorsal fin and sides of the body; (b) Initial treatment was the oral applications of antibiotics. After the bacteria was identified and found to be the first outbreak of this bacteria in North America, it was decided to destroy all fish at the Station to prevent the possible spread of the organism, (c) Identification of the bacteria was made by Dr. P. Bullock (Eastern Fish Disease Laboratory, Leetown, U.S.A.) and Dr. W. D. Paterson, Halifax, Fisheries and Marine Service.
5.	No.
6.	Budgetary restraint was the reason for closing a hatchery. The disease outbreak, the ability to relocate production effectively in the area and the limited staff dislocation were the reasons for selecting Kejimkujik.
7.	The Station will remain closed for 1976-77 at least because of current budget restrictions. The Department does not intend to sell or transfer the buildings or the land at this time.


Mr. Cossitt: Are any businesses, companies, corporations or similar entities who have done, or who are doing business in any way with the government, involved with donations either of money or materials to the swimming pool constructed at the Prime Minister's official residence, 24 Sussex Drive?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: See reply to question 1,233 answered October 28, 1975.


Mr. Cossitt: Are officials, officers, etc. of any businesses, companies, corporations, or similar entities who have done, or who are doing business in any way with the government, involved with donations either of money or materials to the swimming pool constructed at the Prime Minister's official residence, 24 Sussex Drive?


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


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many aircraft have been rented to Cuba by Air Canada and, in each case (a) what type of aircraft (b) how long is the lease and (i) what are its renewal options (ii) does it contain any provisions as to who is responsible for damage to any aircraft while under lease to Cuba (c) by year, what is the (i) rental fee per aircraft (ii) total rental paid per year for all aircraft?
2.	How many Cuban personnel have been or will be trained to operate such aircraft by Air Canada and (a) what is the training location (b)
Order Paper Questions
what is the total training cost and who is responsible for paying such
costs?
3.	With reference to the recent mid-air collision near Havana involving an Air Canada DC8 rented to Cuba, what is the estimated total cost of damage to the aircraft and what is a description of the damage (a) who will be paying the full cost of repairs to the aircraft (b) what investigation of the incident has been made and what are the results insofar as responsibility for the accident?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Two; (a) Douglas DC-8-43; (b) Two years (b) (i) none (b) (ii) Yes. Cubana Airlines; (c) (i) (ii) The rental fee includes all scheduled and specific unscheduled maintenance and is information which for competitive commercial and other reasons is considered confidential.
2.	Eight flight crews and 20 cabin attendants have been trained. Training for flight crews is still in progress; (a) Montreal, with a very limited amount in Havana; (b) Cost of training is considered confidential for competitive commercial and other reasons. Cubana Airlines is responsible for all costs.
3.	The aircraft suffered a total construction loss due to damage sustained to the left wing and left wing power plants; (a) Because the aircraft suffered a total construction loss, it will not be repaired. The insurance which is carried by Cubana is payable to Air Canada; (b) the accident investigation is under the jurisdiction of the Cuban authorities because the aircraft is now registered with Cuban nationality. Until the investigation is completed, the results are unknown.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) Who is responsible for the maintenance of Air Canada aircraft rented to Cuba (b) in what location is it carried out (c) who pays for it?
2.	Are the aircraft restricted by any agreement to operate between Montreal and Havana only and, if not, what other routes are permitted?


Ralph Goodale: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. (a) Air Canada is responsible for all scheduled maintenance and any unscheduled maintenance performed in Canada and Cuban Airlines for all unscheduled maintenance performed outside Canada; (b) Montreal and Havana; (c) Cubana Airlines.
2. Cubana may use the aircraft exclusively in relation to the ordinary and normal conduct of its commercial operations as a civil carrier for passengers, cargo and mail.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Mr. Guy D'Avignon, former head of Information Canada, appointed as a Special Advisor to the Privy Council Office and, if so (a) is he receiving a Deputy Minister's salary (b) what is his salary (c) what is a detailed description of his duties (d) what are all the considerations that led to his appointment (e) what qualifications does he have for the job?
2.	Were his duties undefined at the time the appointment was made and, if so, what are the reasons justifying the appointment at Deputy Minister rank for undefined duties?

May 31, 1976
Order Paper Questions
3.	Was such appointment used to keep Mr. D'Avignon on the government payroll following abolition of Information Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 (a), (b), (d) and 3. Mr. D'Avignon was appointed Special Adviser to the Privy Council Office at the salary he had been receiving in the DM-1 range ($41,000-$54,000). The appointment was made to enable the government to continue to use Mr. D'Avignon's services for special tasks until he assumes the position of Chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal on July 1, 1976.
1 (c), (e) and 2. At the time of his appointment Mr. D'Avignon was assigned to assist with the program of information to the public relating to the anti-inflation measures currently being undertaken by the government. There was no detailed description of these duties. Mr. D'Avignon's qualifications for the work derive from his experience as Assistant Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Administration and Finance) and later as Director of Information Canada.


Mr. Nystrom: What was the total government participation in the cost of grading, paving and building interchanges of the construction of a four-lane highway along the Trans-Canada Highway route between Calgary and the Banff National Park east entrance gate?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: 


Mr. Forrestall: What is the Department of Transport's best estimate of the annual cost for the past two years of maintaining the Ice Forecasting Central Branch of the Department in respect of the ice monitoring in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the St. Lawrence River?


Ralph Goodale: The Ice Forecasting Programme is administered by the Department of the Environment and is implemented through their Ice Central Office in Ottawa. Transport Canada does not share in the cost of this programme other than for the cost of operating two long range ice reconnaissance aircraft. The Department operates Marine Traffic Centres at Dartmouth and Montreal, and these centres provide ice information and recommended routes to shipping in the Gulf and River of St. Lawrence. The costs to Transport Canada for the operation of these aircraft and centres during the ice navigation seasons in the last two years are as follows: 1974: Aircraft, $1,557,000; Marine Traffic Centres (Ice Operations Portions)-$61,300. 1975: Aircraft, $2,849,250; Marine Traffic Centres (Ice Operations Portion)-$68,500.


Mr. Fairweather: To the knowledge of the government, was Anna Mae Pictou Aquash, a Canadian citizen, killed on or about February 24, 1976 on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota, USA and, if so (a) was her body mutilated (b) was an inquiry regarding the circumstances sur-

rounding her death requested by Canada and will the results of such inquiry be communicated to her family?


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: (a) Yes. The Canadian Consulate in Minneapolis, whose territory also includes South Dakota, was informed by United States authorities in Rapid City, South Dakota, that the body of Anne Mae Pictou (Aquash) had been found on February 26, 1976, on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. According to the Doctor who performed the first autopsy, the body appeared to have been dead for a period of 10 to 18 days. According to the lawyer engaged by the Pictou family and the doctor who performed the second autopsy it would appear that the victim's hands had been mutilated, presumably for identification purposes; (b) Yes, the Canadian Government has asked the United States authorities to conduct an enquiry concerning the circumstances of Miss Pictou's death and the results of such enquiry will be communicated to her family.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	From 1970 to date, how many Consumers' Assistance offices has the government established in Canada and what is the number in each province?
2.	For each year, what amount of money has the government invested in the establishment of such offices in the Constituencies of (a) Temiscamingue (b) Villeneuve (c) Abitibi?
3.	How many jobs have been created following the establishment of the offices in the Constituencies of (a) Temiscamingue (b) Villeneuve (c) Abitibi?


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. 1. Seventeen Consumer Help Offices have been established in Canada; one in B.C.; two in Alberta; two in Saskatchewan; two in Manitoba; five in Ontario; three in Quebec; one in New Brunswick; and one in Nova Scotia.
2.	(a) none; (b) none; (c) none.
3.	(a) none; (b) none; (c) none.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	What was the cost of producing the Annual Reports of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in 1974 and 1975?
2.	(a) Were the publications printed by the Department or by a private firm (b) if contracts were let, were public tenders called?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1. 1973-74, $2,381.12; 1974-75, $6,612.48.
2. (a) Private firm; (b) yes.



COST OF TV-IN-THE-HOUSE OF COMMONS

['Agreed.']
Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Direct costs attributable to the Privy Council Office are $1,905.10. This total reflects the following costs: United Nations, $980.10; Patrick Watson, $500; Rental of presentation equipment, $425. Costs attributable to the CBC are $2,750. This total reflects the costs of preparation and assembly of the audio-visual presentation, rental of lighting equipment and lighting experimentation in the Commons Chamber and incidental expenses. Costs of Special Advisors to the President of the Privy Council.
Note: These costs include research and advice on all aspects of broadcasting Parliament as well as preparation of the audio-visual presentation.
Robert Anderson Associates Ltd., 1975-76, $35,539.45; 197677, $3,625. Douglas Wilkinson, 1975-76, $18,775.35; 1976-77, $3,600.
2.	Costs attributable to the Privy Council Office are being met through Vote No. 1 authorized by an Appropriation Act in the normal way for 1975-76 and by the Appropriation Act (Interim Supply) for expenditures incurred in the relevant portion of the 1976-77 fiscal year. Costs attributable to the CBC are being met through the normal operating budget of the Corporation.
3.	None.
4.	Modifications in the existing sound system are being studied by the Speaker's Office in order to improve the efficiency of the sound facilities within the House of Commons. The modifications planned for the existing system will be adequate for television and radio broadcasting. As the resolution proposing the approval of the radio and television broadcasting of the House of Commons and its Committee proceedings, standing in the name of the President of the Privy Council, is still before the House, no decisions with regard to any technical installations in the Chamber have been taken.
5.	The resolution mentioned in part 4 proposes the appointment of a special committee composed of Mr. Speaker and seven other members to supervise the implementation of the resolution. As the motion is still before the House of Commons, and therefore no committee has been constituted, no proposals have been submitted or approved. Technical information provided by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation indicates that capital costs of installing appropriate television broadcasting equipment in the Chamber, including architectural and engineering modifications, would be in the order of $3,200,000. Annual operating costs including cost of videotape stock to provide continuous coverage of House and Committee proceedings is estimated at approximately $935,000.
Order Paper Questions
6.	The National Archives has been consulted on the question of videotape storage but pending approval by Parliament, no decisions have been taken.



Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what date did Pierre Juneau join the staff of the Prime Minister's Office (a) what is his annual salary (b) exactly how much in remuneration and expenses has he received from the date of his appointment to the date the answer to this question is prepared?
2.	(a) What is a full list of all duties and details of specific tasks performed by Mr. Juneau since joining the Prime Minister's Office (b) do these duties include policy advice of any kind and, if so, what are the exact subjects on which he has given policy advice?
3.	How long will Mr. Juneau be retained on the staff of the Prime Minister's Office?
4.	(a) Is the Prime Minister considering appointing Mr. Juneau to the Senate and, if so, for what reason (b) what other appointments is the Prime Minister considering for Mr. Juneau?
5.	On what date was the answer to this question prepared?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. November 6, 1975; (a) See reply to question 2,984 answered February 6, 1976; (b) Remuneration, see 1	(a). Expenses,

2. A copy of the public communique announcing Mr. Juneau's nomination and functions is being sent to the Honourable Member.
3 and 4. See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, Citation 171 (g).
5.	The Government takes responsibility for the answers it provides to questions on the Order Paper and for the process involved in replying to such questions. It is not appropriate therefore to provide information such as asked in this question about internal administrative workings.


COST OF TELEVISING OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Beatty: 1.	What is the cost of the audio-visual presentation concerning the televising of the proceedings of the House of Commons, prepared for the Office of the President of the Privy Council and what are all the details of the cost?
2.	By whom was the presentation prepared and what instructions were given by the government with respect to the preparation of the presentation?
3.	Were any capital expenditures for equipment such as television monitors required for the preparation and presentation of the audiovisual materials in question and, if so, what was the equipment and what was its cost?
4.	When was the audio-visual presentation completed and how many times has it been shown since?
5.	(a) What is the name of the group selected by the President of the Privy Council to make the presentation to Parliamentarians (b) what is the total amount they will be paid for their services (c) were they chosen by tender (d) what are their qualifications?
6.	Did the Office of the President of the Privy Council specifically request that both the positive and negative aspect of televising the proceedings of the House of Commons should be fairly represented in this presentation and, if not, for what reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. See reply to part 1 of Question 5,437 tabled this day.

May 31, 1976
Order Paper Questions
2.	The presentation, consisting of a videotape record of information available in relation to television broadcasting of the proceedings of public bodies, including the United Nations, Swedish House of Assembly, House of Commons of the United Kingdom, legislature of the Province of Alberta and the United States Senate, was prepared under the direction of Robert Anderson Associates Limited with the cooperation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. No instructions were given by the Government other than a request for an audio-visual compilation of available material in a readily assimilable format.
3.	No.
4.	English language 2 inch tape presentation completed February 12, 1976. % inch production completed February 16, 1976. The English production has been shown 17 times. French language videotape presentation, 2 inch production completed March 19, 1976. 3A inch tape production completed March 25, 1976. The French language presentation has been shown 3 times.
5.	(a) Robert Anderson Associates Limited; (b) The amount of fees payable to Robert Anderson Associates Limited will not be available until their services are terminated. (See answer to part 1 of question 5,437 tabled this day for amounts paid in 1975-1976 and up to May 10th in 1976-1977); (c) No; (d) Robert Anderson Associates Limited has completed numerous audio-visual productions including both film and television documentaries in Canada and the United States and has been awarded international recognition. Robert Anderson has acted as audiovisual consultant to various agencies including the Centennial Commission, the National Research Council and the United States Educational Television Network. Douglas Wilkinson, who assisted in the preparation, of the audio-visual presentation, is a film-maker, television producer, lecturer for his books on the Canadian Arctic and his award-winning films.
6.	No instructions were issued as to the orientation of the presentation. This was a responsibility of the producers.


REVENUE ACCRUING FROM CARGO FROM VESSELS IN THE BEAUFORT FLATS AREA
Mr. Forrestall: What was the total revenue to the National Harbours Board accruing from cargo loaded/unloaded to or from vessels at berths 53 and 54 in the Beauport Flats area of the Port of Quebec for each year since the completion of such berths?


Ralph Goodale: The National Harbours Board advises as follows:
Year	Berth 53 ($)	Berth 54 ($)	Total ($)1969	6,377	1,061	7,4381970	102,907	5,650	108,5571971	118,255	71,666	189,9211972	143,113	113,812	256,9251973	168,830	84,552	253,3821974	180,186	74,002	254,1881975	132,239	41,858	174,097


Mr. Blais:: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in the last ten years hon. members of this House have had to give their opinion on capital punishment and to take part in four important debates on this subject.
On October 24, 1973, the Parliament of Canada decided for the abolition of the death penalty by 119 votes against 106, except for the murder of security guards, prison guards and policemen. On that occasion, Mr. Speaker, I voted for Bill C-2.
Today, I would like to enumerate the reasons why I changed my views and I shall describe the process of the consultation I had to undertake.
I for one attach great value to the general attitude we have toward life, the dignity of the human being and the character of people and that prompts me to act prudently while deciding whether the state should intervene in the life or death of a human being. If we refuse to the state the right to take the life of one of its members, we should, to be consistent, deny it the right to deprive someone of freedom for his lifetime and to remove all hope of freedom.
Is it not just as cruel to imprison a human being for 25 years without any rehabilitation opportunity as prescribed by Bill C-84 now before the House? First, I wish to explain the different categories of murders and see if capital punishment has a deterrent effect or not and what are the possibilities of hanging an innocent victim. As I said earlier, we must first place the debate in its actual context and define the procedure concerning the identification of the presumed offender or define the categories of murders punishable by death.

May 31, 1976

But we should not think that the retentionists are potential jailers and that they would be ready to apply capital punishment for all murders. I am favorable to rehabilitation policies and during my experience in Parliament I dealt with some cases and I have two examples of persons who have been rehabilitated in the riding I have the honour to represent and I can say that I believe in rehabilitation as those two people are now well adapted and very active in society and are not parasites living off society. On the other hand, I love life too much to let those who have no respect for the life of others walk freely in the streets.
So, I wish to clearly classify murders in two categories as prescribed by the legislation that makes a distinction between first degree murder, that is a planned and deliberate murder including contracted murder, the murder of a policeman or a prison or penitentiary employee acting in the course of their duties. First degree murder is also the murder committed during the highjacking of an aircraft, a kidnapping or some sexual offense including rape and attempted rape. Those are first degree murders. Second degree murder includes all other murders including crime due to jealousy. The definition of first degree and second degree murders should be well understood.
What are the new penalties applied under Bill C-84 now under study? A person convicted of first degree murder will be sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment before being eligible for parole for the first time.
A person convicted of second degree murder may be eligible for parole only after 10 full years in prison. However, the judge may, if the jury so recommends, extend to 25 years the mandatory prison sentence without parole.
So, there are the differences between the two categories of murders and the penalties provided for in Bill C-84.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to answer some of the questions we may ask ourselves or make a few comments about some of the statements made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) when he launched the debate on this bill on May 3 last, when he said that those who believe in the deterrent value of the death penalty are maybe a little more simplistic, a little more narrow-minded. I do not want to report him as saying things he did not say, that is why I would like to remind him of his statement as recorded on page 13089 of Hansard.
I also heard some members take a stand against the death penalty because they think is has no deterrent effect and, here again, we are provided with statistical data. The solicitor General said that those who claim that the increase in the number of murders is due to the fact that there has not been any execution in Canada since 1962 are wrong and mislead those who listen to them.
I will refrain from quoting a whole part of the speech because my time is limited, but in any case I respect the view expressed by the Solicitor General, although I do not agree with the terms he used, and I also respect my colleagues who expressed the same view. But I have a lot of reservations before using this argument in favour of the abolition of the death penalty. Those figures do not single out the deterrent effect because they were not established with a view to drawing conclusions, but with a view to
Capital Punishment
confirming a conclusion which was already made through a moral and philosophic reasoning or else, by intuition.
Statistical data give rise to various interpretations. It is almost impossible to make useful comparisons between various countries because of the differences in the legal definition, in crimes, in the practices of the various departments concerned, in the different courts, in the way of gathering criminal data which differ from one country to another, in the morality and behaviour standards and finally in the political, economic and social conditions of those various countries.
I believe, however, that we can quite naturally assume that the professional criminal who views prison as a trade hazard considers the death penalty as something quite different. Clearly, when a murder is committed, there has been no deterrent. But this in no way implies capital punishment did not deter other inmates from committing murder. Statistics are impossible to obtain on that possibility, on the number of people who did not commit murder. Offences only are reported. Those cases where the offence was not committed appear nowhere in statistics. It seems to me that on the basis of statistics only, it cannot be stated that capital punishment is not a deterrent, because it is said that since it was abolished, there does not appear to be a rising crime rate.
Even referring to the research centre report entitled: A study of capital punishment as evidenced by Canadian associations, which was published by the Solicitor General and which very clearly refers to the criminal behaviour trend from 1962 to 1970, while in 1962, the rate was 1.7 per
100,000	people 7 years old or more, the rate was 2.3 in 1970. Looking at statistics of attempted murders appearing in the same report in Table 33, we see that the rate went from 0.5 per 100,000 in 1962 to 1.4 in 1970. Therefore, the rate is on the increase. I believe there is always a danger in comparing statistics from different countries with and without capital punishment. This is always subject to errors.
My decision was taken in the light of information received, a document I consulted, and also my personal experience. I would like to stress to the hon. members that there is actually a deterrence, although some would argue to the contrary. I am referring to hangings at the Bordeaux prison, in the north end of Montreal. On the evenings where somebody was hanged, people used to gather in front of the prison. There was complete silence among those people. Everyone waited for the flag to be hoisted, confirming that the poor victim was dead.
I went there twice and I admit that I did not remain indifferent. One cannot remain insensitive to such a spectacle, if I may call it that. We were all silent and sad and in favour of mercy on the part of the jury or the Supreme Court. As to the inmates inside the prisons, a chaplain confirmed to me that it was a day of mourning for all of them, and that the mourning did not last only one day but several days before and after the hanging. The inmates really refected and realized that this penalty given for a crime, I am still talking of premeditated murder, gave a true idea of the horror it inspires to most people.
That day certainly included for inmates and members of criminal circles outside, that is members of the mafia or organized crime, moments of refection which, in my esti-

