1977-03-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity with regard to the over one million unemployed persons of this country. Figures released by Statistics Canada indicate a 21 per cent decline in the job vacancy rate from November 1976 to February 1977, a 21 per cent decline in the chances of finding work for over one million Canadians. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That the House strongly condemn this government's lack of effective job creation programs to correct the human tragedy of those thousands of Canadians currently seeking employment for whom no job is available.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate pursuant to the Standing Order must be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



TRANSPORT


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In view of the impending lay-off of up to 1,000 workers at the Collingwood shipyards, and in view of the catastrophic economic effect this will have on the workers and their families and the entire town of Collingwood, and in view of the fact that the major reasons for the impending wholesale lay-off relates to inadequate federal government policy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urge the government to bying in legislation which would prevent licensing old and inadequate ships, originally sold for scrap, to be used in Canadian waters, which would encourage the construction of new vessels, avoid lay-offs and stimulate employment for Canadian shipyards.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion pursuant to the Standing Order can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move under Standing Order 43 a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, a motion which has to do with national unity. Men and women in high places, military men, provincial and civic leaders and the general public in Alberta have been trying to make their voices heard for about a year to justify the massive expenditures involved in moving and re-establishing the Canadian airborne regiment. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Skoreyko):
That this House demands at a time when national unity is being strained, this regiment, made up of easterners and westerners, French and English-speaking Canadians, all living together, working together, raising their families together in a location which might be considered neutral ground, a fine example of the varied cultures co-existing and collectively serving Canada without bias or prejudice, be allowed to remain in Edmonton.
I would hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would not say no to this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion cannot be done without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF GUIDELINES BY BELL CANADA IN GRANTING SALARY INCREASES TO EXECUTIVES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the motion which I wish to make under Standing Order 43 is one which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) may wish to second. In any case, I hope it will have the support qf

March 18, 1977
Quai d'Orsay Loan
the government. I therefore move, seconded by either the Minister of Finance or the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House, noting that the salaries of 29 top officers of Bell Canada in 1977 will average $102,000 a year, an average increase over 1976 of $13,000, calls on the government to take the necessary steps to block this flagrant violation of its own anti-inflation guidelines which limit an annual salary increase to $2,400, it also being the view of this House that Bell Canada has no right to seek telephone rate increases to enable it to pay such high salaries at the top.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The presentation of such a motion for debate pursuant to the Standing Order can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (mo)



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that serious questions have been raised about the legality of CMHC insuring a mortgage loan between 210 Somerset Corporation and National Trust for the building of the Hotel Quai d'Orsay, which was subsequently foreclosed by National Trust, and in view of the fact that one of the former principals of 210 Somerset Corporation is presently associated with the building of a $30 million apartment complex in Laval, Quebec, with financing again provided by National Trust and insured by CMHC, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the minister cause a complete investigation to be made into the circumstances involved in the guaranteeing by CMHC of loans in connection with the above mentioned projects and report to the House as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration regarding the latest job vacancy figures which only add to the evidence of the government's mismanagement of the economy and its incompetence in the field of job creation. Noting that there is a 21 per cent drop in the job vacancy rate from the three-month average ending in November and a 17 per cent drop compared to the same period of last year-in fact, the job vacancy rate has dropped in all provinces except Newfoundland-I would ask the minister in all sincerity whether he will now concede that the government's job creation program is a complete disaster calling for immediate action.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, I disagree with most of the premise to the hon. member's question except the part where he says he is sincere when he asks it. I would again commend to him a careful reading of the statement made by my associate deputy minister, Mr. Jack Mannion, before the committee on labour, manpower and immigration. He said then that the statistic put out by Statistics Canada showing the job vacancy rate is misleading, and explained that last year between five million and seven million Canadians actually changed jobs-ours is an extremely dynamic economy in that respect. To use this statistic in the way the hon. member has used it is most misleading.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not think the one million who are out of work and the 291,000 who have dropped out of the work force .because there are no jobs available to them will find that answer very acceptable. Let us show more sensitivity to those who are experiencing human suffering. What additional measures are to be introduced to help those seeking employment for whom no jobs are available? Must they wait until around September when the effects of the budget are noticed?


An hon. Member:: If there are any.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Fortunately, the government announced back in October, 1976 that we were aware there would be high unemployment this winter. We set aside $358 million, and there are $1,300,000 worth of sensitivity in my department which goes to direct job creation.


REQUEST FOR BUDGETARY PROVISIONS GEARED TO JOB CREATION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Statistics Canada figures show that in the last six months 291,000 people who were seeking employment have given up looking for work and are no longer in the labour force, believing no
March 18, 1977

jobs are available. Will the minister now tell the House whether budgetary measures will be geared to immediate job creation, as he revealed last night, and will he give a firm commitment in this regard?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Here again there is a misuse of the statistic of 291,000. These are not people who are out of work and who have stopped looking for work. In that category there are some 10,000 people who have returned to school; there is another group in that category which is back at work. So it is misleading to say that. As I said last night and as I have said in this House on many occasions, we have a whole series of programs in place; some of them are operating now-the Canada Works program, and the Young Canada Works program as well as others. These are things which, at the government level, we are doing.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am amazed at the minister's callous disregard of the plight of thousands of Canadians who are seeking jobs. I want the minister to give me a firm commitment that the budget will be geared, among other things, to the immediate creation of jobs in order to assist those who are suffering because of the incompetence of the government in this area.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, this is a question which should probably be more properly directed to my colleague, the Minister of Finance. I did not, last night, indicate what was going to be in the budget. I did say, however, that I had made my modest contribution by expressing the sort of thing I thought should be in it.


OIL-SUGGESTED MANDATORY REPORTING OF AMOUNT OF REVENUE COMPANIES PUT INTO EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The reports which he tabled yesterday indicate that Canada's reserves of crude oil are steadily declining despite the fact that the price of oil has trebled in the past four years, with correspondingly vast increases in revenues for the oil industry. In view of the minister's assertion and that of the Minister of Finance repeatedly to this House that these price increases were required in order to find new supplies of oil , does the minister not think that the time has come for the government to bring down legislation providing for mandatory reporting by the oil companies as to the amount of this increased revenue that they are receiving which is going into exploration and development?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is prefaced by some error. He referred to the fact that our reserves of crude oil had been declining. If he were to read the report
Oral Questions
carefully he would see that the reserves picture for crude oil is the same this year as it was last year; there has been no significant change. The report addresses itself to the question of probabilities with respect to the unknown areas of oil. It indicates that probabilities in certain areas are up but that as far as the frontier areas are concerned for crude oil they are down. The hon. member would also want to look at it from the point of view of natural gas, which has to be seen in the same context because the moneys going to the producer are being spent for drilling purposes-the producer does not know whether he will find crude oil or natural gas. I think he would find a more favourable picture for natural gas.
As for the question of mandatory reporting, he knows perfectly well that I have given an undertaking in the last couple of weeks that we will be introducing legislation having to do with mandatory reporting in a few weeks' time.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-SUGGESTED POSTPONEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION PENDING STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTES AND SETTLEMENT OF LAND CLAIMS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The same report indicates that the reserves of natural gas in the sedimentary basins, have improved considerably, though that report deals only with the period up to December 31, 1975, and that an additional five trillion cubic feet have been found in western Canada during 1976, bringing our reserves which are readily available to 65 trillion cubic feet. Does this not indicate that this gives the government plenty of time to reassess the best route for bringing gas from the frontier areas, and that the Mackenzie Valley pipeline could well be postponed until a thorough examination has been made of the Alcan route and the polar gas route, which would be much more beneficial to the people of Canada and much less costly?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, this House knows that the hon. member and his party have already judged this issue. They have not waited for the NEB report, they have not waited for Judge Berger's report; they have already said that they do not want any pipeline down the Mackenzie. We believe that the National Energy Board has an important role to perform in assessing Canada's reserves and the environmental and social questions which will be raised by Judge Berger. We have not made up our minds as the hon. member has. We want the facts first.
I do not think, dealing with the last part of his question, that you can try to fine tune a project as massive as the kind of project we are talking about by one or two more years' delay just because there is a small change in the reserves probabilities picture. I mention "probabilities" because they are no more than probabilities.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my final supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister? My question arises out of the fact that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has

March 18, 1977
Oral Questions
stated publicly that the Mackenzie Valley pipeline would not be proceeded with until native land claims were settled. A few weeks ago the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said in Toronto that the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline would be proceeded with if approved by the National Energy Board, whether or not the native land claims were settled. I want to ask the Prime Minister what is the government's policy. Does the government intend to proceed with the Mackenzie Valley pipeline construction if recommended by the NEB, irrespective of whether or not the land claims have been settled?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: The government's position has been that we would not want to make a decision on this matter either as between one pipeline or the other or no pipeline until we have the report from NEB and from the Berger commission. We expect both these to come in within the first half of the year, and that would permit the government to make a decision at that point. I hope that the land claims, to the extent that they might be affected by the decision, will have been settled, but the undertaking is not to make a decision until the reports are made.

[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
It is about a beneficiary from whom the Unemployment Insurance Commission claimed back excess benefit payments. He could not reimburse them because he was out of work, so UIC officials had him arrested and he actually spent one month and a half in jail. Could the minister launch an inquiry into a case like that and could he tell us if the UIC office has the right again to seek payment by holding back the benefits they owe him today?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I would be surprised if it was the result of not being able to pay. It may be in that particular case there had been some fraud. In any event, without prejudging the case I will look into the question that was raised if the hon. member will give me the name of the individual.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF GENERAL JAMES DEXTRAZE AND VICE-ADMIRAL ROBERT FALLS
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before recognizing another hon. member, I know all hon. members would want to join me in signalling the presence in our gallery of two very distinguished

visitors, first in the person of our present chief of defence staff, and second, his successor as of this coming September. I refer to General James Dextraze, Canadian Chief of Defence Staff, and his successor, the first naval officer to achieve such a position, Vice-Admiral Robert Falls.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As the former chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, Mr. Raynaud, a Liberal MNA in Quebec, has predicted that the economic situation in Quebec will deteriorate even further in 1977, that the unemployment rate may exceed 12 per cent, and inflation will rebound to more than 8 per cent, would the Prime Minister, bearing in mind that the federal government is charged with the responsibility of maintaining a stable economy throughout the whole country, tell the House what specific steps he will take to arrest this continuing deterioration in the economy of Quebec, particularly when noting that the economy there has been faltering under his government for many years and unemployment has risen from 6.6 per cent just before he took office in 1968 to the present 9.8 per cent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we will continue to apply our economic policies with impartiality in all parts of the country. In those parts where unemployment is higher we will seek to have special measures, and the budget may be the occasion to mention some more.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind that the Minister of Finance stated yesterday that his policies of carefully staged recovery had put the Canadian economy on the right track, would the Prime Minister tell the House whether he considers nearly one million unemployed to be a sign that the economy is on the right track, whether he considers negative economic growth in the last quarter of 1976 to be a sign that the economy is on the right track or whether he considers a record trade deficit in the last quarter and accelerating inflation to be signs that the economy is on the right track, and if so, would he indicate what he would regard as the wrong track?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not happen to have in front of me the rule in Beauchesne which talks about argumentative questions, but I am sure that this is one of those questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


LOSS OF INTERNATIONAL CONFIDENCE IN CANADIAN ECONOMY-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Noting that the widely read international publication Business Week has stated that the Canadian economy is in serious difficulty and
March 18, 1977

that the collapse in the value of our dollar is "only the most visible symptom of the profound troubles in the Canadian economy" at the present time, is the Prime Minister aware of the decline of such international confidence in the future of the Canadian economy, and does he plan to take any concrete steps to restore international confidence in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member reads that article very carefully, he will see that it makes the same argument I made in the House a couple of days ago about Canadians living beyond their means, which brought such loud guffaws from hon. members in the Tory Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MANPOWER
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Labour, both of whom should answer this question, I will turn to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and see if I can get somewhere with him.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I doubt it.


George Harris Hees: In view of the impending lay-off of most if not all of the 1,000 man work force at the Collingwood shipyard because of lack of orders, which is symbolic of the condition this government has allowed the economy to get into, has the government been in touch with this important operation, and if so, what plans does the government have for averting this very serious lay-off.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, when we get co-operation from employers, the Department of Manpower and Immigration moves its officials in to proffer what advice and help they can. In addition, in the event that we are advised that it is inevitable that there will be a lay-off, we invariably set up a team in conjunction with the employer to see if these people can find other jobs, get more training or be moved, through our mobility grants, to other regions of the country.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as the company has been in touch with the government on this very important matter and as there have been no results, is the proposal to train people in the plant for other jobs the best the government can do? Other jobs simply do no exist because of the serious unemployment situation. Has the government no plans at all for trying to revive the normal operation of this shipbuilding plant?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is the prime objective and the prime purpose-


George Harris Hees: Why don't you do something about it?
Oral Questions


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: -to do what can be done about the problem faced by a particular corporation. From time to time we have to face reality, but if a problem can be solved, we do what we can. We try to work in concert with the companies because it is in their interest, our interest and, most assuredly, in the interest of the employees to do everything we can to keep the company in operation.


