1968-03-22

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I ask the question of the right hon. gentleman because it affects the operation of several departments of government. In the light of the very excellent report by Mr. Justice Morrow dealing with the administration of justice in the Northwest Territories, and in the light of some of the omission and defects which are indicated in the report, relating to the administration of justice and the needs of the people, would the government be prepared before prorogation to issue a statement indicating its views and opinions with regard to these recommendations?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this report has been given the careful examination its importance warrants, and I would certainly expect that a statement would be made regarding it before prorogation.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Recently the government of Jamaica has urged that a conference of Commonwealth countries be held to look into the situation in Rhodesia to see if anything further could be done because of the deteriorating situation there. Has the Prime Minister received any such request, and is he favourable to such a proposition?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I know the views of the government of Jamaica on this subject and I 27053-500
know they have made this request, but I also know that other members of the Commonwealth, including the United Kingdom, the member most directly concerned, felt that a conference on this subject at this time would not be constructive, although a Commonwealth prime minister's meeting is to be held, I believe, in the month of September.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that most likely the Commonwealth conference will not be held fairly soon, the government is pressing for a review of the mandatory sanctions by the Security Council so as to discuss their effectiveness and see if anything can be done to deal more effectively with the Rhodesian situation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The possibility of extending the sanctions and making them more effective is now being considered by the Security Council. There was also a meeting of the sanctions committee of the Commonwealth in London last week on the same subject, and the direction in which moves are being made now is to make sanctions more effective and to have those members of the United Nations who have accepted the sanctions which are already in operation apply those sanctions as they should be applied.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the hopes for success of the sanctions which were voiced not only in this parliament but also in the United Kingdom 15 or 16 months ago and that things have turned out quite to the reverse of the expectations voiced by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the government of Canada, will the Prime Minister say whether there is any foundation for the suggestion that Canada is in agreement with action being taken to deny mail being received from or transmitted to Rhodesia?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are considering the extension of sanctions, as I have just said, but there are forms of action which would do more harm to the neighbours of Rhodesia

March 22. 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry than to Rhodesia itself. One has to be careful about applying sanctions which could hurt the victim rather than the other party.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the Prime Minister not agree with the suggestion that a veto on the mails would be a step contrary to international development and one that would constitute a dangerous precedent in the years ahead?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There are international agreements covering the mails, Mr. Speaker, which would have to be considered in the light of any action that was proposed.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the government of Canada received a request from the minister of agriculture of Manitoba for a meeting on March 29, to finalize the negotiations between the two governments on the cost sharing of the Canadian portion of the Pembina river project in Manitoba and North Dakota?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether the question is acceptable, but because of the particular circumstances it might be allowed at this time.
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy,
Mines and Resources): A request went to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker, and I have also been in communication with Mr. Weir on the subject. We are planning a meeting in the coming weeks.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: I have a question for the Prime Minister of which I have given him notice in the absence of the Minister of Transport. Will the government look into the request of shippers and longshoremen that the proposed increases in pilotage and boat charges at Halifax be re-examined? The urgency arises from the proposed effective date of April 1.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to look into that matter at once with the minister. I will talk to him on the telephone about it.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Len-nox):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In the light of the recommendations of the B and B commission regarding linguistic rights and the conclusions of the constitutional conference on the same question, can the Prime Minister say whether there has been any reference or protest to the bilingual and bicultural commission concerning the refusal of the school board at St. Leonard, near Montreal, to allow bilingual teaching in an area where 80 per cent of the taxpayers have requested English language schools?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some doubt whether the matter raised by the hon. member comes within the jurisdiction of any federal minister. However, if it does the question should be placed on the order paper.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister anything to report to the house with regard to the very frightening development in the Middle East? Has any action been undertaken by the United Nations to improve the situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As my hon. friend and the house know, yesterday Israeli armed forces carried out attacks into Jordanian territory. These Israeli forces, I understand, have now been or are being withdrawn. There seem to have been losses in men and equipment on both sides. As my hon. friend undoubtedly knows, the Security Council has been meeting since yesterday afternoon to consider the situation, and it is our hope that the council will be able to take action to bring about not only a restoration of the cease fire but a more effective observance of the cease fire in the future. I understand that resolutions are being considered now informally pending a meeting of the Security Council later this day.
These attacks have to be considered, Mr. Speaker, in relation to a series of exchanges that have taken place in recent weeks between Israeli and Jordanian forces and
March 22, 1968

continued sabotage activities in Israel. The government, and I am sure the house, deplore the acts of violence that have taken place between the two countries which, in addition to inflicting needless suffering on the local population, have prejudiced and made more difficult the task of the United Nations special representative, Mr. Gunnar Jarring, who is trying to assist the parties to attain a just and lasting settlement in the area.
We hope, and I know the house hopes, that both sides will exercise moderation and restraint and avoid steps that can only impede the establishment of peace. I hope it will also be possible to put United Nations observers into this particular area with the hope that this might help prevent a recurrence of these actions.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister and is with regard to the difficult and tragic war that is taking place in Nigeria at the present time. I wonder whether the Prime Minister can inform the house whether our government has made representations at the United Nations for the UN commission on human rights to investigate this tragic war and make a report on the situation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such initiative being taken by the Canadian representative at the United Nations, but I will be glad to look into this matter and see whether it is under consideration.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question on the same matter. Has our government expressed some dissatisfaction with the government of the United Kingdom and the Soviet union for taking sides in this bitter war?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into this, but I do not know of any evidence that would warrant an intervention on our part with the U.S.S.R. and the United Kingdom in this connection or, indeed, an intervention on the other side.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could direct a 27053-5OO2

Inquiries of the Ministry question to the attention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister indicate whether an agreement has been reached between Canada and British Columbia with regard to the multi-million dollar flood control program in the Fraser valley?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. Prime Minister will allow me to say that the cabinet has given its approval to a draft agreement between British Columbia and Canada, subject to a few amendments I am to discuss with Mr. Williston, minister of lands, forests and water resources of British Columbia. I have every reason to believe that an agreement will be finalized within the next few days.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the minister anything new to report in connection with the Woods committee study?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I expect that the report will be presented to me some time later today by the chairman of the committee.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Picfou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources further to the answer that he gave me on Tuesday last. Has he now received a report from the Cape Breton Development Corporation regarding the operation of the McBean mine, which employs 400 men?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the situation of the McBean mine is becoming increasingly difficult, because Dosco now proposes, I am told, to announce the closing down of the mine. But as we wanted to avoid that

March 22, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry situation, at least for some time, I just got in touch with Premier Smith of Nova Scotia whom I am to meet tomorrow in this connection.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I should have liked to direct my question to the Minister of Finance but in his absence perhaps the Prime Minister would accept it. It is in connection with the announcement of the Minister of Finance on March 7 to the effect that Canada had agreed to invest our holdings of United States dollars in non-liquid United States government securities.
Have any sales of our present holdings of United States treasuries taken place? If so, has the government sustained a capital loss on the sales?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would have to look into that matter, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister of health and welfare whether he has had an opportunity to look into the question I asked him yesterday.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to complete my inquiries, but I will do so as soon as possible.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister of health and welfare. It arises from a recent statement by the minister of welfare of the province of Manitoba to the effect that three years ago the federal government made a 
commitment to convene a meeting of provincial ministers of welfare to discuss matters relating to Indian and Metis citizens. I should like to ask the minister whether his department or the government is making any concrete plans to convene such a meeting.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince.


Edward Richard Schreyer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I suppose the Minister of National Health and Welfare did not hear my question. Perhaps he could take it as notice.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.



STUDENT LOANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, normally my question would be for the Minister of Finance. Before I ask my question I ought to ask the Prime Minister whether he is considering some special award for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who has stuck to his post while others have gone off elsewhere.
My question is about the Canada student loan plan. There have been disturbing reports over the last few days from Charlottetown that these loans are to be reduced by about 50 per cent. In the light of rising tuition and residence fees, can the Prime Minister assure us that the program is not to be reduced?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As a matter of fact I ought to consider a special award for my hon. friend who, I understand, became the father of a daughter yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: All of which gives me an opportunity of avoiding the question by saying I do not know the answer, but I shall look into it.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the government received any reply to the protest note sent to Washington in connection with the Hal Banks extradition?
March 22. 1968	COMMONS


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not recall receiving one. I shall look into the matter as soon as I get to my office.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I am sure that the Prime Minister will recall a statement by his colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the government was investigating the possibility of seeking international arbitration. Has this situation been explored?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It has been, but I am not sure what the result is. Perhaps I shall be able to report to the house on this some time next week.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-REFUSAL TO HOLD TRIAL IN FRENCH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Solicitor General took as notice a question concerning Suzanne Poulin, who was denied the right of defence in her own language in the courts of British Columbia. Has the minister now any information on the subject?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I believe this matter comes under provincial jurisdiction. However, I am pleased to advise the hon. member that I have been informed that an interpreter will be provided to the lady in question and she will be able to give her evidence in French. All the proceedings will also be translated to her in French.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture, and in his absence perhaps his parliamentary secretary might take it as notice. Yesterday the minister promised to give me an answer to a question I had asked about the importation of vegetable oils which are having an adverse effect on the production of vegetable oil seeds in Canada.


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: May I take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. If any information is available I shall try to give it to the hon. member today.
DEBATES	7939
Inquiries of the Ministry HUMAN RIGHTS



REPORTED DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT IN NORTH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, two days ago I asked the Prime Minister a question about reported discrimination in an employment contract in the north. The Prime Minister said a statement was being prepared and that the Minister of Justice might have that ready for yesterday. I wonder whether the Prime Minister or any other minister has that statement for today?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have that statement, Mr. Speaker. It is very long, and the Minister of Justice hoped to make a shorter statement on the subject this morning. I understand he has been held up by the weather but hopes to be here by twelve o'clock, in time to make the statement. Otherwise he will make it on Monday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps he could make it on Monday on his estimates, if we get to them.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture in a speech at Pembroke has criticized the policy of establishing Canadian forces exchange services in other than remote posts, could I ask the hon. gentleman whether the Department of National Defence intends to compete directly with private enterprise in this manner?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows he cannot ask that question in that particular form.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I believe the Minister of National Defence wishes to answer the question I tried to direct to him a few moments ago, so perhaps I can rephrase it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What I was suggesting to the hon. member was that his question should have been directed to the Prime Minister, to ascertain whether a statement made outside the house represented government policy.