May 31, 1976
Capital Punishment
mation, were and are likely to prevent other crimes by the inmates who are spending jail terms of 25 years such as proposed in the bill and will at least act as a deterrent for the inmates. Prisoners are not motivated in any way toward good conduct because they are in for 25 years. What will they loose by committing a second murder? For them, there is no possibility of rehabilitation. Following this process, Mr. Speaker, I for one believe that capital punishment acts as a deterrent.
Secondly, what is the danger or risk of making a mistake and hanging an innocent victim? It seems to me that the development of social legislation and gratuities, and the advantages of legal assistance for court defence and of identification of the true victims by medical procedures, by the unanimous decision of the jury, the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court eliminate all possibility of error during the trial. And speaking about unanimity of the jury, I would like to refer to the trial of Jean-Guy Dubois and Jacques Ouimet, where the ninth member of the jury had some doubts and the judge asked for a new trial. This trial will take place in the fall. I believe that this is certainly a precaution which aims at preventing innocent people from becoming victims of the death penalty.
In my opinion, the present situation is much more dangerous to the extent that innocents are victimized without a trial. If we continue the present system, that is if we maintain the abolition of the death penalty, and even if we eliminate the exceptions that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, if we completely abolish the death penalty, I believe that such an attitude will greatly increase the danger that innocent people would become the victims, and without benefit of a trial.
I am very concerned that simply to defend themselves, people will shoot to stop the first criminal attempt. For instance, you will recall the pharmacist who saw someone go into his store and simply to defend himself, chose to shoot first instead of becoming a victim. It seems to me that the present situation is more dangerous, that is that Canadian citizens run a greater risk of being innocent victims now than if the death penalty were established within the framework that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech.
As concerns social defence theoreticians who blame society for everything, it seems to me that they have a tendency to negate individual responsibility. It is true that we have established all sorts of services or social and even protectionist policies, and I have always been in favour of such initiatives, which form the basis of civilization, of love, of friendship, and I would even say of human society. But for some people, the establishment of these structures becomes a means to evade their responsibities.
For some, all these programs constitute a way to evade their responsibilities, and they rely only on others and prefer letting the community do everything instead of developing a personal interest or motivation for work, and a discipline for life. If they have a problem, they prefer to dilute their responsibility on the rest of the community.
Generalization of that belief leads to the conclusion that society alone is responsible for the mistakes of individuals. I think a criminogenic virus more powerful in itself than all its pharmacopoeia and likely to ruin its action is being maintained and fed. Capital punishment should not be 
considered as pure vengeance, nor those who are in favour of capital punishment as more simplistic minds than others. It is healthy for society to be able to condemn symbolically a sordid crime. To deny society that right would be to urge it to show more severity for crime and downgrade its standards of public morality.
In concluding I will support all rehabilitation measures for inmates who accept to live within society. And I hope to have the opportunity at other times to speak on the measures I would like to see implemented in the area of rehabilitation, measures that I already advocated at the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary before, unfortunately, a decision was made to wind up in three stages all farm production material on that 400 acre farm where vegetables, meat and dairy products were produced on the farm, and an unfortunate decision was made to close that farm altogether and buy at retail prices all the food required for the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary and the Archambault Institute. I think in that context we could have got a rehabilitation policy going.
So I suggest that the courts make it a priority to proceed with the trial of an alleged murderer and that deliberation take place in a reasonable delay rather than cases being postponed for two or three years. Quite often witnesses could not be found; I am not talking about a very short delay so that public opinion, feeling and emotion can be aroused through the papers, but a reasonable delay. I think we should make it a priority to hear those trials, and in a reasonable delay. Mr. Speaker, if Parliament votes the abolition of capital punishment I ask the government to amend the law so at least a second time murderer will be subject to capital punishment, and that his trial be proceeded with as soon as possible.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow my good friend, the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy), and I congratulate him on a well reasoned and well thought-out speech. As the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) indicated today, this has been a very long debate, with in the order of 70 speakers participating so far. This reflects the great importance members place on this issue and the deep sense of conviction members hold on both sides of the question. Because of this, they feel compelled to speak and place on record their views and, indeed, the views of their constituents.
As other speakers who have preceded me have indicated, this is certainly not one of the most pleasurable debates in which one might participate. There have been a number of speeches covering, in essence, every aspect of this important subject. There have been excellent presentations on both sides of the issue. I have listened to a great number of those speeches and have read many more, and regardless of the view one might hold on this subject, one cannot be anything but impressed by the very high calibre and sincerity hon. members have displayed in their approach to the issue.
I do not wish to minimize the contribution of any member who has taken part in the debate, and certainly not of the hon. member who preceded me for whom I have
May 31, 1976

developed a great amount of respect and admiration over the years. But I must say, after reading the speeches, I was most impressed by the contribution of such members as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk), the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) and, on Friday, the very thoughtful presentation by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). To those hon. members who did not have an opportunity of hearing those speeches or have not as yet had an opportunity of reading them, I would certainly commend them for reading.
There is no question but that the issue of capital punishment has once again caused widespread concern and further active debate in all parts of Canada. As one hon. member has put it in this House, there is a feeling of anxiety and quiet desperation toward the whole issue of violent crime in our society and the manner with which this government in particular has approached it. The anxiety, quite frankly, involves the safety and security of all citizens in Canada. There is growing apprehension as to what will be done, if anything, to restore safety and security in Canada.
Most of us have received a great deal of mail on this subject, and some of us have conducted surveys. Some of the comments we have heard from our constituents can be summed up by phrases such as: murderers should be treated as a threat to society and not as a menace to society; either keep them in prison and a long way from society, or definitely reinstate the death penalty. Perhaps their feelings can be summed up by a phrase of this order: we do not need murderers walking around to murder again, or the expense of keeping them in jail. There is a general feeling of desperation and frustration. I can assure the House that the feeling of concern is widespread and most genuine.
Through this bill we are once again asked to place our positions on the line. A vote for this bill will, in fact, be a vote to abolish capital punishment and a vote against will be a vote to reconfirm the five-year partial abolition which expires, I believe, in 1978. The first question which arises in my mind is why we have to be dealing with this piece of legislation at this particular time. This law still has another 2'A years or so to run. We have a law on the statute books and it is amazing to me that we find ourselves dealing with this particular issue at a time when we have so many other important issues facing the country. One can only assume that this is an attempt to divert attention from the real issues facing the country, or an attempt to divert our attention from getting at the root causes of violent crime. For whatever reason, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) and the government have seen fit to bring this bill forward, we as members are called upon again to render another decision.
Most members will agree that this is not a clearcut issue. Nor is it easy to rationalize or decide which is the best route to choose in casting one's vote on this issue. It is perhaps the most agonizing deliberation I have ever engaged in, and I am sure it is agonizing to all hon. members, at least judging from the sincerity and the
Capital Punishment
manner in which hon. members have made their individual presentations to the House. The issue is associated with religious, philosophical and traditional connotations. It is related, as well, to such factors and considerations as rehabilitation, the question and philosophy of punishment, the philosophy of revenge and reform, and whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent to murder. There have been convincing arguments on both sides of the issue.
Moreover, we have been bombarded by reams of statistical data as well as the historical evaluation and study of capital punishment-courtesy of the Solicitor General's department! We have been subjected to a fair amount of so-called expert opinion, if you will, from those who conveniently endorse the Solicitor General's view. Quite frankly, I really must question the objective validity of some of those so-called expert opinions placed before us. Those people, in my view, have an obvious bias, as does anyone who participates in this debate, and in my view they simply set out to rationalize or justify their views by applying selected statistics, and interpreting those statistics to the best advantage in support of their viewpoints.
I suppose that is fair and part of debate, or part of putting forward one's own particular point of view, but I say that this circumstance should be made abundantly clear. Quite frankly, I question whether in fact there are any real experts in this particular field. If so, who are they, because, as the hon. member for Laval just pointed out, you can manipulate statistics to prove any point of view- and we see it happening in this case. We see statistical evidence used to support either point of view quite effectively.
So I believe that one has to rely upon one's own beliefs and whatever view one has, supported by his evidence and supported by one's constituents-if you will, one's own gut feeling. If the bill should pass, it will in effect give approval to the past actions of the government, since the law which we now have on the books has not been implemented. In my view, the government has failed to enforce the spirit and the intent of the law. Yet I am aware of the fact that the governor in council may commute a sentence of death to imprisonment for life or invoke the royal prerogative of mercy, but I wonder whether, by applying those two sections in every case, the real intent and spirit of the law is complied with. I submit it is not. What is irritating Canadians more than anything else is simply the failure of the government to comply with the spirit of our laws. In that connection, I circulated a survey to my constituents in response to which I received some comments which appeared on the form from a resident in the Vegreville federal constituency. The comments read:
Can we be certain after the last legislation in which, when police and prison guards were murdered and their murderers were supposed to get the death penalty and didn't, that this new legislation is going to help the situation? If that was not enforced, how can we be certain that this will be? Will these murderers be out on the streets again in a year or two, or will we finally stand behind our legislation? In the way in which our legislation is getting more lenient, in a few years will murder be legalized?
I think that sums up the irritation and the frustration of many Canadians across this land. To a large number of Canadians this government has simply flaunted the law. I
13988

government on the basis of who gets the most votes and in turn the most seats. I believe that to ignore public opinion on this issue is inconsistent and contemptuous of majority rule. That is an affront to one of the basic principles of democracy. After all, governments get elected by a majority, which is an expression of a majority opinion. For those who might disagree with my rationale, I suggest that we choose a national referendum to settle the subject once and for all.
I say once again that there is a growing amount of cynicism about politics, politicians and our democratic institutions. Much of this emanates from the failure of our politicians accurately to reflect the views of those whom they represent. I believe in democracy. The issue before us is indeed difficult and complex, and I believe that when we are faced with an issue as sensitive as this, one which goes to the very core of our social and moral fabric, we should solve it, not by ignoring the wishes of the majority of Canadians but by accepting the wishes of the majority. Very clearly, the majority of Canadians are opposed to total abolition. That is the position of the majority of my constituents, and that is the position I shall take when I cast my vote on this bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-Supply and Services- Lockheed contract-Department's knowledge of financing difficulties; the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)-Transport-Increase in container freight rates-Request for review by Transport Commission or government intervention; the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt)- Agriculture-Number of cattle and sheep destroyed under blue tongue control program.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Capital Punishment
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this debate on this occasion, under the circumstances of the economic ills facing this country, seems to me to be put a red herring designed strictly to captivate public attention and to turn aside from those matters which the government should really be addressing itself to rather than this. First, there was Bill C-83, an omnibus bill designed, one would almost say, to be sure that people would be taken away from the problems of wage and price controls, the problems of unemployment and many other important problems. Then to top it off, along comes Bill C-84.
Bill C-84 marks the fifth time in my career in this House that there has been debate on capital punishment. In 1958 there was a motion by the then member for Scarborough, Frank McGee. There was no vote on that occasion. Then is 1966 or thereabouts there was a government motion, a resolution which did not carry. It was defeated. Then in 1967, in a quick volte face, the government came forward with a bill restricting capital punishment. This was repeated in 1972 with the five-year renewal, and now we are faced with the total abolition of capital punishment. Considering what the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski) and other hon. members in this House have said, and public opinion being what it is, one wonders at the sanity and the purpose of the government in bringing forward this matter at this time.
If I may be permitted a personal note, some 70 hon. members have spoken. Perhaps I am about the seventy-third speaker on this subject, and there will be just as many more, if not more than that. I regret that in so far as this debate is concerned there have been far too many carefully honed, prepared transcripts which hon. members have read with varying degrees of success. There is only one purpose for that. It is a transgression of the standard of conduct of this House. No one, other than a minister reading a carefully prepared explanation of some legislation should use a text.


Mr. Caccia:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) can make his own remarks. I have seen far too many of those speeches. Let the hon. member check the attendances at committee and then he can make those allegations. I say, with all due respect to the Chair, that I think it would improve debate a great deal if not so many prepared texts were used.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Hon. members have had plenty of experience in this House. I realize that at the beginning this chamber can be very awe-inspiring and perhaps some members then require a prepared speech.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Certainly.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member who has the floor realize that the speaker who preceded him was speaking from notes that were carefully prepared?
95568-5 l'/z

May 31, 1976
Capital Punishment


Mr. Paproski:: He was not.


An hon. Member:: He did not read from them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any opportunity to consider whether my colleague the hon. member for Vegreville, followed a text.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) on a question of privilege.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) wants to strike at the arguments of my friend, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and cannot find any better weapon than by picking on me, I suggest he should remarshall his forces. I think it is very unfair for him to cast aspersions against my speech.
I had notes written out in handwriting, and I do not think there is any law against that. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his statement.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I was watching the hon. member for Vegreville, and I certainly did not see him read his speech; but he did have notes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. MacFarlane:: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) on a point of order.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully submit that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has cast aspersions on all of us. I know I did not use my notes during my speech, and in fact the hon. member accused me of speaking to the angels because I was looking down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. In the opinion of the Chair, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain is always an angel.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, not all hon. members, of course, but far too many have spoken from texts. It seems to me that the sooner we get back to the practice of speaking directly, the better. After all, every one of us was elected by speaking directly to his constituents. No member would dare appear on a platform and speak from a text.


Marcel-Claude Roy: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) on a point of order. I would suggest that we get back to the subject of Bill C-84.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that if the hon. member refers to some member of any of the parties in the House, I think it is sometimes advisable to prepare one's speeches. Then they are much more consistent, relevant and concise and the time of the House is not wasted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Chair would suggest that we are getting into a point of debate and we should get back to the terms of Bill C-84.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Very well, Mr. Speaker. The reason I raise this point is that I am not always too sure the speech is the view of the hon. member who is making it. I also find it a bad practice to have a copy of the speech and to hand it to the media. The media have access to the "blues", the working copies, and can get their reports quickly. There is no need for a written copy to be handed to the media.
Interest in capital punishment has waxed and waned. No capital sentence has been carried out since 1962, despite clearcut indications that the exercise of the royal prerogative by the cabinet has been nothing short of blatant abuse. In 1964-65 we had the Santa Claus murder case, and there was a sort of five minutes to midnight commutation. There had been no recommendation for mercy in this cold-blooded killing of policemen and yet there was a commutation.
There was another instance where I know hon. members on the other side were violently aroused by the crime, one of the most violent Canada has seen, when one, Dionne, raped and murdered four children in Quebec City. His sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. What for? He was subsequently killed in prison by other inmates.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point that I feel the sentence of whole life imprisonment is a cold, sadistic act. We read of the Roman dictators who are reported to have given slaves the right to life; they were turned loose in a pit of lions unarmed, and if they could kill the lions their lives were preserved. It is the same sort of thing today to put into the prison system a man who has been found guilty of murder, particularly certain types of murder. He is going to be killed. Pontius Pilate could not have been more cynical. The government claims that he has not been sentenced to death, that his sentence has been commuted to 25 years or 15 years; but the human wolves in the penal system will get him, Mr. Speaker. As sure as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) are drawing breath today, those men will die.
What do we do with a "Williams"? What do we do with that unfortunate individual in Saskatoon who killed those four children? Do we put them into the penal system because they have a right to their lives? That is the argument made to justify the abolition of capital punishment, that the state has not the right to take a life. But, Mr. Speaker, the individual who is put into the penal system will be killed. That makes it that much more sadistic on the part of legislators who say that for those humane and moral reasons they are going to abolish capital punishment. Instead of the hangman's noose, it is knife or it is strangling. Instead of the hangman's noose, are we to see beatings to death in prison? Does anyone think that alter-
May 31, 1976

ing the form of punishment will make society feel better? Does anyone think that we are wrapping a mantle of self-righteousness about ourselves if we decree the abolition of existing forms of capital punishment, yet send men and women to a much crueller, more sadistic death? What we are being asked to do makes a travesty of our system of justice.
I think the 1967 restrictions were the result of an abandonment of so-called moral principles which provided for the abolition of capital punishment. Before 1967 we heard about those moral principles; we have not heard much about them in this debate. One can cite Scripture any way one chooses. It is almost like statistics. Scripture can be used to justify almost any case. Surely to goodness, what is law if it is not the formal expression-


An hon. Member:: You have lost your place.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) wants to know how many notes I have, I tell him that I have a foolscap page full of definitions.