George Harris Hees: Is that not government gobbledygook for saying "We don't care and we are going to do absolutely nothing"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa West.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council. Further to the minister's statement of February 4 to this House, can he now state when the committee of inquiry into the operation of the Public Service Employment Act will start its work, and who will be its members?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the committee of inquiry to which the hon. member refers has begun its work. The hon. member may recall that in my statement on the subject I indicated that this study or review is to be a two-phased operation. The first phase is to consist of an examination by each side of the problems raised in the terms of reference, and when that first phase is completed there is to be a coming together of the two sides under a chairman. We have appointed the representative of the government side, Mr. Bruce Brittain, the Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs, and on the staff side the representative is Mr. Des Davidge, President of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The work of the first phase has commenced, and when it is completed, or even before that, a chairman will be named to conclude the study.


MANPOWER
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who stated in reply to a question by me on March 11 that he would look into the efficiency and effectiveness of the CES program in his department and make it better. In view of the increasingly urgent need to use every means available to solve extremely heavy unemployment, can the minister now say what steps have been instituted to expedite this program and
4114

March 18, 1977
Oral Questions
clear away bureaucratic impediments which may be hindering its effectiveness?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I had that particular situation looked into. There was one technical problem arising out of the agreement which was causing some delay in one region. I understand that has now been corrected, or is in the process of being corrected. I think that one of our better operations is our community employment strategy. I welcome the support of the hon. member for that particular type of operation.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister knows that unemployment has reached unprecedented levels in the country, in some areas. Over one million Canadians have no means to live beyond, as the Prime Minister gratuitously stated. Could the minister be specific and make sure that more of the CES funds are used for direct job creation, and less for administrative costs, for running the program. Also, Mr. Speaker, will the minister encourage the efforts of organizations and local boards, so that this program can live up to expectations of the minister's predecessor?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we have a good program, but are always prepared to make it better. I have noted the hon. member's representations.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs may I direct my question to the Prime Minister? In view of the continuing reports from Uganda and the mounting concern of Canadians, will the Prime Minister advise the House when the government will officially condemn the atrocities and loss of civil liberties in that country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have already indicated that concern and disapproval. I had occasion yesterday to indicate that the whole matter could be discussed at the Commonwealth conference, if the Secretary General is willing to put it on the agenda. My argument is that the Singapore declaration, which concerns itself with human rights and is a charter of the beliefs and values established by members of the Commonwealth, could easily give us the occasion to look into that matter seriously.
[Mr. MacKay.)


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Since the new chief of defence staff is to be a naval officer and Newfoundland is by tradition and history naval oriented, may I ask if one of the first tasks of the new chief of defence staff will be to visit Newfoundland, to make him realize the importance of Newfoundland in our over-all defence posture and the importance of expanding our air-sea rescue and surveillance capabilities? That expansion would be appropriate for the defence of Canada, would increase our ability to conduct air and surveillance operations, and would create employment for native Newfoundlanders who will be able to provide that service.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that when the new chief of defence staff assumes his position he will be interested and objective about all services and certainly would want to visit Newfoundland at the first opportunity.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What does he think of the new naval cadet uniforms?


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Since violent crime and murder are on the increase, and since the Solicitor General, in reply to my question of March 16 said, as reported on page 4034 of Hansard, that:
... the whole question of statutory remission and of dangerous offenders will be brought before parliament I hope in the near future in the successor to Bill C-83, which dealt with a number of these concerns.
I ask, is the minister to bring in a new bill dealing with dangerous offenders, etc., and will he undertake that, rather than using this particularly serious problem as a means for forcing through parliament unpalatable legislation, he will have this matter dealt with in a separate bill, separate and apart from one dealing with gun control, since such a bill could pass all stages in this House and committee expeditiously?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, all the matters to which the hon. member referred are immensely important and urgent. I hope that parliament will soon deal with all of them. They were examined exhaustively in committee in the last session. It therefore seems to me that it would be within parliament's capability to deal with all of them expeditiously.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It's a "Basford" of a bill.
March 18, 1977


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The government itself moved some 33 amendments to the previous bill, some of which the committee did not approve. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice did not answer my question. I am asking him if he will bring in a bill dealing with dangerous offenders and statutory remission. This matter affects violent crime, even murder on the streets of the urban centres of our country. Will he bring such a bill in separately, so that it can be dealt with expeditiously? Will he answer that question, instead of waffling as he has done this morning?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member and his colleagues had not opposed the bill in the last session, we would now have among the laws of this country measures relating to statutory remission, dangerous offenders and other matters which would assure the Canadian public of a degree of protection which they do not have right now.
To reply to the hon. member's question, I hope to introduce legislation dealing with statutory remission, that is, prohibiting statutory remission, dealing with dangerous offenders, and increasing the ability of the police to protect society against maniacs using guns.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Amendments which the present government passed in 1970 have created some of our present problems. They changed the Bail Act. Since members on my side of the House made concrete, positive suggestions in committee, does the minister not think he ought to accept them if we are to pass legislation which is workable and acceptable to the people of Canada?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I agree that many of those suggestions were valuable, and I and the Solicitor General accepted many of them on behalf of the government. For that reason I feel that the whole subject has been thoroughly canvassed in a committee of this House and I anticipate that such legislation can be dealt with expeditiously.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It has been reported that June Menzies, vice chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, in a speech in Winnipeg yesterday said that Canada "must lose no time in working out a deliberate and co-ordinated national food policy". I ask the minister, in view of his responsibility for the operation of the Anti-Inflation Board, will the cabinet be responding to this further considered view that we do not have a national food policy and that one is needed, and proceed now to take decisions on it and announce such a policy? I also ask this question because Mrs. Menzies, as an appointee of the present cabinet presumably would have the confidence of the entire cabinet, including the Minister of Agriculture, the
Oral Questions
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and of the Minister of Finance himself.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, there has been continuing discussion of the question of a national food policy in an attempt to arrive at a position which would take into account the interests of consumers of Canada and, at the same time, assure the viability of agriculture in this country. Obviously, this is a matter of fundamental importance, which has been given a great deal of time and attention.


TRANSPORT
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister? My question related to the impending lay-off of 1,000 workers at the Collingwood Shipyards. According to the director of the Steelworkers Union, which represents those employees, one reason for the shipyard's being on the verge of wholesale lay-offs is that the federal government allows ships sold for scrap in the United States to be licensed for use in Canadian waters. He said that 25-year-old ships which cannot be licensed in the United States can be purchased and used on the Great Lakes. I ask the Prime Minister if the government is considering changing the legislation, or the regulations, in order to prohibit the use of old ships in that way in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the allegations, but if the hon. member will be patient, I will refer the matter to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


INDUSTRY
David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister discuss with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of the Environment what new ship capacity will be required to meet our needs if we are to enforce the 200 mile limit for fishing purposes? Such enforcement should require more ships which, possibly, could be built at the Collingwood Shipyards.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question.
80010-541/2
4116________________________________COMMONS DEBATES	March 18, 1977
Oral Questions AIRPORTS


PRINCE ALBERT-INQUIRY AS TO APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. About ten days ago, I think, I asked him a question concerning the undertaking apparently entered into by the Minister of Transport, and widely advertised in the press in Prince Albert during the by-election, which led to the general belief that between $3 million and $6 million would be spent on the Prince Albert airport. Has anything of this kind been brought to his attention and is it now before the Treasury Board?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions. A definitive answer to that would be best presented by the Minister of Transport when he is available.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is not the President of the Treasury Board. I am asking the President of the Treasury Board whether there has been any formal application. I would suggest this to him, and I hope he will take it in the best of good humour, that unless this expenditure takes place, the Minister of Transport will not be able during the next election to jet himself into Prince Albert.


Robert Knight Andras: From my knowledge of the proposals, 1 would think that the Minister of Transport is totally responsible in his recommendations.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will see the minister at 12 o'clock.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I know the Prime Minister believes in participatory democracy. In view of the almost unanimous support to retain in the city of Edmonton the bilingual commando unit, will the Prime Minister now, in the interest of promoting the spirit of national unity in western Canada, reverse the decision to remove this unit to central Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member is seriously suggesting that I reverse a decision made by the Minister of National Defence on the recommendation of defence staff and of senior military advisers. I see that the Chief of Defence staff has now left the

gallery. I am sure if he were here he would think the question rather preposterous.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: As long as this country is not at war and the morale of the troups in peacetime is tres important-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: -which should be the prime concern, will the Prime Minister reconsider this very expensive and foolhardy move?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this has been dealt with many times by the Minister of National Defence, but certainly I will agree with the assertion that this country is not at war. Mr. Speaker, you see in your gallery we have Romeo and Juliet, two Canadians from Hamilton.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MANPOWER
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I first want to assure him and the Prime Minister that no one in the Churchill constituency is living beyond their means. The unemployment rate in the Churchill constituency is in excess of 20 per cent. In order to qualify for the make-work programs, the unemployed must be hired through CMC offices. In many cases these centres are located hundreds of miles from communities. Will the minister give authority to the chiefs and councils, mayors and councils and community leaders who are better qualified to provide the placement of unemployed in their respective communities? Will he give them that authority to hire at the local level?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I think the CMC is more or less the co-ordinating unit. I will look into the situation to see whether we can do an even better job than we have done in the past.


PRICING AND TAXATION POLICIES FOR PRESENT AND FUTURE COMPANIES OPERATING IN THE TAR SANDS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises out of the report on the oil sands and heavy oils. I think it is absolutely disgraceful that it was not tabled in the House of Commons so that we could ask appropriate questions. Is it government policy to allow the same pricing for oil and the
March 18, 1977

same tax regime for all organizations that operate or intend to operate within the tar sands?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member is talking about when he says it was not tabled in the House of Commons. Both documents were tabled in the House yesterday afternoon. I think the hon. member was present.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, there was no statement on motions, no opportunity to question this important document which 1 gather the minister does not think is significant or he would have been prepared to come here and talk about it in the House of Commons. Is the government going to allow the same price policy and same tax regime for all organizations that are now operating or propose to operate in the tar sands?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, this is under discussion at the present time with the government of Alberta.


TAR SANDS-GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, is the government of Canada going to put any money into the development of new technologies for extracting oil from the tar sands? I notice in the report that they are getting technical advice. Is the government prepared to put any money into this operation? If so, is that money now in the estimates?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, it has already put about $300 million into Syncrude.


MANPOWER
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I tried to catch your eye to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. At page 4060 he was questioned by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent with respect to the exceptionally high unemployment rate in the Indian, Inuit and, Metis communities which averaged between 45 and 60 per cent and at times as high as 95 per cent. His answer to the hon. member at the time was to refer to such programs as DREE operating across the country and, in cooperation with the Department of Indian Affairs, he was attempting to do what he could to assist at the government level.
In view of the fact that none of these people are living beyond their means as described by the Prime Minister, and the fact that virtually all of the Inuit people live above the sixtieth parallel, some 50,000 native people, virtually all of whom are unemployed, can the minister explain how DREE is going to help these people and whether he has discussed the
Oral Questions
application of DREE, which is supposed to be a national program, above the sixtieth parallel with his colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that these two programs and departments work in concert to do what they can about high unemployment in this particular area. The initiative and responsibility for them comes under the aegis of my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs. It would be more appropriate to put the question to him.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and remind him of a statement by his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, made recently in Yellowknife, that DREE was going to be turned into a truly national program and made applicable in the two northern territories, thus raising the hopes of northerners to a considerable degree. Can the minister now say emphatically that DREE is going to be applied to the two northern territories, finally making this a truly national program and perhaps alleviating some of the unemployment in those parts of Canada?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, I have been authorized by cabinet to begin the exercise of extending the DREE program to the northern part of our country. Negotiations have been going on for some time as to how we can achieve that. I hope within a few months, if not weeks, we can conclude the negotiations and extend the DREE program to the northern part of our country.


Erik Nielsen: It's about time.


DISCUSSIONS WITH ALBERTA ON DEVELOPMENT OF HEAVY OIL-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises out of the report tabled yesterday and deals particularly with the report on heavy oil. Can the minister bring the House up to date on the status of discussions with the province of Alberta, discussions which are aimed at accelerating the development of heavy oil reserves, particularly in the Lloydminster area? Can the minister say specifically what federal government initiatives are being advanced in order to enhance the economic viability of this very impor-

March 18, 1977
Oral Questions
tant resource? Also, can the minister say what is being done to develop improved recovery techniques in terms of initiatives by the federal government?


