1977-07-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing necessity concerning recent cabinet approval of the sale of Pony Sporting Goods of Canada, of which Senator Davey is a director and shareholder, and in particular concerning the fact that the cabinet apparently hid the purchaser's identity behind subsidiaries of the real purchaser, Mitsubishi International of Japan, already 50 per cent associated with Senator Davey and associates in Pony Sporting Goods of the United States. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce make a statement answering the following specific points: Was the cabinet aware that Pony Sporting Goods Limited was suspended by the Ontario Securities Commission in January of 1977 for delinquency in Filing financial information and that Gordon Dryden, Treasurer of the Liberal Party of Canada and director/officer of the Unity Bank, filed an insider's trading report dated September 11, 1973 with the Ontario Securities Commission, as did the Unity Bank itself, declaring that each controlled or owned in excess of 10 per cent of Pony Sporting Goods Canada Limited; and finally, what representations were made to cabinet or the Foreign Investment Review Agency on behalf of this sale and have Senator Davey and Gordon Dryden as a result of the sale been bailed out Financially?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REQUEST FOR ACTION ON SALARIES OF EXECUTIVES AND PROFESSIONALS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, without the necessity of a preamble I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House, noting that the Anti-Inflation Board has called on Bell Canada to roll back to not more than $2,400 a year the increases granted to its executives, asks the government why penalties were not also imposed as has been done several times in the cases of groups of ordinary workers, calls on the government to press the Anti-Inflation Board to roll back the excessive salary
increases of all executives and professionals, and insists that the salary of Mr. Ian Sinclair be made public in Canada, rather than waiting for this to be done by the Securities Exchange Commission of the United States, and that his income as president of Canadian Pacific be made subject to the same guidelines that are supposed to apply to all other Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate pursuant to the Standing Order requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a very important matter, especially for senior citizens.
In view of the fact that thousands of 65 year-old persons who were drawing unemployment insurance on January 1, 1976 and whose benefits were cancelled as a result of decisions taken by officials who advised them to apply for an old age security pension or for a Quebec pension have lost all their rights to those benefits as a result of a decision made by Justice Jean-Eudes Dube, former minister of public works, because they followed the advice of federal officials, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That a committee of the House consider all circumstances surrounding those profitable mistakes for the government which have been made by its officials thus depriving thousands of claimants of unemployment insurance benefits.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

July 20, 1977
External Affairs


ELECTIONS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity about which 1 hope there will be no debate and no question about consent. It concerns the press statement made on Monday by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) which was both interesting and thoughtful. In it he criticized the Solicitor General's (Mr. Fox) statement to the effect that there should be an early election. That statement had been made by the Solicitor General under obvious pressure-pressure so great we thought his head would blow up and cover us all with sawdust.


Mr. Poulin:: Why don't you put your motion?


Walter David Baker: Accordingly I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That the Solicitor General be given the opportunity to make a statement on motions answering the questions raised by the hon. member for Vaudreuil, and in particular to explain the government's planned action on Bill 101, their proposals for rule changes in the House of Commons, and the reason why action could only be taken on these matters after an election.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is there unanimous consent for the putting of the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Paproski:: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said no.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since Communist Cuba is reported as having increased its military and civilian presence in Angola by as much as one third, I move-


Mr. Rodriguez:: No.


Otto John Jelinek: -seconded by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse):
That all Ilnancial and other aid to Cuba by Canada be discontinued until such time as all Cuban military aggression in Africa is withdrawn.


John R. Rodriguez: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such motion requires unanimous consent, and it is apparent there is not unanimous consent for it.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43. As the House will likely adjourn in the near future, yet motion No. 13 under government business standing in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) which appeared on the order paper last February and which called for the establishment of a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to be appointed to consider and report on the document entitled "The Way Ahead" has not been called to date-


Walter David Baker: That's the way this government goes ahead.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -and as we all know our economy has declined still further with higher inflation, higher unemployment, and less real growth than there was even last spring, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield):
That this House urge the government to call motion No 13 forthwith as an item of government business so that the special jont committee contemplated by the Minister of Finance may be formed and carry out its terms of reference during the forthcoming parliamentary recess.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said no.


MANPOWER
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. As the Toronto rape crisis centre has provided an extremely necessary service to that community; as the centre was funded under the local initiatives program and such funding has come to an end; and as the Ontario ministry of community and social services has refused to fund the centre, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration be instructed to reconsider funding of this program under the Canada Works program.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such motion?

July 20, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who assured us he would be in the House this afternoon-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Where's chicken Ouellet?


Dean Waldon Whiteway: -and the absence of the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In today's city edition of the Hamilton Spectator it is reported that RCMP officers on Friday, July 15, served a search warrant on the Hamilton offices of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and removed all documents pertaining to York Place. Can the Prime Minister say if that report is correct and, if it is, if this raid was initiated or directed by himself or any other minister of the Crown?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been informed of this seizure of documents. I think that should deal with part of the last question.


YORK PLACE, HAMILTON-POSITION OF CORPORATION AS MORTGAGE HOLDER
Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister? As the Prime Minister is no doubt aware, this matter having been raised yesterday during the question period, the answer to order paper question No. 812 paragraph 12, asking whether CMHC ranked as first mortgage holder at all times with respect to York Place was evasive. When this matter was brought to the attention of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, did he or his office inquire of Mr. Stanley Dudzic, the lawyer for CMHC, if CMHC at any time did not rank as a first mortgage holder? What was the reply of the solicitor for CMHC? If the minister did not ask him that critical question, why did he not?
(Translation]


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have no comments to make about the RCMP inquiry. If necessary, the minister will make a statement in the House and I think the matter can be referred to the Solicitor General.
With regard to the second question, I take it as notice.
Oral Questions


YORK PLACE, HAMILTON-PROPOSED PUBLIC INQUIRY
Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, it is now eight months since the opposition first brought this matter to the attention of the minister and some eight months since the hon. member for St. John's East asked for an inquiry. In view of the move by the RCMP and the confusion, allegations, charges, countercharges, and a host of unanswered or inadequately answered questions, does the Prime Minister not think it reasonable to call for a full public inquiry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, yet again I will give the answer. I believe the police are investigating, as the hon. member has obviously indicated. We will wait for the report. We believe in due process, not inquisitorial justice.


YORK PLACE, HAMILTON-ALLEGED INADEQUACY OF ANSWERS BY MINISTER
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, certainly there is some matter the Prime Minister can answer directly today. It is with respect to the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who, after assuring me last evening across the floor of the House he would be here today, is again absent from his place to answer very important questions with respect to this matter. The first question I have for the Prime Minister is where is his minister? Has the Prime Minister, as the head of the government, looked into the matter dealing with improper and indeed, I regret to say, false answers to questions made on July 15, 1977 by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs which also was compounded by the statement made yesterday by the parliamentary secretary in the absence of the minister? Has the Prime Minister looked into this? Is the Prime Minister prepared to state a position on the obvious inadequacies and indeed inaccuracies with regard to the York Place matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making a very serious charge of falsehoods. Of course, I will want to look into that allegation. I hope the hon. member will be prepared to support his assertions in a less flimsy way than he has done thus far in his questions.


YORK PLACE, HAMILTON-ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MINISTER OF LABOUR-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON INQUIRY
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it would be very interesting if the Minister of State for Urban Affairs were here to answer the questions rather than put the Prime Minister in the invidious position in which he finds himself today. On October 27, 1976 the former Minister of Urban Affairs told the House that he would check into allegations that the Minister of Labour had played a role in securing the $1.5 million loan increase to Morgenti. I simply want to ask the Prime Minister whether he in fact followed up

July 20, 1977
Oral Questions
the former minister's inquiry and, if so, what conclusions did he reach?


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will hear the question of privilege at three o'clock.


INDUSTRY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It arises out of an announcement this week by General Motors of a 6 per cent increase in the price of 1978 cars. This will be in addition to the 6 per cent increase implemented last year. This will result in an increase in the price of new cars of 12 per cent in one year. Will the minister consider discussing with the auto industry the necessity of this added price increase?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it is not an increase of 12 per cent a year, but an increase of 5.5 per cent last year and 6 per cent this year. I shall look into this to get more details and, if necessary, I shall get in touch with the industry representatives but an increase of 6 per cent seems rather normal considering the present inflation rate.


SUGGESTED ELIMINATION OF DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND CANADIAN PRICES FOR AUTOMOBILES
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my information is that this will be the second increase in one year. Since there is at present a differential amounting to between $150 and $600 or more in the price of cars made and sold in Canada as compared with the price of a Canadian car sold in the United States, even after allowance has been made for all taxes paid in both countries, and since one of the main purposes of the auto pact was the elimination of the gap in prices, would the minister direct his department to study again the price differential with a view to its elimination?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the problems I raised when I met the presidents of the automobile industry of Canada two weeks ago.


David Orlikow: That is the answer we have been getting ever since the first year of the agreement. Since the auto pact

creates, in effect, a free trade situation for the auto manufacturing industry whereas no such situation exists in favour of individual Canadians purchasing cars, while the price of Canadian automobiles continues to be significantly higher than in the United States, would the minister discuss with his colleagues, especially the Minister of Finance, the possibility of removing the tariff on autos produced in the U.S.A. so that the benefits of the free trade in autos resulting from the pact would be made available to Canadians wishing to purchase new cars, not just to the manufacturers?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to consider the idea the hon. member has put forward, but I am not sure it will solve the problem he has raised.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: 
FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and it arises from the cabinet decision on June 30 to permit the sale to
July 20, 1977

foreign interests of Pony Sporting Goods (Canada) Limited. Will the minister tell us whether the cabinet was aware that Unity Bank and Gordon Dryden, Treasurer of the Liberal Party of Canada and a director of the Unity Bank, each controlled or owned together in excess of 20 per cent of the shares of Pony Sporting Goods (Canada) Limited, as indicated in insiders trading reports to the Ontario Securities Commission? Would he also tell us why it permitted this sale following what he has already indicated was little scrutiny, and whether the same procedure as applies to ordinary individuals was followed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I checked and all the procedures have been normally followed in this transaction whereby an American group tried to take over this business called Pony Sporting Goods. At no time were the officers of the Foreign Investment Review Agency, myself and the Minister of State (Small Business), who also worked on this matter, aware that Mr. Davey or Mr. Dryden were directors or shareholders of this company.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister last spoke or answered a question in the House on this matter, when he said he was totally unaware of the situation at the time he made the decision, has he consulted any of his colleagues to see whether they were aware that Senator Davey and Gordon Dryden were involved with Pony Sporting Goods, and was the cabinet aware at the time of the decision that in effect it could possibly take steps to bail out financially these two prominent Liberals?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, at no time and I checked with my colleagues, and I do not intend to do so. My colleague, the Minister of State (Small Business) and myself, as well as the director and the officers of the agency concerned, were not aware of this, and if we had been, we would have treated them in the same manner as we treat any other Canadian citizen.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Minister of Justice, who in reply to a question I asked him a week or so ago said he would look into the matter, I direct my supplementary to the Solicitor General. When I raised the matter with the Minister of Justice, the minister said he would look into it. Would the Solicitor General tell me whether or not the RCMP investigation into the affairs of Unity Bank also involved investigations into interests in Pony Sporting Goods Limited held by two prominent Liberals, Senator Davey and Gordon Dryden?
Oral Questions


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have an immediate answer to the hon. member's question.
I will take it as notice and look into the matter.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker,
I direct my question, through you as our first Commoner and leading golfer, to the Secretary of State who speaks to us for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Since something to be called the Canadian Open is to start Thursday on reconverted meadowland near Toronto and is supposed to be permanently based there, would the Secretary of State advise the CBC that the golf world in confederation has its own coast to coast rights too and good golf courses, and that no one area should be allowed to claim this event as its own? Hopefully the CBC could state that the Canadian Open is only a claim and not a fact, or call it the Canadian closed.


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the last time I played golf was 25 years ago so I am not sure that I understood the full purport of the hon. member's question. But I take it that there is an important issue here which he wishes to communicate to the CBC and I shall be happy to do that.


AGRICULTURE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture; I know he has been waiting for a question for quite a long while. Knowing his interest in farmers and farm prices, and of course realizing that there is considerable discontent among the farmers because of the prices they are receiving for their products as compared with the prices ultimately paid by consumers, in order to give the farmers the fullest information as to the prospect of prices over the next few months, and within the next year in general, would the minister make a statement in the House setting out the projections of the Department of Agriculture regarding farm prices in general?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the right hon. gentleman knows, the Canadian Department of Agriculture has one of the best information services of any department in the Canadian government or any provincial government so far as agriculture and agricultural costs are concerned. In our recently announced food strategy paper my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and I have agreed to work together-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

July 20, 1977
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: -on publicizing these facts so that public and consumers will know just where their dollars are going.


REQUEST FOR ARRANGEMENTS TO PERMIT PRODUCERS TO DELIVER BALANCE OF LAST YEAR'S CROP
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to learn of the rapprochement between him and the minister he mentioned. Also, I hope there will be a similar rapprochement between him and the Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: That causes me to ask this question: knowing his undoubted interest in the farmer and his income, would he do something even though it is not under his department, although I often think the Wheat Board should be under him, in order to get some of the action he has just spoken of? Would he put in a word to the government, if not to the Minister of Transport, that the western farmers should have an opportunity between now and the end of the month to dispose, as far as possible, of the large surplus of wheat they have on hand? Unless it is taken up in the market by that date, when the new grain year opens up, they will find themselves with their quotas reduced to the extent of the wheat production which has not yet been marketed.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the right hon. member is not aware. He should get the latest report from the United States Department of Agriculture which shows that Canada is outselling the United States by tenfold, and I will turn the rest over to the hon. Minister of Transport in charge of the Wheat Board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in all that fiction which the minister has just reported on. Because of his tremendous interest, could he pass on a word to the Minister of Transport to the end that the western farmer will have a fair deal, instead of being crucified as a result of the rules the Minister of Transport has imposed on the western farmers?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the right hon. gentleman giving me a chance to point out to him that the Canadian Wheat Board has announced quotas for wheat, an additional three bushels in eight blocks, as the right hon. gentleman probably knows. They have now called an initial three bushel quota starting August 1 in the remaining blocks throughout the region. Thus, unlike the time when the right hon. gentleman's government was around, when all elevators were plugged at all the wrong
[Mr. Whelan.)
times, farmers are going to be able to deliver grain straight off the combine and into the elevators once again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Agriculture. Some months ago I asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture concerning dairy farmers in Canada and the possible importation from the United States of artificial cheese into our country. In March he undertook to make a study of its impact on the incomes of dairy farmers in this country. I should like to ask him now whether he has had a chance to complete that study. If he has what are the results of it, because dairy farmers are quite concerned?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this was discussed with the dairy farmers and also with the Agricultural Stabilization Advisory Board of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I am working together with that minister on this problem. They are concerned also about the health standards and the type of food this would be. As far as we know, none of this has come into Canada. There have been no real laws or regulations passed against it, at this present time. It is within our criteria, and it has not received the go ahead.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether it is his intention to amend the regulations governing the importation of substitute food such as artificial cheese from the United States. When he is conducting his investigation, will he take into consideration the whole question of substitute foods from its nutritional value, as more and more medical doctors are concerned about that field?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is familiar with those issues which read: "Notes for an address by the Minister of Agriculture". He has probably come across at least a half a dozen which point out that we can eat a very wholesome and very nutritional diet without eating any imported foods, just by eating Canadian produced foods. If the nutritional experts advise us that this is an unnecessary product, and perhaps not as nutritious as it could be if it were produced solely in Canada, I would be in a better position to recommend, along with my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that it not be allowed to be imported into Canada.
July 20, 1977


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It is in regard to a series of crashes which have taken place in northwestern Ontario and the fact that pilots have now circulated a petition calling for an inquiry into the conditions under which private aircraft and public aircraft are operated in northwestern Ontario. I wonder if the minister could indicate to the House whether he has changed his mind as to whether an inquiry is necessary under these new circumstances?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am very conscious of the concern in northern Ontario regarding air safety and the reports arising out of recent incidents. After a similar situation some time ago, I conducted an investigation and determined that the parallels, in terms of their safety and precautions, were about the same in that region as in other parts of the country and that the highest Canadian standards were indeed in place. However, the recent incidents and the concern have led me to ask for a further investigation into the situation. That is now going on. 1 am willing to say that if that investigation reveals the need for a more formal inquiry, I will be happy to see that that is undertaken as well. The present fact appears to be that the standards and rules are adequate. The question is whether there are reasons, including economic pressures, for them being contravened. Of course, we would want to come to grips with that very important question.