March 22, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Perhaps I could rephrase the question in a way which would be acceptable to Your Honour while still directing it to the Minister of National Defence. Will the Canex marketing facilities to set up in settled areas as well as in remote posts, thereby competing directly with private enterprise?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: I think I will put it this way. Although I am not a candidate for the leadership, I disagree with the Minister of Agriculture.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister bring the house and the country up to date with regard to any visit to Hanoi which may have been made by a Canadian ambassador or representative of Canada in recent days? Would he tell us whether as a result of the discussions which have taken place between a Canadian representative and government leaders in Hanoi there has been any softening of the attitude of Hanoi in the direction of the negotiating table?
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minisier):
There have been no visits to Hanoi since that made by the Canadian commissioner a couple of months ago, I think, on which the Secretary of State for External Affairs reported to the house. The report, as the right hon. gentleman will recall, was not very encouraging. There has been no development since that time that I know of, certainly none which involves our commissioner, though I would be glad to look into it.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish the Prime Minister would, because there was a report on the radio this morning quoting the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Edmonton in connection with some visits which had taken place around or about March 6, visits which have not been brought to the attention of the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I noticed that date, Mr. Speaker, and I made inquiries. I think that date was either misreported or given by inadvertence, and that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was referring to the earlier visit. But I have made inquiries.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources; it relates to the announcement of a combined project as between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Canadian General Electric. Can the minister advise the house as to the purpose of this rather unusual situation in which a crown agency is combining with a private company?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think this question is in order. The hon. member is asking for an explanation which should perhaps be made on motions or in the form of a written reply to a question on the order paper.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Your Honour has been very lenient in view of the situation respecting the session. I was drawing attention to an unusual situation, and I thought the minister would be prepared to comment on it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Such a "merger", as it is called in the press today, did take place yesterday, Mr. Speaker. The contract is for one year only, but it is expected to be renewed for a period of five years. It can be broken by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited after one year. I might add that there is enough work to keep Canadian General Electric going for one year on a contract with Pakistan, in particular. No extra expenditure is involved in connection with the 1968-69 budget. The purpose of the merger is to keep together the nuclear energy design capacity available in Canada partly in view of the possibility of selling Canadian type nuclear reactors in Rumania, Finland and elsewhere.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour and his parliamentary secretary I direct this question to the Prime
March 22, 1968

Minister. Does the government's policy on awarding contracts for federal buildings permit the award of contracts to non-union firms?


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



MINAS BASIN-CONTINUATION OF DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would the minister be good enough to reassure the house before the session adjourns that there will be no cut-back in developmental studies for Minas basin tidal power?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The possibility has not been mentioned to me, Mr. Speaker. I will inquire.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture my question is directed to his parliamentary secretary. In view of a recent news report that the federal government is understood to be giving support to the establishment of a beef futures market as an adjunct to the Winnipeg grain exchange, I would like to ask what is the nature of this support?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest the question be placed on the order paper.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister undertake to look into reports that the federal government will give support to the establishment of a beef futures market at the Winnipeg grain exchange?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member asked a question a moment ago and it was suggested to him that it be placed on the order paper. He is now making a suggestion to the right hon. Prime Minister along the same lines.
Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
On the orders of the day:


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works which arises from my urgent desire to see a new program of regional highway development in Canada, with federal participation. I would like to ask the minister whether he considers the resignation of the peripatetic minister of highways in British Columbia might facilitate the development of such a program.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day. Before calling orders of the day may I say I was given to understand a minute ago that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs wishes leave of the house to return to motions for the purpose of tabling a document. Is this agreed?


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: On a point of order, sir, I was attempting to get the floor to pose a question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for disturbing the complacent Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but I wish to ask whether he is in a position to give the statement that the right hon. Prime Minister promised yesterday with regard to the impending large scale lay-off of dock workers in North Sydney.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am ready to do it but I am just wondering if it would be preferable to revert to motions, because the statement occupies a full page.


An hon. Member:: No.


Robert Muir: I think that would be an excellent idea.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no agreement to return to motions. Will the minister be granted leave to table the document to which he has referred, which contains the information required by the hon. member?
March 22, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Muir: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think we should ask for unanimous consent to return to motions because this statement is quite important.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has already suggested that, and it cannot be done without unanimous agreement. There is obviously no such agreement, but there may be agreement to the minister reading this lengthy document at this time without reverting to motions. Is this agreed?


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, the unanimous consent was given by this side. I would like to know who opposed the minister within his own party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We cannot go on with this point of order too long. Is there agreement for the minister to read the document as an answer to the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a
question of timing-


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Cape Breton South objecting to the proposal?


Malcolm MacInnis: No, I
am not objecting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, in recent
days-


Malcolm MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, when I said I was not objecting this seemed to amuse the Liberal party. I think the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria is entitled to an answer. When the minister suggested reverting to motions it was somebody within his own party who refused permission. Laugh that off.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, in recent days the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria has asked a number of questions concerning the manpower situation at the North Sydney terminal of the C.N.R. ferry service to Newfoundland. The changes in the ferry service were announced in 1965. It was then


estimated that they will result in the displacement of between 500 to 700 longshoremen at North Sydney.
The government has therefore decided to assess the situation through its manpower consultative service program. To date several hundred men were counselled as to the possibilities of alternative employment. Some 150 men have received or are receiving intensive retraining, close to 80 men accepted alternative employment with the C.N.R.., and another 100 found employment elsewhere.
Our efforts under this consultative arrangement with the company and the union are, of course, continuing. Our manpower officers are on the spot and doing their utmost to assist the affected men. In some cases the solution is not easy. The company has made more than 1,000 offers of employment but the men are reluctant to leave the immediate area. The consultative committee has retained the services of motivation specialists in trying to overcome these difficulties.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, do I have permission to reply to this statement in the usual form?


Mr. Speaker:: Of course not. The hon. member should ask a supplementary question. He knows he cannot reply to the statement.


Robert Muir: Well, it was a good try. In view of the fact that the minister has not outlined anything new this morning, other than what we already know-and we appreciate what has been done, and I think the leaders of the unions should be commended for their leadership in this training and so on-may I ask the minister has the government no other plans with regard to providing these people with jobs in the immediate area, because they are reluctant to move out of the area?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, all our plans are public plans, and I think they are well known. We have consultative services, we have placement services, we have mobility programs and we have retraining programs. They are all known, and these are the only instruments we have to correct this situation.


Robert Muir: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister is this his basic program, the manpower mobility program? Is this the only thing, to move people out of the area? Is this all?
March 22, 1968

Supply-Industry


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is not the
only program. We have the retraining programs which do not compel the workers to move somewhere else, if of course there are jobs in the area.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling orders of the day I wonder if the house is now disposed to consider the request of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that we revert to motions for the purpose of tabling a document?


Malcolm MacInnis: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is objection. Orders of the day.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.


The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply. When the committee rose on Thursday, March 21, item 30c of the Department of Industry was under consideration.



DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
30c. To provide for the insurance, on a shared risk basis with the lender, in the current and subsequent fiscal years, up to an aggregate amount of $100,000,000 on such terms and conditions including the payment of such fees therefor as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council, of loans made before January 1, 1973, under the Adjustment Assistance Program related to the Kennedy round agreements, by private lenders approved by a board established under section 15 of the Department of Industry Act to manufacturers in Canada who, in the opinion of the said board,
(a)	require such loans to restructure their operations but are unable to obtain sufficient financing on reasonable terms without the insurance; and
(b)	either
(i)	are or are likely to be seriously injured by an increase in imports attributable to the Kennedy round tariff reductions made by Canada, or
(ii)	have significant export opportunities arising out of the Kennedy round agreements;
and for greater certainty to deem the insurance referred to above to be guarantee for purposes of section 27 of the Financial Administration Act, $11,000,002.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister of Industry a question regarding this item, and perhaps in doing so I am boiling down the question that my colleague from Broadview asked him last night. The heart of this item, the wording of which is rather lengthy, is found in the phrase "the adjustment assistance program related to the Kennedy round agreements."
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)
May I ask the minister about that adjustment assistance program. Is it in effect through some other action, such as by order in council, or are we bringing it into effect by this item that is now before us?


Mr. Drury:: Mr. Chairman, this item seeks the approval of parliament for the scheme outlined in this particular item, namely authority for the government to enter into a scheme of insured loans for the purpose of enabling those who have been affected by the Kennedy round, and who are desirous of and able to take advantage of the opportunities offered by this, to secure financial help.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words we are not just appropriating the sum of $1 by passing this item; we are in effect passing the legislation under which the adjustment assistance program will be operated. Do I take it, therefore, that the only details governing this program are those set out in this wording that is now before the house?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member will recollect that in the main estimates there is an item of $10 million which covers another aspect of the assistance program, namely the making available of loan funds as a matter of last resort to individuals who have been adversely affected by the Kennedy round.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that item in the estimates for the current year or is it in the estimates for the coming year?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It is in the estimates for the coming year.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister could give the house any indication concerning just what the government has in mind in respect of paragraph (a) of item 30c, where it refers to "financing on reasonable terms". Could the minister inform the house what the government has in mind with regard to what constitutes reasonable terms?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, this was described at some length during the sittings of the parliamentary committee which examined the Kennedy round arrangements. Generally speaking, however, it would be hoped that the normal commercial channels would be made use of. It would be only when a person would seek to take advantage of the

March 22, 1968
Supply-Industry
Kennedy round arrangements and had been unable for reasons of risk, lack of familiarity, or for some other reason to effectively make use of the normal commercial financing arrangements that he would have resort to the facilities of the board and an insured loan.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, not long ago when he was in opposition, I believe the Prime Minister was one of those who objected violently to the implementation of statutory legislation by means of estimates. As I understand it we have not passed the adjustment assistance program and in fact have not completed any discussion of the Kennedy round in the legislative sense in respect of what our liability would be and what displacement would take place. Yet we are being asked by means of this statutory item to implement a program about which we have not had any previous knowledge.
I was particularly interested in the minister's reply when he said this supplementary estimate is related to another item of $10 million which appears in the projected estimates with which we are not yet concerned. Therefore I wonder why the Prime Minister has agreed to the implementation of this legislative process by estimates. Personally I am opposed to statutory items except on an emergency basis. If this is an emergency I should hope the minister would give the committee a much fuller report than he has given concerning what might be the implications. Without knowing what displacement is taking place because of the Kennedy round tariff agreement we now are being asked, I presume, to compensate companies which already have gone through the process of establishing what their losses may be and which have gone through the process of appeal to the financial institutions which would be in a position to make loans available to them.
As I read paragraph (a) we are now being asked to underwrite or provide for a loan in a situation where a loan would not otherwise be available. I presume this is similar to the situation in respect of programs where after a company has made application to two banks and has been turned down, a loan can be made through the fund. Since this item is asking for $1 obviously it is not really asking for the establishment of a fund but rather is asking for a statutory authority. Therefore I think these items should be noted very carefully. Certainly this is not the proper way to pass legislation. I believe the Prime Minister was one of those when in opposition who

were very much opposed to statutory items, because this would mean that parliament would not be allowed any opportunity to examine the legislation.
I can only guess, because it is not so stated, that if we pass this item we will be passing in some measure the adjustment assistance program. Personally I am of the opinion that this is not the way it should be passed. I believe we should have the full discussion which was promised in respect of the implications of the Kennedy round. This type of item is not one which allows the full discussion which I believe should take place.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, I also have been much concerned about this item. I wonder whether the minister is in a position to give more particulars than those which are set out here. I presume this item has reference to section 7 of the Department of Industry Act although no mention is made of this in the item. Can the minister give us any information concerning the details of the adjustment assistance program which, as my colleague the hon. member for Timiskaming suggested, we are now being asked to legislate by means of this item?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the hon. members apparently were unable to participate in the proceedings of the committee which studied the implications of the Kennedy round, and before which the measure proposed by the government was rather exhaustively examined. This resulted in a report which was made to the house on Friday, March 1. The report points out that the committee held 22 meetings and heard the following witnesses: the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Industry and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
In addition the committee also obtained information from the assistant deputy minister of finance, the director of tariffs and a member of the tariff division of the Department of Finance, the director of the machinery branch, the industrial policy adviser and chief of the commercial policy division of the Department of Industry, and for the Department of Trade and Commerce the assistant deputy minister of trade policy and director of the office of trade relations. Perhaps I should not go on reading the list of witnesses,
March 22, 1968

which runs on for another page. The report of the committee which was submitted to the house together with the proceedings of the committee would, I think, serve to inform the hon. member of some of the details he is seeking.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, as a member of that committee I have no recollection of any details of this assistance program being presented to us. It seems to me the minister must have these details in his mind or somewhere in his department. Rather vague references were made during the hearings at which, as the minister has said, a great many witnesses appeared, to some consideration of compensation for those who might be adversely affected by the Kennedy round; but we have no details of it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the committee would not want me to repeat the statement I made to the standing committee. It would seem to render really useless the work of committees if testimony is to be repeated in extenso in the house. If there are some particular aspects of particular items in relation to this program that hon. gentlemen feel at a loss about, and which were not adequately covered in the proceedings of the committee, I would be glad to answer questions on those particular matters. But I would hope not to waste the time of the house and of parliament by rehashing or repeating here what has been given in evidence and reported in the minutes of the committee.