An hon. Member:: Table them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will table the hon. member, too.
For the benefit of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, I say that law is the formal expression of a rule of conduct of a human society, for the benefit and protection of that society, which is accepted by that society. Why is the government proposing the change to the Criminal Code, in the guise of Bill C-84, a change which Canadian society does not want to accept? Either I am right or all our mail, surveys and polls, are wrong. Canadian society does not want to accept the abolition of capital punishment, does not accept the punishment for murder as contained in Bill C-84, life imprisonment only, and has shown that it is concerned about its own protection. The law shall be for the protection of society. If the law protects adequately, why, as the hon. member for Vegreville asked some moments ago, is there the present preoccupation, in the public mind, with protection? The reason is that the law is failing to protect the public. Certainly, there is a great deal more violence these days; but the law should protect the public from violence, and it does not.
By introducing a bill providing for partial abolition, the government of 1967 threw a sop to its backbenchers who wanted to protect prison guards and policemen. The principle of that bill involved limited protection; of course, immediately the bill became law, that principle went out the window. Without doubt, the 1967 bill was based on arguments of so-called higher moral values. In order to get Bill C-2 through the House, the government had to agree on two categories of capital offences, capital murder and non-capital murder. Once those categories were established and the bill passed, the cabinet went through what I consider a most cynical exercise. I think between 1967 and 1972 it really went to the point of misleading parliament as it had no intention at all of having capital sentences carried out. Despite all the protection given in the courts, it was never intended to carry out a capital sentence.
Capital Punishment
Now we are considering Bill C-84. The reason, I suggest, is that there is a backlog, a waiting line of men who have been found guilty of capital murder within the restrictions of the present law. By having the present bill passed, the cabinet hopes to avoid the responsibilities of the law which it brought forward in 1972. I do not like Bill C-84. I do not believe in the abolition of the death penalty, and never have. Since 1958, in every debate on capital punishment in which I participated I have been against the abolition of the death penalty. I favour the law which was introduced in 1961 and in force until 1967, a law providing for the division into capital and non-capital categories of that heinous crime, murder.
I anticipated that this year there might be a debate on capital punishment and therefore conducted a survey in 1975, which continued from September until November. I sent out 47,000 questionnaires to homes in Edmonton West, and received about 7,300 returns, or 15 per cent. Incidentally, the returns were carefully analysed as to the sex of the person replying, age group, whether male or female, and marital status. I sent a copy of the results of the questionnaire to every member of the cabinet. I must tell hon. members that several cabinet ministers privately indicated to me that when they see results like these it shows how sadly out of touch they are with public opinion. Let me read the first question on the questionnaire, and the result: Capital punishment (death by hanging) is presently limited to those convicted of murdering an on-duty police officer or prison guard, and conviction can be commuted to life imprisonment by the cabinet. Are you in favour of:
(a)	retention of the law as it now stands?
"Yes", 2 per cent.
In other words, 150 out of 7,300 answered that they were satisfied with the retention of the law as it now stands. I continue:
(b)	retention of the present law with the addition of severe limits on the rights of commutation?
"Yes", 6 per cent.
(c)	any sentence of life imprisonment for capital murder being with (8 per cent-605) or without (50 per cent-3,681) provisions for parole?
In other words, that is a sentence to life imprisonment and throw away the key.
(d)	having the death penalty applicable to anyone convicted of premeditated murder, murder for personal gain, or murder resulting from a crime of violence such as armed robbery, rape, etc., without distinction as to the victim?
"Yes", 76 per cent.
(e)	the total abolition of capital punishment?
"Yes", 9 per cent.
That is what the people of my constituency think about the subject of abolition of capital punishment. There was a further return on a question asked by the Edmonton Police Association. The question read:
I believe in extending the sentence of capital punishment to all premeditated murder and murder committed during the commission of a crime. Yes or no.
I received 1,700 copies of this newspaper clipping which is very simplistic in its terms. Of those, 89 per cent replied yes, they were in favour of the extension of capital punishment for all premeditated murder and murder committed

May 31, 1976
Capital Punishment
during the commission of a crime. Many years ago there was a royal commission on capital punishment in the United Kingdom, 1949-1953.1 quote from that report:
We think it is reasonable to suppose that the deterrent force of capital punishment operates not only by affecting the conscious thoughts of individuals tempted to commit murder, but also by building up in the community, over a long period of time, a deep feeling of peculiar abhorrence for the crime of murder. "The fact that men are hung for murder is one great reason why murder is considered so dreadful a crime."
Murder is a dreadful crime. We use a very awesome and dread-producing penalty. It has been said by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) and many others that capital punishment has not been a deterrent to murder because murder is still committed. Capital punishment is not a 100 per cent solution to preventing murder. There is no punishment that is a 100 per cent deterrent or preventer of crime. I suppose one might say that capital punishment is right because the person who is executed will not commit any crimes thereafter, but that is the only sure one.
I find it passing strange that in all this argument, abolitionists say to those who would retain capital punishment "prove your case". Why? After all, is it not up to those who advocate a change to prove their case? It is the abolitionists who wish to change the law. Let them prove their case. Do not ask those who would retain capital punishment to prove their case. The onus is on those who wish to make the change. That is a principle of law and it will always apply.
In so far as deterrence is concerned, there are no statistics with regard to why a person was deterred. If I asked the hon. member who is just leaving the chamber whether he had ever been deterred from committing crime, since he did not commit a crime, he would not come forward to say so. No one who has been deterred from committing a crime will come forward and say that they were prepared to shoot or knife an individual, but because of capital punishment they did not do it. Therefore, the question of statistics is a totally bogus argument. In the report of the royal commission on capital punishment in the United Kingdom, Lord Justice Denning, as he then was, said:
The punishment inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens for them. It is a mistake to consider the objects of punishment as being deterrent or reformative or preventive and nothing else.. . The ultimate justification of any punishment is not that it is a deterrent, but that it is the emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime: and from this point of view, there are some murders which, in the present state of public opinion, demand the most emphatic denunciation of all, namely the death penalty.
My former colleague, Davie Fulton, in the second reading debate of the 1961 bill, as reported in Hansard for May 23 of that year, said:
Society's concern for its basic rules is expressed in its commands-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being five o'oclock, pursuant to order made Friday, February 27, 1976, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on todays' order paper, namely, notices of motions.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the usual negotiations, we have agreed that we will deal with motion No. 9 standing in the name of the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark)-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who?


Jean-Jacques Blais: -the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, as he then was, now the Leader of the Opposition; page 63 of today's order paper.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is agreed, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is so ordered.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 9, 1974, the motion of Mr. Clark:
That, in the opinion of this House, a committee should be selected to consider the powers, prerogatives and privileges attaching to the office of Prime Minister and to report what safeguards are desirable or necessary to secure the constitutional principles of the sovereignty of parliament and the supremacy of the law.
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am indebted to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais) for underscoring the change in status of the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), as he then was-a change in status which I feel confident will be changed even further as a result of the next foray in our political system before the electors of this country. I think it important that all members of parliament, backbenchers, cabinet ministers-yes, even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-should read and reread the speech of the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, now Leader of the Opposition, which was delivered in this House on December 9, 1974, when the motion before us was introduced in his name.
There are a number of reasons why the office of the Prime Minister should be subject to scrutiny by all of us as we look ahead as representatives of the people of this country. First is the increasing ease with which all of us, particularly the Prime Minister, are able to communicate with the public. Then there is the effect of the changes in the rules of the House, which has been to emphasize the pre-eminent position of the government and, in particular, of the office of the Prime Minister.
I do not propose to reread the speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition in 1974, but I do think it is well worth quoting from his remarks as recorded at page 2071 of Hansard. Speaking briefly about the office of the Prime Minister, he had this to say:
The Prime Minister comes to the question period on most days, but the questions are usually about his judgment, seldom about his powers; and anyway there is no requirement that he answer. After the so-called Pearson precedent of 1968 there is a real question whether parliament can defeat a Prime Minister by vote in this House except on matters of obvious confidence, like a budget. If our capacity to defeat a Prime Minister is so limited, so is our capacity limited to control him by the
May 31, 1976

threat of defeat. As the chief minister, he is less bound by Treasury Board than any of his colleagues, and appointments to or by his office can be made without recourse to the Public Service Commission. His estimates are brought before the miscellaneous estimates committee. However, they are not dealt with there by him, but by a parliamentary secretary to another minister.
The Prime Minister reports to no standing committee and there is no statute to define his responsibilities. Ironically, parliament probably has less real control over the Prime Minister than we have over the president of Air Canada or the president of CNR, because a Crown corporation is established by statute while the Prime Minister's office is not, and its officials must appear regularly before standing committees while the Prime Minister's officials do not. No matter how loosely you define "responsible" government, parliament should have some direct control over the actions of its Prime Minister beyond his mere appearance for questions in the House. If that has been important in the past, I suggest it will be even more critical in the future, for reasons I will enumerate.
I believe the phrases I have read lay the groundwork for the consideration of the motion before us. There were four main points which the Leader of the Opposition brought out on that day, and I believe he did so most eloquently. Initiative, under our parliamentary system, lies with the cabinet. The conduct of public business and accountability for public business rests with the cabinet. Government itself is growing and, as a consequence, the powers of the Prime Minister appear to be growing to a corresponding degree.
The reform of our Standing Orders in 1969, and the way in which the revised rules have been used since that time both in this chamber and in the committees, have made it clear that the effect was to remove from backbenchers on both sides the right to scrutinize and, where necessary, to delay. In other words, the cabinet is no longer the servant of the House but the House has become the handmaiden of cabinet. This is particularly the case when there is a majority government, but the situation is notable even in a minority situation where one might think the effect would be minimal.
Consider the way in which access to television has affected the role of the Prime Minister. The House will recall that recently, on the occasion when the right hon. gentleman changed his mind and turned his back on what he had said earlier with regard to price controls, he spoke outside the House of Commons, away from the ministry, making the announcement directly over television. Other members of the cabinet have used television in similar circumstances. Notable, recently, was the way in which the budget was handled in terms of the dissemination of information to the public. The Prime Minister has access to television by virtue of his office. He has shown an ability to use this medium in a way which affects the operations of the House and in a manner beyond the capacity of any other member of the House, including those who sit with him around the cabinet table.
Then, again, the point was made that the Prime Minister really has a department of his own. That is exactly what the Privy Council office has become. It is a department whose power is contained only within limits set by the Prime Minister himself. It operates in the complete absence of scrutiny by parliament. This, in itself, makes the establishment of a committee of investigation, such as is proposed in the motion, an urgent matter. Comments have been made in the House from time to time concerning the right of the Prime Minister to control, through his
Prime Minister's Office
office, access to television. My hon. friend from Halifax, the former leader of the official opposition has a bill on the order paper calling for the establishment of procedures which will permit other party leaders to have similar access to the media.
If the result of the imposition of television upon the parliamentary process is the one we have seen so far, then surely it is only fair that the Leader of the Opposition and other party leaders should have a similar right. I mentioned the Leader of the Opposition in particular because according to our precedents he is the leader of the alternative government. I hope I shall not be hurting the feelings of hon. members opposite if I say that backbench MPs on the government side are, under our system, largely dependent upon the personality and style of the Prime Minister for their influence, and that if MPs are, in the words of the Prime Minister, nobodies, then he has made them so as a result of the way in which he has used his office and the power in his hands. He is really the first among equals, as was traditionally the case. He has no equal when it comes to status within our parliamentary system.
Improvements in House procedures in the direction of greater accessibility to information would help government backbenchers as well as members of the opposition. If government backbenchers were able to take advantage of these improved procedures, perhaps they would have more credibility as critics than they have today, and the Prime Minister might be forced to listen to them. The fact of the matter is that, unlike the operation of the parliament of Westminster, backbenchers opposite sit mute and do not criticize the Prime Minister. I would ask any of my colleagues who have witnessed the House at Westminster in operation to compare the questions that are asked by government backbenchers of their own ministers with the kind of planted questions and the floating of questions that seem to characterize the operations of this House.


An hon. Member:: We are not in such a bad way as you.


Walter David Baker: If the members of the opposition in this House of Commons, in terms of scrutinizing public business and public affairs and particularly the office of the Prime Minister, are in a bad way, then in view of the way the backbenchers on the government side are dependent upon this office, I suggest they are in a very bad way indeed.
It cannot be expected that the Prime Minister would voluntarily loosen his hold on the backbenchers and on the media. Therefore, I think it is time for us to consider at this point in our parliamentary life whether or not the role and office of the Prime Minister and his powers ought to be examined by a committee. It is time we considered the extent to which the power of parliament can be a check on the Prime Minister's office as well as on the operations of the Prime Minister himself. We do not have that opportunity now. There does not seem to be any willingness, in this House at least, for even a government backbencher to take on the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, and I find that most unusual.


An hon. Member:: We do that in caucus.

May 31, 1976
Prime Minister's Office


Walter David Baker: They may say they speak to him in caucus, Mr. Speaker. If they honestly agree with every utterances of the Prime Minister both in this House of Commons and outside, if they can sit mute and agree completely that everything the Prime Minister does is beyond criticism by any backbencher, then I think they are not only affecting the life of this parliament but they are probably not representing the people who have sent them here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter David Baker: I think I have touched a nerve, Mr. Speaker. If there is anything that underscores the necessity for an examination of the operation of the Prime Minister's office, it is the reaction I have just heard from hon. members opposite. Any Prime Minister, whether past, present or future, being a human being is subject to err. He is indeed subject to all the vicissitudes that affect our daily lives and is incapable of being right on every occasion. However, what strikes me about this parliament, Mr. Speaker, and the backbenchers opposite is that since I have come here I have never heard any criticism from them of the government in power.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Thank the Lord you are not in our caucus.


Monique Bégin: You just do not know politics.


Walter David Baker: The hon. member who interjects says that I do not understand politics. What bothers me is their lack of concern about parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: There is nothing more demeaning or degrading to a member of parliament than to sit mute when he or she knows something is being said which he or she does not agree with. I just cannot believe that on every occasion every one of the silent ones over on that side always agrees that the position that the government takes accords with the principles that they share. In other words, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Levis on a point of order.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the opposition House leader. He seems to be attacking me personally, and this is why I rise on a point of order. This concerns me very deeply because if one wants to speak about the structure of a political party, it should be done quite openly without distorting the facts.
I remember that not too long ago, when I took part in the debate on the last budget, I aimed certain criticisms at the opposition. During my speech, I made some positive and constructive criticism of the budget, and this is what caused the press gallery and CBC reporters to ask me if I

was against the budget. I said no. Unlike the opposition, I accept the budget as a whole, but I see things that could be added to it, constructive things, Mr. Speaker.
I do not know if what the opposition House leader (Mr. Baker) wants to suggest in this House is that a party should be divided like the opposition now is, and if we consider what happened after the leadership crisis-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I suggest to the hon. member for Levis that that is a point for debate. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), I suggest, should return to the terms of motion No. 9.


Walter David Baker: That is exactly what I am doing, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to thank the hon. member for clearing that up. At least there is one member over who protests from time to time. Let me just say that the reaction we have just had underscores the point that I have been trying to impress upon hon. members opposite. I believe I am getting through to hon. members opposite when I say that this silent majority in parliament is the vehicle that has enhanced the power of the Prime Minister and his office. That is why, in the face of this silent majority, there ought to be an examination of the office and the operations of the Prime Minister.
Let me compare for a moment the office of the leader of the opposition with the office of the Prime Minister. The office of the leader of the opposition operates within certain financial constraints. The Prime Minister's office operates within no such financial limits.


Monique Bégin: It operates within electoral limits.


Walter David Baker: By contrast, the financial constraints on the office of the leader of the opposition are set by the internal economy commissioners of this parliament who, in effect-and this has been the whole point that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has been making for a long time-are controlled by the cabinet, which means ultimately control by the Prime Minister. In other words, we now have within our system of operation a parallel public service, if you will, one which is not nearly as responsible-because it can choose its own terms of reference-as is our bureaucracy in terms of its operation and appointments. I think if members of the House will think about it, they will agree I am not trying to be partisan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: Thank you very much. I appreciate the kindness of my friends, and I take it they are truly concerned about the operation of the office of that man who has them under such firm control.
May 31, 1976

What is happening here is that the powers of the office of the Prime Minister, the Privy Council office, have been growing to a much greater extent than have the powers of any other office of this institution and, I suggest to you, greater than the powers of the institution itself as those powers have been delineated and lessened by rule changes. The powers of that office have also been growing to a greater extent than even the bureaucracy that is appointed under certain rules. As a result, there has been an intrusion into the field generally occupied by the bureaucracy to an extent that is not healthy in our system. That is really the point of my speech.
I hope members on the other side will not stand up and argue the principle that from time to time we ought to take a look at institutions that flow from the new circumstances of our times, because this is what is happening in parliament and this is what is happening to the Prime Minister's office. The motion is sound and the time has come for an examination and an assessment of how far these powers ought to be allowed to grow and under what control they ought to be placed, either political or financial. We must discuss what mechanisms we can hopefully agree upon to arrive at a proper balance within our modern parliamentary system.
May I just say, in conclusion, that it becomes even more important to us, as members of parliament, in a period of time when bureaucracy is growing to such an extent that our access to information becomes less and less, that the motion of the Leader of the Opposition-or the hon. member for Rocky Mountain as he then was-be considered in light of what has been put forward, accepted and apparently agreed upon in principle by the government in respect of this whole matter of freedom of information.
We have to examine this intrusion into the parliamentary and bureaucratic balance and the growth of this office, just as we must examine the whole question of the right of each member of parliament to access to information. That was the point of the member for Rocky Mountain and I commend the principle of that resolution and of this resolution to the House of Commons.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to leave the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) under the impression that I waited after his speech to speak, because I intended to do so in any event.
Mr. Speaker, it is fortunate that the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) gave us by his motion the opportunity to reassess an important aspect of the Canadian government process, in this instance the office of the right hon. Prime Minister.
Indeed, that very process underwent profound changes in the last fifteen years and it is vital to recognize the critical development of its growth and emphasize its underlying patterns, particularly in the light of the harsh criticisms arising there from.
Public administration in Canada is a very vast area of which political power is but a part, the legislative power being one of the two main components, that is Parliament on the one hand and the executive power on the other.
Prime Minister's Office
With this debate on the office of the Prime Minister and its prerogatives it is the whole matter of the responsibility of the executive before the House of Commons and consequently the means made available to the elected representatives to exercise effectively and intelligently that very control that is being questioned. There is talk about it periodically, and the matter itself is not new.
However, none of the hon. members who spoke before me it seems has yet explained the very operation of the office of the Prime Minister nor brought to light its structure and components. In fact, the office of the Prime Minister is not a new concept, its present size and influence being the main source of the many criticisms, sometimes warranted, most often unwarranted, voiced by elected representatives in the last few years out of spite, impatience or frustation.
It is not my intention here to open the file of the lack of information available to parliamentarians, nor to criticize the procedure used in our deliberations. May I simply say that there is a deep feeling of uneasiness which is reflected by the impatience directed towards the executive and its head.
To explain the enlarged staff of the Prime Minister's office, one must understand once again that for about ten years the whole governmental system has been suffering from an acute crisis of gigantism which results from a change in the philosophy on the role of the state and from a serious questioning of the Keynesian neo-classical theory of economic mechanisms.
In short, let us simply point out that it is now obvious that the market is no longer self-regulating and that for the survival of our institutions and of our standard of living, it is now essential, even at the risk of being branded as interventionists, that the state take a more active part, sometimes very bluntly and aggressively, through monetary, fiscal or socialistic policies, to put private interests in line with those of the whole collectivity, and thus prevent the resource redistribution, dear to the defenders of the so-called classical economy, from becoming a lure.
Yet this increased interference resulted in the creation of new governmental or quasi-governmental organizations first aimed at informing the government on the tendencies and economic indicators and acting as a consultative body for the development of the necessary policies and regulations. On the other hand, within the departments, new orientations were developed when it was not whole new departments as those of Regional Economic Expansion, Manpower, Housing and Environment. So, we have seen the staff of the public service grow considerably to meet those new responsibilities and those new spheres of activity.
The Prime Minister is by definition-I should say by tradition-the one who must coordinate the legislative and executive activities of the government system and as such, he must stay in continuing communication with the departments through his ministers, with the provinces through the officials of the division of federal-provincial relationship, with Parliament through the House of Commons and last, with the public through information media.
13996