TRANSPORT
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it relates to a series of questions familiar to the minister concerning the transport of potatoes. In light of the fact that today Mr. Nick Alder has indicated that his report is completed and that it will be circulated within the next few days to some of the provincial interests in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, can the minister indicate how soon a decision will be taken by the government particularly with respect to new vehicles, realizing the importance of having adequate equipment for the next shipping season in light of the large crop expected this year?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the working group was given until August 1 for its report. It has now an effective draft report available. It will be discussing this with the interested groups in the region. Within a week or so I would expect to have a final report from the group. At that point the government will look at the matter immediately, and we will take such actions and make such decisions as seem to arise out of it.
Oral Questions


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister has investigated with the local potato marketing board or with the supplier of the vehicles to ascertain whether there will be enough equipment available for the next shipping season, realizing the rapid decline and deterioration of the present equipment which has been rented primarily from the United States and the length of time it would take to place an order for new equipment to be available this coming shipping season?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the subjects which has been examined by this working group. I know they have some preliminary conclusions on it and will have final conclusions to put before us within a week or ten days.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.


An hon. Member:: He has arrived.


Stan Darling: Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs told this House that neither his department nor CMHC has any responsibility to ensure that mortgage funds allocated to a particular project are actually spent on that project. Last year the Auditor General reported that the government did not always know how taxpayers' money is spent. Now we are told that they do not even care. Will the minister tell the House whether it is the government's view that it is irrelevant where the $5.9 million advanced by CMHC for the construction of York Place was actually spent?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the parliamentary secretary ever said yesterday that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation did not take any further interest in the loans it guaranteed. In fact, the Corporation follows the current practice in this area; it grants the loan in the form of a progressive advance payment during construction, which is a way of controlling gradually the progress of the work.


Stan Darling: 1 have another supplementary question for the minister. The question on the order paper was whether the money was used in York Place. The minister's answer was, no. It is irrelevant whether the contractors were paid, how they were paid or who paid them. We want to know if the money went for the purpose for which it was borrowed. In light of the allegations that substantial amounts were diverted and that we

July 20, 1977
Oral Questions
have now waited for eight months without proper answers, would the minister tell the House exactly where the money went and who got it?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think I should remind the hon. member that all advance payments are made through a lawyer who has the responsibility to see to it that each payment is used to search for title deeds, in order to ensure that the advance payment has priority over any other prior claim. On the other hand, the Corporation acts under the existing legislation in each province, and in this case, the Ontario legislature does not give any priority to the creditor unless he has registered either a lien or a judgment.


YORK PLACE, HAMILTON-SUGGESTED INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF VALUE
Stan Darling: Five point nine million dollars have gone into this project-a portion of which may have departed for destinations unknown. Will the minister now undertake to obtain an independent assessment of what York Place is actually worth before he begins putting the additional $1.2 million needed to complete the place?


André Ouellet: There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that we will look into the matter very carefully before allotting any other funds.
On the other hand, I can assure the hon. member that with regard to what has happened in the past, the officials of my department supervised that case very closely and I can tell the House that, in their opinion, there were no irregularities except for a former employee of the company concerned which tells us that he is no longer working for it.


FORESTS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment who is also responsible for the federal forestry policy. In view of the fact that in Nova Scotia some two million acres of forest land are under some form of spruce budworm attack which will result in an eventual loss of some six million cords of spruce and balsam fir, causing a major catastrophe throughout our province, the economy of which is based on our forest industries, will the minister indicate, either today or when convenient, whether his department plans to assist contractors in harvesting the devastated areas and whether he has any ongoing plans of a long term nature to assist Nova Scotia during this difficult period?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the decision to spray or not to spray in the case of the spruce budworm attack is one that rests with the provincial authorities which, under our constitution, are responsible for the management of forests. The federal government is obviously involved in research on spruce budworm. In fact, over $30 million have been spent and a further increase in that amount will be made by a co-ordinated effort between Canada and the United States into the research aspect of the problem. Management practices, such as early harvesting, can in fact solve certain problems, and that appears to have been Nova Scotia's decision. We had not become involved in this part of their activities, nor do we intend to at the moment.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of the Environment in his capacity as Minister of Fisheries, and it has to do with severe losses by lobster fishermen as a result of storm damage to their lobster gear. On May 6 the minister indicated he was taking steps to temporarily overcome the situation. Now that the lobster season is over and that help has not come forward, I wonder what steps are being taken to compensate the fishermen for their losses?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check Hansard to see the exact words I used. Certainly, when I said that all steps would be taken to help fishermen find other gear it was then the lobster season. I noticed some efforts were made to get fishing gear from some other provinces. As to the compensation matter, I have made it clear in the House in relation to Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Newfoundland, that a disaster formula has to be used and triggered by the provincial authorities. It is employed by the federal government if the province decides to use the disaster formula. I have no requests from the province of Newfoundland in front of me at the moment.


PROPOSAL FOR INSURANCE AGAINST GEAR LOSS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jack Marshall: I do
not want to contradict the minister but it was brought to my attention that the minister of fisheries in the province of Newfoundland submitted a proposal about two months ago about gear loss insurance, requesting comments from the minister and asking for financial participation. Would the minister look at that and reply, probably later in the week, as to the answer from his officials?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I know that the minister did write to
July 20, 1977

me about a possible gear insurance plan. Discussions have taken place for some three years since I have had this responsibility. We have tried to find a way to get a plan which would be acceptable to fishermen. This has not turned out to be possible. There are coercive conditions in the plan suggested by our colleague from the Newfoundland government which 1 personally do not accept. The fishermen themselves will have to be volunteers in this type of plan.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board, 1 should like to put my question to the Prime Minister as he is well acquainted with the matter.
As the civil servants working in Montreal have refused to serve the public in both languages in the last few days; as the President of the Treasury Board has admitted publicly that as far as he is concerned the bilingualism premium should be paid retroactively to 1976; as it seems that the minister intends to impose sanctions because those services were refused, and before everyone involved becomes bitter, which is likely to happen, I ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to ask his minister to meet the civil servants concerned immediately with a view to finding a solution and avoid another bilingualism crisis?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board already has the required authorization from the cabinet to discuss the matter with the authorized representatives of the civil servants, Mr. Speaker. I am convinced that those meetings have already started, perhaps not with the Montreal dissidents, but surely with the Union and Alliance people.
For further details, the hon. member will have to wait till the minister answers the question himself, since he is expected later in the House. He will surely be here some time today.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Claude Tessier (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Following his meeting with his provincial counterparts, can the minister tell this House whether any agreement has been reached regarding the terms of payment of this controversial 25 cent levy dairy producers are supposed to pay in keeping with the 1977-1978 dairy policy? Also, is the minister prepared to assert that the distribution of quotas among all dairy
Oral Questions
producers has been equitable in 1977, considering all the unfair cuts that have been made against the interest of industrial milk producers over the last two milk years?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, discussion took place in Victoria at the provincial ministers meeting concerning this topic. At that time I made a proposal to them that they collect 25 cents a hundred in any fair and equitable way they saw fit and submit it to the federal government. There was some discussion at the meeting that it was our responsibility to collect it, but I reminded them that they already collected now $1.20 a hundred for export costs, and submitted it to the federal government. It is their duty to run quotas under this program which is totally within provincial jurisdiction. If they give me no other recourse, 1 will have to collect the 25 cents a hundred or its equivalent by subtracting that from the federal subsidy payment that we make to them.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Now that the minister has received requests from the chief of the Millbrook Band Council and the president of the Union of Nova Scotia Indians that a public inquiry into all aspects of the construction and operation of the Abenaki Motor Inn immediately be established-and I made a request to him on February 1 of this year-will a public inquiry be established?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of establishing a public inquiry at this time.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that statements have been made that the motel in question is losing money day in and day out and that the taxpayers of this country have now put up over $2 million for the operation of this facility, how does the minister intend to get some answers which will clear the names of Indians in Nova Scotia with regard to the terrible, reprehensible way this operation has been run?
The Indians are taking the blame for this when the minister's officials should rightfully be taking it.


William Warren Allmand: The band council has asked that it be given an opportunity to take over this motel and run it directly. We are looking at that possibility and also a restructuring of the economic and financial aspects. That is now being explored. That has been made known to the band, and we have had several meetings with them about it.

July 20, 1977
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


ELECTION EXPENSES
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. President of the Privy Council. I was beginning to fear I would not be able to see him today, with all the work pressure we are under.
In view of the fact that taxpayers must have access to the report on the financial activities of political parties in every possible way, could the President of the Privy Council advise the House whether a free copy could be made available to every member of this House, without a $70 charge for each?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I shall make inquiries of the Chief Electoral Officer to see whether arrangements can be made to have copies made available.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that there is growing opposition to the proposed new federal penitentiary in the area of London East and Kent Essex, will the minister reassess submissions made to him in the past and give further consideration to the riding of Victoria-Haliburton as a possible location for such an institution?


Mr. Speaker:: That seems to be a representation. The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
* V *


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture, and it deals with last Monday's United States announcement of new import restrictions against certain Canadian cattle as a result of a new round of non-tariff barrier trade irritants and with particular regard to the recent brucellosis issue which could involve Canadian cattle. Can the minister assure the Canadian beef and dairy industries that his recent personal discussions with Mr. Bergland will preserve and hopefully safeguard Canadian cattle trading interests in our two-way cattle trade with the United States?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think I can reassure at least those producers of purebred

cattle who have followed good health practices that the negotiations which took place between Mr. Bergland and myself were based on a realization of the importance of the two-way trade between our nations. For those people who have had their herds tested within the last 12 months and who have had any additional cattle they have added to their herds in the last three months tested, there will be no impediment in the export of their cattle.
We realize, and I am sure the hon. member realizes, that we need to tighten up our procedures for trying to eradicate brucellosis. I am sure the hon. member is aware that our rate of brucellosis is lower than the rate in the United States. The United States has some areas which are called brucellosis-free, and we have some as well. When these are published, we will be negotiating with the United States on this contract. I see some loss of export trade at the present time, but 1 do not look on that as a trade barrier. I look on it as strictly a health move, and contrary to what some people have suggested, I emphatically deny that it is a trade barrier the United States has imposed. It is a health measure.


BLUE TONGUE-POSSIBILITY OF REDUCTION IN TESTING
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that up until now the discussions seem to indicate that Canada is the loser. In the minister's discussions with the Secretary of Agriculture and his staff, was the possibility of a reduction of our Canadian requirement for a double test for blue tongue to a single test during the nonfly season discussed? This would lessen the probability of yet another beef and cattle trade war between our two countries.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we touched on that. They had no reservations about the programs we have because they recognize that our nation is practically free of blue tongue, and they are satisfied that the blue tongue outbreak we had in British Columbia was as a result of our cattle being infected by cattle from the United States. They commend the program we have. I disagree with what some people from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association are reported in press reports to have said. They have said that it is a trade retaliation move. I emphatically deny that because Mr. Bergland has no intention of doing that. I have a harmonious relationship with the American Department of Agriculture, and the relationship I have with the present Secretary of Agriculture is the best there has been for years.


MANPOWER
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that the most recent figures from Statistics Canada indicate a crisis in Canadian construction which is best indicated by the fact that there are over 8,000 unemployed
July 20, 1977

construction workers in Toronto alone at a cost of millions of dollars a week in unemployment insurance, and in view of the fact that there are many worthwhile projects requiring the talents of construction workers, projects such as those once promised to upgrade urban transit systems in places such as Toronto, can the minister tell the House what steps his department will take to deal specifically with crisis levels of unemployment among construction workers and generally among our one million unemployed? Is he willing to spend money both on construction in urban transit and on other municipal winter works?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, that is hardly a question which can be answered within the constraints of the question period. 1 suggest with respect that that question would more appropriately be directed to the Minister of Finance.


FINANCE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister, since the Minister of Manpower and Immigration copped out.
In view of the fact that construction in the private sector is stagnating or declining, a fact which indicates that the private sector has not reacted to hand-outs granted to them in the last couple of budgets, can the Prime Minister tell the House if he is now prepared to stimulate business investment and to improve the lot of working people by bringing in a new budget as soon as possible which will grant major tax concessions to low income and middle income groups of Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that seems to be the type of representation that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance would want to convey to the minister. The hon. member heard me say just a short while ago-and I believe the Minister of Finance has also said this-that we are concerned because the private sector has not taken up the slack which was provided for it in the budget. In that sense I agree with the concern of the hon. member.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. Would the minister advise the House if he is aware of the controversy surrounding the proposed development of Dukes Point, Nanaimo, British Columbia by the B.C. Development Corporation? Can he also state whether additional log booms
Business of the House
will be allowed in the Nanaimo River estuary, or is it still government policy to phase out existing log booms in this estuary for ecological reasons?


Roméo LeBlanc: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is still the policy of the government to phase out log booms. In fact, the movement is toward less and less use of log booms because of new techniques. With the adoption of Fisheries Act amendments it will now be possible to ask for plans to be submitted before construction begins. This is what is happening in this case. A letter of June 15 indicates to the company which wants to develop an operation in this area that more information will be required before clearance is given.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as leader of the House? In view of the statement you made, Mr. Speaker, this morning on the radio, to the effect that the extended sitting of this session to discuss pipelines will be held in the Senate chamber, and as the Senate will also be sitting there, which conjunction of circumstances has given rise to speculations as to who will be sitting where and when-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Abolish the Senate first.