Colin Cameron: Then, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister could give us some specific information. Are interest rates set under this assistance program? Have they been set? What type of loans are to be guaranteed? What responsibility is the government taking with regard to the guaranteeing of these loans? We certainly heard nothing as to what interest rates are to be charged, and I wonder whether the minister can give us the details in this respect.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as the interest rates are concerned, they will be normal commercial rates. I think the hon. gentleman understands that the role of the government of Canada in this program is to act as insurer of loans which the banking community might feel, in light of their normal policy, involve too great a risk. To remove some of this risk the government will act as insurer with
Supply-Industry
respect to a major portion of the loan. But the rates of interest will be those normally chargeable by the institutions for commercial loans. No dollar limit has been set on the loan or the amount to be insured. The borrower will be charged a premium for the insurance, and it is expected that over the course of this program the premiums on the insurance will cover any losses that might be required to be made good under the insurance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the minister that he is really begging the question when he tells us these matters have been discussed in the committee and therefore that discussion should not be repeated on the floor of the house. I am inclined to agree with that statement as a matter of general practice, but it is still true that even if a committee has recommended something, it is up to parliament to do the actual legislating.
What rather startles us this morning is the shoehorn way in which we are being given this legislation. When I asked the minister whether this wording in the item now before us, vote 30c, is something new he said there is a similar item in next year's main estimates. When I look it up I find an item in next year's estimates, item L95, for $10 million which again refers to the adjustment assistance program.
So we have two references to the adjustment assistance program. There have been press releases about it, there has been talk about it; but until one of these items is passed it does not legally exist, unless the minister can show me some way in which it has been brought into being. I submit that his earlier answer is correct, and that we are doing it now. If we are being asked now to bring into effect an adjustment assistance program, I think we are entitled to some details about it or should know who is going to work out the details.
I also find it rather interesting when I look at the wording of the item now before us. The wording of vote 30c which is now before us is not the same as that of item L95 in the main estimates for next year. So not only is this item supplementary to something we have not yet passed, but that something we have not yet passed reads differently. Please, Mr. Minister, the shoehorn method does work, but let us have a little more candour about it.

March 22. 1968
Supp ly-I ndustry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, when the hon. gentleman says "Let us have a little more candour" I would point out that a standing committee of the house has examined at considerable length the Kennedy round, its implications, the proposals under the general heading of the adjustment assistance program and the steps proposed by the government to deal with the program. The steps proposed involve a number of actions by more than one department comprising a program of the government. It is quite an extensive program.
Some of the elements of the program require legislative authority. In so far as my department is concerned there are two elements requiring legislative authority; one, the launching of an insured loans program to make available financial means to those who wish and are able to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the Kennedy round. We anticipate that another element will be required at a later date, although not nearly as early in the chain of events as the insured loans scheme; indeed, the insured loans scheme should be in operation now. That is why it is in the supplementary estimates.
[DOT] (12 noon)
The second element of the program is for a different purpose and a different set of circumstances, and that is the reason for the change in wording of the vote in the main estimates to which the hon. gentleman has just referred. It is designed to deal with hardship rather than the exploitation of opportunity. It is not expected that these cases of hardship will develop to the point where they can be adequately dealt with at an earlier date, and consequently the provision in the main estimates will meet the time frame.
In addition to that-and this was pointed out at the time as part of the problem of dealing with the change brought about by the Kennedy round-the Minister of Labour, in a different act and at a different time, has sought and obtained the approval of the house to the scaling upward of the unemployment insurance benefits. This is part of the program also, as was outlined to the committee. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will not wish me to recite again in the house the detailed exposition which was given before the committee at a series of 22 meetings.


Colin Cameron: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I was present at every meeting of the

committee and I can say that no details were given to us at any time.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into a debate with the hon. gentleman, but I wonder what the committee which produced a report on the implications of the Kennedy round meant to do and what in fact it did in 22 meetings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, like the minister, I do not want to have to spin this out but I do think that in legislative terms this is a rather serious matter. As a result of our exchange this morning we have already dicovered that in addition to item 30c in the present supplementary estimates there is item L95 on page 597 of the estimate for next year.
I have been doing some further checking and I find that on page 257 of the estimates for next year there is another item under the Department of Industry for $1 million for grants to manufacturers in Canada who have applied for government insured or direct loans under the adjustment assistance program. Thus there are three different items in the estimates of this department, one in the present supplementary estimates and two in next year's main estimates, all referring to the adjustment assistance program. I think it is significant that in all cases the first letters of the words "adjustment assistance program" are printed in capital letters. This is a program of substance, not just one of words.
The minister says that the changes in the unemployment insurance rates and benefits were part of this program. I recollect quite well that when the government made its announcement about what it was going to do as a result of the Kennedy round it said it was going to work on two fronts. It was going to do something for industry and something for workers. May I point out to the minister that in the case of unemployment insurance benefits, in the case of what was done for workers, a regular statute was passed by the house amending the Unemployment Insurance Act. Nothing was said in that legislation to the effect that it was part of some nebulous adjustment assistance program. It stood on its own feet. This makes me believe that the adjustment assistance program is mainly under the purview of the Minister of Industry, although I gather from the discussions which may or may not have taken place in the committee that it does not yet exist in legislative terms. But once we have passed this item containing the words "adjustment assistance program" in capital letters we will
.March 22, 1968

have enacted it. Perhaps this is a good thing and the house wants to do it this way, but I still think that legislating in this way by these $1 items is a questionable procedure except in ad hoc emergencies or in special cases. I think under some conditions, perhaps involving a retired civil servant's pension, it might be appropriate, but a major program of adjustment assistance should be on a legislative par with the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I am not examining the substance of the issue but, if I may go back to the phrase I used, I think this is a shoehorning method of getting on to the statute books something which until now is not there. There is no adjustment assistance program of legal effect on the statute books of Canada as of now. When we pass this $1 item and the estimate becomes part of the supplementary estimates and a supply bill is passed, then it becomes statutory and we will have the adjustment assistance program which may lead to a lot of things. Perhaps it is desirable, but I think the least the minister could do is to admit he is getting this piece of legislation through in the easiest possible way.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the minister does not want to mislead hon. members when he says the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs went into the full details of the adjustment assistance program. What actually happened was that prior to the first meeting the Prime Minister issued a statement setting forth the areas in which assistance would be given, and some of the witnesses before the committee were deliberately evasive with regard to the details. I am not complaining about that because they probably had not worked out the details at that time. However, the minister is not correct when he says that the committee went into it in detail. I do not think the minister's officials had worked out the details at that time.
I recall that three areas were discussed. The first was government insured loans, the second was direct loans, and the third was consultative services. It was only today that the minister said that this item referred directly to government insured loans and that the $10 million to which I referred last night is for direct assistance to companies which do not qualify for government assistance loans.
I ask the minister to give us some details with regard to the item for $10 million which is now in the main estimates because I would
Supply-Industry
like to know what type of loans will be offered, to whom, at what rates, for what length of time, and whether this sum will be considered as a direct contribution to business to take care of the effects of the Kennedy round or whether the government hopes to get back the moneys from these companies to which they are making loans. I should also like to know whether the $10 million includes the consultative services, which was the third area of help which the government intented to give. I am sure the minister has these details. They were not available at the time the witnesses appeared before the committee, and if the minister has them we would like to hear what they are.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do not want to take refuge in points of order but perhaps I should because, according to the press, there appears to be an attempt to prolong this debate. I think even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will agree what we should not examine the details of items contained in the main estimates. We are now concerned with the supplementary estimates, and I have just been asked for details of vote L95 in the main estimates and for some details in relation to another item in the main estimates dealing with assistance, which incidentally is planned to be a payment of up to half the cost of consultative services for those who are unable to afford the full cost. There is an item provided which would allow money to be used for this purpose. I point out to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that this is the normal way in which the department functions. There is a statute which lays out the objectives, duties and powers of the department and which enables the minister to execute these powers by way of parliamentary appropriation.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
In the case of the item we are looking at now, the dollar item, that is all the expenditure it is contemplated will be required to carry through the program of insured loans.


William Arnold Peters: You do not need even a dollar.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, I hope that one dollar will be in excess of what the government will have to spend on this program of insured loans. This should commend itself to hon. gentlemen opposite. The program is good and fills what is clearly a need. It is designed to enable people to take advantage of opportunities that are being created and to provide a stimulus to the growth of our economy. I

March 22, 1968
Supply-Industry
suggest that placing the item in the supplementary estimates for passage now makes it effective immediately rather than waiting for the main estimates which would be subject to approval only at a later date. We are endeavouring to get on with the task that we have, that of seizing an opportunity and making the most of it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, regardless of the observations of the minister concerning the discussion of the details of this item I think he would not deny that vote 30c has an important aspect to it. The minister may or may not recall that there have been occasions in the house when the whole question of one dollar legislative items has been the subject of considerable discussion. In my view the question has never been properly resolved. It is a matter of continuing concern to many members in addition to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that this method of legislating appears with increasing frequency. It may have merit. However, there appears to be an increasing tendency to carry through significant and important legislative measures by means of one dollar items in the supplementary estimates. Sometimes these items go through with little or no examination in the committee. If we are going to follow this practice, then ministers should pay particular attention to trying to make sure that these proposals fit into some orderly legislative framework by giving a detailed statement in the vote. In this case, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has pointed out, approval of this item will mean-I am not discussing the desirability or otherwise of the program-we will bring into being a capitalized adjustment assistance program.
As it happens, I have a copy of the Department of Industry Act with me because of some discussion we had on another matter yesterday. Section 15 of that act clearly states:
The governor in council may establish advisory and other committees to advise or aid the minister or to perform such duties and exercise such powers as the governor in council may specify, and may fix the remuneration and expenses to be paid to the persons so appointed.
I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to consider some clarification of the wording of vote 30c which would perhaps help to clarify the existing legislative authority from which the proposal in this vote flows?