Alastair William Gillespie: The broad lines of the discussion concern both the province and the federal government moving back in terms of their revenue take from the development and processing of the tar sands. I cannot say more at this point but so far these discussions have been positive and I hope there will be a result very soon. Perhaps the hon. member would repeat the second part of his question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I should like to know what specific new initiatives the federal government is taking given the fact that a huge amount of capital and expertise will be required from both the public and private sectors. Are any new incentives or initiatives being advanced to increase the participation of the private sector?


Alastair William Gillespie: Initiatives are being taken on both sides of the Saskatchewan-Alberta border. A short while ago we were able to reach agreement with Saskatchewan with regard to the use of a substantial amount of funds for the purpose of developing new recovery techniques in the Lloydminster area. I hope that shortly we can announce a joint agreement by the federal government and the Alberta government with regard to the use of research funds-funds which were set aside for the use of the government of Alberta as a result of the 1974 agreement. I believe the main estimates show that there are some $10 million available for research this coming year.


HEAVY OIL-POSSIBILITY OF PARTICIPATION BY PETRO-CAN IN ESTABLISHMENT OF REFINERY
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Inasmuch as Petro-Can has expressed interest in the development of this resource, could the minister tell the House whether his department is actively supporting and promoting the establishment of refining facilities by Petro-Can in that area? When might a definite decision be made in this connection?


Alastair William Gillespie: We are actively promoting development in that area. Petro-Can might well wish to be a part of a group of companies interested in such a project. There have already been talks between potential private participants and Petro-Can as well as between that group and the Saskatchewan government. There is a great deal of interest at the present time, all of which I fully support.


FINANCE
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the concern expressed by the Prime Minister about the country living beyond its means and in view of the fact that one way in which a country can live beyond its means is by borrowing abroad, can the minister tell us whether he has indicated any policy in this area to the provinces, the municipalities, or even private corporations? I ask this in the light of the hon. gentleman's answer to my hon. friend yesterday in which he said he really did not have much of an idea as to how much would be borrowed abroad this year.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I
pointed out yesterday, borrowings abroad in the coming year will be a function, broadly, of the spread in interest rates as between this country and the United States, a difference which is difficult to predict very long in advance. I would make this comment: we have not, as has been the case in the past, sought to restrain the provinces from borrowing on foreign markets. We have not done that in the past year or so. I think the critical point which the Prime Minister would make-it is critical from the standpoint of our balance of payments and borrowings-is that with respect to the competitive position of Canadian industry, and particularly with respect to the decline in the value of the Canadian dollar, making it more competitive, we have to make certain that the inflationary impact not be passed on in such a way as to overcome the advantage we have gained by the drop in value.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Then I take it the minister is not concerned about the volume of Canadian borrowing abroad?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have said a number of times that a volume of borrowing comparable to that of 1976 would definitely not be sustainable by the Canadian economy.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That was $8 billion.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: However, I would point out that in the first quarter of 1977, that volume has not been maintained.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs? No doubt, he will have heard of President Carter's statement before the United Nations General Assembly yesterday that no nation can complain that the mistreatment of its citizens is solely its own business. The President also referred to the pledges of the signatories to the UN human rights charter to observe and respect human rights. Will the
March 18, 1977

hon. gentleman make it clear to the President and to the leaders of other nations who share his views, that Canada will co-operate fully in the defence of human rights?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is certainly enthusiasm on our part over the position which the President of the United States took at the United Nations yesterday. We regard the text of the human rights charter as a fundamental one.


John George Diefenbaker: And done nothing about it!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Just recently, at the UN Commission on Human Rights, we attempted to get a resolution debated calling for an independent international inquiry into the systematic killing in Uganda. That was turned down, or put aside, because of the unfortunate double standard in this field which exists throughout the world. We have also undertaken obligations under the Helsinki Final Act under which we have agreed to monitor each other on the performance with respect to the commitment made under that act. So the message of the President is quite in accordance with our policy and will be supported by us in the future as in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROPOSAL TO CANCEL ASSISTANCE TO COUNTRIES VIOLATING HUMAN RIGHTS
Francis Andrew Brewin: I thank the minister for his statement, but will he carry it a stage further? Will Canada undertake to co-ordinate with other countries the termination of assistance, whether direct or indirect, through national or international organizations, to countries which have been found consistently to breach basic human rights?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is a very large question indeed. I suppose every one of us could find that the cessation of food aid, for example, to impoverished countries is quite repugnant. Then there is the question of economic assistance; this was discussed recently by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he posed the crucial question whether the installation of an irrigation system or a cement plant in a developing country helps the unemployed or the poor most, or whether it helps most a regime which might be unresponsive to the case for human rights. This is a very difficult question to answer but I believe the present circumstances of urgency attached to human rights leads us to examine our perception of this question, and that is what the Secretary of State for External Affairs undertook to do.
Oral Questions POST OFFICE


SUGGESTION PROCEEDS FROM INTERNATIONAL SALES OF NEW
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. It concerns the beautiful new 12-cent stamp which depicts the eastern cougar-official name, felis concolor-only 100 of which are known to survive in North America outside Florida. Since the common practice of paying models for posing is not followed by the Post Office, has any consideration been given by the government to allocating the proceeds of the international sales of this stamp to the protection of this animal before it becomes extinct?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: I thank the hon. gentleman for calling the attention of Canadians to the fact that the Post Office has put out a new stamp depicting a member of this endangered species. His question affords me the opportunity of doing a little salesmanship with regard to that stamp. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, may I also thank him for offering me the opportunity of doing a bit of salesmanship with reference to that particular stamp. As well, I should like to indicate to him that I will take his particular suggestion into very serious consideration, and hopefully enough money will be generated from the sale of this stamp to give his suggestion some consequence.


WILDLIFE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment may I direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. Does the parliamentary secretary know whether or not the minister is aware, or is he himself aware, that the Canadian Wildlife Service has decided, or is about to decide, to restrict further the licensing of persons who may keep migratory wild waterfowl in captivity?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there are further restrictions planned in the future, though there have been some recently which might have prompted the hon. member's question. I do not know that under the Act there is a requirement for a licence to be held by someone who is going to have in his or her possession a bird that falls within the regulations under the Migratory Birds Convention Act. I do not know of any immediate plans for further restrictions but I will check and report to the hon. member.


Bruce Halliday: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Given the parliamentary secretary's comments, does he know

March 18, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Gillies
whether or not the minister will require the Canadian Wildlife Service to consult interested groups such as the Canadian Ornamental Pheasant and Game Bird Association before recommending any changes; and can he assure the House, if there are any changes, that they will be in keeping with, and not more stringent than, policies adopted by other signatories to the migratory birds convention?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, as parliamentary secretary 1 do not, of course, decide policy, but I will certainly take the hon. member's representation to the minister. The only caution I would present, if I may, is that there may be occasions when Canada would be pleased to be a leader in protecting endangered species, and therefore to say that we would never do anything more than another country would not be the traditional policy of the Canadian Wildlife Service, which has an excellent reputation.


PRIVILEGE
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I want to raise a question of privilege which has been raised many times before and I hope Your Honour will take it most seriously, as I am sure you will. It relates to the fact that yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) at a press conference put forth a document which in many respects is supplementary to the paper "An Energy Strategy for Canada" which was released two years ago. It was a most important document which was followed by statements, many of which can be challenged, many of which are incorrect, statements which should be questioned in the House. There should be an opportunity for the people of Canada to know what the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has in mind in terms of energy for this country, but there was no statement made on motions.
With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I think all of us know that parliament is in grave difficulty in this country. People are concerned about parliament and whether it is relevant to the governing of this nation. The role of parliamentarians is declining. Actions such as this, where parliamentarians are not given the privilege of examining, as they ought to examine, major policy statements of the government, do nothing but very seriously hurt parliament.
I urge, with all respect to Your Honour, that this government should go back to the practice which has been followed over the years, that when important statements are made, they are made in this House on motions so there can be appropriate examination of such statements. The privileges of all members of this parliament and of the people of Canada are really hurt by the procedure that is now being followed by the government, with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources

bringing forward a document which very substantially amends a major policy statement made just a couple of years ago.
Therefore, I wish to propose a motion in the following terms:
That the matter of the government's unwillingness to have statements by ministers on important documents be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that this matter can be examined in the context of what it is doing to erode the privileges of members of parliament and the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) on the same question of privilege.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to this motion since I suggest it is based on a number of misconceptions. The hon. member said that this was an important document. I agree with him that it is an important document. But to go on to describe it as a major policy statement is, I think-


James McPhail Gillies: It is an amendment to policy.


Alastair William Gillespie: -overstating the point completely. It is a factual document. There are two documents dealing with an update of the oil and natural gas resources of Canada and with the oil sands and heavy oil prospects. It does not deal with any policy statement in the sense of recommended courses of action; it is strictly an informational document.
The second point I want to make is that the standing committee on national resources has a reference at the present time before it, "An Energy Strategy for Canada", and it is because the committee has that reference and is dealing with important energy questions that we thought it important to place this matter before the public so that it could be part of the committee's considerations.
I do not see how the hon. member can argue that these two documents, comprising hundreds of pages having to do with a great deal of technical and detailed information, are the sort of thing that one would want to respond to after perhaps half an hour's reading or even an hour's reading in some sort of debate on a statement on motions. Surely, if he wants to re-examine the important information contained in these documents, the best way is for the committee which is charged with the question of an energy strategy for Canada to receive it. I would also point out to the hon. member that 1 did not in any way meet with the press before I tabled those documents in the House. My officials gave a briefing to press officers, which is a great tradition of this House, but I did not meet with the press.
I placed the documents before the House before I met with the press.
It seems to me there is one other point which we should not completely overlook. Yesterday was an opposition day, and I remember that in the past opposition members have been very unhappy at the government making a statement on motions which usurps-to use their term-a large piece of parliamentary time. I would think that it would not have been the sort of move which opposition members would have complimented us on had we taken that course. For all those reasons, Mr. March 18, 1977

Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member's question of privilege is based on a misreading of the facts, a misunderstanding of the situation, and I do not think it is relevant to the question before us.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) on the same question of privilege.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, the statute that governs this matter is the National Energy Board Act. That act makes very clear that the National Energy Board is responsible for advising the government as well as performing a regulatory function. Here we have a report brought in by the minister, through civil servants in his department, which ignores the existing legislation which gives this responsibility to the National Energy Board. I think the question of whether the government is ignoring the National Energy Board Act by bringing in a report, not through the National Energy Board, the agency set up by parliament to do so, but through some section in the minister's own department, is an important matter affecting the privileges of this House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not want to deal directly with the specific instance raised by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies); I believe that has been dealt with effectively by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie). However, I do want to react positively to the general concern that he has expressed in his statement about the situation in parliament, and particularly about the image which parliament frequently has at the present time of not dealing with relevant events.
The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) on more than one occasion has outlined the necessity of having a debate, for example, on the subject of external affairs. It would have been useful in recent weeks if it had been possible in the House of Commons to deal with the question of human rights which is attracting the concern of certain people in many countries of the world. There are other issues that can be debated in the House, including energy issues, and questions of national unity, which will become more important as time goes on, and thus the House and its debates would appear fnuch more relevant to us and to the people at large.
There is no question, at the present time, that our debates are becoming not only irrelevant to the people of Canada but irrelevant to the members of the House of Commons. 1 have observed the situation in the chamber since 1 came back to this job last fall. As I observed the situation, there is a malaise, a sense of boredom and a sense of drift among members of parliament with respect to the debates that take place in this chamber.
When the hon. member for Don Valley makes the general plea that we ought to do something to make our operations more relevant and more meaningful, I support him very much.
Privilege-Mr. Gillies
His plea was sincere and made from the heart. I hope that before this session is over all hon. members will understand what we are doing to this institution in the way we conduct our business.