Donald W. Munro: -can the government House leader clear this confusion by saying who will sit where, when?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain 1 can give a clear answer to all the questions the hon. member raised. It has been suggested that the House of Commons, instead of sitting in the Senate chamber, might sit in the Victoria Museum.


Donald W. Munro: In the what?


Steve Eugene Paproski: You might as well have the House sit in the Banff Springs.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre clearly expressed a preference for the latter location I mentioned to the other place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Alexander:: To heck with Stanley.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe, because some members opposite are interested in knowing what it would be like to sit in the Senate, that there is now some general agreement for sitting in
7830

July 20, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Munro (Hamilton East) the Senate; but the Senators will not be there at the same time. They will probably be observing the rapid pace of our business.


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the government House leader confirm reports to the effect that when the other place was considered as a place in which this House might sit, the House leader of the New Democratic Party objected to sitting in that chamber, and it was therefore thought we might sit in the museum. Will the minister answer?


PRIVILEGE-MR. MUNRO (HAMILTON EAST) YORK PLACE-STATEMENT BY HON. MEMBER FOR GRENVILLE-CARLETON
John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise with reference to the statement the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) made in his question, a statement implying that the Minister of Labour was involved in matters concerning York Place, and involved improperly. Clearly, that implication was contained in the hon. member's statement. I rise seriously on a question of privilege because I think such a remark constitutes most inappropriate behaviour on the part of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.
Let me refer to what happened when this matter was raised in the House of Commons, back on October 27. A copy of the Spectator was flown in from Hamilton for the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). The hon. member had that copy in his possession almost contemporaneously with the appearance of the edition on the street in Hamilton on that day. He rose and quoted a story alleging some political interference on my part. 1 immediately got in touch with my solicitors and launched a libel suit against the Spectator. The matter is now before the courts.
I believe the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is well aware of that activity on my part. He must also be aware that my making statements now about those allegations in the Spectator would not be the wisest course for me to follow. Now that the matter is in the hands of my solicitors it is up to them to pursue it in the courts to its normal conclusion. Therefore freedom of expression on my part is limited at this time.
The Spectator printed an apology, an apology which, in the opinion of my solicitors, was not sufficient, and we are continuing the law suit.
What has the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton done? Using the excuse of his unhappiness with certain written answers provided to questions yesterday, the hon. member rose in his place and tried to "muddy up" a political personality who happens to be on the side opposite to him.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Hit and run.


John Carr Munro: He used that flimsy excuse to launch another McCarthy-type smear against another member.


Walter David Baker: Oh, no, not at all.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I ask this paragon of parliamentary virtue from Grenville-Carleton to stand up now in the House and show some moral fortitude, if he is going to continue in that course of conduct, make a charge, and back it with something specific.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: If he does not have the guts, or is too cowardly to do that, let him at least have the fundamental decency to retract, and let him stop resorting to such obnoxious behaviour.
Of course, if the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton were possessed of any sort of courage he could resort to another course of conduct. He could go outside this House and make any statements he wishes, make any innuendoes about improprieties-


Mr. Epp:: Order, order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In the circumstances I should like to ask the minister to confine his remarks strictly to the question of privilege.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He has no guts.


John Carr Munro: I will conclude shortly, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has open to him that other course of conduct, after which I would have recourse against him, as would be my right. Why does the hon. member not show enough courage to do even that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He has no guts.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, this type of conduct to which the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has resorted, involving innuendo, smears, and McCarthy-like tactics, makes me wonder about the appropriateness of parliamentary immunity as an institution of this House. If it is to be so abused by political opportunists with little sense of fair play and decency, opportunists who will hide behind this institution,
I think the day will come when those in political life in this country, in this parliament, will want to re-examine that institution, to determine its appropriateness in this day and age.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), who was a member of the Bar, knows histrionics will not replace substance. I also thought he knew the rules of the House. I note that although he said this was a question of
July 20, 1977

privilege, he did not move a motion at the conclusion of his remarks.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But he did say you were a coward.


Walter David Baker: Let me refer hon. members to what took place yesterday. Yesterday, as reported on page 7780 of Hansard, I directed a question to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), part of which reads as follows:
Now, on October 27, 1976, the former minister of state for urban affairs told the House that he would check into allegations that the Minister of Labour had played a role in securing a $1.5 million loan increase to Morgenti. That is on the record for October of 1976. In the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, I ask the government House leader whether he has followed up that inquiry. If the answer is no, why not, and if the answer is yes, what were the results and would he be prepared to table that report in the House? I am not asking the parliamentary secretary. I am asking the government House leader for this information.
The parliamentary secretary rose-


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down, sit down!


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not accurate even in what he has just said.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I did not obtain an answer to a legitimate question 1 asked in this House.


John Carr Munro: Make a charge, Walter, and show some guts.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask that question idly. So that the House will know it was not asked idly, this matter rose on October 27, and I thank the hon. member for his tribute to the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath),-


John Carr Munro: Show some guts, Walter.


Walter David Baker: At that time the then minister of state for urban affairs in answer to a question reported on page 501 of Hansard said, and I quote:
If there are any irregularities, certainly I want to be the first to know about them, and I will check into this. However I can give the hon. member no assurances at this time, particularly as the matter is before the courts.
The government itself on a matter that was before the courts decided to answer the written questions on the order paper through the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) on July 15, 1977, last Friday. If a member of the House is prohibited from asking questions arising out of questions on the order paper that the government has answered, we indeed have to look at the rules of this House, and the Minister of Labour has no question of privilege whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Privilege-Mr. Munro (Hamilton East)


Walter David Baker: If answers to questions by the government on their face raise further questions and the opposition does not pursue the earlier line of inquiry made by the hon. member for St. John's East, then the opposition is not doing its duty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Only some compassion for the Minister of Labour would prohibit me from reading into the record today the article with appeared on September 16, 1976, in the Hamilton Spectator. I have had some checks made, and I can be corrected on this-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Go read it outside the House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He will read it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He hasn't got the courage to read it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In addition to other considerations, there may be some limits to procedure which would interfere with the hon. member reading the entire newspaper article at this time. I would be grateful if the hon. member would develop his argument.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not going to read the entire article, as I said, out of compassion for the minister for what it contains.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is not compassion, that is cowardice.


Walter David Baker: The government has answered the question and again put the matter back into the public record. That is what it has done.
I have been advised that an action was commenced by the minister in October, 1976. He said it was, and I accept that. However, the matter has not been prosecuted by the minister.
The Hamilton Spectator stands by the substance of the story, and the situation involves the headline which in a subsequent edition the Hamilton Spectator-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Fine, then make a charge.


Steve Eugene Paproski: If you want to get up on a question of privilege, you can make a speech.


Walter David Baker: If a member of this House has to take this kind of abuse from a minister of the government who, by answering questions last Friday, laid open for questioning the original matters raised by the hon. member for St. John's East, then this is a very sorry House of Commons indeed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if the minister really has a question of privilege, he does not have it today. He would have had it yesterday when the matter was raised. That is when he could have chosen to raise it, but he did not choose to do so.
80020-31*72

July 20, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Munro (Hamilton East)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. The only thing that is becoming increasingly clear is that there is increasing confusion. In light of the action last Friday by the RCMP and by the unanswered questions, the responsibility is on this government to lauch a full public inquiry.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no procedural machinery whereby I can hear the minister a second time on the same question of privilege.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have never seen in the House such a distortion of facts made by an hon. member in his remarks following some answers. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that opposition members are not interested in getting answers to the questions they raise. As a matter of fact, this is entirely in the line of thinking of the hon. member who has just spoken and who Mr. Speaker, has made a complete and unacceptable distortion of the answers given earlier this week to a series of written questions. If you read these answers to the questions, in no way can you end up by incriminating my colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), as the hon. member has just done. I find this attitude very mean, unacceptable and quite improper from a responsible member. I think that the answers given simply answer the questions on the order paper and have nothing to do with the alleged misconduct of my colleague, the Minister of Labour. Trying to conclude from those answers that there was improper and irregular conduct on the part of my colleague, the Minister of Labour, is altogether unacceptable.
I want to inform the House that according to reports I have received-following the undertaking made by my colleague the former minister of state for urban affairs-the procedures followed and the amount of work done to ascertain whether or not there had been any improper action, I can only conclude that this was not the case. And if the hon. member has enough guts, as my colleague the Minister of Labour said, let him go outside the House, make direct charges and repeat what he said.


Mr. Speaker:: The question of privilege raised by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) concerns itself with an inference contained in questions put during the question period with regard to his activities. The complaint is that that ought to take the form of another course of action. It seems to be a matter of entire disagreement between the parties. In any event, I do not have to decide whether it is the substance of a question of privilege. It is not accompanied by a motion which requires action by the Chair. Therefore no further action is required.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I would like to table in both official languages the report of the inquiry committee on the national broadcasting system set up on March 14, 1977.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-62, to amend the Canada Elections Act.


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

Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present on behalf of 1,947 residents of Kelowna, British Columbia, and surrounding communities who want the laws against pornography to be strictly enforced under section 159 of the Criminal Code because of the dangerous impact on children and on the fabric of our society.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,183, 2,410, 2,766, 2,775 and 2,778.


Mr. Cossitt: What are the (a) names (b) job descriptions (c) annual salaries (d) dates of appointment (e) details of any previous government employment of all persons, paid in whole or in part from public funds, who are employed in connection with the operation of the Prime Minister's (i) official residence at 24 Sussex Drive,
July 20, 1977

Ottawa, Ontario (ii) summer residence at Harrington Lake, Quebec up to the date the answer to this question is prepared?
NAME	CLASSIFICATION	POSITIONMullally, M. (Mrs.)	GS-MPS 10	Household Co-ordinatorWest, H. (Mrs.)	GS-MPS 4	Senior MaidVincent, Y. (Mr.)	GS-FOS 9	ChefChenier, R. (Miss)	GS-FOS 6	CookClement, N. (Miss)	GS-MPS 2	Kitchen MaidVirgo, S. M. (Miss)	GS-MPS 2	MaidKimberley, L. E. (Miss)	GS-MPS 2	Maid'Desjardins, A. (Mrs.)	GS-MPS 2	MaidMallon, M. C. (Miss)	GS-MPS 2	Maid'Daviault, C. M. (Mrs.)	GS-MPS 2	Cleaner
'Working half days only
In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned: (i) 24 Sussex Drive; (a) Mrs. Gertrude Lepage; (b) Cleaning Service Woman (GS-BUS-2); (c) Hourly-$4.13 Annually $8,000-59,000; (d) 27/11/61; (e) No previous government experience, (a) Mrs. Anita Urquhart; (b) Cleaning Service Woman (GS-BUS-2) (c) Hourly-$4.13 Annually $8,000-59,000; (d) 7/3/77; (e) Employed as Cleaning Service Woman at ND HQ. (ii) Harrington Lake: (a) Mr. Lionel Desjardins; (b) Supervising Caretaker (GS-BUS-5); (c) Hourly-$5.06 Annually $ 10,000-$ 11,000; (d) 1/3/76; (e) No previous government experience.
Note: Mr. Desjardins is also the Supervising Caretaker for O'Brien House and farm at Kingsmere.
Order Paper Questions


Ralph Goodale: In so far as the Prime Minister's Office is concerned:
ANNUAL SALARY	DATE OF APPOINTMENT	PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENTHourly: $6.31 Annually: $13,000-14,000	25.11.76	Prime Minister's Residence: 20.9.72-12.7.74 1.10.76-24.11.76Hourly: $4.80 Annually: $10,000-11,000	1.1.73	Prime Minister's Residence: 9.7.64-8.9.72 Governor General's Residence: 1.12.72-31.12.72Hourly: $7.93 Annually: $16,000-17,000	1.10.75	National Arts Centre 16.4.69-4.7.75Hourly: $5.80 Annually: $12,000-13,000	16.9.63	nilHourly: $4.06 Annually: $8,000-9,000	14.4.75	nilHourly: $4.06 Annually: $8,000-9,000	26.11.73	nilHourly: $4.06 Annually: 8,000-9,000	7.2.77	nilHourly: $4.06 Annually: $4,000-4,500	28.10.76	nilHourly: $4.06 Annually: $8,000-9,000	21.2.77	nilHourly: $4.06	1.2.77	nil
Annually:


[Stage Direction]
In so far as the National Capital Commission is concerned: (i) At 24 Sussex Drive, official residence: Mr. J. Markus, Park Foreman, GL MANO 7B3 Hourly $6.82, annually $14,000-$15,000 of which $4,699 are applicable to the official residence. Employed with NCC since May 1971; at residence since September 1975. No previous government service. Mr. Z. Monette Junior Park Foreman, GL MANO 5A1 hourly $5.92, annually $12,000-$ 13,000 of which $9,270 are applicable to official residence. Employed with NCC since 1965; at residence since 1966. No previous government service. In addition, summer seasonal casual labour employed at an estimated labour cost of $3,000. Mr. M. Gascon, Caretaker, GL MANO 5XX Hourly $5.69, annually $11,000-$12,000 all applicable to summer residence. Employed with NCC at Har-
[Stage Direction]
July 20, 1977
Order Paper Questions
rington Lake since November 1976. No previous government service. Mr. S. Stevenson, Summer Gardener, SL MDOO 4XX Hourly $4.96, annually $ 10,000-$ 11,000 of which $5,491 are applicable to summer residence. Employed with NCC since 1966; at summer residence since 1973. No previous government service. In addition summer and winter seasonal casual labour cost of $1,500.
Mr. Howie: Are tax incentives, grants, or other industrial research incentives available to the private sector of the economy for research and development of renewable energy sources and, if so, what are they?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: The federal government has a number of initiatives to encourage the use of renewable energy sources. These include: (a) The 1976 budget measures which increased the Capital Cost Allowance for certain types of equipment which produce energy from waste and the elimination of federal sales tax on solar energy equipment and heat pumps, (b) Current and operating expenses for research and development conducted by the private sector into renewable energy sources are eligible for an investment tax credit of 5 percent, 7 Vi percent or 10 percent depending on where the activity is undertaken, (c) Under the Enterprise Development Programme grants are available to private industry to encourage research and development in commercial activities including renewable energy sources, (d) The National Research Council has a research, development and demonstration program in cooperation with the private sector respecting the use of solar energy in heating applications for buildings.
In so far as the Department of Finance is concerned: Research and development for renewable energy sources falls within the general incentives of the Income Tax Act. Thus section 37 of the Act provides that a taxpayer may deduct in the year incurred any expenditures on scientific research, including those of a capital nature, to the extent that the scientific research is related to a business carried on by the taxpayer. It should also be noted that certain types of equipment which contribute to the efficient use of certain energy resources can be written-off for tax purposes over two years. The equipment which qualifies for this favourable treatment is described in class 34 of Schedule B to the Act.