I have been looking at the act and section 7 reads in part:
The minister shall-
(c) develop and carry out such programs and projects as may be appropriate
(i) to assist the adaptation of manufacturing industries to changing conditions on domestic and export markets, and to changes in the techniques of production,
I may be wrong in my assessment but it would appear to me there is some flow of authority from section 7 of the Department of Industry Act with regard to this one dollar item. To that extent I assume the minister would be prepared to argue that he has acted within the scope of his authority in bringing forward this proposal. I am not quarrelling with him on that score. However, it does seem to me it would be much easier to have an understanding of what we are doing if there were a clear reference to the basic parliamentary statute from which this authority flows. If my assessment is correct, I wonder whether the minister might be prepared to consider an amendment to the wording of vote 30c somewhat to this effect: "To provide, as provided in section 7 of the Department of Industry Act." In this way there would be a ready reference which would enable anyone concerned with this measure to understand what we were doing when in effect we pass a bill without going through first, second or third reading stages. Would the minister indicate his reaction to what I sincerely feel is a helpful suggestion under the circumstances?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the efforts of the hon. member in attempting a clarification. However, if one were to follow this particular technique throughout all the estimates one would be documenting the authority of the various departments to take the action involved in the expenditure of moneys that are voted. This is a basic assumption underlying all of the estimates, that the expenditure of the money provided does fall within the statutory authority accorded to the department and the minister concerned. All the hon. gentleman is doing here is documenting the statutory authority of the Minister of Industry to engage in this particular activity. I suggest that this would be a rather unfortunate precedent and would raise a question whether the department is within its authority and whether its assertion of authority is well founded. Second, it would increase the physical volume of the book of estimates quite substantially. While I appreciate his endeavour to provide clarification, I suggest
March 22, 1968

that while it might be useful in one respect it would have disadvantages in another.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I thought I had made it quite clear that I was referring to these so-called one dollar items, the only purpose of which is to legislate. I think the minister is begging the point I am trying to make.
As I have said, reference is made to section 15 of the industry act. I should like to give the minister a parallel situation. There is in existence in Canada a fisheries research board. Items are brought forward from year to year asking for funds for that board. If there were before us a parallel item to this to establish a specific new program of fisheries research, to which we would agree by a simple vote in committee of supply and subsequently through the bill that followed, then I would feel we should have to spell out carefully in the terms of such vote the authority we were giving the minister. I think the minister is trying to muddy the water on this point by suggesting that this is parallel to the voting of expenditures under well established programs.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, as I say I am
not in favour of this item. The minister is passing judgment on the assistance program and I have heard my colleagues say that they do not know what the terms of this program are. The minister said that three programs were involved, the second of which was an increase in the benefits under the unemployment insurance fund. When the house approved of those benefits I am sure the minister did not say that as a result of the Kennedy round tariff negotiations the workers of the country would be required to increase their contributions to the fund. They feel that since wage conditions have improved a different category entirely should be covered by unemployment insurance. However, I am sure they did not realize they would have to compensate the fund.
No department is more qualified than the minister's department to establish a new program. The minister is calling it the A.A.P. instead of the ADA or FRED or one of several other programs in his department. The program will be established by passage of a one dollar item. The minister agreed that he was not going to spend that dollar; it is simply an indication that this item has a statutory effect. However, I suggest that if a new program is to be established by this
Supply-Industry
item we are entitled to discuss the matter as we would discuss any piece of legislation introduced into this house.
If I remember correctly, when the area development assistance program was passed it was preceded by a piece of legislation. There is no doubt that the minister has authority to establish programs under the act. However, the act does not provide for establishment of such programs by interdepartmental action; they must be established by legislative action on the part of this house. My objection is to legislative action being taken by means of a statutory item of one dollar when we are unfamiliar with the details of the program.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out that if an important person died without provision being made for a pension for his widow, a statutory item could be introduced for that purpose. I am sure everyone would agree, even the members of another party who are not at all interested in estimates, that problems of particular individuals cannot be considered even though we admit there may be an oversight in a specific case. However, payments may be made out of the general revenue fund provided a one dollar item is passed.
This adjustment assistance plan is going to involve a great deal of money in many fields and I am sure will be in existence for some time. Situations will change; indeed, things have changed since the initial discussions took place on the Kennedy round. For this reason alone the minister should not only be willing to introduce this item in some other manner but should welcome the opportunity to do so.
The minister mentioned three programs, one of which was in relation to unemployment insurance. I am sure he agrees this is not the most important program of the three. I cannot see much relationship between the amendments to the unemployment insurance plan that we passed and this program except as it indirectly affects displacement of workers.
I am sure that the minister will agree that this program is no different from any other. Certainly this is not the way to pass legislation. Although there may be difficulties, these can be overcome in another way. I have always maintained that there are some smart people in the ministers' department, and the discussion this morning is an indication that this is not a facetious observation. However, they are doing something that the Department of Labour did not try to do, namely, putting

March 22. 1968
Supply-Industry
forward a major part of a program as a one dollar item in the supplementary estimates instead of introducing it in the form of government legislation. Although this may not be an illegal method, it is one that I cannot support.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I am prepared to move a motion to reduce the item but will not do so because that would kill it. Though I am prepared to kill the item I am not prepared to kill the principle and therefore I face a dilemma. Look around, Mr. Chairman. If my motion carried, as well it might, that would be the end of the adjustment assistance program, and I do not want that. Frankly I do not know how good the program is. My colleagues asked questions about it but they got no answers. They got no answers in committee either. If we had referred the program to the committee it would have been sent back here in any event. Committees do not initiate legislation. They do not initiate discussion on any subject that is not referred to them.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: But it was referred to them.


William Arnold Peters: I presume it was referred to them in the context of the over-all picture of the Kennedy round discussions. This program in particular was not referred to the committee. It was introduced to us by the minister. The minister probably introduced discussion of it in the committee. Certainly the minister talked to the press about the program.
Obviously the $1 in these estimates means nothing. It is only a legal gimmick. It establishes the program in the legal sense. Since the minister is an administrator as well as a politician he will agree that his officials like this procedure. In any event, during the last four or five years many programs have been introduced by means of a dollar item in the estimates instead of by a bill. When a program is good the government takes credit for it, and when it is bad it must also accept responsibility. By introducing programs in this way the government is clearly sidestepping the necessity of bringing in a bill. This method of legislating is tantamount to denying certain members the privilege of discussion under the parliamentary system.
Before the item is introduced in the house the minister knows what the regulations applicable to it are. Yet I suggest that he does not know exactly what money will be needed since the administrative machinery under this

program will be cumbersome and any applicant seeking money under this insurance program will have to go through certain procedures before getting the money. The minister knows how all this will work. He probably knows the timetable that is involved. That being so, will he not argee with me that he is being unfair with us and with himself by not divulging what form the administrative machinery will take? I urge the minister to consider these remarks because there are other, similar statutory items in these estimates to which my remarks also apply.
In the minister's department there are these young go-go fellows who dream up initials like A.A.P.-adjustment assistance program-N.D.P., and so on. We shall have a hard time identifying all these programs at this rate. In any event, I want to warn the minister that if he or others are considering the introduction of other legislative items in this manner, our party will probably take a hard look at them. We are prepared to make a major issue of this type of implementation of an otherwise appropriate piece of legislation.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions to ask. Unlike the hon. member for Timiskaming who has just taken his seat, I am really interested in securing information about this vote. I attempted to catch the chairman's eye on several occasions but was prevented from speaking because N.D.P. members were given the opportunity to speak. I am sure they will not begrudge me this opportunity since the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough prevented my replying to the minister's statement on motions regarding the dock workers at North Sydney. I point out that the minister had asked for information. I do not know what the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough has against the North Sydney dock workers, but that is another story and we shall take it up another day.
I have digressed for a moment from the subject the former speaker dealt with. I wish to ask the minister whether under this adjustment assistance program which is connected with the Kennedy round agreements Sysco-that the Sydney Steel Corporation- will be eligible for assistance. If so, will the minister be kind enough to explain how it will be eligible for assistance?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, as my hon. friend knows, as a consequence of the agreements achieved at Geneva in respect of lowering tariffs around the world a considerable
March 22. 1968

number of export opportunities have been presented to Canadians through the lowering of the tariffs of other countries. In order for Canadian manufacturers and processors to take advantage of these opportunities, changes in their previous modus operandi have to be made. If they are to seize the opportunity they must change what they have been doing in type, kind, skill or volume. Generally speaking this has required some physical changes, and physical changes normally require financing.
The object of the Department of Industry is to provide all the assistance it can to enable Canadian manufacturers and processors to take advantage of these increased opportunities. This particular item is related to the process of taking advantage of opportunities. In the case of those who for one reason or another, either because they are high risk borrowers under normal commercial arrangements or because they have an inadequate corporate financial structure, are unable to secure commercial loans to take advantage of opportunities, then the department under this arrangement, if in the opinion of the board which is mentioned here the changes are economically sound and viable and are directed toward taking advantage of the opportunity, will undertake to provide on behalf of the government insurance with a commercial lender. We are prepared to make loan insurance available to cover the added risk of this kind of loan.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
The hon. gentleman has asked me whether Sysco would be eligible for assistance under this provision. That would depend on the plans Sysco may have to take advantage of the increased export opportunities offered by the Kennedy round. Whether Sysco has any such plans I confess I do not know. If the company does have such plans involving additional financing and if it is unable through its own normal commercial financing to carry out these changes, then this section will come into operation.


Robert Muir: I thank the minister for that statement. I am sure he will be the first to agree that if he and his cabinet colleagues do not get off their asses and do something in a hurry Sysco will probably not be in a position to make plans in the future with regard to any operation. In any event, with the assistance of all the go-go whiz kids the minister has at his disposal in the department I trust he is in a position to give me a little information.
Supply-Industry
The minister mentioned the benefits which will be derived from the Kennedy round. What benefits has steel received as a result of the Kennedy round and what disadvantages with respect to the importation of cheaper steel into this country? Will the minister indicate the benefits which the steel industry of this country and, I hope, the workers employed in it, are to receive through the Kennedy round? As Minister of Industry I am sure he has this information at his fingertips. I am confident that he, knowing industry as well as he does, will have no difficulty in telling us just what the advantages are. I am equally sure he must be in a position to inform the committee about the difference in tariffs on the importation of steel into Canada since this agreement was reached in Geneva.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do not have the detailed information as to tariff changes in connection with steel, though this can be obtained. I believe the hon. gentleman is fully aware that in tariff terms the duty on steel is a complicated affair. There is no such thing as just "steel". The word covers a great many categories, a great many forms, and as a consequence there are a great many specialized tariff arrangements. I confess I do not pretend to carry in my head all these classifications and all the changes which have been made, but if these are of interest to the hon. gentleman I will see that the information is provided.
So far as benefits to the steelmakers of Canada are concerned I can only point out that there has been a reduction in the tariff affecting the import by foreigners of steel produced in Canada. This does, of course, provide more opportunity for those who are interested in exporting steel, and some of our producers have been very successful in this field. I admit there is a counterpart to this benefit, namely, a lowering of the barriers against the inflow of steel into Canada, which permits increased competition domestically. But in the case of steel the tariff changes have perhaps not been too significant because the tariffs on most forms of steel have, in international terms, been relatively low, not an item of major significance. Of more significance are the provisions relating to dumping. But that is another story unrelated to the point we have been considering and it will be the object of legislation to be introduced at a later date. It has formed the subject of an exhaustive examination by the committee on finance and trade.


Robert Muir: Since we are dealing with industry, the

March 22. 1968
Supply-Industry
manufacture of steel and the effect of the Kennedy round on steel production, in particular its effect on Sysco, is the minister in a position to provide the committee today with any further information respecting measures which may be taken to assist that company? Will it be given terms similar to those provided to other industries in this country? For example, since the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was proclaimed I believe between $180 and $190 million has been poured into that industry. And the expenditure has been well worth while. I am wondering whether the minister is in a position at this late hour and late date before the house adjourns to give us some encouraging news on behalf of the cabinet as to what the federal government has in mind in connection with the future of more than 3,000 steel workers and their families at Sydney? Will they be faced with unemployment?
I am sure the minister will agree that the province of Nova Scotia has gone as far as it can in trying to operate this steel mill. But the treasury of the province is simply too small to enable it to finance this industry. All the province has asked for, as I understand it, is a loan from the federal government. I hope this loan will be forthcoming. At the present time I understand the situation is that the request has been rejected and an alternative offer made to provide $2 million plus some other benefits.
Is nothing to be done, or can the minister tell us that a decision was reached at the cabinet meeting this morning, if there were enough cabinet members around to hold a meeting?


