1966-04-25

Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of standing order 15A, I propose that the question of allocation of time for the consideration of objections made pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act be referred to the business committee. Before you read my proposal, Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time this rule has been invoked in the house, I would like the indulgence of the house to make a brief explanation of the reason it is put forward at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: The reason for putting it forward is that the house leaders have been considering the method of having the debate on the redistribution objections conducted in a way that would be satisfactory to all hon. members, in the sense that it would give them a fair and equitable proportion of the time for discussing the various matters as they relate to their particular parts of the country.
There are some 33 notices of objections before the Chair, and they are distributed among nine provinces.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Could you give the numbers for each province?


George James McIlraith: Yes. For Alberta there is one, but it relates to all the districts. For British Columbia there is one relating to all the districts and another relating to an individual constituency. For Manitoba there is one relating to all the districts. For New Brunswick there is one relating to all the districts. For Nova Scotia there are three relating to individual constituencies. For Ontario there is one relating to all the districts and four relating to individual constituencies. For Prince Edward Island there is one
relating to all the districts. For Quebec there are two relating to all the districts and 18 relating to individual constituencies. For Saskatchewan there is one relating to all the districts. That makes a total of 33, of which 24 relate to individual constituencies. Therefore it would seem that there should be some method of apportioning time to give some reasonably fair distribution of the time to discuss the various types of objections. For instance, some of the objections relating to individual constituencies concern only the use of names and things like that.
While there is every prospect that we may have a satisfactory agreement, I thought it well to give this notice under the standing order. I hope that when we start the debate on Wednesday we will not have to use the procedure under standing order 15A at all. However, if we do it will be only to have the total amount of time fixed by statute evenly distributed among the various provinces.


Mr. Kindi:: Mr. Speaker, is there any possibility of having a discussion on this? I ask because I am a member from Alberta; my name is on a list along with 17 other members from Alberta, and I intend to talk on redistribution.


George James McIlraith: The whole purpose of the rule is that the discussion on the allocation of time, instead of taking place in the house, would take place among the party house leaders.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the house leader for a moment. First of all I am rather surprised that he would introduce this motion at this stage without first setting up the business committee. Actually, as the house leader himself has said, the new rules in this respect have not been applied previously, but as I understood them we would set up a business committee which would sit down and work out these proposals and then submit a notice saying, "We are going to allocate such an amount of time." This proposal could have the appearance of a guillotine, to say we would have so much time to discuss a very important question, namely redistribution. The right to discuss this question is in accordance with the act which we passed in parliament.

April 25. 1966
Redistribution
I know the house leader will agree with me that all the problems are not being raised by one party. They are being raised by members in all parties. He has only to talk to some of the members of his own party to understand the difficulties involved, because everybody in every province of Canada is concerned about the problem.
I think this is very important to our discussion. I am answering the house leader's remarks quickly now, but this could develop into somewhat of a contentious problem. If this matter could be worked out amicably then the problem probably could be solved much more easily. However, by doing it in this way before the business committee is set up and before there is a meeting of the house leaders, the government is saying in effect "We are going to serve notice that if the guillotine is needed to get on with this, we will use it".
On this side of the house we have taken a stand in respect of the redistribution act. We pointed out the difficulties which the members of the house leader's own party and the government now realize exist in that act. There are certain problems which will arise in this debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Real Caouelie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, following the remarks made this afternoon by the government house leader (Mr. Mcllraith) to the effect that 33 petitions have been submitted to the house with regard to the readjustment of electoral boundaries as suggested by the various federal-provincial commissions, I wish to point out to the minister that 158 federal members of all political parties in the house have objected to the electoral boundaries proposed by those various federal-provincial commissions.
Mr. Speaker, there appears in my name on the order paper, under the heading of public bills, Bill No. C-143 entitled an act to repeal the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act which deals with the matter now under discussion.
Now, would the government house leader agree that Wednesday, for instance, we start by considering this bill, after obtaining the unanimous consent of the house, so as to determine what the federal members, Liberal, Conservative or others, want to decide or discuss in this connection?
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the government house leader said there are 33 petitions, which means that 158 federal members are not at all satisfied about the new federal boundaries suggested by the federal-provincial commissions.
Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister of Public Works to be clear and precise on that subject. We are not going to accept a motion limiting the debate and imposing closure on any member of the house. We want him to be precise and to give the house the opportunity to discuss freely the new electoral boundaries.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must tell him as well as the other members of the house that it is out of order to start a debate at this time. There is no motion before the house. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) made this proposal in order to have the hon. members' arguments studied by the special committee. That is the minister's suggestion. We would therefore be making a mistake if we kept up a debate on the subject of redistribution when all we have is a simple suggestion made under standing order 15-A. I would ask hon. members who want to make representations along the lines of those just made by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) and which undoubtedly deserve all possible consideration, to submit them to that committee for study, when it has been set up.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
In the same circumstances, should you not have called the Minister of Public Works to order? I do not think he had the authorization to deal with that matter the way he did a little earlier.


Mr. Speaker:: I am under the impression that the minister wanted to explain why he wanted to make that proposal to the house. He did not have to make it. He did it as a matter of courtesy to the house.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: If the
government house leader had made this proposition for consideration by the house, perhaps he did not have the right to do so. I believe, as you said, that he did so by courtesy. Now, if he was allowed to make this proposition, I think we have the right to say why we do not accept it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Suggestions which hon. members would like to make should be conveyed through their spokesman during the meeting of the committee in question.

April 25, 1966

Redistribution
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.) lEnglish1


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, and in regard to the last remarks made by Your Honour, may I respectfully submit that there is no business committee and that no request has been made of any party leader to name members to a business committee. Although standing order 15-A(3) says there shall be a report back from the business committee, there can be no compliance with rule 15-A(3), which sets a time limit, since it is non-operative in that there cannot be a reference dated from today to a non-existing committee. Therefore the first step must be to establish the business committee, and I think Your Honour will agree there is no such committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Without entering into a discussion with the hon. member I may say that notification has been received from each of the parties as to their nominees to the committee. It is my understanding in view of that fact that the committee does exist, because that is the only requirement we have at the moment under the rules. As the Minister of Public Works has pointed out, this is a new rule and naturally there will be some difficulty in putting it into proper working order. The suggestions made by hon. members will be taken into consideration by the Chair and, I am sure, by the government house leader.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the arguments proposed by the government house leader and others, and in order that we may proceed with this debate on a more amicable basis as a result of a meeting of house leaders and others regarding the appropriate allocation of time, I wonder whether the house leader would consider withdrawing this notice of motion.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some misunderstanding about what has been done.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister explain what has been done?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to do so. The time for this debate is fixed by statute, and there is no suggestion that we are limiting the time allotted in that regard. However, there are 33 motions to be disposed of within the statutory time limit. The only way of obtaining the assurance that there would be a fair and
equitable distribution of the time to be devoted to the consideration of each of these motions was by unanimous agreement of the house leaders, which I am very hopeful we will obtain.
I may say there is every indication, if we avail ourselves of this rule which provides that in the event of unanimous agreement of the business committee an agreement can be made an order of the house, that this will be done. It was for this reason, and this reason alone, that I gave the notice.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question. I do not think the minister is suggesting that by statute there is a time limit for the debate. There is a limit as to the time in which to debate the subject after the commissioners have filed reports with the Speaker. I do not think the minister is suggesting for a moment that the statute itself limits the time for consideration of the matter. It was my impression when he moved the motion that he was setting the time limit.


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid I cannot agree with either part of my hon. friend's remarks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, do you agree with the first part?


George James McIlraith: No.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then I will put the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will hon. members not agree with the Chair that we are not making any progress now? As I understand it there have been discussions until now among the party representatives, and I gather-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: -that these discussions will continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I am just saying what my understanding is. I may be wrong, but I gathered that representatives of the different parties in the house had been discussing the modality of discussion in connection with the debate under the redistribution act. If not, I assume that this type of discussion will take place and if no progress is made, if there can be no agreement among the parties, at that point a time might be set for opposition objection to be discussed in the house. But I suggest to hon. members that this is certainly

April 25, 1966
Redistribution
not the time, on orders of the day, to try to regulate the debate which we will have under the redistribution act later this week.


John George Diefenbaker: With great deference, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a very significant principle at stake here. The minister has stated that by statute we are limited in the time the house can take for the discussion of this matter. My understanding-and I have not looked up the law; I did not expect this matter to be raised today-is that the only fixation is that in so many days after the reports are made the discussion shall have taken place and be completed.
What the minister is saying, in effect, is that having delayed so long in introducing this matter he now has but a few days, and because of the failure of the government to introduce it earlier we are to be subjected to a guillotine to be fixed by the government. That is something we will not accept, Mr. Speaker, with great deference.
It is a serious step that is being taken. The government is asking parliament not to debate this matter at greater length because it failed to bring the matter before parliament in the intervening weeks since the house began the session. Surely we cannot be limited by self serving action on the part of the government to save itself from the consequences of its failure to bring this matter before parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Whether or not the point raised by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is well taken, I suggest again that this is not the time to reach a decision on the matter. In due course, perhaps when the motion is made later on or after we have discussed the different objections in the house, there may be further consideration by hon. members on whether there should be a time limit. But I suggest we cannot decide the question at this time.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the situation is that by statute the debate on the redistribution question has to be completed by a week from next Wednesday.


George James McIlraith: That is correct.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The whole purpose of the motion by the house leader for the government is that the time between now, or whenever the debate starts, and a week from

Wednesday should be allocated by the business committee of the house in such a way that every member who has an objection will have an opportunity to state that objection, rather than having a few of the objections dealt with and the rest left untouched.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I can see no harm in referring this matter to the business committee. My understanding of the new rules is that the business committee still has to report back and ask for an order of the house with reference to any allocation of time. We are not allocating time by this motion. All we are doing is to ask the business committee to discuss the matter and, if they agree, to make a report back and ask for an order of the house allocating time during the period when the debate starts and when it must end a week from next Wednesday. If there is some dispute as to the legislation, to the effect that the debate does not have to end a week from next Wednesday, then we can discuss that matter when the order of the house comes up for discussion, and the house leaders can also discuss it.
It seems to me that the quickest way to dispose of this right now is to agree that the house ask the business committee to look into that matter and see whether there is any possibility of allocating time in such a fair and equitable manner that all members who have complaints may have an opportunity of registering their opposition.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, you were perfectly right a moment ago when you said that the business committee had not yet been established.
In the circumstances I do not think that the Minister of Public Works should have raised the question before the house at this time, That there should be a meeting of the house leaders to find out how matters stand, it would seem to me that it would be normal to start by that, and then establish the business committee, and report to the house what the house leaders or the business committee have decided.
But, as you said a while ago, no business committee has yet been constituted.
I suggest, pursuant to standing orders, that on this question you ask the Minister of Public Works not to rise again, but wait for the meeting of the house leaders of the various parties and establish the business committee, so that we know exactly where we are going, because, at this time, we do not
April 25, 1966

know where we are going and where, in particular, the Minister of Public Works wants to lead us.



BROADCASTING, FILMS AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Gerard Pelletier (Hochelaga) moved: that the second report of the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, presented to the house on the 22nd instant, be now concurred in.
He said:

Mr. Speaker, notice of this motion was given Friday.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I oppose this motion, as I think many members of the house do, in view of the manner in which it is presented. I believe the house has made some decisions regarding the effective operation of committees. It seems to me that if two or three committees ask permission to sit indefinitely while the house is sitting, then a large number of members are precluded from attending this house, and this is not advantageous.
I would have no objection-I think many hon. members of the house feel this way-if on occasion, when witnesses are being heard by a committee, the house were asked to give the committee permission to sit while the house is sitting, for that specific purpose. I would not oppose the motion if the wording were to indicate a limit on the length of time for which the request is made. I presume that if the mover and seconder limited their request to the rest of this week this would probably suffice, and would eliminate the need for a further outline of why opposition is taken to the motion.


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to move an amendment to the report, having had informal consultations, to the effect that the committee have leave to sit only during this week, but I am informed that such an amendment would be out of order. I would hope that the house would pass this motion today if it were to give unanimous consent that the motion be amended to this effect. It would be improper for me to make such an amendment, but I would ask the house to
Criminal Code
concur in the chairman's report, subject to the committee being authorized to meet while the house is sitting from Monday, April 25 to Thursday, April 28 inclusive.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the proposition advanced by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion, following amendment of the report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Introduction of bills. Mr. Choquette-Bill intituled an act to amend the Criminal Code (repeal of power to commute a sentence of death).
Mr. Speaker:: On Thursday, April 21 last the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) rose on a point of order in respect of a bill appearing on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Lot-fa iniere (Mr. Choquette) intituled "an act to amend the Criminal Code (repeal of power to commute a sentence of death)". The Leader of the Opposition then stated that there can be no interference with the Queen's right to grant mercy and that such bill ought not to be on the order paper, as being unconstitutional and improper.
As hon. members know, the Speaker does not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a question of law. However, it is his duty to ascertain that there is no departure from our standing orders or the ordinary conduct of our proceedings or legislative business.
In the same manner as, for instance, it is the duty of the Speaker to determine whether a bill involves an expenditure of money and, if it does, to see that the expenditure be first considered as a resolution in committee of the whole and that such resolution be accompanied by the recommendation of the Governor General, it is in the present case the duty of the Speaker to determine whether this bill interferes with the Queen's prerogatives and to see that the proper procedure be followed.

April 25. 1966
Criminal Code
Reference to page 413 of Bourinot's fourth edition and citation 283 of Beauchesne's fourth edition indicates that the consent of the crown is always necessary in matters involving the prerogatives of the crown, and that such consent may be given at any stage of a bill before final passage, though in the Canadian house it is generally signified on the motion for second reading. This consent may be given by a special message or by a verbal statement by a minister, the latter being the usual procedure in such cases.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
It will also be seen that a bill may be permitted to proceed to the very last stage without receiving the consent of the crown, but if it is not given at the last stage the Speaker will refuse to put the question. It is also stated that if the introducer of a bill finds, from the statements of a minister, that the consent will be withheld, he has no alternative open to him except to withdraw the measure.
I now have had an opportunity to peruse the provisions of the bill in the name of the hon. member for Lotbiniere. It would seem to me that the bill purports to amend the Criminal Code by deleting subsection 2 of section 655 and also section 656. This subsection and section give the Governor in Council certain statutory powers with regard to pardon and commutation of sentence which, according to the terms of section 658 of the code, do not affect in any manner Her Majesty's royal prerogative of mercy. If, as stated in the code, subsection 2 of section 655 and section 656 do not in any manner affect Her Majesty's royal prerogative of mercy, I have difficulty in coming to the conclusion that amending them or deleting them would affect such royal prerogative. Section 658 of the Criminal Code reads as follows:
658. Nothing in this act in any manner limits or affects Her Majesty's royal prerogative of mercy.
In my opinion it is reasonable to conclude that the provisions of this section are not affected in any way by the hon. member's bill. In other words, the crown's prerogative of mercy is not affected but only the exercise of the statutory powers of the Governor in Council.
Taking that into consideration and also the fact that it is the passing of a bill rather than the introduction thereof which would constitute an infringement of the royal prerogative, I think I should come to the conclusion to permit the motion for leave to introduce such a bill and to let the house decide by their vote if such a motion should be adopted.

[Translation^


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-168, to amend the Criminal Code (Repeal of Power to Commute a Sentence of death).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Auguste Choquette: I understand the deep royalist dissent of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), but I must admit that I am submitting this bill in all good faith.
Let me explain: Since 1963, all death sentences have been commuted by the present government. In addition, when the vote was taken recently on the question of capital punishment, most cabinet members were in favour of its abolition. Therefore, I saw fit to introduce this bill so that a judicial type body might be empowered to commute death sentences, thus withdrawing such power from the cabinet.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Mr. Churchill:: No.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Mr. Choquette, seconded by Mr. Caron, moves that the said bill be now read the first 23033-267
Questions
time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt
the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read
the first time.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT AND CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. L. T. Pennell (for the President of the Privy Council) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-169, an Act to amend an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I understand that two sessions ago an amendment was made providing for the exemption of fishermen in British Columbia in view of difficulties in respect of the Combines Investigation Act. It is my understanding that this bill provides for a further extension of this exemption.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said, provided there is no interference with the rights of Her Majesty.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Caouette: 1.	Do returning officers receive telecommunication or express through the C.N.R. or through the C.P.R.?
2.	How much did the government spend for C.N.R. services during the last election?
3.	How much did the government spend lor C.P.R. services during the last election?
4.	What was the amount of the C.N.R.'s debt in 1963?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: In so far as the Chief Electoral Officer is concerned:
1.	Yes.
2.	Up to and including March 31, 1966, this office spent $15,515.62.

April 25, 1966
Questions
3.	Up to and including March 31, 1966, this office spent $5,893.67.
In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned:
4.	The amount of Canadian National's long term debt as at December 31st, 1963, was as follows:
Bonds	$1,380,898,764
Government of Canada loans and debentures 410,354,762
Total long term debt $1,791,253,526


FEDERAL ELECTION EXPENDITURES
Mr. Caoueiie: 1.	How many employees did the government hire for the last federal election?
2.	What was the cost of each of the following items for the said election (a) salaries (b) rentals (c) stationery (d) publicity and other?
3.	What is the total amount of government expenditures for the last election?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Chief Electoral Officer as follows: 1. 194,785 employees.
2.	Up to April 15, 1966
(a)	Salaries	$8,165,881.70(b)	Rentals	$1,571,118.10(c)	Stationery	$	5,277.04(d)	Publicity	$	227.00
Printing of election
material and other $3,166,685.38
3.	Total: $12,909,189.22


USE OF RIFLES BY PENITENTIARY GUARDS
Mr. Alkenbrack: 1.	With respect to the recent escape of prisoners of the Collin's Bay penitentiary, was the utilization of one of the rifles issued to a guard impeded by grease on the bolt?
2.	Do guards at penitentiaries have daily inspection of their rifles and, if not, what is the reason?
3.	Is it mandatory that penitentiary guards shoot in order to prevent an escape of a prisoner or prisoners and, if not, what is the reason?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows:
1.	The inquiry found that the rifle malfunctioned in consequence of having been oiled in storage and moved from the warm armoury to the extreme cold outside. The commissioner of inquiry has found that it was an unfortunate circumstance and that no one should be blamed for the incident.
2.	In maximum security institutions, rifles are inspected upon issue to an officer when
[Miss LaMarsh.)
he takes over duties requiring him to be armed; they are inspected again upon the return of the rifle to the armoury.
In medium security institutions, rifles are issued only in cases of emergency. They are inspected when issued.
No firearms of any kind are held at the minimum security institutions.
3.	It is not mandatory that penitentiary guards shoot in order to prevent an escape. Officers may use firearms to prevent an escape when that is a reasonable course to adopt in the circumstances.


CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN ICAO
Mr. Caoueiie: 1.	What is Canada's contribution to the International Civil Aviation Organization?
2.	What are the standards used in assessing this contribution?
3.	How many Canadian representatives are in this organization and (a) how many are basically French speaking (b) how many are basically English speaking (c) what are their functions and their remuneration for each committee or commission of this organization?
4.	What is the part played, if any, by the government in this organization?
5.	What is the total cost of the Canadian participation in this organization?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secrelary of Stale for Exlernal Affairs):: 1. Canada's contribution to the International Civil Aviation Organization for the calendar year 1966 is $251,216.00. (U.S.) or 4.20 per cent of the total assessment of member states of the Organization for that year.
2.	The principles applied to determine the annual contributions of member states (Contracting States) of the International Civil Aviation Organization which were confirmed by the ICAO Assembly in 1965 are as follows:
(a)	The general principles determining the basis of apportionment of expenses among Contracting States: (i) capacity of Contracting States to pay, as measured by national income, taking into consideration national income per head of population; (ii) a Contracting State's interest and importance in civil aviation; (iii) the use of a percentage system to apportion each State's share of the expenses of the Organization out of the total of 100 per cent; (iv) the determination of a minimum and a maximum contribution.
(b)	In respect of the principles at paragraph (a): (i) the percentage system should express the contributions of States to two
April 25, 1966

places of decimals; (ii) the minimum contribution of any one Contracting State should be .13 per cent for a full financial year; (iii) the contribution to be paid by any one Contracting State in any one year should not, in principle, exceed 30 per cent of the total contribution.
(c)	In the application of the principles at paragraph (a) the following should be taken into account: (i) in the computation of the scale, capacity to pay should carry a weight of 75% and interest and importance in civil aviation a weight of 25%, and from these should be obtained coefficient figures for each State expressed as percentages of the whole;
(ii)	in taking account of the capacity of Contracting States to pay, only total national income per capita income should be considered as being subject to quantitative evaluation and to inclusion in the computed scale;
(iii)	the adjustment to each State's national income should be based on a maximum possible reduction of 50% for States having a per capita income of less than $1,000; (iv) interest and importance in civil aviation should be measured by the capacity tonne-kilometres available on each State's scheduled air services; (v) capacity tonne-kilometres should be given a weight of 75% for international services and 25% for domestic services.
(d)	The difference between the maximum contribution by application of the principles and the fixed maximum contribution should be distributed over the remaining Contracting States by applying the same principles.
(e)	The increase in a State's contribution as compared with the previous year's, expressed in per cent of the total contribution, should not exceed 10% of the previous year's contribution or .07% of the total contribution, whichever is the higher.
(f)	The per capita contribution ceiling principle should be evaluated by judgment.
3.	There are two Canadian representatives at the International Civil Aviation Organization. One is the representative of Canada on the Council, the governing body of the Organization. He is also a member of each of three bodies subordinate to the Council, the Air Transport Committee, the Finance Committee, and the Committee on Joint Support of Air Navigation Services. He is bilingual. His mother tongue is English. His annual salary is $16,006. The other Canadian representative is a member of the Air Navigation Commission. He is English speaking. His annual salary is $11,554.
Questions
4.	As a country with a substantial interest in international air transport, Canada has contributed to the establishment and development of the International Civil Aviation Organization. Canada participated in the founding of the Organization at the Chicago Conference of 1944. Since 1947 when ICAO formally came into existence, Canada has been represented on the Council and has provided a member of the Air Navigation Commission. As the headquarters of ICAO is located in Montreal, Canada is host to the Organization.
5.	In addition to the payment of an annual contribution, the Government of Canada provides ICAO with office accommodation and the usual related services in the International Aviation Building in Montreal, the annual operating cost of which is approximately $379,000 more than the annual rent paid to the Government by ICAO.


COST OF ARMED FORCES SCHOOLS
Mr. Prittie: 1.	What was the cost of operating the following joint service colleges in 1965-66, and what will be the estimated cost in 1966-67 (a) Royal Military College (b) College Militaire Royal (c) Royal Roads?
2.	What was the cost of operating schools for service dependants in Canada and overseas for the calendar year 1964, and what will be the estimated cost of operating these schools for the calendar years 1965 and 1966?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. The annual estimated operating costs for the Canadian services colleges is shown below. These estimates include-military pay and allowances, civilian salaries and wages, cadets' transportation costs to and from training units, food supplies, camp stores, laundry and dry cleaning, clothing and personal equipment, operation, maintenance and repairs of buildings, and miscellaneous supplies.
1965-	66
1966-	67
Royal
Military
College
(a)

College
Militaire
Royal
(b)

Royal
Roads
(c)

2.	The financial records of the Department of National Defence are based on a fiscal rather than a calendar year and are not maintained in a manner which will permit the ready identification of all items related to the cost of operating schools for service dependants. However, based on the following criteria: (a) Salaries for the teachers and the

April 25, 1966
Questions
other staff members; (b) transportation of pupils; (c) rentals; (d) operation, maintenance and repairs; (e) furniture, textbooks and supplies; (f) miscellaneous expenses, including liability insurance, sports and special classes; and (g) included in the costs for overseas are the transportation costs for the teachers to and from Europe.
An estimate of costs for 1964 and 1965 have been worked out as well as what it may be expected to cost in 1966, i.e.
1964	1965	1966In Canada $6,747,000 $6,871,000 $6,067,000 In Europe 3,756,000	3,630,000	3,814,000


ARDA PROJECT. TEMISCAMINGUE COUNTY
Mr. Lefebvre: Will the county of Temiscamingue soon have a pilot project and full development and, if so (a) what is this project (b) how much will be spent for this project (c) does the ARDA program provide for a complete study of this county?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: 1.	To date, the province of Quebec has not submitted a proposal to cover a pilot project for the county of Temiscamingue.
(a)	Answered by 1 above.
(b)	Answered by 1 above.
(c)	The province may submit project proposals for consideration under Part I of the federal-provincial rural development agreement 1965-70 to undertake jointly, physical, social and economic research concerning any of the projects or programs under this agreement. Basic physical and biological research is not considered pertinent to the intent of the act.


ARDA AGREEMENTS
Mr. Siefanson: 1.	On what date did the first ARDA agreement expire?
2.	On what dates was the second ARDA agreement signed with each of the provinces and who signed them?
3.	What is the effective date of these agreements and when do they expire?
4.	How much money has the federal government allocated for the duration of the agreements and on what basis will it be allotted to the provinces?


Maurice Sauvé: 1.	March 31, 1965.
2.	British Columbia, May 25, 1965; Saskatchewan, April 20, 1965; Alberta, April 15, 1965; Manitoba, July 29, 1965; Ontario, April 9, 1965; Quebec, May 18, 1965; New Brunswick, April 21, 1965; Nova Scotia, May 28,

1965; Prince Edward Island, April 6, 1965; Newfoundland, May 13, 1965.
In each case, the Minister of Agriculture of each province signed the agreement, except for the province of Newfoundland it was Premier Joseph R. Smallwood, minister of Economic Development, acting in this capacity.
3.	Effective date, April 1, 1965-Expiry date, March 31, 1970.
4.	(a) An amount of $125 million has been approved for allocation to the provinces, (b) The annual allotment available to the province shall be determined as follows: (a) an initial amount of $375,000; (b) the balance of the allotment shall be calculated according to a formula based on the following factors as recorded in the 1961 census of Canada, each given equal weight: (i) the rural population of the province expressed as a percentage of the rural population of the ten provinces combined; and (ii) the number of rural nonfarm families in the province with a family income less than $3,000 per year expressed as a percentage of the number of such families in the ten provinces combined; and (iii) the number of farms (excluding residential and institutional farms) with a total capital value of less than $25,000 and annual sales of farm products of less than $3,750 expressed as a percentage of the number of such farms in the ten provinces combined.


ENCOURAGEMENT OF CANADA-U.K. TRADE
Mr. Flemming: 1.	Does the Department of Trade and Commerce attempt to draw the attention of manufacturers located in the United Kingdom to the possibilities of the sale of goods in Canada which we are presently importing and does the Department advise Canadian manufacturers of natural products of the possibilities of making sales of their products in the United Kingdom?
2.	If so, what is the method of disseminating such information?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1.	(a) The responsibility for
assisting United Kingdom manufacturers to sell in Canada rests largely with the staffs of the British High Commissioner's office and the eight British Trade Commissioner offices across Canada. Appropriate assistance is provided to these offices by the department when requested, (b) The department spends considerable effort in advising Canadian manufacturers and exporters of the possibilities of making sales of their products in the United Kingdom.
April 25, 1966



2.	Methods of disseminating such information include: (a) Foreign Trade Magazine, a fortnightly publication of the Department of Trade and Commerce; (b) Trade missions to Britain sponsored by the department; (c) Participation in trade fairs in Britain sponsored by the department; (d) News releases, magazine and newspaper articles, speeches, and similar forms of publicity; (e) Periodic tours of Canada by trade commissioners from the three posts, London, Liverpool and Glasgow, maintained by the department; (f) Periodic tours of Canadian industry by commodity specialists and other head office personnel; (g) Personal contact with the exporting community by officers of the department's six regional offices across Canada; (h) Participation by departmental personnel in Export Study Groups, seminars, annual conventions, forums, etc.; (i) Dissemination of market access information such as tariffs, import regulations, etc., to Canadian trade associations and firms; (j) Assistance to Canadian firms on transportation, documentation and packaging problems; (k) Information on export financing through the Export Credits Insurance Corporation; (1) On request, provision by Trade Commissioners of market information, recommendation of agents, status reports on British firms, etc.


MILK SUBSIDY
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Has the Minister of National Health and Welfare received a resolution from the Cape Breton county municipal council requesting the federal government under ARDA or any appropriate agency to undertake the steps necessary to provide an economical price market for milk not required for the fluid milk market by the use of subsidy or other means and, if so, what action has been taken by the minister?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes. The dairy policy recently announced by the Minister of Agriculture includes a subsidy for milk not required for the fluid milk market.


NUCLEAR POWER PRODUCTION
Mr. Mather: What is the estimated percentage of Canada's power needs which will be produced by nuclear stations by 1980?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: No precise estimate can be given, since there
Questions
are uncertainties in the estimate of total installed capacity of nuclear power stations and also in the estimate of the total installed capacity of all types of power stations in Canada by 1980. An approximate estimate is that the installed capacity of nuclear power stations will be just over 10 per cent of Canada's total installed electrical capacity at that time.


PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION FUND
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	In each of the past ten years, what has been the balance in the public service superannuation fund?
2.	In each of the past ten years, what amount has been added to the fund by (a) civil servants' contributions (b) the government, and (c) other sources?
3.	In each of the past ten years, what amount has been disbursed from the fund in (a) benefits, and (b) other expenditures?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1,	2 and 3. The answers to these questions are contained in table 1, parts 1 and 2 of the report of the administration of the Public Service Superannuation Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1965, which was tabled in the House of Commons on March 31, 1966.


ACTIVITIES OF F.B.I. IN CANADA
Mr. Basford: 1.	Do officers of the United States federal bureau of investigation operate in Canada and, if so, under what arrangement?
2.	Do such arrangements provide that any operations in Canada by the F.B.I. shall be with the knowledge of and under the supervision and control of the R.C.M. Police or local Canadian police forces?
3.	Are officers of the F.B.I. permitted to question Canadian residents in Canada without the presence at such questioning of an officer of the R.C.M. Police or a local Canadian police force?
4.	Was Mr. Alfie Gunn, an officer of the F.B.I., permitted to question members of the Briscoe family of Clark Road. Port Moody, British Columbia. in the absence of a R.C.M. Police or local police officer and. if so. under what arrangements?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: 1. Agents of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation have no jurisdiction in Canada. Informal practices of long standing do, however, exist whereby under certain circumstances agents of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation can secure the assistance of the Royal Canadian Mounted

April 25. 1966
Questions
Police, for the purpose of making inquiries as regards matters within the jurisdiction of the Canadian government. Each request for assistance is considered in the light of general principles established by responsible ministers over the years, as further amplified by past usage, and if it is determined to be a proper request disclosing a proper interest, a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will either make the inquiry or will accompany the agent of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation when the inquiries are made.
A reciprocal practice exists for the benefit of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police wishing to make inquiries in the United States.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	No such permission was given to Mr. Gunn.