May 31, 1976
Prime Minister's Office
It is a fact that the size and the influence of the Prime Minister's office have considerably increased since the accession to power of the present Prime Minister. I shall comment later the main effects of that boulimia but, first, it is important to understand that rather than to establish a parallel structure it was necessary to keep contact or try to keep contact and consequently to control the main structure. But to some extent, and at the risk of making unfounded statements, I shall say that the Prime Minister's office succeded better in that respect than ourselves the members of Parliament.
For some time, the public service has been accused of being tentacular, self-sufficient and syndromatically uncontrollable. I agree with that to some extent but I think there are good motives for its original impulsion as I said earlier and that practical considerations made it inflate itself like the frog in Lafontaine's fables.
In principle, it is Parliament's function to make sure that the public service is operating adequately. In practice, in the present circumstances and with the available means, the only person in a position to hold it back, on occasion, is the Prime Minister-through his influence more than through his real powers. Therefore, by necessity, the office of the Prime Minister has become a service organization having as a secondary but indispensable and important function an advisory function. There is every reason to applaud at this new trend: when one considers our inefficiency, that of the legislative, one must be glad that someone is controlling the monster the public service has become.
The motion of the hon. leader of the opposition asks that we set up a special committee to examine the role and influence of the office of the Prime Minister with regard to Parliament's right to scrutinize and criticize the executive. In fact, the extent of the powers, I should say the influence of the office of the Prime Minister is already known. That influence results from the necessities of daily life, from those of the changing public administration, from the Prime Minister himself assuming the powers of control and supervision over the government machinery, powers which he already had under the Constitution, but had never been exercised to their full extent. In short, it does not stem so much from the preparation of a putsch, as has often been suggested, but rather from the daily necessities of administration. My concerns are not, a priori, in respect of that, for the executive must administer, and so much the better if it finds the tools to do so.
But where does Parliament come into the picture? Is the House of Commons really losing some of its influence, some of its powers? And at a higher level, could we go so far as to say that at this time of exponential acceleration of changes in values and accepted ideas, the British parliamentary system, which can be described as traditional and rigorous, is no longer capable of adapting to new conditions to meet effectively the needs of a modern state? This is indeed where the question lies. Does our system still answer our needs today, as it is, and has always been, without change, without major adjustment, without a will to progress?
The Prime Minister is still responsible before his elected peers, the cabinet is still collectively accountable before the legislative body, but are we, as parliamentarians, in a

position to make a judgement on the activities of the executive that would be well-informed and exact? My answer is no. Without trying to analyse the rights and wrongs of our system, which has certainly rendered great services in the past, and has even demonstrated on occasion an extraordinary versatility, and has even been the guardian of democracy which we all cherish, our dear good old system has grown old and will have to undergo a serious lifting to show a new and acceptable look.
Instead of studying the prerogatives of the Prime Minister's office, we should rather take a look at ourselves, make a serious self-examination. To me, the very principle of ministerial responsibility is partly gone because it deprives the House of Commons of the very power it is supposed to wield, the sanction of the legislative or administrative measures taken by the executive. Except in some extraordinary circumstance, or in case of some never-heard-of crisis, government members will very unlikely take the risk of bringing the government down, except, as I said, in case of some essential question, or if the representatives, for serious personal reasons, cannot approve the position of their party, as expressed by the bills introduced by the cabinet, and which bind them, as they bind in their favour the government members, and as they bind the opposition members.
The party line is a gaping wound in and otherwise healthy body and I am surprised that few people have not seriously questioned it yet or have not proposed its mere abolition. There should only subsist, occasionally and in very special circumstances, what is usually called non-confidence votes, whereas all the members should interest themselves in the existence of the government and be able to judge in conditions similar to those that prevail today in all divisions. Abandoning the party line would give more value to the primary function we are supposed to hold in system of government, that of a law-making body, a role which has been disguised and which does not mean a word in the present situation. We should underline that, according to the fact, it is no longer sure that, since the precedent of 1967, the government can be brought down otherwise than with a non-confidence vote, but the threat still remains and prevents the members from acting according to their own conscience. Parliament has become a moral sanction for the actions of a small group, a moral sanction which abides by the necessity of politics and not by judgement and reason. This same little group is the instrument of a bigger administrative system, an arrogant and self-satisfied machinery.
I do not necessarily advocate some republican system as in the United States where the president freely choses his ministers and advisors without taking into account the contingencies of an election, although it would however be very fortunate, at times, to have the necessary flexibility so that the Prime Minister could bring into his cabinet a non-elected person, some authority in a particular area, when this authority is not available "on the bench". The present sacrosanct principle of ministerial responsibility is fiercely against it, but by substituting to it another type of real responsibilities through votes of non confidence against the Prime Minister, such impediment is thus removed as well as the attendant sclerosis.
May 31, 1976

The decision which must or will have to be taken one day or another will be whether the legislation is really a public responsibility or that of the government which approves it through a minister who introduces it as the consequence of a partisan policy but not a necessarily valid one of the party in power whose members are bound by a context of penalties and rewards, the carrot and stick, but this is much more serious by the fear of suddenly plunging the country in the confusion of some general election. The opposition should not rejoice too loudly, because it is the victim of the same restraints, but in the opposite way and cannot have a good laugh at this deplorable situation.
I foresee the day when all members of this House-and that applies as well as to the opposition members as to the government members-may be able without fear of reprisals and especially without fear of harmful effects for the state's stability, to decide in all conscience of the intrinsic value of bills brought in through the executive or otherwise. Either we are idiots without any professional conscience, any competence, real idiots then! If we continue to act as puppets, I see absolutely no use for this institution, except to save appearances and to constitue a feed tank for ambition. Either we change the spirit that is prevailing here but not only the spirit but the game's rule as well, then we will see appear the very reason for our being here, for what we are fighting for relentlessly: democracy. We will represent the people and we will act as adults and responsible people.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, in principle-and until I am given proof to the contrary, which has not been done yet- I have as much confidence in the 264 elected representatives now present, in their efficiency and their sense of duty, as in the administration where anonymity prevails and which does not have to give any account to anyone, in spite of appearances, because we must always save appearances.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I might say, in response to the hon, member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), that he is absolutely correct that it is the custom of the British House to recognize the backbencher, just as it is the custom of this House to have this party govern and that party stay in opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: First of all, I see some irony in the request contained in the resolution before us. The hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), in his introduction to this resolution, as recorded at page 2071 of Hansard, the same page as was quoted by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, stated the following:
. . . the powers of the Prime Minister should not be developed or exercised in isolation but must be set in a federal parliamentary context and be subject to detailed and regular parliamentary scrutiny. There is no such scrutiny today.
All I have heard from the opposition is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has not exercised the power that he should exercise. Certainly they say consistently that we are guilty of inaction-they say the Prime Minister is doing nothing-so to remain consistent they would have to confirm that this resolution asks us to examine nothing.
Prime Minister's Office
But I accept the inevitable fact that the opposition is inconsistent. It is perhaps a consequence of their inability to attain power in this country.
Getting back to the main thrust of the resolution, it asks for another chapter to be added to the sessional book of parliamentary procedure. The opposition, and especially the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, is unhappy with the accountability of the Prime Minister during question period, the most free wheeling, helter skelter free for all of any question period under the British parliamentary system. Again it is ironic that the track record of this Prime Minister in attendance during question period puts many hon. members on both sides of the House to shame.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: The hon. member for Rocky Mountain, now elevated to the position of Leader of the Opposition, prefers at times not to be here during question period. He is out on the hustings, meeting the people, talking to party people. That is the supposed intention of his action. He is probably right not to be here to examine the Prime Minister's powers, but this is certainly not consistent with this resolution.
The question period itself is the most liberal of all mechanisms we have. If this parliament were to follow the lead of other parliaments, this free, open questioning would not take place. It remains the most prized period for visitations by the public and the press, and perhaps that is the way it should remain. That is a matter of judgment. The press is the most important outside element of this Chamber, and this system of question period we have provides an opportunity to cover accountability in action.
I rather prefer the British system, and I know that here the greats minds in this House would disagree. Under the British system they give notice of all questions and have designated days on which ministers appear. Apart from accepted methods used to hide the real question I believe it would give opposition members and the press more meat in the answers. What has happened to question period by custom over the past couple of decades is precisely what this motion suggests. Beauchesne, if it were followed to the letter, would have most of the questions ruled out of order. Let us examine the guidelines and rules of question period as they appear in Beauchesne and in Erskine May's and discover where custom has brought us recently.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You shouldn't criticize Mr. Speaker.


George Baker: I am note criticizing Mr. Speaker or anyone else.
Ours must be the most lively question period of any parliamentary body in the world.
A government is elected to govern, and that is what the word means. The members of the opposition lost their chance to govern in the preceding election. Parliament is a place to speak, but a government must govern. The government was given that right by the people. The legislature, the word commonly used which refers to such bodies, examines and debates legislation brought in by the government, not by the opposition.
95 568-5 2(4

May 31, 1976
Prime Minister's Office
Our parliament remains, but the hon. gentleman asks that parliament be permitted to add to its duties by fully examining the office of the Prime Minister. Let us consider what is being asked. I agree that parliament should be able, if it is possible, to examine everything which is done by the government. I suggest to the hon. member, however, that he is putting the cart before the horse. First we should be examining parliament itself and the priorities and functions of this Chamber, and then perhaps his request would be granted in another way, or in the form he obviously prefers. He says that the question period is no good for his purposes, and I am sure that the cabinet ministers would agree.
This Chamber, quite frankly, is a rather unworkable entity in 1976. The hon. gentleman's motion attempts to aggravate an already overworked system of parliamentary procedure which should be swept into the ash can of history.
What is wrong with second reading committees? The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton referred to the British system. I will tell him something about the British system. I visited there with him. What is wrong with committees being able to initiate their own terms of reference, and what is so wrong about committees being able of their own volition to examine the real problems confronting this nation? In our protective and isolated manner we refuse to appoint outside experts to suggest a new role for this Chamber, as has been done under the British system.
The hon. member for Rocky Mountain asks for a regimented, structured procedure to examine the actions of the Prime Minister. He did not suggest anywhere in his address opening this debate that parliament is already bogged down.
It is my contention that this parliament examines the role, the powers, and the actions of the Prime Minister as completely as any parliament in the world. Because of the freedom exercised by the Chair during question period- which I am not questioning-hon. members of the opposition have a field day. That is good. It is good to have the opportunity every day for ten months of the year to grill the Prime Minister. Any member can ask questions, any number of questions is allowed, and questioners have a chance to become overnight heroes if they have done their homework, or overnight national flops if they have not.
There is a duty incumbent not only on the government side but also on the opposition side to keep things in perspective. The hon. member for Rocky Mountain, in a roundabout way, alluded to this. There are energies and money being expended in this Chamber and it is important to keep things in perspective. Canada is not just Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver; Canada is Canada, and Canada's problems are many and diverse. It is important always to keep that in mind.
Habitat may have adopted a role in world-wide ventures and considerations. It is fine to say that Canada is a rich nation and that Canada has to distribute its wealth around the world, but it is interesting to note that participants from all over the world were told in a pre-conference agenda to visit my riding first. With unemployment at nearly 30 per cent most of the year, the lowest provincial welfare payments in Canada, and a high cost of living, it is important to keep in mind that a chain is only as strong as

its weakest link. So it is with this parliament; if we add to our present cumbersome list of activities, we will go nowhere.
I said earlier that the opposition has as great a role to play as anyone else in defining our direction. I call on the hon. member for Rocky Mountain to demand a completely new set of procedures for this Chamber and not to burden it further. I also ask him to try to be here every day with the Prime Minister during question period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: I predict that the introduction of television into this Chamber will accomplish many things. All hon. members will be in place, and then the question which will be asked by the public will be. "Is that all there is to the House of Commons?" Of course if it is during question period people will say of government backbenchers, "Where are they?" Then and only then will we be forced into adopting another procedure of the British House, out of context. Backbenchers here will be standing up, and the Chair will have to do what is done in Britain: recognize first on the left, then on the right, and back and forth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: Then the great tool of the question period will be gone for the opposition and that is what this motion wants to maintain, and perhaps it should be maintained, if we do not change everything else.
I said "taken out of context" because the system in Britain goes hand in hand with other procedures-designated days for ministers and a whole system of select and special committees, which we do not have.
I say that the priorities of this House have nothing to do with when the Prime Minister last had a bath, nothing to do with who or who has not a driver's licence, and not even with the accepted procedure in this country under which the opposition tries to discredit the government on issues which have nothing to do with the problems of the country.
All hon. members know of the lack of opportunity in certain parts of the country; they all know that all Canadians are not equal, and they all know about the real problems of unemployment, pollution, and cost of living. I have great respect for the hon. member for Rocky Mountain for moving many amendments connected with the Contaminants Act which was passed during the present session. Mr. Speaker, I ask him to return to that constructive direction and not to be diverted by the immaterial and obviously subordinate information which could be gained from that great time waster, a structured look at our present great Prime Minister.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, for a moment I was afraid I would not be given the chance to respond to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I have nothing but praise for my two predecessors on this side of the House for the excellent way they spoke on this subject. My only regret is that the hon. member for Rocky Moun-
May 31, 1976

tain has already shown his disdain for backbenchers. He left when the House was debating a motion he introduced when he himself was a backbencher.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to suggest that the parliamentary secretary has gone beyond the bounds of good taste but he knows, I think, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was present at the beginning of today's private members' hour, which is quite unusual.
An. hon. Member: But he left.


Walter David Baker: It is most unusual for the Leader of the Opposition to attend during private members' hour. I regret very much, of course, that the pressure of public business has kept the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) away from the House. Frankly, on some occasions I think some hon. members ought to show more good taste than-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member has not raised a point of order but a point of debate. The parliamentary secretary has the floor.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I wish the opposition House leader would not rise on points of order when so little debating time is left. His points of order usually are tenuous. As the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) suggested, it is ironical that the Leader of the Opposition, having presented this motion when he was an ambitious young politician, now after having been chosen by his party-


Steve Eugene Paproski: And the people of Canada.


Jean-Jacques Blais: -to be his party's leader, is unable to attend the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if there is any possibility of having the remaining portion of this hour devoted to a consideration of the motion before the House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It would be a good idea.


Walter David Baker: You are asking for too much, Stanley.


Jean-Jacques Blais: It would have been nice if the hon. member for Rocky Mountain had remained in the House to discuss this important matter. I and other hon. members would have appreciated knowing if he were still of the same mind as when he introduced this particular motion, or whether his experience as leader of his party has caused him to alter his perspective. I suggest that he made statements in his speech of December 9, 1974, which he may now regard as erroneous. For example he said, as reported at page 2072 of Hansard for that date:
Without dwelling on them too long, I would suggest that certain other forces which traditionally have restrained a Prime Minister have been weakening recently. For example, we accept the notion without much evidence, that Canadian political parties control their leaders and, in particular, prevent them from the excesses we associate with Watergate.
Prime Minister's Office
I wonder if he is now of the view that his own party controls him or does he think he controls the party. I am thinking of the gumshoes hired to follow members of my party. Does he think that he is in control of his party, or does he think the party controls him?


Walter David Baker: Nonsense. You have some pretty thick gumshoes on your side.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The hon. member for Rocky Mountain went on to say:
Parties do not behave in that way because they know that in attacking their leader they attack themselves. This is particularly true now that campaigns are so heavily influenced by national media and voting is more often for the personality of the leader than it is for the local candidate or a specific issue.
Is the hon. member still of the same view? Does he not think that his election represents the result of a popularity contest?
The hon. member for Rocky Mountain suggested that the Prime Minister's power is derived from television coverage. Is that not a passing strange position for one who has evidently nurtured the electronic media in order to enhance his own image? I wonder if the hon. member is still of the same view, that television enhances his power as leader of his party. I say to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton that by introducing television in this House we could do away with many of the hon. member's concerns in this regard.
I suggest that the hon. member for Rocky Mountain would benefit if there were an increase in his staff. With additional staff he would be able to formulate policies which, so far, have not been formulated. What was the hon. member's position, when we were dealing with energy prices? He did not indicate his position.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The people are behind our leader.