An hon. Member:: Ask him what the provincial Liberal leader said in Nova Scotia.


Robert Muir: He said the premier of Nova Scotia should have asked for an outright grant from the government to purchase this steel plant, not for a loan. I hope the minister will agree with the leader of the Liberal party in Nova Scotia and be in a position to advise us, as Mr. Regan said in Halifax, that there will be a grant of $10 million or $12 million.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
When we can finance some of the crazy things that the government devises, surely we can assist to finance industry. The Minister of Industry in particular should realize that. He should impress upon his cabinet colleagues that this is important. He has to provide jobs.

That is his job as Minister of Industry. If the cabinet minister from Nova Scotia is such a weak sister that he cannot get very much to assist the thousands of steel workers at Sydney and their families, plus the service trades, etc., surely this minister from the province of Quebec, this minister who knows how important it is to have at least bread and butter on the table, should be in a position to do something to assist the cabinet minister from Nova Scotia and to fight against all the Goldwaters in the cabinet. Maybe I am looking at one right now; I don't know, but I often think so.
I ask the minister to rise to his feet now and give us some words of encouragement, not just the sympathy he expressed the other night with regard to the dock workers at North Sydney. We have got the sympathy of the government, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry, but this does not put money in the pockets of the unemployed workers, be they steel workers or dock workers, I ask the minister to kindly rise to his feet and bring us up to date on what the government has done or is going to do with reference to the very serious and tragic situation facing the steel workers in the city of Sydney and the surrounding areas.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but respond to an eloquent plea on behalf of the steel workers in Sydney. Unfortunately the sympathy to which the hon. gentleman has referred rather has the edge taken off it by referring to one of my cabinet colleagues as week-kneed-


Robert Muir: No, no. Weak sister.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -and unnamed others, perhaps including myself, as Goldwaters. I take it this is meant in a pejorative sense. Scoring a few little digs rather takes the edge off-


Robert Muir: Please don't be so thin-skinned. Don't be so childish. Go on with your remarks.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Again the hon. gentleman's attitude-


Robert Muir: You are not in Sunday school, you know.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Again the hon. gentleman's advocacy of the case of the Sydney steel workers is a plea for understanding and sympathy, the reception of which is hardly
March 22. 1968

inproved by the objurgation not to be so thinskinned and childish. I would like to assure the hon. gentleman that I have a great deal of feeling for the difficult position in which the people in northern Cape Breton find themselves and I have been interested in trying to devise viable, sound solutions to the very *difficult problems that face the area. But I do feel rather badly when attempts are made to use this situation in order to score either *debating or political advantage. In so far as the main question is concerned I regret to say that to the best of my knowledge, in spite of the fact that we had a cabinet meeting yesterday and in spite of the rather sly suggestion that probably there were not enough cabinet ministers around to have one-there were enough and we had a meeting-no further developments have taken place subsequent to those which the Prime Minister has already made public.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to hear the minister say that there have been further developments. Undoubtedly in a very short period of time we will hear good news that not only will the federal government assist but that they will do so not in the form of loan but in the form of an outright grant. Grants have been made by the government in many instances-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I said I was sorry to announce that there were no further developments. I think the hon. member may not have heard me.


Robert Muir: The minister now straightens it out but I am sure the minister, and others heard him, said there had been other developments. However, I take the minister's word for it. I am rather surprised and shocked that this man of the world, this man who has had lots of experience throughout his lifetime, has been hurt so badly and has possibly had his pride injured by remarks I made. The first thing we know he will be telling us to keep politics out of the House of Commons, as the hon. member for Bed Deer did one day. I wonder how the minister got here? Was it through politics? Did he not speak about parties and individuals in other parties? Right. He agrees with me. That is fine. We have got him agreeing so I assume he will not feel too badly if I suggest he might be a Goldwater or something like that. I suggest he give a second thought to what he said.
Supply-Industry
Not many weeks ago a member quoted the old adage attributed to Harry Truman, "If it is too hot in the kitchen stay the hell out of it." The minister should not stay here if he finds it too hot. We will wait and see if this minister who states he is not a Gold-waterite-he isn't this, he isn't that, he is a good guy-is going to do everything he can to assist the steel workers in Sydney. I hope he will and will have the assistance of the other cabinet ministers.
We have been rather patient, Mr. Chairman. Someone said in the house not too many weeks ago, "I am a very patient man." But the patience of the steel workers in Sydney can only go on so long. It was on October 13, 1967, that the original statement was made by Dosco that they were going to close down the Sydney steel industry. They announced it in a very cruel and harsh manner. As we all know, the house adjourned to debate the matter. Everyone in the house thought it was a national issue, and apparently it was because there was no real opposition to adjourning the house.
In any event, time is going by and time is of the essence. That is why I am trying to point out to the minister today the urgency of doing something. The matter is very much tied in with the Kennedy round. If more steel is brought into Canada, under a lower tariff it is going to affect Hamilton, Sault Ste. Marie and Sydney, if Sydney is still in operation then, and I hope and pray to God it will be. It is going to affect all these steel manufacturers.
I may have a few words to say a little later but in closing I hope the minister will give very serious consideration to his job, to the question of trying to do something to help the Sydney steel workers, and not worry too much and not lose too much sleep because someone throws a remark across the floor. My heavens, I have heard the right hon. member for Prince Albert say that we are a bunch of pansies compared with members 100 years ago or 50 years ago. So why should we feel so hurt, feel so badly if someone says something that might offend? If I did, I truly apologize.


William Arnold Peters: One o'clock.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, there has possibly been some loss of time as a consequence of digressions, and in order to expedite the business I would be glad to see the committee sit through the lunch hour so that we can get through these estimates.


William Arnold Peters: One o'clock.

March 22. 1968
Supply-Industry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I see that the N.D.P. insists on calling it one o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: If there is any disposition for the committee to sit through the lunch hour it would be necessary for the decision to be made in the proper way and not by the committee itself.


William Arnold Peters: One o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. House again in committee of supply. When the committee rose at one o'clock it was considering item 30c of the Department of Industry. Shall the item carry?


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, we all realize that the government is very anxious to get the estimates through the house. It is unfortunate that the minister concerned is not as anxious as are other members.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member would permit I should like to say that the minister has been seeing a delegation in company with his colleague, the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa. He will be in the house instantly.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, if it is a matter of an instant I would prefer to wait until the minister arrives.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall item 30c carry?


Malcolm MacInnis: No, Mr. Chairman. Of necessity I must be repetitious because what I say now I shall repeat when the minister returns to the house. It is regrettable that the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, when making inquiries of the minister this morning, did not receive the co-operation of the house. When the Minister of Manpower and Immigration asked for permission to revert to motions in order to make a statement with regard to the very serious aspects of the employment situation in

Cape Breton he was not permitted to do so because the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough rejected the request that a statement be made. The only choice left open to the minister at that time was to ask for supplementary questions.
Now that the Minister of Industry has returned to the house I should like for a few moments to refer to a remark he made when questioned about the Kennedy round. The minister referred to dumping. It is a well known fact that any nation in the world which is making progress must have a basic steel industry. In Canada the basic steel industry is very badly affected because of the fact that cheap steel is imported. I realize that quite often this is referred to as dumping, but it is dumping only if the imported steel which is undermining the basic Canadian steel industry comes into Canada at a price cheaper than the cost of production in the country of origin. I realize that if the request I am about to make were granted there might be repercussions on the international scene. However, since steel is so basic to the Canadian economy perhaps the minister would consider consulting with his colleagues about the possibility of bringing about a change in the definition of dumping.
I believe the government should take steps to redefine the meaning of dumping if this could be done to the advantage of Canada. Although we understand it is not dumping as long as the product is landed in this country at a price which is not below the production cost in the country of origin, nevertheless there is a great difference in this case between the landed price and the Canadian production cost. Therefore I ask the minister and his colleagues to review the situation so that possibly the definition of dumping could be related to the Canadian production cost rather than the production cost in the country of origin. In this way I believe a great deal of the disparity in prices could be eliminated to the advantage of the Canadian steel industry. If it would appear that the advantages would be greater than the disadvantages, then I think the government should take a hard look at the situation and bring in a redefinition of the term "dumping".
With reference to the Sydney steel industry the minister apparently is not aware of the representations which have been made with regard to this matter by some of his own colleagues. In respect of the negotiations between the federal and provincial governments he said earlier that further developments were taking place. But after he had
March 22. 1968

resumed his seat someone whispered in his ear and he jumped to his feet again. At that time he said that there were no further developments. Either the minister or whoever whispered in his ear is not up to date in respect of the situation which prevails now with regard to the negotiations between the federal and provincial governments. If they are, then what the Prime Minister said in the house the other day was not completely in accordance with the facts.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
When answering that question directly the Prime Minister said-the minister looks at me now with some interest-that he was awaiting a reply from Premier Smith on the latest correspondence which had been forwarded to him. So for the minister to stand up one moment and say there are developments, and then to immediately deny it, is further evidence of the fact that attention is not being paid to the negotiations going on between the federal and provincial governments respecting the Sydney steel industry. This should shame the minister who professes to have an interest in and to be concerned about the problem in Sydney.
I also remind the minister that one of his colleagues, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, told an audience of 20,000 people in Sydney that the federal government was searching desperately for a way which would assist in bringing about a satisfactory solution of the problem faced by the Sydney steel industry. "Searching desperately" were the words used by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
This is no longer a Cape Breton problem; it has become a Nova Scotia problem because all the people of Nova Scotia are assisting in this regard. The taxpayers of Nova Scotia are carrying the load. The government of Nova Scotia put a very simple solution before the federal government. The government of Nova Scotia asked that the federal government lend them 50 per cent of the purchase price of this plant. The federal government took the callous attitude that this assistance would not be made available, which is a complete denial of the Minister of National Health and Welfare who said that his government was searching desperately for a way in which to assist the industry. The federal government has a simple out, namely, to lend the government of Nova Scotia 50 per cent of the funds necessary to purchase this plant.
How desperately has this government been searching for ways in which to solve this
Supply-Industry
problem? How honest has it been in its promise to assist the Sydney steelworkers? On Monday of this week the Prime Minister, in a nationally televised program, said that if it was a matter of spending money to keep men employed he would be happy to spend that money.
The province of Nova Scotia has asked for a loan of about $12 million for this purpose but the federal government has callously refused to make that loan. At the time this appeal was before the government the Minister of Trade and Commerce signed an agreement to lend $20 million to the government of India. What I have said in this regard has been interpreted as a stand on my part against foreign aid. This is not the case at all. The fact that I object to the government lending a foreign country $20 million, while it refuses to lend a provincial government a little better than 50 per cent of that amount, is another indication that this government is not at all concerned about the problem and is not supporting the statements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare who, I repeat, said that the federal government was searching desperately for a way in which to help the steel industry of Sydney. Hon. members opposite like to interpret the stand I have taken in this respect as one that is against foreign aid. They like to say I am against feeding the starving children of India. This is the inference that has been drawn respecting my objection to $20 million being lent to India while a loan of $12 million is refused to a province of Canada in order to assist Canadian citizens.
I think that in the long run the federal government would benefit from such a loan being made to the province of Nova Scotia. If the government lent that money to Nova Scotia, in the next few years it would be collecting income tax on the wages earned by Sydney steelworkers. If the government continues its callous attitude, 3,000 Canadian citizens will be out of work, and not only will the government not collect income tax on the wages that would have been earned but it will be compelled to pay unemployment insurance to these people. This represents a considerable amount of money.
I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that a government which professes to be searching desperately for a way in which to help these people has lent a foreign government $20 million while refusing Canadian citizens the opportunity to go to work. I say this is a complete denial of


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Malcolm MacInnis: Yes.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I would simply like to ask the hon. member whether he could tell us from whose mouth came the refusal by the federal government to extend this loan.