RABIES IN DOMESTIC ANIMALS
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How many rabies cases among domestic animals have been reported annually since 1960 (a) in Canada (b) in Quebec (c) in the constituency of Chapleau?
2.	Among the animals stricken by this disease, annually, (a) how many had to be slaughtered (b) how many recovered through treatments (i) in Canada (ii) in Quebec (iii) in the constituency of Chapleau?
3.	Have the losses caused by such slaughters or by the segregation of the sick animals been assessed and, if so, what has been the amount in dollars, of the annual losses (a) in Canada (b) in Quebec (c) in the constituency of Chapleau?
4.	Have the owners received any compensation for their losses and if so, what has been the annual amount of the compensations (a) in Canada (b) in Quebec (c) in the constituency of Chapleau?
5.	If the cost of compensation is shared by the federal government and other public bodies (a) what authority is directly responsible for such assistance, and (b) what is the financial responsibility of each particpant?
6.	Annually since 1960, what sums have been granted for research to fight and eradicate this disease?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: (c) Constituency
1. Year	(a) Canada	(b) Quebec	of Chapleau1959-60	437	14	11960-61	97	11	Nil1961-62	301	38	Nil1962-63	336	12	Nil1963-64	402	42	Nil1964-65	619	122	111965-66 (to Feb. 28)	621	177	612. (a) No animals were ordered destroyed.	slaughtered, indemnity	was	paid to owners(b) (i) Nil; (ii) Nil;	(iii) Nil.	for those animals that	died	of rabies, which3 and 4. While	no animals were ordered	represents the primary loss. 4(c) Constituency	3. Year	4(a) Canada	4(b) Quebec	of Chapleau1959-60	$ 52,879.50	$ Nil	$ Nil1960-61	19,469.70	Nil	Nil1961-62	32,035.00	Nil	Nil1962-63	51,117.90	Nil	Nil1963-64	54,576.80	5,435.00	Nil1964-65	47,474.00	15,083.00	982.001965-66 (to Feb. 28) 	114,713.50	23,316.00	7,837.00
April 25, 1966

5.	(a) Through a federal-provincial arrangement, the provinces of Ontario and Quebec pay an indemnity to owners for animals that died as a result of rabies and the federal government re-imburses the provinces 40 per cent of the amount paid by the provinces.
(b)	Since rabies is a reportable disease under the animal contagious diseases regulations, all investigations, diagnosis, control and evaluation of animals which died is handled by the Canada Department of Agriculture. The provinces of Ontario and Quebec pay an indemnity on receipt of a certificate of death issued by the department. As indicated, the federal government reimburses the provinces 40 per cent of the amount paid by the provinces.
6.	Specific amounts are not detailed in Department of Agriculture estimates for rabies research and eradication. However, during the past years, 1960-66, it is estimated that $75,000 annually has been expended upon laboratory work into the problem of rabies control. In addition, considerable sums have been spent in the field for rabies control, including $117,388 for the purpose of rabies vaccine since 1960 for the free vaccination of 81,057 dogs and cats during the same period. This does not include the cost of field investigation and control services by veterinarians of the department.
Questions


UNION WITH WEST INDIES
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has the government of Canada received enquiries from any country of the West Indies requesting union with Canada?
2.	If so, which countries have made overtures and what reply has the government of Canada given?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


ROADS TO RESOURCES, ONTARIO
Mr. Reid: 1.	What is the amount paid to date to the province of Ontario under the "roads to resources" program?
2.	What roads were undertaken in Ontario under the program?
3.	What are the terminals of each road?
4.	What was the approved total mileage of each road?
5.	What is the mileage completed to date of each road?
6.	What is the total cost of the mileage completed to date on each road?
7.	What is the estimated cost of full completion of each road?
8.	What is the estimated date of full completion of each road?
9.	What payments were made each year to the province of Ontario since commencement of the program?


John (Jack) Davis: See following table.
Davis.]
1.	*6,662,708.01
2.
3.
4.	5.	6.	7.	8.Savant Lake South	... End of secondary highway No. 599 to Trans Ca. nada highway No. 17	Approx. 90 miles	80 miles	*3,749,473	N/A	CompleteFoleyet to Chapleau South	... End of secondary highway No. 129 at Foleyet to highway No. 129 in vicinity of Chapleau	Approx. 60 miles	60 miles	*2,603,667	N/A	CompleteMinaki South	Minaki southerlv to connect with secondary highway No. 596 at Pellat	Approx. 15 miles	21 miles	$1,160,688	N/A	CompleteNakina Northerly	... Nakina northerly via Cavell to area in vicinity of Percy lake and Melchett lake	Approx. 50 miles	47 miles	*1,747,664	N/A	CompleteFlack Lake Road	... Point 8 miles north of Elliott lake then north-westerly to highway No. 129	Approx. 38 miles	8 miles	* 661,438	*1,500,000	Unknown- provincialPort Arthur North	
(Spruce River Road)	... Point immediately east of Port Arthur northerly to the vicinity of Cheeseman lake west.	Approx. 70 miles	74 miles	$4,293,387	N/A	CompleteLingman Lake Road	Pickle Crow northwesterly to Manitoba border in vicinity of Lingman lake	Approx. 220 miles	35 miles	S 634,375	*6,000,000	Unknown- provincial schedule
9. 1959-60-* 118,956.14
1960-	61- 1,504,264.15
1961-	62- 1,649,159.94
1962-	63- 1,391,383.58
1963-	64-	498,944.201964-	65-	750,000.001965-	66-	750,000.004228	COMMONS DEBATES	April 25, 1966
Questions
April 25, 1966


CONSTRUCTION OF REPLICA OF &quot;GRANDE HERMINE&quot;
Mr, Coales: Was Davie Brothers Limited, ol Levis, Quebec, awarded the contract for the building of a full-size replica of Jacques Cartier's ship Grande Hermine and, if so (a) were tenders called for this contract (b) what were the names of the firms who submitted tenders (c) what were the amounts submitted by each firm?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Davie Brothers Ltd. of Levis, Quebec, was awarded the contract for the building of a full size replica of the Grande Hermine without tender call after L'Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, who were engaged by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources to provide detailed specifications for the reconstruction, advised, with the concurrence of Mr. H. I. Chapelle, curator of the new museum of history and technology of the Smithsonian Institution and an internationally recognized authority on historical shipbuilding, that Davie Brothers Ltd. were the only shipbuilding company with the capacity to meet the required tight construction deadlines and the rigorous standards for authentic replicamaking. Consequently, Davie Brothers Ltd. was invited to submit a firm price quotation. On behalf of the department, Deputy Commissioner Robert Shaw of Expo '67 convened an ad hoc group composed of Messrs. Fred Rhuland of Smith-Rhuland Ltd., of Lunenburg, who built replicas of the Bounty and Bluenose; George H. Cuthbertson, Toronto naval architect; R. A. Engholm, immediate past commodore of the Royal Canadian Yacht Club; and Commodore O. C. S. Robertson. The group recommended acceptance of the submission.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF MARITIME POWER DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	Did the government approve the grant to the province of Newfoundland as recommended by the Atlantic development board for the development of power at Baie d'Espoir and, if so, on what date?
2.	Was announcement of the approval of this grant made and, If so, on what date and by whom?
3.	Did the government approve the grant to the province of New Brunswick as recommended by the Atlantic development board for the development of power at Mactaquac and, if so, on what date?
4.	Was announcement of the approval of this grant made and, if so, on what date and by whom?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I am informed by the Atlantic Development Board as follows: 1. Yes, to the Newfoundland Power Commission. March 5, 1964.
Questions
2.	Yes. March 10, 1964, Hon. J. W. Pickersgill.
3.	Yes. To the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission, January 10, 1964.
4.	Yes. January 10, 1964, Hon. J. W. Pickersgill.


MANPOWER MOBILITY PROGRAM
Mr. Coates: 1.	Has the government's manpower mobility program gone into effect and, if so, on what date?
2.	Has the government earmarked funds for advertising purposes for this program and, if so (a) what newspapers will be involved (b) how much has been spent to date on advertising?
3.	Have applications been received for assistance either by way of grants or loans under this program and, if so (a) how many (b) from what provinces have these applications been received (c) in what numbers?
4.	Have any applications been approved to date and, if so (a) how many (b) what is the total amount of money involved?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: 1. Yes, December 28, 1965.
2.	Yes, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966, (a) a total of 106 daily and 70 weekly newspapers were involved; (b) $131,269.91.
3.	Yes, from the effective date of the program to March 25, 1966, (a) Loans, 590; grants, 281. (b) All provinces.
(c)
Province	Loans	GrantsNewfoundland	22	10New Brunswick	4	2Nova Scotia	38	25Prince Edward Island	8	4Quebec	66	44Ontario	376	151Manitoba	23	6Saskatchewan	4	1Alberta	16	7British Columbia	33	314.	Yes, from the effective date of the program to March 25, 1966, (a) Loans, 384; grants, 172. (b) As of March 31, 1966, loans $84,659.95; grants, $36,313.56.


OIL AND GAS PERMIT BLOCK 66-65
Mr. Brand: 1.	Was oil and gas permit block 66-65 awarded jointly to British American Oil Ltd. and Pacific

April 25, 1966
Questions
Petroleums Ltd. on January 27, 1966 and, If so (a) was there any evidence of collusion between the two companies with reference to the submission of identical tenders (b) were there any other companies submitting bids and, if so, who were they and what were their bids?
2.	Are British American Oil Ltd. and Pacific Petroleums Ltd. separate corporate entities, or are they part of one company?


Arthur Laing: 1. Oil and
gas permit block 66-65, which was offered at the January 27, 1966, permit sale, was awarded to The British American Oil Company Ltd. and Pacific Petroleums Ltd. jointly for a total work bonus bid of $157,425. The two companies had submitted identical tenders on the permit block and were offered the option of acquiring it jointly or submitting further separate tenders to break the deadlock. A decision concerning the awarding of the permit block had to be reserved until the companies involved could indicate their choice of procedure. Consequently, it was not until March 1, 1966, that a letter was sent to each of the two companies confirming that in accordance with their wishes, the oil and gas permits involved were being issued to them jointly.
(a)	There was no evidence of collusion between these two companies with reference to the submission of identical tenders. In the first place, the tender by the British American Oil Company Ltd. was a direct work bonus bid on the subject permit block whereas the bid by Pacific Petroleums Ltd. was a result of a slide in the amount of $53,524.50 from an unsuccessful bid on another block offered at the sale. Before the slide, the Pacific Petroleums Ltd. bid on permit block 66-65 was $103,900.50. In the second place, the bid of $157,425 was obviously the result of simply multiplying the total acreage involved in the block, 314,850 acres, by the amount of 50 cents per acre. Usually, oil companies tendering bids calculated in this fashion add on a few odd cents to prevent just such a tie situation. Both companies neglected to do this in the subject case, but it is doubtful that either will make the same mistake at a sale for some time to come.
(b)	There were three bids submitted on permit block 66-65. The third company bidding on this block was Socony Mobil Oil of Canada Ltd. It is not the policy of this department to release the amounts of unsuccessful tenders; however, it can be stated that the Socony Mobil bid was considerably less

than those submitted by the other two companies.
2. The British American Oil Company Ltd. and Pacific Petroleums Ltd. are separate and distinct entities.


ARDA PROJECTS, GATINEAU COUNTY. QUE.
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	Since its inception, how many projects have been carried out and/or studies undertaken by ARDA in Gatineau county?
2.	What amounts have been spent on these projects or studies?
3.	To what towns, villages, municipalities and parishes do these projects and studies relate?
4.	What was the nature of these projects or studies?
5.	Was a preliminary report made by ARDA on a study of rural poverty in the constituencies of Gatineau, Labelle, Pontiac-Temiscamingue and Renfrew North and, if so (a) were any constituencies declared the poorest in Canada and, if so, which ones (b) did ARDA send this preliminary report to other federal government departments in order to prevent duplication of assistance?


Maurice Sauvé: 1. To date the province of Quebec has not submitted any project proposals to federal ARDA to be carried out in the Gatineau county.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	Answered by 1.
4.	Answered by 1.
5.	A study of rural poverty was made under ARDA for the counties of Gatineau, Papineau and Pontiac, but not in all the areas suggested in the question, (a) No. (b) Yes.


PENALTY FOR PREMATURE RETIREMENT, ARMED FORCES
Mr. MacRae: 1.	Is it mandatory that members of the R.C.A.F. who served in world war II and who wish to retire voluntarily while under the maximum age limit for their rank, should be penalized from 5 per cent to 25 per cent of their pension, depending on their age?
2.	If so, is this penalty applied to the serving members of all three armed services?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associaie Minister of National Defence):: 1. Subsection 6 of section 10 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act provides that an annuity payable to any contributor under the act, whether he has had world war II service or not, who has not reached the retirement age for his rank and who retires voluntarily from the forces, be reduced, in the case of an officer,
April 25, 1966

or a man who has less than 20 years service in the regular forces, by 5 per cent for each full year by which his age at the time of retirement is less than the retirement age for his rank or, in the case of a man who has 20 years or more service in the regular forces, by 5 per cent for each full year by which his service in the regular forces is less than 25 years.
2. Yes.


PULP AND PAPER EXPORTS
Mr. Faulkner: 1.	What percentage of the pulp production of Canada is finished in Canada in the form of (a) fine paper (b) coarse or wrapping paper (c) paper board and specialty paper?
2.	What has been the total annual value of exports from the protected sectors of the pulp and paper industry in the last five years?
3.	What has been the ratio of exports to total domestic production in the protected sectors?


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. (a) (b) and (c): Data available to the dominion bureau of statistics are not sufficiently detailed to disclose the quantities of pulp used to produce specific grades of paper. However, the following information
is available for the year 1963:
1963	Tons
Total production of	wood pulp 12,474,107
Wood pulp used in making basic
paper and paperboard	8,484,040
Wood pulp exported	3,339,492
Wood pulp imported	74,208
1963	Tons
Production of "writing and reproduction paper" and "miscellaneous fine paper"	204,450
Production of "wrapping papers"	340,604
Production of "sanitary papers"
(sometimes called coarse paper)	182,339
Production of "paper board"	1,299,382
No information is available on "specialty paper".
2 and 3. Export statistics are not compiled on the basis on which this question is asked.


CHANGES IN NAMES OF DEFENCE ESTABLISHMENTS
Mr. Forresiall: 1. Is the government planning to drop "H.M.C.S." from the names of H.M.C.S. Stadacona and H.M.C.S. Shearwater, and replace it with "C.F.B."? 23033-2681
Questions
2. Is the government planning to drop "R.C.A.F." from the name R.C.A.F. station Greenwood and all other Canadian air force stations, and replace it with "C.F.B."?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. Yes, the Canadian forces base (CFB) Halifax now incorporates elements of what was H.M.C.S. Stadacona as well as elements of certain other units. Similarly H.M.C.S. Shearwater and certain other units and sub units have become the Canadian forces base Shearwater.
2. Where Canadian air force stations have become Canadian forces bases, "R.C.A.F" has been dropped from the name.


FRENCH SPEAKING STAFF, QUEEN MARY HOSPITAL, MONTREAL
Mr. Allard: 1.	How many French speaking physicians are there at the Queen Mary hospital in Montreal to admit and examine French speaking veterans?
2.	What is the total number of medical practitioners or specialists at this hospital and of this number, how many are French speaking?
3.	Under what conditions is a physician or specialist allowed in this hospital?
4.	Is correspondence between physicians, specialists or the administrative office and French speaking veterans conducted in French, and is it always conducted in French?
5.	What is the total number of nurses, assistant nurses, graduate nurses, maintenance, office and other staff employed at this hospital, and of this number, how many are French speaking?
6.	Of the total number of persons employed at the hospital, how many are bilingual?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Patients at Queen Mary veterans hospital are examined and admitted from the out patient clinic. This is staffed by part time general practitioners, of which there are a total of 10. Three of these are French and all ten speak French fluently. There are also two full time medical administrative physicians in the out patient clinic, both of whom are French.
2.	There are a total of 148 part time medical practitioners and specialists at the hospital. Of these, 40 are French and of the remainder the vast majority can speak French although their mother tongue may be English. All 40 French doctors speak English well. In addition, there are 13 full time specialists, of whom four are French and the remainder have varying degrees of proficiency in French.
3.	All general practitioners' credentials are reviewed by the senior treatment medical

April 25, 1966
Questions
officer and the director of admission services who recommend appointments to the medical executive. The appointments are then approved by the medical advisory board. Each appointee must hold a license to practise in the province of Quebec. In addition, those holding specialists' appointments must hold a specialists' certificate from the Quebec College of Physicians and Surgeons and from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. All but three of the consulting staff hold teaching appointments at either McGill University or Universite de Montreal. Admission to the indoor consulting staff usually requires fellowship in the specialty concerned.
4.	Correspondence between veterans and physicians is always through the medical administrative staff and in each case it is in the language employed by the veteran.
5. Hospital Service	Total staff	French speaking staffAdministration	160	120Chaplains	2	2Dietary	135	107Heating and power	16	9Housekeeping	96	86Maintenance	22	18Medical officers, dental officers, and specialists	21	17Nurses	179	83Nursing assistants	18	5Nursing orderlies	153	111Stores and equipment	31	19Other services	105	57Totals	938	634
6. Total number of employees 938 Number of bilingual employees 531
These numbers are based on employees' statements and do not indicate the level of proficiency in either language.


WAGE RATES, ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA
Mr. Schreyer: What are the wage levels paid by Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited, to (a) reactor operators (b) machinists and other prevailing rate employees, by classification at the Chalk river establishment and the Whiteshell establishment, immediately before the last agreement and subsequent to the last agreement negotiated?


John (Jack) Davis: Chalk	River	Whiteshell	Mar.	Apr.	Mar.	Apr.(a) and (b)	65	66	65	66Tool and die maker	$2.87	$3.07	$2.83	$3.04Instrument mechanic	2.77	2.97	2.72	2.93Machinist	2.71	2.91	2.66	2.87Carpenter	2.66	2.86	2.60	2.81Reactor operator cl. 1	2.55	2.71	2.48	2.65Stationary engineer cl. 3	2.49	2.65	2.41	2.58Painter	2.42	2.58	2.33	2.50Reactor operator cl. 2	2.31	2.45	2.21	2.36Contamination monitor	2.20	2.34	2.08	2.23Stores counterman	2.07	2.17	1.94	2.05Helper	2.01	2.11	1.87	1.98Janitor/labourer	1.90	1.99	1.75	1.85


RENTALS CHARGED BY ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA
Mr. Schreyer: What are the rentals per square foot or other unit of measurement charged by Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited, to lessees of (a) residential premises (b) commercial premises, at Chalk river and at Pinawa, Manitoba?


John (Jack) Davis: Rentals charged by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to lessees of residential and commercial premises at Pinawa, Manitoba and to lessees of residential premises at Deep River are based on recovery of the following
April 25, 1966

costs-interest and amortization of funded capital maintenance and municipal services. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has no commercial premises at Deep River.


DIRECTIVES TO ATOMIC ENERGY LTD, ON WAGE RATES
Mr. Schreyer: Has the government of Canada ever issued any directives to Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited, regarding wage rates to be paid by it to any of its staff or prevailing rate employees and, if so, when and for what reason?


John (Jack) Davis: No.


HALIFAX-TIME OFF FOR NATAL DAY CELEBRATIONS
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is it intended to grant any time off for hourly paid employees of the Department of National Defence establishments in the metropolitan Halifax-Dartmouth area on the occasion of Natal Day celebrations in that area?
2.	If not, will consideration be given to this matter?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1 and 2. No. Natal days are not authorized holidays with pay for prevailing rate employees. However, prevailing rate employees wishing to celebrate these occasions may use annual leave credits if available or take leave without pay.


HOG PRICES
Mr. Lautlippe: 1.	Has there been a drop or has there been an exaggerated market fluctuation recently in the price of hogs and, if so, does the government intend to take measures to stabilize prices?
2.	What was the price paid for hogs for each month in the last two years?
3.	What is the percentage of increase or decrease in the price paid for hogs for each month in the last two years?


John James Greene: 1. Yes. There has been a drop from the very high level of February 1966. However, March prices were still about 133 per cent of 1964 prices.
Hog prices in North America are tied quite closely to marketings in the U.S.A. Canadian prices through 1964 and the first quarter of 1965 were quite steady as demonstrated in the table below. With reduced marketings,
Questions
prices steadily rose from $27.94 in April 1965, to a peak of $43.19 in February 1966. In March 1966, marketings and slaughter in both Canada and the United States increased considerably, resulting in a price drop to $36.12.
The Agricultural Stabilization Act provides for the stabilization of hog prices and the government intends to continue to utilize this legislation.
2 and 3. Table on the average monthly price of Grade "A" hogs at Toronto showing the increase or the decrease of price from previous month:
	Average	Price
price grade "A		" increase or
hogs per cwt.		decrease vs.
Year Month	Toronto*	previous month
	$	%
1964 January	26.85	+ 2.7February	27.61	-6.5March	25.92	-2.0April	25.38	May	26.40	+ 3.9June	29.08	+ 9.2July	28.41	-2.4August	28.10	-1.1September	28.24	+ 0.5October	27.13	-4.1November	27.12	EvenDecember	27.63	+ 1.8Average	Priceprice grade "A'	" increase orhogs per cwt.	decrease vs.Year Month	Toronto*	previous month$	%1965 January	27.44	-0.7February	28.23	+ 2.8March	27.80	-1.5April	27.94	+0.5May	30.46	+ 8.3June	34.81	+ 12.5July	36.24	+ 3.9August	36.66	+ 1.1September	36.88	+ 0.6October	35.90	-2.7November	37.58	+ 4.5December	41.64	+ 9.81966 January	42.73	+ 2.5February	43.19	+ 1.1March	36.12	-19.6
* Source-Livestock and Meat Trade Reports, Department of Agriculture.

April 25, 1966
Questions


ENCOURAGEMENT OF DAIRY FARMERS
Mr. Latulippe: Does the government intend to take any measures to encourage dairy farmers to increase their production?


John James Greene: The government has announced its dairy policy with an increased level of support. The purposes of the program were stated and appear in Hansard of March 23, 1966. Briefly, the program is designed to bring economic stability to dairy producers and to encourage adequate production of dairy products for Canadian consumers.


MARKET GARDENING POLICY, QUEBEC
Mr. Latulippe: Does the government have a policy regarding the production of vegetables or market gardening in the province of Quebec and, if so, what is that policy?


John James Greene: Yes. The continuing policies of the Department of Agriculture in any province encompass:
1.	Research into new varieties and cultural practices.
2.	Marketing standards and related inspection services.
3.	Crop loss assistance through the Crop Insurance Act.


INDIAN WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Have draft agreements been prepared by the federal government and submitted to the provincial governments regarding welfare programs and community development programs for Indians and. if so (a) have any provinces approved these drafts (b) which ones?
2.	Has the federal government signed any such agreements and (a) if so, with which provinces (b) if not, for what reason or reasons?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes; (a) Yes; (b) The province of Ontario has approved the drafts of the welfare and the community development agreements. The province of Alberta has approved the community development agreement.
2. No; (a) N/A (b) The federal government has not signed the two agreements with Ontario pending further consultation with the Indian people of the province. The federal

government has not signed the community development agreement with Alberta pending further study of means of ensuring that adequate welfare programs are available to Indians of the province to complement community development programs.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Souiham: 1.	In 1964-65, what projects were undertaken under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act in each province?
2.	What was the nature of these projects?
3.	What was the cost of each of these projects?
4.	What projects are under study or contemplated to begin soon in Saskatchewan?
5.	What amount will be earmarked or appropriated for each of these projects?
Return tabled.


EXPO '67 RADIO ADVERTISING
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: Norih and Victoria):
1.	Has an eight week schedule of radio station advertising of Expo '67 been placed by a national advertising firm with a selected or preferred list of radio stations, commencing May 2?
2.	If so, (a) by what national advertising firm is the advertising schedule being placed (b) what are the radio stations on the preferred list (c) what is the reason for their selection?
Return tabled.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)



FARM MACHINERY


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfort-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), I ask leave to move the adjournment of this house in accordance with standing order No. 26 in order to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the extravagant and unjustifiable increases in the prices of agricultural machinery, imposing a monstrous burden on the farmers of this country at a time when they are faced with the spring farm work, necessitating many of them having to get new machinery at once.
This matter is of immediate and overriding importance and demands action now, which the Minister of Agriculture failed to take after promises made by him following his trip through western Canada.
April 25, 1966


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale kindly address the Chair on the question of the urgency of debate?


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of great urgency because, since November 1 of last year the price of farm machinery has increased greatly, from $250 for a small combine to $600 for a large combine, while at the same time final payments on wheat this year are 17 cents a bushel less than last year. In addition, the prices being received by farmers for hogs, eggs and everything that the farmer sells have gone down. Let me remind the house that the president of the Cockshutt Farm Equipment of Canada Limited only three or four days ago at the official opening of an agency in Saskatoon stressed the fact that the cost of farm machinery will go up within the next three to five years.
The urgency of the matter lies in the fact that farmers at the present time have no money to buy this expensive farm equipment because on the one hand the price they receive for their produce is going down while on the other hand the cost of this type of equipment is going up. In 1962 a standing committee of this house investigated farm machinery prices. When the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) travelled throughout the west he said it was his intention to set up another committee to look into this situation. I suggest it is now too late for such an investigation because the situation has become too serious and much damage has already been done.
As an alternative I would suggest to the minister that a commission of inquiry be set up to look into this problem. After all, we set up an inquiry into almost anything that takes place in this country. Why should we not set up an inquiry to investigate this situation? Many professors of agriculture and farm management are available to carry out an investigation into the increasing costs of farm machinery and could then provide recommendations in respect of which the minister could act accordingly.
This whole situation has become extremely serious and the problem now facing farmers throughout Canada relates, as the minister pointed out when he was out west, to the high cost of farm machinery. At almost every place the minister spoke he said he was going to do something in an attempt to alleviate the situation. Since then almost six months have
Farm Machinery Prices elapsed but the minister has done nothing in this regard.
I should like to see the house debate this matter and come to the conclusion that a royal commission or a one-man inquiry should be established to consider this serious problem which now faces the agricultural industry.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party would like to support the contention that there is urgency of debate in the matter which has been brought to our attention by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp). Throughout this country in the course of the next few weeks farmers will be going on the land and in the course of the next few months many of them will have to purchase new equipment or pay for repairs to old machinery. It seems to me to be most important that this house have a discussion about the very serious and considerable increase in the cost of farm equipment in the last few months.
This whole matter is related to the question which I tried to bring before this house last year regarding the increase in the price of steel, because the increase in the cost of farm machinery is an inevitable consequence of that increase. Farmers are now caught in a cost-price squeeze and this house must give some consideration to the matter.
A debate on this subject today will not bring down the price of farm machinery but it would enable the government to state what it proposes to do about the matter, whether it proposes to have a complete investigation into the price of farm machinery to ascertain whether or not the increases have been justifiable or warranted or to say whether it proposes to set up a house committee to look into the matter. It would give the government the opportunity of outlining what action, if any, it proposes to take. I think the farmers of this country are entitled to know, first, that the House of Commons is concerned and, second, whether the government is going to act or continue to drift and allow the situation to go from bad to worse.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) is certainly definite, since it concerns the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, that is
April 25. 1966

Farm Machinery Prices the sky-high and unjustifiable increase of farm equipment prices, which places a huge burden on the shoulders of the Canadian farmers when they are about to start their spring work.
Mr. Speaker, this is a definite matter; its importance is of course public, since it concerns mainly the farmers, not only those in the west, but the farmers all across Canada.
The hon. member contends there has been a tremendous price increase regarding farm equipment, and that is true. However, are farm machinery prices the only ones to increase in Canada? For instance, have clothing and food prices not increased? Is this matter not as definite and important as that raised by the hon. member for Humboldt-Mel-fort-Tisdale?
Mr. Speaker, prices are increasing not only with regard to farm machinery but also in housing construction, on account of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials; rent prices and education prices also are going up. It costs more today to keep a child in university and high school than was the case one or two years ago. These questions are just as important as the price increase of farm equipment.
I fully understand the stand taken by my good friend, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) in favour of this motion for adjournment but, Mr. Speaker, are they not the same people who, all across Canada, strongly advocate salary increases, or increases in people's income which are indirectly involved in the cost of production in Canada, in the field of farm equipment just like in any other field.
These are the same people who now want to discuss, in the federal parliament, the opportunity to decide if there have been too many, not enough or a reasonable number of price increases.
Mr. Speaker, prices of farm machinery and equipment depend on those who build or industrialize these machines. The prices are set by private enterprise. If there happens to be a combine in any field whatever we have federal legislation which allows us to determine whether there are speculators exercising their influence in a certain field of society.
Well, I sincerely believe, Mr. Speaker, that this motion to adjourn is not at all regular at the present time because if we are to consider the importance of farm machinery, we must do the same for all fields of economic activity in Canada. Food items are directly dependent upon farming operations in Canada.
[Mr. Caouette.l
Now, Mr. Speaker, even though the matter is important and definite, this is not the time, in my opinion, to deal with it, because the house must now proceed to the establishment of a legislative measure which will allow, not only one class, but all classes of society, to benefit from a just and fair legislation.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
IEnglish]


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the motion complies with the requirements of paragraph 2 of citation 100 in regard to moving the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 in that the public interest will suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention. I think it also complies with the requirements of paragraph 3 which says that the ground of urgency of debate is valid when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough, and so on. It does not seem to me that there will be an opportunity in the immediate future when the subject matter raised by the hon. member can be debated.
If we look at paragraph 1 of the citation we find it says that the matter must involve the administrative responsibility of the government. I am not sure whether the price of farm machinery is in fact an administrative responsibility of the Department of Agriculture or the Minister of Agriculture. However, this situation has gone on so long without anything being done that what is required is an investigation to find out why the price of machinery has been going up. I think this is the point of the hon. member who moved the motion, he wishes to bring the question to the attention of the house, and the delay in dealing with the matter is the reason for it being a matter of urgency.
As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has stated, a debate this afternoon and this evening could not change the price of farm machinery, but surely we could have a statement from the Minister of Agriculture indicating that this matter will be taken up by his department or will be referred to the agricultural committee. Then he could perhaps get on with the matter. I agree it has been postponed so long that it becomes more urgent day by day.


John James Greene: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly concur in the sentiments of the hon. member who moved the motion to the effect that the cost-price squeeze in which the farmer finds himself is of very serious moment. I think we
April 25. 1966

are all very much concerned with this question. As I have stated from time to time, the government is certainly looking into the matter of farm machinery prices.
When the hon. member accuses me of being dilatory I wish he would express the dilatoriness in degree. It was only on January 18, not November, that I went out west, so I have only been dilatory to that degree. Also, Mr. Speaker, I certainly sympathize with the hon. member when he says it is singular that with the many, many royal commissions we have appointed in the past few years the rural people have not been getting their share. It seems to me the city dweller has received the major share of the royal commissions.
In this regard I would say that in the best interests of the farm community the matter has to be looked into carefully. I do not think we should jump into royal commissions. We may have had a way of jumping into royal commissions from time to time which has not always been the be-all and end-all of a problem. I think, therefore, that this problem must be looked into very carefully.
With respect to the question of urgency, which I think is the only material question at the present time, I might point out that urgency concerns, of course, the question of whether an opportunity is given by the ordinary rules and procedures of the house to discuss this matter apart from a discussion under standing order 26. I would point out that this matter might have been debated in the budget debate as recently as Friday. It is very difficult for me to see how this continually increasing and augmenting problem has become urgent only since Friday. In my mind the farmer has suffered from this problem for some considerable time, and I am rather surprised to find hon. members opposite actually implying that only since Friday has it become urgent, because of course they could have discussed it in the budget debate as late as Friday.
I would also point out that the agricultural committee is sitting at the present time and considering the estimates of the department, and any discussion of this matter can quite properly be brought before that committee at any time. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while agreeing most wholeheartedly with the difficulties that our agricultural community faces in this regard and while voicing the concern and resolution of the government to do whatever is necessary to protect the interests of the farmers, I do not believe that at

Farm Machinery Prices this time the matter is urgent in the parliamentary sense in that it could have been discussed in the budget debate and hon. members opposite did not see fit to do so and, second, it can be discussed at any time by the agricultural committee in their consideration of the estimates of the department. Therefore in the parliamentary sense I submit that urgency does not exist.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a few brief words on this subject. I think all of us, including the minister, agree that this is a matter of public importance and the question that arises concerns the urgency of debate. As I understand it, this means urgency of opportunity. The minister mentioned that the budget debate was completed last Friday and the matter could have been discussed at that time. However, I respectfully submit to Your Honour that the budget debate, as we know, is a limited debate and although government and opposition members in practice take part in it a great many members of the house had no opportunity to speak in that debate. In any event, these motions refer to opportunity of debate in the future, not the past.
As was pointed out by the mover, these rapid increases in price have taken place in the relatively recent past. They have not necessarily taken place since last Friday, but I think I have already disposed of that argument. The big problem, as was so well pointed out by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), is the question of urgency of debate. We know that the government has certain legislation planned for today and tomorrow and that the redistribution debate is to take place on Wednesday and may last a number of days.
The big problem is to get some kind of inquiry set up now so that this matter can be dealt with. I am quite sure that if the matter were debated today it would not take all day. Points of view could be expressed quite succinctly and briefly and the matter could be disposed of. The government could make an announcement of some sort of inquiry-it is their prerogative whether or not it is by means of a royal commission-and we could then get on with the government business planned for today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I am afraid the Chair will have to render another unpopular decision this afternoon. I have listened with great interest and attention, of course, to the representations made by hon. members in
April 25. 1966

Farm Machinery Prices support of the motion moved by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale suggesting that the house should adjourn its ordinary business with a view to discussing and considering the matter raised in his motion. There is no question whatsoever that, as the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale and others in support of his motion have said, this is a matter of great importance, a matter of urgency, a definite matter of urgent public importance. But as other hon. members taking part in this discussion have pointed out, we have to consider the question of urgency of debate.
In this connection I would again refer hon. members to citation 100, paragraph 3, of Beauchesne, fourth edition, which says:
"Urgency'* within this rule does not apply to the matter itself-
There is agreement that the matter is urgent.
-but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
I would also refer hon. members to paragraph 2 of citation 100 which refers to a ruling made by a previous Speaker and says:
The Speaker ruled that the motion should not be allowed, because he did not think the matter mentioned in the member's statement was of recent occurrence

I would also refer to paragraph 8 of the same citation which contains a statement made by the Speaker in the British house and refers to the same rule:
I do not think that, under the Standing Order of 1882, a motion on a subject of this kind, having such a very wide scope, was ever contemplated. What I think was contemplated, was an occurrence of some sudden emergency, either in home or in foreign affairs.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale did say in his statement in support of his motion that this unhappy situation which has occurred dates back to November. It is a continuing unhappy and unfortunate situation. I do not think it is a sudden occurrence such as that contemplated by the standing order and the precedents of the house, and in view of this, with sincere regret I do not think I can accept the motion of the hon. member.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to the remarks made during the course of the meeting of the board of directors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation held in Halifax which, as reported, had all the appearances of being contemptuous of parliament, to which the C.B.C. must report, in that it was alleged to have been suggested that the fact that a committee of the house had been set up might interfere with the possibility of there being a settlement in connection with the controversy over the weekly feature "This Hour Has Seven Days".
Has the Prime Minister any information in this connection and has he communicated with the C.B.C. and pointed out to that body that this kind of expression of view is contemptuous of the House of Commons?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have seen press references along the lines of my right hon. friend's question and I have asked whether it is possible to obtain the text of what was actually said. The Secretary of State is unfortunately away today on official business, but I expect to see her as soon as she gets back to see whether she has any information.