Walter David Baker: You should pay attention to what the Gallup poll says.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


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


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to order of the House made earlier this day the House will now revert to Routine Proceedings for the specific purpose of receiving statements by two ministers, the first statement by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the second by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board

May 31, 1976
Feed Grains
(Mr. Lang). The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, at this time I should like to make a joint announcement with my colleague, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, concerning the government's domestic feed grain policy.
In May, 1974, we outlined a new domestic feed grain policy. The main objective of that policy is to encourage the growth of livestock and feed grain production across the country according to the natural potential of each region, and to have a fair pricing system for all Canadian feed grains.
This is still our objective. But we are making modifications to the policy in order to make it work more effectively. As some hon. members know, we have experienced some problems in domestic feed grain pricing during the past year. We want to avoid similar problems in the future. For that reason we are taking action to assure that domestic feed grains are available at corn-competitive prices. We are relocating part of our reserve stocks. We are changing rates of feed freight assistance to some parts of the country. And we are using some of the funds we had been putting into feed freight assistance to set up new programs to assist feed and livestock producers.
These new developments in our domestic feed grain policy will guarantee a dependable flow of western feed grain to the domestic market at competitive prices. They should also relieve any temporary shortages and disparities in regional markets. Our actions will benefit both eastern and western farmers. I know that eastern Canadian livestock producers will be pleased to have their feed grain supplies made more secure. And we are protecting the domestic feed grain market for our Canadian producers by ensuring that prices stay competitive with United States corn.
The minister responsible for the Wheat Board will explain what actions the Canadian Wheat Board will be taking to keep prices corn-competitive. I would like to fill in a few details for you on the other points.
Modifications in feed freight assistance rates will go into effect on August 1 of this year. In British Columbia the rates will be reduced by $4 per ton. In Ontario and western Quebec all rates of assistance of $6 per ton and less will be eliminated. Other rates in these areas will be adjusted accordingly.
Most of the rates in eastern Quebec and the rates in the Maritimes will not be changed. Livestock producers in these areas have a greater reliance on outside supplies of feed grains. Feed freight assistance will also be available- (Mr. Speaker.]
I repeat, will also be available-on shipments of Ontario corn and wheat to the maritimes and eastern Quebec.
Because western grains are going to be available at corn-competitive prices I do not expect the reduction in feed freight assistance to increase feed grain prices in eastern Canada or British Columbia. Imported corn has and will continue to set the ceiling on feed grain prices in Canada.
We have informed the provincial agriculture departments in Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia about these policy developments. And we have discussed with them setting up adjustment programs in areas where feed freight assistance has been reduced. During the next five years we will use the funds released from feed freight assistance to develop the feed and livestock industries in these provinces. To date we have not determined the actual locations and amounts for the re-allocation of domestic feed grain reserve stocks, but the Reserve Stock Management Committee will be moving stocks closer to feed grain deficient areas of the country.
If temporary regional or national shortages of feed grains are identified in the future by the Canadian Livestock Feed Board and the Canadian Wheat Board, import permits will be made available by the Wheat Board.
As a final check that our domestic feed grain policy is doing its job I will be monitoring the domestic feed grain market through the Canadian Livestock Feed Board. If there is evidence of bad pricing or supply practices in the market place, the Canadian Livestock Feed Board will be permitted to intervene directly in the market place should intervention be required to eliminate such practices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), in reporting upon this change of policy and the further implementation of the feed grain policy as announced in the summer of 1974. With the announcement today of the partial change in feed grains assistance there is an accompanying indication by the Canadian Wheat Board that from August 1, 1976, it will be offering western feed grains to the domestic market at prices competitive with United States corn. The Canadian Wheat Board will offer grain at a daily flat base at Thunder Bay and western country elevator points. Prices at these points will be the Montreal corn-competitive price less transportation and handling costs.
The actual timing and technical nature of the change to this pricing structure between now and August 1 will be established through consultation between the Canadian Livestock Feed Board and the Canadian Wheat Board.
The opportunity for prairie producers to make direct non-board sales of western feed grains will continue. Board offers to the domestic market will help keep the market corn-competitive and preserve it for domestic grain producers.
As the Minister of Agriculture has indicated, we will be arranging the move forward closer to feed-grain deficient areas of the major portions of the reserve stock of feed
May 31, 1976

grains which was set up following the 1974 announcement with these arrangements, with feed grain available at corn-competitive prices, and with direct purchases from producers available when that is the desirable option, we have every optimism that the supply of feed grain in feed grain deficient areas will be cared for.
However, in order to reassure temporary situations, as the Minister of Agriculture has said, import permits will be made available by the Canadian Wheat Board when the Canadian Livestock Feed Board and the Canadian Wheat Board identify the need in that particular situation. This policy is a benefit to all of Canada because it allows for a continuation of the move in the policy set out in 1974 of the development of agricultural production in Canada according to the natural advantage. In those circumstances, as with free trade, it is not as though there always has to be a loser with a gainer. There can be net gainers on both sides by the additional production of goods in Canada, and a more economic way for the better of all. This, of course, is what our objective is in this as in other areas.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not have in front of me a copy of the statement which the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board just made. I have a press release and a copy of the statement of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). As far as I can tell the minister read some sentences from the press release, but we do not have a copy of his full statement.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was indeed paraphrasing in speaking to the issue as I thought in this House it might be desirable. The gist of the material is in the statement which the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) has before him. It is all there in terms of the policy that is being announced. I was speaking to it.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The not unprecedented practice of more than one minister rising to participate in one general announcement gives us some concern. Perhaps it is a matter of regret more than a point of order that the minister has not seen fit to join the press release and in the accompanying information that has been made available to members of the opposition with respect to this very important matter. This practice should not continue.
If Your Honour finds there is a point of order, it is that when this practice has been followed in the past it has been objected to by members of the opposition. I simply draw to Your Honour's attention that this is not a practice to which this House is accustomed. It does not permit members of the opposition to respond to the statements by both ministers in their different capacities, one responsible for transportation and the wheat board, and the other for agriculture. The point is that the government has had two spokesmen and we will be allowed only one. That is not in accord with the acceptable practices of this House.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the ministers involved for the courtesy which they have extended to us by forwarding copies at a relatively early hour. I particularly want to thank the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) for recognition of the fact that they did not arrive on schedule and his telephone
Feed Grains
call to offer his apologies for that. It was very considerate of him.
As I heard the two ministers talking I wondered whether the left hand does not trust the right hand when it gets behind the back. This certainly indicates to the people of Canada that agriculture is a divided industry and that the Government of Canada does not know whose responsibility it actually is. They want to play it safe.
I was rather confused and somewhat concerned as I read the statement of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). It should be recognized as classic "Whelanese" at its best. It had to be drawn from the lessons taught by Mackenzie King, so that he could say something which meant everything to everybody and nothing to anybody, and he could say anything he liked thereafter and agree with what he said earlier.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: That is the greatest compliment you have ever paid me.


Fred Alward McCain: This is going to be the decision of the Minister of Agriculture. It certainly leaves agriculture in a dilemma. They are not sure which way they are going nor from whence they have come after such a dialogue.
There is a very important aspect of this in so far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned. The recognition of the imperative requirement of the livestock industry of the Atlantic area by the revision of the feed grain subsidies is something which the Atlantic area feared might be overlooked by the Government of Canada to some degree. That has been left in place. I would be remiss in my duty if I did not point out that there has been no recognition of the erosion of the effectiveness of the feed-grain subsidy as it applies to the Atlantic area. May I give two quick examples.
When the initial concept of feed-grain subsidies was brought into place the disparity of cost in grains east of the Great Lakes was 50 cents per ton as you went from station to station throughout eastern Canada. That disparity has increased because the feed-grain subsidy has been frozen at its specific level. It has not taken up the increases in freight rates which have been added year after year.
The disparity in prices now at various points in eastern Canada on grains is $10 per ton. In the mill-feed sector, and this is an important requirement of the industry, the disparity in price from Thunder Bay to the extremities of eastern Canada is as much as $35 per ton. Therefore the value has eroded to a very large extent.
It has reached the point in the Atlantic area where the livestock and meat producing industry find that cost-wise in respect of production they are barely competitive with meats shipped from western Canada, particularly the Winnipeg area. They have been asking for an improvement in the structure by recognizing the increments in cost that are contained in the cost of other ingredients in the feed industry such as minerals, vitamins, and protein concentrates. To date this has not been recognized.
We ask that one of the two ministers give this consideration, whichever is responsible, and we are not quite sure who it is at this time. I ask that minister to take a cost

May 31, 1976
Feed Grains
benefit and see just where the Atlantic provinces meat industry stands with regard to competition with other sectors of Canada. Has the grain subsidy in fact attained the objective for which it was intended, namely, to make the cost of meat production in the Atlantic area competitive with supplies from other areas of Canada?
At no time has Atlantic Canada asked that meat be produced there more cheaply than in other areas of Canada. However, it has asked that the subsidy allow it to be produced as cheaply there as in other areas of Canada and delivered to our markets. After all, we are a meat deficient area and we would like to encourage that industry.
I am concerned about that area of Canada from which this subsidy has been removed completely. As I understand it, any subsidy of less than $6 per ton will be gone as of August 1. Where does this leave the feeder in eastern Ontario and western Quebec? They are far from the sources of corn which is supposed to be the substitute for western grain as far as possible. They do have onerous freight charges to bear. They are in competition with other areas which are closer to feed sources. I believe the ministers should jointly reconsider this question. I note the minister's statement that he has discussed this statement with Ontario and Quebec, but he does not give us any indication of what those provinces said in reply to his proposals or what the effect is likely to be on the livestock-poultry industry in Eastern Ontario and Western Quebec vis-a-vis other areas of Canada.
I am puzzled about this nebulous something-or-other upon which the savings are to be spent by way of promoting the livestock industry in Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia. The words are, as I understand it-"The savings shall be used for the development of the industry in those provinces." There are a multitude of ways in which this money might be used. It might be used, for example, to construct grain storage facilities at strategic points. But the phrase "development of" or "improvement of" applicable to the industry in those provinces is, indeed, nebulous.
What will be the effect on British Colombia? This is a subject on which I am not an expert. However, I submit that having regard to the support which the industry in that province has been receiving from its provincial government it can ill afford grain which will be more expensive than the grain it has been feeding to date. The statement contains no suggestions to the contrary, so perhaps the government of British Columbia can afford to chip in a little more.
The location of the reserves referred to in these statements is important. What is even more important is that these reserves of grain be available on demand to the feeder. In the past it has been government policy to place grain in position and in reserve. If an eastern feeder anywhere in eastern Canada required a car of grain which was not available it could be drawn from stocks at a particular point, but it had to be replaced by the buyer. This program was not usable in the main by eastern feeders because the replacement cost was under the control of the Wheat Board. It was not a case of drawing a car from

Prescott and having it replaced in Thunder Bay or even at Prescott; it was a case of withdrawing a car from a point of reserve and paying the price determined by the Wheat Board for its replacement. Is there any cure for this? Will the minister, through the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, be able to eliminate the cost of drawing from reserves in particular locations? The seller should be able to negotiate with the Wheat Board directly at no cost for withdrawal from reserves.
Will Wheat Board permits be available on call in emergency, or only after cutting through a great deal of red tape? I realize that the minister's remarks were very brief. Perhaps had they been longer and more detailed it would have been easier to make a short reply. But the indirect and oblique approach taken to this subject makes it difficult to reply except by asking questions and being somewhat critical.
There is one notable omission from this statement. During the election campaign of 1974 the Minister of Transport, or the minister responsible for the Wheat Board-I am not sure in which capacity he has spoken tonight-promised there would be a recognition of the inequities which exist in the meat industry of western Canada with respect to transportation costs. Every agriculturalist in Canada was expecting that this statement tonight by the associated ministers would cover that item. The undertaking was initially denied, but on January 28, 1975, if my memory serves me correctly, in response to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) it was acknowledged that this had been an election promise and the undertaking was made, and that a statement would be forthcoming in the future. A year and several months have passed since that date. A statement has been made and this aspect has not been touched upon. The trading policies of the government have treated the industry in a cavalier manner. Trade with the United States has been difficult. We have put up artificial barriers which have been countered with further artificial barriers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but the time used by the two ministers combined was about seven minutes. The hon. member has already been speaking for ten minutes and if he were allowed to continue a few minutes longer he would double their time. Bearing in mind, also, that we are to hear two other speakers on the same subject I should have to ask him to conclude briefly.


Fred Alward McCain: I respect your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and will sum up shortly. We are tinkering with a very important industry-the grain industry and the feed industry. We are not being specific. We are not being direct except in certain respects, and for some of those things we are grateful. But there are some areas which will suffer and others which will benefit. There are aspects to which greater attention must be paid. I would ask the two hon. gentlemen who have made statements to keep in mind the requirements which still exist. A total policy should now be brought forward, one which would result in complete equity for the grain and meat business in Canada.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that when the minister in charge of the Wheat Board rose tonight he would at least have had the
May 31, 1976

grace to blush. With this announcement he is admitting through the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that his feed grain policy of May, 1974, is a total failure.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Canadian Wheat Board has always been ready to maintain access of western barley and other feed grains into the eastern market. It has been to the advantage of western grain producers to stay in the eastern market. But now, if I read the statement correctly, feed grain prices to western grain producers are to be reduced by the amount of reduction in feed freight assistance. In effect the announcement means lower incomes for western grain producers. That would be bad enough, but with these lower returns to feed grain producers there are no guarantees of any kind for the producers.
The minister has been horsing around for two years and now he has turned full circle. He is back in the court of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Board will be required to offer feed grains at prices competitive with those of U.S. corn and feed grain, and I would like to know what effect that will have on the bargaining position of the Board. If they have an export market available at 20, 30 or 40 cents a bushel more for barley, the Board's capacity to sell will be limited by the amount they are required to hold in reserve to maintain prices competitive with U.S. corn. That in turn will mean either lower feed grain prices on export markets for some portion of the Wheat Board's product, or it could mean lower export sales because we are holding back bushels at U.S. government competitive prices. If the Wheat Board is subject to the Livestock Feed Board the board will also have to supply the prairie market and the B.C. market with feed grains.
I should like an explanation either from the Minister of Agriculture or the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board as to how much, if any, U.S. corn moves into British Columbia, and what relationship there is between the barley price and the U.S. corn price in British Columbia, or in southern Alberta for that matter. I suggest there is none whatsoever. Any feeder is entitled to call on the Canadian Wheat Board for corn at competitive prices, which usually means lower prices for western Canadian grain.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board has fooled around with feed grains on the open market and on the commodity exchange for the last two years. Since he is putting the Wheat Board in this position he has to admit that the open market for feed grains has been a total failure. My question to the minister, which if he does not answer soon I hope he will answer later, is this: why do we need an open market and commodity exchange in light of the joint announcement of himself and the Minister of Agriculture?
It seems to me that the eastern feed grains market takes whatever it requires from local markets on the prairies, and British Columbia now takes priority for what is required over the export market. The Canadian Wheat Board is required to hold and maintain its stocks.
Let me make another point. What is meant by the relocation of these reserves? Is the Canadian Wheat Board now
Feed Grains
going to be required to hold stocks in Halifax, St. John's, Montreal, Prescott, and Port Colborne, at U.S. corn prices? We would like to know. In a short year for U.S. corn the Canadian Wheat Board must provide buffer stocks. If that is the case, when are the Minister of Agriculture and the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board going to get rid of the commodity market, since it is obviously not working? The western grain producers are being made responsible for feed grain supplies. What now about a guaranteed price for feed grains? If the Wheat Board is going to be required to guarantee reserve stocks which will be relocated somewhere, what about a guaranteed price? According to these two ministers they are now subject to the whims of the U.S. corn market, which I submit will be of no benefit to the consumers of meat and of very little benefit to the feeders in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia.
I am also wondering what are the government's plans regarding the eight cent per bushel tariff on U.S. corn that is presently in existence. Will the government give that up? If so, what will it get in return? If the Minister of Agriculture does look a little paunchy I wish he would not start reaching for Santa Claus clothes. I think it is a mistake to require the Canadian Wheat Board to hold reserves. If they are the marketing agency, then let them market. They have responsibility for marketing, so let the Canadian Wheat Board do the marketing in all of Canada.
In conclusion, we feel that what we really need is a Canadian grains board that is the governing body over grains from the Pacific to the Atlantic ocean. Prices, from the producer of feed grains to the consumer of feed grains, should be negotiated and agreed upon as between one end of the country and the other. We do not need a commodities exchange and open market. In fact a Canadian grains board, as and when we cannot meet our own needs for barley, oats and other feed grains, would do the purchasing of U.S. corn at the best possible price. The cost of feed grain would be pooled among the users of feed grain. Yet these people opposite have the imagination of a door knob; they keep clinging to nineteenth century concepts even when these concepts have not worked for two years.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board has been fooling around with feed grains on the open market, but he has not retreated. He did not say so tonight; he had the Minister of Agriculture get up and say it for him. This concept has not worked and it will not work. We should like to have a lot more detailed explanation about this from the minister in the days to come.
We want to know what is meant by the relocation of reserve stocks. We want to know what effect this will have on feed prices to western grain producers under the feed freight assistance rates. We would like to know what are the government's intentions as to the involvement of the so-called open and free market now that the Canadian Wheat Board has been delegated additional responsibilities that have nothing to do with marketing but with reserve stocks at U.S. corn-competitive prices. We will be interested in hearing from the government on those points.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question. Does this statement mean that finally we will get some

May 31, 1976
Feed Grains
assistance to provide the long awaited additional terminal facilities for the storage of corn in southwestern Ontario, close to the minister's home area, or shall I have to ask the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board whether he would allow that?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I hope an announcement will be made shortly regarding the grain storage program that has been talked about for several months. I am sure the hon. member knows there is more interest in that area than just a grain storage depot; there is a whole agricultural complex to be developed in that great part of southwestern Ontario.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board will state whether or not there will be any compulsion to sell grain from the Wheat Board. Are they going to be forced to compete with the market, or will they have a choice?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as the statement indicates, I have reported the agreement of the Canadian Wheat Board to sell on this basis. They are therefore prepared to give the assurance, so there is no doubt about it, that there will be daily flat pricing of barley and other feed grains for the domestic market at Thunder Bay on a basis equivalent to bringing the grain to Montreal at corn-competitive prices.


Thomas Gordon Towers: The minister did not answer my question. If they see fit to sell this grain at some other place and corn is available in the United States, will they be forced to put the grain on the market at competitive prices, or not?


Otto Emil Lang: The corn-competitive offering really means that it will be close enough to the corn price, and it will depend on the particular needs of the moment in the area concerned whether or not American corn, Ontario corn, or western feed grains are taken. The Wheat Board will be offering, but whether anything is taken or not will be a matter for bargaining.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I have a final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister said that the Wheat Board will be offering. What will happen if the Wheat Board chooses not to offer?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, they have indicated that they will choose to offer. They have so indicated in order to give an assurance to those who might otherwise be concerned about supply. In fact this really only confirms something that has been a policy of long standing, namely, that the Canadian Wheat Board will always protect domestic supply in the sense of not exporting if they leave themselves short. I am surprised that the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) suggested that any other policy was the case. The Wheat Board has always protected Canadian supply and it has no authority to make any change in that policy.


Mr. Clermont:: Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues from the province of Quebec may be wondering whether their region will be affected. As far as I am concerned, I am sure of it because western Quebec is mentioned in the press release and I am very surprised that the government has 
not waited for another review of its freight rates policy. Both ministers have announced they have informed the Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia representatives of this policy, and for the next five years the amounts saved will be spent on livestock and feeds in those areas which will be affected by the removal of transportation subsidies. Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) a specific program, or is it a study and the program would soon be brought forward, I would be very interested to know whether there is at present a program to assist those regions that will no longer benefit from subsidies to transportation?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, a program will be announced I think before August 1. We have done a lot of work on it and have discussed this kind of program with the provinces. The areas that are basically affected are these: the $6 comes off Quebec City at Montreal; Rimouski has a slight reduction to avoid backhaul; there is no reduction in the Gaspe or the Maritimes, and there is no reduction in the Lac-Saint-Jean area of Quebec. We will be publishing a complete detailed form of this within the next couple of days showing exactly how it affects the areas of Quebec that we call western Quebec.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, recently the Canadian Livestock Feed Board suggested that it be given the power to buy and sell so it could establish a price in eastern Canada which the farmer has to pay for the grain. I should like to ask the minister whether he contemplates a seat on the grain exchange for the Canadian Livestock Feed Board in order that it can purchase directly from the market?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, in my statement I said if there is evidence of bad pricing or bad supply practices in the market place the Canadian Livestock Feed Board will be permitted to intervene directly in the market, if required, to eliminate such practices.