Malcolm MacInnis: It is
rather difficult to pin it down to individuals because the government has a spokesman, and in this case the spokesman appears to be the Prime Minister. I can truthfully say that at no time did the Prime Minister say there was an absolute refusal, but I do not think there is too much question about the attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce who is a Nova Scotian. He stated outside the house that this plant is not an economic unit and should therefore go down the drain. I cannot put my finger on any one individual as saying that there has been an absolute refusal in this regard, but there is certainly no agreement by the cabinet to give the assistance for which the Minister of National Health and Welfare said the government was searching desperately.
As I have pointed out, in refusing this help the government is denying Canadian citizens, its Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Having made this statement, the Minister of National Health and Welfare during the campaign for the leadership of the Liberal party took great pleasure in being photographed in a province which is to benefit from something that will be lost to Nova Scotia, his own province. He took advantage of the publicity available to him whereby another province will gain at the expense of his own province of Nova Scotia. Evidence of this is to be found in the pictures and news stories emanating from the province of Prince Edward Island, where transfers will take place to the detriment of the Annapolis Valley area of Nova Scotia.
The minister from Nova Scotia, who I daresay is anxious to see something done to assist the Sydney steel plant, a few years ago on the eve of a federal election made the promise of $25 million in aid to the province. That aid was never forthcoming. However, the crisis that was developing in the coal

industry of Nova Scotia at that time was alleviated somewhat by the establishment of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. Hon. members on the other side of the house are very free in making reference to that development corporation and what it will bring about, but they make only passing references to it and do not understand what the corporation is all about.
We are faced with a promise made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare before 20,000 people in Cape Breton last summer, and that promise has not yet been fulfilled. The promise of assistance in the amount of $25 million to help the coal industry open a new mine has also never been kept. The situation so far as the steel industry is concerned is very grave. The government insists that it is concerned about the situation, but what has it to offer in the way of a solution?
When questioning the Prime Minister the other day about certain promises he made to the government of Nova Scotia, I asked about the $1.7 million that was to be made available to that government to assist this industry. I quoted from a letter written by the Prime Minister. The only come-back of the Prime Minister was that he doubted that was the case and he asked for the date of the letter. This was a ridiculous request by the Prime Minister. When I told him the letter had been written on January 23, 1968, there was no further come-back from the Prime Minister or anybody on the government benches.
What do we find in the Prime Minister's letter of January 23, 1968, in respect of the Sydney steel industry? He made an ambiguous reference to $1.7 million which was lent to Dosco prior to their announced withdrawal from the industry, an amount of money which was made available under an agreement for the construction of pier facilities. There was also in the Prime Minister's letter an ambiguous reference to a possible claim which they had on that $1.7 million, and the Prime Minister offered to the province of Nova Scotia something which he is not sure he had himself.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
As long ago as October 1967, the Minister of Justice was questioned on whether or not the company's withdrawal at that time was a breach of contract. Despite that fact this potential leader of the Liberal party, the Minister of Justice, has not yet, after six months, answered this simple question and has not made up his mind on the legality of the company's withdrawal. Yet the government wrote
March 22, 1968



a letter to the province of Nova Scotia refusing that province something which was granted to India to a much greater extent. The government said to the province of Nova Scotia: We will give you $1.7 million although we do not know yet whether we have a claim on it, but it is there for you to take.
The Minister of Industry cannot get away from the fact that he first said in the house today that further developments were taking place. However, when he sat down he was whispered to and as a result he jumped up and corrected himself by saying that no further developments were taking place. It is a ridiculous situation for a minister of the crown to stand up in the house and say there are no further developments when only a few days prior the Prime Minister himself indicated in the house that he is awaiting an answer from the premier of Nova Scotia. The ministers of this government are free with generous phrases when they think it will be a popular thing to say and it will be of advantage to them to say it. However, so far as the area of Cape Breton and other parts of Nova Scotia are concerned they have not backed up anything they have said in a number of years. In fact, one minister has denied what another one has said.
Let me give the committee an example of one minister contradicting what another one said. Not too long ago one minister, when questioned about plans for phasing out the Sydney steel operation, said it would be foolish for the government to do so. However, on the same day his colleague, the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, spoke in Alberta and said the government had plans in this respect. What kind of government is this when its members continually make contradictory statements? How can we rely upon anything stated by any minister? The Minister of National Health and Welfare makes statements freely about industry in Nova Scotia, whether it be the steel, coal or any other industry, and he does so all across Canada when he thinks these statements will gain him popularity. But when he comes back to the house the rules prohibit us from asking him questions about the statements he has made, despite the fact that the precedent has been well established over the years that when a minister of the crown speaks outside the house, unless he specifically states he is expressing a private opinion he is stating government policy.
We are continually faced with this problem. We cannot ask the Minister of National
Supply-Industry
Health and Welfare questions about statements he makes outside the house in respect of the steel, coal, or any other industry because we are told this matter does not come under his jurisdiction. This is a ridiculous precedent which has been set under this government. As I pointed out, the minister himself has been caught in contradictions. I have only referred to one case when the Minister of Justice said it would be foolish for the government to make plans in a certain respect while his colleague, two seats away from him, when speaking in western Canada referred to the government's plans in the same connection. We do not have to go beyond today to encounter contradictions. When today's Hansard is printed we will find another denial on the government side of the house.
We have witnessed a rare occurrence in this house. I do not know whether it has ever happened before. Despite the fact some hon. members have had 30 years experience in the house, none of them has seen two ministers of the crown disagreeing on an issue in the house. Yet we witnessed this the day before yesterday. In Wednesday's Hansard we will find one minister contradicting the statement of another despite the fact that cabinet ministers are supposed to show solidarity. I suggest it might not be a bad idea if the word "solidarity" were emblazoned on a tablet placed on a wall outside the chamber so that each and every minister could look at it each day on his way to the house and realize the importance of cabinet solidarity.
Let me again refer to what happened in the house when the Minister of National Defence stood up today and said he disagreed with what was said by the Minister of Agriculture. This is not supposed to happen among cabinet ministers who should show solidarity and unity. It is an amazing thing to see the lack of unity amoung the ministers of this government who at the same time have appealed to members of the opposition to unite with them in passing these estimates so as to allow the Liberal party to get on with its campaign.
There are some amazing stories to be told such as the one about the minister who spoke to me yesterday and said that the longer we keep this debate going the better the chances are for the wrong man to become leader of the Liberal party. He was referring to one of his colleagues in the cabinet as the wrong man for the leadership, and he said that the longer we stay here the tougher it will be for
March 22, 19G8
7958	COMMONS
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources the man whom he considers to be the right man for the position to win the leadership. This was a minister of the crown speaking about two of his own colleagues. He happens to support the Minister of Justice and he is very, much against the idea of the Secretary of State for External Affairs becoming the prime minister of this country. What kind of co-operation, assistance, honesty and dedication can we expect from such a cabinet when its members contradict one another and, for example, do not bother acquainting themselves with the facts concerning the basic steel industry in this country?


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall vote 30c carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
L66c. Loans under the Pharmaceutical Industry Development Assistance program in the current and subsequent fiscal years in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the Governor in Council to companies in Canada for the purpose of improving their ability to manufacture and market lower priced prescription drugs at competitive prices through reorganization of any of their operations of manufacturing, marketing, distribution and research, and who are unable to obtain sufficient financing on reasonable terms from other sources for such purposes, $2,000,000.
Item agreed to.
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: This completes the estimates of the Department of Industry.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I wonder if we could also consider vote L66c at page 31, which also comes under the Department of Industry.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: It has already been passed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am sorry, I understand it has been passed.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Is that
vote L66c? This vote has been carried.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Rather than proceeding immediately with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, could there be agreement in the committee to consider the item under the Department of National Defence? There is some urgency to this vote.



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
lc. Departmental Administration including grants and contributions as detailed in the Estimates, $144,000.
William Arnold Peters: This is an important department and we have been waiting for some time to discuss these estimates. I wonder whether the minister would make a report on the activities of his department?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I do not know exactly how to tackle this subject, so varied is the work of my department.
My department is indeed very active in numerous fields. As everyone knows, it comprises four large branches. The first is the geosciences division which conducts all types of research, from geology to astronomy.
The second is the mineral development division which is concerned mostly with mining economy and the administration of certain mining statutes relating, for instance, to gold and the continental shelf.
The third is the water division which has developed the most rapidly in the past year. I shall say a few words a little later about the water policy.
The fourth division is that of energy, which has started to develop and is headed by an assistant deputy minister. It will soon include a number of advisers in matters relating to hydro-electric energy, coal, uranium, gas and oil.
These are the main sectors.
The hon. member would perhaps like me to talk more specifically now about our water policy. This past year, we have developed a policy based on certain basic principles. We are often asked in the house: When will the government state its policy concerning water resources? I have the impression that some members think that a water policy is developed much in the same way as instant coffee is produced. That is not the case. There already exists a water policy at the federal level. It needs to be improved, which is what we are doing. However, the difficulties in this case should not be underestimated.
Everyone knows that water has many uses. It is used for shipping, for the production of energy. It is the natural habitat of small fish. It is also used in homes, industry, farming, etc. That is the multifunctional aspect of water.
Everyone knows also that there are conflicts between users. Some of them come to mind easily: conflicts between the interests of hydro-electric developments and those of shipping, conflicts between the recreational and the economic objectives.
March 22, 1968

In that field, as in some others, there are also conflicts of jurisdiction. I do not wish to repeat the speech I have made so many times to the effect that, in some cases, water comes under provincial jurisdiction and in others under federal jurisdiction.
I have outlined that situation many times. We have, in Canada, a federal system which has tremendous advantages but which presents some difficulties. I have often said that the water problems could be approached only in a multijurisdictional or comprehensive way, which implies a close co-operation between federal and provincial governments.
These principles which I have outlined very briefly will be found in the legislation which we hope to present during the next session, and we hope that parliament will accept it.
In the meantime, I must say that, in the best spirit of co-operative federalism, we have had conversations with the provinces last year at the administrative and political levels, directly and during meetings of the resource ministers council.
On the other hand, at the very time when new legislation is in the mill, my colleagues should not think that the minister and his department are inactive. On the contrary.