HOUSING

[Stage Direction]
REPORTED CURTAILMENT OF FEDERAL FUNDS On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said the Minister of Labour would be making a statement shortly in respect of loans under the national housing legislation. However, while the house is waiting for that statement I want to ask the Prime Minister if he can tell the house whether the cabinet has made a decision to the effect that funds available for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be curtailed? Telegrams are pouring in to the effect that not only are applications for loans being rejected but applications which were submitted early in March are now being returned to prospective home owners. I am wondering whether this is a decision of the cabinet.
[Mr. Speaker.)
April 25. 1966	COMMONS


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am getting those messages too.
I am, of course, aware how seriously this situation is regarded by many people and the matter is to be discussed at our cabinet meeting tomorrow morning. As it happens, the minister responsible for the corporation is absent today; I believe he is addressing the Canadian Labour Congress. However, I hope he will be back for the meeting tomorrow morning when we will be discussing this matter, and I hope that a statement can be made after that discussion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Is it possible, at least as a preliminary move in the right direction, for the government to consider accepting the applications which were already submitted in good faith and which have been in the hands of the corporation for some time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should not like to express an opinion on this matter, Mr. Speaker, but I would be glad to look into it.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the future minister of manpower.
Since he announced to the house that Jamaican workers would come to work in some parts of Canada, has the minister received other requests from Canadian organizations asking for immigrant labour, either from Jamaica or elsewhere?


Jean Marchand: Personally, I did not get any. I could inquire if any were received by the department.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Since for the last five months we have been addressing ourselves to the future minister of the new department of manpower, which will be created eventually, can the Prime Minister tell us when he intends to create that department, so that we may be able to address the minister as such?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly on our list of priority legislation and I hope we will get to it as soon as possible.
DEBATES	4239
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



BELL ISLAND, NFLD.-ASSISTANCE TO UNEMPLOYED MINERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position today, as he promised on Friday, to give a detailed report as to what the government has in mind to assist the 850 miners who will be displaced as a result of the closing by Dosco of the mine at Bell Island? The Prime Minister may recall that questions were posed in the house last week to the Minister of Industry and also to himself by the hon. member for St. John's East and myself.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member for St. John's East has also indicated his intention to ask this question which was asked last Friday, with some reference having been made to it before that. I think that the best way to give the answer I indicated I would give is to read from a telegram which I have sent to the premier of the province concerned, Newfoundland, which includes the following paragraphs:
We are setting up a working group of senior officials from all federal government agencies concerned, and we would like to arrange for discussions at the earliest convenient time with officials of the government of Newfoundland to explore both the possibility of promoting alternative opportunities for employment on Bell Island and measures for the retraining and re-establishment of all persons who are now employed in the mining activity who would be interested in employment elsewhere. In such a program employment elsewhere in Newfoundland would, of course, be given priority. It would be our thought that a report to both governments should be prepared, after consultation by the officials, for consideration at the earliest feasible date.
We realize fully what a disastrous economic blow the closing of the mine will be to this large community and indeed to the economy of Newfoundland and are anxious to do everything we can as a government to help meet the situation.


Mr. Joseph P. O'Keefe (St. John's Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria said I was not here. I am very much here. As the Prime Minister knows, I was going to ask that question this afternoon, so the hon. member opposite is mistaken.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
April 25. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry INCOME TAX



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF FILING DEADLINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that the deadline for filing income tax returns this year falls on a Saturday, April 30, which is not a civil service working day and neither is the following day, Sunday, would the minister consider extending the deadline to midnight, Monday, May 2?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, although I would be willing to consider this matter, I should point out that anyone filing a personal income tax return is provided with an envelope and we will certainly accept any return mailed before midnight on Saturday.



GERDA MUNSINGER-DEDUCTION OF TAX ON PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister assure the house that income tax was deducted at source by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and other organizations or persons in Canada who paid a fee to Mrs. Gerda Munsinger for services rendered?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be on the order paper.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question in view of the discussion today on the motion to adjourn the house. Would he be prepared in the very near future to make a statement on what is the policy of the government with reference to an investigation into the high cost of farm machinery? The minister mentioned the date of January 18.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I shall be making an announcement with regard to this question in the very near future.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not cross-examining the minister, but by "the very near future" does he mean within a few days?
(Mr. Speaker.]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid the hon. member, out of force of habit, is crossexamining the minister.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture?
The Quebec Minister of Agriculture advises the farmers of the northwestern part of the province that his department is forwarding the amount required or appropriated for their crop failures in 1964 and he tells them at the same time that the federal government will pay them a similar amount.
The month of May is almost here and the farmers have not received anything. Is the minister aware of this situation and does he intend to satisfy the claims of the farmers in that part of the country?
[English1


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, the federal government participated in a program of emergency agricultural relief in the province of Quebec to which I believe we contributed some $12 million. The program is administered by the province of Quebec with a federal contribution. To the best of my knowledge the administration in Quebec has been a satisfactory one, although I have no knowledge whether all claims have yet been satisfied.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister mean that the $12 million were actually paid to the province of Quebec? Have the $12 million been paid to the province of Quebec?
[English1


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the claims are paid as they come in. I am not aware whether all of the $12 million has yet been paid. I wonder if I might take that part of the hon. member's question as notice. As I say, I do not believe it has all been paid because the claims are processed as they come in.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question? Is the minister aware that the Quebec Department of Agriculture is advising the farmers that the
April 25, 1966

federal government is to issue these cheques in the same way as the Quebec government, that is directly to the farmers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is not in order.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport with respect to his Atlantic Development Board responsibilities. Does the minister agree with the over-all contention of Mr. Ian MacKeigan, chairman of that board, who in an important speech on Friday in Fredericton contended that the board has run out of money and that much more is needed? Can we expect a statement as to the government's intentions respecting the board and the need for more money?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman will refresh his memory by looking at the Speech from the Throne he will see that an amendment to the act is envisaged. The fund has not actually run out of money but most of it has been committed to various projects. As my right hon. friend the Prime Minister pointed out some time ago, we do not think that the work of the board has yet been completed. The government does not intend to see that it is hampered in going on with its work.


Thomas Miller Bell: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister whether he gives full reassurance that the board is still necessary and that more funds will be made available?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very glad that the hon. gentleman does not agree with the rather extraordinary views expressed by his leader some little time ago as to the necessity for a fund, and that he agrees with us that the fund is necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not aware that it was the same leader of this party who established this board originally?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, without any money.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MAYOR OF QUEBEC CITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?
I should like to ask him whether he has had today or whether he is to have talks of the utmost importance with the mayor of the city of Quebec or with members of his executive?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot judge from this question whether its substance is urgent or of national importance. It is most difficult for me to accept the question.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, if the minister were given the opportunity to answer, I believe you would then be enlightened on the urgency of the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.
It was to give the minister an opportunity to welcome the mayor of Quebec who is now in the gallery.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and future minister of manpower, following the question you ruled out of order in connection with the visit to Ottawa of his worship the mayor of Quebec. I believe that it is not very often that the mayor of Quebec comes to Ottawa and it is a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question, would he put it as soon as possible?


David Réal Caouette: Did the mayor of Quebec have a meeting with the minister or the right hon. Prime Minister, in connection with federal buildings in the city of Quebec, the use of which we ask for the benefit of Quebec city?
I think this is rather important.


Mr. Speaker:: Very important indeed, but the question is out of order.
April 25. 1965



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the recently announced defence department pay review team, could the minister advise the house whether that team will be considering special responsibility allowances for radio operators, navigators and other technical officers in the air force? Also, when is the report of that body expected?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this is not the type of question that should be asked at this time. It does not seem to be so urgent that it might not be placed on the order paper. If the hon. member thinks that the matter he raises is urgent, it might be given consideration in the adjournment debate or he might communicate directly with the minister.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I think that will help to clarify some of the uncertainties that now exist in the services.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a strictly appropriate question at this time of the Solicitor General. Has the Solicitor General anything further to report wtih respect to the examination of the accounts and documents seized by the R.C.M.P. from the Seafarers International headquarters from the point of view of the possibility of laying charges against some of the former senior officers of that organization?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, recently the R.C.M.P. placed an extensive report in the hands of the special counsel who subsequently expressed the view that there are some points to be clarified. Accordingly, I have asked that the investigation be concluded and that a final report be made at the earliest possible date.


Lester Bowles Pearson: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of a system of collective bargaining applicable to employees in the public service of Canada and for the resolution of disputes that may arise in the negotiation or conclusion of collective agreements applicable to such employees; to establish a process for the presentation of grievances of employees arising in connection with their employment and to establish a system for the adjudication of grievances of employees; to provide for the establishment of a board, to be known as the Public Service Staff Relations Board, which shall be responsible for the administration of the said measure and to provide further for the constitution and appointment of such other authorities, officers and employees as are required in connection with the administration of the said measure.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to move the adoption of this resolution which stands on the order paper in my name. The purpose of the resolution, and it is an important one, is stated in the first sentence.
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of a system of collective bargaining applicable to employees in the public service of Canada and for the resolution of disputes that may arise in the negotiation or conclusion of collective agreements applicable to such employees;-
I will not read the rest of the resolution at this time, Mr. Chairman. In other words, the object of this resolution is to make possible the introduction of legislation which will in its turn make possible the introduction into the public service of Canada of an appropriate system of collective bargaining.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The principle that public servants should have an opportunity to participate in such a system has, I believe, widespread support in the Canadian community. It is a principle which I think I can say is accepted by all parties represented in this house. It is our hope that the legislation which embodies this principle and which, if this resolution carries, will be placed before hon. members for their consideration and ultimate approval, will prove to be an effective instrument for the regulation of employer-employee relationships in the public service.
It has been the usual practice in this house, in dealing with legislation relating to the
April 25. 1966

administration of the public service, to provide for its detailed examination in committee and it is the intention of the government that this practice should be followed with respect to the proposed collective bargaining legislation with which the resolution before us is concerned. With this object in view, a resolution to establish a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons has been placed on the order paper and this resolution will be called at an appropriate time.
Legislation dealing with the public service has traditionally been considered by parliament in a non-partisan atmosphere and it is my hope that this tradition will be maintained with respect to the measure contemplated in this resolution. The legislation to be placed before the house has been prepared with very great care but there is little doubt that suggestions to amend it will be made. Hon. members may be assured that the government will be prepared to consider very seriously any such suggestions for change and to support those which would result in improvements.
The legislation forecast in this resolution will rightly be regarded as a measure of very great significance in the history of the public service. For those who have customarily been identified as servants of the Crown, that is, servants of the people, and whose terms and conditions of employment have been determined by parliament or by the government of the day, this legislation will provide the right to participate in a process of joint determination of the terms and conditions of their employment. This is a process which is rooted in the concept of equity and equality between the government as employer and organizations representing its employees. Such a change will call for major adjustments in established processes and procedures and in the traditional attitude of all those who are concerned.
The legislation proposed by this resolution has been long in preparation-properly so, I believe, in view of its far-reaching implications and importance. The preparatory committee on collective bargaining under the distinguished chairmanship of a great Canadian public servant, Mr. Arnold Heeney, was established in August of 1963. This committee of senior officials was asked by the government to prepare for the introduction into the public service of an appropriate form of collective bargaining and arbitration and in doing so to examine the need for reforms
Public Service Collective Bargaining in the system of classification and pay applying to civil servants and prevailing rate employees. Supported by a staff of very competent experts, the preparatory committee met regularly during a two-year period. In the course of its deliberations it received briefs from and consulted with interested employee organizations. It also consulted a number of distinguished persons from the universities, from industry and from provincial and municipal governments. Its report to the government, made in June of last year, was tabled almost immediately and is, of course, available to hon. members.
I should like to express the gratitude of the government, and I am sure members of this house will join with me in this expression of gratitude, to the chairman and to the members as well as to the staff of the committee for their effective and valuable services.
The proposals contained in the preparatory committee's report which relate to the reforms in the classification system were welcomed by the government, and after discussion with the Civil Service Commission they were approved. A program to convert all positions in the civil service to the new plan of classification was immediately undertaken by the Civil Service Commission. This program is now well advanced and is expected to be completed next year. The reforms in the system of classification are of great importance to the successful introduction of a system of collective bargaining, since it is intended that the groupings established by the classification system will constitute the basis of the collective bargaining relationship.
The report of the preparatory committee has been studied very carefully by the government since it was received and published. In the course of this study, the chairman and other members of the committee and its staff have continued to assist ministers. They will, of course, be available to assist the joint committee in its examination of the measure referred to in this resolution should the resolution itself obtain the approval of hon. members, as I hope it will.
The measure to be introduced varies in a few important respects from the proposals made by the preparatory committee on collective bargaining. The modifications which have been put forward by the government do not detract, however, from the fact that the proposed legislation conforms to the basic recommendations of the committee. I will make reference to the main modifications a little later as I refer to the more significant aspects of the resolution before us.
April 25. 1966

Public Service Collective Bargaining
The proposed measure, if parliament approves it, would require changes in two other important pieces of legislation. It will be necessary to amend the Financial Administration Act in such a way as to provide the Treasury Board with authority in keeping with its responsibility to represent the employer interest in the proposed system of collective bargaining. It will also be necessary to amend the Civil Service Act in such a way as to provide for this allocation of authority and to enable the Civil Service Commission to concentrate on its fundamental task of staffing the service and preserving the merit system of selection and appointment.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The statutory reforms in the administration of the public service which are contemplated in this legislative program are, in the view of the government, no less significant than the reforms instituted by the Civil Service Act of 1918 which in essence constituted the beginning of our civil service as we know it today. It is the government's hope and expectation that the changes which will be brought about by this legislation, if it meets parliamentary approval, will ensure that the public service of Canada in the years to come will have the administrative capacity and flexibility to adjust to the changing demands of the Canadian community which it serves.
It has been, and is now, a civil service unexcelled in any country in the world and equalled by few. I hope that the changes now proposed will help to maintain that proud position.
The reforms contemplated in the proposed legislation owe much to several separate studies and investigations of personnel management in the public service which have been undertaken in the post-war period. I have already referred to the work of the preparatory committee on collective bargaining. I would also like to emphasize the important contributions made by the Royal Commission on Administrative Classifications in the Public Service, under the chairmanship of the present hon. member for Davenport, which reported in 1946; by the Civil Service Commission in its report on personnel administration in the public service, which was published in 1958; and by the Royal Commission on Government Organization, under the chairmanship of Mr. Grant Glassco, which reported in 1962.
The report of the Glassco commission underlined the principle of managerial authority


and responsibility in the administration of the public service. I think that was an important and timely emphasis. In many areas of the public service new administrative processes reflecting this emphasis are now being introduced. When the report of the Royal Commission on Government Organization was first published, that is, the Glassco commission, its stress on managerial authority was seen in some quarters as a threat to the traditional security of civil servants. The proposal to transfer a significant measure of authority from the independent Civil Service Commission to the Treasury Board and to departmental management was regarded at the time with some apprehension by employee organizations and by others.
It was argued that, if much of the traditional protection afforded employees by the involvement of the commission in the determination of pay and the regulation of other conditions of employment were to be removed, employees themselves should be given the right to protect their own interests through appropriate collective bargaining procedures comparable with those available to employees in the private sector of the community. The argument was an impressive and persuasive one, and it has done much to establish the environment in which the new legislation was considered by the government.
In developing this new legislation the government has had certain general objectives in mind: First, to protect the public interest; second, to respond in an understanding and responsible manner to the aims and aspirations of its organized employees; third, to preserve the capacity of the public service to function efficiently in serving the people of Canada and, fourth, to respect the principles underlying industrial relations law and practice in Canada. In their evaluation of proposals made by the government I am sure members of the house will want to keep all these objectives very much in mind.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to address myself for a moment to some of the more important aspects of the policy to be embodied in the legislation which it is proposed, if this resolution carries, to put before parliament.
First, as to its application it is intended that any such legislation should provide a system of collective bargaining for most of the public servants who are not now covered by the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. Members of the armed forces, however, who are not employees in
April 25, 1986	COMMONS
the normal sense of the term, will not be covered. Nor will members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or persons locally engaged abroad. The bill will not apply to the employees of parliament in respect of whom the government has no authority as an employer. These groups, who might in the broad sense all be thought of as public servants, will constitute the major exceptions from the application of the legislation.
In Canada, legislation to regulate the relationships between employers and organized employees has invariably assigned important powers and responsibilities to independent labour relations boards. The bill which will be placed before the house will propose the establishment of a similar regulatory board. Its duties will include the definition of bargaining units, the certification of bargaining agents, and the investigation of complaints relating to infringement of rights granted by the statute.
Under the federal industrial relations statute bargaining units are determined by the labour relations board upon application of an employee organization seeking certification. The measure to provide for collective bargaining in the public service will propose a similar procedure. In the interests of an orderly change to the bargaining relationship, however, it will normally require that during a transitional period bargaining units should be defined in such a way as to correspond with the occupational groups in the new classification structure.
I should mention at this point that the proposed legislation will make it possible for bargaining rights to be extended progressively to employees in different occupational capacities during a maximum period of two years. It is our hope that organizations representing employees in the operational category, who are engaged in a wide variety of service and maintenance occupations, will be able to seek certification by October 1, 1966.
Under the schedule which we anticipate and which we hope to be able to carry into effect if parliament gives us the authority, and which is designed to carry into bargaining the present pay review cycle, certification will be available on July 1, 1967, to employees in the professional and scientific category and technical category, and on October 1, 1967, to employees in the administrative and administrative support categories.
Under the proposed legislation an employee organization certified as a bargaining unit would enjoy the exclusive right to bargain on
DEBATES	4245
Public Service Collective Bargaining behalf of employees in the bargaining unit concerned and to enter into collective agreements on their behalf. The rights that would be gained through certification would be substantial, heralding a significant change in the traditional relationship of employee organizations to the government as employer.
The most difficult problem to be resolved in the regulation of any system of labour relations is the manner in which disputes are to be settled. The dispute settlement provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, which are similar to those in most labour relations acts in Canada, permit strikes and walkouts where employees have established a bargaining relationship. However, as hon. members know, such actions are not permitted until a number of conditions have been satisfied.
These normally include negotiation in good faith and, where a dispute develops, its consideration by a conciliation board. Strikes and walkouts are lawful only when the conciliation board has reported and a number of days have elapsed after the report has been received. In other circumstances a strike or walkout is an illegal act and is subject to penalties prescribed by law. Strikes and walkouts are also prohibited during the lifetime of a collective agreement.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In so far as the public service of Canada is concerned, the preparatory committee expressed the view that third party arbitration should be the established method of resolving disputes. It said in effect that strike action as a means of resolving disputes would be inappropriate in the public service but that conditions prevailing at the time would not in its view justify a statutory prohibition of strikes. That was the position taken by the preparatory committee.
The legislation which it is hoped will be introduced makes provision for an arbitration process which conforms in all but one important respect with the recommendation of the preparatory committee. The exception however, is an important one. Hon. members will recall the committee's proposal that the Governor in Council should have authority to set aside an arbitration award in what is considered to be abnormal circumstances. The government has concluded that to follow this proposal would appear to give to the employer an undue advantage. It is perhaps not surprising that employee organizations in the public service have taken a similar view. The
April 25. 1966

Public Service Collective Bargaining legislation referred to in the resolution, therefore, will contain no provision permitting the government in its own right to withdraw from an arbitration award. Arbitration will be equally binding on the employer, the government, and the employee, the public servant.
The great majority of organized public servants have made it clear to the government through their elected officers that they wish to be governed by a process of dispute settlement based on binding arbitration. That view is not shared by all public servants, however. Many other responsible Canadians also feel strongly that the right to strike is fundamental and should be qualified only where a clear case can be made to restrict that right in the public interest. The government believes that these strong and very genuine feelings should be respected. Accordingly, the legislation will provide for an alternative method of dispute settlement comparable with that prescribed in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. This method, founded on conciliation and permitting strikes in prescribed circumstances, would be available, as an alternative to the process of binding arbitration, to any bargaining agent. The proposal for this alternative process which permits strikes, however, will vary from that established by the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act in one important respect. The bill will provide that an employee subject to the process will not have the right to strike if his services are essential to the safety and security of the public. The designation of such employees would be made in the first instance by the employer, that is, the government, but in the event of objections registered by a bargaining agent such designation would be determined finally by the Public Service Staff Relations Board.
The last matter of substance, Mr. Chairman, to which I should like to refer in dealing with the resolution is the fact that the proposed legislation will make provision for the introduction throughout the service of formal grievance procedures. The lack of such procedures in most parts of the public service has made it difficult in the past for management to identify and deal with irritants in the relationship between individual employees and those who represent the government as employer.
The preparatory committee recommended that grievance procedures conforming to certain minimum standards should be available

to all public servants. The government has accepted this recommendation and has made appropriate provisions for grievance procedures in the proposed legislation.
I should like to conclude these remarks by reiterating my view that the legislation referred to in this resolution will be of very real significance in the development of the processes of public administration in Canada. It is my profound hope that it will provide a framework within which the parties, employer and employees, will be able to develop a relationship founded on mutual confidence and respect to the general betterment of the public service of Canada and to its even greater effectiveness in the service to the people of this country.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, this day may well become an historic one in the development of personnel relations in the public service of Canada. Indeed, only two other occasions relating to the public service seem to me to have equal significance. They are the original introduction of the Civil Service Act in the days of Sir Robert Borden, the father of the merit system and of the modern civil service, and the introduction of the complete revision of that act in 1960 under the aegis of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert.
Mention of these three occasions will serve to remind us, as the Prime Minister also did this afternoon, that parliament should approach public service matters with a total freedom from partisanship and with one objective only-how can parliament establish and obtain the best atmosphere in which public servants can achieve the finest administration for the benefit of all Canadians? I want to express at once appreciation of the indication by the Prime Minister in his address this afternoon of willingness to consider amendments to the proposed legislation, where the merit of such amendments may become evident as our discussion proceeds.
Even those of us, sir, who are close to its work have difficulty in realizing what a vast, complex and highly organized structure the Canadian public service has become. In the youth of some of us at least, the federal government reached into our lives but little. Today the tentacles of officialdom reach into almost every facet of our daily lives, and each of us is profoundly affected by the countless decisions taken by public servants in the many departments and agencies of government.
April 25. 1966

About 350,000 Canadians are employees of Her Majesty, of whom approximately 140,000 are employed by the proprietory and agency corporations and 210,000 are employed by departments of government or departmental corporations. There are over 100 departments or agencies. These statistics emphasize the importance today of the Canadian public service and its widespread ramifications.
All of us in all parts of this house know how exceedingly fortunate Canadians have been in the calibre and quality of the public service. I share to the full the view expressed by the Prime Minister that our public service compares most favourably with that of any nation in the world, and there are many branches of our government service which are unequalled anywhere in scholarship, dedication or accomplishment.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I think the tests we must bring to this new legislation which will be before us must be these: Will it promote efficiency and proficiency within the service? Will it enhance the attractiveness of a civil service career to our ablest young people? Will it assist recruitment of the best minds for our public administration? Will it assist in creating the best climate for constructive effort and dedicated achievement and leading to a fairer and more equitable treatment of public servants in all departments and agencies? Will it improve morale, help to end feelings of frustration and anxiety among civil servants? When the bill goes to a special committee, and I am pleased to know it will, these are some of the tests to which 1 suggest each of its sections must be submitted.
Collective bargaining, of course ,as such is not new in the public service. The Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act applies to employees in most crown corporations. In quite a number of those corporations bargaining agents have been certified under that act and conditions of employment and levels of wages and salaries are established by collective agreement. Most provinces now have a system of negotiation and arbitration with their employees and they have applied such systems to their municipalities.
For many years I have believed personally that procedures of negotiation and arbitration for the federal public service should be recognized and established and that they should adhere as closely as possible to the law in effect governing relations generally

Public Service Collective Bargaining between employers and employees. I enthusiastically endorse the principle of collective bargaining. I confess that in other days I had hoped that this could have been achieved by an evolutionary process under which convention, tradition and agreement, rather than statutory enactment, would govern the procedure.
I have always been impressed by the national Whiteley councils in the United Kingdom which since 1924 have worked effectively and efficiently there without any statutory basis whatever. But I confess to sharing the disillusionment with the manner in which events, some of them untimely and unfortunate, have rendered section 7 of the Civil Service Act of 1961 less than efficacious, and I have come reluctantly to the conclusion that only a statutory base in feasible in the attempt to obtain the collective bargaining system which all of us want at this time.
If the proposed bill based upon this resolution is similar to that drafted under the supervision of the preparatory committee on collective bargaining in the public service, as the Prime Minister has indicated, I want to express some reservations about its complexity and possible inflexibility. The place, of course, to thresh this out is the special committee, but I want to sound this note of warning now. The system of collective bargaining should not be made too rigid, should not be placed in a legislative strait-jacket, but must be given the opportunity to live, breathe and grow in order to meet and conform to changing circumstances.
I believe that this occasion should not pass without some words of tribute to the work of the national joint council. For about 22 years it has been the forum in which organized civil servants could discuss and consider jointly with officials representing the government a wide range of questions affecting conditions of work. The central questions of salary and wage levels have never been included in the national joint council deliberations and, indeed, as the Heeney report of 1958 pointed out, it was hardly a suitable forum for joint consultation and systematic discussion of this complex subject. But it has to its credit very substantial accomplishments, chief of which are the five-day week and the group medical-surgical plan.
The national joint council has been a useful and constructive body. When the Prime Minister replies, I should like him to indicate what is to be the future role, if any, of the national joint council. The Prime Minister
April 25. 1968

Public Service Collective Bargaining will see that at page 87 of the report of the preparatory committee it is indicated that this is being reviewed and that recommendations will be made to the governor in council. I should like to know whether they have been made and what is the nature of them.
I should also like to know what the government proposes shall be the future role of the pay research bureau. I have what I might describe as a paternal interest in this bureau, because one of my earliest actions on entering this house in 1957 was to endeavour to persuade, and I did persuade them, the right hon. gentleman who is now the Leader of the Opposition, and the then minister of finance, Hon. Donald M. Fleming, to establish this bureau which the staff associations had theretofore sought unsuccessfully. I believe it has played a most useful role, that its techniques of research, which were shaky at the outset, have been consistently improved, that its work is needed in the future as a source of complete and impartial information about the comparability of salary and wage levels in various grades and classifications.
The Prime Minister has indicated this afternoon that if a system of collective bargaining is to be successful a drastic rearrangement and simplification of the existing classification and salary structure is a sine qua non. The Prime Minister has told us this afternoon that this will be completed some time next year. Indeed, I think this could be one of the most significant and advantageous byproducts of the institution of collective bargaining.
Since 1929 this simplification and rearrangement has been urged periodically by various commissions but these recommendations have been largely ignored. The work of the Royal Commission on Administration Classifications in the Public Service was virtually pigeonholed by the St. Laurent government. The Glassco commission report was the latest to find the system "too elaborate and complicated", and recommended radical simplification. Yet in this as in other matters the present government has paid scant attention and virtually no respect to the Glassco report.
Last July, when the preparatory committee on collective bargaining in the public service submitted its report, the then 138,000 continuing positions under the Civil Service Act were found in over 700 classes and 1,400 grades. The special committee will want additional details in this regard to those given this afternoon in the house by the Prime Minister as to how far in fact the work of

simplification and rationalization has proceeded. It is very evident that the very number of grades and classifications at present would cause collective bargaining to bog down.
I have no doubt, sir, that there will be many growing pains in the application of new and simplified classifications. It is exceedingly difficult to bring about reasonable uniformity of conditions of employment when there is such an immense variety and diversity of public service jobs. Obviously a clerical job may be very different, although the grade or classification may be the same, for persons working in the embassy at Prague, in an Atlantic seacoast town, at departmental headquarters in Ottawa or in a post at Frobisher Bay.
In addition to the reduction and simplification of the grades and classifications, there are certain other essentials, I submit, if a plan of collective bargaining is to be fully successful and its integrity established firmly. I suggest that these essentials are a basic and integral part of industrial relations law today.
First, there must be full freedom of choice on the part of a civil servant to join whatever organization he wishes. Second, there must be firm prohibition of any discrimination, direct or indirect, against any civil servant as the result of his belonging to an organization of his choice. Third, there must be prohibition of any interference by the government, or any agent of the government, with any staff associations or organizations, including provision of appropriate penalties for threats, reprisals or acts of intimidation. Fourth, there must be provision for an adequate system of redress of grievances and for full investigation of complaints.
Finally, I should like to say that the calibre and ability of the persons appointed to the board and to the arbitration tribunal must be so high and distinguished as to command and retain the confidence not only of all public servants but of all Canadians generally. There is no place for patronage, either political or bureaucratic, in these appointments.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
When I refer to the arbitration tribunal may I mention what to me is one of the astonishing features of the report of the preparatory committee as found on page 78:
The awards of the tribunal should reflect the view of all three members, a majority including the chairman or the chairman alone and, in any event, should be signed only by the chairman. There should be no provision for minority reports.
April 25, 1966