Mr. Beatty: What are the names and addresses of ail individuals or organizations issued import permits to bring eggs into Canada from January 1, 1976 to May 31, 1977 and, in each case, by month, what was the total number the individual or organization was authorized to import?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: In so far as the Department

of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: In view of the commercial confidentiality attached to permits issued to import goods listed on the Import Control List, it is the Departmental policy not to divulge the names and addresses of individuals or organizations to whom such permits were issued. During the period January 1, 1976 to May 31, 1977, a total of 188 companies or organizations were issued permits to import eggs into Canada. Details as to the number of permits issued and quantity authorized to be imported for each month of that period are provided in the following schedule.


[Stage Direction]
Number of Permits Issued to Import Eggs
(During Period January 1 to December 31, Number of Number of			1976) Quantity (15 doz.
Month	Companies	Permits	boxes)January	9	16	24000February	12	43	73000March	11	11	31500April	6	9	28500May	14	16	45060June	9	14	28500July	16	36	60000August	11	16	35000September	16	35	58500October	10	14	25500November	16	40	75000December	22	38	78000TOTAL (for year)	152	288	562560Number of Permits Issued to Import Eggs	
(During Period January 1 to May 31, 1977)
Quantity
Number of Number of (15doz.
Month	Companies	Permits	boxes)January	2	2	3000February	8	12	25500March	8	8	21000April	14	16	31500May	4	4	12000TOTAL (January-May)	36	42	93000
Mr. Whiteway: 1.	Is Mr. Jim Murphy, Head of the Regional Penitentiaries in British Columbia, a brother to Mr. Murphy in the Solicitor General's Office in Ottawa?
2.	Are both of them nephews, or nephews by marriage, of Mr. Douglas Hogarth, former Member of Parliament for New Westminster?


Francis Fox: 1. Mr. Jim Murphy is a brother to Mr. Ambrose Murphy, an employee in the Ministry Secretariat.
2. No.
July 20, 1977


Mr. Bawden: 1.	Which departments or agencies utilized the Bureau of Management Consulting, Department of Supply and Services and received advice on financial and management controls?
2.	How many persons are employed in the Bureau and, by category, what is the number of professional people?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1.	1976-77, 22: Agriculture Canada; Canadian Dairy Commission; Canadian International Development Agency; Canadian Penitentiary Services; Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission; Communications; Consumer and Corporate Affairs; Energy, Mines and Resources; External Affairs; Indian and Northern Affairs; Industry, Trade and Commerce; Manpower and Immigration; Regional and Economic Expansion; Revenue Canada-Customs and Excise; Secretary of State; Statistics Canada; Supply and Services Canada; Transport Canada; Treasury Board; Unemployment Insurance Commission; Urban Affairs; Veterans Affairs.
2.	One hundred forty-two of which 114 are professional people.
Categories	Number of
People
Executive	8
Administrative	79
Technical	10
Scientific and Professional	17


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 78 is acceptable to the government. Notice of motion for the production of papers No. 27 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations pertaining to the confidentiality of certain parts of the information. Notice of motion for the production of papers No. 88 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion No. 78 shall be deemed to have been adopted.
Business of the House


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 78-Mr. Fairweather:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the undertakings of Canadian Appliance Manufacturing Company (CAMCO) to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on the occasion of the takeover of the appliance divisions of Canadian General Electric Limited and G.S.W. Limited which takeover was not referred to the Foreign Investment Review Agency.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that motions 27 and 28 be deemed to have been adopted subject to the conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 27-Mr. Whiteway:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, minutes of meetings, letters, telegrams, contracts and/or agreements between the government and the Province of Manitoba having to do with the establishment of Saunders Aircraft Corporation at Gimli, Manitoba.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 88-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all minutes of meetings, telegrams, letters, and pertinent material between the government and the Province of Newfoundland relating to Labrador Linerboard Mill Limited.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would the government House leader be in a position to confirm the business of the House for today and tomorrow and tell us what are his intentions with respect to the balance of the legislative program?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The business today is Bill C-60 in the name of the President of the Treasury Board. Tomorrow we shall begin the report stage of the immigration bill-I gather this will take some days and I will therefore not go further, except to say I have two bills I should like to clear up after

July 20, 1977
Business of the House
that-the report stage of the Air Canada bill, and the third reading of the metric conversion bill.


Walter David Baker: In the course of the adjournment motion set down by the President of the Privy Council contemplating an adjournment on July 15, an intention was expressed to bring the House back on August 2. My understanding is that there may be some change with respect to this plan, and if the hon. gentleman is in a position to announce his intentions I would appreciate any further information in terms of the days on which we shall be coming back in August if, indeed, we do have to come back in August. Perhaps he is in a position to make an announcement today or, possibly, he may wish to consult with the other parties in respect to the matter.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have stated several times that it was the intention to debate the pipeline situation on August 4 and 5 following receipt of the final reports on the pipeline situation. The reason the date, August 2, was included on the motion which appears on the order paper was to provide for the contingency which might have arisen had there been agreement to come back to deal with the immigration bill in August. I make no complaint about the lack of agreement, but the date was there as a contingency against that possibility. When it comes to putting down a further adjournment motion, or amending the one already on the order paper, I shall be happy to consult with other members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the government House leader says he is prepared to consult further with respect to this matter, does his offer include consultation as to the length of time to be spent on the pipeline debate? The minister is talking today as though we would be spending only two days on that debate. Can this be the subject of further consultation?
While I am on my feet, may I ask the minister whether it does not become clear, considering the additional time during which we must be here before we can get out at all, that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich need not worry about having to sit in the Senate Chamber after all?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council whether it is the intention that Bill C-24, the immigration bill, should be completed at all stages before we rise for the summer, regardless of the amount of time taken on it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is my personal intention and, I believe, the view of many members on this side of the House that we ought to conclude the immigration bill in all its stages before we rise. 1 shall be discussing the matter further with my colleagues in cabinet, but that is the situation at present. As to the other part of the question, whether this would be done regardless of the amount of time taken, I might endeavour to ensure that there would be a limit on the time spent on this bill. It might be that members of the other parties would agree that a definite period be allowed, and an order of the House could then be made.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: My hon. friend from Esquimalt-Saanich raised the question of the locale of our deliberations. Could the President of the Privy Council let us know whether we are expected to be out of this Chamber by any particular time, so that we can arrange to get good seats in some other locale?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe there have been informal consultations on this question; the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton can probably fill the hon. member in with regard to that.


Walter David Baker: 1 would be delighted to do so but I did not wish to breach the undertaking which exists between the President of the Privy Council and myself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since we are discussing the length of the session, and since the Standing Order which provides for holidays to be taken by this House does not include the holiday of the first weekend in August, could there be an understanding that we should have at least that long week end off?


Some hon. Members:: No holidays!


Mr. MacFarlane:: We shall work on Saturdays and Sundays.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning answers to questions on the order paper-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member seeks the floor on a point of order with regard to questions, but we are now on Orders of the Day and I do not think the Chair can accept a point of order having to do with questions at this time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board) moved: that Bill C-60, to readjust the representation of Ontario in the House of Commons and to readjust the electoral districts in Ontario, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I should keep the record straight. Some time ago the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raised a point of order with respect to the introduction of this bill, a point of order which was reiterated at a later date by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). It was argued that there appeared, on the face of it, to be a departure from our accepted practice and precedents in relation to administrative responsibility inasmuch as the

July 20, 1977	______________COMMONS
President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) introduced legislation relating to electoral boundaries instead of the President of the Privy Council within whose administrative responsibility this matter lies. In fact, this proposition is well founded. However, I am not able, in examining the precedents or rules of the House, to find any prohibition against this practice. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I think understood that in raising his point and introduced a caveat that may be used in some argument with respect to some other administrative restrictions in the future.
That seems to be the extent of it to this point. However, I did want to give note to the point of order which gave us some cause for study, but I can find no basis on which to interrupt this practice at the present time.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, parliament is probably at its best when it moves to act to redress a grievance. That grievance must, of course, be one of significance, and the issue on which it is based must be one of principle and not of expediency.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are gerrymandering.


Robert Knight Andras: I am very interested to see the reaction of the New Democratic Party to the comments I am making on this very significant bill for northern Ontario. I want to make clear that the reason I believe this is based on principle is this-the purpose is to allow the region of northern Ontario to retain in this House the same level of representation which it has. More than three quarters of a million citizens in northern Ontario, which has a population roughly equivalent to the province of Saskatchewan, feel aggrieved because of the effect upon this region-


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Bellechasse on a point of order.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the minister to think that I want to interfere with what he is saying, on the contrary. The matter is that interpretation is not working very well. I wish I could hear what the minister is saying with regard to Bill C-60. If we are to understand what he is saying, we need interpretation, at least as far as 1 am concerned. That is my point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will check the situation, with the hope that it might be improved. Meanwhile, if the hon. member has any problem, he might perhaps sit in the next seat. In the meantime, we will see that the situation is set right.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: We all have the same problem.

Ontario Representation


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will also be most interested in the reactions of the Progressive Conservative party. The people of northern Ontario will have been observing with very great interest whether there is an intent to support this grievance which is felt very strongly in that region because of the effect of the decision of the Electoral Boundaries Commission of Ontario on the number of seats.
Northern Ontario is a vast region representing about 80 per cent of the land mass of the province of Ontario, and in that sense it is now having, by that decision, its level of representation reduced by one seat at a time when the House of Commons is about to be enlarged in its membership, and also at a time when the region feels it has not lost population but has increased it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Sit down, Bob, and we will pass it.


Robert Knight Andras: I would if I thought that would be the case, but I < o want to share the reasons for our argument. I think I know one or two members of this House who, over the last few years, have thought about this, but if the region had been a province this could not have happened. In fact the region would have had more members, not fewer, in the next parliament.
We do find ourselves in an anomalous situation, Mr. Speaker. The Chair, in a sound and reasoned judgment in April, 1977, stated that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the legal issue raised by the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) and supported by other members regarding the validity of the report of the commission in Ontario. Subsequently the Federal Court, trial division, and the Federal Court of Appeal, for different reasons, stated that they had no jurisdiction to upset the report of the commission. The Federal Court Act states that no provincial court would have jurisdiction to deal with this issue. Therefore we are left with an act of parliament, The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, duly passed by parliament and proclaimed, over which no one seemingly has any jurisdiction.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You are chewing up time, Bob. Let us pass it.


Robert Knight Andras: In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, this House, the highest court of the land, particularly as it relates to legislation by which members come to the House, must not only have jurisdiction but must also enforce it when justly called upon to do so. But it is not only this anomalous situation or the need to meet the just demands of the citizens of northern Ontario that have led the government to assume the responsibility for redressing this grievance.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Don't talk out your own bill, Bob. We are winning, so sit down.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be party to information which I do not have, but I really do not think he is. As strong, perhaps as overwhelming, as those reasons are for doing so, the comments contained in the minority report of
7838

July 20, 1977
Ontario Representation
the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario I think defy any other course of action but one of support for this bill.


Steve Eugene Paproski: So you are talking it out, Bob?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, may I prevail upon the House to listen more carefully to what I have to say. The hon. member may share the argument, but he must recognize that that is not the case throughout the House.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Now, now, let's pass it.


Robert Knight Andras: It has to be said that this minority report to which I refer, submitted by Mr. Gratton and Mr. Tarnopolsky, represented the views of two of the four commissioners. Members from other regions-and this is my real point-I fully understand may also be less than satisfied with the redistribution process and the decisions of their electoral boundaries commissions. But in no other case and in no other province have members of independently appointed boundaries commissions, specifically members appointed to a commission by the Speaker of this House, filed a minority report recommending redress by parliament.
That is why this case is different from any other grievance filed, and understandably filed, by members in different parts of this country. The commissioners Gratton and Tarnopolsky, referring to a disagreement within the commission with respect to the interpretation to be given to section 13 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, and with specific reference to the problem of determining whether the region of northern Ontario should have assigned to it 12 or 11 electoral districts, said:
The function to be exercised is the proper distribution of electoral districts on a representation by population basis, qualified by the necessity or desirability of giving effect to such human consideration as "community or diversity of interest" and by practical elements such as geographic considerations including in particular the sparsity, density of population of various regions of the province, the accessibility of such regions, etc.
They went on to say this, and it is the official comment of the minority report of the commission:
There has been overwhelming evidence that the region of northern Ontario comes within these qualifying provisions. The desirability if not the necessity of allocating as many seats as possible to that region has been manifestly demonstrated.
And later, referring to the stricture imposed by parliament with reference to the 25 per cent variable above or below the provincial quota, they said:
We believe that the fundamental question is: should the commission, where special consideration seems necessary, deal with a "region" of Ontario, or should its fundamental basis of consideration be all electoral districts in relation to the electoral quota?
We feel that the former could have been done within the terms of section 13, without violating its intent.
Notwithstanding the very clear and strong suggestion contained in these words, it was clearly the position of the commission that this House of Commons has a responsibility to act in this situation.
May I refer Your Honour's attention to the words of the Representation Commissioner, Mr. Castonguay, spoken at the public hearing held in Thunder Bay on October 9, 1975, when he referred to the issue of maintaining 12 seats in northern Ontario. He said:
I maintain it should be done by legislation. Parliament should specifically instruct this commission as other legislatures have done. They should be the ones judging this, not us.
Later the Honourable Mr. Justice Grant, Chairman of the Commission, at page 55, said on the issue of 12 seats in northern Ontario:
Your remedy lies in parliament, does it not, not with us?
Finally, Professor Tarnopolsky later in the same hearing on the issue of the recognition of northern Ontario as a region, speaking to the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner), stated at page 89 the following:
If I may, I disagree with whoever advised you or parliament on how much you could have done. And I am sure you can find people who could write a pretty good legal brief for you that there is more parliament could have done in order to ensure a region within a province got special consideration. I don't think it was impossible. Either you were misled or could have countered better. But I think it is something parliament could have taken care of better if they had wanted to.
In increasing the number of constituencies in Ontario from
95	to 96, would Ontario representation in this House be disproportionate to that of other provinces? The average population per constituency in all other provinces is as follows: in Newfoundland with seven seats the quotient would be 74,586; in Prince Edward Island with four seats it would be 27,910; in Nova Scotia with 11 seats it would be 71,723; in New Brunswick with 10 seats it would be 63,455; in Quebec with 75 seats it would be 80,370; in Manitoba with 14 seats it would be 70,589; in Saskatchewan with 14 seats it would be 66,160; in Alberta with 21 seats it would be 77,518; and in British Columbia with 28 seats it would be 78,022. Ontario has the highest quotient with 95 seats and an average of 81,085. With
96	seats its quotient will be, based on the 1971 census, 80,240. With the exception of Quebec, which will be only marginally higher by 130 people, Ontario's quotient will still be 2,000 people greater per constituency than the next highest province, which is British Columbia. Therefore there would seem to be no validity to the argument that Ontario, by the operation of this proposed legislation, would receive a disproportionate degree of representation and be favoured over any other province.
In concluding, I should ask all members to consider this seriously. We in this party, and particularly the northern Ontario members, consider that this is not gerrymandering. This is based on a principle which has been recognized by the Electoral Boundaries Commission. The only redress available to us is by the action of this House. There has been overwhelming evidence that the region of northern Ontario comes within the qualifying provisions of the act at 12 seats. The desirability, if not the necessity, of allocating as many seats as possible to that region, has been manifestly demonstrated. I ask for the support of the House in passing this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