An hon. Member:: 1 think it is time for an election.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the remarks of the government House leader and some of the implications of what he said should not remain unanswered. It seems to me that all of us in this House and, 1 know, members of our party in the tradition of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) have very high regard for the institution of parliament. It seems to me that any suggestion that there is a panacea which is available, aside from the organization of affairs on the part of the government with respect to its legislative program, is doing a disservice to this institution-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -and is suggesting that there is a magic wand that may be waved. I simply make the point with respect to this issue that if the House leader of the government is in fact interested in bringing some relevance to the House of Commons, he should listen with sympathy to the suggestion made by my colleague, the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), and encourage ministers, including the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), to be present in the House of Commons to make major statements with respect to changes of policy in this chamber, and not before the television cameras.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague in fact has moved a specific and constructive motion to have this whole matter directed to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. It would be an ideal opportunity for members of that committee, in the spirit of mutual respect that we have for parliament, to look at the over-all question of statements made by rpinisters, major amendments and the utilization of the rules in this respect. I think the suggestion made by my colleague is eminently sensible, and the government House leader, by his remarks, clearly indicates support of the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) is, of course, not a new one. It was raised recently in connection with statements made outside the House by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) respecting changes in transportation policy. This happens whenever a statemeni is made or a press conference is held by a minister in respect of matters of that sort.
The intervention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) gave an indication of the difficulty of attempting to frame any kind of rule which would have an intelligent application to these circumstances. It is evident, in this situation, that there is disagreement as to whether it was a

March 18, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Gillies
statement changing policy in some way. Therefore, it gives an indication of the difficulty in attempting to change a regulation which might be enforceable in a reasonably consistent way, because who is going to have the responsibility of defining what is or what is not a major policy statement by a minister, what is simply the tabling of the document and what ought or ought not to be accompanied by a statement?
In any case, that only represents some of the difficulties which give rise to the existence of the precedent and the clear practices of the House that the failure, the option of the minister to make a statement either in the House or outside it, may be the subject of comment and is, as was the comment made today, but is not the subject of a question of privilege for those reasons.
I think I ought to add that privilege is a classification of a motion which, if accepted by the Chair, is coming within the classic definition of privilege and takes precedence over other motions that would be before the House in the ordinary course of business. The fact that it does not qualify within the confines of privilege does not mean that it has no importance. There are some standard motions that can be put before the House on the same subject in other ways. The question that the Chair always has to decide when a question of privilege is raised is upon the practices and precedents of the House. Does this question come within the classic definition of privilege so as to surpersede other business? On the precedents and their very clear application at numerous times in the past I have to find that that is not the case at the present time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I prefaced my question this morning by saying that crude oil reserves in Canada have been declining in recent years. The minister said that if I had read the report which he tabled yesterday 1 would know that these reserves are the same. I know the minister would not want to mislead the House. I therefore refer to the document which he tabled, and at page 14 it reads:
Current remaining reserves of conventional crude are down some 17 per cent from the peak year of 1970.
I was not referring to frontier oil of which only half a billion barrels have been found; I was referring to conventional crude oil. It is perfectly apparent from the document the minister tabled that there has been a decline. None of us is happy about it. I do not think the minister would want to leave the impression that there has been no decline in our reserves of conventional crude oil.


Alastair William Gillespie: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased that the hon. member has clarified the preamble to his question, and as a clarification, of course, I accept his position. It was not the way I understood it when he put it to me. The impression he created for me, and I think for some others, was that there had in fact been a change from the previous year with respect to conventional crude oil reserves. That, of course, is not the fact: the document makes that clear.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader is in a position today to designate an allotted day next week, in view of discussions that have taken place since yesterday.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to designate Tuesday of next week as an allotted day.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. An interesting situation took place this morning over a motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in relation to Bell Telephone. I raise it because of some interesting studies that have been done in Bell Telephone which have come to my attention. The question was raised in relation to the high salaries and the fact that this had relation to the subscribers. In our discussion of a Standing Order 43 motion Your Honour heard a "yes" and "no" vocal declaration. There is a certain amount of anonymity which I presume is protection by no designation. I would question whether Your Honour is in a position to know whether there is a conflict of interest in this regard. It has been brought to my attention that a number of members of the House are closely connected with Bell Telephone Company.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We are all connected!


William Arnold Peters: I am not talking about subscribers of Bell Telephone. They are the ones paying the high salaries of the people concerned. But there are other members of the House who are much more closely connected with Bell Telephone Company.


An hon. Member:: Name them.


William Arnold Peters: I would be happy to name them. They are much more closely connected because of the control of companies which own Bell Telephone. If they had been the ones to say no, or if the whip of the party had said no, that would be one thing; but if it had been any other member there would have been a conflict of interest. My point is that by using the method whereby no one has to say they are in favour of, or opposed to the motion, they may be involved in a conflict of interest and this would not be readily apparent to Your Honour.
Therefore, I suggest that for the protection of members who do not want to be involved in conflict of interest-because I assume that any member who has an indirect control of Bell Telephone Company has said no-it would be much better if we adopted a procedure whereby those who objected to a motion would have to say no, so there would be no doubt about the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Timiskaming has raised a point which has been raised before and to which the Chair has given attention in the past. It may be a suggestion for changes in the procedures in the House which can be made in

March 18, 1977

a positive way. Clearly, it does not constitute a question of privilege. The question of unanimous consent, in the circumstances, is clearly described in Standing Order 43. If it were the will of the House that refusal under Standing Order 43 was to be carried out in a way similar to the manner in which a recorded vote is carried out or the way in which objections are made to the extension of hours pursuant to the Standing Order, that within the last hour of debate in the day a member may put forward a motion for an extension of the hours unless a certain number of members rise in their place to object to it-if the language were to be used in that way it would, presumably, accomplish the purpose of the hon. member and those who have raised the point before.
However, that is not the wording of the Standing Order. Accordingly, unanimous consent means exactly what it says, that if any one member indicates to the Chair by the traditional method of saying "No" that his or her consent is withheld, then the Chair cannot proceed on the basis of unanimous consent. That consent may be withheld not in relation to the merits of the motion but on procedural grounds. It may be an unwillingness to set aside the business of the day, even an unwillingness to debate a matter or to let a matter go without debate. There can be all kinds of motivations. Whatever it is, the Chair is compelled now to simply determine whether or not unanimous consent exists.
The Chair must not proceed if it is the desire of the House to examine any possibility for doing it in a different way on the basis of the suggestion of the hon. member. That suggestion should be forwarded to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. It does not constitute a question of privilege.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a brief point of order. A few moments ago a memorandum was delivered to me intended for my friend, the government House leader. It is marked "Memorandum" and "Confidential". I wonder whether this is an innovation on behalf of the government, a more reasonable attitude toward freedom of information, or whether it is just an indication of lack of government organization.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1 was surprised by the interjection of the Prime Minister when he recognized Thespius, from "Romeo and Juliet", during my serious and important question. However, in view of the answers the Prime Minister gave me during the question period, I hope he will go and take a jump in "Swan Lake".
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Cafik.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,613, 1,614, 1,615, 1,616, and 1,826.


Mr. Holmes: For the fiscal year (a) 1972-73 (b) 1973-74 (c) 1974-75 (d) 1975-76, what projects were rejected under the Indian Rights and Treaty Research Programme and, in each case, for what reason?


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: There were no projects which were rejected by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development under the four year, $7.5 million Indian Rights and Treaty Research Program. The research program being carried out by the Indian associations was not project oriented, rather, it was geared to enable the Indian associations to set their own research priorities within the limits of available funds and to begin work on the identification and substantiation of Indian rights as well as to commence basic research into the resolution of grievances and/or claims relating to the administration of land and other Indian assets under the Indian Act, and to the fulfilment or interpretation of Indian treaties.


Mr. Holmes: 1.	Are the recommendations of the National Indian Brotherhood as set out in their December 1976 evaluation report of the Indian Rights and Treaty Research Programme being followed and, if so, to what extent?
2.	What levels of research funding is the government prepared to allocate for each of the 17 major Indian research teams for the fiscal year 1977-78?

March 18, 1977
Order Paper Questions
3.	What levels of research funding has been approved in principle for the next five years, taking into consideration the achievements of the research programme based upon the past funding arrangements?


B. Keith Penner: 1. The 12
recommendations as set out in the National Indian Brotherhood funding program evaluation report are being given serious consideration by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and will be used in the development of future funding programs. Specifically, the department agrees with the NIB that the resolution of Indian claims will be a lengthy and complex process, and that financial support will be required for a considerable time. In line with the NIB recommendations, the department will be supporting regular Research Directors meetings, and will be involving the NIB in the decisions involving distribution of available program funds.
2 and 3. Decisions on the total level of funding and allocations to provincial Indian associations cannot be made until a program budget has been approved by Treasury Board.


Mr. Holmes: For the 1976-77 Interim Programme for the funding of research development and negotiation of specific claims, what projects were approved and, in each case
(a)	what is a brief description (b) what amount of funds was allocated?


B. Keith Penner: In 1976-77 the provincial Indian associations conducted research into specific claims which are defined as claims relating to the administration of land and other Indian assets under the Indian Act and to the fulfilment or interpretation of Indian treaties, (a) From this broad base, the associations researched and developed possible claims as their respective finances and priorities dictated. It would appear that most activity was involved in researching land surrenders. Sample research projects as being conducted by the Indian Association of Alberta, and the Union of New Brunswick Indians are as follows:
Indian Association of Alberta Research Requests Project
Land entitlement
Land surrender
Land entitlement
Loss of trapping, livelihood claims
Land entitlement and surrender
Land surrender and entitlement
Land entitlement
Claims Development Requests
Project
Band
Alexis
Saddle Lake O'Chiese Cold Lake Goodfish Lake Horse Lake Cree/Chip
Band
Land surrender
Land surrender and entitlement Union of New Brunswick Indians Project

Louis Bull Horse Lakes
Band
Claim for land at Meductic
Claim for land illegally occupied by Miramichi Timber Resources
Claim for land illegally occupied by squatters at Big Hole Tract Land claim
Settlement of land flooded by Tobique Dam Provincial roads never compensated for
Woodstock
Eel Ground
Eel Ground Tobique Tobique Burnt Church
(b)	1976-77 Interim Funding Program for the Research and Development of Specific Claims
Funding Requests and Accountable Contributions Provided
Association/Band
Maritimes
Union of Nova Scotia Indians Union of New Brunswick Indians
Quebec
Indians of Quebec Association Attikamek Montagnais Caughnawaga Band
Ontario
Union of Ontario Indians Grand Council Treaty No. 3 Grand Council Treaty No. 9 Assoc. Iroquois and Allied Indians Ontario Reserves Association St. Regis Band Gibson Band Walpole Island Band
Manitoba
Manitoba Northern Flood Committee Manitoba Indian Brotherhood
Saskatchewan
Federation of Saskatchewan Indians Alberta
Indian Association of Alberta
Peigan Band
Kehewin Band
Blood Band
Blackfoot Band
Samson Band
Goodfish Lake Band
Yukon
Yukon Native Brotherhood National
National Indian Brotherhood Total
Funding	Total
Request	Received
S 75,300	$ 65,000
99,704	65,000
175,004	130,000
387,183	86,000
152,020	49,000
52,700	-
591,903	135,000
222,663	110,000
147,075	55,000
418,988	107,714
79,500	52,500
88,000	32,500
23,500		
18,340		
26,379		
1,024,445	357,714
5,000	5,000
1,276,100	215,000
1,281,100	220,000
466,663	220,000
466,663	220,000
177,286	177,286
21,220	10,000
30,000	10,000
10,000	10,000
38,600		
30,000		
5,000	-
312,106	207,286
65,160	
65,160	-
30,000	30,000
30,000	30,000
3,946,381	$1,300,000


Mr. Holmes: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1972-73 (b) 1973-74 (c) 1974-75 (d) 1975-76, what projects were approved under the Indian Rights and Treaty Research Programme?
2.	What is a brief description of each such project and the amount of funds allocated in each case?
March 18, 1977

3.	Did the allocations respond to the needs as expressed by the Indian associations and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Which projects have been completed?
5.	Which projects have not been completed and, in each case (a) what is their present status (b) for what reason?
6.	Does the funding meet the research needs of the bands and associations and, if not, what criteria are used by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to determine which research projects will be funded?


B. Keith Penner: 1. See reply to question 1,613 tabled this day. There were no "projects" approved by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development under the four-year Indian Rights and Treaty Research Program. The Memoranda of Agreements enabled the Indian associations to "conduct research into Indian rights and treaties on behalf of their member bands".
2.	See 1 above.
3.	The program was approved by the government in 1972 at the level of $7.5 million. Total requests for funding approximated $14 million.
4.	The National Indian Brotherhood, in its evaluation report of December, 1976, indicated that approximately 50 per cent of the "Indian Rights" research has now been completed and that claims research and development completion was estimated at between two years in Nova Scotia to in excess of ten years in Ontario.
5.	(a) As in 4 above, the research and claims development process will be lengthy and complicated, (b) Because of confidentiality clauses in each research funding agreement, many Indian associations will not disclose details of claims now completed, nor those underway. In most cases the submissions of completed claims have been delayed pending government-NIB agreement on an acceptable claims resolution process.
6.	Funding provided by the department under the terms of the Indian Rights and Treaty Research Program was considered adequate at that time to enable the Indian people to commence work on the identification and substantiation of Indian rights and to begin claims research within the limits of the funds available.