If I interpret that correctly, it means that the chairman of a three-man board is himself a majority of one even though his two colleagues oppose him, and they are unable to submit a minority report. I confess that I am reminded of the story of Lincoln's cabinet. I do not know whether the Prime Minister treats his cabinet in this way but Lincoln apparently polled his colleagues and found all of them, seven in number, in favour of a certain course of action which he alone opposed. So he announced the result, "Seven yeas; one nay; I declare the nays have it." Frankly, I do not see how this particular proposal in the report and draft legislation can be permitted to stand.
There is one aspect of public service administration which I want to emphasize cannot be made the subject of collective bargaining, and that is the basic merit system. That system, which we owe to Sir Robert Borden, must be preserved inviolate as the central core of our civil service policy. Hon. members are aware of the very deep concern that I feel about possible intrusions into the merit system of factors extraneous to it. I only want to assert now that it is a matter which cannot, in totality or in part, be the subject of negotiation. It must be and remain what the Heeney report of 1958 described it as, "a permanent feature of the Canadian philosophy and machinery of government."
There are a number of other aspects of the bill to be founded upon this resolution which will require especially careful study in the special committee. Personally I am not fully satisfied that the proposed exclusions from collective bargaining are all necessarily sound. Obviously, the armed forces must be excluded, but I am not certain I know why the bill should exclude all persons appointed by the governor in council, persons locally engaged outside Canada, and the bulk of casual employees. It was not clear from what the Prime Minister said this afternoon whether the bill as introduced will differ from the bill recommended by the preparatory committee as to casual employees not being brought under collective bargaining. The latter, it seems to me, are among the employees who may need protection most.
No doubt the special committee will need to spend a great deal of time studying and hearing evidence on the question of the right to strike and the alternative processes mentioned this afternoon by the Prime Minister. Personally I want to study very carefully not
Public Service Collective Bargaining only what the Prime Minister said in that respect this afternoon, which 1 was unable to follow in detail, but the actual provisions of the bill before commenting in detail upon it.
On this whole question I know there are major differences among members of the house and indeed among the staff associations, and I think we should keep an open mind on the subject until all the evidence has been heard. On balance, as I am at present advised I doubt that either the recognition of the right to strike or the prohibition of such right matters as significantly as some believe. Prohibitions of this character have never been very effective in preventing persons with a sense of moral outrage taking retaliatory action. I think our eyes should be upon the goal of preventing conditions arising where the possibility of strike action could even be contemplated. That is the approach we should take. I am sure that already hon. members are receiving telegrams in this respect. Since I came into the chamber this afternoon I have received two, one on each side of this particular subject. I want to hear a great deal more discussion before making a final decision in relation to it or the alternative processes which the Prime Minister has mentioned.
The Prime Minister has indicated that the proposed right of the governor in council to set aside an award as proposed by the preparatory committee will not be in the bill he will introduce following this resolution. But he did not say what reservation, if any, there would be of the residual authority of this sovereign parliament in the event of an emergency where the general public interest requires protection. My hope would be that any such reservation would be as drastically limited as possible.
The 1961 Civil Service Act for the first time made a civil servant's pay a matter of statutory right. In my view a civil servant's pay, determined as it now will be by the process of collective bargaining, is in exactly the same position as a bondholder's interest, an elderly person's pension, a war veteran's pension of other payments which are guaranteed by statute. Nothing should interfere with that pay determined, as I say, by the process of collective bargaining. It may be, Mr. Chairman, that I mention this with some feeling, perhaps principally because the 1962 pay freeze, which I tried hard to prevent, was the reason for my two and a half years enforced holiday from this house.
April 25. 1966

Public Service Collective Bargaining
The Prime Minister this afternoon told us of the consequential amendments which will be required to the Civil Service Act and the Financial Administration Act. What I do not understand is why the resolutions in respect of these amendments are not now on the order paper. Will these amending bills also be referred to the special committee? If so, I venture to suggest they should have been on the order paper this afternoon and should have been brought forward. Personally I believe it is imperative that the special committee should have before it from the outset the full package of the government's proposals. I do not think we should start our deliberations in the special committee until we have before us the complete package of the government's proposals.
The institution of collective bargaining will not create a bed of roses either for the government or the staff associations or indeed for the person most involved, the public servant himself. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that sincerity of purpose and mutual good will, plus not a little bit of patient understanding, will be prerequisites of its success. But I think this resolution does constitute a very major advance in personnel administration. I endorse wholeheartedly the principle of the resolution and would assure the Prime Minister that we on this side of the chamber who will be members of the special committee will take full advantage of his offer in relation to amendments and will work diligently to ensure that the procedures and techniques are the most advanced and enlightened that this parliament can possibly devise.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the members of this party have long advocated and supported the introduction of legislation which would provide full and complete collective bargaining rights for all government employees and employees of all government agencies. Today, in introducing the resolution preceding the necessary legislation to provide for collective bargaining, the Prime Minister has put on the calendar what could well be a red letter day in the history of the Canadian public service.
As all members know, we have been for some years far behind many other countries in providing this type of legislation. Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and several other countries have for decades had legislation providing for collective bargaining procedures for the public service. In Canada we have been slow in getting around to this.
[Mr. Bell (Carleton).l

The first province to pass such legislation was Saskatchewan which in 1945 made provision for the entire public service to come within the purview of the Trade Union Act and extended to government employees all the rights and privileges which were enjoyed by all other employees within the jurisdiction of the provincial government. I am only sorry that we have taken so long to follow this lead.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Having said that, this does not in any way lessen the sincerity of my commendation to the Prime Minister and to his cabinet for the great forward step which is being initiated by virtue of the legislation to be put before us. I am sure that it must afford the Prime Minister some satisfaction, having himself had some connection with the civil service of Canada, to think that he has played a major role in the steady advancement of the public service of this country, which began with Sir Robert Borden. He was followed by the late William Lyon Mackenzie King when he was prime minister of Canada, and who in my opinion played a very important role in developing the civil service of Canada, establishing its independence and raising its standards. Today we have another Liberal Prime Minister introducing collective bargaining legislation. If it is effective, as I hope it will be, then the Prime Minister will have won for himself a place in the history of this forward march of the civil service of Canada.
I shall not attempt to discuss in any detail the proposals which the Prime Minister has made, first of all because I should like to examine them more closely and, second, because I should like to see the legislation. We will be able to make a contribution when the bill comes down. However, I should like to say one or two things about the whole process of collective bargaining.
First of all, any legislation which is brought into this house should give to government employees the same rights and privileges as are now enjoyed by other employees anywhere else in Canada. For too long we Canadians have accepted the concept that public servants are in some way or other second class citizens, that they ought not to have the same rights and privileges as their fellow workers. I have never seen any justification for this attitude. I can see no difference between a worker who is employed by General Motors and one who is employed by the government of Canada or any of the government's agencies. I hope that when this
April 25, 1966	COMMONS
collective bargaining legislation comes in it will cover all employees of the federal government. I exclude naturally the military, whom I do not consider employees but servants of the Crown who enlist for military service.
As a matter of fact, if we are to retain a good staff in the civil service we will have to give them the measure of dignity and independence to which they are entitled. The day is past when getting a government job is a plum. There was a time when people rushed into government jobs because there were not too many jobs in the private sector. But today there is tremendous competition for able personnel. The government has to compete in the labour market and it is not going to be able to compete effectively if persons who have become employees of the government know that they are going to be treated as second class citizens. If we want a good quality of public servants then we must to see to it that they enjoy all the rights and privileges enjoyed by other workers.
I agree wholeheartedly with what both the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Carleton said about the high standard of the public service of this country. But I hope that we will never stop with the steps which are being taken as a result of the resolution introduced today by the Prime Minister. I hope that in due course we will not only be able to build up a highly qualified and highly skilled public service for the government of Canada but that we will be able to make the public service at all three levels of government a career into which young men and women will go upon graduation from university or some technical institute or high school.
I hope that the day will come when we will have reciprocal agreements between the federal and provincial governments and between both those levels of government and the municipalities, so that people trained in public administration will, if they so desire, be able to move from the municipal field to the provincial field to the federal field or vice-versa while at the same time retaining their pension rights, their seniority rights and their other privileges.
In this way, Mr. Chairman, we would build up in Canada a great reservoir of well-trained and highly-skilled public servants who could work at any level of government and who would have a measure of security and independence which is not always possible at the present time. Often-times now civil
DEBATES	4251
Public Service Collective Bargaining servants begin to work at one level of government and when they get to a certain age cannot avail themselves of the opportunity go to move another level of government because they would jeopardize their pension rights and they are beyond the age when they would want to do so.
Second, I would hope that when this legislation is brought before us it will give to the civil servants of Canada all the rights of collective bargaining as they relate to wages, hours and conditions of labour. I hope it will enable them to bargain collectively about methods of promotion, job classification and all of the things which are related to their conditions of employment. I hope the legislation will not restrict their right to strike. I am not clear about what the Prime Minister means about the right to strike being prescribed in certain circumstances.
I think we must remember this, Mr. Chairman. While none of us wants to see civil servants go on strike, the fact remains that in the last analysis the strike is the only effective weapon which workers have in the process of collective bargaining. If the employer, whether it be a government or a corporation, knows that the employee is debarred by legislation from exercising the right to strike, them, of course, the employer can drag his feet in the whole process of collective bargaining.
There may be a very few isolated categories in connection with which there ought to be some understanding that there will be no strikes, but I would make them very restricted indeed. I would not have any of them if I had my way, but if the government is going to have a few then there ought to be some quid pro quo to protect these people so that they are not taken advantage of. That would mean they would have to have some right of appeal to a fairly impartial body, not merely to an arbitration board with the Minister of Labour, appointing the chairman.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The reason I argue strongly for leaving employees with the right to strike is not that I want to see civil servants go on strike but because I believe that if the government bargains in good faith, and if the grievance procedures which are set up are effective, the question of strike is not likely to arise. I do not say it will never arise. I was associated with a government which introduced legislation to bring all civil servants and employees of the Crown under the terms of the Trade
April 25, 1966
4252	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining Union Act. This act gives to employees the same rights as other employees, including the right to strike. Never at any time, as far as I am aware, has a strike in the public service been called but we have had instances where employees in government agencies went on strike. Looking back on that now I am quite prepared to admit that probably on half those occasions when strikes in government agencies occurred the government was at fault because it had acted either on insufficient or inadequate information.
We must disabuse our minds from the idea that workers like to go on strike. They do not. They usually go on strike when they are desperate, when it is the last resort. Strike is the ultimate weapon. I am convinced that in 99 cases out of a 100, if the government bargains in good faith and with an appropriate spirit of give and take, all problems can be resolved without resorting to strike.
To take away from the government employee the right to strike and to treat an employee differently than if he were the employee of a private company or private utility seems to me to be placing a slur on him which is not justified. Therefore I hope that when the legislation comes down there will be no restriction with reference to the right to strike. If the government insists that there be some restriction I hope that it will be narrowed as much as possible and that some quid pro quo will be provided so that advantage will not be taken of the fact that parliament has deprived these workers of their right to use this ultimate weapon in collective bargaining.
I hope that the legislation which the government is going to bring down will give to the workers the right to name any collective bargaining agency, that it will give them the right of maintenance of membership, that it will give them the right of check-off from their wages and salaries for the support of the organization which is bargaining on their behalf.
The third thing I want to suggest, Mr. Chairman, is that I think this legislation must provide for genuine collective bargaining and not merely for consultation. Too often in the past governments have tended to be somewhat condescending and have tended to provide merely for a certain amount of consultation, which really is not collective bargaining. In the final analysis the success of all this depends as much upon the spirit which goes into these discussions as upon the legislation


which is placed on the statute books. Much will depend on the attitude of the government itself.
When representatives of the government's employees sit down at the negotiating table with representatives of the government they must be classed and treated as equals. An employee may be subordinate to the man across the table when he is back in the office or in the department but when they sit down at the negotiating table they are equals. There ought to be no right to pull rank. If we are going to have genuine collective bargaining a spirit of complete equality in the right to express opinions and the right to disagree and dissent must be accepted.
I understand from the legislation as the Prime Minister has very briefly outlined it that employees will be allowed to be represented by any collective bargaining agent they select. I take it for granted that these bargaining agents will be certified by the labour relations board, once that body is satisfied that any particular bargaining agent represents 51 per cent or more of the employees concerned. I also understand that employees will be allowed to bargain on the basis of occupational groups, which I think is excellent.
For the government there are two choices as to who should bargain on its behalf. I notice that Professor Saul Frankel in his little book, "A Model For Negotiation And Arbitration Between The Canadian Government And Its Civil Servants," makes two suggestions. He suggests first of all that it might be done by the Civil Service Commission. On page 29 he says:
One way of dealing with this problem might be along the lines followed in the province of Saskatchewan. There the Public Service Commission performs in a dual capacity. It administers the system of recruitment, promotion and appeals, and its chairman is the person who speaks for the government in full-scale negotiations with the staff associations.
Then he says:
I have noted already the theoretical objections that might be made to this dualism. How does one reconcile the necessary partisanship of a civil service commissioner acting as agent of the employer with his vaunted independence and impartiality in the field of recruitment and promotion? It would seem that practical experience in Saskatchewan has not found this to be a serious issue. Similarly in Australia and New Zealand the dual tasks of administering the merit system and negotiating conditions of employment apparently have not proved incompatible in practice.
It seems to me, however, that since we are devising a model it would be tidier to locate full
April 25, 1966	COMMONS
responsibility for negotiations within a government department under a responsible minister. The Civil Service Commission would then be left free to maintain the merit principle in recruitment and promotion. The British example combines the advantages of theoretical consistency with practical success.
I agree with Professor Frankel. I think that the government in its proposal to set up the Public Service Staff Relations Board is taking the right course. In a provincial government where the number of employees is smaller a public service commission can fulfil the dual role, and I do not think the theoritical difficulties are very serious. But in a very large public service such as that of the federal government I think that the idea of setting up a Public Service Staff Relations Board which will act for the government in the carrying out of these negotiations is fit and proper provided, of course, that the Public Service Staff Relations Board is not hamstrung by the Treasury Board so that members being sent to negotiate are told: Your job is to hold the line, there are going to be no increases; provided you come out with the same sized wage bill as last year you can sign the agreement.
I am sure that the Prime Minister and the chairman of the Treasury Board realize that there will have to be constant liaison between the Treasury Board and the Public Service Staff Relations Board in order that this board will be able to take full cognizance of the arguments presented by the employees with respect to rising costs, with respect to comparable classifications and comparable salaries in the private sector and in other jurisdictions, and in order that it will have a sufficiently free hand so that there can be genuine collective bargaining.
I say to the government that if you send the Public Service Staff Relations Board into these negotiations with its hands tied this legislation will be a farce and will not provide for genuine collective bargaining at all. You would just have a series of conferences which would attempt to wear the civil servants down to the point where they must either sign an agreement they do not want to sign or resort to strike action.
I hope, and I feel reasonably sure knowing that some members of the government are genuinely interested in this matter, that the negotiating team for the government will get sufficient-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted for his speech has expired.
DEBATES	4253
Public Service Collective Bargaining


Lester Bowles Pearson: Continue.
[DOT] (5:40 D.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am almost finished. I thank the committee for its indulgence. I feel sure there will be sufficient flexibility and freedom of action given to those who will be negotiating on behalf of the government to enable genuine collective bargaining to take place. I believe the government will get a good response to the step it has taken today not only from the people of Canada generally but from its own employees and from the employees of its agencies. My experience has always been that when you treat people with dignity and maturity they respond in kind. When you give to our public servants a new power, a new responsibility, they will, I feel sure, act accordingly and in no way abuse the rights and prerogatives which this proposal would give to them. On the other hand, the government has to do everything it can, and this house has to do everything it can, to see that the employees have no reason to feel that the legislation does not provide for genuine collective bargaining.
I wish to make special reference to the question of grievance procedures. The Prime Minister mentioned this subject. Grievances have to be dealt with promptly; there has to be machinery by which the grievances which employees take to their bargaining agents can be examined and rectified should some error have been made. Furthermore, there should be the right of appeal. I take it that grievance procedures ought not to be the subject of strikes. But there has to be some right of appeal if a disagreement between the two bargaining groups cannot be resolved. The Prime Minister said there will be provision for the avoidance of strikes during the life of an agreement. However, one has to consider the possibility of a violation of an agreement. If one party is convinced that the other has violated an agreement and if after discussion it has not been possible to remove the disagreement, it seems to me there should be a right of appeal to some outside body which would make a finding on the matter.
I hope the government will be prepared to be bold about this point when it brings down the legislation. I hope it will have faith in the public service. I believe that if we give these people the rights and privileges to which they are entitled as free citizens of this country they will accept their responsibility and discharge it having due regard to their obligations as servants of the people of Canada.
April 25, 1966
4254	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining
I congratulate the government on bringing down this legislation. We shall wish to examine it very closely when it comes before us, but if it provides for the kind of collective bargaining for which we have been asking, if it contains provisions such as those of which I have been speaking, I can assure the government that this measure will have our wholehearted support.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, that resolution is a good omen because it foreshadows the legislation which will soon be introduced. On the other hand, I admit frankly that it is always with a little reluctance that I take part in a debate on a resolution because, in my opinion, it is a superfluous stage in our proceedings. As a matter of fact, the house loses very precious time that way.
If all hon. members would agree to eliminate the resolution stage I would be very happy. I would have liked it better if the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) had introduced the bill this afternoon to allow us to study something concrete.
But such is not the case. The Prime Minister takes the floor and tries to sell us something he is hiding. He is praising its colour and its size, but we do not know what it is, we have not seen it and we are wondering what is inside that surprise package.
That is the impression I get every time a resolution is introduced. We know that the standing orders require it. Let us get away from 1867. It seems to me that we are a little behind the times. Let us get rid of that procedure. The Prime Minister and his ministers should stop introducing resolutions and should introduce bills instead.
After the Prime Minister had told us everything the legislation did and did not contain, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Dief-enbaker) and the other members of the opposition told him in turn that there might be this in it, that it might be better to include some other thing. I am convinced that the bill is already drafted and I am almost convinced that all the remarks by the four opposition parties will not help to give a final form to that measure because, once again, I feel that the text of the legislation is ready and that all the remarks that are made will not change it one bit.
Therefore, why waste the time of the house? We have already lost two hours studying a resolution and today, if we are to


proceed as in 1867, the resolution should be introduced at the same time as the legislation to enable us to study it knowing what it is about.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: You are not obliged to talk on a resolution.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: What do you mean, we are not obliged to talk on a resolution? We have been talking about it for the past two hours. This what I have just mentioned; nobody has to speak. As a matter of fact, nobody should speak. I am rising to say no one should speak. Two hours of the time of the house have been taken up. This is what we are wondering about; what will this legislation bring us? Let us do away with this procedure.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: It is all very well to say: sit down. The thing is to convince the others to resume their seats and not to take up the time of the house. The hon. member opposite keeps saying: sit down. He is always seated and never speaks. We are wasting our time with all this. For the past two hours, I have heard speakers deal with the resolution. The Prime Minister himself took up 30 minutes to say that he will introduce something, while the others are wondering whether this legislation will contain anything.
Let us put an end to this procedure. Let us do away with the resolution stage so that pieces of legislation might be brought before the house.
It is not that we are against the bill; quite the opposite, we are very satisfied to have this legislation brought down.
It is said in the resolution and I quote:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of a system of collective bargaining applicable to employees in the pub-lice service of Canada and for the resolution of disputes that may arise in the negotiation or conclusion of collective agreements applicable to such employees.
This only involves a government scheme for government employees which, of necessity, will be operated by government employees and which will be negotiated by the government. This is all that is involved really.
Those people are working for the government, probably because they had good pointers from the parties. In short that is all it is, a government setup.
I would much prefer having the civil servants belong to a union completely independent of the government, just a simple union
April 25, 1966

which could negotiate with the government. It would be more logical.
But any way, it is an improvement since it involves the establishment of a board for collective bargaining. It is surely an improvement on what we had in the past. We are most happy with this small improvement but we would wish that all employees of the civil service belong to a completely independent union, since they are claimed to be free men. Such is the claim, but I do not at all believe it. Nevertheless, it would be a small step forward concerning the freedom of the employee.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.) lEnglish']


Mr. Leboe:: 
Mr. Allard:: Mr. Chairman, should I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Haidasz:: No, continue.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Continue.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I must advise the hon. member for Sherbrooke that the time allotted for the study of private members' business has been postponed to a later date. He may therefore continue his remarks with regard to the resolution now before the house.


Maurice Allard: It is very kind of you, Mr. Chairman, to point out that I now have the floor. However, before I go any further, allow me to say that I disagree with the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) concerning the resolutions put before this house.
By virtue of my political status here in the house I must, however, differ somewhat today from the opinion he has expressed; I feel that the resolution stage has its importance for it allows the government to give parliament an outline of the bill to follow and the occasion to find out what the various political parties and members think of the matter to be submitted to them in greater detail.
Naturally, much time can be wasted in the house, and we have seen it happen from time to time. The same applies to the committees. When the committee is formed, we sincerely hope it will proceed without delay and not
4256	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining dwell only on matters of secondary or lesser importance, because the problem is of capital importance.
That problem has been facing us for many years in Canada and has not been solved yet, but the introduction of the resolution leads us to believe that it will soon find an almost complete solution.
Therefore, I wish to congratulate the government for introducing that resolution. If, at times, I criticized rather sharply several pieces of legislation in the house, I am happy today to congratulate the government and the Prime Minister for submitting the matter to the house for study after a few months' notice.
Of course, we are used in Canada to politicians of good faith, there are so many of them, but from an administrative standpoint how slowly everything is done.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) pointed out a little earlier the merit of the measure but underlined the time it took to introduce it.
That problem is of capital importance. It has created between the government, the employees and even the public for many years tensions, worry, numerous grievances. Finally a resolution is introduced, a bill will follow, and I hope that it will enable us to strike a happy medium and give justice to that category of Canadians who willingly spend their youth on special studies and their life at the service of the state, and who have the right to work under human conditions, in line with those which prevail in 1966, and not according to a conception of the labour code which is 75 years old.
The present legislation needs to be amended considerably, and that bill will most certainly do it. We will therefore have to study it in detail when it is introduced.
Since 1961 the present legislation recognizes the right of association to civil servants. Sections 7 and 10 provide that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and the Civil Service Commission must, from time to time, consult with representatives of civil servants associations before formulating recommendations or taking decisions with regard to the salary of the members of the civil service. Well, that legislation is obsolete and backward because it is responsible for the government lagging too far behind the existing labour code.

DEBATES	April 25, 1966
If, as an employer, the government is different in some respects from the private employer, it cannot avoid the many social obligations of today. Our changing democracy requires it.
In order to delay the granting of negotiation and conciliation rights, it has often been alleged that parliament, by virtue of its sovereignty, cannot commit its authority beforehand in the matter of expenditures in favour of a inferior organization. This argument has some validity, but it should be considered very closely in the light of rights granted to workers at present, so as to reflect the slight differences which, I hope, the bill will contain in detail.
We are lagging behind a great deal. The British government, that we take as a model in some fields, has recognized since 1925 the right of association and conciliation within the public service. In 1925, the British government included in its legislation a provision to the effect that all matters remain subject to the final authority of parliament. Thus, it upheld the principle that parliament could not abandon its absolute sovereignty.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Since 1925, almost 700 cases have been submitted to arbitration and in more than 95 per cent of those cases, the decision reached by arbitration was unanimous. It follows therefore that when the government and its permanent employees are able to discuss matters democratically through conciliation procedures, an increase in grievances and friction is not so much to be feared. We have proof of this by the criteria laid down in England since 1925.
I shall not deal at length with this matter today, because I shall refer later on to the setting up of a conciliation board, to the role of the chairmen and, of course, of members of those conciliation boards.
However, I should like to make a few remarks regarding the right to state grievances. Of course, the government is an employer somewhat different from a private employer, because it has national responsibilities to face and assume, whether in peacetime or in wartime.
Notwithstanding its national responsibilities, I think that the government should not exclude from the bill the right to strike, as a corollary to the right of association or bargaining. Obviously, I believe the committee should spend more time on the question of dividing the essential and secondary fields of
April 25, 1966

administration where the right to strike should be prohibited or allowed.
As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) pointed out so well, in cases when the right to strike would not be permitted, well, there would be a right of appeal. Whatever the formula to be adopted, the bill should be democratic, modern, in line with democratic evolution, the standards of labour legislation, and they should try to introduce a formula which would be as close as possible to the privileges allowed to employees in private enterprise, with the necessary differences in certain fields from the point of view of public and national responsibility of government.
Therefore, I feel that the right to strike should be considered by this committee and should be subject to strict restrictions, so that it could be used only in the fields where they would decide, after having exhausted all the negotiation procedures and, therefore, it should be the ultimate recourse to be taken after sheer injustice or absolutely inflexible stubbornness.
There is another point I would very much like to see defined in the bill, but I am very much afraid it will not be in the sense I would hope for. This follows on a grievance which is most important and essential to the future of the Canadian federation.
It would be most important to provide for the definition of the bargaining unit. You are doubtless aware of the very significant and substantial grievance arising today between groups of employees of crown corporations concerning some rulings of the National Labour Relations Board to the effect that bargaining units are considered, not as defined by the Industrial Disputes Act, but considered by precedent and by repeated similar rulings that the bargaining unit must be strictly on the national level.
I should like the government to consider the problems of the Canadian crisis revealed to us in considerable depth by the report of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, because French Canadians in the civil service have been badly discriminated against in one way or another, intentionally or not, in a concerted or inadvertent manner.
I know several French Canadians who wanted to make a dynamic contribution to the administration of their country, but who did not evince interest in the civil service because they were treated as inferiors and
Public Service Collective Bargaining always kept in second and third class positions. The better salaries were the private preserve of another group.
It is important to provide in this legislation, when we are looking for an efficient remedy to this government problem, that the bargaining unit be considered on the national level as well as local, because some civil servants in the province of Quebec have particular problems. Whatever may be said, Quebec is not a province like the others.
This is established by facts, by theory and by the people's feelings. Civil servants in the province of Quebec have particular problems also with the government. That is the reason why it is important. It takes nothing away from national unity but, on the contrary, it might strengthen it. It is not always by pushing someone aside or by prodding him that you make a friend out of him. One can make a friend out of an intelligent man.
I should be in favour of a study by the committee upon the advisability of establishing the bargaining unit at the local level, so that the group of French Canadian employees may receive an equal treatment within the civil service.
[DOT] (6:10 D.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, after the full statement by the Prime Minister in introducing this legislation it is not my intention at this time to speak at any length, but I will expand on my remarks at second reading of the bill. I know that everyone is very anxious to pass this resolution and to see the actual legislation proposed by the government.
However, I should like to assure hon. members, in answer to a few of the questions raised by the hon. member for Carleton and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, that reclassification of the civil service has been carried on with every possible speed since this government came into power. We appointed the Heeney committee which reported to us, following which we immediately asked the Civil Service Commission to proceed with reclassification.
Reclassification is well under way and it involves a massive task, there being more than 200,000 civil servants. It is expected to be completed so that, in the event this legislation is passed, we will be able to commence collective bargaining this October with some reclassification and with the complete reclassifications by October of 1967. I think this
April 25. 1366

Public Service Collective Bargaining indicates remarkable speed considering the great task involved.
In relation to another question asked about amendments to the Financial Administration Act and the Civil Service Act which are necessary as a result of this collective bargaining legislation, I should like to assure hon. members that appropriate legislation will be introduced as soon as that is physically possible. With the indulgence of the house, after this legislation has been given second reading I hope we can move to item No. 53 on the order paper involving the authorization of a joint committee to consider this legislation. It is the plan of the government, when we complete the redistribution debate, to proceed with second reading of this bill and then move to second reading of the two other bills involved. They would then be referred as quickly as possible to the special joint committee so that the necessary legislation can be passed, we hope, by July.
There was only one other point raised which I think I should answer at this time. I refer to the point in respect of the independence of the Public Service Staff Relations Board and the arbitration tribunal about which the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam spoke. I should like to assure the hon. member and the committee that it is the intention of this legislation and of the government that these shall be completely independent bodies appointed for terms which will secure their tenure and make them completely independent of any government influence.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister will be good enough to answer the two questions I raised in respect of the future roles of the national joint council and the pay research bureau.


Edgar John Benson: I am prepared to deal with those more fully during second reading of the bill.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall I report the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolution reported and concurred in. [Translation]
Hon. E. J. Benson (for the Prime Minister)
thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill

C-170, respecting employer and employee relations in the public service of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: When shall this bill be read the second time?


Mr. Knowles:: At the next sitting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: At the
next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, in order that we may proceed with the naming of the members of the committee I would ask for unanimous consent that we deal now with item No. 53 on today's order paper which simply authorizes the setting up of the committee necessary to examine the legislation now before us.