William Arnold Peters: One of the reasons why this problem has developed has not been the shortage of supply but the inability of the board to get into a large enough position to supply the market because brokers would not buy early enough to put the grain into the elevators in eastern Canada. What has been done to ensure the farmer that even if we do have additional storage inland in eastern Canada the supplies will be put into position in the elevators by the brokers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think we recognize that problem in the very fact that we say the grain will be supplied and priced at the competitive Chicago price. We say also that if supplies are not available import permits will be issued for grain if they can find these supplies someplace else. I repeat what I just said, that if there is bad pricing we will allow the Canadian Livestock Feed Board to operate in the market.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated there are to be additional facilities provided under the present system. Mainly we use national harbours, but some other
May 31, 1976

government agencies have elevator space in eastern Canada. Is it the intention to have the new elevator space in eastern Canada under the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, built by them, licensed by them, and operated by them, or how is it anticipated that this storage space will be put into effect? The government is really not going to make any savings if we do not bring grain into eastern Canada by boat, but somebody has to have control and I am wondering if it is to be the feed grain agency.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, feed reserves come under a joint committee made up of various representatives of government agencies, under the chairmanship of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, and that committee will make recommendations to us in respect of the allocation of stock. A certain small part of the stock is now lying in Halifax, but the balance has been at Thunder Bay. The intention would be to place this in whatever elevators seemed more desirable for moving the supply between these two points.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said that in some cases, as regards supply and prices, the Canadian Feed Board would have authority to intervene. In what way, Mr. Speaker, would the Canadian Feed Board have such authority? With additional funds.? And if the board asks for import permits from the Canadian Wheat Board and the latter say no, which board will take the decision?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think part of that was just answered in that the Canadian Livestock Feed Board will be involved. If they cannot find ample supplies and there is nothing priced at the proper price the board will be given the authority to enter the market and, if necessary, enter the market outside Canada, which will then require permits to bring the grain back to Canada. Naturally it will be funded by the government in order to be able to do so.


Gaston Clermont: I have a supplementary.
Mr. Speaker, I asked the following question to the Minister of Agriculture: If the Canadian Feed Board asks for import permits from the Canadian Wheat Board, if the latter rejects its application, will the government intervene either through the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board or through the minister who is responsible for the Canadian Feed Board?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the government has the authority under the act. That board operates by order in council, and that is the authority under which it would do
so.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to whichever minister would choose to answer. As I mentioned earlier, the cost of drawing from reserves by eastern feeders was prohibitive. As a result they were transferring grain within regions rather than drawing from reserves supposedly in place. Will that prohibitive cost of drawing from reserves be eliminated and, if so, how will it be done?
Feed Grains


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the rules in relation to feed reserves are carefully set out and are available. It is not our intention that reserves should be drawn upon at any particular moment for no particular reason, because that would interfere with the ordinary placing of stocks into place by those who had the foresight and responsibility to do so. It is, therefore, not considered to be a simple draw-upon with regard to transportation costs, but rather taking them into account in emergencies when stock is available with, of course, a proper accounting for the forward cost of freight.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister missed the point of my question. When they found themselves in an emergency position, as I stated in earlier remarks, and had to go to that reserve, the expense was very, very high because of the replacement cost imposed upon them by the Wheat Board or any other replacement agency that might be involved.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member is confusing the ordinary reserves which the Wheat Board had held in position for export, in which case, when it had to replace those reserves, the real cost to them of replacing them had to be taken into account or it would have been a switch completely at the expense of western grain producers. We are now meeting that problem by establishing a reserve which would be available for the domestic market at domestic prices. That problem in respect of previous switching before we had the reserve arose because the price of that grain was really to be applied at the export price and not at the lower domestic price. At this point in time a switch available at the domestic price will be possible with this reserve in place, as it has been for the past year and a half at Thunder Bay.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the hon. gentleman be able to inform the House of the rate of subsidies for the Rimouski area?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it would take quite a lengthy time to explain what I meant by "backhaul", but it covers the cost of feed at Rimouski because of a backhaul. It will not be the full $6 reduction. This will be outlined in the paper in the next day or two.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the generosity of our two ministers who have maintained part of the subsidies for Gaspesia as it is one area in Quebec which does not produce fodder or livestock.
In view of the fact that starting in August, the subsidies will be discontinued, which will result in an increase of some $6 a ton for feed grains which means $2 more for pork and almost 75 for each chicken, I would like to ask the minister if he is considering setting up a specific program to assist the Ontario and western Quebec cattle raisers?

May 31, 1976
Feed Grains


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if the price of grains stayed at the same price as the Chicago corn price there would be a saving to the Gaspe producer who uses western grain of approximately $14 a ton and maybe more, so the $6 would be insignificant. The dairy producer producing dairy products and the poultry producer producing poultry under the present prices would find that the grain they buy would be one of the main input costs they would have to contend with in producing those products, and this would be to their advantage.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard that freight rate assistance on feed grains will be reduced or eliminated and we will have a corn-competitive price. No one said anything about the delivered price. We all know that-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is giving a good imitation of someone making a response on behalf of his party. He is supposed to ask a question. Could he do so now?


George H. Whittaker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The freight in U.S. haulers is cheaper than in Canada. I put this question to the Minister of Transport. Will this be the delivered price or is the difference in the freight rate of U.S. corn producers to be absorbed by the producers of grain in western Canada, in British Columbia, in Montreal, or especially in the Atlantic provinces?


Otto Emil Lang: When the Wheat Board is selling corn at the competitive price in Montreal the price is then quoted in terms of Thunder Bay, which of course will be the Montreal competitive price less freight. This really means that with feed freight assistance gone in Montreal, the price at Thunder Bay for those who want to feed animals west of there will indeed be $6 a ton lower by the equivalent amount. This tends to mean that the same basis will be used in bringing that grain into grain deficient areas in British Columbia where the lower base price will be the price used by the Canadian Wheat Board in pricing the grain in. In fact that price had been artificially high before because of the effect of feed grain assistance upon the price at Thunder Bay.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In recognition of the number of hon. members who for some time have been seeking to put questions, it seems to me that the questioning could appropriately be concluded by the following hon. members in the order of their appearance: the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), and the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Bussieres).


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it is with regard to what he stated, if I understand him, namely, that the grain position for the export market can be used or tapped in terms of reserve. Given the announced loss of the so-called add a lease rate with respect to grain for export, is there any implication with respect to this on the ultimate price of grain that may have to be taken out of

that stock pile for the local market? In general, what are the implications of the loss of the add a lease rate fairly shortly with respect to feed grains for Nova Scotia or Atlantic region users?


Otto Emil Lang: There is no implication at all because the add a lease rates apply only to the export movement of grain. The fact is that with the retention of feed freight assistance in the Atlantic region at present levels and with the effect upon the price of feed freight being off and therefore off at Thunder Bay, there will be an economic tendency for feed grain to be available at a slightly lower price than would otherwise be the case. I have to stress that in a moving market that would have been the case in the Atlantic region. The feed reserves we have been talking about will be available to be drawn upon and those would ordinarily be priced at their destination plus freight from Thunder Bay. Very often that would be the most economical rate for grain moving there.


J. Michael Forrestall: This gives rise to some concern. May I ask the minister whether I can infer from his comments that there will be no overtaxing of storage? I admit the usefulness of it to our own people who might want now, in a stable situation, to use the storage and to buy ahead. Will this overtax our storage capacity for export grains?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, there is really fairly adequate storage. There are some places where additional storage is needed and there are of course DREE efforts to correct the situation directly. There will be further programs in time to improve storage in storage deficient areas in the country.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. He is quoted as saying in the press release that the reduction in feed freight assistance should not increase feed grain prices in eastern Canada. Having regard to the fact that feed freight assistance rates will be reduced by $6 a ton, are we to assume that this differential will have to be made up by the producers of grain in western Canada? Is that correct?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, they are going to meet corn-competitive U.S. prices. That is all we are asking and that is all they have agreed to do.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is being done now. I am simply asking the minister to confirm or deny the conclusion I have reached. Is it not true that if in fact reduction in feed freight assistance will increase feed grain prices, that the western grain producer will have to make up the differential in order to be competitive, yes or no?


Eugene Whelan: They asked me a question, Mr. Speaker, and then they tell me how to answer it. I think that is going a little far. The price of feed grain will be the same for the western producer exactly as it will be for the eastern producer. The hon. member was talking about British Columbia. This year they brought in ten times more American corn to British Columbia than they did the year before. The producers of livestock and grain will be on a more equitable basis.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of
May 31, 1976

Agriculture. In view of the fact that the Reserve Stock Management Committee has recommended to the ministers the relocation of the major portion of the reserve stocks of feed grains, can the minister give an example of one or two storage locations?


Eugene Whelan: I think that one of the areas would be where the largest buyers of feed grain are so that there are adequate stocks, if there is not ample storage in that area. Western Quebec would probably be one of the places, and as the minister in charge of the Wheat Board just said, DREE has a program. They have built one grain elevator in New Brunswick, one is under way, there will be one in P.E.I. A program is to be unveiled in Nova Scotia and there will be similar kinds of programs in the area to help them become more self-sufficient. Storage locations are not just limited to areas of use. They are also extended to areas of production.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If it is
given to some places, it is taken from others. Would these two other places from which reserve stocks would be drawn for domestic use be Montreal and Quebec City?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. The current reserve had initially been located totally at Thunder Bay to be available on call from there. At a later date, with the special demands from Halifax, a certain portion, 400,000 or 500,000 bushels, was located at Halifax. This will simply mean a better distribution of the stock which up to this point had been held at Thunder Bay. It will be placed at forward positions as the committee decides.


Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, in the answer he gave earlier to the hon. member for Gatineau, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) indicated very clearly the important role the Canadian Feed Board would have to play in the implementation of some aspects of this policy.
Recently, before the Committee on Agriculture, the chairman of the Canadian Feed Board indicated that he lacked powers to fulfill the present objectives of the board.
Can the Minister of Agriculture assure this House that he is prepared to give the Canadian Feed Board more powers, through legislation, to make it easier for them to fulfill their new objectives? I would also like to know whether, if this new policy proved unfair for eastern producers, the Minister of Agriculture and the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board would be prepared to assure this House that financial measures will be introduced to correct an unfair situation for eastern producers?


Eugene Whelan: I do not know how we can say it any clearer than we have already said it about bad pricing, etc., and the fact that the Canadian livestock Feed Board, which is under my jurisdiction, will be the one which will do the monitoring to make sure there are supplies and not bad pricing. I already repeated that if there is evidence of bad pricing or poor supply, the Canadian Livestock Feed Board will be permitted to intervene directly in the domes-
Feed Grains
tic market by proclaiming that part of the act giving them authority to enter the market.


Mr. Speaker:: I see two other hon. members seeking the floor. Throughout the question period I took great care to observe all those who were seeking the floor, and attempted, even as I gave advance warning that I would only recognize certain other questioners, to look for those who I thought would be interested in putting questions as a result of their earlier interest in the subject matter. I do not like to cut off hon. members inordinately from asking questions, but I was surprised that no others were seeking the floor at that time. Since I said there would only be certain other questioners and there are two others, I will conclude the questioning with the hon. member for Regi-na-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) and the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I was not jumping up and down earlier because there were so many others and I have had one kick at the cat, but I would like to ask two questions in one, in order to take account of your kind indulgence.
First, since the Minister of Agriculture did not quite answer the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) I will ask a question of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In relation to U.S. corn prices now the statement says "Because western grains are going to be available at corn-competitive prices, I do not expect the reduction in feed freight assistance to increase feed grain prices in eastern Canada or British Columbia."
In relation to U.S. corn prices now, can the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board tell us what effect that will have on barley, oats or feed wheat in relation to Canadian Wheat Board prices? Will it not mean a reduction in the price to western Canadian grain producers?
Second, would the minister now tell us what he is thinking about in terms of a plebiscite, which has been asked for, regarding feed grains in the open market? Is he now prepared to call one?


Otto Emil Lang: While we are clearly getting closer to that point there remain one or two items under the feed grain policy which still have to be put into effect before it is fully there, but I think it is becoming better understood and operating more fully now. When the sale of grain in question is Wheat Board grain at corn-competitive prices rather than grain farmer to farmer or region to region on a direct basis, which is still possible and raises different issues, then the effect of not having the artificial feed freight assistance to the Montreal and Ontario regions is to lower the price at Thunder Bay by that amount, and therefore also to lower the price of feed grains in the elevators to the buyer of those feed grains who raise animals in western Canada. It is exactly that.
It is the removal of an artificial factor which had been distorting natural advantage, and I was always pleased to note that the western organizations discussing this subject did not divide on product lines, but the grain farmer and the meat farmer joined together in wanting this artificial factor removed.

May 31, 1976
Capital Punishment


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, the minister just answered my question, but I would like to know, after that lengthy question by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Bussieres), what the government is doing for Sudbury.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, at the five o'clock adjournment I was beginning a quotation from the second reading debate in 1961 of the remarks of the then minister of justice, as follows:
Society's concern for its basic rules is expressed in its commands and corresponding sanctions that together constitute our criminal law. The degree of society's concern with respect to individual rules is reflected in the method of expression adopted. In this sense, therefore, the sanction for the law against murder may properly reflect the importance which society attaches to the maintenance of that law. In our view, Canadians properly attach so high a value to the sanctity of human life that the law which translates this feeling into effective form should provide the maximum sanction for its deliberate breach, and no other penalty would be considered adequate.
In my view those remarks of the Hon. David Fulton in 1961 have as clear an application today as they did then. In fact the Canadian people reflect an even higher concern, and it is for that reason that we see from one end of the country to the other this expression of public opinion-not just by a minor margin, not by 10 per cent, not by 20 per cent-in proportions of 80 per cent of 90 per cent for the retention of capital punishment and the carrying out of the law.
What does Bill C-84 do? For one thing, of course, it abolishes the word "capital." It abolishes capital murder and non capital murder because it wants to get away from that. So we are going to get Hawaii Five-O's and all the multitude of American police television programs' versions of murder one and murder two. It will be great to hear them calling out, "Book him on murder one", in the most dramatic voice!
But what is being substituted for the equivalent of capital murder is a sentence of 25 years and the possibility, under certain circumstances, of an individual applying for parole after somewhere between 15 and 18 years. In other words, these people are to be put into a jail and the key effectively thrown away.
Much is said about rehabilitation. There is not one person, here in this Chamber or outside, who can say that a

man having served 15 or 18 years is rehabilitated. He has become so institutionalized and so bereft of the practice of living in ordinary society that he cannot be rehabilitated.
Man is strange; but perhaps I am a little subjective with regard to being incarcerated. I have not done time in any prison, but I was a prisoner of war for nearly three years. Even during that time some individuals acted with great desperation and tried to break out. They were reckless about their safety and one or two that I know unfortunately never made it back, not even in a "klim tin" because they were liquidated. On the other hand, I know that if any of us in the camp that I was in, or those in scores of other camps in Germany, or those in the hands of the Japanese, had been told that we were to be there for life, there were three options for a great number of people. They could hang themselves or do away with themselves in a sheer blue funk. I have seen this happen to men who could not stand the pressure. Another option was to take the life of a guard, in desperation. What could a man lose under those circumstances?
How can one pile 25 years on top of 25 years and make it meaningful? This is the attitude of the wolves in prison- what do they have to lose if all they are going to get is a further life sentence? Is it going to be incarceration in solitary, in segregated custody? Now the do-gooders and the bleeding hearts and the nice Nellies complain about isolation in the newspapers, on television, everywhere. They say solitary confinement is inhumane, but in many cases protective custody will be the only answer. What about Williams and the chap in Saskatoon? What about many other cases where we know there has been a dastardly crime, particularly when it involves children? Those people have to be put in isolation if they are to live, but on the whole society says we are not going to kill them-we will eliminate capital punishment, we will just turn them over to the wolves in prisons and they can do a job of capital punishment.


Charles L. Caccia: What about-


An hon. Member:: Just listen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has the floor.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against this bill because I support capital punishment. Those who insist on the right to life and say that the state has no right to take a life should consider the victims. Did they not have a right to life? Surely the person who has wrongfully taken the life or lives of others has forfeited his absolute right. To me, Mr. Speaker, the substitution of life imprisonment is even worse. It is coldly sadistic in so many instances.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 31, 1976


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I shall finish in a moment, Mr. Speaker. I respect the right of others to hold a contrary opinion, and many do; however, I resent the high moral tone of so many so-called abolitionists who somehow or other feel they have been called upon to wrap around themselves a self-fashioned cloak of some alleged higher morality, whether Christian or otherwise. Who says theirs is a higher morality? Then there are those who allege that the abolition of capital punishment is the characteristic of a civilized society. Who says so? Only an abolitionist. Is a retentionist, to use the simplistic term, any less civilized? The burden of proof in any argument in favour of the abolition of capital punishment rests on those who wish to make the change. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion they have failed to discharge the burden of proof imposed upon them.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I was curious about the last few remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) in view of the lecture he gave us this afternoon because I imagine he was quoting something.
I participate in this debate because I should like to propose a number of solutions that I do not think have been discussed. Members who have spoken on both sides of the debate have been sincere, have reasoned and wrestled over a period of time with their consciences. They have considered the information supplied by their constituents and to a large extent the testimony of those who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on at least four occasions in the last eight or ten years. They have taken a position honestly, in my opinion.
Many members do not believe in the idea of consensus. Few have suggested, with any degree of honesty, a desire to have a plebiscite on this issue. If they really believed that, then they would have a plebiscite on everything. As all members know, circumstances change, situations change, many arguments are based upon personal experience, and happily those arguments change many times too.
I can remember a few debates where a definite opinion was taken by all members of the House. On the War Measures Act a few were on one side, the majority on the other. I can honestly say with hindsight that maybe the majority was wrong and the very small minority was right.
The flag debate was another of those emotional subjects on which one forms an opinion based on background. Now we have a flag and it is fairly well accepted by most of the country. I was rather surprised a couple of weeks ago when driving on the road to my home to see a Union Jack on a flagpole. I wondered why he was not flying the Ontario flag, until my wife reminded me it was the Queen's birthday. Probably that was why he was flying the Union Jack. We debated the issue of the Canadian flag. Certainly the country does not begrudge our discussing those issues, and does not begrudge exchanges which take place in the heat of debate. But once we decide, the country accepts our decision, knowing very well that we may modify our decision from time to time.
I have always been of the opinion that we should not hang people. I have heard members suggest that we should use the guillotine instead of a rope. Well, I oppose the use
Capital Punishment
of the guillotine, the use of the electric chair, the use of the firing squad, etc. Rightly or wrongly I think society has less right to take a life than an individual has, if an individual has such right. When a man kills another, he probably does it for some reason. But society executes on the excuse that it protects. I have heard it suggested that society executes out of revenge. Be that as it may, I say that any society which executes is none too civilized.
This afternoon the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) used the example of a man who raped, then murdered a couple of young children. Surely a layman could only conclude that the man was not in his right mind. Sane people do not do that; therefore hanging them or putting them in jail for life is not the civilized way of curing the problem. People like that probably need medical attention. They should be confined in an institution for the insane, not imprisoned in a penitentiary for life.
I agree with what has been said about the cabinet's commuting death sentences. I agree that since we retained the death penalty for the murders of prison guards and policemen those convicted of such crimes should have been executed-save and except in cases when the cabinet's prerogative of mercy could be properly exercised. The cabinet did not choose to allow any murderers to be executed, which I think was wrong.
I am concerned about how the different categories of murderers are to be treated. In my opinion the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has brought in few, if any, reforms. He has done little in the field of penal reform, or in any other field for that matter. Why Mr. Speaker? The government is backward, cautious, and totally incompetent in this regard.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Surely the hon. member does not mean that.