I might say a few words on the question of water supply. For years the department has been making an inventory of the water resources of Canada and we have special agreements with some provinces in this respect. May I mention two of them. We have an agreement with Ontario concerning the investigation of water supplies of northern Ontario rivers. We have been working on that for two years now. A few months ago we reached an agreement with the three prairie provinces on the creation of the Saskatche-wan-Nelson River Board. This is an extremely important move, because, as hon. members realize, we will be taking in Canada more and more a basin by basin or region by region approach to water problems. I feel this should be an element of comfort to everyone who is interested in this problem.
In the field of flood control, which comes under the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act, we have already spent $8 million and another $14 million is committed mostly for projects in Ontario and British Columbia. More important still, the Winnipeg floodway is coming to completion. The federal government has already spent $33 million on the 27053-501
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources construction of this great work. As I said this morning, we are about to enter into a most important water flood control project, the Fraser one. I see some of my hon. friends opposite nodding in satisfaction. Such an agreement has been talked about for a long time following the 1948 flood which caused extensive damage. Now, Mr. Chairman, after the accumulation of a tremendous number of documents dealing with the subject, we are finally coming to an agreement with British Columbia on this matter.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I do not want to spend too much time on it at the moment as I am sure there will be occasion to talk about it later, as everybody easily realizes the value of this project. The Fraser is an extremely important river in the economy of British Columbia and of the other western provinces. The federal government has a clear responsibility here not only in terms of flood control but in terms of navigation, fisheries, transportation and the prevention of national disasters. Therefore my department and I feel that this agreement will be a great accomplishment. In the first ten years both governments will share in an expenditure of some $30 million as was already paid last summer when agreement in principle was reached.
I will also be asked, so I might as well answer now, about what steps we are taking against pollution. This is a favourite subject of some of my hon. friends on the other side. Following the Montreal pollution conference my department made an analysis of the conclusions that were reached there. We then formulated a number of recommendations which we brought to the attention of the provincial ministers, this area being one of shared jurisdiction, as is well known. I brought these matters to the attention of my provincial colleagues at the Montreal meeting of the council of resource ministers last May and asked for their comments. These have been coming in. I do not have to tell hon. members that they are not all in agreement with the views of the federal government; as hon. members know, these subjects are debatable.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Are they all in agreement with each other?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Chairman, obviously not, and that is an added difficulty. I should not like to leave the impression that we are simply sitting around waiting; that would be
March 22, 1968
7980	COMMONS
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources wrong. One of the most important developments in this field is the decision to build at Burlington, near Hamilton, a Canadian inland water centre. Some $17 million will be spent on the construction of this centre. It is to be built at Burlington, on the Great Lakes, for very good reason: the main interest of the federal government in pollution matters has to do with pollution of the Great Lakes.
I think everyone will agree that this should be so. Obviously the federal government cannot be made responsible for depolluting every little creek in the country. This would normally be the responsibility of the municipalities and the provinces. However, the federal government does have clear responsibility for and jurisdiction over the Great Lakes. These are international waters and international waters fall mainly under the authority of the federal government. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think it is a good idea to concentrate much of our financial, capacities and personnel in this Great Lakes area. The universities and provinces will be admitted of course to work with us on research leading to depollution of the waters of the Great Lakes. All of the work done at Burlington will be communicated across the country, even across the world.
There are already 80 people from my department located there. Temporary buildings are already built on pier 19, I think it is, and we will be acquiring land in the coming days. So things are moving ahead. My estimates have been cut on a number of occasions, as have the estimates of other departments in recent days-only a little more, I feel-but we have protected this project because it seems to us to be the most important measure the department can take in the coming months and years.
I might add that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is continuing to lend money for the construction of sewage treatment plants. The last time I checked, about $225 million had been allocated for that purpose. Again this is a very important contribution by the federal government in the field of inti-pollution control.
A few months ago, as my hon. friends remember, the provision in the income tax regulations allowing rapid depreciation of industrial anti-pollution equipment was extended in force until 1970, which again is a great contribution to anti-pollution. It is only in so far as there is an incentive in terms of tax deduction that the provinces can assume their full responsibilities in this field and


through moral suasion, persuasion or governmental pressure bring industry to recognize its own responsibility to instal anti-pollution equipment in their new plants.
I could go on but I think I will stop at this point and give members of the committee an opportunity to question me more specifically.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, before the minister concludes could he give any indication when the government may include antiair pollution provisions in the same general regulations? I realize that he is not directly responsible for this but I know his general interest in pollution control.


Jean-Luc Pepin: This matter has been brought up on a number of occasions and I am interested in it, as is my department. There have been discussions with national revenue on this matter. As is usual with these questions there are some technical difficulties but officials will be working on these in the coming months with the hope that next year something might be done.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman-


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.


William Arnold Peters: I just want to say something-


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. The hon. member for Nickel Belt rose first so the Chair recognized him.


Mr. Fawcett:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to quarrel with my colleague from Timiska-ming I will leave that to other members.
I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on these supplementary estimates. I realize this department is a relatively new one. It was born out of the Government Organization Act which was proclaimed on October 1, 1966, about a year and a half ago. It is the offspring of what was the department of mines and technical surveys but I understand that the scope of the minister has been enlarged to a considerable extent, his jurisdiction now covering a much wider field, e (3:20 p.m.)
I was interested in the minister's remarks a few moments ago about a water supply inventory. I wonder whether the people of this country realize how much water we need.
March 22, 1968

The Ontario government recently issued a little pamphlet which gives some indication of how much water we need for our various activities. I read this paragraph from that pamphlet:
Up to 62,000 gallons of water are required in the manufacture of one ton of newsprint; 750 gallons to process one barrel of oil; 25 to 200 gallons for one case of cannery products.
That clearly shows what the water requirements of this country are, and I hope to see the minister active in seeing that an inventory of our water supply is taken. I hope he will make certain that the water needs of this country are met before commitments with respect to water are made to other countries.
I wish to ask two or three questions. Looking back through Hansard I saw that on June 14, 1967, when the house was in committee of supply and dealing with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the minister had this to say, as found on page 1518:
At this point I should like to say a few words about each of the main sectors of my department, namely mines and geosciences, mineral development, water and energy. First of all, in respect of mines and geosciences, the principle objective of this sector is to keep up a high level of survey and research in mineral and geosciences so we can learn better the nation's potential mineral resources.
This raises an important point because I now want to speak about the survey of our mineral potential. I agree with my colleague from Timmins who said yesterday that our mineral resources have been barely tapped. We have almost unlimited mineral resources.
I do not quarrel with that statement but we must look at the matter from the point of view of communities which have been built around mineral resources in any given area. Both I and the hon. member for Sudbury are concerned about resources that can still be mined in the Sudbury area.
Has the minister worked in co-operation with mining companies such as International Nickel at Falconbridge to ascertain to what extent ore bodies have been staked out in our area and for how long in the future it is expected that these ore bodies can be worked? I know that Falconbridge and International Nickel have been expanding their operations in the Sudbury area, as they have been doing at Thompson, Manitoba. I want to know if these operations are being expanded in an orderly and normal fashion. Is thought being given to managing these resources so that the affected communities will be kept viable not just for one or two generations but 27053-5011
DEBATES	7961
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources for many generations to come. That is an important consideration. If mining companies are permitted to mine out all of an ore body in a given area where communities are solidly established, it will be only a matter of time, perhaps not more than 10, 20 or 50 years, before those communities face serious economic difficulties. All this must be ironed out between the minister's department and the mining concerns involved. I wish to know if the minister has any control over this situation.
Too often in the past we have seen what has happened to worked-out areas. Hundreds of families have been dislocated and many hardships have followed that dislocation. Elliot Lake is a prime example. I have been saddened to see houses boarded up in Elliot Lake, to see houses ruined by burst water pipes because they have not been heated in winter. I have seen houses in a sad state of disrepair, verging on ruin. What effect that has on our total economy is hard to assess, but we must avoid this sort of thing in other mining localities.
Of course, there is a partial answer to what ought to happen to mining localities after an ore body has been mined out. The matter does not come under the minister's jurisdiction, I agree, since it involves secondary industry. Judging from the success we have had in establishing secondary industries in the Sudbury area, our best bet is to retain the mining companies for as long as possible.
Though it has been said we have unlimited natural resources in this country, I must say that sometimes I am sceptical. Not too many years ago we were told we had unlimited supplies of timber. Consequently I was amazed to see in the Globe and Mail yesterday a report that the chief forester of MacMillan Bloedel Limited, one of the largest timber operators on the west coast and perhaps in Canada, had said that within 20 or 30 years we shall face an extreme timber shortage. I say that we ought to be concerned about conserving our resources and our mining resources in particular. We ought to develop our mineral resources in an orderly way so that ultimately we do not create ghost towns with their dislocated families and so on. If the minister's department has not taken positive action in this field, it ought to do so.
I was interested to hear that the department is to be involved in Arctic exploration. This is a move in the right direction. In view of the fact that many of our oil fields are not producing at their potential capacity and that we
March 22. 1968
7962	COMMONS
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources allegedly have unlimited reserves in the Athabasca tar sands, it may be some years before the Arctic area will be developed.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The minister said something about air pollution. As I recall, he tied it in with water pollution. But I should like to remind the minister that where there is air pollution soil pollution and water pollution follow. In the area from which I come air pollution has killed trees and vegetation for miles around. The soil was poisoned and this poisoned soil wound up in our streams with the result that our streams too are polluted. The city of Sudbury faced a serious pollution problem two years ago when the city water was not fit to drink. I am sure the cause of this water pollution was originally the pollution of the air. It cost the taxpayers of Sudbury a great deal of money because the water had to be treated. I am not sure whether it is still being treated. I know it had to be treated for some months, and even if it has not been necessary to continue treatment during the winter I believe treatment measures will have to be resumed again this spring.
There is one aspect of water pollution with which the federal government is directly concerned. Some time ago I spoke on the ten o'clock show about the water pollution in the Elliot Lake and Bancroft areas. I referred particularly to conditions in the Elliot Lake area because I had visited that area myself and seen what was happening at first hand. I based my short speech at that time on a report known as the report on radiological water pollution in the Elliot Lake and Bancroft areas, presented, I understand, by a deputy ministers' committee of the provincial government. One of the statements made in that report is as follows:
It now appears that provincial statutes are inoperative in view of the overriding authority assigned to federal agencies under the Atomic Energy Control Act.
I may be wrong but I believe the responsibility for the administration of that act comes within the duties of the minister. Recently I received a complaint from an individual with respect to what is happening at a new uranium mine opened between Sudbury and the Elliot Lake area. I had firmly intended to visit this area myself and perhaps to make a report to the minister, but as yet I have not had an opportunity to do so. The man who wrote to me said that nothing had been done to dam an effluent from this mine which was flowing directly into a creek known as John