Richard Albert Bell: That is agreeable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the house give unanimous consent to deferring private members' hour for the consideration of item No. 53 on today's order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTION TO ESTABLISH JOINT COMMITTEE

Edgar John Benson: That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to inquire into and report upon a measure respecting employer and employee relations in the public service of Canada and upon such other related legislation as may be referred to it by either house; that 24 members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, be members of the joint committee, and that standing order 67(1) of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto; that the said committee have power to call for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses; to report from time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable, and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto; and that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it the
intention of the house to revert to private members' hour?
April 25, 1966


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether, in view of the time that has been lost, the house would rather go on with government business. We would be prepared to go on with the railway branch line bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would it not be fairer, Mr. Speaker, to give a little extra time to the hon. member who has a private motion?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it the wish of the house to go on a little beyond seven o'clock and take an hour for private members' business?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My suggestion is that we have private members' hour now and that it last until one hour from now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like that to be understood, Mr. Speaker, because my bill will be the next item of business and I want to be back in the house. I would suggest that with unanimous consent private members' hour extend to twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it
agreed that private members' hour commence now and continue for one hour until 7.25?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BRIDGES


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Keni) moved:: That in the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to the advisability of constructing a bridge on Chenal Ecarte (also locally referred to as the Snye), one of the channels at the mouth of St. Clair River, where at present there is a cable-operated ferry linking the shore of Walpole Island to the shore of Chatham township, county of Kent, (mainland side), Ontario.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I cannot begin my remarks on this subject without first thanking hon. members most sincerely for their generosity in allowing a full hour for private members' business so that I may present this motion.
Rarely do we as members of this house have an opportunity to do something directly for our fellow man that will be as helpful to any group of people in Canada and as satisfying to hon. members as the acceptance of this resolution. Here is a golden opportunity for us as members to go on record. When we
Bridge Construction
support this resolution we will be taking a great step toward establishing again in the minds of the public the fact that members of this house do care about their fellow man and can co-operate for the common good. Many of the newspaper reports of political infighting, partisan prejudice and bias will be proven wrong in the face of such action on the part of men of good will in this house.
It is in this vein that I thank the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Foy) for his interest. I welcomed his offer to second my motion. He has done this because I believe he honestly and sincerely wants to help the 1,500 people living on Walpole Island in my constituency. Let me remind the house that these people vote in my riding, not his. However, he is fully aware of the problem as he lives close to the area and is therefore well qualified to speak on the subject as I hope he will.
This bridge is required desperately so that reasonable access may be obtained to the island which is only about 300 feet from the mainland. Transportation to the island from the mainland is only possible by the use of an antique scow whose only condescension to modern trend in the past 100 years has been the replacement of handpower on the cables by a gasoline motor. For a ride on this contraption the public pay 25 cents each way. Quite often an hour's wait or more is required before a potential user can get aboard and pay his 25 cents to risk his life and vehicle in the crossing.
Many people in the area will not cross to the island because of a well-founded fear of the crossing. Indeed, there are people in this area who have never been on the island. If reasonable access to the island can be obtained it will means many dollars of extra income to the residents. There are natural resources on the island that can be utilized. To give one example, there is a large, sandy beach which could become a source of income to the band and thus reduce their dependence on federal funds. In addition, there are thousands of acres of the most fertile soil awaiting development. I am told that less than one-third of the potential agricultural area on the island has been developed. The island, if provided with reasonable access, could be a veritable garden spot.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, there are many skilled and semi-skilled people on the island who would naturally gravitate to our side for employment rather than as at present going on the diesel ferry that carries them to

April 25, 1966
Bridge Construction
Algonac, Michigan, where many work in industries. We need these people in industry in Canada now and they have a great contribution to make to our economy.
Many times during the past winter the residents of the island were isolated and bread and other essentials were only obtained by most dangerous and perilous trips across the ice. I only wish Hansard had the facility of putting on the record pictures such as I have in my possession of the situation there this spring.
I do not intend to take up much more of the time of the house. Someone may ask about the cost, which I have purposely not mentioned. The cost is not important really, because if any member feels we cannot afford a structure such as this let me remind him that, while I favour toll-free access, people in the area would gladly pay double what it now costs to risk life and limb on the scow for the privilege of crossing on a bridge.
Therefore, before anyone in this house thinks he can use the "no money" device, shall I say, to delay this bridge let me point out that I know that I speak for the people in southwestern Ontario when I say they want the bridge and need it badly enough that a self-amortizing plan with tolls would be readily acceptable although, of course, not as satisfactory as a free way. Remember, they already pay to ride on the scow.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
For the benefit of members who are not familiar with this area of Canada may I point out that the St. Clair River flows between Canada and the United States from Sarnia past Walpole Island, roughly 30 miles. The stream is approximately one mile wide and at Walpole Island the river divides into three narrower channels before emptying into Lake St. Clair. The channel between mainland Ontario and Walpole is called the Snye or Chenal Ecarte. This is where we need the bridge immediately. The channel is about 300 feet wide. On the opposite side of Walpole Island is the middle or main ship channel, approximately a quarter of a mile wide, between Walpole and Harsen's Island which is United States territory. Harsen's again is approximately three-eighths of a mile distant from mainland United States.
At the rate our country and population grow it would seem that an international bridge to the United States of America must soon be considered. As things now stand, in order to proceed from Wallaceburg to Algonac, Michigan, it is necessary to drive to

Sarnia and cross the Blue Water bridge, a trip of 40 miles up one side and 40 down the other. If you go the other way it is approximately 70 miles by highway to Windsor where there is the Ambassador bridge and the Detroit-Windsor tunnel.
It would seem to me-and this is only a layman's view-that three bridges hopping from island to island would be more feasible than one large structure crossing a mile of open water. The bridge to Walpole Island could be the first step toward an international bridge in the future. This would be of benefit not only to the 1,500 residents on Walpole Island but to probably half a million people in Ontario and many, many more in Michigan. So you see, Mr. Speaker, this is a worth-while idea in many ways.
The river drive from Sarnia to Walpole Island is one of the most beautiful in Canada. This fact has been recognized by the municipalities involved and the provincial government. Indeed, the minister of highways of Ontario, Mr. MacNaughton, has already introduced or will soon introduce legislation to establish this route as a scenic parkway. It will rival the Niagara parkway in beauty. Further, he has personally signified to me his interest in this bridge, which adjoins Ontario highway No. 40. It would be complementary to the parkway and to the expressway being built to take commercial traffic off the riverfront road.
As a matter of fact, Mr. MacNaughton has written me as follows in a letter dated March 1, 1966:
My capital construction program for the 1966 construction season is pretty well set by treasury board and by my own department, which would preclude anything of an imminent nature being done, but probably we can get on with some of the preliminary investigatory work in any case.
So, Mr. Speaker, here is the offer of the province of Ontario to co-operate. This bridge must be a joint effort, and I am sure that the province is ready and willing to co-operate with the proper federal authorities and make a start toward this worth-while endeavour.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me ask members of this house to place themselves in the position of a husband or a father on Walpole Island whose wife or child is seriously ill or, for that matter, dying. The ferry cables are broken or the ice floes have isolated your island home for several days. You cannot get a doctor to the island and you cannot get your loved one to a doctor or a hospital. How would they then vote on this resolution, Mr. Speaker?
April 25. 1966


Mr. Walter F. Foy (Lamblon West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion because I believe it deserves the attention of all members of the house. First of all, I should like to say that even though this motion was introduced by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon), who is a member of the opposition and represents in this house the Walpole Island Indian Reserve, I am both honoured and pleased to second it.
Before giving my reasons for saying that this motion should be passed I should like to give a brief description of this island reserve. I have distributed to hon. members pictures of some of the ice floes which are such a great problem to the people on the reserve.
Walpole Island is about ten miles in length and about six miles at its widest point. The reserve is located at the junction of the St. Clair River and the Snye, about 30 miles to the south of Lake Huron. The band comprises about 1,500 members and their reserve is entirely surrounded by water. The proposed bridge would span the Snye River for a distance of 300 feet at the suggested point from the island to the mainland. Incidentally, the Snye River is the only channel for freighters carrying cargo to the city of Wallaceburg.
The only means of transportation to the island reservation is by ferry. The ferry that crosses the Snye is operated by motor-driven cables from the mainland. Even during the months when navigation is open, accidents are numerous. The cables foul freighters and many pleasure craft. But when the cold months of winter set in and navigation is closed, the hazards are unbelievable. The industries north of Walpole Island continually pour waste, accompanied by extremely hot water, into the St. Clair River. This, plus the mild climate during the winter months and the fast current, prevents a complete freeze-up of the river.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the ferry operates during this treacherous period when it can. It must break a path through the thin ice and very often must fight large masses of ice which float down the St. Clair River into the Snye. The mode of transportation under these conditions reminds me of what I have read about the Daniel Boone days but certainly not of the year 1966.
On this island there are approximately
8,000	acres of the finest corn-growing land in this country. This land is leased to white farmers who employ the Indian people on the island and this provides income for the band 23033-270
Bridge Construction
members. The acreage could at least be tripled if there was modern access from the mainland to the island. Here, then, is one reason that this bridge should be constructed.
[DOT] (6:40 D.m.)
In summer Walpole Island is a resort area and about 1,000 people live there for the season. This is another source of income for the Walpole Island Indian band, but this increase in population multiplies the problems of commuting back and forth from the mainland to these resorts. There are only 25 permanent jobs on the island. The remainder of the labour force, men and women, must commute to the mainland to work and earn their living. A further source of income to the Indians is the many hunters who require guides and other services during the duck hunting season. These are a few of the many reasons why this bridge is a necessity for better economic, social and living conditions, to say nothing of safety which is certainly of major consideration.
However, the most distressing factor, from my point of view is the education of the Indian children. Each hon. member knows the stress that every level of government puts on education today for all children, not just for Indian children. We as members say we must educate our Indian children and youth so they will be able to help themselves, so they can learn trades and professions and be independent. We say our ultimate aim is that the Indians be self-supporting, that they live in dignity with a standard of living equal to that enjoyed by all other Canadians. But what about the Indian children on Walpole Island? There are 182 pupils who commute by bus and the ferry to the city of Wallaceburg to attend high school. There are 193 children in the lower grade school on the island.
The ice floes are a menace during the winter months; yet those children attending high school must venture on an antiquated cable-drawn ferry through this ice floating along in the strong current. When the ice floes reach a density and volume which prevent the ferry from operating there is no other way for the students to cross the Snye. Therefore they are unable to attend their classes. For the same reason teachers from the mainland are unable to reach the island and their classrooms in the lower grade school. As a result 375 pupils are compelled to miss school through no fault of their own. They have the added problem of trying to

April 25, 1966
Bridge Construction
pass examinations after poor attendance daily. This bridge is needed and it is needed through no fault of their own.	now.
I should like to read from the Windsor Star of February 15, 1966. The column is headed: "Walpole Asks Action On Bridge." There is a picture showing one of the ferry docks. Under the picture it says:
It's not very far from the mainland to Walpole Island but the island might have been another planet over the weekend. Ice floes from Lake Huron and the St. Clair River have halted the ferry from Baldoon to the island indefinitely, stranding people on both sides of the Snye Channel. Shown here is the ferry and part of the ice field that is disrupting traffic. The island is in the background.
This is a very serious matter. In addition to the problems the students face there have been a considerable number of deaths resulting from cars running off the ferry. There is also a serious hazard to sick people who cannot be taken to hospital or to a doctor due to the interrupted ferry service during ice floe time. These ice floes are continuous throughout the winter, at least until the end of February. It is not unusual for ice to be flowing until nearly the end of March. I believe this was mentioned by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent.
At thir point I am going to refer to the press re.'sase and announcement made in the house by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) a few weeks ago. The announcement had to do with the program of physical development of Indian Communities for which the federal government has budgeted $112 million during the next five years to undertake a massive Indian reserve improvement program. I draw attention to this part of the statement:
In order to provide access to and from reserves for school children, employment opportunities and economic development, adequate roads are necessary. To this end some $17 million will be spent in co-operation with Indian band councils and other levels of government.
This is the open door for co-operation with the Walpole Indian band council who have already petitioned and asked their government for this bridge.
I now quote from the Chatham Daily News of February 16, 1966, one short paragraph of an article entitled, "Walpole Ferry Operating Again", in which it is said:
The bridge to the island has been a platform plank of a great many politicians for years.
Today, Mr. Speaker, there are three bus loads of children crossing the Snye twice daily. It is estimated that in 12 years there will be 21 bus loads of children crossing twice 
I ask and plead with the hon. members to forget partisanship as I have done. I know that politics will never disappear from government. It is an essential part of our system but there are some areas where all parties in the house should forget politics. I believe this is a case in point. The great need for this bridge is one instance where no political philosophy is involved. The safety and need of the Indians should be of the utmost concern to all hon. members.
I know this is a motion and not a bill but in not talking out this motion all hon. members will silently give their approval to this great need. I know hon. members will recognize their responsibility as members of this parliament and pass this motion. To those who feel it a political responsibility to talk it out I say: Would you want your children to be carried on an open, outdated cable-drawn ferry, which is a hazard in itself, plus having the added peril of facing these ice floes twice daily in order to get an education?
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I regret to interrupt the proceedings but it is my duty to remind the house of the subjects which will be before the house for discussion at ten o'clock. May I have consent to read the agenda?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: It is my
duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)-Grain

Prince Rupert, B.C.-increase in elevator capacity; the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) - National Defence-Greenwood-reported fight following pay increases for pilots; the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. MacEwan)-Transport-Pictou Landing, N.S.-reported unsafe condition of wharf.
April 25, 1966



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McCutcheon:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of constructing a bridge on Chenal Ecarte (also locally referred to as the Snye), one of the channels at the mouth of St. Clair River, where at present there is a cable-operated ferry linking the shore of Walpole Island to the shore of Chatham township, county of Kent (mainland side), Ontario.
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker I am pleased that the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon) has brought this resolution forward for our consideration. I am even more pleased that the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Foy) has seen fit to second it and give it such forthright and eloquent support. The resolution has, I believe, been put forward in such a way that we can consider it entirely on its merits and without spending an undue amount of time in discussion, I hope, express an opinion of the house suggesting that action be taken by the federal government so far as it has responsibility within this field.
The hon. member for Lambton West said this proposal had been a plank in many political platforms and the thought occurred to me that if all these planks had been put together the bridge might already have been built. However, this is a project which still remains to be accomplished.
A resolution of this kind brings to mind the size of Canada and how little of its geography is known in detail to those who do not live in the area concerned. I am sure that if I were to discuss, for example, the transportation problems of the Indian people at Ucluelet or housing needs on Vancouver Island, the hon. member for Lambton West or the hon. member for Lambton-Kent would be no more familiar with the local geography than I was with the Walpole Island area until a comparatively short time ago.
Though I was not aware of the constituency in which Walpole Island lay I was interested in a communication which I and other members, I assume, received some time ago from the chief of the band council on the Walpole Island reserve. Since I have some acquaintance with the problems in the transportation field which face Indians in my part of Canada I wrote asking for further information, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that
23033-270)
Bridge Construction
I received additional information very promptly together with an outline map of the area.
One part of the information which greatly intrigued me-and this was not stressed by either of the previous speakers-was the fact that the Indians living on this reserve have progressed further in the direction of managing their own affairs as a self-supporting community than have many of the Indian bands across Canada. For this reason, if for no other, I found myself interested in the project we have been discussing, one which seems to be of so much concern to these people.
As a matter of fact, I took it upon myself, though this area is a long way from Comox-Alberni, to address a communication to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in his capacity as Superintendent General of Indian affairs to ask how this particular project stood so far as the Indian affairs branch is concerned. Reference has already been made by the hon. member for Lambton West to the recently announced program for Indian community development. I feel sure that the proposal we are considering lies foursquare within the provisions of the economic development program recently announced by the minister involving plans to spend $112 million in this field over the next five years.
I venture to believe that no one in any quarter of the house would quarrel with the minister's intentions in this regard, and I would point out that particular reference was made to the need for an improvement in transportation facilities to enable the Indians to enrich their economic, social and educational life through measures of self-help and increasing self-government. For this reason I ask the house to express itself in support of the resolution.
As I understand it, the entire area of Walpole Island consists of Indian reserve property. I believe this creates a constitutional situation in which the federal government and the Indian affairs branch can become directly involved in a way which might not be possible were the island only in part an Indian reserve. If the co-operation which the Department of Highways of the province of Ontario has indicated its readiness to provide is indeed forthcoming, there should be no delay in working out financial arrangements with the Indian affairs branch as the proper agent of the federal government so that this

April 25. 1966
Bridge Construction
project may go forward with the least possible delay and a remedy be found as quickly as possible for the deplorable transport facilities outlined by the two hon. members who have spoken this afternoon.
I am interested in the suggestion that this bridge would be a possible link in an international crossing. I refer to this only to suggest that since this project is related to international waters it is an area within which the federal government has authority in some measure at least. I rise as one member who represents in this parliament a large number of the Indian people of Canada and who for this reason has some knowledge of the transportation problems with which many of the Indian people are faced. I do so to give full and wholehearted support to those who urge the speedy passage of this resolution and I trust that speedy construction of the bridge will be possible.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few remarks on the motion of the hon. member for Lamb-ton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon), which has been supported by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Foy). Their contribution was an eloquent plea for a bridge across the Chenal Ecarte from Walpole Island to the approaches of highway 40, which leads into Wallaceburg.
I first wish to say that we on this side of the house are well aware of our responsibilities for the welfare of the inhabitants on Walpole Island. We are aware of the economic studies that have been made by the St. Clair area development board, and I can assure hon. members that the officials of the Indian affairs branch here in Ottawa have been studying that report, as well as the reports made on the self-government experiment on Walpole Island.
I agree with the previous speakers that a bridge of this type would be an important factor in the provision of better movement between the main island and the neighbouring mainland. Construction of this bridge would, no doubt, be an important project. Besides the consideration of local needs and demand, important factors such as divided jurisdiction of the different levels of government, the feasibility of building such a bridge, other engineering studies, and the costs of construction should be carefully taken into account.
I would like to commend the local Indian band authorities for taking the initiative in this matter. Having taken on the responsibility of carrying out the project, I hope that liaison with local, municipal, provincial and federal agencies will be smooth and fruitful. At this time I would like to acknowledge a letter, dated February 16, 1966, which I received from Chief Burton Jacobs of the Walpole Island council, which I read with great interest and immediately referred to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing), who is the Superintendent General of Indians.
In noting the remarks in this letter about the need for a bridge I also welcomed news of the successful development of the experiment in self-government on the island. I regard this experiment in self-government on Walpole Island as an important move. This event has evoked much interest among many Indian leaders across the nation who share the philosophy that enlightened band administration is the spark plug of community development. The opportunity to participate fully in determining their own destiny should be the goal of all Indian people as Canada approaches the centennial of confederation.
We are grateful to the hon. member for Lambton-Kent and the hon. member for Lambton West for their assurances that the provincial authorities are ready to discuss the project of constructing a bridge across the Chenal Ecarte. I am informed that the Indian affairs branch is well aware of the desire of the inhabitants of the island for such a bridge to replace the ferry service. The open deck, flat-bottomed barge operated by an engine driven cable is not the best form of vehicle to cross the 300 foot channel of water, especially in adverse weather and under the conditions experienced at certain times, as explained by the hon. member for Lambton West,
The department is aware of its responsibilities for the welfare and education of the 300 odd students who cross the channel by this ferry to reach the secondary school at Wallaceburg. So far as the further negotiations that should be carried on between the band council, the provincial government, the local authorities and the Indian affairs branch are concerned, I would like to say that these are already in progress. This morning the representatives of the people on Walpole Island met with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) and have scheduled a meeting next month with the
[Mr. Barnett.)
April 25, 1966

local authorities and also with the representatives of the Indian agency in that area.
I also note that the officials who will be present at that meeting will be considering a motion to have a firm of consulting engineers look into the question. It is my hope and my desire that the negotiations will finally be fruitful and provide what is best for the residents on Walpole Island and for the development of the St. Clair area.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, this evening I am the second member from British Columbia to enter into this debate on the building of a little bridge to serve a band of Indians who live on an island in Lake St. Clair in the province of Ontario. It may seem strange to the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon) that two members from such a distant province would take part in this debate, but I might say that in British Columbia we have two things very much in common with the hon. member and with the problem of the Indian band on Walpole Island. British Columbia is a province in which we have a considerable population of Indians living under a variety of circumstances in very rugged country, and being served by some of the most rugged forms of transportation to and from civilized roads and communities that are to be found anywhere in Canada or, indeed, anywhere in North America.
Another thing we have in common is that we British Columbians, as we move throughout our own province and up and down Vancouver Island, have become familiar with some very weird and wonderful forms of transportation that have served us for many years. Therefore I for one recognize the hazards which attend this Indian band on Walpole Island as they go to and from the mainland, using the rather primitive conveyance which the hon. member for Lambton-Kent and the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Foy) have described. The latter of these two hon. members has provided us with a picture showing this primitive device crossing the 300 feet of water to the island, across ice floes, much in the manner of Eliza in "Uncle Tom's Cabin". As a matter of fact I think it was on ice floes in and around that very area that Eliza nipped across the ice, and I know the hon. member will correct me if I am wrong. I see him rising.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Yes. I know the hon. member would not want to have any error in his remarks. Eliza, with the dogs nipping at
Bridge Construction
her heels, crossed on the ice at Amherstburg, which is downstream about 15 miles from Detroit.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)


Grant Deachman: April 25, 1966
Bridge Construction
funds are available from the federal treasury at this particular time for this service, having regard to what the government has in mind in respect of the improvements on Indian reserves with relation to housing, school facilities, roads and transportation. In this regard I should like to refer the hon. member to page 2801 of Hansard of March 17, when the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) dealt with his announcement of the reserve improvement program. In this announcement he indicates the government certainly is prepared to give aid in the very direction in which my hon. friend is requesting aid for the Indians of Walpole Island. I should like to read to the hon. member the pertinent paragraphs which I am sure he will find interesting. The minister said:
I am pleased to inform the house that an extensive Indian reserve improvement program to cost about $112 million in the next five years, will be undertaken. Under the program Indians will receive assistance to provide better housing, safe water supply, sanitation facilities, electrification of homes and improved roads in their communities.
He goes on at page 2802 to say:
Transportation is of vital importance to provide access to and from reserves, for school children, employment opportunities and economic development. Improved roads on many reserves are a necessity. To this end some $17 million will be spent in co-operation with Indian band councils and other levels of government.
So here we see earmarked, for the very purpose which my hon. friend wishes, a sum of $17 million, already announced in the program of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Now, I wish to allude to a report given to me not long ago when this matter was under study.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I ask the hon. member a question before he alludes to the report? In the light of the statement he has just made in respect of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, does he not think we should deal with this matter and enable the governor in council to use discretion in respect of whether or not this would qualify within the ambit of that program, and hope that the government at least would take a look at it, which is what the motion is asking?


Grant Deachman: I believe we should deal with it, and that is precisely why I am on my feet at this moment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are you supporting the resolution, because there are only five minutes

left; if you are supporting it, I would like to support it as well.


Grant Deachman: I certainly have not said anything here this evening that would not be in support of transportation to assist Indians on reserves in Canada, and indeed that is the purpose of my remarks here this evening. I know the hon. gentleman and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, share with me a desire to see that the transportation facilities on Indian reserves across Canada are improved to enable these people to gain a better livelihood and have better access to municipalities, in order to bring their children to school and to enjoy a better integration into the community than they are now able to have.
It is with this in mind that, as I said a moment ago before the interjection by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), I wish to refer to a report entitled, "An Economic Survey of the Walpole Island Indian Reserve". This is a co-operative venture by the Walpole Island Indian band and the council of the St. Clair Regional Development Association. It is a very interesting report, and indeed a very able one. One of the things to which it alludes is the difficulties the Indians themselves find in obtaining jobs in or near the community of Wallaceburg where they must seek employment off the island if they are to improve their lot by obtaining employment other than merely agricultural or other casual employment on the island.
The report goes on to suggest that the people of Wallaceburg are not all too favourable toward the matter of employing Indians of Walpole Island. I should like to read the pertinent paragraph in the report, because I think it is of interest and is germane to the question of assisting the Indians in this particular area, so that the use of such a structure and road improvement would indeed be warranted. It says:
Because of this prejudice not many Indians are employed in Wallaceburg. The greater percentage work in Algonac where pay scales are higher. However, expansion in industry in Wallaceburg and along the Canadian shore might raise Canadian pay scales and may offer better jobs.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
Then it refers to frequent complaints about carelessness on the part of Indians who are hired, and it states:
This carelessness must result from a great lack of interest in a job. It is unfortunate, but reputations such as these are thought to apply to all. Many industries in Wallaceburg have never hired Indians because of this poor image. These industries should be encouraged to hire a few Indians
April 25, 1966

to remove these prejudices and open the door to further employment.
I certainly appeal to the hon. members for Lambton-Kent and Lambton West to encourage industry in their communities to make use of the Indians and thereby give them the opportunity to improve their standard of living. This would also increase employment possibilities in Wallaceburg for Indians rather than forcing them, perhaps through misunderstanding, to remain on reservations and accept a somewhat lower and more discouraging standard of living.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Grant Deachman: Yes, I will be glad to answer the hon. gentleman's question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is my understanding that the mover and seconder of this resolution have the support of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs. In view of that fact, will the hon. member not now give the house an opportunity to pass the resolution? Otherwise he will be running against the wishes of the government?


Grant Deachman: I am sure the hon. gentleman would not wish to deny me the right to free speech in this house and to conclude during the few minutes left some of my remarks in respect of this particular subject.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is hypocrisy on your part.


Grant Deachman: This is a subject in respect of which all the members from British Columbia as well as those from Ontario have a deep and abiding interest, because we are continually interested in the welfare of the Indian people of this country.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are opposing the resolution.


Grant Deachman: It is our desire to improve the lot of the Indian not only by improving his housing situation, as will be done under the proposed improvement plan of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, but by improving his schooling, sewers and lighting within Indian band communities, and by improved roads and transportation facilities. In this way the Indian, whom we have neglected for so long, may indeed enter into a more satisfying life in the Canadian community. We hope some day that he will be truly represented in this house. That is something that surely is desirable.
May I call it seven o'clock.
Canadian National Railways


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Order. The hour appointed for consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at 6.25 p.m.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. C-165, respecting the construction of a line of railway in the province of Ontario by Canadian National Railway Company from the vicinity of Amesdale on the Redditt subdivision of the Canadian National Railway in a northwesterly direction for a distance of approximately 68 miles to a point in the vicinity of Bruce lake, in the district of Kenora.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is, as we sometimes say in the house, a little bill. It is for the purpose of authorizing the Canadian National Railways to build 68 miles of branch line in northwestern Ontario, not far from the Manitoba border, from a place near Redditt, in a northwesterly direction to the vicinity of the Steel Company of Canada's Griffith mine on the west shore of Bruce lake, which is in the district of Kenora.
The estimated cost of this branch line is $11,100,000, averaging $163,234 per mile. In accordance with the usual practice, the bill authorizes the railway to spend that amount for that purpose, and allows an additional 15 per cent, if required, to cover contingencies, with the usual provisions respecting necessary borrowing.
The Griffith mine is to be developed to work extensive deposits of low grade ore suitable for open pit mining, which ore will be extracted, concentrated and then pelletized at the mine site. It is planned that these pellets will be shipped from the mine at a rate of about 14 million long tons per year. By means of a traffic guarantee contract, conditioned upon the construction of the proposed line, the mine's entire output of pellets would, for an extended period, be assured to the Canadian National Railways for carriage over its own lines either to lakehead transshipment points or an equivalent distance to other destinations. The contract also provides for compensation to the railway in the event that during an initial period the average annual volume of shipments fall below the agreed minimum level.
April 25. 1966

Canadian National Railways
I have been satisfied accordingly that this proposal, so protected, should improve the net operating position of the Canadian National. It would obviously also make a significant contribution to the productive capacity and the economy of northwestern Ontario and to Canada generally, and would provide regular productive work to about 500 men in this vital industry. I know it is quite wrong to refer to a previous debate, but in this area, where there is a considerable Indian population, I would hope that it could provide some employment for Indians.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the minister a question at this point?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does the minister have the support of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman), who has just opposed a bill which would provide assistance to the Indians?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is usual to make proposals to the house and then allow the house to decide, after hearing the proposal, whether it intends to support it or not. I must confess I have not asked the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra whether he will support this proposal, but knowing how progressive he is, I feel sure he will give it ardent support.


Michael Starr: Can the minister tell the house who the developers of this mining property are and whether they are Canadians or of some other nationality?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The mine is owned by the Steel Company of Canada and it is to be managed for them by the people who manage the Wabush mine in Labrador, Pickands Mather. It is expected that most of the output of this mine will go to the Steel Company, though naturally it would expect to make the best possible use of the ore and the pellets.


Michael Starr: Will these pellets be shipped out of the country or processed here in Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: They will be processed right at the mine, and that is one of the great advantages of this particular project. An open pit mining project would not employ anything like that number of men.


Michael Starr: What will happen to the pellets; are they to be shipped out of the country for processing?

[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: I expect that most of them will go to the Steel Company of Canada's plant at Hamilton. Of course, that company is not going to restrict itself as to where it will sell them. As all hon. members know, over the years the Steel Company has bought a great deal of ore from the Mesabi range in Minnesota. We are now producing more and more of the ore for our steel mills here in Canada, and the provision of this line will provide much more of the same. If there is a surplus for export, I presume it will be exported to the advantage of our balance of payments.
The operator plans to put the mine into operation about the end of next year and desires rail service for that time. If this deadline is to be met, a very early start on the construction of the railway line would be essential, and the management of Canadian National have made representations to me repeatedly, and as recently as this morning, in this regard. I may say that representations were also made to me a day or two ago by the chairman of the board of the Steel Company pointing out that the season is now pretty well advanced, even in northwestern Ontario, and the sooner the contracts can be called for beginning the construction of the line, the sooner it will be possible, of course, to go on with the other capital expenditures.


Michael Starr: What is the time estimated for the complete construction of the line?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If they can make a good start in 1966, they hope to have it completed in the autumn of 1967 so it will be available for use by that time. It is possible that the actual ouput of the mine will not begin to be available for shipment until 1968, but there would be some ingoing traffic-not to the same extent, of course-in order to set up the operation.
I unreservedly commend the bill to the house as being one beneficial to all interests concerned, including the national interest, and deserving of encouragement and support. As long as we assume that the Steel Company is likely to be-and I think most of us feel it is pretty likely to be-a viable and profitable industry, there is absolutely no prospect of any loss by Canadian National, but instead a substantial net addition to its profit position. That will be very welcome indeed, I am sure, not only to the management of Canadian National but to everyone in this house which has to provide for the
April 25, 1966
contingencies the railway has to meet when its operations are not profitable.
My hon. friend, the Minister without Portfolio, at the resolution stage, said that if the house so desired, this bill would be sent to the standing committee on transportation and communications. I, of course, propose to carry out that undertaking if hon. members feel this is still necessary after the explanation I have given and any answers I give to questions they might wish to put in their speeches on second reading. However, Mr. Speaker, it did seem to me that because of the very simplicity of the bill and the urgency of getting it through both houses, because the railway cannot start its operations until that has been done, perhaps-I did consult my hon. friend for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell), who was the one who raised the question the other day-its referral to committee might not be necessary. The hon. member made no commitment, of course, but I would hope that with a view to getting on with this project and not losing any part of this construction season, hon. members would be inclined to proceed with the committee stage right here in the house and send the bill on to the other place.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question on the matter of referring the bill to committee? Has it not been the procedure in the past to allow railway construction to begin and refer the bill to committee later?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the law is-I know I should hesitate in dealing with the law, (a) not being a lawyer and (b) because it is perhaps in breach of the rules-that Canadian National Railways cannot build one inch more than four miles of railway without the prior approval of parliament. I have suggested to the railway they can take all the steps necessary short of asking for bids. In fact I have told them that I do not think they should even do that, because Canadian National Railways does not want to be in contempt of parliament.


Thomas Miller Bell: With regard to whether this bill should be referred to committee, the procedure, at least for quite a way back in my memory, has been that all these bills have gone to committee. At that time we have the advantage of maps and explanations of the company officials. The minister said there are some problems, in so far as delay fs concerned, which have to be considered. Some of us might go along with
Canadian National Railways that suggestion. The Committee on Transport and Communications is busy on some other duties. I also have in mind the fact that the C.N.R., who are involved in this matter, will probably appear before a committee before too long and these questions could be asked at that time, although that time might be too far advanced for our questions to be effective. However, it would give members interested an opportunity to study the geography of the area in question.
I think there is a slight danger here. It is an uncontroversial bill and is perhaps routine, but responsibilities have attached to the construction of new branch lines in the past and we would want to be fully assured that Bill No. C-165 is exactly the same as others of a similar nature which have come before us. I really have not anything too specific to ask. From the minister's statement we have an idea of the plans and the usual guarantees. It might be bad precedent if the C.N.R. were allowed to have bills put through without being referred to committee, because last year for example a bill in connection with the C.P.R. line at Esterhazy, Saskatchewan, was considered in committee for a very long time; it was controversial to the extent that every possible question was asked about this private company and its intentions. Therefore we have to be careful that we do not give a better break, in so far as our responsibilities are concerned, to the government company and allow it to have an easier time, as it were.
I should like to ask the minister how far the work has progressed. I take it from the minister's statement that it has not progressed very far.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The work has not been started.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then, Mr. Speaker, subject to one or two questions that might arise later when we deal with the bill in committee of the whole house, I am satisfied that this bill be given second reading.


Mr. Norman Fawcett (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words on this subject. As a former member of the Canadian National Railways family I am happy to see that Canadian National are again pioneering in going into this area. I should also like to say that, having been a long time resident in northern Ontario, I am happy to see the railway opening up another section of this part of the province. I shall not get into any of the technicalities that

April 25, 1966

Canadian National Railways have been suggested with regard to the disposition of this bill, but as far as I am concerned I am very happy to see this development taking place.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take very much time of the house, but I do want to draw the attention of both the government and the house to the need for public safety in connection with just such legislation as envisaged by Bill No. C-165. During our history as a confederation we have granted charters to various railway companies which, as hon. members know, have built railways from one end of Canada to the other, often resulting in great duplication. This year of all years the house has been discussing to a great extent railway abandonment, which ties in with railway building.
I should just like to say a few words about public safety and the need for railway crossing safety devices in the case of every new railway built. I have with me a communication which emanated from Picton, which is situated in Prince Edward county in my riding, pointing up the need for this cognizance of public safety on the part of members of this house. The letter concerns a railway built some time ago as an extension to an existing railway in my constituency for the purpose of drawing iron ore.
The communication reads as follows:
Once again the ore route from Marmora to Picton has claimed the life of one of our citizens, on one of the level crossings constructed relatively a very few years ago.
At the very time the railways across the country were being forced to eliminate the hazard of level crossings because of ever-increasing motor traffic, this ore service was allowed to maintain and construct any number of these crossings with insignificant markers and with no warning lights or signals. The resultant tragedies, including the one this past week, shock us year after year, and the loss of our citizens is a severe blow to the community. Many others have narrowly missed a similar accident, including one of our local businessmen.
Totally aside from the grief occasioned the families of these unfortunate citizens, the paramount consideration, we can but wonder which is the most valuable to our communities, the life and productivity of these citizens over a lifetime, or extra dollars in the immediate balance sheets of the railways. If millions can be spent to speed rail traffic, why cannot expenditures be made at the same time, to safeguard crossings for the motoring public.
The demand for additional safeguards on this ore route-
I add to this, Mr. Speaker, "on all railways in Canada".
-calls for the support of every local organization and municipal body.

And I add to that, Mr. Speaker, "calls for the support of this parliament as well to take the leadership in this cause".
To date it has been the motorcar that has been struck: tomorrow it may be a loaded bus.
The time has come for every level crossing in this or any other community to afford the protection of signal lights and semaphores.
I admonish the government to see that this 68 miles of railway is protected at every crossing with modern, bona fide, tested devices which will protect human life.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-Competitive bids or tenders.
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether the minister gave any information in his statement about the date it is expected to start the operation of carrying the ore?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if the committee will agree, my hon. friend the Minister without Portfolio has informed himself particularly about this bill. If he could answer these factual questions I will deal with the political ones, if there are any.