Mr. Smith (Churchill): What is the total expected cost of the task force study into the question of arsenic poisoning in Yellowknife to which the Department of National Health and Welfare is contributing $100,000?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: At the present time, it is not possible to state the exact cost of the task force studying the effects of arsenic in Yellowknife. A total of $100,000 has tentatively been set aside for this purpose for the fiscal years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The final cost will depend upon the recommendations of the task force at the end of Phase 1 of the study which will constitute a review of all currently available information.
Pension Act


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 1,243 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Firth: What are the number of tubal ligations performed on (a) Inuits (b) Indians
(c)	others in each community of the Northwest Territories for each year since 1970?
Return tabled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that Bill C-ll, to amend the Pension Act, be read the second [DOT] time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to move that Bill C-ll be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. This bill is to amend the Pension Act for the purposes of changing the constitution of the Pension Review Board in order to improve its capabilities. The Pension Review Board was created by parliament in 1971 following the recommendation of the Woods committee established by Treasury Board to survey the work and organization of the Canadian Pension Commission. The procedure for appeal was one of the most important aspects of the inquiry. The committee was mindful that on two previous occasions in the 1920s and 1930s experiments with appellate tribunals under the Pension Act had not been successful.
This history of unsatisfactory experiences with former appeal bodies under the Pension Act led one of the members of the committee to write a dissenting recommendation and gave rise to concern by veterans' organizations, members of parliament and others who had knowledge of these matters. However, the committee, by majority decision, felt that another attempt to set up a strong and independent appellate body was

March 18, 1977
Pension Act
essential. It was agreed that another try should be made on the basis of a five-year term office but with provision for a reassessment of the board's ability to cope with any difficulties that might arise.
The board will have been in operation for five years by next March. I am pleased to say it has responded well to expectations and now serves fully the purpose for which it was created. These amendments will give it more flexibility and continuity. The Pension Review Board has five members including the chairman. Under the terms of the Pension Act they are appointed for a term of five years. This bill provides for a ten-year term.
The Pension Review Board is often referred to as the high court of disability pension law. It has two functions. It is responsible for hearing entitlement and quantum appeals arising from decisions of the Canadian Pension Commission. Second, it is responsible for interpretation of the Pension Act. Extensive authority is vested in the Pension Review Board by the Pension Act. Decisions concerning questions of law or fact are final and binding for all purposes of the Pension Act.
A short term of office of five years threatens the efficiency of the board. It takes a full year for a new appointee to acquire the necessary expertise to perform his full share of the work, and the assistance he requires during that time creates additional demands on the chairman and other members. The temporary nature of a five-year term is not conducive to career orientation and independence of mind. It is significant that the term of appointment to similar appeal tribunals is for life and that a ten-year term is the minimum for all administrative boards.
There is presently no provision in the Pension Act for the appointment of a deputy chairman. The chairman is chief executive officer of the board and must preside at all sittings of the board. With the anticipated increases in volume, extra sessions will be required if a backlog of hearings is to be prevented. The appointment of a deputy chairman would permit a more equitable division of the workload and allow the board to conduct more hearings. A review of similar boards reveals that all have a deputy chairman who acts in the absence of the chairman and who has the powers of the chairman when presiding at sittings of the board. It is essential to the efficiency of the Pension Review Board that there be continuity of leadearship provided by the chairman through his deputy.
The appointment of a deputy chairman does not increase the number of permanent members of the Pension Review Board, which remains at five. The bill provides that there shall be a Pension Review Board consisting of a chairman, a deputy chairman and three other members appointed by governor in council to hold office during pleasure for a term of ten years. This bill further provides for the governor in council to appoint ad hoc members if and as required for a term not in excess of one year.

In the last three years the number of appeals to the board has increased at an annual rate of 200. It is anticipated that the number of applications this year will exceed 600. Any further increase will severely tax the ability of the board to cope with the demands. The number of appeals to the Pension Review Board is directly related to the number of entitlement board hearings held by the Canadian Pension Commission. In 1973-74 these hearings increased in number by 60 per cent over the previous year and by 23 per cent in 1974-75. A minimum increase of 20 per cent is anticipated in 1975-76.
The use of temporary members to assist regular members when warranted by special circumstances is not new. The provision is found in the constitution of all similar boards with few, if any, exceptions. The practice has stood the test of time and will fill the need created by any further increases in the volume of applications while creating a buffer to overcome the problems periodically encountered due to illness and vacation of board members. There is one other amendment. It is to the termination of office section. It does not change the meaning or sense of the section. The purpose of the amendment is simply to improve the wording and clarify its meaning.
In conclusion, it was parliament's intention, in setting up this board, to provide veterans and their dependants with an expeditious avenue of appeal, and the Pension Review Board has provided just that. These amendments to its constitution will enable it to continue to do so. They will provide the element of flexibility required to meet changing demands, while still maintaining a level of quality performance.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I do not think my party has any quarrel with the bill and, hopefully, with the agreement of the other opposition parties spokesmen we will be able to get the bill to committee and passed quickly. I am sure the minister is aware of the co-operation from all sides of the House on veterans affairs bills. This bill provides for the appointment of a deputy chairman and, as the minister indicated, it increases the tenure of the board from five to ten years and allows for other normal appropriations of public revenue. As I have said, my party has no quarrel with the terms and conditions of the bill. As a matter of fact, we wonder at the delay in providing additional members. This will tend to bring about a more adequate service for veterans, particularly in adjudicating applications for pensions, and appeals.
The minister indicated in his remarks that over the last three years the number of appeals to the board has increased at an annual rate of 200. It is anticipated that the number of applications this year will exceed 600. This certainly indicates that the workload of the Pension Review Board, the Canadian Pension Commission and the Bureau of Pensions Advocates is increasing, and hopefully this bill will clean up the very serious backlog of 3,000 which now exists.
What the minister did not point out is that in addition to the fact that the number of applications will exceed 600 this year, in the "Veterans Canada" report it indicates that of the 1,011 disability decisions 653 were unfavourable and only 128 were favourable. There were 212 which were partly favourable. This
March 18, 1977

indicates to me that the minister should reconsider some of the restrictions in the act which deny many veterans the appeal or satisfactory adjudication that they deserve. 1 refer to the "benefit of the doubt" clause. Much delay is caused by the fact that evidence has to be sought. In many cases widows are applying for their dead husband's pensions and it is impossible to find evidence. In many cases First World War veterans cannot substantiate that they are now suffering from conditions resulting from First World War wounds. Here, again, there are untold delays, to the embarrassment of everyone, because evidence cannot be found. We should look at the benefit of the doubt clause.
On March 7 I proposed a motion which dealt with 17 different anomalies which should be reviewed. I mentioned that it should be embarrassing that 58 years after the First World War we are still trying to clean up an act which has been in existence for so long. With all the expertise the minister has in his department, we should be at the point where the Pension Act is almost perfect. Last night I was reading a book entitled "Veneration for Valour". One sentence on pensions reads:
In Canada, since the time of the Fenian raids in 1866, the pension has been accepted as the basic reparation for injury or death in war.
It has been over the last 100 years that we have been dealing with pensions. I can only hope that we will get on with this backlog of applications and that every effort will be made to clean it up. As I have said, those applications still number 3,000.
We should consider the relationship between the Pensions Review Board, the Canadian Pension Commission and the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, because they are all related. One way the backlog could be cleaned up would be to follow the advice of a learned, interested veteran who indicates the following:
The Canadian Pension Commission admits there is a serious backlog in handling pension applications. A great part of this backlog is believed to be at the Entitlement Board stage, which requires a hearing in a city near the place of residence of the applicant.
Normally these hearings require three members of the commission. Section 72, subsection (2)(a) of the Pension Act provides, however, that the commission may designate one commissioner as an examiner to go to various localities in Canada to take evidence and hear argument respecting an applicant's case.
This can be done only where the applicant informs the commission that the place or time fixed by the commission for a regular Entitlement Board is not convenient.
It seems obvious that the use of examiners would speed up the Entitlement Board process and it is noted that the Woods committee recommended this procedure, where the commission ran into a serious backlog of cases.
The representation continues:
My understanding is that the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, which represents a large percentage of pension applicants, has not made use of the examiner procedure and I would like to ask the minister whether he would discuss this matter with the chief pensions advocate to determine:
(a)	Whether the chief pensions advocate considers that this procedure would provide an equitable means of handling pension claims; and
(b)	Why the chief pensions advocate has not encouraged pension applicants whose cases have been delayed to request a hearing before an examiner.
Pension Act
I also raised the question of the Pension Commission which is closely related. The "Veterans Canada" report says that as a result of changes in the act in 1971, anomalies were removed to ensure complete equality of status of male and female members in respect of rights and obligations under the act. I ask the minister and the House, what about the equality of widows about whom I and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have been harping? I am referring to widows whose husbands were receiving a pension of less than 48 per cent. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that there is not equality in this area. For some reason, those concerned about the status of women do not know these facts.
I appeal to the minister to raise this matter in cabinet, to convince the cabinet that the question involves equality. At present there is lack of equality. The law at present is an anomaly and is discriminatory. We should correct this. We learned yesterday what it would cost to put right some of these matters. Back in 1917 we promised our veterans that they would never have to worry about being repaid for their sacrifices. I suggest that the people of Canada would be willing to accept an expenditure in this regard of between $35 million and $40 million.
We ought to consider that veterans in the category I have mentioned are greatly worried about what will happen to their wives and dependants after they die. That humane consideration alone dictates that there must be no more delays in introducing an amendment to the Pension Act which would include those widows. The recommendation of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs indicates the pro rata basis on which this can be done.
I now turn to the war compensation legislation, a subject which the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) brought to our attention in commmittee yesterday. We should have insisted including in that legislation veterans of the First World War, who are excluded. We neglected to include them, and for that omission I take some of the blame. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will agree with what I say. When the war compensation legislation was introduced and accepted we should have insisted on the inclusion of First World War veterans. I suppose I can use the excuse that the matter was not included in the terms of reference. We learned yesterday that there are only 200 veterans who would be affected and the cost of including them would be only $200,000 per year. Certainly, the ranks of World War I veterans 83 years old and older will be thinning out. Their numbers are declining each year. The Pension Act was introduced in 1866, I think. I am sure that anything we can do to help out those veterans and apply humane considerations would be most popular and would meet the approval of people all across this country.
As I said previously, we have no quarrel with the bill. If I can be somewhat political, let me point out that in our policy paper of 1974 my party dealt with the question of pensions. Some people say that my party has no policy. I want the minister to know that a Progressive Conservative government would take immediate steps to provide additional administra-

March 18, 1977
Pension Act
tive and support assistance to the Canadian Pension Commission, the Pension Review Board and the Bureau of Pensions Advocates.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The government took that idea right out of our book.