July 20, 1977


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: I had the opportunity of going to the hearings and making a case on behalf of my constituents, in conjunction with most of the other northern members. They were of the opinion that we should have a floor in northern Ontario of 12 seats. We should not be penalized by the rest of the province of Ontario which gained six seats, plus one from northern Ontario, in this redistribution. The people in northern Ontario are going to be poorly represented because of the boundaries. This is not necessarily saving a seat for a Liberal. That particular seat is held by the New Democratic Party with a very large majority in the provincial field. Therefore that is not really a reason to make a decision.
If a riding is so large that it is difficult for a representative to get around and see people in order to conduct his business satisfactorily on their behalf, then they should be protected by a floor. It happened in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta. We come from a very unfortunate part of the country, and that is the north. In northern Ontario and Quebec our distances are very large and our lines of communication are very bad.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) gave an example of distances between towns being 1,400 miles. That is the length of the entire maritime provinces. It would probably take in Newfoundland as well. In one case it would be necessary to travel 1,400 miles to reach a community where there are 4,500 people. What will happen to those people? We are talking about an electoral district of well over 100,000 people. Nobody will bother about those people. No political candidate will go there. The Liberal government may drive in a new fire truck for them, but they will not see a candidate. Thus, they are really isolated. Money has never been provided to make that kind of representation possible in northern Ontario.
We belong to 12 districts that are totally different than southern Ontario which is organized by counties. In northern Ontario we are organized in a different way mainly because of communications. Many of these communities can only be serviced by air. Some of them can only be serviced by train, and some by boat. Many of the communities are very remote and very difficult to service.
The minister has said that the Speaker appointed the commissioners. I argue that point. They were appointed by the provincial government. One of the problems we had was that the people the provincial government supplied, the judge and one of the commissioners, represented the provincial government rather than the interests of federal representation.
Perhaps we are only paying lip service to the idea of representation, but I suggest the minister should be willing to include Quebec. Northern Quebec is included in that whole
Ontario Representation
northern area. The new parts of Quebec which the federal government turned over to that province not long ago, and a great deal of the rest of Quebec, are now in two ridings, not three. The area in one riding is bigger than the whole area of the prairie provinces.


An hon. Member:: What about Wally Firth's riding?


William Arnold Peters: Yes, certainly, the riding of the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) is huge. At one time a third of this country was in one riding, but the House saw fit to divide it into two ridings, not because of the population but because if someone is to be elected to represent that area, it should not only be in name but in fact, and it was impossible at that time to cross the Arctic from east to west. It is hard enough to travel in that area from north to south. We saw fit to give the area two representatives to serve the population there. They are not considered second class citizens. We tried to make them first class citizens like everyone else.
If this bill is approved, it should have attached to it a commitment from the government that we will also give northern Quebec one extra seat, because if we want to provide proper representation for the people, it should be a two-way street.
It might be said that if you cannot get to the people and they cannot get to you, then perhaps they should communicate with you by mail. But the fact of the matter is that it takes Five days for a letter from Kirkland Lake-or wherever the place may be-to get to Ottawa, so how long would it take for a letter from Port George to arrive in Ottawa? It would take weeks. Sometimes an airplane has to stay there for two or three weeks because it cannot get back. I suppose it carries mail.
There can be no representation unless you are able to communicate with the people. It seems to me that if the government wanted to get away from charges of gerrymandering being made by some, there must be a commitment that a seat will be given to northern Quebec as well.
This legislation affects my riding. In fact it affects all the ridings in northern Ontario. I am quite prepared to run there as the riding is now, and also as it will be. 1 can speak personally because now I will have a community with about
5,000	people which can only be reached by train. Since I know that trains operate in our country like our mail, I know it is not going to be easy. Whenever there is an opening ceremony in that community which I am asked to attend, they will have to make the date coincide with the train schedule. Government officials might be able to fly, but if I have to travel by train the date will have to suit my convenience, not theirs.
It seems to me that representation by population will not be affected by the allocation of this additional seat in northern Ontario. I am one of those who believe that the districts in northern Ontario are totally different from the counties in southern Ontario, and therefore I think that representation by population will not be affected because we can still meet the
7840

July 20, 1977
Ontario Representation
requirements of population. I also believe that for the sake of justice we should be generous and commit ourselves to allocating an additional seat to northern Quebec so that the communities in that area might also benefit from a service which we are trying to provide to northern Ontario.


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the minister stated a while ago that it was essential to grant an adequate representation to northern Ontario. When the readjustment was made in northern Ontario, it was thought advisable to reduce the number of constituencies from twelve to eleven and in northwestern Quebec from three to two.
Today, on the basis of a specific issue, that is the report on which the commissioners were divided, the same argument comes up again, that northern Ontario should be given an additional constituency since the northern Ontario area covers 80 per cent of the Ontario territory. I readily accept these arguments and I think that it would be useful to have an increased representation that would not alter the Electoral Act.
But 1 feel that the minister made a mistake when he refused to recognize the fact that north western Quebec, with an area covering almost 60 per cent of the Province of Quebec has only two constituencies, as a result of redistribution. One is the Villeneuve riding, which occupies nearly half the area of the Province of Quebec, where, as the hon. member who spoke before me indicated, there are communities 1,400 or 1,500 mile away from one another. In sparsely populated areas, distance is a main factor in a constituency. But I feel we should also consider the importance of communications between individuals. When an hon. member has to fly over an area of such dimensions, because roads are few and far between, he certainly needs more time than is required to cover an urban riding in downtown Montreal.
When we made representations to the commissioners during hearings in northwestern Quebec and requested that this third major constituency be maintained, our request was turned down on the basis of statistical data of the 1971 census. I understand that their ruling had to be based on these data, but they failed to recognize the fact that some 6,000 people have' moved into this region since 1971 to work on the James Bay project, and that there will be some 15,000 workers there one year from now, which means an increase of 15,000 people. Unfortunately, the commissioners refused to consider this. They unanimously ruled that these 15,000 new residents are not important for Quebec.
It is important that Ontario should have adequate representation, but Quebec, no, we must abide strictly and legally by the figures provided by the 1971 census. To be logical and reasonable, the minister should immediately add a third electoral district in the province of Quebec, if the arguments he raised for Ontario are to be consistent. I see absolutely no difference between the two situations. It is true that these are large electoral districts. It is true that the constituents must be served. It is true that people must be provided with the best of services. There again, the minister contends that by establish-

ing an additional electoral district in northern Ontario, this would not significantly lower the average representation but would allow for a better balance and Ontario would have an average population of 80,200 people per riding while Quebec has an average of 80,300 inhabitants per riding.
A fair provincial average would be achieved by adding one electoral district in northwestern Quebec. This would probably reduce the average per riding in the province of Quebec by about a hundred votes. However, this would resolve the geographical and physical problem one has to face. The Minister said a while ago that at a given point, we must consider, when accepting or adding a new constituency, the geographical aspects as well as the access to such places.
I think that if the Minister were to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) for maps of the provinces of both Quebec and Ontario, he would have an idea of the territory to be covered by only one or two members in northwestern Quebec. Finally it is unfortunate that the province of Quebec should be discriminated againjt in this matter. According to the figures, I am willing to admit that the report was incomplete and that it was not unanimous while the one concerning Quebec was unanimous. On the other hand, one thing is certain: in Ontario, or in northern Ontario, constituencies are much more flexible politically-speaking. While in northwestern Quebec, in the last 15 years, the people have voted exclusively for the Social Credit Party of Canada, and have never given any votes to the Liberal Party. And the commissioners were not appointed by the Social Crediters either. However, when we happened to discuss the matter with them, we felt that political implication.
I feel the minister would meet with approval if he included in his bill specific recognition that a new riding is required in northern Ontario, as well as the clear and specific addition of a new riding in northwestern Quebec. Thus, justice would really be done to the people of both areas. The addition of one riding in Quebec would certainly not upset the national representation profile nor the representativeness of each hon. member. But it would really solve the problem of the area to be covered and the capacity of representation of the hon. members. One does not have to wonder about the shape of the road in that part of the country. They have dirt roads and, in the case of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), he will have to go around by train, while in northwestern Quebec there is not even a train, and air service is still inoperative. It must be that in the mind of the minister the hon. member elected in that part of the country would probably have to go around for a while riding a deer or a moose to visit the people. But that is not taken into consideration.
In closing, I ask the minister to take our requests into consideration and to combine with his bill, Bill C-421 introduced by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette); then I feel the intentions or pronouncements of the minister will really mean something when he speaks of serving the people. And then only when the two bills are grouped, or at least when the minister has assured us that Bill C-421 introduced by the
July 20, 1977

hon. member for Villeneuve will also be accepted, then only will northwestern Quebec be adequately represented.


Hon. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am a city dweller, and too rarely in this House do we hear the point of view of urbanites expressed.
I think there is a great consciousness among Canadians wherever they live, that concessions must be made; that we must not insist absolutely on representation by population in a country as diverse and widespread as Canada. However, what has been said here today so far raises questions about the equity of our system of parliamentary representation, and about the trend represented by this bill and the one just referred to by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). That trend seems to be away from recognition that Canada is increasingly an urban society. Whether we like it or not, that is the Canada of today and of the future. While all of us want to make every concession for the preservation of a feeling of identity by all Canadians with their country and with their national government, we must surely take care that in making these concessions to alleviate the disparities in Canada we do not ignore the strains which can be placed on our society by increasing disparity of political representation in our national institutions.
In introducing this bill the minister said that it is based on principle, and I hope that my remarks will be taken as being similarly based on principle. The minister made reference to the populations of various provinces and argued very cogently that Ontario is not over-represented, from the standpoint of population, under the present distribution of seats in this parliament or the proposed one. But he did not make a comparison between the populations of southern Ontario and northern Ontario, as he might have done, and 1 think it would assist hon. members if the minister were able to show that his bill would not increase the disparity of per capita representation which already exists between the more densely populated part of Ontario and the less densely populated part.
The minister made reference to the distances involved. I want to remind hon. members that, in the modern society in which we live, density can be as serious a factor as distance in alienating the population from its institutions. As those of us who live in the great cities of Canada know, there is such a thing as high-rise isolation. We know that it is often difficult for people in a densely populated part of a large city to feel close to their elected representative and to communicate with him, and it is hard for their representative, in turn, to communicate with his constituents.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) mentioned that there are distances of 1,000 or 1,400 miles between some small communities and the minister referred to the huge land mass of northern Ontario. We all recognize that is true of northern Ontario, northern Quebec, and other parts of Canada. The present law recognizes the difficulties in transportation, communication, and representation in such large
Ontario Representation
land masses. However, 1 want to remind hon. members that we represent not land, but people. We are not called upon here to speak for acres-or perhaps hectares, after the metric system is in force-we are called upon to speak for our constituents who are people, and I ask hon. members to remember the constant whittling away of the principle of representation by population which we have seen in this House in recent times.
The system of redistribution is already biased against urban areas. One only has to look at the riding which I have had the honour to represent since I was first elected in 1965. Between 1965 and 1968, when a redistribution occurred my riding had in it the largest number of people of any riding in Canda. Since 1968, after a redistribution of seats, my riding has continued to have the largest number of people in it. Even after the redistribution, which is to take place at the next general election, the three ridings which will be created mainly from my present riding will still be among the largest of Canada's federal constituencies.
Not only does the present formula militate against the people of my area receiving adequate representation by population, but the law has been interpreted by the Electoral Boundaries Commission in Ontario in such a way as to prevent it from taking into account any projection of population. Given even the fairest of formulas, even if you accept the formula now in the law, there will occur some distortion in the representation of urban dwellers in a rapidly growing area, because the projection of population between periodic redistributions is not taken into account.
1 did not rise to oppose this bill. I would not argue strenuously against the present bill or the one the hon. member for Villeneuve proposed. I think I speak for my constituents, the people of Toronto at large and urban dwellers of Canada generally, when I say we are prepared to make any concession which will keep this country united and allow people to identify strongly with Canada and its national government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: However, we are an urban society and becoming increasingly urbanized. Not even urban dwellers are entirely in favour of this trend. Personally, I wish it were otherwise. But when we speak in this House of representation, we are surely not speaking of spaces, of cities, or of distances in this country. Surely we speak of the people we represent. We must be conscious of this country's realities.
City dwellers do not insist on perfect justice, but they ask members of the House, when considering changes to electoral law to remember that we represent people and nothing else. If we remember this and do this, we shall avoid arousing in city dwellers the sense of isolation which is evident, in a political sense, in some of those living in the far reaches of our country, and we shall preserve in all our citizens their sense of identification with Canada, which is an objective we surely all share.