Thomas Miller Bell: In that connection, Mr. Chairman, I think I can say we would not mind hearing from the junior minister of transport. May I say that due to some transportation difficulties which some members of this parliament had yesterday the hon. member is beginning to learn very quickly about transportation problems in Canada.


Mr. Turner:: I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that it was a very pleasant lunch for both the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre yesterday when we were diverted because of fog.
In answer to the hon. member's question, the company hopes to get into full production in the spring or the beginning of 1968. Therefore, construction of the line should be finished by the end of 1967. If that is to be done, the grading and other work must start this summer, virtually immediately.


Michael Starr: What will be the anticipated profit annually from this railway?
April 25. 1966


John Napier Turner: The railway expects to make-I do not want to betray its competitive position-well in the neighbourhood of $1 million from this particular line.


Michael Starr: Per year?


John Napier Turner: Per year.


Michael Starr: Over and above the cost of construction?


John Napier Turner: The cost of construction will have to be depreciated in the normal way; but the depreciation will be amortized over a period of time.


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister's mention of its competitive position leads me to ask another question. I am not familiar with the situation and do not know whether the C.P.R. was at all a factor in the negotiations. Were they included in any negotiations, *or are they so removed from the area that they were not even considered?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know that area pretty [DOT]well-


Michael Starr: Is this a political answer?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps it is in the second category of answer. The two railways are about 20 miles apart, and as the proposed branch railway runs north from the Canadian National there would be no interest whatever on the part of the Steel Company in having to pay freight on at least an extra 20 miles through rather rough country, where I timber cruised at one time. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre also knows the area very well.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I might assure the hon. member for Prince Ed-ward-Lennox that I do not think the problem of level crossings will be very troublesome in that area. Because if the railway crosses one road it is not likely to cross two.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Knowing that part of the country myself fairly well I did realize, Mr. Chairman, that there would not be many railway crossings, but I was asked to point this out in general to the government. I am sure the minister will agree that if there are crossings they should be protected, and at the cost of the railway, not of the municipalities. This has been a municipal expense ever since charters have been granted. I contend from now on, that no new lines should be built without the safety devices being built in at the cost of the railway itself.
Commercial Fisheries Development


John Whitney Pickersgill: With the objectives the hon. gentleman has in mind, of course as Minister of Transport I have the greatest possible sympathy.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 8-Report to parliament.
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, in speaking on clause 8, I am not particularly speaking about this bill itself. I wonder if the minister perhaps when this comes before the committee, could see that a list is prepared of all new branch lines which have been constructed within the last ten or 20 years. With that list could there be some details of the financial success or otherwise that those lines have enjoyed, to give us some over-all insight into the over-all transportation problems that we shall have to deal with this year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it is a very good idea, sir. In fact, I shall ask the railway to do that for the whole period since the end of the war.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Before passing to the next item of business, may I just express my appreciation to hon. members for the co-operation which has been received?


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister did such a good job with this bill that I think we should bring him back as house leader.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 18, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-145, to provide for the development of the commercial fisheries of Canada-Mr. Robi-chaud-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Michael Starr: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think that the business to be undertaken at this time, in the order it was to be taken up, would bring us to item 15 on the order paper, being second reading of the act to provide for the establishment of the Science Council of Canada.
April 25. 1966

Commercial Fisheries Development


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe, sir, that was one of the items indicated on Friday last.


Michael Starr: The order of business was indicated.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder, in view of the fact that the minister was not able to be here today, if we could not go on with the fisheries bill, and the export and import bill which my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce is prepared to proceed with.


Gordon Minto Churchill: But our men are not here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could we perhaps take the export and import bill next, on which 1 know the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is more competent to speak than any member on the other side of the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How did I know it was coming up now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: You did not go too far away.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, we came prepared to take up the items that were listed on April 22. Why could we not now go ahead with the Science Council and with the Research Council?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was never anticipated by the government that we would make such wonderful progress as we have made today.


Michael Starr: Why not?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We thank you for your co-operation. My hon. friend the Minister of Industry is away on business, and he is the one who ought to be dealing with some of it


Michael Starr: Anybody else can do it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think we should not make very good progress without having the minister present. If it is not convenient to go ahead with the fisheries bill in committee, for the convenience of the opposition we should be willing to take anything for which a minister is available. We should particularly like to go ahead with the export and import bill, because of its very great importance, and because of certain of its international aspects. That is No. 46 on today's order paper.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the government house leader on Friday last set out the items that we were to consider. Consequently the opposition has prepared itself to consider items of business in that order.

This afternoon shows another indication of the tremendous disorganization with which this government conducts its business from day to day. The house leader specifies the business one day, and then when that business is to come up no minister is on hand to take up that matter. The government should not try to juggle the order paper because it is not fair to the opposition.
The Minister of Transport now suggests an item that was not even listed by the house leader. We are certainly not prepared to go ahead, just because the minister happens to be prepared. It was not to have come up in this order. The work of the house has been set out by the government house leader.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course the government is quite prepared to go ahead with the fisheries bill, which was one of the items listed. If that would suit the opposition perhaps we could proceed with it right away.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Someone had better get the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg.


The Chairman:: When the committee rose on March 18, last, the committee was about to consider clause 2 of the bill. Shall the clause carry?


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps at this time I should deal briefly with some of the matters raised during the discussion at the introduction stage of the bill, which is to provide for the development of the commercial fisheries of Canada. Matters mentioned by hon. members overlapped, to some degree. If hon. members will bear with me I am sure that I can cover all matters which have been raised.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
Through this legislation we plan to bring several of the current development activities of the Department of Fisheries under one act. We want a more dynamic development program brought to bear on the fishing industry through the introduction of the latest developments in mechanization and the most efficient use of our fishery resources.
This bill provides for the exploration and development of known and entirely new fishery resources; for the introduction and demonstration to fishermen of new and improved types of vessels, equipment and fishing techniques, for the development of new fish products and for the improvement of product handling, processing and distribution.
April 25, 1966

This legislation also paves the way for regulations to enable assistance for the construction, equipping or modification of commercial cold storages and bait freezing facilities. The legislation is flexible and allows for a variety of action programs on a broad front. The federal-provincial fisheries conference held just over two years ago provided the initiative leading to the introduction of this bill.
During discussion of this bill, it was asked if it was proposed to introduce a new program which could be compared in any way with ARDA. Let me say that this legislation is companion to that of ARDA. My department will continue its close collaboration with ARDA in rural development where fisheries play a part in the economy of the areas concerned, and through the introduction of complementary programs provide for the kind of assistance to fishermen which will enable them to pass through a transitional period into a more highly mechanized operation.
Among other matters raised during discussion was the application of technology to the industry, the maintenance of strict fish inspection, programs to assist small fishing villages with freezer facilities, and the provision of a measure to improve the lot of fishermen. Let me say that the provision of measures to improve the lot of fishermen is the whole basis for this legislation, and is its primary objective. These needs are all provided for.
It is recognized that the gradual centralization of the fishing industry and the building of boats with greater draft will call for extensive dredging operations and new shore facilities, and I wish to state that in this area there will continue to be an active association between the Minister of Public Works and myself. This of course is applicable to both coastal and inland areas.
Reference has been made to the staggering tonnage of fish which is being wasted at sea, and the need for utilization of these species. The problem of the utilization of fish wasted is now being studied with a view to maximum utilization of all species. On the Pacific coast, as I have already said, we are encouraging the increased utilization of the offshore groundfish resource and are exploring ways and means of making use of hitherto unused species, such as dogfish. Similar action is being taken on the Atlantic coast.
The federal-provincial cost-sharing arrangements in the next fiscal year cover a wide range of development projects and this
Commercial Fisheries Development program is larger each year. In addition, the
department and its scientific agency, the Fisheries Research Board, are bearing the full cost of many development projects, and here of course we include resource research projects. These projects include vessel development, the acquisition and testing of electronic devices, the expansion of herring and mackerel shark fishing in the Atlantic and Gulf of St. Lawrence, the continuation of off-shore lobster studies and the eel survey in the Atlantic, as well as the exploration of the promising off-shore groundfish resources of the Pacific.
Several provinces have indicated their desire to take part in bringing about a rapid expansion of the industry by sharing in the cost of experimental fishing for crab, scallop, herring, shrimp, eel and smelt, and the testing of light attraction systems for catching fish; fish detection by helicopter and electrical trawl fishing to mention a few. The list of federal-provincial combined participation projects on the Atlantic coast is lengthy, and as I have already mentioned includes considerable vessel and gear development and testing in a variety of fishing operations.
We are making technical assistance available to fishermen right across the country on a relatively large scale. It has been stated in this house that not enough attention is being given to the inland fisheries. I should like to point out that since I took office separate federal-provincial fisheries committees have been set up for both British Columbia and the prairie provinces. These groups meet to work out appropriate programs of fisheries development for these areas. They are not only concerned with the commercial fisheries but with sports fishing as well, and are doing excellent work in focussing attention on actions which should be taken for the betterment of the fisheries as a whole. There are, of course, similar committees for Ontario and the Atlantic coast provinces.
Increased effort is being placed on studies of the ocean floor and the effect of ocean currents on fish populations. The Fisheries Research Board has active programs of oceanographic research on both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans and has recently embarked on comprehensive studies in the Atlantic ocean, based at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. Research is to be conducted on pelagic and bottom fishes, their food and the interplay of
April 25, 1966

Commercial Fisheries Development the physical and chemical oceanographic factors, with a view to improved methods of finding and catching fish.
To discover the secrets of the oceans, the development of highly sophisticated instruments is required and recruitment of highly skilled specialists is under way in the Hali-fax-Dartmouth area. We are keenly aware of the need to train specialists in fisheries research and in 1966-67 a program is being initiated whereby grants will be awarded to appropriate university departments and staff, specifically to encourage research into the marine and aquatic sciences, and to develop trained fisheries scientists by supporting graduate students. A limited budget will restrict award of these grants in the initial year, but requests for assistance received to date indicate both wide appreciation of this scheme and the need for a considerable increase in future financial support.
Although the management of fish in inland waters is, in some provinces, under provincial administration, the Fisheries Research Board in expanding research on the fresh water fishes of Canada with the development of its new fresh water institute in Winnipeg. It is hoped from these broadly based studies that principles will be developed of importance to fish farming techniques and the management of fresh water fish stocks. Continuing research is also being directed to the possibilities of farming marine and anadromous species.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The needs for fisheries research in all areas of Canada are being actively reviewed with a view to meeting our responsibilities. We are acutely aware of the competing needs for increasing research in all parts of Canada, within the limits of manpower and financial resources available to us.
It is difficult to envisage what order of expenditure will be necessary to carry through the fisheries development activities by the federal government over the years. I should like to assure my hon. friends, however, that this will be reflected in the estimates of my department from year to year, and will be adequate to meet the needs of an expanding industry and of the research and development activities necessary to bring about a better livelihood for Canadian fishermen everywhere.
As I have mentioned on a previous occasion, the estimates of my department, which totalled $23 million in 1963, exceed $40 million for the present year.


Due to representations which have been made to me since the introduction of the bill I shall have certain amendments to propose during our discussion of it. The main amendment will affect clause 3 of the bill.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, the minister has given us a comprehensive statement on his interests and intentions with respect to this legislation. It is very revolutionary at first glance, and certainly one gets an idea of its scope when he sees the powers given to the governor in council under clause 5. However, I rise this evening briefly to interest the minister and the committee in a subject that he will remember was a favourite of mine some time ago.
Studies have been conducted into many species of fish, both commercial and otherwise, with one notable exception, perhaps because of the fact that on the east coast it has not got as great commercial value as other species, and has given rise to different interests in different areas. I refer to the Atlantic salmon, and I hasten to add that it pleased me to hear the minister mention that this new legislation will deal with it from a sport standpoint. East coast salmon have both a sporting and commercial interest, and I would like to see a massive research program conducted into Atlantic salmon from both these standpoints.
It is true that surveys have been conducted on particular rivers. We have examined the pollution problem on some rivers, perhaps not as extensively as it should have been done, and we also investigated the effect on salmon of dams and things like that. I shall not go into all that, but we in the east know the great value of the Atlantic salmon. We are proud of it. Saint John harbour salmon is the finest eating fish in the country, and testimony was paid to that effect no later than yesterday by the junior minister of transport. He gave that testimony in public and there were many witnesses to it. I only hope that if he ever goes to the west coast he will not be ashamed to say that the Saint John harbour salmon is the finest of them all.
We all know the great interest taken in Atlantic salmon from the angling standpoint. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is present and I know he goes to private camps on the Restigouche and the Miramichi to catch those salmon. We have all seen pictures of the salmon being caught in the rivers of
April 25, 1966

New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and I take this opportunity to put in my plea on behalf of Atlantic salmon.
We extend to the minister our good will on this legislation, which is comprehensive. It is something that seems to be needed, but we will have many detailed questions to ask about it. Again I ask the minister to consider holding an extensive study into every aspect of Atlantic salmon, a species which has largely been forgotten in the modern world, but one unsurpassed in world fishing.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, may I briefly reply to the hon. member. I am sure he is aware that in connection with the Mactaquac project on the Saint John river there will be undertaken the largest, full-scale program of salmon research in the country. The proposed hatchery will be unique of its kind on this continent and will probably be administered by the department's fishery research board. It is likely that it will be the largest undertaking of its kind on this continent to deal with salmon research.


Thomas Miller Bell: I thank the minister for his remarks. I know the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton has more knowledge than I on this matter, but in spite of the scope of this project many who live on the upper reaches of the Saint John are pessimistic about the effects of the project. It is already known that Beechwood itself has already had tremendous effects, and no matter how dams are cleaned they have not helped. However, I hope the project the minister has mentioned will be successful.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I am beginning to suspect that the hon. member for Saint John-Albert is trying to provoke a debate. I would be quite content to hear him and the minister argue about which stream in New Brunswick produces the best New Brunswick salmon, but when the hon. member starts to talk about some piddling little fish down in Saint John harbour being the best fish in the country, he is taking in a lot of territory, and one could take those as fighting words. However, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure how far you would allow such a battle to rage before suggesting it did not deal with the legislation before us.
I shall discuss the question with the hon. member at some time and place, and content myself now with the suggestion that one of these days he visit the coast of B.C., particularly my constituency, and treat himself to the pleasure of some real salmon.
Commercial Fisheries Development
However, I would not want any of these remarks to be taken as suggesting that as a member of parliament I am not willing to lend my support to any measures sponsored by the department to improve the quality and abundance of Atlantic salmon, because we all recognize the value of salmon to our fishery, be it on the east or west coast.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I believe, Mr. Chairman, the bill which we are considering now is perhaps the most specific item, at least so far as consideration in this house is concerned, that we have had since the federal-provincial fisheries conference of a year ago last January. Certainly I am quite sure all members of the house welcome the advent of this bill as a concrete indication of a forward move, in the direction that was plotted at least in a preliminary way at that conference so far as fisheries development is concerned. I am inclined, of course, to wait to see how this bill works out in operation before giving it undivided praise. In saying that, I think it is clear it is a bill which depends in large measure for its success in practice upon some measure of cooperation with the provincial authorities of the various provinces of Canada which have a commercial fishery resource which can be exploited and developed.
I feel it is a little complicated, perhaps, that we are considering this bill in the house at the same time we have before the Standing Committee on Fisheries the estimates of the minister's department for the current year. There may be some advantages, however, in that. Certainly one of the questions I should like to ask the minister, now that this bill is before us, and to which he might give some reply before we go out of committee, is one which I might have asked at the hearings of the standing committee, when the estimates are before it. I note that in the current year's estimates there is an item of programs and projects shared by the provinces, in the amount of $1,130,000, which represents a substantial increase from the total under the similar heading of last year.
One of the questions I would like to have answered is whether or not the passage of this bill will result in increased amounts in shared-cost programs with the provinces over those which are provided for in the estimates now are under consideration. I think that is a question the answer to which would give us some indication of the significance and scope of the program envisaged through introduction of this bill. I assume the amounts
April 25, 1966

Commercial Fisheries Development proposed in the estimates of the current fiscal year are amounts developed on the basis of programs certainly prior to the time the bill was introduced in the house, and possibly prior to the time when the decision was made by the government to have it introduced at this session. I ask that question because, as I say, I feel it is significant from the point of view of giving us some idea concerning what expansion is envisaged in the program of fishery development as between the federal government and the provinces or as between the federal government and other agencies which may be involved in fishery development as a result of the proposals in this bill.
I should like to say, Mr. Chairman, that in this particular connection I naturally am concerned about the role the government of the province of British Columbia-the province from which I come-is going to play in the proposals outlined in this bill. Both inside and outside the house I previously have pointed out that at the federal-provincial fisheries conference, if my recollection serves me correctly, the province of British Columbia was the only one not represented at the ministerial level. In view of the relative importance of the fishery in British Columbia I felt this perhaps was rather unfortunate, and that on the surface at least it indicated some lack of interest and concern on the part of the government of British Columbia in the economic future of British Columbia's fishery.
I am aware that since that time a special report on fishery matters was prepared under the auspices of the government of British Columbia and submitted to a special committee on fisheries at the last session of the British Columbia legislature. This report which was prepared by Mr. McMynn, who now is on the staff of the Department of Recreation and Conservation of British Columbia, gives a comprehensive review of the fisheries situation in British Columbia. I think it underlines some of the apparent lack of interest, however. I am going to make a brief reference, if I may, to the report submitted by Mr. McMynn to the legislative committee. In part he has this to say:
A general conclusion which seems apparent from the above concerns the present and future role of the province in the commercial fisheries of British Columbia. Until 1957 the British Columbia Department of Fisheries provided a diversified and important service to the industry. Today, the commercial fisheries branch serves mainly as a licensing agency. The deputy minister of the Department of Fisheries formerly exerted considerable influence on matters of vital concern to the fishing


industry. He was recognized as the provincial government spokesman and adviser on fishing matters. In this position he facilitated a close and effective working liaison between the federal Department of Fisheries, the provincial Department of Fisheries, and the several provincial departments and international agencies associated with commercial and sport fisheries.
Since 1957 the important function of government-industry liaison has decreased. There is no longer a provincial Department of Fisheries, and consequently the province has little administrative or jurisdictional involvement in the management of her marine fisheries. Notwithstanding the foregoing, British Columbia should ensure that future exploitation of its fisheries is in the provincial interest. To do so will require greater provincial participation, particularly in view of rapidly increasing demands upon the fisheries resource by commercial and sport fishermen and by competing water users.
I hope that the submission of this report and the consideration given to it by the legislative committee in British Columbia perhaps will be a milestone in the sense of restoring at least the level of interest in the commercial and sport fishery which formerly was held by the government of British Columbia. Indeed I would go further and say that if the purposes of this bill are to be met, at least so far as British Columbia is concerned, the provincial authority is going to have to proceed much further than it ever has in the past in respect of the kind of interest it takes in the commercial fishery.
I know the minister made reference to the federal-provincial fisheries committee and I hope perhaps he might give us some indication of the type of work this committee now has in hand in relation to the existing situation so far as the operation of the government of British Columbia is concerned. I might say also, Mr. Chairman, I am a little concerned in my own mind with regard to what the immediate result of the passage of this bill may be in British Columbia, because of some of the references in the report made by the special fisheries committee to the legislature. They recommend that a provincial ministry of fisheries be reinstituted as part of the government of British Columbia and that there be provincial participation on the federal fisheries board and at federal conferences. However, they make this somewhat contingent upon a clarification of the jurisdictional situation as between the federal and provincial governments. They suggest it is only if the government of British Columbia is given greater jurisdiction that increased provincial participation should take place.
We all know that when it comes to the bringing forward of any formal proposal in
April 25, 1966	COMMONS
any jurisdiction, whether it be a proposal such as the Fulton-Favreau formula, or others, involving constitutional revision, a situation develops which necessarily involves a good deal of time. In the context of the crisis in the fishing industry of British Columbia, in my view there might be a disastrous delay in taking full advantage of the proposals set forth in this bill, especially on the Pacific coast of Canada.
I feel that this is a situation which the house should be aware of as we consider this bill. I have heard the Premier of British Columbia make remarks from time to time about what a great Canadian he is, and how he is all for national unity and development.
I must say that when it comes down to the practicality of a situation I am from time to time deeply disturbed by the very independent parochialism of attitude that is manifested in certain government quarters within the province from which I come. I hope the government of British Columbia, in the light of the introduction of this bill, will be prepared to take a much more practical approach to this question of fisheries development, and participation in such programs as the federal government is prepared to put forward for consideration jointly than has been indicated by the report of the committee. That report seems to me to take a rather technical and restrictive attitude as far as getting on with the job of expanding our commercial fisheries in British Columbia is concerned.
As we get into a consideration of the clauses of the bill, I may have some other remarks to make and questions to raise. I noted the remarks of the minister about the inter-relationship between this bill and the ARDA program. I was interested to hear his remarks in view of some questions I asked the Minister of Forestry not too long ago, when we were considering some changes to the operation of ARDA. In view of the fact that in practice ARDA has been participating in certain fisheries development projects, at least on the Atlantic coast of Canada, I expressed some concern that there might be overlapping with possible inefficiency in the operation of these two programs. I was glad to receive the assurance of the Minister of Fisheries, as indeed I received the assurance of the Minister of Forestry, that it is the desire in respect of these programs that they be integrated rather than operated as a duplication of effort.
DEBATES	4277
Commercial Fisheries Development
With those remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to hear what other members of the committee may have to say during this discussion.
[DOT]	(8:30 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, after hearing the remarks made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I would like to know what the minister intends to do about sections 3 and 4 dealing with federal-provincial relations in the field of Canadian fisheries.
The hon. member who has just resumed his seat was talking about British Columbia. Fisheries also present problems in the province of Quebec. We also have at the provincial level a Department of Fisheries.
Now, in Bill C-145, we read in section 3:
(1) The minister may undertake projects, (a) for the more efficient exploitation of fishery resources and for the exploration for and development of new fishery resources and new fisheries; (b) for the introduction and demonstration to fishermen of new types of fishing vessels and fishing equipment and of new fishing techniques; and (c) for the development of new fishery products and for the improvement of the handling, processing and distribution of fishery products.
Subsection 2 reads as follows:
The minister may enter into an agreement with any province providing for the undertaking jointly with the government of the province or any agency thereof of any project that the minister is authorized to undertake under subsection (1).
Well, Mr. Chairman, the present leaders of the province of Quebec state that joint programs no longer interest them. It remains to be determined what role the Minister of Fisheries of Canada can play with the Minister of Fisheries of the province of Quebec. I do not think that the federal minister can dictate anything to the province of Quebec. Besides, subsection 3 of the bill clearly stipulates that:
The minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, enter into an agreement with any province providing for the payment to the province of contributions in respect of the cost of any project that is undertaken by the government of the province or any agency thereof and that the minister is authorized to undertake under subsection (1).
[DOT]	(8:40 p.m.)
But the province states that it does not need the minister. Now, under the circumstances, what is the value of Bill C-145 when a province decides to act on its own, outside joint programs, without the authorization or even the suggestions of the federal Minister of Fisheries?
4278	COMMONS
Commercial Fisheries Development
Section 3, subsection 4, reads as follows:
For the purpose of assisting the formulation and assessment of fisheries development projects, the minister may undertake economic studies alone or jointly with the government of any province or agency thereof or with any university-
Under these circumstances, can the hon. minister undertake development projects with a university without the agreement of the province, or the agreement of the province of Quebec? I wonder. That is questionable.
And I read on:
-with any university, educational institution or person-
The minister:
-may co-ordinate such studies with similar studies undertaken in Canada.
The hon. minister has to face certain problems in the provincial sphere, whether it is in Quebec or in British Columbia. He may not have similar problems in the Maritimes, where he comes from, for in those provinces, the role the federal government plays in fisheries administration has yet to be determined.
Mr. Chairman, I feel the matter is quite clear in British Columbia just as it is in the province of Quebec.
Here is what we find in section 4 of Bill C-145:
The minister shall, in carrying out any project or economic study under this act, make use, where-ever possible, of the services and facilities of other departments of the government of Canada or of any agencies thereof.
Now, we find that the minister "shall make use of the services and facilities of other departments of the government of Canada" to decide upon the policy to be followed, not only in one province but in Canada as a whole, as regards Canadian fisheries.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we have a Minister of Game and Fish in the province of Quebec. Other provinces also have one. I noticed a while ago that one hon. member was adopting a definite stand in favour of his province.
It is not so much that I want to take sides for the province of Quebec, but I wonder what the Minister of Fisheries of Canada has decided to do about the province of Quebec, even about any province whatsoever.
I understand that it is stipulated that the minister must get information, ask for cooperation or make suggestions.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, to save a little time, the hon. member might allow me
[Mr. Caouette.j
DEBATES	April 25, 1966
to clear up the matter he has just raised; I could give him the answer immediately, thus allowing the debate to proceed.
First of all, and the hon. member may not be aware of it, there is no Minister of Fisheries in the province of Quebec; there is a Minister of Industry, who looks after the commercial fisheries of the province of Quebec.


David Réal Caouette: The Minister of Game and Fish.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: That does not exist any longer, it comes under the Minister of Industry, but relations between the Quebec government and the federal government are very favourable. We have had for a few years a federal-provincial committee on fisheries; we meet with the Quebec representative several times a year. We have joint projects on fisheries, research, demonstrations of new fishing methods, in the province of Quebec as well as in the other provinces; we also have some with the industries; in fact, we have some with the United Fishermen of Quebec. We have joint projects under which we make grants. We co-operate in the field of research with the universities of Quebec, whether it is Laval University or the University of Montreal.
I can assure the hon. member that our relations with Quebec are very favourable.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, we are not
trying here to establish if the relations between the minister and the province of Quebec are very favourable; we are trying to establish whether or not the province of Quebec advised the Minister of Fisheries, as any crown minister of Canada, that from now on the joint programs will no longer be accepted, that the joint programs dictated or organized by the government of Ottawa will no longer be welcome in Quebec, that the Lesage government wants to assume its own responsibilities without the intervention of the ministers in Ottawa.
The Minister of Fisheries must be aware of that.
There is currently an election campaign going on in Quebec and these allegations are being used to prove that the Ottawa government has no say in Quebec. The friends of the Minister of Fisheries are saying that. I did not make it up. I am not sounding the alarm in Quebec, the friends of the Minister of Fisheries are.
April 25, 1966

When my good friend the Minister of Fisheries claims there is no longer a Minister of Game and Fish in Quebec, my honourable friend knows quite well that Hon. G. D. Levesque is still there, and is particularly involved in questions of fish and game. To my knowledge, he has not yet asked the Canadian Minister of Fisheries if the latter was ready to agree to a joint program.
Mr. Chairman, this is to say that Bill C-145 is quite untimely in the circumstances. It is not even, as the hon. member for a British Columbia riding said a moment ago, suitable to conditions in British Columbia. It may be suitable to New Brunswick, though I am not sure; but one thing is certain, the bill on fisheries is not suitable to present needs in the province of Quebec.
The minister knows the Gaspe Peninsula as well as I do. We have fishermen there, professional fishermen who have been fishing for years and, even today, face an alarming problem, not as far as learning to fish is concerned but how to put fish products on the market.
The minister offers no solution in Bill C-145. He says that he is ready to study everything concerning fishermen in general. But, he offers no solution at all.
Will fishermen be better off after the passing of this bill? The minister can answer: yes, definitely.
The minister has been looking after fisheries for the past three years. Has the lot of the Canadian fishermen improved since he took over this department? I see the minister shaking his head meaning yes and no. He knows that conditions of Canadian fishermen have not improved and will not be improved under Bill C-145.
I do not intend to prolong the debate. The bill introduced by the minister contains no solution to help the Canadian fishermen of his constituency.
The minister tells us: We are going to co-operate with the universities, the students, the provincial government. Why not with the Ladies of St. Anne and the Children of Mary, in order to try and find a solution? He knows well that his bill is not the answer. We need something else besides that, we need a market so that our fishermen might sell their products; we need domestic and international markets.
Then, our fishermen will be able to establish a distinction between categories (a), (b),
(c)	or (d) in their fish production. The minister knows that the fishermen do not need a
Commercial Fisheries Development lawyer, a notary or the minister to tell them how to fish. However, they need a market so that they may dispose of their products in order to live decently. That is what the fishermen need all across Canada.


An hon. Member:: He should know.


David Réal Caouette: Certainly, he should know.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, when the minister introduced the bill on second reading he used words to the effect that there was not very much new contained in the bill, but that it merely consolidated in statute form those things which had previously been done by appropriation or by specific items in the estimates; that it combined and put into one law where all could see the procedures and systems which would be a guide for the future.
However, there is one new venture in a sense, and that has to do with giving to the Department of Fisheries some determination as to cold storage facilities. I want to extend my congratulations to the minister for finally taking the lead that those of us in the C.C.F. propounded during the time the Conservatives were in office.


David Réal Caouette: You have changed now.


Frank Howard: My hon. friend from Vil-leneuve says we have changed. We changed the name, but we did not do so in a situation which was as terrible as when he changed.


David Réal Caouette: What about the Social Credit party?


Frank Howard: My hon. friend wants to talk about Social Credit. I will take him up on that in a moment and tell him something about what happened in my own province under Social Credit.


David Réal Caouette: That is a different matter.


Frank Howard: My hon. friend says that is a different matter. Mr. Chairman, would you like to protect me a little from the hon. member for Villeneuve?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. May I remind the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Villeneuve that we have before us clause 2 of the bill.