Jack Marshall: Let me tell hon. members that our party would immediately introduce widows' pensions for widows whose husbands had received pensions of less than 48 per cent. Hopefully, we shall now be able to increase the Pension Review Board with an additional two ad hoc members and appoint a deputy chairman who will be able to preside over hearings, cut down the backlog of cases and help our veterans. At present, many veterans die without the opportunity to have their pension applications or appeals dealt with. I hope now that they will realize, before they die, that Canada really cares for them and has tried to repay for their sacrifices.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party I wish to make it clear that we readily support Bill C-ll. As has already been made clear, its purpose is to strengthen the Pension Review Board by increasing the length of the term of the members thereof, and also by creating a deputy chairman so that at least two meetings of the board can take place at the same time. The bill has the further purpose of providing for the appointment of two ad hoc members. This, also, will enable the board to cope with the rising number of cases.
From my point of view, the best proof of the efficacy of this board is the record of the cases with which it has dealt. While I do not have the figures before me, I think that even as late as yesterday the rate of reversals was over 30 per cent. That means that more than 30 per cent of the cases referred to the Pension Review Board are reversed. In other words, the Pension Review Board gives a decision in favour of the veteran, whereas the Canadian Pension Commission, through its various workings, has ruled against the veteran. That is not to be taken as a criticism of the Canadian Pension Commission. It follows the law and tries to give the veteran the best break possible. We were also told in committee that the Canadian Pension Commission takes note of the decisions of the Pension Review Board and tries not to make the same mistakes.
It is also noteworthy that whereas previous attempts to set up an appellant body failed, this one, established following the Woods commission study in 1971, has been so successful that on all sides we are prepared not only to continue it but to strengthen it so that it can do its job.
I pay tribute to the chairman of the Pension Review Board, who was a member of this House when I came here some years ago. I refer to Rene Jutras. I pay tribute to him, and to all members of the board, for the good work the board has done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)
[Mr. Marshall.)
has done a good service today in relating the work of the Pension Review Board to the work of the Canadian Pension Commission and the work of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates. I hope the plea he made will be considered, that the Bureau of Pensions Advocates will explore all ways for helping veterans to get their cases heard successfully. I hope that, as well, further efforts will be made by the Canadian Pension Commission to reduce the backlog of the cases before it.
It seems awfully hard on veterans who are making applications years after the war to find that their cases could take a full year or even longer. I appreciate that the backlog has been reduced a bit and that the delay will not be as great as it was a few years ago. But every veteran is concerned; every veteran feels he has the right to have his case dealt with quickly. I therefore hope that the department and the government will give whatever assistance is needed to the Canadian Pension Commission and the Bureau of Pensions Advocates to allow these cases to proceed as rapidly as possible.
There was an understanding among us that, since this bill does just a few things and we are all in agreement with it, we will not extend the debate. Actually, I hope we can very soon pass the bill on second reading. I think it is in order for members such as the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and myself to take this opportunity to press again for the consideration of items of unfinished business in veterans affairs which we feel strongly should be given attention.
I am happy to say that the number of items not attended to has been reduced. The job done by the Woods commission, the job done by the Hermann commission, and before that by Dr. Richardson on Hong Kong veterans, the non-partisan way in which the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs works, and the help of the minister-who I feel does a good job trying to fight for veterans inside the cabinet he has to live with-have resulted in many improvements. The picture is better today than it was a number of years ago.
Even so, the points that my friend from Newfoundland just referred to must not be allowed to go on. I underline the case of World War I veterans who were prisoners of war. When we finally got around to compensating prisoners of war, why did the government leave them out? We got the word yesterday, and I repeat it, that there are only about 200 of them still living. It would only cost about $200,000 a year to give them that compensation. That is $200,000 this year; it will decline year by year. In a few years there will be not any of them left.
I hope the minister will in this session bring in legislation to extend prisoner of war compensation to those who were POWs in World War I.
At the same time, I urge that the case that escapers and evaders have been making is a valid one and that they, too, ought to be covered as prisoners of war. I hope that this suggestion will receive earnest consideration from the minister. There is no doubt in my mind as to where his heart is in these things. It is those fellows in Treasury Board, Finance, and so on, with whom he has to fight. However, he has demonstrated
March 18, 1977

throughout his life that he is a real fighter, and I hope that he will stay with it.
I also want to underline the matter that we have raised several times lately in questions, motions under Standing Order 43, late shows and in the debate on March 7 on the motion of my hon. friend. That is, what has happened to the rate of the 100 per cent disability pension? We set it in 1972 in relation to the average wage of five groups of federal civil servants. Although the committee which recommended it asked that the relationship hold, the government chose, instead, to fall back on the cost of living index. The result is that the rate for a 100 per cent disability pensioner today is $500 a year behind the composite rate of those groups of public servants that we accepted in 1971 or 1972. I insist that the tripartite committee which recommended that set-up was on the right track and it should have been accepted then. Since it was not accepted then, 1 call on the minister to do it now.
I am doing my best to abbreviate my remarks. I will end on the same point with which my friend concluded his remarks; that is, the case of the widows of veterans where the veteran's pension was below 48 per cent. 1 say, again, that we feel very strongly about it. We are not alone. Mr. Justice Mervyn Woods recommended this. Dr. J. D. Hermann recommended it in his report. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs voted that way two, three or four times. It is something that has been discussed over the years, pro rata pensions for all widows of disabled veterans.
We now have the support of the modern idea-it ought not to be modern, but it is-the idea of equal rights. Apart from the fact there is the question of women having equal rights with men, women should at least have equal rights with women. The fact that one widow gets a full pension and the next widow gets none at all because the veteran's pension was just on the margin above or below 48 per cent is quite unfair. There is a little more money involved in this than in the case of prisoners of war of World War I, but justice and fair play demand its consideration just as strongly and just as seriously.
I welcome this opportunity to indicate our support of the work of the Pension Review Board, which means that we shall be voting for this bill with pleasure. I also welcome this opportunity to remind the minister of the items of unfinished business to which I have referred. 1 hope he will act in such a way that in a few months from now we will not have to continue to make these requests on behalf of the veterans of Canada and on behalf of their survivors, but so long as it is necessary he knows that we shall do so.


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, we are all concerned about veterans. I commend the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). It is the typical type of legislation one would expect from a minister who comes from the Maritime provinces. I echo the remarks of previous speakers, including the minister. I have no hesitation in supporting the bill and getting it through this House. I hope this will be some encouragement to the minister and th6 cabinet to bring forth the other necessary and proper legislation concerning our veterans.
Advance Payments for Crops


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, February 16, consideration of Bill C-2, to facilitate the making of advance payment for crops, as reported (without amendment), from the Standing Committee on Agriculture; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Schellenberger.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. When the House last considered the report stage of this bill a point of order was raised to the effect that motion No. 2, in the name of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) went beyond the scope of the bill and was therefore out of order. Hon. members will recall that after hearing argument on the matter I reserved decision. I have now had an opportunity to consider the matter at some length and examine the provisions of the bill as they relate to the propriety of the motion.
Hon. members are aware that one of the most frequently raised rules and precedents concerning amendments is whether an amendment introduces a new proposition into the legislation and thereby goes beyond the scope of the original bill. The intent of the amendment in this situation is that since the bill provides for the making of advance payments through banks and through producer organizations, then in circumstances where no suitable producer organization is in place the intent of the bill could be carried out by eliminating the role of the producer organization and placing the producer, the government and the bank into the position to give effect to the advance payments arrangement without the intervention of a producer organization.
The question then becomes: is the role in the legislation of the producer organization simply a means whereby the intent

March 18, 1977
Advance Payments for Crops
of the legislation is carried out, or does it play such a fundamental role that an attempt to proceed without the use of the producer organization would mean the introduction of a new concept into the legislation?
Hon. members might bear in mind, for example, the provision in clause 4 of the bill which begins to set up the scheme. In the very first line we read, "Where an organization proposes to make an advance ..." Again, in the first line of clause 5 and subsequent clauses the legislation is spelled out in such a way that it seems to me-and I hope hon. members will agree-the producer organization plays far more than an incidental role in the process of making advance payments through the banks on the part of the government.
I cannot resist the conclusion that the role of the producer organization in this legislation is such a fundamental role in the entire process that to attempt to do without the producer organization would be the introduction of an entirely new approach to, and a new concept in, the legislation. Whether or not that be a desirable course to follow, it would remain open to hon. members to put forward legislation which might have that effect or to ask the minister to have the matter considered in some other way. My only concern is whether procedurally this is a valid amendment to this legislation.
Again I say that the role of the organization spelled out in every clause in the bill is so fundamental to the operation of the statute that it is more than simply an incidental aspect of the machinery of the bill, and any attempt to try to produce the same effect without the producer organization would, in my opinion, be the introduction of an entirely new concept. I must, therefore, find that the proposed motion put forward by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin is not in order.
That being the case, the report stage motions would now appear to have been finalized. There were only two; one moved by the government, which was dealt with, and the second the one by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin which has now been set aside. Accordingly the Minister of Agriculture, seconded by the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts), moves that Bill C-2, an act to facilitate the making of advance payments for crops, be concurred in as amended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The matter having been considered to this extent at report stage on this day, the House is not in a position to carry on with third reading of the bill without its consent. The question would be for third reading and passage of the bill, if the House is agreed. Is there unanimous agreement that the House now proceed to third reading?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, there is not unanimous agreement; we will hold over third reading.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Four o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have no indication of business to follow the projected item of business, but I do know there is an item for consideration under private members' hour which would follow at four o'clock. An early adjournment of the House, obviously, would prejudice the carrying on with the four o'clock business this afternoon. Is it agreed that I adjourn the proceedings until four o'clock this afternoon?


Mr. MacFarlane:: Mr. Speaker, I understood that there was agreement to proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: The only question that now remains is, is the business for private members' hour ready to go ahead now? In which case I will call it four o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Speaker:: For the sake of expediency, there are a certain number of orders which would stand in priority to the one that I understand it is agreed will be proceeded with. These are order Nos. 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 22. Is the House agreed that we will stand those orders in order to proceed with the order standing in the name of the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: May it also be understood that in seeing the clock at four o'clock now, the House will adjourn at 3.15 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Monday?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Leonard C. Jones: that Bill C-233, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (independent members of the House of Commons), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-223 is to give greater heights of democracy to the House of Commons. It is presented to ensure that an independent member of parliament will have the opportunity to be on two standing committees. It is not my intention that any member of parliament will lose
March 18, 1977

any special status because of this bill; this bill merely asks that the same rule apply to all.
Upon election to the House of Commons by an overwhelming majority in 1974, I was confident that some of the inconsistencies in the rules would end. The Canada Elections Act permits Canadians to seek office under the auspices of a recognized political party or as an independent. Upon further reading about this democratic country of Canada, one would gather that to run under the auspices of a political party as a member of parliament one would have to be duly elected at a nominating convention in his or her riding, as I was. But as history now records, this was proven to be purely theoretical and myth in my case. However, that incident in 1974 was caused by a certain party's disorganization and lack of unity and 1 certainly cannot blame the government side for that.
Upon election to the House of Commons by an overwhelming majority, as I said, I was confident that these inconsistencies would end. This was, indeed, a wrong assumption. The law with regard to an Independent's membership on House and joint committees states, to quote the guidelines of Standing Order 65(1), which virtually ignores political parties:
At the commencement of the first session of each parliament, a striking committee, consisting of seven members, shall be appointed, whose duty it shall be to prepare and report, within the first ten sitting days after its appointment, lists of members to compose the following standing committees of the House:-
A list of committees follows, but no mention is made of party representation on them. However, when I endeavoured to seek membership of standing committees I was advised that they were only for party members. I think the House will agree that the practice followed to appoint committees is certainly inconsistent with the basic principles and traditions of this parliament, but many of the occurrences in this House of Commons have proven that traditions are rarely upheld.
Despite these facts, precedent shows that independent members have been selected for committees in this House. The constituency of Charlevoix-Saguenay was represented between 1942 and 1949 by Mr. F. Dorion who, as an Independent, appears in Hansard as a member of the House committee on banking and commerce in the twentieth parliament. Mr. P. E. Gagnon, independent member for Chicoutimi, was a member of the joint committee on printing. The constituency of Comox-Alberni returned Independents as members between the years 1921 and 1953. Mr. L. Gibson, who represented the area from 1945 to 1953, sat on the House committee on marine and fisheries and on the House committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines during the twenty-first parliament.
It appears quite obvious that in fact membership on committees has little or nothing to do with party affiliation, precedent or procedure. It is apparently entirely dependent on whether one's views and policies are acceptable to those in authority. I must say that generally speaking I have endeavoured to do my best to obtain a good rapport and cordial relationship with each and every member here-with a few exceptions, of course-keeping in mind the best interests of my constituents and the nation generally. You have reciprocated with the same high level of co-operation, again with a few exceptions. An
Senate and House of Commons Act Independent does, though, have a few freedoms that a party member does not enjoy. There is no question about that. Therefore an Independent does have more time to spend on business for individual constituents. This is not just my humble opinion. Let me quote from a book written by an Independent in the British House of Commons in the year 1963. That member speaks of the benefits of being an Independent when he says:
A party career, an entirely legitimate and praiseworthy aspiration, involves assiduous and prior attention to party matters. I do not say that it is impossible for an M.P. to have a party career and at the same time be an excellent constituency member. It can be done with the aid of extreme self-sacrifice; and it is done occasionally. But it is not easy. If a constituency develops special problems, it is even less easy.
Not only does a party member have a conflict between the claims on his time, but also, when special circumstances arise, he has often an inescapable conflict of loyalties also.
I was elected by the people, as was every other member in this House, and all that I ask in this bill is that I, and future Independent members, have the same freedoms and the same rights that party members enjoy. We sit in this House and pass laws on human rights and the like. This is all well and good. But do you not think that we should begin by cleaning up the act in our own backyard right in the House of Commons, by allowing all members of this House to have the same privileges? I have often been accused, one way or another, by members of this House of being a bigot. May I take this opportunity to say that by not supporting this bill and referring it to committee for the preservation of an individual's rights and the country's democracy, there is certainly more than one bigot in this House.
I could understand the refuting of this bill if it were only for my benefit, but I believe that the growing sense of division within the parties is proof of the fact that there will be many more members running as Independents in the next election. There are many in this House who, in all probability and possibility, could be in that position. They should be cautioned, though. By voting for this bill they may not be protecting their own future rights. They should consider that fact.
Years of service to a political party really mean nothing. My rewards for unremitting and conscientious service to the party system are well known. They can be briefly summarized as a good hard kick in the pants. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask each and every member of this House to consider the implementation of this bill very carefully, and for once not to be guided in their decisions by their party whips but by their own consciences and the thought of their own futures.
There is an obvious injustice inherent in the present practice of the selection of committee members which must be regulated before history shows too many years of such malpractices in an era of a supposed state of absolute democracy in our country. It is time this system of selection was regulated fairly.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few brief comments in response to the remarks