July 20, 1977
Ontario Representation


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, we are considering an extremely important matter, not only for the residents of the province of Ontario, but also for the whole country, because until 1965 the distribution of electoral districts was the responsibility of Parliament and all governments in our history have tried to ensure fair representation for rural areas, accepting the fact that these areas had a lower density of population than urban centres.
We must still endeavour to maintain harmony in our country so that in all provinces, including the province of Quebec, Canadian citizens will be satisfied to have an equitable number of people representing them in the Canadian Parliament. Because Parliament has surrendered this responsibility through legislation, the task of establishing and redistributing electoral districts has been turned over to commissions. Today the government feels it should not have done that, as the minister mentioned in his speech, and should have kept its right to have the final word after the reports of these commissions have been submitted to the minister responsible for this issue.
And today the government feels obliged to intervene through a very special bill to give one more representative to the province of Ontario, on the basis of very logical arguments. However, if these arguments are logical in the case of Ontario, they are just as logical for the province of Quebec with regards to the Canadian northwest. Hon. members have had discussions about this issue long before today.
I had the opportunity myself to take part in discussions and there seemed to be an agreement on the fact that this should be done under the same bill for Ontario and Quebec. Today, we hear only rumours. As there was no official statement, we try to read the minds of hon. members from other provinces: if we allow Quebec another hon. member, an additional electoral district, other provinces will demand the same thing. I for one would like to hear evidence on this in Parliament and not behind the scene.
In any case, we should always apply good horse sense. The minister responsible for the Electoral Boundaries Act who sponsors the bill should perhaps give further consideration to this, and add provisions to ensure that Parliament regains control, that it has the last say in the distribution of electoral districts. I suggest this, in all fairness, concerning the Electoral Boundaries Act of our country.
Mr. Speaker, we have already dealt with the matter of area and population. In Quebec, the quota is roughly 80,000. As 1 said in this House on April 6, twelfth-graders could have done the same work as our distinguished judges. They simply had to add up the population according to the census and to distribute the population and then draw up boundaries. Indeed, this is how it was done in our province even though we made representations in all sincerity and even though ten members of Parliament signed a joint letter. We were unanimous; it was not a question of partisanship, but of justice and common

sense. In my area, ten members signed a joint letter which was forwarded to the Quebec Commission but was not even acknowledged. I cannot understand this. The Commission was so engrossed in its powers that it did not even acknowledge the letter. They do their job and then, whether you like it or not, they submit their report. If you are not satisfied, that is too bad! I finally understood that this is what the commission meant.
Mr. Speaker, I heard the comments of the previous speaker a while ago and I thought that they did show real good sense; he said that people living in high-rise apartment buildings do not have as many chances of coming into contact with their representatives. They do not have as many opportunities as the people living in rural constituencies, but there is another side to the story. In rural constituencies, people in general know their representatives and arrange to meet them, and when we look at the map of any constituency, be it Abitibi, Villeneuve and Temiscamingue, which I know somehow better, or Bellechasse, which I know very well, we realize that the member of Parliament has to travel far and wide in order to meet his people. Whatever may be the number of inhabitants in a town or a municipal community, these people live there and they are entitled to the same consideration from their member as if the population were 2,000. This is how I understand my role as a member of Parliament. In the constituency of Bellechasse, there are 83,000 people. It is a rural constituency. There is only the city of Montmagny and the balance is made up of rural communities.
So under the act the commissioners had the authority to increase by up to 25 per cent the population in a rural riding, 25 per cent of the ratio set for the province, or to decrease that population by up to 25 per cent in rural ridings. So I wonder how they have considered the riding of Bellechasse, since rather than decrease its population, because it is a rural riding, they increased it. I understand that there again there is something to change in the Elections Act in order to adjust it better to the circumstances and needs of our country.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address particularly the Liberal members of the province of Quebec who now ensure the government majority. But I am not addressing those members as Liberal members but as representatives of Quebec ridings to ask them to support the claims we are now making for the province of Quebec, in northwest Quebec, so that an additional riding be provided in the same manner as it is done now with Bill C-60.


Miss Begin:: What about the Gaspe area?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Well, I think that the Gaspe area would want the same thing but you cannot have it everywhere. My colleague the hon. member for Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Gendron) knows quite well how I worked with him and all the others, all the efforts we made to try and preserve at least the riding of Riviere-du-Loup-Temis-couata, and my colleague is indicating that what I am telling you is the truth. So that is the way I would want things to be but I would not want to fight against an impossibility.
July 20, 1977

I would want to fight, I want to fight for a possibility, even if it means coming back a little later if the circumstances permit, but for the time being, what we are demanding, what we are asking is that the rights of the province of Quebec be protected and that this not become a matter of division in this country but a matter of union and harmony. And I consider that if in 1977 we really want to talk with assurance to the people of Quebec about harmony in Canada, we should start by ensuring that harmony through an act of Parliament which will give us authority to talk to our fellow-citizens in our own province. So I strongly urge the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), who is sponsoring Bill C-60 on the readjustment of the electoral districts in Ontario today, to show as much enthusiasm about a readjustment for the province of Quebec.


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot remain silent on the occasion of the introduction of this bill since I represent one of the ridings that will disappear in the province of Quebec. And as the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) pointed out, it is a fact that all members from Levis to Gaspe, irrespective of their political affiliation, signed a letter at the time of the debate in April asking that the riding of Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata be reinstated.
Obviously, one cannot remain silent in the face of this bill since it contains an important anomaly, namely that the whole readjustment of the electoral map was based on the premise that the province of Quebec was to be the standard on which the number of members in all other provinces would be determined. I think that nobody objects to the riding of Thunder Bay being reinstated but we would want the agreement to be maintained, that the province of Quebec should be the basis on which the number of seats in others provinces should be determined.
Then, consequently, it must definitely be accepted that there should be an additional riding in the province of Quebec. I would not want at this stage to put forth all the arguments that have been raised on this subject. I would like to tell my colleague for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) that members of this House definitely do not represent mere acres of land. They represent the people living on these acres of land and when people are widely scattered around there are bound to be enormous problems. When the last redistribution occured, the province of Quebec registered an increase of one riding but the Abitibi area lost one and the lower St. Lawrence area one, while the Montreal area gained two and the Quebec City area one.
However, one cannot ignore these regional disparities. One cannot ignore the wide diversity and the tremendous needs of these sparsely populated and underprivileged areas. I think that all the members representing urban areas will agree with me that when you cut 26 ridings out of one single municipality, things are indeed a lot easier, and a member needs half a day to walk through his whole riding, something we can hardly do in a year's time. In our case, the issues we have to deal with are much more diversified, and complex, ranging from sea port
Ontario Representation
projects, to customs, forest problems, resource development and countless difficulties which are increasingly making the task of the member more difficult. Accordingly, we are not actually against the rebirth of the Thunder Bay constituency, I believe it is, but we want the redistribution to remain on the same equitable basis that had been used for the province of Quebec. And I think that if, this afternoon, all political parties can agree, we can do something about it although I do not know which particular procedure we should use.
Perhaps it would be wise to adjourn the debate so that there be some kind of an agreement, or some discussion? But I think that it would be easy to reach an agreement for a general consensus in order that Ontario may get an additional riding as well as Quebec. It might also be appropriate, since the member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) and the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) are far removed, especially in north western Quebec, if that riding were to be restored in the lower St. Lawrence area or in the Abitibi area, to reach an agreement between ourselves, in order to find a quick solution to this problem.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am taking the liberty of making this suggestion to the minister and to the leaders of the different parties in this House to the effect that we try and reach a concensus in order to solve this problem.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for this bill to restore 12 seats to northern Ontario. It should be pointed out that a minority report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission argued that because of the size of these northern constituencies and the difficulty encountered by members of parliament in serving constituents in these vast areas, larger constituencies should not be created in northern Ontario but that the number of seats remain as it was prior to the most recent redistribution, that is, 12.
I know it is the unanimous feeling of people in northern Ontario that the regions should not lose seats. Incidentally, the distribution proposal affects the people in my constituency of Sault Ste. Marie by drawing a line arbitrarily across the northern part of the city and putting part of the riding into the riding of Algoma. This proposition met with great objection from the electors of Sault Ste. Marie who argued, quite properly, that they had nothing in common with Algoma and wished to keep the riding of Sault Ste. Marie intact.
I have listened intently to the representations made by hon. members in the Creditiste party. I believe they have a valid point. They, like us, have vast areas to cover, and the current distribution has prejudiced their ability to serve their constituents adequately.
I sometimes hear from people who are somewhat suspicious about what the government is doing. They wonder whether the Liberal government would have gone to the trouble of restoring this one seat to northern Ontario if that seat had not been held by a Liberal. The fact that a similar measure was not made available to the people of northern Quebec will, no

July 20, 1977
Ontario Representation
doubt, strengthen the suspicions to which 1 have referred. However, the bill before us now concerns only the situation in northern Ontario. I fully support it and I hope it is passed, recognizing at the same time the legitimate grievances of the Creditiste members from northern Quebec. I hope the government will give us some kind of commitment that their representation will be restored. They, too, have lost a seat in northern Quebec. I know our party would be in favour of such a commitment, though I have yet to hear from the Conservative party what their reaction would be to a commitment to restore the number of seats in our neighbouring province. I hope my colleagues who understand the difficulty of serving vast northern ridings will look favourably upon this bill and, likewise, on the arguments raised by the members of the Creditiste party.


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, first 1 do not want to blame the President of the Treasury Board for having introduced today Bill C-60 in order that the House of Commons may give Ontario a better representation for its northern population, because they stand to lose an electoral district just as we did in northwestern Quebec. As the minister said, I know that he wants the population of northern Ontario to be fairly represented by a man who will give good service to the people in that area. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to note today that the New Democratic Party supports our position as well as some Liberal members.
I also hope, as was already mentioned, that the minister will manage somehow to include Bill C-421 that I sponsor and thus grant northwestern Quebec the same privilege he is asking for people from northern Ontario, namely that the people from northwestern Quebec may be represented adequately in this House. Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the reasons which prompt us to ask the minister to include in his legislation Bill C-421. It is for the simple reason that at present I have a very large area to cover. Someone quoted earlier the words spoken by the Prime Minister at the time of the death of our leader, Mr. Andre Fortin, when he came to extend his sympathy to Mr. Fortin's family.
Last week I had to go not even to the limit of my riding, I could say three quarters of the way to the limit. When 1 left from here, from Ottawa, I had 250 miles to drive before reaching my riding and from my home I still had 275 miles to go to meet people who needed my services and, during the same weekend, I had to come back home and go to the other end of my riding which is 100 miles farther. The new readjustment of electoral boundaries, if I am lucky enough to be reelected at the next election as member for Villeneuve, puts me in a situation where only in car mileage from my home to the farthest limit of my riding there are 1,400 miles. 1 explained that to many hon. members on both sides of the House and they understood the claims I was making.
As I was saying a moment ago, maybe the Prime Minister thought about it, and it is perhaps the best reason for asking
[Mr. Symes.J
the House to adopt this bill with maybe an amendment which would also provide for another riding in northwest Quebec.
When we met the Prime Minister in the funeral home, he told us that ridings of that size were ridiculous. They too have large ridings in their party and they also have to travel through them. When we leave here we are not exhausted but very tired and we still have to drive hundreds of miles to go back to our ridings and then there are yet enormous distances to cover.
When 1 will be in my new riding-which will be called Abitibi-I will want to give my constituents what they expect from their representative, and I must consider going from my home to a locality which is not the most remote but where there are 4,500 people. I believe those 4,500 people have the right to be fairly represented, they are entitled to receiving the service they can expect from their member, from Val-d'Or to Fort George, the municipality which presently has the largest population and which is over 700 miles away from my home. As my colleague from Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) said earlier, how can one man adequately serve the people in such circumstances without exhausting himself?
Of course, we have also had a commission referred to earlier by the minister. A great number of people and organizations appeared before that commission to show the judge how ridiculous it was to bring the number of northwestern Quebec constituencies down to two. As an illustration, the CERDAT made tremendous representations, but the commission ignored them. Boards of trade, municipalities, mayors, town councils all appeared. I myself and the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) repeatedly urged the commissioners to try and give the people in north western Quebec an opportunity as allowed by statute to have their own elected representatives while meeting the criteria. Admittedly the commission relied on the 1971 census. At that time, with the redistribution of electoral boundaries, the 1971 census gave Temiscamingue an 83,667 population, and Abitibi an 88,164 population.
And here, I would like to ask hon. members to listen carefully to the remarks I want to make. The riding of Abitibi will have 88,164 constituents under the new electoral redistribution. There was a mistake because during the 1971 census, as the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) said so eloquently, James Bay did not exist. And before taking part in the debate on the bill before us, I got some information from Statistics Canada-and everybody could get it-about the number of people there were in the ridings of Temiscamingue and of Abitibi according to the last census which was recorded in June last. One must also include the riding of Villeneuve.
According to Statistics Canada, Mr. Speaker, in the last 1976 census there was a population of 57,739 in Abitibi, 52,810 in Temiscamingue and 61,897 in Villeneuve. James Bay had 4,500 residents, and according to Statistics Canada, there can be a rate of error, considering the time in which the survey took place-that is during the holidays-the number of people who did not answer, of about 1 Vi per cent to 2 per cent. Therefore, I have taken this 2 per cent error rate into account
July 20, 1977

which means that some 3,500 people would not have been declared during this census, and therefore we would have about 182,526 people to represent in northwestern Quebec.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we had a population of 171,831 in 1971. If you divide this number by three, you get exactly 57,265 people to be represented by three members. If you add those who were not included in the 1971 census and who are still there today, it amounts to between 7,000 and 10,000 people more. And if you refer to the end of this Parliament's mandate we will have a population of 15,000 for James Bay alone. I believe those people, even though they were not accounted for in the 1971 census, are also entitled to be represented by a member of parliament who is efficient in the House of Commons. Of course, the new electoral redistribution does not satisfy them, but I know with some goodwill-and at least several members have demonstrated theirs this afternoon-the government will adopt Bill C-421 to give a new riding to northwestern Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I could also be mean to the government, but this is not my intention. We could have mentioned ridings like Matane, which has 63,000 people, Mercier which covers about one square mile and has 67,000 people, Lac-Saint-Jean, represented by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard), with a population of 67,200, Gaspe, with 60,481 people, and ourselves, according to the 1971 statistics, as I said earlier, we have 57,265 people for three members of parliament, or three ridings in northwestern Quebec. Now, Mr. Speaker, what more do we need? If we want to give some representation to James Bay, as I said earlier, we even have enough people to have three ridings.
But if we compare with 1971, there are about 2,500 to 3,000 fewer people in each constituency. Earlier, I heard the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) say how long a letter can take to go from the far end of the future Abitibi riding to Ottawa to make representations to the government for a new constituency. For my part, last winter, I went to James Bay and, unfortunately, I had to remain two days more than I had planned because of a storm, since the planes could not take off. As the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) said, I would like to give more to other areas because some have very large populations and I would like us to pass a measure in order to help these people who represent large populations and must travel great distances from one end of large ridings to another.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague who now represents the Abitibi riding also has one of the largest constituencies in the country. It may not be the largest, but it is one of the largest in the country. His riding nearly reaches up to the North Pole. This member has done fantastic work to represent his constituents, but if this same man also had to represent in addition to his own riding part of mine, that is Val d'Or, Lebel-sur Quevillon, Senneterre and Chibougamau, he would have to travel even more than at the present time since his home is even further than mine. In conclusion, I want to say that I have great
Ontario Representation
confidence in the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), who wants to give fair representation to northern Ontario. He will certainly do everything he can, as said the hon. member for Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Gen-dron), to try to negotiate with all the other House leaders, so that he and his constituents can be well represented and also that north western Quebec can be fairly represented in the House of Commons.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few comments to what has already been said concerning the representation suggested in this bill. I believe that the whole problem now caused by these redistributions came about when Parliament decided that it would no longer be responsible for the redistribution of electoral boundaries and handed over the work it had always done to a commission. Since then, and especially in the last ten years, we have suffered somewhat from the sickness of bureaucracy.
I do not know whether this is because we are lazy and do not want to take on extra work or because we do not wish to accept responsibility for our many mistakes, and this legislation is a mistake. But if we keep going this way, we will soon realize that we are referring to committees important parts of our work which, as members of Parliament, we should feel responsible for. As I said on other occasions, we are creating a politically irresponsible government, because those who do our work are not responsible to the people, they have not been elected by them to do that work. This does not mean by any stretch of imagination that those people are not competent. All I say is that we are entrusting them with powers and an authority that we should be exercising right here in this Parliament.
When the government set up that commission, they should have at least retained some control, and this is the objection I have to that commission. At least the government should have allowed members of parliament to make representations to the commissioners. I myself had problems with them, but I was told there was no way, I was 10 days late. Can you imagine that, when a member of parliament comes to discuss serious problems in his area, when subdivisions are made contrary to the constituency interests. It is an easy matter for a technician to sit down at his desk, pick up a map, draw a line here, another there, and so on, and the hell with the rest! But there is something more to it. The economic structure, the economic nerve center in each riding must be considered. With the last subdivision hon. members will have to cover constituencies whose nerve center is in another riding. This is beyond the imagination. Who could have thought this would ever happen?
A constituency with all unemployment insurance offices and other agencies, in someone else's area, this is what I have been given without regard for my constituents needs. An area which I used to cover, was thrown into another riding, but the people still go on dealing in my own constituency. So I have to serve them just the same, because I will not force them to drive 50 or 75 miles to the constituency where they were put by the commissioners. This is not their fault, so I serve more than 10 or 12 communities outside my own area. What else can we do