Frank Howard: I was proceeding to that clause, Mr. Chairman, pointing out that during the time the Conservatives were in office
4280	COMMONS
Commercial Fisheries Development they decided to discontinue the payment of subventions under the Cold Storage Act because of the fact that prior to 1957 a few friends in the Liberal party had made a gold mine out of continuing subventions under the Cold Storage Act and borrowings from the Industrial Development Bank. Consequently the Tories saw fit to limit the payment of subventions.
We protested at that time because the matter came under the Department of Agriculture. We said there should be a separate determination of all fisheries products cold storage warehouses and that they should be divorced from the department of Agriculture; and I commend the minister for taking heed of our words uttered at that time.
I am inclined to think that the bill should be expanded-I hope this is one of the amendments the minister has in mind when we reach the appropriate clause-so that payments or subventions, as they might otherwise be called, under clause 5 might also be made to fisheries products processing plants as well as to cold storages.
We recently had a situation on the Queen Charlotte Islands where the only fish cannery on the islands was on the verge of going under, owing to a series of events over the last number of years, most of them difficulties over which the company had no control but which emanated from the fishery itself. We saw a situation there where that plant was maintained in operation only by the workers themselves putting in a subsidy by way of taking a lower price for the fish they caught than would normally be the case on that coast. This would have been a prime case in point for payments under a bill of this sort.
If the minister will later on move an amendment to that clause to provide for payments to processing plants, he will be taking another step in the direction of properly and fully giving all the assistance available in order to develop and preserve the fishing industry in the province of British Columbia, as well as that in the provinces along the other coast. I merely mentioned British Columbia because that is the province from which I come and the one with which I am most familiar.
It is regrettable that my own provincial government has not only not seen fit to interest itself so far in participating with the federal government in the development of our fisheries, but it is also regrettable to note that the provincial government in office now, that of Social Credit, is the one that destroyed the

DEBATES	April 25, 1966
department of fisheries we used to have in 1957 and, in effect, thumbed its nose at the problems of the fishing industry in that province. It is a sad event, when the great bulk of the income in our province comes from the fishing industry, to see a government in effect ignoring the entire industry and the difficulties with which it is faced.
However, Mr. Chairman, this should not be used-and we have said this before-by the federal government as an excuse not to step into the field and to do all it can to promote the fishing industry in that province. Merely because there is a reluctance or an inability or a lack of concern on the part of Premier Bennett and others in this regard, should not deter the federal government from exhibiting a larger degree of interest than has been the case up till now.
The minister mentioned that under this bill we may be able to assist the groundfish industry which has advanced into the market in the last year or so. The minister also mentioned that under this legislation we might be able to deal adequately with the problem which exists in relation to dogfish which, up until now, with one or two slight exceptions, has not been a commercially marketable fish, although the livers have been fished for and for which at one time there were subsidies paid.
Development of these new fisheries and other new fisheries which exist on the coast and which heretofore have not been exploited to any marked degree will depend upon the extent to which we can market these products. In this regard it is interesting to note that the royal commission on price spreads of food products, which was appointed and reported during the time the Conservative government was in office, made some recommendations with respect to the marketing of fish, recommendations which so far have been ignored both by the Conservatives and by the subsequent Liberal government. This is one matter which must be looked at.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
In this connection I am aware that clause 3 of the bill deals with the development and distribution of fisheries products; but I can only say that there is not much point in going full scale into exploring, developing and exploiting new fisheries if you also do not go full scale into marketing and selling those particular fish products.
The bill seeks primarily to advance the exploitation of fisheries and to advance and
April 25. 1966

intrude into the exploration of new fishery resources. It seeks to introduce new fishing vessels and techniques, to assist in the fuller exploitation of the fisheries themselves and also seeks to go into the area of new fisheries products, and new handling, processing, and distribution techniques. That, I think might cover the field, as it were.
Whatever good may come from this legislation, whatever good may have come from the programs similar to these contemplated by this bill which were dealt with by way of appropriation earlier, could very easily be offset by other activities. In fact, sometimes in the past the good contemplated by conservation measures, by the development and increase in exploitation of certain fisheries in order that we could exploit them to the full within the bounds of conservation itself, has been offset and will be offset in the future if the government does not take cognizance of and do something about the fact that other nations in the world are interested in catching fish.
The government must recognize that other nations in the world engage in fishing the same sort of fisheries products that we fish. Sometimes they engage in this fishing right on our back doorstep.
We have had long discussions in this house about the North Pacific Fisheries Treaty, the treaty to which Canada, the United States and Japan are signatories. If the abstention principle some time in the future is removed from the treaty, and that incidentally is the intention and desire of the government and the people of Japan, then one of the countries on the other side of the Pacific will be able without compulsion or without any prohibition to fish for the very fisheries products which have been our lifeblood in British Columbia. That country's vessels will be able to fish within 12 miles of our shores.
It is imperative, if any good is to come from the legislation now being passed, that we move fully into the international field and have discussion not only with nations in NORPAC, but that we include within that treaty other nations the vessels of which fish in the Pacific Ocean for the fisheries products we fish for.
Within the last year we have seen Russian fishing vessels on our back doorstep, just off the northern tip of Vancouver Island. The Russians are under no prohibition whatever to abstain from fishing for the fish which we normally consider ours because they are
Commercial Fisheries Development spawned in our areas. If the massive fishing fleet of the Soviet Union concentrates on the salmon, halibut or herring fishery, that could mean the destruction of those fisheries for British Columbia. If that were to happen all the beneficial things contemplated by the bill before us will come to naught.
Korea is another nation which is expanding its fishing fleet. The People's Republic of China, which is another of the great and developing nations on the horizon, will be embarking on the ocean eventually in order to catch fish. We on this side of the Pacific must recognize these possibilities, and these trends, and these dangers. We must take concrete steps to draw these countries into a conservation pact with us, knowing that only by conservation practices engaged in by all nations with fishing industries shall we be able to exploit these fisheries to the full. Without conservation practices destruction will come to the fisheries. That destruction can be just as devastating as that brought about by the building of hydroelectric dams on rivers containing fish.
Another matter of concern is the degree to which United States fishermen off and around Alaska catch what we classify as our homecoming salmon, which is salmon that comes into the spawning streams in that part of the country which I have the honour to represent. Those salmon come into the Nass and Skeena Rivers and their tributaries. United States fishermen wait on the other side of the international boundary to catch these fish as they follow that route down the Alaska Panhandle as they come to spawn.
We have had conversations in the last couple of weeks with United States authorities about their surf line, as it is called. I have read statements attributed to the deputy minister of fisheries before the Fisheries committee to the effect that there was no agreement about altering that surf line in Alaska, and that some other course of action may have to be followed. I say that it is imperative that we deal strongly and firmly with the United States to see that it desist in wrecking our conservation practices. The United States must enter into a conservation pact to establish surf lines, in the good will and spirit of co-operation necessary to preserve and develop our fisheries.
We must concern ourselves with the 12-mile territorial fishing zone, which was passed in law by parliament some two years ago. That law contemplated the establishment
April 25, 1966

Commercial Fisheries Development of straight base lines, and the 12-mile fishing zone measure therefor. Those straight base lines which we were promised faithfully would come into effect before the end of 1964 we have not yet seen. I say that unless we draw those straight base lines so as to include Dixon entrance, Hecate strait and Queen Charlotte sound, the three immense bodies of water which are in the north central part of the province, and draw those base lines in such a way as to close off those areas to prevent other nations exploiting the fisheries there, we could very easily find other nations seeking to exploit the very groundfish that we are so proud of. It is imperative that this be done or the good contemplated by the bill before us can come to nothing.
From the Alaska Panhandle a number of rivers, the Stikine being a notable one, form the spawning base of fish in Canadian territory. In order to come to these spawning grounds salmon have to go to Alaskan or to United States waters. Part of the way up the Stikine river, in United States territory, United States fishermen without any compunction can stretch their nets across the mouth of the river and catch the salmon as they swim up that river. I believe that conservation practices that we contemplate with respect to the Stikine fishery could again come to nothing. This also requires some degree of international co-operation. That is so not only with respect to the Stikine, but also with respect to other waters where fish come to spawn, or where they have to go through foreign territory to their spawning beds in Canada.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I turn now to domestic questions. In the last number of years we have seen that logging and construction companies have dredged up spawning beds in order to build roads. They have dumped logging debris and slash into rivers to such a degree that spawning beds have been destroyed. Not many weeks ago right in my own community of Terrace a logging company was seen to have carried out its operations with bulldozers blazing their way through a particular river, while young steelhead were to be seen there. The answer we got from the Department of Fisheries was: We are sorry, but we did not have that listed as a salmon spawning stream so we could not put anything in the contract as far as the logging company was concerned. This is really the height of ignorance-a department having to admit that one stream,


and I do not know how many others, was not listed as a salmon spawning stream. I do not know how we can engage in effective conservation programs when information about the salmon spawning areas is not complete. Unless we do more in this field we shall find that some of the good and beneficial parts of the bill before us will not be realized.
I know that in his heart the minister wants to do everything he possibly can to enhance our fisheries. I know that in his heart he wants to do everything he possibly can to seek out new fisheries projects. I know he wants to have conservation practiced by everyone concerned; it is his hope that conservation will be in the minds of everyone. I know that in his heart he wants to do these things. The bill before us may or may not be able to bring about the desired results. It depends upon what the minister intends to do from now on, not only in respect of those things contemplated in the bill which are desirable in themselves, but also with regard to those matters to which my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni referred-the activities of other nations and other governments, notably the government in British Columbia.
If the minister would strike out in all directions in the name of conservation and the exploration of our fisheries, perhaps a day will come when we can be much more proud than we are now of our fisheries and of our fisheries department.


Mr. Crouse:: As the representative of
Queens-Lunenburg I welcome this opportunity to make a few comments on Bill C-145, an act to provide for the development of the commercial fisheries of Canada.
I listened with great interest to the Minister of Fisheries when he presented this bill, and in my view it is certainly a comprehensive one which, if properly applied, could affect all aspects of the fishing industry. The bill says in one clause that the minister may make provision for the more efficient exploitation of fisheries resources, the exploration for and development of new fisheries. I believe this is the most important clause in the bill.
For many years in Nova Scotia the fishing industry was an affair of small boats, small capital investment and a surplus of manpower. It was based almost entirely on salt fish. Today the industry is greatly changed. It is based on larger boats with modern equipment, and instead of a surplus of manpower
April 25, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	4283
there is a growing shortage of skilled men to man the ships.
Shifting markets have brought about increased fish sales but at the present time the large fleet operating from Nova Scotia and engaged specifically in scallop fishing is facing a serious situation, due to a glut of scallops on the market. We have seen prices fall from a high of some 60 cents to the fishermen last year to a low at the present time of 37 cents, with a prospect of the price falling still further. I had the opportunity recently to speak to many of the fishermen in my area and if prices do not improve many of them of necessity will be obliged to change their entire operation and go into other types of fishing.
By means of this bill the minister could, I believe, give some assistance to these men. There are other types of fish in the sea which are not now being caught and marketed in large quantities. I refer to the possibility of extending our whaling fleet; I refer to the possibility of enlarging our crab fishing activities; I refer to the possibility of increasing our catch of shrimps; to the possibility of the development of new techniques for catching herring, and to the possible marketing of sharks which are prolific on the east coast and which so far have not been marketed by Canadian fishermen, though they are marketed by the fishermen of other countries.
If the minister uses this bill to assist fishermen in this way I am sure he will receive considerable praise from all Atlantic coast fishermen. Since the Conservative government expanded the subsidy program we have had little difficulty in enlarging our fishing fleet. It seemed it is quite possible for fishermen to get together, form a company and build a new ship. But that is not the only problem. Once a ship is built the fishermen must have a market for their catch which enables them to operate at a profit. I suggest that through the research facilities available to him the minister should devote his efforts under this particular clause of the measure to expanding existing markets and developing new markets for some of the species I have mentioned.
Another clause in the bill calls for the introduction and demonstration to fishermen of new types of fishing vessels and fishing equipment, as well as of new fishing techniques. This is a most important aspect of the legislation. I say this because I believe we have seen the expansion of our fishing fleet
Commercial Fisheries Development without proper consideration of the type of vessel constructed.
For example, on February 19, 1966, Blue Mist II was lost with all hands off the southwest coast of Newfoundland. In an edition of the "Canadian Fisherman" of March, 1966, we read that the seiner Ocean Star sank off the British Columbia coast on January 29 carrying seven crew members to their death. Doubts have been raised about the vessel's stability. We read that the Northview was lost in the Finlayson Channel in February, 1961, with eight men aboard. The Combat was lost in Hecate strait with seven men aboard during March, 1965. The Sea Ranger was lost in April, 1965, in the Bering sea.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The question arises why these ships were lost. In the April, 1966 issue of the Canadian Fisherman there is an article by Bren Walsh, Newfoundland correspondent, dealing with the problem of icing up, from which I would like to quote briefly. In it he states that the problem seems to be one of severe icing conditions. Mr. Russell, the manager of the company which operated Blue Mist II, stated that disaster had struck twice in seven years, the first boat it lost being the Blue Wave. The manager also said that his company-
-is now formulating plans to spend thousands of dollars in research on de-icing.
"It has to start somewhere," he said. "Someone had to initiate research into the de-icing of aircraft and there's good reason why we should be the ones to make a start for the fishing industry."
He said they would be happy to make this a cooperative joint effort with other companies, if practical, but that they will carry on in any case on a research program.
From what I could learn there has been surprisingly little research done on the problem to date-
Russell said de-icing experiments were carried out some years ago by the British Association of Shipbuilders but their conclusions-whatever they were-are buried in an obscure report.
He said his company had some preliminary studies initiated shortly after the loss of Blue Wave in 1959. The main conclusion of these studies was that little specific knowledge exists on the problem.
On the question of whether de-icing is possible, he had this to say:
"If a way can be found to partially de-ice a ship ...it will likely involve the use of either electricity or of heated liquids pumped throughout the ship."
If electricity is used, he said, "it must be done in such a manner as to avoid shorting out the ship's main electrical system or of electrifying the ship."
As a resident of Lunenburg and the coast of Nova Scotia, I have visited the waterfront during winter months. The ships, as they arrive in port following a winter gale, are
4284	COMMONS
Commercial Fisheries Development quite a spectacle. They are almost completely covered with ice from the tips of their masts, and throughout their length and breadth. For many years the only way to remove the ice, so dangerous to the crews, was to use a mallet, which required arduous labour to knock off a very small quantity of ice. In recent years captains and crews have met with some success by installing steam equipment. By using steam hoses they have managed to remove some of the excess ice that builds up, layer on layer, while the ship is en route to port.
It is evident that the minister has given some thought to this matter or he would not have included clause 3(d) in the bill. Therefore I suggest to him that when he is considering new types of fishing vessels he make a study of their stability factor and of a proper manner of de-icing them when they are to operate in the North Atlantic in severe winter weather. This is vitally important, especially when we consider the shortage of crews and the necessity of maintaining our fishing fleet at sea.
The minister has also included a subclause (2) whereby he may-
-enter into an agreement with any province providing lor the undertaking jointly with the government of the province or any agency thereof of any project that the minister is authorized to undertake under subsection (1).
Here I would commend to him the remarks of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert who spoke in great praise of Atlantic salmon and with whose remarks I agree. In Nova Scotia in recent years we seen a great decline in the catch of Atlantic salmon.
At one time the Lahave river was known to yield over 250 salmon during a season. Last year it yielded less than 75, to the great regret of local people who looked upon the river as a major attraction for tourists to the area. The reason the river contained a large number of salmon in previous years is that at one time lumber operators maintained large wooden dams on the river, which served to control the supply of water and enabled salmon to get upstream to the spawning grounds during the spring of the year. With the advent of trucks it was no longer necessary to maintain river water control for the sluicing of logs to the mouth of the river, and so the dams were allowed to fall into disrepair.
It is believed that the Department of Fisheries could go a long way toward reestablishing the salmon run not only on the
[Mr. Crouse.1
DEBATES	April 25. 1966
Lahave but on the Gold River, the Medway ' River and other salmon streams in Nova Scotia by reconstructing wooden dams on these rivers for water control. In view of this provision in the bill I hope the minister will avail himself of the opportunity to carry out joint programs with the provincial authorities to help restore the salmon fishing in the major salmon rivers of Nova Scotia.
There are many other provisions in the bill to which I could address myself tonight. One of them concerns the necessity of working closely with the Minister of Public Works in the provision of new facilities for the fishing industry in the Atlantic provinces. We have expanded our fishing fleet, but in many maritime areas we are now suffering from inadequate docking facilities. This is especially true in Lunenburg and throughout many parts of my constituency. I hope the minister will give favourable consideration to this matter when implementing this clause of the bill.
Clause 5 of the bill gives the minister very extensive powers, which I fear might even trespass on the rights of the provinces. He will have to use his good judgment when implementing this clause of the bill. As he is well aware, in the Atlantic provinces we have fishermen's loan boards. We have departments of fisheries in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and, I believe, Newfoundland. Therefore, in view of the wide powers which will be granted to the minister by this bill, before implementing any new measures I hope he will undertake careful consultation with the various provincial interests.
I reserve the right to make comment on other provisions of the bill at another time. In closing I commend the minister for his efforts in bringing forth this bill which, in the main, should prove of great assistance to the Atlantic provinces and to the fishing industry in general.


Mr. Patterson:: My observations, Mr. Chairman, will be brief and general in nature this evening. I have listened with great interest to the minister's statement. In fact I have always found his statements dealing with the fishing industry of great interest. Tonight he referred to amendments which he will introduce as we study the various clauses of the bill. We look forward to seeing these amendments so that we can analyse them in order to assess whether they will be effective in meeting the various problems with which the industry is confronted.
April 25. 1366
We are all aware of the tremendous importance of the fishing industry to Canada. Any measure of program directed toward enhancing the industry, whether on the east coast, the west coast, or in the areas in between, will receive unqualified support.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I think back, Mr. Chairman, to former years when there was a real measure of co-operation on a non-partisan basis when it came to a consideration of fisheries problems. That spirit of co-operation was characteristic of the approach which all members took, because they realized the problems we faced would not be solved by a political approach, but that they would be solved when we were able to co-operate in bringing in what we believed were effective and adequate measures for the solution of our problems. It almost seems as though now a new era has dawned; we have departed from that attitude of co-operation and have moved into an area of criticism, which I think is doing and will do a disservice to the entire industry.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni, supported by his colleague for Skeena, went to considerable length in an effort to downgrade the government of his own province. It is remarkable that there are those in this house who seem to take a great delight in doing this for political purposes and political motives; but it is unfortunate in a debate such as this that we would resort to tactics of this kind. I wish to assure the Minister of Fisheries, you Mr. Chairman, and all members of this house, that the government of British Columbia is actively concerned in all phases of the British Columbia economy and in the welfare of all its people. I wonder whether it could be that an election campaign is in the offing in British Columbia, and that this is part of the program.


Frank Howard: I did not know that.


Mr.   Palierson@: It may be the take-off for an election campaign. Several years ago I was invited to an non-partisan meeting; it was not a political meeting at all, but rather was a meeting called by the fisheries organizations. They had representatives from the various political parties and it was during an election campaign. The candidates there used it for a political platform. I should like to assure all concerned that it was not very effective in those days; in fact it backfired.
I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that the problems which face the fishing industry in British Columbia, or in any other part of 23033-271
Commercial Fisheries Development Canada for that matter, will be solved by political criticisms or innuendos. They will be solved by an organized and constant effort on the part of all concerned to find a solution to the problems which face us.


Frank Howard: Would you permit a question?


Alexander Bell Patterson: Certainly.


Frank Howard: The hon. member has permitted me to ask a question, Mr. Chairman. I am sure we all want to work in a spirit of co-operation; that is our desire, our intention and our hope. If we have erred as the hon. member indicates, I wonder, in order to get us back on the right track, would he detail for us what the provincial government has done in recent years to assist the fishing industry in British Columbia?


Alexander Bell Patterson: In past years the fisheries affairs have been under the direction of another department, and in fact are still at the present time. I believe, however, we must recognize this fact, that on the Pacific coast the major responsibility for activities in respect of the fisheries is under the jurisdiction of the federal government. In fact, a study of the regulations and of the whole picture, as it affects the Pacific fishery, points out this fact, that the federal government has the major responsibility in the field of fisheries. I do know that the minister under whose jurisdiction the fisheries fall, so far as the provincial responsibility is concerned, is vitally interested in this matter. I do know also that a great deal of attention and throught is being given to it and, just as British Columbia has faced and solved its problems in many other phases of activity, so I know they are going to face this realistically and, so far as possible within the provincial jurisdiction, meet their responsibilities and cooperate with the federal government in its efforts to solve the problems of development, the problems of conservation, the problems of marketing, and every other type of problem with which we are faced on the Pacific coast.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I felt I would be remiss tonight if I failed to make these few brief observations. I wish to say again, in spite of what the hon. member for Saint John-Albert said about the Atlantic salmon being tops so far as the fish of Canada are concerned, that I do not agree with him altogether, because through my constituency flows the mighty Fraser river, one of the great salmon fishery rivers of the continent and of the world. I should like to say it is

April 25, 1366

Commercial Fisheries Development pretty hard to beat the Pacific salmon when it comes to quality, when it comes to size and when you judge it by any other criteria. Let me say again in closing that regardless of where the problems of the fishing industry may lie, no matter what part of Canada we are speaking of, we are vitally interested in and will support every measure designed to meet the problems in this industry and in our Canadian economy.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman, I should like the minister to clarify one or two points in connection with this matter before he goes on, or before we pass this bill. What I have in mind relates to the Northwest Territories. The minister may have made a statement on this before I came into the house. In the north and in the Great Slave lake area there is an industry started in respect of the char fishery, and which requires some help from the Department of Fisheries. I should like to see efforts made to button up projects with the provinces; but there is no mention in this bill about the Northwest Territories.
I am wondering where the fishermen in the Northwest Territories stand in respect of the proposed activities envisaged under this particular bill. Although it is expensive, the people of the Great Slave lake area are able to fly out their fish, and can command a good price on the New York market and in the markets of some of the larger centres. I should like to have from the minister his views with regard to co-operating with the areas which are not formed into provinces, such as the Northwest Territories and perhaps the Yukon territory.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take much of the time of the committee, but I am interested in this bill as I realize that when it is adopted it will present an opportunity for the government to do something for the commercial and sport fishing industries of Canada. If it seizes that opportunity I can envisage great advantages forthcoming to various areas in addition to our coastline and maritime regions.
I am not one of those fellows who gets married to every passing whim and fancy that attracts popular sympathy, because I realize that any member who does that will find himself a widower once a week. What I want to say is based on the good common sense of the people I have the honour of representing, who have given some study to this question.

It was very pleasing to hear some members, including the minister, indicate that this is more or less an ARDA fisheries program carried over to meet the fisheries situation which now exists in Canada. I was very pleased to hear the minister say on several occasions that this program will also cover sport fisheries in this country, which at the present time can also be strictly termed as commercial fisheries.
I rise to bring particularly to the attention of the minister a subject I have mentioned once or twice before in this house during the last few years, and relate it to the opportunity that is being provided the minister, his department and his officials to restore the damaged fisheries in the Kootenay and Columbia river areas as a result of the construction of dams under the Columbia river treaty. The minister may be interested to know that the building of these dams will flood in total 135,400 acres of the Columbia valley region. Of particular interest at the present time is the 24,700 acres that will be flooded on the main stem of the Columbia and the Arrow lakes, 10,400 acres of which is in the Lardeau valley, the spawning ground of the Kokanee. A large number of Kokanee are spawned there every year.
The Arrow lakes and Columbia river area from the international boundary to Revel-stoke has always provided excellent fishing grounds for residents and tourists, particularly for Kamloops trout, Dolly Varden, lake trout, silver trout and other trout species.
The people of the area which I have the honour to represent are very concerned about this damage to a very important industry, and there is no question that there is going to be immense damage done to the natural fishing industry in this region. On that account the B.C. Federation of Fish, Rod and Gun Clubs of the area, chambers of commerce, farmers' and women's institutes and, in fact, the general public and the tourist industry are all very concerned that action should be taken by both the federal and provincial governments to do all that is possible to restore this industry.
In this regard I should like to quote briefly from one or two newspaper articles I have before me. Quite recently there was a meeting held in the district during which this subject was discussed. It may be of interest to the minister to know that the Arrow lakes will rise 69 feet, and two thirds of the spawning area will be lost. The Duncan dam is sitting on 68 per cent of the Kokanee
April 25, 1966

spawning ground which feeds the Kootenay lakes and Kootenay river.
Mr. Paisch, who is secretary of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, addressed that meeting and mentioned that a survey of this situation was undertaken in 1961, and that the views of this organization were presented to the water comptroller who was holding hearings in the district prior to the final agreement between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia in respect of the treaty. He said:
The government is suffering from a complete absence of understanding of fish and wildlife.
He was referring to the government of British Columbia. He is reported in this article appearing in the Nelson Daily News of April 6, 1966 as having stated:
It's something that always has been here and always will be,-
He went on to say, as reported:
Many people are coming up from California because they've ruined their natural resources there, and now the same thing is being done here.
He was referring to the building of these dams on the Columbia and the flooding of these areas.
He is further reported in this article as follows:
Paisch said that "residential hunters and fishermen spend $75 million per year and people were never given a chance to state whether they would pay a bit more for power and retain the thing that makes B.C. the place we want to live."
I should like to quote further from the Nelson Daily News of January 25, 1966 regarding a rod and gun club meeting about dam clearing under the heading "Arrow Lake Fish Study Recommended at Meeting". It states in part:
During the annual meeting of the West Kootenay Rod and Gun Club Association held in Nelson, Sunday, the government's attitude toward the clearance of dam reservoirs was discussed. This resulted from the Columbia river report read by Frank Shannon and Harry Hanson.
F. Shannon stated that the provincial government is not worried about it. He said, "They feel clearing can be done later when it's needed and it doesn't seem to be worth the expense".
Stewart Smith, chief fisheries management officer said at the end of his speech that "We've always recommended full clearage of reservoirs." He added that leaving reservoir areas uncleared makes them inaccessible to fishermen and destroys their value as a recreational area.
The article then continues to state that the meeting dealt with the whole question, and that committees were established for the entire region and at various local points.
23033-271i
Commercial Fisheries Development
A brief has been submitted to the provincial government urging that a survey be undertaken of the fishery resources in the Duncan lake, Arrow lakes and Columbia river areas so that some planning can be done in order to do as much as possible to remedy the damage that will be caused by the rise and fall of water, the flooding of spawning grounds and the resultant change in the amount of pelagic food available.
I bring these facts to the attention of the minister because I think he has an opportunity under the terms of this bill to do something with the co-operation of provincial governments and local people concerned. We have a great number of people in these districts who understand the situation very thoroughly, and there are many organizations and individuals who would be willing to co-operate with both governments to do everything possible, according to the best information available, to overcome as far as possible the great damage that will be done to these fisheries by the construction of these dams.
Our area is known as a recreational area. People are coming up from the United States in increasing numbers every year. Last year there were approximately 125 boats which came from as far south as Portland on the Columbia. Many of them went as far north as Revelstoke, a distance of over 300 miles of good hunting and fishing at this time. This means a great deal to the economy of the area, not only to the tourist industry and the recreational industry generally, but to the hotels, businesses and the local residents.
I rise briefly to bring these things to the minister's attention in the hope that he will demonstrate to the people of the Kootenays that he intends to take some action under this legislation, and to seek the co-operation of the provincial government in designing a program of surveys and of programs covering the building of hatcheries and other things as recommended by the experts, in an attempt to remedy as far as possible the result, as I have repeatedly stated, of the building of these unfortunate dams.
When the minister replies to the various remarks of hon. members that have been made during this debate I hope he will indicate that he is willing to consider my suggestions and invite the people of British Columbia to undertake to co-operate in action taken under this worth-while bill to remedy the situation. Otherwise we will have wasted
4288	COMMONS
Commercial Fisheries Development our time in referring to the various proposals contained in it.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman, because I did not realize the scope that is covered by this bill I omitted to mention one point of which I have since been reminded. In Alberta we have three national parks along the Rocky Mountain area, at Waterton Lakes, Banff and Jasper. Those parks are tourist areas. I know that the federal government takes care of the fisheries in these parks but I know, too, that in between the parks there are many, many mountain streams and campsites. Tourists go to the streams between the parks and participate in sport fishing. I know that the province is supposed to stock these streams, but there is a tremendous drain on the fish in the streams.
The complaint of the tourist is that he fishes and catches nothing. He also complains about the same thing in the national parks. He will come out of these areas and say they are fished out. One could pass this off as a joke and say that the tourist is not using the right kind of fishing outfit, the right kind of flies, etc. But if we are to take care of fishing in this country and, with the provinces, button up the regulations, let us make it allinclusive; let us see that the provinces carry out sufficient restocking programs so that fish are available to tourists. The tourist industry produces the second or third largest revenue to this country and we are doing nothing about the industry, except with regard to the national parks.
Even the national parks are deficient in this respect because the streams in the parks do not contain a sufficient number of fish. The Minister of Fisheries should be talking to the managers of our national parks and if necessary buttoning up some projects so we can bring more tourists into this country and make them happy when they get here. I think it is his duty to do this, and would hope that under this act he would feel free to make every effort to discuss this question with his colleagues, and if necessary with the province of Alberta with regard to streams surrounding the parks which are under the jurisdiction of that province. I ask the minister how far he anticipates his authority will go under this act, and whether he intends to confine it to the seasides and not come inland to do a job where there is a job to be done.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago the hon. member for Fraser Valley suggested that I had injected a partisan, political

DEBATES	April 25, 1966
note into the discussion. I thought I was being very restrained and factual in what I had to say. However, I would like to make clear to the member for Fraser Valley and the committee that I am not one of those people who consider the Premier of British Columbia and his government to be like some great god on high that is beyond and above any criticism.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley made some reference to elections. He may have some information that I have not. I do know there are one or two provincial elections around in the country, but as far as I know there is not any election in the province of British Columbia. I would like to point out to the committee and perhaps expand somewhat, in view of what the hon. member for Fraser Valley said, on why I am concerned about the question of fisheries development in British Columbia, and what is and what is not being done about it.
I am concerned that at the present time the province of British Columbia is, relatively speaking, falling behind some of the other provinces in Canada in respect of the growth of its fishery. In fact, according to the last figures I have seen, the landed value of the fish caught by the fishermen of the province of Nova Scotia is now ahead of that of the province of British Columbia. I would point out that as I understand it the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government in respect of fisheries is exactly the same in the province of British Columbia as it is in every other province in Canada.
What I am concerned about and tried to draw attention to is that at a time when, relatively speaking, the fishery of British Columbia is falling behind, according to the evidence I have the only province that seems to be making noises about questions, and finer points of constitutional jurisdiction, is British Columbia. This is at a time when apparently on the Atlantic coast there is increasingly a measure of co-operation in joint projects and ventures between the federal authority and provincial governments in regard to fisheries expansion.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, the government of British Columbia and the standing committee of that legislature, as can be seen from its report, are concerned about quibbling over constitutional jurisdiction. I would remind the hon. member for Fraser Valley that according to the figures I have in respect of the budget of the government of British Columbia for 1965-66, out of a total budget
April 25, 1966

for the Department of Recreation and Conservation of $5,462,000, our commercial fisheries branch was granted a vote of $31,566; and in the estimates for the current fiscal year, out of a total estimate for the Department of Recreation and Conservation of $6,421,932, the estimate for the commercial fisheries branch totals $32,872. That $32,872, as I calculate it, represents five one hundred thousandths of one per cent of the total budget of the province of British Columbia for the current fiscal year.
I would not suggest this is an over-spending by the government of British Columbia in the field of commercial fisheries, even though the major jurisdiction may lie within the authority of the federal government. I would point out that I have in my hand the Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia for Tuesday, March 29, 1966, which contains the report of the standing committee, to which I made reference earlier, and it says in part:
Your committee recommends that due to the interlocking relationship between resources solely under provincial jurisdiction and that of fisheries, an agreement should be concluded with the federal government providing greater jurisdiction to the province since it is unreasonable to expect the province to accept greater responsibility unless it has concomitant authority.
Further down the report says:
In the event of proper and satisfactory provincial jurisdiction and authority being established, your committee recommends
(1) that there be a Minister of Commercial Fisheries for British Columbia.
I submit that if we in the province of British Columbia are to receive any benefit from the bill now before the house, the government and legislature of the province of British Columbia should not be quibbling about defining constitutional matters. I agree that there are areas in which study can be made and agreement worked out, but as I understand it the major point is that it would be desirable that there be a minister in the government of British Columbia responsible and able to discuss these matters with the federal authority, a minister who could come as the minister of fisheries of British Columbia to a federal-provincial fisheries conference with authority to speak for that government, a minister who would be prepared to take in his hands responsibility for seeing that British Columbia participates in these programs and receives a fair share of the possible advantages that can flow from the bill now under consideration by this house.
Commercial Fisheries Development
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
If that is being politically partisan in this area, then I make no apology whatever to the hon. member for Fraser Valley or to any other hon. member of this house for expressing this point of view. The government of criticism either inside this house or outside of it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the committee would be disposed to go on for another 15 minutes. There has been an indication that there will not be very many more members who wish to speak and it would be of great help if we could finish the committee stage of the bill tonight.


Michael Starr: We could certainly be agreeable to co-operate. There are two members of our party who wish to say a few words and may not take more than 15 or 20 minutes. If we let it go for another day it would probably take longer, when we could dispose of the matter tonight.	.


Frank Howard: I think if we set the time limit at 15 minutes this would be quite agreeable. I am sure we could conclude in that time.


Michael Starr: I do not think that is fair. Some members have taken full time and others have not spoken at all. If we do not set a time limit, then they will try to make their speeches as short as possible.


Frank Howard: If you do not set a time limit we will be here till midnight.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it agreed that the Chair shall not see the clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. member for Ontario agree that we do not see the clock for half an hour


Michael Starr: That is fine.