March 18, 1977
Senate and House of Commons Act
of the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) and the bill before us today.
Personally I have not had an opportunity to become that well acquainted with my hon. friend from Moncton. I want to present some different points of view. I appreciate the necessity of the viewpoint that he has put before us here today. I appreciate the point of view that he was making with respect to the rights and privileges of Independent members and a number of the precedents he cited, here and elsewhere. I want to oppose his view and the argument that he made here this afternoon because he made one remark, as I listened, to which I take exception, or that concerns me. I think he said words to the effect that there may well be, in a future parliament or parliaments, a great many more Independent members, and that we should ensure in some manner that the rights of Independent members are broadened. That may well be a good opinion, and he may well be correct in that, but I think that would be a direction that we do not want to see being taken in this parliament and in this country. The majority of us certainly do not sit here as independently elected members. We are elected by and in association with one of the four major parties.
Look at elections in India, the great variety of parties there, and at whether the opposition parties can indeed unite or remain united. Look at the situation in Israel and the fact that there has not been any basic change in government there. There are about 11 or 12 different parties that will be running in the upcoming election in Israel. They are having difficulty coming up with an opposition coalition that will stand up to the government coalition in that country.
We can also look to France, Italy, and a variety of countries. Denmark is another case of which hon. members will be aware. There was an election there not too long ago and some change in representation as a result of that. However, great coalitions of parties are not going to stand up that well. This brings us to the question of the party system and the difficulties for that system in a country like Canada, where we are looking at Quebec with its particular aspirations, and at making Confederation more meaningful.
Certainly in my part of the country we are looking for a more meaningful relationship in terms of confederation. A great deal of talk is heard about western alienation. I think that term is a little too strong. I think disenchantment might be a better and a more descriptive word to apply to the feelings of western Canada with respect to Ottawa and the federal government. The kind of feeling that we have in Quebec and have been dealing with, as a nation, for some time, is certainly not now confined to Quebec.
We, as parliamentarians and as members of the different parties in the country, should be looking to our own party structures, the party structure itself, and seeing if further changes could not and should not be made in the party system to allow for the kind of flexibility that will perhaps give us the same situation as in the United States where the two majors parties cover a broad range of ideology within each of them. We have that to a lesser extent here in Canada. Perhaps we

should have that to a greater extent than we do. I would say to my hon. friend from Moncton that that is an angle and an aspect that perhaps he has not thought about when he seeks to ensure or bring about expanded rights for Independent members.
I have no quarrel with my hon. friend for seeking to be a member of one or two standing committees. He did say, I believe, that standing committees do not really relate to parties. That is not the case, it is not the fact because indeed they do. The representation on various committees is worked out by the party whips and it follows along party lines. While it is true that much of the debate that goes on in a number of committees does not follow party lines, the committees follow the same rules as the House, so in essence I disagree with the hon. member on that statement.
As an independent member he is free to attend committee meetings, to make his contributions, and to participate in the discussions in any of the standing committees. Having said that, I realize that that does not give the hon. member, or any other independent member, the right to vote in the committees, but it certainly does not prevent him from particpating in the committees and asking any questions he wishes to put in his field of interest.
I oppose the bill before us because I believe we should be looking for ways of broadening the party system in the country rather than trying to accommodate a wide variety of independent members and turning this Chamber into a kind of city council, which this parliament is not designed to be.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) and I also listened very carefully to the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) who represents that area where I was born. I support some of the arguments that he has advanced.
I want to say to the hon. member for Moncton, with whom I have always had good relations since he came to the House as an independent member, that I am sympathetic to the suggestions he advances in the bill, but if we were to carry the bill through to its ultimate conclusion on a mathematical formula, and we all came here as independent members, then all 262 of us would have the right each to sit on two committees. I ask where that would lead us? I doubt whether the hon. member for Moncton has really considered that. He looks on himself as the sole independent member in the House or as the only member who might be here as an Independent in the future, but I should like to remind him that although our parliamentary system might appear to be a poor system-


Cyril Lloyd Francis: May I put a question to the hon. member?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will answer the hon. member's question when I have concluded my remarks. I left my glasses in my office and I cannot read my scratchy notes. In fact even if I
March 18, 1977

had my glasses I could not read my handwriting. If the hon. member does not mind, 1 will answer his question later.
As I was saying before I was interrupted, our parliamentary system, as I see it, is based on a party system. I do not think this place could function otherwise. This may not be a good system but, as Winston Churchill said, although it may appear to be the worst of systems, there is no better system because from this Chamber flows all freedom. I suggest that if we carried the hon. member's suggestion to its ultimate conclusion, we would find ourselves in the same position as some of our friends in Europe. For example, in France in the days before de Gaulle there were so many parties that one government after another was defeated in quick succession, which eventually brought about the de Gaulle government. That is why it would be wrong for any member of parliament, who represents his constituency and his province as well as his country, to suggest that we should put a limit on the number of parties, but on the other hand if we had ten or 15 parties represented in this House, it would function even more slowly than it does now.
Now I would like to say a few words about the party structure. It has always amazed me-and 1 say this in a kindly way-that if a member of the House, or several of them, differ from their party, the media report this as if it were a terrible sin. I say that if we all talked alike, there would be no thinking. In any party structure there must be some differences. The reason there are differences within a party is that we are not all representatives of the same region. Problems in the Maritimes differ from those in Quebec, in the prairies, or on the Pacific coast. The Conservative party is a national party, so are the Liberals, so is the NDP to a lesser extent, and so has the Social Credit party been at times, and members of those parties represent various regions.
I have always been interested in one fact since first coming to the House, and that is that a Liberal member from the prairie provinces often has more in common, in the problems he is trying to solve, with a member from the prairie area in another party than I would have, for instance, with a colleague in my own party from another part of the country. I say it is only natural to be part of the environment from which one comes, and to speak for one's region. Our environment has shaped and trimmed our thinking. Just because one happens to have a different point of view from a colleague in one's party does not mean that there is no unity in the party on a broad scale, whether it is this party, the Liberal party or the NDP.
Too much is made in the press at times of people differing on some issues with their fellow party members. The media report this immediately as a split in the party. If you are all a bunch of trained seals, you are not thinking at all. I am happy when I see someone on the other side vote against his party, and I have never objected to members doing that in my own party. That is their privilege and their right. That is what Eisenhower said about the Republican party. He was talking about a difference of opinion he was having with his party on broad principles.
Senate and House of Commons Act
I would say that on broad principles members of the Liberal party are in agreement, and the same would be true of our party, of the NDP and of the Social Credit party, but we may disagree sometimes among ourselves on less important issues. Sometimes a person feels deeply and sincerely about a subject, and if he disagrees with the position of his party on this subject he might abstain in a vote rather than become an embarrassment to his party and cause the media to report about a division in that party. If that gets across the country they say to you, "You are fighting among yourselves." I have never held it against anyone who has differed in his opinions from me. In my profession, if that were true we would always be in a fight.
Although I have some sympathy with the viewpoint of the hon. member for Moncton, I cannot accept his position because I think it would encourage, as the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley pointed out, more people to come to the House as Independents. It might be good for their publicity, but I even question if it would be good for their constituency. I myself have gone through eight elections and I know that some people vote for the candidate and other people vote for the party.
My friend, the hon. member for Moncton, said that being a member of parliament has little or nothing to do with political parties. I suggest he is interpreting this institution as if it were a city council or a town council, as the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley said. If that were the method we followed, this place could not function.
This is my suggestion to the hon. member for Moncton. If he feels he is being discriminated against, he should take this matter up with the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, or when an election comes up this spring, if that is when it is to come. It is within the prerogative of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to dissolve this House and to go to the country. He might wait until we increase the membership in this place to 283 when the new boundaries are in effect. That is a decision which the Prime Minister alone must make, or with the help of his advisers, whether they be cabinet advisers, parliamentary advisers or other advisers. However, if the hon. member for Moncton has a year or 18 months left, he should probably take his problem to the committee.
The hon. member is a reasonable man. He realizes that if every member of this House had the right to be on two committees we would be in difficulty. The hon. member never sat in this House as part of a government party like I did when my party had 208 members. With 208 members the whip always has a headache because everybody wants to be on certain committees. For example, our party had many members from western Canadian farm constituencies when we [DOT]formed the government, and there was room for only 50 or 60 on the Agriculture Committee. Many were denied the right to sit on that committee even though they belonged to a major national party with a large following. With the greatest of

March 18, 1977
Senate and House of Commons Act respect to the hon. member I say that I do not think his bill would work. I do not think it would be practical.
I see my good friend, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), wants to get to his feet. He is one of those semi-independents, and I am not being critical of him. He is sort of an independent yet not quite independent. I have seen people like that in this House. They are in and out of their parties like yo-yo's. I do not think hon. members should operate that way; however, I think they should be allowed to differ with their parties.
I have sympathy for any hon. member who is a member of the government party but not a member of the cabinet. These hon. members may not agree with a bill the government brings in, just as I disagreed with some bills which were brought in when my party formed the government. These matters have to be fought out in caucus. It is not easy if you are aggressive, ambitious, intelligent and independent, but if an hon. member possesses those qualities the best place to argue these matters out is in caucus. The press does not know about disagreements like that, and therefore our constituents do not know. Our constituents may write asking where we were, even though we might have put on quite a fight against our leaders or against certain cabinet ministers. I have gone through all that. I know what it is like and I see hon. members opposite nodding their heads.
Hon. members on the government side who are not cabinet ministers are referred to as backbenchers. I have never really felt that that term had any merit. I think we are all basically equal. Some people get the laying on of hands. The laying on of hands may create a bishop, but it does not always make one. However, this is the system under which we work.
I want to leave with the House one final thought. I am proud to be a Conservative. I do not know how other parties operate, but I would not want this party not to have a broad philosophical approach. People say that our party has in it people to the left and people to the right. I do not know what a rightwinger or a leftwinger is. If it means that I am a little more liberal with a small "1" on certain issues than some of my friends, I may be in the middle of the road. If I am a little more conservative with a small "c" on some issues, I may be just right of the middle of the road. If that is what it means, I suppose we do have people in our party who are to the right or to the left, but I am happy that this party does have people in it who have different philosophies. That means we can take a broad approach to the problems of this country because we have different personalities, philosophies, and backgrounds. That is what puts a party together. Without that, parties will not last very long as parties, and they will not do very much for their country.
I see my good friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), here beside me this afternoon. On many occasions when the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) was the leader of his party and premier of Saskatchewan, my father supported his party.


An hon. Member:: Oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody said "Oh". I will tell the House why my father did that. There were many things my father stood for which the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands also stood for. However, above all we had the Gardiner machine, and people became tired of it and wanted to throw it out. Many Conservatives voted for the hon. member. His party tried to nationalize a few things, and I certainly disagreed with that, but as an administrator, on the whole the hon. member was pretty good. He was a very fine premier because he was a man of integrity. I wish he was in the House this afternoon. People could disagree with him, but he never held that against them. The art of leadership and statesmanship is having that ability, and it is necessary whether we are premiers, leaders, cabinet ministers, or members of parliament.
The hon. member for Moncton is a distinguished member, and he has made a contribution to the House. No one can help but admire him for taking the stand he took. Some of us may not agree with him, but he took a stand, and that is his right. Mr. Woodsworth once said he had two sons. I hope I am telling this story correctly. One son was a conscientious objector during the war, and the other one was overseas in the RAF. Mr. Woodsworth said that they were both brave men, but sometimes it takes greater integrity and bravery to stand up against society or your own party for what you think is right. In this way I congratulate the hon. member for Moncton for taking the position he took. I did not agree with his position, but that does not mean I do not respect him. He stood up against great odds, against many people, and against his own party. That is why I would like to see him accommodated in some way, and I think this could be worked out in the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
I am glad the hon. member brought this matter before the House. Private members' bills allow hon. members to present grievances and have them aired in the House of Commons. I congratulate the hon. member for this.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I recognize the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) I must allow the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) to speak because he seconded the motion.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to explain why I seconded the motion. I am told that I am probably also an Independent but I sincerely supported this bill because I thought it was against the rules of the House. I know that if we concern ourselves strictly with the process involved, the bill now before the House is completely useless. But if we go further and if we consider the precedents of previous years, our judgment can be different because we have seen before Independent members sitting on committees.
I do not know if, in those cases, there was an agreement with any party, but at any rate Independent members were allowed to sit on committees.
This year we have only one Independent member and several of his predecessors had this privilege, since I consider it a privilege for an Independent member to sit on a committee.