July 20, 1977
Ontario Representation
if we want to remain human in an unhuman set up? This is what I have always been blaming the commission for, like all other commissions. They do not see beyond the Act. This is what they were appointed for. For them, members of Parliament are nothing but numbers. I suggest that the minister will finally put a stop to that and give the responsibility back to members of Parliament, who will be able to draw lines that will be fair to all the people in our constituencies.
Quite often, they even went as far as to tell me: Well, if we had included those municipalities, the boundary line would not have been straight. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, there would have been a curve on the electoral map. Well, Mr. Speaker, we hear arguments as stupid as that! That is why I say this legislation must be recalled so that we can stop being the laughing stock of our riding.
People say: How come you have no authority in this regard? Because we have delegated our authority. We have given it to three people who are in charge of administration on a national scale. Whether you like it or not, we have done it and there is nothing we can do about it. Well, I disagree. I had undertaken-and this is the best opportunity I have had to do it-to denounce not the commissioners but the procedure that was followed and the mistake that was made of leaving a job we should have performed in the hands of people who are not concerned with the responsibilities of our ridings. If we go back to the old system, should the constituents have someone to blame, they will know who is to blame. They say: Who is responsible? We tell them to write to the commissioner, that we have no responsibility in this regard. They ask: Why have you been elected? I must answer: We have been elected to delegate our responsibilities. Because with the government's proposals things are not easy and you know that opposing a bill when the majority is in favour of it is a loss of time. In the past, I thought that the government would at least keep some control. Things would not have been so bad, if the government had kept some final control, a right of veto so to speak, but they did not, they gave up everything. And today, I think that we could be held responsible when confronted with such a problem in several ridings, because we did not think the matter over enough.
Now, as far as this bill is concerned, I, of course, am not opposing it. Far from opposing it, I want two similar bills if we are to finally do justice and rectify the mistake that was made. The government has finally decided to put a bill forward in an attempt to do justice to northern Ontario, but let us do the same for another region in which the same or even worse conditions prevail as in northern Ontario, when you think that there is such a riding as the one of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) who spoke earlier, and that to cover it he will have to drive 1200 to 1400 miles. Now, with the new district there will be 89,000 people in that riding; try to cover
14,000	miles with 89,000 constituents, you will see. Try to serve a population such as this. This is nonsense. It was one in Ontario, they proved it to us but it is even more nonsensical in Quebec.

Do you think that people know this, that they are aware of this. They tell us-and I would not like to be told this myself-that in Ontario, those after the riding are all Liberals, and we have three Creditist ridings. Well, be careful. If the people are aware this could turn into political quibbling, and I would not like it. What we want is justice, we want everyone to be treated equally, to the best of our knowledge, by correcting most of the errors. What else can you do? It is done. By correcting most of our errors, and I think that if we are intelligent, if we accept at least these two large territories, I think that I would not be ashamed to speak tomorrow in my riding about Canadian unity, but I would be rather ashamed to speak against it. It is all very well to make speeches on Canadian unity, but when we do otherwise we try to destroy Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to think twice about this matter because, as the hon. member for Riviere-du Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Gendron) said a while ago, if Quebec has been taken as a reference to determine the average riding population, it should be adhered to in a bill such as the one now before us. We want the first agreements to be complied with as well as the 20 or 25 per cent variation between remote and urban areas.
Mr. Speaker, there are basic and humanitarian matters which cannot be ignored. To whatever party we may belong, there are humanitarian matters which cannot be disregarded and which are non-negotiable. And the matter which concerns us is one of these; it is a humanitarian matter.
Even if these constituents live 1,500 miles away from here, there are entitled to the same rights, the same services as those in larger cities, such as Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, Toronto and others. Indeed, they are entitled to the same rights and their representatives are entitled to have the same opportunities to provide them with the same services. I express once again my concern about the redistribution of electoral seats across Canada. The minister just said that very few people seem satisfied. It is an understatement, because everybody is dissatisfied. Nobody is satisfied with this solution.
A while ago, I listened to the hon. member for Matane, and he was absolutely right when he spoke about Riviere-du-Loup. But, as in a number of other areas, we have been able to negotiate somewhat, because they wanted to take a riding away from the Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean district. We finally made our point after many discussions, the four members involved working together, so that we were spared a certain redistribution. But I repeat that the territories are badly delineated. If with the same population, an average of some 62,000, 63,000 or 67,000 people, they had allowed us to show them where the lines should be drawn to maintain the economic entities of concern to the people, nothing would have been changed and everybody would have been satisfied. But no! They finally allowed us to keep our constituencies, but they are the ones who drew the lines, and abominable ones at that. Everybody says that they are ridiculous; yet, the commissioners said: Draw the lines, now is the time. But one cannot even draw a line on the paper.
July 20, 1977

Mr. Speaker, I ask again the minister and all party leaders to put politics aside, use their common sense and, 1 should add, take up the challenge today, so that we may prove to the Canadian people that, even if there are four parties in the House, we can act sincerely and humanely and recognize the needs of all regions and, moreover, in spite of all the mistakes which have been made, that we can still correct at least most of them. Finally, I hope that in the future this Electoral Boundaries Commission will be made up of members of parliament, if you please, Mr. Speaker. I want us take our responsibilities.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, as 1 am quite concerned by the discussion now going on about Bill C-60, although this bill does not meet the purpose of this discussion in the true sense of the word, I want to speak for a moment or two to give my opinion on Bill C-60.
I listened to the speeches of most members, and I heard the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) say that members do not represent regions or territories, but people. Mr. Speaker, I agree on that. But if we consider how the population moved in a number of years in Canada, we realize that in a few years, the rural area will be underrepresented in the Canadian Parliament.
I read recently a report saying that in the year 2000, Canada will have a population of about 30 million inhabitants, of which 20 million will live in about 15 cities. That means that 10 million people, that is only one third, will live in rural or semi-rural areas. But, the way things are shaping, it is quite obvious that people living in rural areas are going to be under-represented in the House of Commons. I think Parliament should take steps to protect these rural people who are taxpayers and deserve to be represented at the same level as anybody else in Canada.
When we look at the difference between people living in areas such as Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto or Vancouver, and people living in rural areas, there is no possible comparison. In urban areas, they all enjoy administrative services. They only have to go around the corner and they come face to face with federal as well as provincial and municipal administrative agencies, whereas in rural districts, people have to travel miles and miles to be provided with the same services. Let us consider, for instance, the situation which prevails in Matagami, a mining town in the northern section of my constituency. When people have to go to the UIC office, they must go to Val-d'or. And that is over 200 miles away. So those people are disadvantaged compared to urban residents when they want to go and discuss their problems with executive officers of the federal government.
As for Canada manpower centres, it is again about the same thing, 115 miles from Matagami to Amos to go to a manpower office. No comparison is possible with urban residents. The riding 1 now represent, Abitibi, is the second largest riding in Canada. The largest is the riding of the Northwest Territories, and the second largest is Abitibi, which is larger than the
Ontario Representation
Yukon, larger than the four Maritime provinces combined, larger than France as well as many other European countries besides France: that is how large is Abitibi. Between Noranda North and Sugluk, there is a distance of 985 miles. Of course, we cannot get there by car, there is no road suitable for motor vehicles to go up there. We have to go by plane: you know when you go there but you never know when you come back.
My colleague for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) said before that he once was stranded there for two days before he could come back, and this has been my personal experience at Grande Baleine, when I had to wait until the temperature got somewhat better so I could come back. However, Mr. Speaker, distances are a factor in rural ridings; I mentioned mine but there are many others which, while not quite so large and so spread out are still nevertheless huge ridings. This should be taken into account and the residents of those rural ridings have the same right as urban dwellers. I insist that such circumstances must be taken into account. And when the commissioner travelled through these regions to get the opinion of these people, when the study for electoral redistribution was carried out, I wonder if these trips were made seriously or if they were only a face saving device, because proposals made by such organizations as CERDAT in northwestern Quebec and by the Union of County Councils, had been highly spoken of, but in any event their recommendations have not been taken into account, it all sounded beautiful but nothing positive came out of it.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we were all led to wonder what they were trying to get at with this. What CERDAT was indeed asking for was representation for three ridings in northwestern Quebec. The present situation, Mr. Speaker, is that Bill C-60 recommends that we maintain those 12 ridings which already existed in northwestern Ontario. My colleague for Villeneuve (M. Caouette) tabled a bill to maintain the three ridings in northwestern Quebec, and I think that to be fair minded, the minister who introduced Bill C-60 should agree to grant the same privilege to northern Quebec so that it gets the same representation it had before the last redistribution.
Mr. Speaker, if one cannot but agree that the present representation was calculated according to the average population shown from the 1971 census, it is a fact that within the Abitibi riding things have changed since. There has been the James Bay hydroelectric development and there must be at least an extra 6,000 persons who now live in that area, either as residents or as workers. It is likely that they do not want to take this fact into account now, but in 1981 they will probably say that they are going to add a riding in northwestern Quebec because the population increased. And by 1981 they will realize that the construction will end within the decade. Then chances are we will come back in 1991 and scratch that riding from northwestern Quebec because the population will have decreased and we will play this way with representation of an area. Mr. Speaker, other members made representations, not only Social Credit members in this House, but members from other parties, urging the minister to reconsider his bill and

July 20, 1977
Ontario Representation
extend the same privilege to the ridings in northwestern Quebec.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, when the new electoral map was tabled in this House, several of my colleagues and I took part in this important debate and we blamed the commission for many things. Today, the bill under study, Bill C-60, gives evidence that we were right at least for Ontario, because the government itself recognizes that the work of the commission maybe did not take into account all valid considerations concerning northern Ontario. Now, the government would want to have a bill adopted to correct a bad distribution.
We, Social Crediters, agree in this respect with the government as far as northern Ontario is concerned, because the government recognizes today that perhaps the readjustments made by the commission were wrong mainly and especially-I believe it is the main argument made by the government- because of a bad redistribution, taking into account the geography of northern Ontario. I personally know this area fairly well and I can imagine and I admit it is extremely difficult to have an equitable representation in northern Ontario, a representation that would be as flexible as in some other ridings in other areas of the country.
That is why the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) wants us to pass this bill. On the other hand, the same situation occurs in the province of Quebec, and this is the point we want to make during this debate. If the government forces this bill down our throats to make us accept a bad situation in Ontario, it will be very ill advised, I think, if it does not take into consideration a similar situation due to geographical reasons in northern Quebec, or more specially in the area better known as Abitibi.
The President of the Treasury Board said at the outset that he was making this statement in the House today not for purposes of expediency but rather for the sake of principle. I agree that at the time of redistribution of electoral ridings in Canada we were motivated by principles rather than by political expediency. But the very principles that are worthwhile in Ontario are also valid in Quebec, particularly at a time when we, Social Crediters, think that national harmony, or as the government would rather call it, national unity, is in great danger.
I think this bill would seem to grant Ontario privileges which are not considered for Quebec when normally it should not be a privilege for either Quebec or Ontario. It would be correcting a situation because the Commission, as the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) suggested, acted very badly in many cases. It is disconcerting to see that-and the readjustment of federal districts is not the only instance-the bureaucracy always has the last word and today we are losing part of the day intended for the business of the House in an effort to rectify a situation pertaining to a riding or a province that was improperly treated, or if you want, whose electoral boundaries were badly distributed.

It is always the same thing, Mr. Speaker; bills come to this House, decisions come to this House, which have not-or almost never, we are not here to shoot the breeze-been discussed and approved by the members of this House. Unfortunately, in financial matters and then in all other fields, bureaucrats take the initiative, write the bills, make the decisions, introduce the bills in this House and the majority vote for what the bureaucrats decide. We all know it by experience, we pass a piece of legislation in good faith and with good intentions but later on when we look at it and we look at the regulations that public servants enacted, thought out, came up with and which were accepted by the Cabinet and the minister concerned, we no longer recognize the original legislation. Unfortunately, we are trying to make believe that our Canadian government is still a democratic government when, admittedly, our democracy has nearly become a monumental farce. The only redeeming thing is that the people are not aware of it.
The population still believes that its elected representatives make nearly all the decisions, when they actually decide next to nothing either in the economic field or in the field of finance. We are now faced with a small problem, that of delineating the boundaries of our own ridings. This work is left to the bureaucracy. A city five miles from the largest city in my riding, with a population of 45,000 people, has been added to the neighbouring constituency. On the other hand, a city 75 miles away has been added to mine. This is completely nonsensical. They want to get rid of the lakes to go to another place when the village that used to belong to my constituency is serviced by the eastern townships highway which goes through my constituency, and we now have to make a long detour or to go by canoe if we want to take more time and take a more direct route.
Mr. Speaker, these are the completely ridiculous aspects of bureaucracy, as was said earlier by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) and the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). Once again, we have relinquished our authority. Not only have we relinquished our authority as members of parliament, but the federal government has also taken over the authority of provinces in another field. It does not concern the bill now before the House, Bill C-60, but in all areas, we have mixed up apples with oranges, we have mixed up the provincial, municipal and federal levels, and now we are ready to interfere with provincial rights in the field of education.
Mr. Speaker, with such confusion in the federal administration and the redistribution of constituencies, there are people who in the past two elections have believed themselves to be in one riding while they were in another. They wonder for whom to vote. Why? Because advertising is badly coordinated in this area. Some people come to the Longueuil office about unemployment insurance problems when they should go to the Sherbrooke office.
There are people in Saint-Cesaire who go to the Montreal office for their tax returns, instead of going to Sherbrooke. And in my riding it is no worse than in others, the situation is
July 20, 1977