Maurice Rinfret: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Bower:: Mr. Chairman, as a member from Nova Scotia, a province which in 1965 achieved the position of first place in Canada for the landed value of a fish catch, and having the honour to represent in this house the constituency of Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare which in turn leads all other ridings in my province in landed value of the fish
April 25, 1966

Commercial Fisheries Development catch-indeed, some 37 per cent of the provincial total-I particularly welcome Bill No. C-145 introduced by the Minister of Fisheries.
In the course of moving second reading of the bill the minister took exception to the references made in this house to the fact that the fisheries department was considered the orphan of the government. The minister countered this definition by announcing very substantial increases in the estimates of his department over those of the recent past. Perhaps he will not object if, in an entirely non-partisan way, I liken the fisheries department to a sleeping giant which has slept over far too many years but is now stirring energetically.
With the proper implementation of the enabling legislation which is contemplated in the bill before the committee I see no reason why in 10 to 15 years from now the then minister of fisheries will not be justified in presenting even more greatly expanded estimates commensurate with the burgeoning growth of the harvest of the sea.
Canada, a great heartland country with the bulk of its population residing far from its coasts, perhaps naturally has not shown the countrywide interest in the fisheries industry which has obtained in agriculture, manufacturing, mining and the service enterprises.
As the hon. member for Gaspe intimated the other day, many people of our country have only fragmentary and distorted notions of our fisheries and fishermen. When they think of this segment of our economy, if they think of it at all, too often they conjure up the vision of a white bearded oldster in a sou'wester on the end of a wharf interrupting his net repairing to carve out a model boat for a curly headed youngster, or of a rough and ready brawling activity far removed from the bucolic regularity of farming or the well ordered procedures of mining, manufacturing and the service industries.
Mr. Chairman, our fisheries constitute an important serious, high risk, capital hungry sector of our national economy that, having made considerable progress over the recent past, still has a basic problem. That problem is the need to accelerate in respect to expansion, modernization, research and investment, for we have fallen behind the other great fishing countries of the world. Our great stretches of coastline and the potential economic significance of the industry make such a situation intolerable.
IMr. Bower.]
Previous speakers in debate on the bill have stressed the demand factor in the fisheries. To emphasize this potential may I point out authorities now estimate the world population will reach 4,000 million in the next 14 years. The great bulk of the increase will be in the so-called underdeveloped countries. It has been my personal observation that it is precisely in those areas where, in addition, to chronic quantity lack of food there is the equally grave problem of deficiency in protein supply.
Only recently, Mr. Chairman, we heard the Prime Minister announce that our country was prepared to increase substantially our wheat contribution to India in view of the famine conditions facing that country. This was a gesture in response to a specific crisis. But, over the years, Canada as one of the more prosperous countries of the world is going to be continually called on for food by the emerging nations and, sir, I maintain the sea is a great protein source. With adequate expansion, modernization, technical innovations, trained personnel and basic research our fisheries can produce palatable low unit cost protein. In enlightered self interest, Mr. Chairman, with our current and probably continuing role of suppliers of food to deficiency areas in this respect, it behooves us to assure, if I may put it rather inelegantly, that we are in a position to fill more bellies for a buck of aid.
I am particularly impressed by the scope of the bill. After careful study I believe it can serve as the basis, in a very real way, for the development of our commercial fisheries. No doubt as time passes, legislation for special cases and circumstances will be necessary, but I do feel we have in the proposed legislation the makings of a solid foundation.
I would be the first to agree with the minister and several other hon. members that our offshore fisheries are now, and in the future will be, the vastly dominant factor, quantitatively, in the fisheries picture. The emphasis on improving equipment, personnel, and techniques in that sector is wholly desirable.
I believe the remarks of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg admirably summed up the objectives we must keep ever in view. Those are the utilization of all species, and the utilization of all of each fish, except the wiggle of its fins.
The structure of the bill in my opinion is sound in that it envisages a spread of contribution and participation in the development
April 25, 1966

of our fisheries all the way from Ottawa to the operating level. At least, I take it that, in clause 7 providing for the setting up of advisory committees, the minister has in mind calling into the picture people actively taking part in the various operating sectors of the industry. There, Mr. Chairman, resides a mine of practicality which can serve well in maximizing the effectiveness of the legislation.
Clause 2 of the bill, I am glad to note, interprets marine plant life as included in fishery resources. This is an area I believe where research, the improvement of harvesting, handling devices and conservation measures may have a significant incremental effect on the total fisheries effort.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
In conceding major import to the offshore fisheries, Mr. Chairman, and the need of phasing in, and promptly so, the improvements in that sector to bring the industry up to optimum development level, I put in the demurrer that we do not as policy, phase out of existence our inshore fishermen. I certainly want to see our big offshore operations developed to the highest degree of efficiency, but I contend the individual fishermen and indeed the small local fish plants have significant roles to play in the industry picture.
Perhaps there are too many part time fishermen, but I submit there are thousands of inshore fishermen capable of making a living well above poverty level in this particular phase of fishing. In any group of people anywhere there are the incompetents, the lazy and the free loaders; but, Mr. Chairman, my own observation is that the vast majority of our inshore men are energetic and competent. They are people who, with the investments in their boats and equipment and their willingness to face the risks inherent in their jobs, constitute a sort of yeomanry, a whole group of small entrepreneurs. It is my observation that where they have adequate basic facilities-wharves, dredgings and breakwaters for instance-they can and will do well. They are very significant contributors to the over-all economy of a constituency such as mine.
During debate on the fisheries bill frequent mention has been made of the prospects of fish farming and the concept of vocational and technical training of crews for the adequate manning of the modernized and more complex offshore fishing fleet to be.
Mr. Chairman, I submit it is almost an inevitability that the source of personnel in

Commercial Fisheries Development both these instances will be the general community of inshore fishermen. Certainly therefore the viability of this community must be maintained.
In southwestern Nova Scotia the inshore fishermen, generally speaking and according to the season, engage in lobstering, the netting and trapping of herring, groundfish fishing and the harvesting of marine plants. In other words, the fisherman's yearly income is made up of the total of several specialized activities. Whenever one of these activities is adversely affected the fisherman's yearly take can be disastrously driven downwards from a reasonably satisfactory level.
Recently large-scale purse seining for herring, and the establishment of plants for the processing to fishmeal and fish oil have taken place in southwestern Nova Scotia, and this no doubt accounts for the increase of the province's herring landings to 145 million pounds in 1965. These developments, in general, are a source of satisfaction. However there is a consensus in the fishing communities of Shelburne and Yarmouth counties and the district of Clare that the purse seining conducted in the inshore fishing areas is adversely affecting the traditional gill netting and trapping zone. The inshore herring fishermen sell to the small plants for processing for human consumption, as contrasted with bulk processing of the seiners' catch for non-human consumption. Fears are expressed that the purse seining close inshore may be damaging the schooling and reproduction of herring in the spawning grounds by over-harvesting.
I would hope that the minister might see fit to establish a zone extending three to 12 miles offshore in which purse seining would be excluded, and parallel with this he should have a thorough departmental study made of the situation, as a contribution to the conservation of resources concept.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that there are precedents for the first of the two moves I have just mentioned in the restriction of draggers over 65 feet in length to 12 miles off the coast, and the barring of purse seining in a zone around Grand Manan Island on the north side of the bay of Fundy. The reservation of a zone for the net fishermen, leaving the whole sweep of the ocean to the seiners, should not unduly hamper the large scale operation.
During the debate on the resolution introducing the fisheries bill, the hon. member for
April 25. 1966

Commercial Fisheries Development Halifax brought up the problem in his constituency arising from the lack of freezer facilities in the smaller fishing communities. This was a source of preoccupation to me also, for it is indeed shocking to witness boatload after boatload of herring being thrown overboard because of lack of the means to preserve them as bait or for processing for human consumption.
The minister assured the hon. member that when the house saw the bill it would find in it provisions for overcoming this problem. I take it that the minister thus gave us a pre-interpretation of this part of clause 5 of the bill, and I trust it will work this way.
I would also add my plea to that of other hon. members and urge on the minister the essentiality of his securing the co-operation of the Minister of Public Works in expanding the shore facilities and services, and I am not talking about "the wharf for every fisherman", which is too often used as the brush-off answer of the government to essential facility requests.
In the district of Clare, in Yarmouth county and in Shelburne county, installations which seemed large are now overcrowed in the bigger fishing ports. Additionally, in many smaller ports in all three of these areas, these facilities are lacking, are in a bad state of repair, or are inadequate. It seems to me that we have been accommodating to current size of operations rather than building to a growth concept.
If, as we all hope, the Fisheries Development Act is to stimulate the modernization and expansion of the industry, and we see right now more and bigger ships both of the offshore and inshore type, the moment is at hand to get on with the shore installations and services, lest the beneficial effects of the legislation be blocked, and Canada remain behind, in international competition.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by expressing my concern, and I know it is the concern of everyone in my constituency-indeed the concern of most of the people of the Atlantic provinces-that the minister has not been able to give definite advice on the setting up of the 12 miles fishing zone and its corresponding base lines in totality as a protective device for Canadian fisheries against all foreign fishing fleets. This leaves the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act of 1964, promised in the election campaign of 1963, now in the year of our Lord 1966, something of a lame duck in Nova Scotian eyes.

Recent news dispatches reporting the introduction of a bill to the House of Representatives of the United States, to create a 12 mile fishing zone, does not tend to dispel the impression that the Americans are not altogether antagonistic to the 12 mile limit idea, but yet we do not have our Canadian protective limit.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Minister may undertake projects.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to clause 3, which I would ask my colleague, the Minister of Transport, to move, namely:
"(5) The minister may enter into an agreement with any person for the joint undertaking of any project that the Minister is authorized to undertake under subsection (1) or for the payment to any person of contributions in respect of the cost of any such project undertaken by that person."
I am sure this amendment will meet some of the representations which were made to us following introduction of the bill. It will cover fish processors and co-operative groups and will even go a little further because it will also include agreements with individual fishermen, which sometimes are necessary for carrying out new experiments. I would therefore ask my colleague to move the proposed amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I so move.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Just for clarification, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister, in his understanding of the amendment which his colleague has proposed on his behalf and viewed in conjunction with clause 3(l)(a), whether it would enable the minister to undertake a project which might be described as a fish processing plant project?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I cannot give a specific reply to this question. It all depends for what purpose the fish processing plant would be used. There may be instances where we would wish to introduce new methods for processing or preparation of fish for market in respect of which we would consider making grants to a processing plant or enter into an agreement with such a plant.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman. In my remarks I do not wish anyone to consider that my brevity detracts from the importance of the fisheries. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare spoke
April 25, 1986

at some length about the fisheries, but I will be much more brief. I do not wish anyone to think that this takes away from the interest those in my constituency have in this matter. The recent amendment I believe does answer some of the objections of the members from the west coast in respect of the bill as originally drafted. In so far as clause 3 is concerned, and in the general context of fishing, a project which I would heartily commend to the minister is a removal of the closure of the New Brunswick shores so that the discrimination with relation to New Brunswick versus Nova Scotia seiners might be removed.
I submit that as a fisheries project this matter should be commended to the minister. He has mentioned the conference at Fredericton on May 4 to May 8, but I should like to tell him that I do believe that conference will deal more with the history and the life of herring than it will with the problems of Nova Scotia vis-a-vis New Brunswick.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I said that on the occasion of that meeting I hope to have a special meeting with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick representatives so that we can get together and arrive at a satisfactory agreement.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank the minister for those remarks of clarification. I will wait with interest for the meeting and say no more about this now, although I do say this would be one of the best developments in the Atlantic region because when you have 30 boats in the basin and see these boats come some distance from the weirs put out on April 13, that is something to be concerned about. The minister stated that the herring season was all year, but the weir season opens on April 15, and it was to that I was referring.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: It is open all year.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Then I have found that this is one subject in which I can get an education. The second point is the matter raised by my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare. I do not intend to belabour this point tonight, but I do intend to say more about it and present more facts and figures in the form of a question to the Minister of Public Works because I appreciate that this also has a relationship to his department.
As the Minister of Fisheries is aware, coming from his province, the fishermen from Digby island and Digby Neck have for once in their history united on one thing in an
4293
Commercial Fisheries Development attempt to solve their very pressing harbour facility needs. I refer, of course, to the Petty passage project. This will come under fishery department projects, and the minister can undertake this through other agencies, because it obviously involves other agencies. I intend to say more about this at a later time.
It takes rock to put a breakwater out, and being from Nova Scotia I think this breakwater causeway would have more beneficial result than the causeway to the island, because it would also provide a harbour. The harbour facilities there have not been improved for years. Hundred-foot trawlers are the common thing today, yet the dock space there is 20 years old.
I am glad to see the Minister of Transport in his seat tonight because the next thing I wish to refer to is a joint project under clause 3 and concerns the Atlantic Development Board. During the Easter recess it was brought to my attention that some fish plants do not have landings of ten million pounds, and therefore perhaps do not qualify for water development grants. In one case two plants exist back to back and together process more than ten million pounds of landed fish. In the particular instance to which I have reference the two plants employ between 60 and 75 people. I hope in an effort to develop commercial fisheries in that particular area sympathetic attention will be given to the requests of these two companies, and others, in the matter of qualification for grants, because they do process more than the required ten million pounds. I think there is some anomaly in the fact that they operate back to back, yet under the regulations cannot qualify.
That is all I intended to say at this late hour. I think an hon. member has a technical question he wishes to put forward. As far as I am concerned, any development of the commercial fisheries industry of Nova Scotia will be beneficial, and we are all in favour of any such development.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, I should like to briefly bring one point to the attention of this committee which relates to clause 3 (a) of the bill. My point is related to the more efficient exploitation of fisheries resources. I have apprised the minister of this. It is the intention of some of the provinces, particularly the province of Ontario, to ban from use monofilament net. It is the duty of the minister in this house to ratify the intention to ban it, and it is his duty to make the final
April 25. 1966

Commercial Fisheries Development decision. Monofilament net of dimensions used in the eastern Ontario area for fishing and particularly for whitefish in lake Ontario and bay of Quinte, costs as high as $25 per pound, ready for fishing. I raise this matter on behalf of a constituent, a commercial fisherman. The constituent concerned, and he is not alone in this predicament, has purchased about 100 pounds of this monofilament net.
It is reported that the Game and Fisheries Department of the government of Ontario wish to ban monofilament net for two years. If banned two years only, this would be very difficult to administer, to inspect and to enforce. If the ultra-efficiency of this type of net is a long-term detriment to the maintenance of the fishing industry, then it should be permanently banned.
Monofilament net is the most efficient fishing device ever devised by man. It is invisible in the waters of the Great Lakes, the result being that it fishes night and day, and in both foul and fair weather. The fish cannot see it.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
I agree that if this type of gear is so efficient that it endangers the maintenance of the various species which it catches, then it ought to be rigidly controlled, even to the extent of banning it from Canadian commercial fishing waters. But my point is this, Mr. Chairman. Monofilament net was recognized previously, has been legalized and is now being widely used. If it is banned, then the commercial fishermen who have equipped themselves with this type of net should be fully compensated for the loss of the legality of their monofilament nets.
I point out to the minister the need of the fishermen to adjust themselves to this eventuality if monofilament is banned, and the date of the beginning of the ban on the sale and use of monofilament should be announced far enough in advance to give the fishermen a chance at least to recoup some of the money which they have invested in monofilament. This, I suggest, could be three months or six months in the future. For example, if announced now it could go into effect in November. Monofilament could be fished until November, but no new net purchased after the date of the announcement.
Then when by law the use of monofilament must cease, the fishermen still in possession of this type of net should be compensated at a just, fair and pro-rated, depreciated rate for

all monofilament net in their possession. When this is done, the government should possess the net. Any different or less effective arrangement means the financial ruin of many commercial fishermen not only in my constituency of Prince Edward-Lennox but anywhere in Canada where monofilament net is used, and particularly in the inland, fresh water fisheries of our country. A less costly arrangement might be to allow commercial fishermen to use the monofilament net which they own at the present time until it is worn out, with a final date of permitted use placed on all net of this nature.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, that is a matter for the government of the province of Ontario.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to plead with the minister to take advantage of the provisions of clause 3 (1) (a) of this bill for the more efficient exploration of fishery resources, to restrict certain inshore fishing grounds for the sole use of inshore fishermen and prohibit their use to deep sea draggers. The inshore fisherman is equipped with small boats which cannot fish more than 15 or 20 miles offshore. The deep sea draggers can go 200 or 300 miles offshore to the Grand Banks, and it does not seem right that a deep sea dragger should be permitted to destroy these fishing grounds and deny their use to the inshore fishermen who depend on them solely for their livelihood.
The only way to solve this problem is for
government to restrict certain inshore fishing grounds to inshore fishermen. I am not saying that this should be done in every case, but in certain cases it is essential that the inshore fishing grounds be restricted solely for the use of inshore fishermen.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-Minister may make payments.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister to consider including in this clause as potential recipients of any payment, processing plants as well as cold storage warehouses. I put this suggestion to the minister and ask whether he considered it in the drafting of the legislation. If he did, what are the reasons for not including it? If he did not
April 25, 1966
consider it, will he now consider including processing plants as being corporate elements eligible for payment under this particular clause?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, the matter of including processing plants was fully discussed and considered, but after consideration it was decided that we could not include them under this act. In most provinces, if not in all, assistance to processing plants is a matter of provincial responsibility. We had specific reasons for including cold storage warehouses, because our inspection requirements will have the effect of making many cold storage companies and owners of cold storage facilities add further equipment to their plants. This was the reason we included cold storage. We have had many representations to this effect.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the minister said that processing plants were not included because of provincial responsibility. I believe that was the word he used. Does this mean that it is his view that payments to processing plants would be a matter of provincial government jurisdiction under the constitution, and it would be ultra vires the parliament of Canada to enact any such change?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I cannot answer that question, but I would bring to the attention of the hon. member clause 3(c), which refers to the development of new fishery products and projects for the improvement of the handling, processing and distribution of fishery products. This clause would in many cases assist fish processing plants, particularly now in view of the amendment which has just been approved.


Frank Howard: Is the minister saying that it is unnecessary to include the words "processing plants" in clause 5?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes, this is my understanding.


Frank Howard: Why not put in the words "cold storage warehouses" in the first part of clause 3?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Because it is our intention to have a special type of assistance available for cold storage in the regulations under the act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Advisory committees.
23033-272J
Commercial Fisheries Development
Alexander Bell Patterson: I should like to ask the
minister whether the establishment of advisory committees would be done on a provincial basis, or on an area basis, or would it be based on particular interests such as fisheries development or some other phase of the industry?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The appointment of such committees could be on a provincial, regional or area basis, depending on the project that would be considered. We will take into consideration the need of certain provinces or regions in appointing such committees.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)


Chesley William Carter: In view of what the minister has just said, as far as my own province is concerned I would ask him to keep these committees down to the bare minimum in number. In my province we already have a multiplicity of agencies dealing with the fishing industry. There is an old saying that too many cooks spoil the broth. I think that this is the case to a large extent in my province, where we have a provincial branch of the federal Department of Fisheries, we have the provincial department of fisheries, the fisheries development authority, the provincial fisheries loan board, the fish trades association and the Newfoundland Associated Fish Exporters Limited. On top of that we have the National Fisheries Council of Canada, and we recently set up a committee on centralization and a committee on bait policy. To add to this multiplicity of existing agencies all dealing with the fisheries will make confusion worse confounded. As far as Newfoundland is concerned, I hope that these committees will be kept to the very minimum, but I hope that at least one fisherman will be appointed to each committee because, as I pointed out a few moments ago, I do not think a single fisherman is represented on them.
Everybody knows how to tell the fisherman how to catch fish. Everybody knows how to tell the government to run its business, and what it should do for the fishery industry. The fisherman, who is most directly involved, does not manage to exert any influence at all. If we are going to have committees in my own province, I do hope that the fishermen will be represented on them.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: On the point mentioned last by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, I was

April 25. 1966

Commercial Fisheries Development going to inquire of the minister whether in the matter of the advisory committee he had any plans to ensure that fishermen, among others, would be on it. Perhaps he could indicate what is in mind with regard to the selection of people who might be on that committee?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is our intention to have fishermen represented. For the information of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo I might say that with respect to recent committees I have selected or appointed representatives of fishermen to be members of such committees.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 8-Expenditures.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: There is an amendment that I have asked my colleague the Minister of Transport to move.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I move:
That Bill C-145, to provide for the development of the commercial fisheries of Canada, be amended as follows:
By striking out line 36 on page 3 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"Subsection (2), (3) or (5) of section 3 providing for the payment"


Frank Howard: Under clause 8, a provision is made that any expenditures under this act Will be dealt with by way of appropriation. In other words, the estimates of the Department of Fisheries for subsequent years will contain items relating to whatever projects are to be undertaken during that particular fiscal year. I think that is a commendable way to approach this. It will give parliament the opportunity annually to look at the operation of the act and to assess its effectiveness, and also to propose changes that it is felt ought to be made. I want to say that I think it is the correct way to deal with items of this particular nature. I hope that the first such project will be included in supplementary estimates A of the current fiscal year, when they are presented.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 8 carry?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: This leads me to the point of asking the minister whether he would care to answer now the question I raised earlier as to whether in fact the passage of this bill would means that additional amounts would be brought forward, or whether the item I mentioned, in the current estimates, is intended to cover everything that might be done under

the bill during this current year. If the minister prefers I could pursue this question in the fisheries committee.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes, I would prefer that this matter be pursued in the fisheries committee. I give the hon. member an assurance that this bill would result in the acceleration of an additional number of projects.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 9-Regulations.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: I have a minor amendment also to this clause in order that the regulations may be in line with the amendments proposed earlier. I would therefore ask my colleague the Minister of Transport to move as follows:
That clause 9 be amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a), by relettering paragraph (b) as paragraph (c) and by adding, immediately after paragraph (a), the following new paragraph:
(b) prescribing matters, including matters similar to those required to be specified in an agreement under subsection (2) or (3) of section 3, to be provided for in agreements entered into pursuant to subsection (5) of section 3; and-
Then (c) would follow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I move.


Frank Howard: Needless to say it is extremely difficult to follow amendments of this sort and relate them to other parts of the bill. I assume this is an amendment consequential upon the previous amendment to clause 3. I would ask the minister if this is a correct assumption. Is this purely a consequential amendment-not an amendment of substance?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes, it is an amendment consequential to the amendment which was made to clause 3 by adding subclause (5).


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: the third reading of the biU.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
April 25, 1966


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I should like to thank hon. members for their co-operation.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if any of the ministers present on the treasury benches tonight is able to tell us what is going to be brought before the house tomorrow, and will assure us that the ministers will be here?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before acting for my colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) on this occasion, and I hope on this occasion only, notwithstanding what was said by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) earlier in the debate, I should like to say that I appreciate very much the co-operation we have had from all quarters of the house today, and I hope we will have even closer co-operation tomorrow, because we have a rather large menu.
We shall begin with item No. 46 on the order paper, the Export and Import Permits Act; then take No. 50, the Farm Credit Act; then No. 39, which is a tax agreement; then No. 15, the Science Council; No. 4, the Research Council; No. 3, the resolution respecting automotive products; No. 48, the eastern feed grain board; No. 5, the ARDA fund; and the government will reserve the right, which it has under the rules, to bring forward any other bills on the order paper when these are completed.
Further, if the circumstances are such, it will also reserve the right which it has under the rules to alter the order; but we shall try to give as much notice as possible of any alteration, and it is our firm intention to begin with the item standing in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters).


Michael Starr: And all the ministers will be here?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We will have enough ministers. I think I have given so many safeguards that even Mackenzie King would be proud of me.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, we shall have to move quickly from fish to grain because of the grain elevator situation in Prince Rupert. I would like to preface my remarks by reading from the Ottawa Citizen of Tuesday, April 19, a statement by the Prime Minister with respect to the revised deficit for Expo '67, revised to an amount of between $82 million to $83 million which, as the newspaper stated, was an increase of more than 70 per cent over the original deficit estimated at $47,534,000. The Prime Minister said with respect to that, and I quote:
It doesn't seem much out of line, not in view of the rising costs of construction and of the increasing costs of the Performing Arts Centre here.
After many years of work by many organizations in Prince Rupert, by countless individuals, and by myself as member of parliament for the area, we finally got the Board of Grain Commissioners to proceed to call tenders for the grain elevator extension at Prince Rupert. After the tenders were opened and it was realized what the costs of the extension would be, the minister made an announcement that they were not going to proceed with the extension because of what he classified as higher construction costs, higher than anticipated in the original estimates.
I worked out a calculation a moment ago and I find that the tenders for the grain elevator extension were just about 70 per cent higher than the original estimates, almost a parallel situation with the Performing Arts Centre, which the Prime Minister said was reasonable in the light of higher construction costs. It seems to me that that parallel attitude should be reflected in the government's concern with the grain elevator extension in Prince Rupert.
I think the minister, rather than having postponed the matter, really scuttled it, if his remarks as recorded in Hansard are to be taken at their face value. Incidentally, when the matter first broke it came about in a rather curious way. I asked the minister about the grain elevator extension on Friday, March 25. On that very same day, when he declined to answer an item appeared in the Prince Rupert Daily News indicating that the extension was going to be postponed.
The first thing the following Monday morning I phoned Treasury Board officials who told me the matter was not before them. I
April 25. 1966
4298	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion then phoned the minister's office and his officials told me the minister did not make any announcement about it because he was out of town that Friday. No one seemed to know where the announcement emanated from.
The fact is that it did come about and the minister substantiated it on Monday, March 28 when he said, first, that the tenders were too high, and second, that he hoped prices would come down, and that they would wait until prices came down-which I think is a hope beyond realization, if present day trends mean anything. He hoped for a time when he could get better prices for the grain elevator.
I took this to mean lower bids or a revised estimate of the engineering in respect of the project itself.
On April 5 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) made an announcement in the House of Commons about the sharply increased grain sales to Red China, or to the Import-Export Corporation in China, and indicated they would be raised from a minimum of 168 million bushels to a maximum of 280 million bushels over a three year period, and that the contract called for a shipment of 59.7 million bushels of wheat during the first five months of the new crop year.
I thought surely when this announcement was made by the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene), having heard it, would jump up and say that with this increase in sales the government, now seeing the urgent necessity for expanding the grain elevator at Prince Rupert, would give due recognition to the city of Prince Rupert as having one of the finest harbours on the west coast, one which is ice free the year round and is closer to the Orient than the other ports on the lower mainland. I would have expected him to say that the government gives recognition to the city as a rail head of the Canadian National Railways for the grain from the prairies, and give recognition to the fact that during the regime of the Conservative government there was a recommendation that the grain elevator should be developed because of the grain sales. When the Prime Minister made the statement the other day that the Expo deficit was not out of line because of the rising construction costs, I thought that the minister would take the lead from his leader and say that the prices bid on the grain elevator extension in Prince Rupert really were not much out of line, taking into account rising construction costs.


I say: Please Mr. Minister, change your mind, and give recognition to Prince Rupert. Let us not delay any longer, or the grain sales will be gone and we will be back where we were in 1951 when the grain elevator did not operate.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to say that I certainly concur with a considerable proportion of what my hon. friend from Skeena (Mr. Howard) stated with regard to the desirability of the elevator at Prince Rupert and the planned addition. I think it should be made very clear that the project has not in any shape or form been abandoned; it has been postponed for the time being. I should point out that the bids were some 70 per cent higher than the estimated price, and surely by no stretch of the imagination can this increase of 70 per cent for the facilities be deemed to be meaningless.
I would point out that the rescheduling of the construction of the proposed extension to the elevator will not affect the movement of the grain from that port since shipping schedules can be maintained by the regular staff working over-time and by the hiring of additional temporary labour. So, despite poisoned pen letters being circulated, this will not affect the movement of grain from the west.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)
By the same token I think that an efficient handling at Prince Rupert through the extensions that were planned is very desirable for the future. I point out that the proposed extension was intended primarily to provide additional working space, so that while one ship was being loaded preparation of the cargo of the next ship to be unloaded could take place in a routine manner, at the same time and with the same staff and equipment. Therefore, from the standpoint of grain handling, what this will mean is that there will have to be more overtime and more labour than now obtains.
There is no shadow of a doubt, apart from the fact that the bids were vey high, that the postponement of this project was part of the government's over-all commitment to hold the line because of inflationary trends. It is only common sense that if we are going to hold that line, and the government's intention to hold it to 10 per cent of its commitment in construction is valid, the Department of Agriculture cannot say it will not bear its fair share. It is all very well to
April 25. 1966

say that we will hold the line in construction, provided the other departments do so and we are allowed to carry on.
To the best oi our ability we have tried to cut the construction of all departments by 10 per cent because of our policy to hold down inflation and maintain our cost structure. To the best of my knowledge this is the only project of the Department of Agriculture in the province of British Columbia that is being postponed and I do not think it is in any way inequitable. I certainly assure my hon. friend that I share his desire to have this project proceeded with as soon as possible. Certainly as soon as our economy permits us to move ahead again with construction, this will be one of the first projects that will receive serious consideration.
Perhaps I should point out to the hon. gentleman that I have asked my officials to check over the proposed plans in an attempt to see if the costs can be revised in areas where there have been very considerable increases.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-GREENWOOD-REPORTED FIGHT FOLLOWING PAY INCREASES FOR PILOTS

John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the lateness of the hour I too shall be as brief as possible. I do not think I will have any more trouble in switching from fish to "foul" than the hon. member preceding me had in switching from fish to wheat. I use the term "foul" not in terms of a bird, but as an adjective.
On April 1 the Minister of National Defence made an announcement which certainly was foul as far as the greater number of personnel of our air force is concerned, who do not benefit from the latest pay increases given to pilots because of certain conditions. The question I asked the other day, which prompts this further discussion and explanation, was not asked to embarrass the administration of the Canadian forces or any particular administrative officer. It was asked to illustrate the deep, disastrous disillusionment and disappointment of a great number of air force personnel, and personnel of other services, who feel that this is fundamental discrimination.
The principle of equal pay for equal ranks and equal opportunity has apparently been thrown out the window. This will have a great bearing on recruitment in the future. I am sure that every son of an air force officer would like now to go into the forces as a
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion pilot, in spite of the fact that they might have engineering or technical aspirations. With the increase in the pay to pilots would any potential air force recruit go into any other field than flying, provided he could qualify?
I should like also to refer to pensionable pay allowances and make particular reference to the station with which I am most familiar. At Greenwood where the Argus is flown a single flying crew consists of about 16, of which 11 or 12 perform tasks other than flying the aircraft. How can one expect to have teamwork in such a crew when the increased basic pay of the pilot and co-pilot is pensionable, yet the flying allowances paid to the other 10, 11 or 12 are not pensionable? To those men coming to the end of their years in the service and about to retire, this means a great deal in dollars and cents.
The other matter that creates distress and disillusionment in the service is that the maximum increases are given to the older pilots, pilots in the 16-year progressive stage, and not to younger pilots. How can this policy help to keep pilots in the service when in most cases they are already too old to go to commercial air lines? If these commercial air lines really want pilots they will pay $100 a month or more than the service in order to obtain pilots trained by the R.C.A.F.
I think the policy is shortsighted. It is like the Dutchman poking his finger into a hole in the dike to stop the flow of water, when there are other cracks in the dike wall. I would refer to the policy announced by the minister in Edmonton over the week end, and by his department before the week end, with regard to pay for special responsibilities. Did the minister and his department consider responsibility pay before the pay increases were announced, because we have the anomaly of a helicopter pilot on a destroyer earning more in dollars and cents than the captain of the destroyer, or the army pilot of an L-19 training plane receiving more than a Squadron Leader navigator who has flown
8,000	hours all over the world, more than even some hon. members opposite, and a great deal more than some foreign dignitaries who visit this country. Often the pilot of an L-19 training plane has flown only 100 hours.
These are the reasons for distress and disillusionment in the service and it is just rot to say they are not. The minister talks about integration. One could argue that this is one of the last straws to service personnel who wish to make a career of the service.
April 25, 1966
4300	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Dollars and cents is not the only thing that brings them to the service; they are activated by patriotism, esprit de corps and other things. They know they can earn more in dollars and cents in the commercial world but choose to join the service. Then the government introduces this discriminatory policy.
The minister talked about responsibility pay, and I have dealt with the question of pensionable pay and allowances for air crew. The minister has also said this policy is to further integration, but in my opinion it will cause disintegration in the service because it is discriminatory. I hope there is a minister present who will answer this question. You sometimes sit in an empty chamber, such as it is tonight, and think you are speaking in a vacuum. During the Easter recess I had the opportunity to talk to individuals, following protocol, because one has to be careful to follow protocol, and found there is a really deep concern in this connection.

It is only a short time since I came to this house, but I have received telegrams from Rivers, Manitoba, Comox, and of course from many people at Greenwood who wish to make a career of the service but are afraid to do so because of shot-gun announcements like this. It is said that this policy will further integration but, as I say, it is causing disintegration.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I would answer by simply assuring the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings that I will bring to the attention of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) the very lucid arguments he has made even at this late hour of the day.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.12 p.m.

Tuesday, April 26, 1966