English-speaking members are very attached to this tradition, and I believe that it is truly a tradition to let independent members take part in the discussions of the standing committees of the House.
Earlier I listened to the hon. member who has just sat down-I do not remember the area which he comes from, but it is the Progressive Conservative member who has just sat down-


An hon. Member:: For Calgary North.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: -for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) congratulate the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) and tell of all the good things that he was doing in the House and say that he was doing a good job. But I think that if he had congratulated him further, to conclude as he has done by saying that he likes his work in the House, it would have seemed that he did not want to work with him on standing committees. This is a very polite way of telling him: We like you well enough on the floor of the House, but we cannot stand you on committees. Like I said earlier, this is simply tolerated, but it has been tolerated in past years.
The Liberal spokesman said that it was necessary to have been elected within a party to be entitled to sit on standing committees. This is certainly stated in the Standing Orders, but I wonder if we could not at least accept to make an exception in the case of joint committees of the House and the Senate because indeed we have non-elected members on those joint committees. We have senators who are non-elected members of a party and who sit on committees. 1 think we could also accept an independent member on those committees because that would do away with the current requirement that he be an elected party member. To my knowledge, no senator is elected. They are all appointed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and they sit on the committees.
I found today that the introduction of such a bill was logical. Therefore 1 thought it is impossible after what has happened in the past years for the House to reject the request of the member for Moncton (Mr. Jones). At least, if his request is rejected, he should be allowed to sit on joint committees. There is no reason why he should not be accepted because he is more than a senator since he was elected by the people while senators are not; they are appointed for political reasons, period.
I feel the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) is entitled to have his say not only in the House but also in committees because he is responsible. He was elected as all of us were in this House. He must face up to his responsibilities but if he is not given the opportunity of doing so, what will he do in his riding? He will be unable to assume his full role as a member.
It may be that the old parties are afraid of there being too many Independents in the House. I wonder why? I know that basically one wants to keep the majority. Each party, the Liberals, the Progressive Conservatives, are entitled to so many members on each committee in order to ensure the party in power a majority. If there were two, three or four Independents, they could control nothing because they do not belong to
Senate and House of Commons Act a party. But if one wants to control, let one say so; and let no one come and tell us that this is a democratic government: the government is dictated to at the party level. What is decided by the party must be voted here in the House, at any price. Let us be frank and say that what they want is simply to maintain dictatorship over all other parties. It is for that reason alone that they deny today to the hon. member for Moncton the right to sit on one or two standing committees of the House. That is the only reason. That is why I regret today that all those who gave their opinion until now have failed to mention this. I would welcome others to stand up and talk on behalf of the hon. member for Moncton, so that this bill might be passed by the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) has had the chance to bring his bill before the House today and to have the situation of an independent member discussed. I sympathize with him and I know the problem he faces, but I must say at the outset that if his bill were to come to a vote I could not support it.
Let me put it this way. I still believe that the party system is good for an institution such as parliament. I feel that if we had 264 Independents and tried to run the business of the country as an amorphous gang, we would not get along very well. We have to associate ourselves with parties so that like-minded people can work together. After all, that is the party system. However, without launching into a lecture let me say this: if a constituency decides that it wants not a member of a party but an independent member to represent it in the House of Commons, that independent member should have rights equal to those of all other members. Some of those rights flow naturally from membership in the House. The member gets a desk and seat in the House of Commons, office accommodation, pay, travel allowance, and all the rest of it. In that sense he is an equal, even though he does not belong to any of the other groups in the House of Commons.
The point the hon. member raised, to the effect that he should have a place on committees, deserves consideration, and I hope that will come about as a result of his bill being discussed this afternoon. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has already demonstrated the arithmetic, showing why we would be in difficulty if we began appointing, one member to two committee positions. By doing that we should run out of committee positions before we could get around to all members, so to speak. There are just not enough committee positions to give all members two committee memberships.
Something else bothers me, Mr. Speaker. I do not think we should write the rules under which we operate into a statute. A few of our rules are governed by statute. There is the quorum in the British North America Act, and the rights and prerogatives of the Speaker, which are also in that act. But it is generally accepted that we make our own rules, as a House of

March 18, 1977
Senate and House of Commons Act
Commons. This extends also to committees. No rule says how many members each party shall have on a committee. There is no rule which divides such memberships. Standing Order 65 simply states the maximum number of members there shall be on each committee. We arrive at the number from each party by the process of bargaining; we do this at the start of every parliament.
As my hon. friend said, the tendency of the government when it is in a majority is to insist on a majority in committees, no matter what that may do the proportions from each party. I know that a party of our size sometimes gets a little more than its percentage of members on some committees, and sometimes a little less; but these matters are worked out by bargaining, and I think it should stay that way. Unfortunately because of the position of the hon. member for Moncton, that hon. member has not been at the bargaining table and has not had any chance to make representation. I hope that as a result of these discussions something along this line can be done.
I can say that in some parliaments when we have had more member spots, more memberships on committees than we now have-now we have only one on each committee and that is all-we have given up membership spots to a Social Creditor or an Independent. I make that point because, when we have only one spot on a committee, we can hardly give it up. If the hon. member asks for some spots to be given up, obviously that can best be done by the Liberals or Conservatives who have more positions.
I think what I have suggested should be done. There should be bargaining across the board, bargaining which should include the hon. member, so that he can get his rights.
Let me summarize. I do not think it is proper to write detailed rules into a statute. I would not like to see the Senate and House of Commons Act amended in the way my hon. friend proposes. I think that our rules should continue to stay in our hands and that there should be flexibility in the matter of committee memberships. However, I think the hon. member for Moncton does have a right to have his case considered.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased that this issue has been raised in the House by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones). The bill that he presents before us is not one that I can support in this form. However, I certainly hope something will come out of this debate and these discussions that will cure what is obviously an injustice.
The whole question of representation of independent members in this House is one that is very proper for this House to review.
The hon. member for Moncton has told me privately once or twice the problems that he feels he faces, first with regard to the financing of election campaigns where the law very clearly discriminates against him. There is no means by which he can currently fund for the next campaign using the tax deductabil-ity provisions of the statute. The only way he can do this is at the time the election writ is issued.

The other aspect about which he has complained, and I think with some justification, regarding discrimination, is membership on committees of this House. Other members who have preceded me in this debate have pointed out that there is no impediment whatsoever to any member of parliament attending any committee and making his or her views known. The issue of who has the right to vote in a committee is what is involved in the debate which we face.
I would first like to deal with what I consider to be a bit of a red herring in this debate, the question of the numbers. There are 264 members of this House. There are 32 members in the present cabinet, 26 parliamentary secretaries, and three or four persons associated with the office of Your Honour. The numbers of those who would be theoretically available would be in the order of 200. Multiplying 200 by two would make 400 committee posts. Members opposite, including the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), said there simply are not that many committee positions. I wonder if they have examined the committees.
There are 26 committees listed in Wednesday's Hansard of this week. An average of 15 members per committee would require 390 posts, which is just about right. There is nothing wrong with the arithmetic. Those who say there is a mechanical problem have not done their arithmetic. The problem is much more than that. It is well known that not all members of this House are interested in participating in committees. I for one welcome those who do. I find committee work among the more satisfying aspects of the parliamentary experience.
It is quite possible to deal with this issue in the committee structure. I think two committees per member is a good working rule. At times I have been a member of as many as four committees. You do not do much else other than attend the four committees, try to follow the procedure and work of those committees, and work conscientiously on them.
Defence and External Affairs are popular committees. There is a certain glamour attached to them. However, with a committee such as Public Accounts the whips have to work hard to make sure there is a quorum. That committee makes a careful, continuous examination of the report of the Auditor General. The members who participate in such a committee have to do quite a bit of preparation in order to be effective. Continuity is called for there.
Let's face it, the member of parliament who is trying to do a conscientious job in the Public Accounts Committee is not often interviewed on television. If there is a hint of a scandal or irregularity, there are certain members of the committee who show up. They have their own way of making their presence felt, doing those things that often help the member of parliament to be re-elected.
My concern about this bill is the same concern that was expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I am concerned about a statute. The bill reads:
Section 4 of the Senate and House of Commons Act is amended by adding the following thereto:
March 18, 1977

(2) Members of the House of Commons who are not members of a recognized party shall be entitled to be a member of two Standing Committees of the House.
The first quarrel I have is why not members of a recognized party? It seems that the objective of a parliament itself should be official neutrality as to whether one is a member of a party or not. We are elected by those who mark their X's on election day to do a job on behalf of the people who elect us and the nation. Why not members of a recognized party? Why not say that any member of the House of Commons should have the right to be a member of two committees? If you happen to be in the disfavour of your whip, why should that be an impediment to membership on a committee? The whip of my party is here. He is giving me a little sly look at the moment. We get along perfectly. He will have an opportunity on April 13 to say something about me in another situation.
The principle of treatment of all members on the basis of equality in terms of participation in committees should be a basic principle of this House. It should be the way in which amendments to rules or statutes should be approached. Those who have said the way to do this is not by statute are correct. The way to do this is in the standing orders of the House of Commons, if necessary. It is to be done by a referral to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. An educational process should take place with the members of this place as well as those outside, including the press, the famous fourth estate that does so much to judge all of us. There are not many of them up there at the moment, but now and again we see them at this hour of the afternoon. They have a job to point out the injustices that exist.
The hon. member for Moncton has a valid point that the procedures of the House do not permit him to participate in the committee system on the basis that he would chose to participate. The whole question of the way in which parliamentary government is conducted is really what is at stake here. Why does the hon. member for Calgary North talk about people on this side who show some independence? He called them yo-yo's. He said they are in and out. On another occasion I heard him call them trained seals because they always vote with the party. Could he make up his mind? If he is determined to call people on the other side of the House names, whether they vote for or against the party, that raises a certain credibility gap with respect to the hon. member.
I believe there is a place in parliamentary institutions for those who have independent use of conscience and are prepared to take the consequences in terms of their own careers or as to what their expectations of achievement in this place may be. Surely there will always be some independent people, minds, and spirits, those of conviction, who will win their place by winning at the polls, earning their seats and their place, who will come into this House and find that it is a difficult road that they must follow.
I have watched the hon. member for Moncton in this House. I know what it was like for me to learn the rules when I came here. I had the assistance of a party organization, the whip's office, the assistance of a course which was organized for new
Senate and House of Commons Act
members of parliament and presented by the Clerk of this place. He told us how to go about doing the things we want to do, how to use the facilities that are here. He told us about the customs and the practice-and this is a much more complicated and sophisticated area than meets the eye. I may say it is not always easy to catch your eye on occasions, Mr. Speaker, even when we feel we have something bursting within us to be said, something of the utmost importance to the nation.
I hope there will always be independent members and that the rules will be amended so that independent members, along with all members on both sides of the House, receive equality of opportunity and treatment.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak on this bill put forward by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones). I know the hon. member is most anxious to serve his constituents in committee, and I have always had the highest regard for the work he does within his constituency because I know those people quite well.
I know there has been some concern about my surprise at the turn of events today. I imagine I must have been confused by what appeared in Hansard at page 4069. The acting House leader of the Conservative Party asked the government House leader about what the business would be for today. The answer was that we would go on to deal with the report stage and third reading of the bill mentioned. Since no objection was indicated at that time I guess I was fooled into thinking that was what would happen.
However, there was agreement to move on to private members' business. We have done so, and we are considering the bill which the hon. member brought forward. I also realize, on reading that page in Hansard, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had inquired about other legislation and, of course, there were indications that people would be out of town and that they would possibly want an opportunity to speak on various bills, so we would not be able to go on with business of that nature today.
The hon. member for Moncton should realize that as far as the whip is concerned it is not a matter of telling people how to think, but there is a responsibility to maintain a quorum. Sometimes people go into a committee and make their speeches and then leave. Attendance drops, and once a committee is without a quorum it is not possible to pass the legislation on which the speeches have been made. Independent members serving on committees might not feel the responsibility felt by the opposition or the government toward a particular piece of legislation. That is one of the reasons for which I would be concerned about independent members sitting on committees. But I do want to say that the hon. member for Moncton is certainly welcome to attend any of our committee meetings. Our chairmen will always recognize him for his comments; it is just that he does not have that official voting right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.
4138

March 18, 1977
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Ellis:: Might I direct a question to the hon. member, the senior member over there, I presume, to find out what the business will be for Monday?


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I think the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) asked that question yesterday, as well as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The answer is recorded at page 4069 of Hansard.


An hon. Member:: But have you changed your mind?


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: We never change our minds, but you have done so today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members business having expired, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 3.15 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Monday, March 21, 1977