quite the same everywhere. In those parishes located on the boundary of ridings, like in Saint-Hyacinthe for instance, people keep coming to see me because they got used to going to Shefford to get services provided by the federal government.
Well, this riding was removed, it was included in the county of Chambly during an election, it was moved to Shefford during another election, it was taken from Shefford in the course of another electoral redistribution and was returned to the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe. They are making fun of the people, because they think in terms of percentage. There is no problem in Canada, there is no unemployment problem, they think in terms of percentage.
They only rely on the figures of the manpower centres as regards percentages, when everyone knows perfectly well that all unemployed are not necessarily registered in the manpower centre and that they are not included either in the percentages of the unemployed, as the federal government tries to have us believe every time new statistics are released.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that in the particular context of Quebec, of Ontario and of Canada as a whole, the present argument is as follows: One wonders what will become of our country. We should not take too many steps at the present time to back up separatists, following an electoral redistribution which may be wrong, I admit, which may involve big mistakes, that is true, because there is a mistake in some area and they want to correct it in Ontario and are not prepared to do the same for Quebec. If they are not prepared to do the same in the province of Quebec, they can bloody well leave us in peace with national unity. This will be a sham! Why? Because the exact opposite will have been done of the words that were spoken. Unfortunately, that happens too often in this House. We are told one thing while the opposite is done. But to readjust ridings after an electoral redistribution has barely been completed-it became official just a few months ago-is to take advantage of a disorganized situation, I would say under the circumstances, to favour Ontario. Why? Because both the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec are poorly redistributed.
If readjustments are made in Ontario and not in Quebec, Ontario is enjoying a privilege, and national harmony then becomes but an empty word. If the same cannot be done for Quebec, then let us forget the whole thing and have elections according to the electoral map decided upon by the commissioners. As for us, Social Crediters, I inform the minister responsible for this bill that we are willing to pass it so that it can be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, provided the minister gives prime consideration to national harmony over electoral redistribution, especially as we are on the eve of a federal election the theme of which will be national unity.
It seems to me to be quite normal for the minister to accept that, not as a concession but as a logical fact since Quebec, in the process of the new electoral redistribution, lost one riding; it goes without saying that northern Ontario also loses one
Ontario Representation
because northwestern Quebec has lost one. Under those circumstances, the minister should accept Bill C-421 and readjust the respresentation for Quebec while doing justice to Ontario as he should, as he explained very well in this House; while doing at the same time what we preach, that is advocating national harmony for the Crediters and national unity for the Liberals.
So, Mr. Speaker, we agree on this bill being referred to the committee provided the minister assures us that Bill C-421 will also be taken into consideration by the committee with a view to making a correction and readjustment in Quebec as well as in Ontario.
1 think that with these arguments we could perhaps for once say that bureaucrats have been corrected, the bureaucrats did not tell us to do everything and that if they make mistakes we are here to correct them.
Mr. Speaker, since I know northern Ontario very well, I would like to see an additional district in Ontario because of the geographical situation. Considering also that I know very well the situation in northwestern Quebec, I would like the minister and particularly the government to consider the situation of northwestern Quebec on the same footing, not in a privileged way, not out of opportunism, but as a matter of principle for both Quebec and Ontario. I would like the minister to give us this guarantee so that we can be sure that both bills will be duly considered by the Committee on Privileges and Elections so that when the bill comes back to the House we could consider both ridings or both areas and give justice to Ontario and Quebec.


Claude Tessier: Mr. Speaker, I will speak briefly, but I wish to take this opportunity to endorse some principles, from whatever side of the House they may originate. I would like to say that when it is said that service to the people goes beyond statistics, I endorse that principle and I will gladly work to that end every time I can possibly do so. I would like also, when reference is made to the readjustment of electoral boundaries, that the work of a member of Parliament be clearly understood. I think that the death of the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada a few weeks ago is a case in point. We should not merely take this opportunity to mention it, but 1 hope that actually it will be a lesson for all hon. members and that they will act accordingly. I also wish now to speak for the members from rural areas.
I should like the Commission to know that campaigning is not an impossible art, but that it should take place under normal conditions, and this applies also and especially to rural ridings. The Commission should also take special circumstances into consideration, because it tried to establish a statistical rule to the effect that rural ridings are not high density areas. A fact remains: the costs involved in election campaigns in rural ridings are causing us extreme difficulties. I should like also to support those who say that civil servants or the bureaucracy should not depolarize our ridings. Such a bureaucratic procedure I feel should be corrected, because ridings are social entities which should be respected.

July 20, 1977
Ontario Representation
I would also like to sound the alarm against statistics and the bureaucracy. Some people predict the disappearance of the rural ridings. As far as I am concerned, I think that the future lies in the rural ridings and that one day they will put statistics to rest. I think that this is another matter of government responsibility to leave people where they are in conditions that they accept and which are acceptable. I agree with the adjustments proposed by the minister and I think that if such adjustments apply outside Ontario, they should hold in the province of Quebec or in any other province.
On the other hand, I would like to warn hon. members opposite. I would like them to know that when they give the impression that we, on the government side, are inveterate public persecutors, that we are always against the little man, I have to disagree because, in my opinion, I can easily be a Liberal member while respecting all the basic liberties and even low density areas.
I would like to add that it is not enough to say that we must not play politics but we must act accordingly. I listened earlier to the charges made by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) about this or that riding, the riding of this or that minister or member who may have a different image, and I think that is playing politics, and as long as I am in this House, I say to hon. members that I will oppose vigorously that kind of allegation.
For once, I fully agree with the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) who says that some things can and must be held against the Commission. I think this is true and this debate is a glaring proof of it. I hope also that the new adjustments will give us concrete evidence that it is possible to correct if not the mistakes of the bureaucracy at least the adjustments which appear to be necessary. Therefore, let us recondition our bureaucracy, and I say it again, I am ready to work at it. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I accept the adjustments proposed by the minister, but let all hon. members-and I think that is the purport of the proposal submitted by members opposite-let all members for the same good reasons, provided they are voiced and known, I say, let them decide.
However, and I repeat it, I am against those who say that we on the government side are always persecuting small underprivileged areas. If genuine and positive solutions are provided for the actual problems, I personally, will be ready to give my support. I will vote for the motion moved by the hon. minister. And I will even say to the hon. member for Villeneuve and his immediate neighbours that I am ready for it, and that if the vote were taken here and now, I would willingly support their proposal, because it is a common sense proposal, and I for one, as a member even on the government side, I am ready to vote for common sense. I also want people to know that honesty and sincerity are not to be found in only one party, but for as long as I sit in this House, if something has to be done with honesty and sincerity, I will always be on that side.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of astonishment, amazement, and regret

that I participate in this debate this afternoon. It is utterly incredible for an institution that purports to be managing a country as civilized and developed as Canada not to have settled for the next ten years or so, in a decision made in the last session of this parliament, the number of seats of which the next parliament is to be composed.
There was a great deal of debate on the issue at that time. We moved to a different method and a new approach to looking at the whole business of dividing up the pie that is Canada according to its provinces and territories. After all that debate, rhetoric, battling in committee, and the efforts of members opposite from British Columbia in particular to obtain justice for that province with regard to this distribution, we now have this bill before this parliament at this time. I find it absolutely incredible.
I find it incredible that the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) could go on television and berate the opposition for causing delay in getting government legislation through and then find, in the last days of this parliament, time being devoted to such a bill as this. It only shows the extent to which the government cares for the reputation of the Solicitor General as one who makes any sense at all when he talks to the Canadian people.
Last session we decided, after all the effort I have outlined, that the size of parliament should be increased from 264 to 282. It should be remembered that under the old rules British Columbia was going to get 26 members out of 264. When I came back here I was astonished to find that a formula had been presented which would increase the size of parliament to 280 and that British Columbia, which has grown faster than any other province in this country, was going to have just 26 members in the larger House. It was at that point I joined battle in an effort to do something about redistribution, aided by my hon. friend from Calgary Centre who also came from a rapidly growing province and was concerned about what was happening under the formula. After discussion, we set out finally a schedule which gave Ontario 95 seats and Quebec 75 seats. I have every sympathy with the argument which has been made by the-

-members from La Belle Province de Quebec today because I know that the redistribution formula for the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec is exactly the same as for the great provinces of Canada. If you want to change the situation in Ontario, you must absolutely change it in Quebec.

Nova Scotia, 11; New Brunswick, 10; Manitoba, 14; British Columbia, 28; Northwest Territories, 2. I do not think anybody in the House denies the need for an extra seat for the Northwest Territories bearing in mind the inhuman task which is given to the member who represents that region. Yukon Territory, 1; Prince Edward Island, 4. We know we can never have a one man one vote situation in Canada as long as we abide by the rules which establish a base below which provinces cannot fall in terms of representation. I am not quarrel-
July 20, 1977

ling with that situation. Saskatchewan, 14; Alberta, 21; Newfoundland, 7, making a grand total of 282.
There were many in this House who had serious reservations about increasing the number of members to 282 bearing in mind all the extra costs and all the adjustments which would have to be made. Yet here we have a bill bringing the number to 283, and we know that if this is done it will be necessary to add one more from Quebec and another from the West, one here and another there. Mr. Speaker, members opposite have opened the box, they have taken the lid off a can of worms by bringing such a bill before parliament at this time.
I can understand the despair of Ontario members from any party which represents the north of the province. One has only to pick up the parliamentary guide and look at the figures from the 1974 election. I am not concerned about who was elected. It is simply a matter of record that in 1974, for instance, it took only 9,362 votes to elect a friend of mine, the peerless member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). In Spadina, it took 9,273 to elect its member, and in Trinity it took 10,683 to elect a member. I am casting no aspersions on any of these members. Then one goes into the north of Ontario where the problems of transportation and the severity of the winter must all be taken into consideration, and we find that in Sudbury it took over 23,000 votes to elect a member there, that in Parry Sound-Muskoka it took 14,030 votes, in Nickel Belt it took over 17,000, and in Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton it took 18,000 votes to elect a member. Mr. Speaker, why should it take almost twice as many votes to elect a member in northern Ontario as it does in the heart of Toronto? This is a quarrel many members of parliament have always had with the formula. But it is one which should be taken up with the commission. One can only assume that the commission was composed solely of hacks and flunkeys appointed by the government


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Howard Earl Johnston: Members opposite cannot argue against that description, otherwise they would not have brought in this bill. The bill before us is a most damning criticism of the commission and of the redistribution. I have every sympathy with members of the New Democratic Party who favoured nonpolitical commissions. Whatever some members thought about it, the decision was made by this parliament long ago. The first commission in British Columbia gave us Okanagan-Kootenay-I have not had too much regard personally for them ever since. But if we are going to change the principle and go back to the old business of gerrymandering, if we are going to revert to the practice of people in back rooms dividing up a province, let us at least be honest about it and bring in a bill which does that. But do not damn the commission, and do not damn the system by bringing a bill such as this before parliament.
I will read a few more statistics, in Sudbury the person who came second received 13,200 votes. In Parry Sound-Muskoka the person who came second polled 11,000 votes. In Nickel Belt the person who came second polled 13,000 votes, and in
Ontario Representation
Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton the person who came second polled
13,000	votes. So there is a situation in which you can come in second in Northern Ontario and still have thousands more votes than it takes to win in downtown Toronto. That is where the scandal lies and that is the problem the commission should have rectified. But it did not.
One can only assume that the members of the commission are the type of people who, once they have climbed to the top of the CN Tower and looked around, think they have not only seen all of Canada, but all of Ontario too. That is our problem today, but it should not be. I did not hear any member from northern Ontario picketting the commission for what it did. Borrowing a tactic from British Columbia, did anyone strip in front of the commission, or, taking a tactic from Viet Nam, did anyone immolate himself in front of the commission? Drastic action was required at the time. Someone should have been prepared to say, "This is wrong."


Robert Knight Andras: It was taken to court twice.


Howard Earl Johnston: An hon. member has mentioned that it was taken to court. And, of course, the case was lost in court. Again we are on a most dangerous course where the Parliament of Canada undoes the work of the courts of the land.
We in this country are in a situation where people are raising serious questions about whether the checks and balances that we have are sufficient. Certainly one thing we do not want to do is to turn this institution of parliament, which is the final court, into one which spends its time eliminating the work and effort of the lower courts. There is no excuse for the bill. I cannot accept that the solution lies with members from Quebec who suggested that if Ontario gets one more member they should have one more.


William Arnold Peters: That is not the argument.


Howard Earl Johnston: There is logic there. But it should be remembered that the Parliament of Canada sits on the boundaries of those two provinces and that none of the 170 representatives from those two provinces have the problems of distance which we British Columbians have, we who are still under represented here.
I speak today as a representative from my province which did not obtain justice in that previous bill. We held our own- 26 out of 264, 28 out of 282. A formula was put forward which would add one more seat to British Columbia, but even that was not just. The formula had three categories, or four really: the ones that are set by statute, the small provinces, the intermediates, and the large.
I suggested that the solution to the problem was to treat Alberta and British Columbia as intermediate provinces, a category which they fitted. When I did my arithmetic it worked out to 29 seats for British Columbia, using the arithmetical average. It was at that point that the representative on that side told me one evening that the government would be prepared to accept 28. We had held our own, and at that point

July 20, 1977
Ontario Representation
there was not much use fighting any longer because I could see that we were not going to get the 29 seats.
This is not a private member's bill; the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) is responsible for this mess, and if I had known that the government was going to bring in a bill to upset what had been decided on and passed by parliament, then I can tell the House that I would have fought much harder and longer to sustain the demand for 29, which would have been a little closer to justice for British Columbia.
Let hon. members not forget-and this may be an argument for the NDP-that we have only six seats in the Senate. So my province is under-represented in this institution in every way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do not expect us to cry over that.


Howard Earl Johnston: I am amazed-and here I come to the most crucial point of all-how the President of the Treasury Board can bring this bill into parliament at a time when the government pretends to be exercised over national unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Earl Johnston: That is the mark of shame, of disgrace, of folly and downright silliness so far as this bill is concerned. We set up extra parliamentary commissions, celebrate Dominion Day by another name at the cost of millions of dollars, and are doing any number of things for the sake of national unity. Yet the government brings in a bill which strikes at the core of national unity and endeavours to separate in representation in this Chamber the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec As a British Columbian who believes passionately in a country from sea to sea, I find that utterly unacceptable. The government is engaging in this paltry exercise when only a few
days of this session are left, and pretends it wants to get the immigration bill through the House, along with several others.


An hon. Member:: And we will.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They are cowards and traitors.


Howard Earl Johnston: I cannot understand why we have not heard from the members of la belle province over there.

Where is the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) and where is the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos)? How can hon. members from Quebec vote for that bill? They cannot.

They can't go home and say that they let the cause of national unity down. Because this bill will be a symbol of what this government, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and the President of the Treasury Board care about national unity. Better to have brought in a bill on the national anthem, which I would have supported. I was on that committee in the Twenty-Seventh Parliament which reported unanimously, but the bill has never been presented to the House. It will not be necessary for the government to bring in a bill on the national anthem because this bill will be the symbol, will be the sign, will be the word indicating how much this government really cares about national unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Earl Johnston: May I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. It being six o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until two o'clock p.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, July 21, 1977