William Arnold Peters: Yes I do. It is totally incompetent. Actually it is going backwards, like a kid trying to pedal a bicycle when the chain has fallen off.
The previous hon. member who spoke said that he thought a 25-year sentence of imprisonment for murder is more barbaric than hanging. I agree.


Mr. Leggatt:: It is 15 years.


William Arnold Peters: With respect, it is 25.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Look at the bill again.


William Arnold Peters: How can we expect judges to render impartial decisions when we clamour for 25-year sentences? Only on the most rare occasion will a judge impose a sentence of less than 25 years. It seems to me that the 25-year sentence is probably the most barbaric penalty our system can meet out. Consider the feelings of a person of, say, 40 years who faces a 25-year prison term. He knows he is without hope of release and will make no contribution at all to society. I am prepared to support the idea that a man should be sent to jail for 25 years, on this condition-that he be provided with a potassium cyanide capsule so that if he feels his punishment is intolerable he can take his own life. There must be safeguards, of course, to make sure that the capsule does not end up in the warden's soup. Prisoners have been known not to like wardens.

May 31, 1976
Capital Punishment
I suggest that if the prisoner feels he cannot face a jail term of 25 years he should have the right to take his own life. Society should not make that decision for him. Actually secret service agents now are provided with potassium cyanide capsules. After a United States spy plane was shot down by the Russians, a United States committee which investigated the case suggested that if Gary Powers had swallowed a lethal pill he would have avoided all the fuss and embarrassment which followed his capture. If hon. members were to propose the retention of the death penalty in the form I propose, I might support such a bill. But I cannot support the idea of imprisoning a man for 25 years, without any hope of release.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It's 15 years.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) insists it is 15 years. I suggest that he is not aware of the changes taking place in present day society.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The hon. member is not aware of the provisions of the bill.


William Arnold Peters: It is interesting to note that when skirts get longer, society feels insecure. At present our citizens are concerned about personal security and loss of income. We have not seen such fear for some time. Normally hemlines come down either before or during a war or just before a serious recession. Most of the 700,000-odd unemployed think the recession is here, now. People want collective security. As I said, when recession is upon us, hemlines drop. When hemlines go up, it means things are free and easy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: But when they start coming down, watch out. They are a pretty good economic indicator. I suggest to the hon. member for New Westminster that as time passes, our judges will become more and more conservative and react more to the general tone of society as society becomes less progressive and people draw together for collective security. They will be more like the Ku Klux Klan five years from now than the progressive judges of five or ten years ago. They react to the society they are in, the same as members of parliament.
We have paid no attention to the protection of society. We spend a lot of money to keep people in jail. Every once in a while the Solicitor General announces that a new penitentiary will be built. Statistics indicate that there are more people in jail in Canada than in any other civilized country. That is no honour.
I have visited some of our penitentiaries on numerous occasions. I met many of the prisoners, guards, and officials. I was pleased with the changes that were being made in the penitentiary system a few years ago, but since that time very little has been done. As a matter of fact since Commissioner McLeod left the penitentiary service there has been very little progressive thought in the whole service. He had faults, there is no question about that. However, he had an excellent mind and knew more about criminology than most people. His dream was that by the

time he left the penitentiary service more people would be rehabilitated than when he took over.
There has been very little progress with regard to rehabilitation. Society is scared. Any time someone does not return after being granted a leave, the Solicitor General is jumped on. When he tries to explain, he puts his foot in his mouth and the problem sounds worse than it did originally.
When there was a problem at Millhaven two members of parliament visited there. I was one of them. That section of the act that permitted members of parliament to visit a penitentiary at reasonable times was removed by a former Solicitor General. That had been a British tradition, but we had a non-British Solicitor General. He felt that the visits caused problems, and therefore members could no longer visit a penitentiary without his permission.
Since that time I have not visited a penitentiary. If I cannot go there on my own to talk to those people and intervene if necessary, I am not going to go. I suggest there are many members who have never visited a penitentiary. They should do so.
It cost $20,000 a year to keep a person in jail. The government is now talking about keeping murderers in jail for 25 years. At $20,000 a year that is a fairly expensive proposition.
In my limited experience I have found that it is often easier to rehabilitate a murderer than any other type of prisoner. It is very difficult to rehabilitate a dope addict, forger of con artist. It is almost impossible to rehabilitate a bank robber. In many cases a murderer could be set free the day after his trial. There are lawyers here who know that. Even though the murder may have been premeditated, it was carried out under extreme provocation. That provocation likely would not occur again during that person's lifetime.
One day you have a good citizen with no criminal intent and no criminal record. He commits a murder. He is either sentenced to jail for life or executed. In my experience it would be easy to rehabilitate that person.
I think I have told the story before of intervening on behalf of a young man who committed an atrocious murder. He was released. After five years he completed his course at Queen's University. That man is now married and has a number of children. I am sure he will never again be in trouble. I believe that story could be repeated by lawyers hundreds of times.
A law abiding citizen may commit a murder. However, the chances of that happening are very small. The chance of him committing a second murder is almost nil. His neighbour is more likely to commit murder than he is likely to murder a second time.
This must be explained to society. The little old lady walking through the park believes that if we execute the murderer, she will not have her purse snatched. I fail to see the relationship, but she understands it. She believes there is a total breakdown in society. This fits in with the change that I see in society.
A few years ago we changed the homosexual laws, abortion laws, and divorce laws. A number of changes were made in the social field. I respectfully suggest those
May 31, 1976

changes could not be made today because society would not allow it. Society is moving very far to the right. If members of parliament are going to be limited in that way with regard to changes in society, all we really need is a machine and we can let the public vote. Everyone could vote on every subject. There could be vigilante committees established all over the place, such as there are in some countries. The strong will be right and the weak will be eliminated. Surely that is not civilized society.
We must not only look at what we are doing with regard to capital punishment but with regard to the rehabilitation of prisoners. Many of these prisoners could be sent to our "Siberia". We need a highway to the Arctic, as well as a pipeline down the west shore of Hudson's Bay. This involves a great deal of work. Why not have the prisoners do it? We hear about Christian principles. One Calvinistic principle that is very strong in Canadian society is that work is good and to work makes you good. If that has any merit it would work well with some of our prisoners.
Our prisoners are only given very menial tasks, if any. Time weighs heavily in their hands. They scheme, plan, and do all sorts of things. However, they are not being rehabilitated. There are many jobs in the Arctic that could be done by machine, but there is still a great deal of manual labour required. If we are going to have sovereignty in the Arctic, we need to build airports. We would not need guards for these prisoners, only foremen. The prisoners would be paid for their work. In addition, they would develop a trade that could be marketed when they return to society. If they were willing to accept the discipline necessary in that environment, they could be rehabilitated. If not, they would again be sent there.
Surely it would be possible to develop a work program which would lead to the rehabilitation of a great many prisoners, allowing them to return to society making use of the trades they have been taught while in prison. You do not have to go much further than my new riding, Mr. Speaker. You would not need any guards there. If you were to leave the area you would be eaten alive by mosquitoes or drown in the muskeg. For nine months of the year you would be frozen to death.


John Mercer Reid: What riding are you speaking of?


William Arnold Peters: I am speaking of the area north of Moosonee. I question the minister's attitude. He seems to take great pride in building a new penitentiary every few months.


An hon. Member:: He announces one.


William Arnold Peters: Well, he announces it and keeps moving it around from one riding to another. I have known him for some time. He is a very honest person and a very dedicated person. I am sure that many of the goals he has in mind could be achieved. But what we have to find is some way of reducing our prison population. The reason they are in penitentiaries is because they cannot adjust to the demands of society. Surely it is necessary to train them in such a way as to make them fit for release into society. This change in approach must be made known in such a way as to make everyone in the country familiar with it. If this is done sympathy will be developed and the public
Capital Punishment
generally will be in a better position to understand the achievements and problems of a penal reform system.
It is not good enough merely to read from time to time a newspaper headline announcing that a prisoner has escaped while on leave to attend his mother's funeral. The department must be prepared to state plainly that last year thousands of people were allowed out of prison on a weekly basis to rejoin their families with the result that, when the time for their release came, they were much better prepared to return to their communities in a different frame of mind. Obviously this is easier for them if they are familiar with the life of the community as it is today rather than it was five or six years ago, before they went to jail, or else they would return to it as if it were a foreign environment.


An hon. Member:: What do you mean by "foreign environment"?


William Arnold Peters: I did not hear that interruption but it was probably made by someone who had looked at all the difficulties and had never considered any of the advantages.
When Commissioner MacLeod was in charge the character of many of our penal institutions was changed. From being merely jails with security guards they became institutions where prisoners were given advice and helped in every way possible to develop a sense of responsibility to the community.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Would the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I paid particular attention to the hon. member's comment concerning the day parole system-he spoke of its success and the need to develop it further. In the light of his evident approval of that program as carried out by the Department of the Solicitor General I was wondering how he could justify his earlier statement that the policies of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) had been a total failure.


An hon. Member:: Shame. You have given him another hour!


William Arnold Peters: Perhaps I should not have said they were a total failure. The day parole system has been in effect for some time. It has been expanded so as to allow people out of prison to attend educational institutions. What I am saying is that the minister has not developed any system which was not already in effect. I am suggesting, too, that he has done very little to explain some of his problems. I have in mind an occasion when one particular incident was disclosed, and the minister threw in two or three more that nobody knew about, and then the fat was in the fire. He has done that on a number of occasions.
If the Solicitor General does have any new proposals he certainly has not told people about them. All I ever read in the papers is his intention to build a new jail somewhere. If any evidence of his own attitude to some of these situations were needed one need look no further than the subject of the present debate. Murderers are not to be hanged but they are to be put in jail for 25 years. Under the

May 31, 1976
Capital Punishment
old system, Mr. Speaker, some of them got out after five years and, in my opinion, they were totally rehabilitated. In my view, that is possible. Mr. Speaker, if there were anything which might make me consider voting for hanging it would be the length of the sentence the minister is proposing.
If the hon. gentleman really wants to get this debate over, one way would be to arrange for eight or ten hangings on July 1 on the front lawn of the Parliament Buildings with coverage in colour television. I am sure he would then have no problem.
I am sure that if you asked most people who are in favour of hanging whether they would be prepared, as a member of a jury, where each vote counts, to bring in a verdict which would ensure such a penalty, they would tell you they wanted no part of such a decision. Nevertheless they are willing to allow society to make such a decision for them, and they do so because they fear hard times are coming and they are scared; they are willing to accept any measures which it is felt might protect them. Members of parliament, even those who believe there is a certain role for vengeance, a certain role for deterrence can only do that in good conscience, surely, if they are prepared to adopt a totally different way of eliminating the people society wishes to reject.
In my area not long ago a man hung a dog to a clothesline with a piece of wire. He was taken to court and received a two-year sentence for cruelty. I do not think he served any time in jail. It was a suspended sentence. But he got two years for hanging that dog. We are being asked to do that in the name of society. On occasion a man hangs from the gallows and suffocates for up to eight or 10 minutes before he dies. And we call ourselves a civilized society! I would question that, and so would anyone who witnesses such a barbaric way of disposing of people.
I would sacrifice the six or eight people who are now on death row awaiting passage of this legislation by hanging them in front of the Parliament Buildings on July 1 to celebrate our development as a "civilized society" because, Mr. Speaker, there would be such revulsion against that act that there is no question that the Canadian public would support the abolition of the death penalty, and of that method in particular, forever.
If we are to keep people in jail for 25 years, which is the period the minister has had to settle for, we should also provide them with the means of leaving this world. To me, this is just as barbaric as eliminating them. We should let these people make a choice between the two.


An hon. Member:: How about giving them a colour TV?


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member says we should give them a colour television set. No doubt some people in that category would appreciate a colour television set. If we are giving them away we should give them to other institutions, not penal institutions. We could put these people to work in the uranium mines at Eldorado or wherever they may be. Let us pay them a good wage. Certainly this would not cost us as much as keeping them in solitude, without hope, without reform, without fitting them for a return to society. In many instances we make sure that these people will

remain in penal institutions for the rest of their lives; they will continue to return to them because our penal system makes them even less fitted for society outside.
I suggest we give reform serious consideration. The minister should ask members of parliament to pass some progressive legislation in the field of penal reform. Reformation of our prisoners and of those who have offended against society should be made an important part of our legal structure. If it is not, we will continue to have the unenviable record of having the largest number of people in jail per population of any country in the western world.
Despite this retrograde step it seems to me that the minister still has some support in the House for progressive legislation. If that is not the case, if he has frittered it away, then the three or four votes for abolition that I have heard today will go down the drain, just as did the larger number that we had on the last occasion. The amendment that may be moved by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) may in the end have to be the solution if the minister does not give some consideration to putting members of parliament in the picture about what he hopes to do. He should not attempt to satisfy public opinion by passing a stupid piece of legislation. Better that it is not passed than to perpetrate a hoax in the form of these long mandatory sentences, which in many cases will not be served and will certainly not serve society for the next three or four years before the law is once again changed.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, it is slightly more than three years since I last had the opportunity of speaking on this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I see that my absence has been noted by the other side. As a matter of fact I last spoke on this subject on May 29, 1973. We heard today that about 70 members of this Chamber have participated so far in the debate on Bill C-84, which I guess the government House leader considers to be quite a number. Nevertheless this means that less than one third of the members of the House have so far taken the opportunity of expressing their opinion on a subject of very deep concern to the general public of this country. I hope a way will be found to enable practically all members to have an opportunity of stating their positions on the capital punishment question.
A number of the Canadian people are beginning to wonder about the efficacy of the principle of representative government. Opinion polls-I know the government spends a lot of money on and pays a lot of attention to polls-indicate that Canadians in general want the principle of capital punishment retained as the law of this land. They are very concerned about the recent attitude of the government which ignores with impunity one of the basic laws of the land. Somehow or other the members of this Chamber will have to pay some attention to the question of representing the population of Canada, though I know some of them hate to be reminded that they are representatives.
I see Your Honour is moving in your chair and it is about ten o'clock, so may I call it ten o'clock and continue on Friday?
May 31, 1976


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Parent) rising on a point of order?


Mr. Parent:: Mr. Chairman, I seek unanimous consent of the House to revert to the presentation of reports by standing and special committees.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member knows he needs unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for St. Catharines to present a report from a committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, in both official languages-Mr. Parent.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

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

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of National Defence's (Mr. Richardson) handling of the LRPA purchase can hardly be termed competent, his colleagues in cabinet have shown no great skill either, except in attempting to put all the blame on the Minister of National Defence's shoulders.
In interviews over the Victoria Day weekend, and again in the House on Tuesday, May 25, and Friday, May 28, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) let it be known that he did not think much of a process whereby multi-million dollar contracts were agreed to on the basis of nothing more than a verbal agreement between two individuals that financing would be available.
At the time the deal collapsed the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) also indicated that the source of the problem was that cabinet had been told Lockheed could provide the money. Each conveniently forgets that not only did the Minister of National Defence believe in the verbal agreement, but the whole cabinet apparently believed in it too.
Adjournment Debate
Not one cabinet minister, least of all the Minister of Supply and Services, has said he looked for a written assurance before Lockheed was authorized on December 2 to start work on the contract.
In addition to all the blame for the verbal agreement being pushed on the Minister of National Defence and "a general" whom one assumes is General Allan, the manager of the LRPA project office, we also have the interesting spectacle of the Minister of Supply and Services saying he did not know the Department of National Defence was short of funds, nor that Lockheed had agreed to provide these funds when he authorized work to begin. I refer to Hansard of March 29 at page 12217. Later he said that officials in his department were not aware of these facts either which, given the relationship of the project office to the Department of Supply and Services, is surely asking too much of our credulity.
The story, as it has emerged so far, is that the project office negotiated a contract for 18 LRPA's. Though the project manager was General Allan from the Department of National Defence, the deputy project manager, with principal responsibility for negotiating the terms of the contract, was L. H. Stopforth, an official from the Department of Supply and Services. As Mr. Crutchlow, the assistant deputy minister of the Department of National Defence explained to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on March 23, at page 33:30:
-the contract has been negotiated by the contract office. That office, as the minister has said, is led by General Allan as the project manager, but his deputy is a member of the Department of Supply and Services, a senior officer of that department. He is primarily responsible for the actual composition of the contract, along with his line branches that work in the DSS.
The project office negotiated with Lockheed a contract based on Lockheed's most cost-effective schedule and based also on the premise that there would be more money available in the defence budget. As it turned out this was a mistaken premise, for it was only in November that cabinet gave consideration to the long term budget, and it was only at that time it became apparent there would be shortfalls in 1976-77 and in the two subsequent years. I refer to General Allan's evidence to the standing committee on April 13, 1976, at page 35:9.
General Allan said that when it was realized there would be a shortfall "we" contacted both suppliers, Boeing and Lockheed, and asked whether they could finance the shortfall, and both replied in the affirmative. It was on this basis that cabinet documentation was prepared. I refer to General Allan's evidence to the standing committee on April 13, 1976, at page 35:7. When asked about this on Thursday, May 27, General Allan told the standing committee that he personally made the phone calls to Boeing and Lockheed, and the results of these conversations were reported to his deputy, Mr. Stopforth.
The whole organization of the project office makes it appear very unlikely that the Minister of Supply and Services did not know of the financial problems of the Department of National Defence. General Allan explained to the standing committee on May 13, as reported at page 39:6, that he was responsible to the deputy ministers of four departments; Defence, Supply and Services, Industry, Trade and Commerce, and DREE. He reported to the deputy ministers through a senior management board,

May 31, 1976
Adjournment Debate
which had representation at the assistant deputy minister level from the four departments concerned. This senior management board was chaired by Mr. Crutchlow, assistant deputy minister of the Department of National Defence.
When asked whether the Department of National Defence's lack of money and Lockheed's verbal commitment to provide financing were communicated to this management board, General Allan said:
Yes, the senior management board was aware of that, as were the cabinet and the Treasury Board, that we had a shortfall between the funds that were available to the Department of National Defence and the cash flow that was required in the contract which had been negotiated in this case with Lockheed, in our judgment.
When asked whether cabinet also was aware of Lockheed's verbal commitment, General Allan said:
Yes, our judgment in the recommendations we made up the line was that this we could negotiate with Lockheed to solve this shortfall in the cash between what was available and what was required in the contract.
On Thursday, May 27, General Allan was even more specific about who knew about the shortfall and the verbal promise that financing would be available. He said:
The phone calls to both Boeing and Lockheed were made by myself. The results of those conversations were reported back into the project office to my deputy. The gist of the conversations were put in the submission to cabinet; they were put in a submission to Treasury Board; the cabinet submission was dated November 14 and was considered by cabinet on November 27; the Treasury Board submission was briefed on the basis of a draft document on November 27; the formal Treasury Board submission for the program was on December 1. The shortfall was pointed out in all these documents. There was a briefing prepared for the Department of Supply and Services on November 30 to ... my understanding was that the Deputy Minister of Supply and Services briefed the Minister on December 1.


Donald W. Munro: Including the shortfall.
Gen. Allan: Including the shortfall.
The Minister of National Defence intervened here to support General Allan. He said:
To confirm what Brigadier General Allan has said the fact that cabinet approved interest payments and which as I said are in the blue book, indicates that cabinet knew there was a shortfall. If they were not going to finance anything then they would not need interest payments. So, I am just confirming what General Allan has said. This was known to the cabinet and certainly known to any minister who was at cabinet.
This comment is interesting in view of the Minister of Supply and Services' repeated statements that he negotiated on the assumption that since DND placed the order it had the money available. Though one does not know whether the Minister of Supply and Services was actually at the cabinet meeting on November 27, is it not very unusual that he was not informed of the results of that meeting, either by a colleague, or through circulation of the minutes? In other words, even if one ignores General Allan's testimony that officials from DSS, including Mr. Stopforth and the Deputy minister, knew these facts, how was it possible for the Minister of Supply and Services not to know that DND was short of funds?
General Allan's comments bring into sharper focus the contrast between what DND says, and what DSS says. Given the organization of the project office, one would assume that the whole project team, not just those members from DND, knew about the shortage of funds, and General Allan has indicated he did tell Mr. Stopforth.

Certainly Mr. Stopforth knew about DND's shortfall in the previous year since he wrote the letters to Mr. Heppe of Lockheed inquiring about alternatives, and there appears to be no reason why he would not have been told about the 1976-77 shortfall and the attempts to overcome it.
However, the Minister of Supply and Services claims that Mr. Stopforth did not know about the shortage of funds for 1976-77 and Lockheed's verbal assurance that it could provide financing; he told the House on Tuesday, May 25, in answer to my question, that he did not know whether the information had been deliberately kept from Mr. Stopforth but,
... be that as it may, the representative of my department on the management committee of that project was not advised of the possibility of that financial arrangement.
The Minister of Supply and Services did not answer the second part of my question, which is whether his deputy minister knew of the shortfall problem. Again because of the structure of the project office, and General Allan's testimony, it seems to me that the deputy minister of Supply and Services must have known.
The misunderstanding with Lockheed, as the Minister of National Defence likes to call it, arose in the period from December 2 to December 22, when Lockheed told General Allan that it could not provide the financing after all.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, I regret having to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Walter Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the LRPA project has a significant involvement for four departments: DND which as the user of the defence supplies is responsible for funding the requirement and defining the specification, DSS which as the procurement authority in the government negotiates and administers the contract, ITC which determines and evaluates Canadian industrial benefits, and DREE which applies its concern to realize opportunities for regional economic development that might flow from a major procurement such as the LRPA. Accordingly, because of the multi-departmental interests a project office was established to ensure good management among the four departments directly involved. Staff from the concerned departments were co-located in one office to do the job in a unified and effective manner, taking into account the responsibilities of their respective department. Because DND has the main involvement and interest, the project leader was selected from that department.
The organization of the project office reflected the functional interests of the four departments and contained the following elements: operational; technical; logistical; contractual; industrial development; regional economic development. These six elements worked together in the one office to administer the project.
The LRPA project had three phases to it. In Phase I starting November 1, 1972, five contractors submitted proposals for an Argus replacement. This phase was unfunded. Phase II commenced on May 6, 1974, but only included two, not five, contractors. During this phase Boeing and Lockheed were funded in the amounts of $5.5 million and $5.7
May 31, 1976

million respectively to define the LRPA requirements. This phase was completed in November, 1975. Phase III covering the design, development, production, test and delivery by the successful bidder was to commence when a definitive contract was placed.
DND has always been responsible for funding all contract demands or requisitions sent to DSS or its predecessors for procurement of defence goods and services. This responsibility lies within their internal delegation of authority for program funding. It is not or never has been a DSS responsibility.
The LRPA project was duly approved by Treasury Board and cabinet and was ready to proceed to the contract stage. The Department of National Defence was responsible for providing the necessary funds out of their capital budget. Because of a non-recorded conversation which the project manager had with an official of Lockheed, it was assumed that DND funding would be supplemented by some financing from Lockheed.
As things developed, this possibility did not materialize, and this is why Lockheed proceeded to attempt to interest a Canadian bank consortium to make the funds available through the assignment of the contract.
Officials of DND are responsible for managing their capital budget and this was entirely their responsibility. The question of a shortfall of cash to be financed by Lockheed did not become known to the minister and to the senior management of DSS until January.
The reason for issuing a telex on December 2 was to preserve the price, deliveries, and industrial off-set benefits contained in the Lockheed offer before the offer expired on December 2, 1975. This is normal procedure until all the clauses of the contract have been finally developed in legal terms and are agreed fully in detail by both parties. Up to the time the financing problem arose there was reasonable assumption that the contract could be signed in the middle of January.
As it turned out, considerable delay was involved in the negotiations between Lockheed and the Canadian banks as to the possibility of financing and, while these negotiations were going on, it was essential to protect the price, deliveries and off-set conditions on a week to week basis.
Eventually, an option agreement was signed with Lockheed when the possibility of Canadian bank financing appeared reasonably certain.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. His speech is very interesting, but I have to interrupt him.


Walter Bernard Smith: I have only about 15 seconds left.


Some hon. Members:: Let him finish.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Fifteen seconds are long
sometimes.


Walter Bernard Smith: This is the letter of agreement the minister tabled on May 25 in the House, and I am sure this provides all the necessary information as to the undertakings of the government and the specific limitation of $16 million which was contained in this agreement.
Adjournment Debate
As to the specific point as to whether the minister was aware of the possibility that Lockheed had agreed to finance the shortage of cash in the early phase of the project, the minister has previously replied to this. This afternoon he also emphasized that his department was not responsible for financing.


TRANSPORT-INCREASE IN CONTAINER FREIGHT RATES- REQUEST FOR REVIEW BY TRANSPORT COMMISSION OR GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, that was an awful lot of balderdash we just listened to, but my concern is the movement of container traffic out of the port of Halifax and Saint John into central Canada, and specifically the proposed freight rate increases on containers to be effective on July 1.
Within the United Kingdom and the continental area of northern Europe there is a freight conference of lines serving the east coast Canadian ports which permits shippers to charge the same ocean freight rates as those serving the ports of Montreal and Toronto directly. In other words, it does not cost any more to ship by way of Halifax than it does by way of Montreal or Toronto into those particular destinations.
This saving has been dependent upon the cost charged to the carriers by the CN system, which in fact is the captive shipper. Without getting into the difficulties which lay behind the questions we asked-the disastrous rate wars in the North Atlantic in 1972 and 1973, the resolution of these problems in 1974 by the introduction of agreements between the Canadian and American lines which permitted cargo to move freely to and from Canada by way of U.S. ports provided Canadian rates were charged, and again with respect to American lines which were permitted to absorb the inland trucking costs from Montreal and Toronto and their base ports in the United States-in spite of this the cargoes continued to flow by way of the United States for a substantial period of time. Indeed we are now looking at some 60,000 tons of cargo going by way of U.S. ports, and in a down period in the movement of containers in the North Atlantic conference we notice that while Canada's total number-and we will use the units, the 20, 35 and 40 foot units-has been down in the period of the last couple of years, probably reflecting trends in world trade, we notice that movement through U.S. ports has not been down.
There is a reason for this, and the reason, of course, lies in the fears that we on the east coast have with respect to the increase in the cost of moving containers, an increase of 7 per cent in the cost of moving containers from Halifax and Saint John into Montreal and Toronto. This increase has been imposed at a point in time when no similar increase is being imposed upon other movers.
Of course any mover of freight has to absorb the total cost of the particular piece of freight permitted under the rules of the North Atlantic Conference with no opportunity for movers on the east coast, for example, to absorb the 7 per cent increase in cost which must perforce come out of their ability to earn dollars. All the 7 per cent increase will do, particularly with respect to the 40 foot containers moving from Saint John and Halifax, is place

May 31, 1976
Adjournment Debate
them in a competitive position with the ports of Montreal and Toronto through the Port of New York which can in turn offer about a 1'A or 3 VS day advantage in time over the Port of Halifax. Time being dollars with respect to the movement of cargo, it will not go any other route than through the Port of New York. This is what we are afraid of if the government permits Canadian National to impose the additional 7 per cent.
The problem is compounded by the fact that it is the United States east coast ports that traffic out of Saint John and Halifax will move and not other east Canadian ports. There would be no advantage for large ships that use the ports of Halifax and Saint John to try to get into Montreal or Toronto because they would lose the advantage of the large size containers, which is part of the way that entrepreneurs moving containers in world traffic find the margin for profit.
I should like to see the government review this situation from the point of view of the movement of these containers through Canadian ports. For example, Dart, ACL, Hapag Lloyd or any other line are not in a position to take their customers and get an increase in rates. They cannot do that under the terms of the conference until some time next March or April. It is now the end of May and the increase faces us on July 1. If we are to ask the shippers of 40 foot containers from Halifax to absorb 7 per cent and take into consideration the fact that Dart Lines own about 60 per cent of the port facility at Port Elizabeth in New Jersey, they are not going to move through Halifax. They are going to move their 40 foot containers through their own ports into Montreal and Toronto. They can use the single rate based upon trail of usage.
We would like to get some kind of deferral of any increase until such time as the shipper is in a position to go to his customer and get the appropriate increase to absorb the increase in rail cost. Short of that it would only be fair if the government were to consider an increase in cost to those using the Port of Montreal or the Port of Toronto with respect to the movement of containers and the Con-rail service from New York into either Toronto or Montreal. Essentially those are the two points I wished to make.
It is unfair to the people of Halifax and Saint John to put shippers using the ports in the position in which they must absorb out of their own profits the full 7 per cent when a similar amount is not imposed on those using other ports directly and CN is not imposing such increases on movements from New York to Toronto and Montreal.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) for the analysis of the freight rate situation which he placed on the record of the House this evening. I assure him that I will make certain that all the factors he brought forward this evening will be brought to the attention of the responsible authorities both within the Department of Transport and outside, and I hope they will conduct a full analysis of the important concerns he raised this evening.
Originally, when my hon. friend addressed his question to me in the minister's absence during the question period,

it had to do with the impact, if any, which the anti-inflation program might have on the specific freight rate increases to which he alluded. Essentially the hon. member asked me at that time whether the government intends to ensure that the Canadian Transport Commission will review the increase in container freight rates out of the ports of Halifax and Saint John into Montreal. The short answer is, yes.
I remind the hon. member that under the anti-inflation legislation the Canadian Transport Commission has responsibility for monitoring increases in freight, passenger, and express rates, and the increases in revenues to be derived therefrom. It is carrying out those duties which, among other things, require it to report to the governor in council where, in the opinion of the Commission, an action on the part of the railways is likely to lead to a breach of the guidelines.
I should like to confirm to my hon. friend that the commission is monitoring the recent increase in the container freight rates from Halifax and Saint John to Montreal and Toronto and has called on the railways to furnish it with all the information it requires in the pursuit of its anti-inflation duties.
As I said earlier, I will ensure that the important considerations my hon. friend described to the House are brought to the attention of responsible officials in order that his concerns may be alleviated.


AGRICULTURE-NUMBER OF CATTLE AND SHEEP DESTROYED UNDER BLUE TONGUE CONTROL PROGRAM
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I begin my remarks this evening by quoting from pages 92:30 and 92:31 of issue No. 2, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Agriculture of Wednesday, May 26, 1976. I do this to show beyond any shadow of doubt that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) acted too hastily on the blue tongue issue. The following exchange appears in the committee proceedings. I quote:


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: . . . Mr. Chairman. The first question I would like to ask is on blue tongue. Mainly, what type of blue tongue do we have? How many cattles have been destroyed to date? How much money has been paid out? And what are the results of the tests in the other provinces?


Eugene Whelan: Dr. Reid has been doing most of the work. He has given me a report here that is quite detailed and shows the wonderful job that the CDA is doing to eradicate this horrible disease from the nation.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Mr. Chairman, I would just as soon take that to my office to read it rather than have you take up the time.


Eugene Whelan: We can make all this available to you. It is not confidential; it is factual. While we are talking about blue tongue I want to put it on the record that it was stated here the last time we talked about blue tongue that they had never had blue tongue in Europe. Mr. Chairman, they did have blue tongue in Europe; it was in Spain. I could remember that they had it but I could not remember what country and I did not want to say it. But Spain had blue tongue in the late fifties and they had to slaughter sheep. They used inoculation for their sheep.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: They could not have had any effect, though.


Eugene Whelan: They still cannot export cattle.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Was it the same type?


Eugene Whelan: They still cannot export cattle into the other parts of Europe unless they have a certificate indicating that they are free of blue tongue.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Was that the same type, Mr. Chairman?
May 31, 1976


Eugene Whelan: You know as well as I do, Mr. Hurlburt; there are several different types of blue tongue.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Yes, well that is what I am saying. You could be telling us that the type they had in Europe was altogether a different type than we had in the Okanagan.
MR. Whelan: Which type do you want to know about?


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: I want to know if the type we had in the Okanagan is the type they had in Europe.
MR. Whelan: I will let Dr. Reid or Dr. McGowan comment.
Dr. Reid said:
Mr. Chairman, we have not as yet recovered any virus from the animals we have slaughtered from the Okanagan Valley. The diagnosis has been based solely on the results of the Kaufmann fixation tests carried out on blood samples collected from the cattle. So we cannot answer your question yet; we have the virus but we have not been able to type it.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: So what we are saying is that we jumped the gun and we announced an eradication program and went against the B.C. cattlemen's recommendations before we even knew what we had.
Dr. Reid: We do not know the type of virus we have. We know that we have exposure to blue tongue virus based on serological results from tests that have been carried out, and we are confident that they are accurate to the best of our ability.
As I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks, the minister stated, and I quote:
We can make all this available to you. It is not confidential; it is factual.
As of four o'clock this afternoon I had received absolutely no information from the minister's office. However, I found out on my own that 524 head of cattle have been destroyed in British Columbia, that $269,654 has been paid out for herds that have been destroyed, that 49 herds are infected in British Columbia, plus eight deer that are positive reactors.
After talking to my colleague, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker), I am convinced the following questions are uppermost in the minds of all ranchers in southern British Columbia: what is going to happen to our herds this fall after roundup-isolation, quarantine or eradication? How can we plan if wild game are affected? Why are our armed forces in Europe eating American beef if the disease is so terrible? What enabled the United States to pioneer the Japanese market if the disease is that serious?
In my remarks this evening I have proved that the Minister of Agriculture implemented a program of eradication before he had proof of the most important point: what type of blue tongue do we have? If the type is altogether different and much more serious than the type now prevalent in the United States, the minister has gambled and won. However, if the minister has gambled and lost, we all know who the loser will be; not the Minister of Agriculture but the B.C. rancher.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to
Adjournment Debate
respond to the hon. gentlemen this evening and as I begin may I express the regret of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and of his parliamentary secretary for their inability to be present tonight to answer personally.
The hon. member, on May 17, asked how many cattle and sheep have had to be slaughtered under the blue tongue eradication program and how the program related to wild game. Before I answer those questions in detail I would first want to state for the record the minister's firm and well-founded view that Canada has the most disease-free animal population in the world, and we intend to maintain that enviable record.
As of May 17 the numbers were as follows: Cattle; herds tested, 65; positive herds, 49; negative herds, 16; cattle tested, 7,908; positive cattle, 875; negative cattle, 7,033. Sheep; flocks tested, 2; sheep tested, 140 (two sheep were being re-bled as the first samples were unsatisfactory for test); positive sheep, 0; negative sheep, 138. Wild game; deer tested, eight, positive deer, four, (two of which were on the Elkink Ranch); negative deer, four; bighorn sheep tested, four; positive bighorn sheep, zero; negative bighorn sheep, four; mountain goats tested, three; positive mountain goats, zero; negative mountain goats, three.
A permit to shoot 30 deer for testing purposes has been obtained from the provincial authorities. The bighorn sheep and mountain goats are being taken by capture gun and as many as possible will be tested.
At this point there is no indication that blue tongue is widespread in the game in the area and it should be noted that two of the deer which reacted positively were in close association with the heavily infected herd initially uncovered. Deer are not usually any threat to livestock as carriers of the disease. Researchers working in endemic areas have found that blue tongue usually kills deer; any that survive are considered to be immune, non-carriers.
The staff of the Health of Animals Branch is now involved in the process of tracing and testing cattle which have moved from the infected area to other parts of British Columbia. Cattle which moved into Alberta from the infected area have already been slaughtered in the normal course of events with feeder cattle. Movements from the area to Ontario are now being traced and submitted to test.
Officials are now arranging to collect at least 1,000 blood samples from Canadian cattle bordering on the United States in Alberta. This sampling procedure will be extended along the U.S. border into Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario.
It is apparent that the officials of the Health of Animals Branch are making every effort to rid Canada of this foreign disease as soon as possible. With the full co-operation of everyone, hopefully the success of this program will be as great as that which has been evidenced by this country on previous occasions in the complete eradication of foreign animal diseases.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.33 p.m.

Tuesday, June 1, 1976