creek which in turn flows into Agnew lake. I understand that this is one of the best fishing grounds in the region. I have only this gentleman's word for what is happening but I believe I can rely on it. I hope to go there myself in the next two or three days to see what the situation is and I shall certainly bring this matter to the minister's attention if what is asserted is correct.
Let me say at this point that when I was making a tour of the Elliot Lake area I was told that Quirke lake, which not many years ago was one of the best fishing spots in that region, no longer held fish because of carelessness in damming effluents from various mining operations. I also heard that the Serpent river and its tributaries, as well as the lakes through which they flow, are almost devoid of fish. This is a serious situation and it concerns an aspect of pollution which closely involves the department.
I have the impression that arrangements for inspection in connection with this kind of pollution are very poor. Indeed, I believe on some authority that this is the case. I have visited a number of mine properties and it was evident that in many cases only a halfhearted effort had been made to do something about disposing of the waste from mining operations. In fact it is pointed out in the report to which I have referred that in some cases intervention was necessary to ensure that proper damming was carried out. In other cases no action was taken simply because the mines had been closed. We should bear in mind, however, the possibility that many of these mines will be re-opened. If this happens something positive should be done to ensure there is no further pollution of the kind I have described.
The effect of this type of pollution on an individual exposed to it is still obscure. This is another aspect which was brought out in the report to which I have referred. The committee said that more research work was needed before one could properly estimate just what harm was done to individuals working in the affected area or drinking the contaminated water.
I could go on and on talking about air pollution, but I shall leave the subject for my hon. friend from Sudbury because he is a little closer to those tall stacks than I am, though I do not think he gets as much of the sulphur dioxide as I do, 21 miles away, and perhaps not quite as much damage is done to
March 22, 1988
the plants and gardens where he lives. I know there is considerable difference of opinion as to where jurisdiction lies, but it is my hope that the minister will yet provide the leadership which is required. Air pollution is something with which we are only too familiar in the Sudbury area, but without saying anything further I shall leave the subject. I think my hon. friend has something to say with regard to it and I wish to give him every opportunity.
I was somewhat heartened by the few words the minister had to say. I believe he is sincere and that he will try to do what needs to be done. But I am concerned over the possibility of conflict between different levels of government, particularly as this would affect air pollution control, one area in which the federal government has to show leadership.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Barry Mather: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words about a subject the minister touched on which is of particular significance to many people in British Columbia. It is the long awaited and extremely important Fraser river flood control project. I wish to do two things briefly. One is to give some praise and credit to the minister for what I know he has done to bring agreement with British Columbia nearer to completion. The other is to encourage his colleagues, or those of them who may be present this afternoon, to support him in concluding the agreement.
As the minister has said, this project involves many millions of dollars. The idea for the project goes back about 15 or 20 years. I hope that with co-operation between the federal government and the British Columbian government we shall actually see the agreement put into effect this year and flood control on a comprehensive basis begin in the lower mainland of British Columbia. I use the words "lower mainland of British Columbia" because it is through that area that the Fraser river flows and it is in that area that all too often flooding has taken its toll.
In British Columbia there are approximately 2 million people. Half of them live and work on less than one half of one per cent of the land area of the province, which in round terms encompasses the lower mainland of British Columbia. When the Fraser river running through that area, through the municipalities of Langley, Surrey and Delta and past the city of New Westminster, floods, the economic consequences to the people, the
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources farmlands and the industries in the area run into millions of dollars.
There are two types of floods to which the area is subjected. One is winter flooding which particularly effects the municipalities of Langley and Surrey. The ground level flooding resulting from water coming down from the higher areas of the valley, the much less diked area of the valley, covers thousands of acres. I have seen photographs taken in the 1920's, 30's, 40's and 50's showing the effect of this flooding. Recently I saw photographs taken only a month ago showing its effect. Every winter thousands of acres are under water as a result of faulty drainage and lack of flood control in that part of the valley.
The other type of flood is the more spectacular one which threatens almost every spring. Hon. members may recall that last spring people in British Columbia felt that flooding was imminent and that it might result in a major disaster such as they had experienced in previous years. However, as it turned out there was no major flood. But there is no guarantee that there will not be one in any given year. This type of flood results from the melting snow in the upper areas coming into the river with the result that it overflows its banks. The economic losses from both types of floods can run into large sums of money, affecting a great number of people.
Many industries are concerned about the flood problem. The only regret I have is that this comprehensive co-ordinated plan among the federal, provincial and municipal administrations to grapple with the flood problem has taken so many years to come to fruition. I think inflation has resulted in a financial erosion in the last seven or eight years equal to the effect of a major flood in the lower valley. The original plan contemplated doing what the new plan aims to do in a bigger way and would have cost much less seven or eight years ago than the expenditure required now. At any rate, as I said, I merely want to commend the minister for reaching an agreement on action to combat the floods and I encourage his colleagues to give him every support.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the business of the house, but I would still like to remind the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) of the problem I have repeatedly brought up in

7964	COMMONS
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources this house in the last tour years, and ask him what decision his department has reached in this regard.
We know that the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is responsible for the boundaries between the various provinces and the Northwest Territories. We also know that in the last few months the hon. minister has introduced bills in this house to delineate the boundaries between Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and the Northwest Territories.
On those occasions, I suggested to the minister that the same thing should be done for Quebec, in particular as regards the islands surrounding Quebec which are twelve miles distant from the Quebec shore.
The minister knows that this problem interests many people in Quebec; no doubt he has read the book by Mr. Michel Brochu, geography professor at the Ecole des hautes etudes commerciales. Besides, the minister knows that this is a problem that should be settled.
If the minister will also take the trouble of rereading some answers given in 1963, I think, before a standing committee of this house, he will realize that, at that time, the representative of the Northwest Territories had no objections at all to new boundary lines between Quebec and the Northwest Territories. These boundary lines would leave with Quebec the islands surrounding the province and located twelve miles from the shore at low tide.
Mr. Chairman, I should just like to ask the hon. minister whether he would tell us what the intentions of his department are on that subject? Does the hon. minister intend to introduce very soon a piece of legislation, as he did for the other provinces, so as to set the boundary lines between Quebec and the Northwest Territories? Could the hon. minister give us his viewpoint in that respect and tell us briefly what his department intends to do about this.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I will answer the last question of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire).
Like the hon. member, I am interested in clarifying the physical borders as well as the intellectual borders.
I am deeply interested in the problem raised by the hon. member of Lapointe on many occasions in this house, with regard to the boundary lines between the Northwest Territories and the province of Quebec.

DEBATES	March 22, 1968
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I have asked the department to provide me with a report on the matter. It has been completed and it is on my desk. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to examine it, but I will do so during the next few weeks and I will see afterwards what can be done about it.
By the way, I would like to remind the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) that, to proceed in such a way, the federal government represented by my department would have to obtain the consent of the province or provinces in question. Under the circumstances, the province of Quebec would have to agree with the federal government -if such were the case-representing the Northwest Territories and an agreement would have to be signed, in order to proceed to a more exact determination of the boundary lines. It is not a matter of determining boundaries but of specifying more precisely where the boundary lines run. I will consider this problem further and I will have the opportunity, in a few weeks, either in reply to a question or otherwise, to give an answer to the hon. member.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. minister allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate him? I see that he has done a good job, that he has been actively concerned with this problem and I want to congratulate him also on his work in his department.
In concluding my remarks, I would simply like to add this. I notice that the minister told us that the report is now ready, that he must study it and that he is waiting for the province of Quebec to show that it is also interested in dealing with that problem. Now that it has become a matter of public knowledge, the government of Quebec will have to show interest. I think that it is, in fact, quite interested in this matter and that it will take steps to sign agreements with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I hope all these efforts will be successful.
I wish to congratulate the minister on the interest he has shown and the work he has done in this regard.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member for Lapointe is being nice today, I will even consider letting him see the document which is on my desk.


Gilles Grégoire: I thank the minister, Mr. Chairman.
March 22, 19G8


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, at the same time perhaps I might reply to the previous speakers. I do not have much to say in answer to my friend the hon. member for New Westminster because his address was mostly informational and complimentary. I should like to pass the compliments on to my officials, as I believe every good minister should. I should also like to pay a compliment to Mr. Willis-ton, the minister of lands, forests and water resources of the province of British Columbia. Often it is said that there are difficulties in federal-provincial relations. It is not often said that there also is a tremendous amount of good co-operation at the political and official level. Unfortunately what appears in the news reports is information concerning the clashes, while what does not appear in the headlines is the tremendous amount of cooperation that exists. This is regrettable, and I thought this would be a good opportunity to make the observation.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt made three main points. The first had to do with information in respect of mineral resources. I do not wish to labour the problem with regard to jurisdictional divisions because he is just as much aware of this as I am. The hon. member is also aware that the federal jurisdiction in respect of mining is a limited one. Besides scientific research and the administration of a few mineral acts, the officials of my department are mainly involved in the preparation of economic analysis for trade purposes, internal and international.
I think it is well known in Canada that we have in the department of Energy, Mines and Resources one of the best groups of mineral development analysts. For example, numerous articles describing the situation with regard to these resources and the trade possibilities are published every year by the department. While reading mineral magazines I sometimes have the impression-of course exagerated-that most of the writers in that field are members of my department. They are doing an extremely worthwhile job in keeping the industry and the public informed of the situation in the industry. Some of these articles appear under my name. It is obvious that I do not write them. They emanate from my department, and that is the reason why they are so good.
The information which is used is obtained from D.B.S. reports, annual reports of companies, correspondence with the companies, and
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources in some instances from visits, inquiries and investigations. As my hon. friend knows there are a number of assistance programs administered by the department, for example the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. In carrying out their duties in these cases the officials of the department do more than merely inquire; they go around and visit the mines in order to obtain the information they require for the proper administration of the laws.
Another point raised by the hon. member had to do with pollution in the Elliot Lake area, as a result I believe of the nuclear energy development. As he said, this comes under the jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Control Board, which has limited personnel. For the purpose of carrying out its investigations this board wherever possible uses the existing facilities of the provincial health departments. I am quite sure my hon. friend would not like the Atomic Energy Control Board to double up on the services offered by the provinces. I have followed the development of the previous cases in which there has been federal-provincial co-operation. However, I am not familiar with the specific case the hon. member now raises. I will inform myself on this and be in touch with him in that regard.
On the question of pollution in general, and air pollution in particular in respect of which the hon. member placed a good deal of emphasis, may I say it sometimes seems that my hon. friends regard me as being the minister responsible for all water pollution, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare as being the minister responsible for all air pollution in our country. To a degree I am passing the buck, because my department has a responsibility over resources in general. I agree with the hon. member that sooner or later the federal and provincial governments must take an over-all approach to the problem of pollution-air, water and land. This will have to be done because there is an obvious inter-relationship between the different types of pollution.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has stated that he is interested in presenting a "clean air" bill, and this, I am told is being prepared. In addition, as is well known a "water bill" administered by my department, will be introduced soon in the house. I believe we should proceed with what is most urgent, according to all the experts who have freely expressed opinions on this
March 22, 1968

Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources subject. They all believe that the most urgent aspect of the pollution problem is that which pertains to water. Then we could proceed to bring together the other aspects of pollution in what might be an environmental bill.
It is not necessary for me to remind my hon. friend that we are in a situation which involves a divided, shared, or overlapping jurisdiction. This is frequently ignored by members of the New Democratic party. I listened yesterday to one member who suggested that we should not be bothered by constitutional difficulties. That is easy to say but dangerous to do.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I believe all my hon. friends, especially those who sit opposite, but far to my right, will agree that the federal system is the only one under which this country can live politically. If one is to have that system of government, then its disadvantages as well as its advantages must be recognized. If we had had a unitary form of government in Canada we would have had also many troubles of course different from the ones we have now. It is vital that we recognize that we have divided jurisdiction in water matters, that the federal government has some responsibilities and that the provinces have some also. Having recognized this, we have to add immediately that unless the two levels of government get together, hardly anything will be done, because each level of government has the ability of preventing the other level from acting. This is what I have been repeating all along-and I think it is correct-that divided jurisdiction in this country is not un pis aller, as we say in French, or a second best; it is the only way to go, there is no other way to act under our federal system.
This is the mystique, if I may be lyrical for a few seconds, that has to be created, namely that there has to be federal-provincial cooperation because it is the only way to do things in this country in many areas of government activities, if not in most. Unless we are adult enough, mature enough to understand that, we will create all kinds of unnecessary troubles and will slow down our economic and political development.
Again I repeat that in the field of pollution the main responsibility is with the provinces. Hen. members may very well come back to me and say that air has a tendency to move from one province to another, and they may show me a map which illustrates that water has a tendency to move from one province to


another and both air and water seem to ignore the constitutional system, but that does not change the fact that we have in Canada a divided jurisdiction in water matters.
While I am very willing to accept some of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Nickel Belt, I should also like to remind him that some of his friends in Toronto, and some of mine in Quebec city, should exercise pressure where it should be exercised in the first place. I am almost fanatical, if one can be fanatical about something of this kind, in building up with the provinces the policies of co-ordination which are very necessary in the whole field of resources development. Again may I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that this is the only way in which we can accomplish important things.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, does the minister not agree that we have some responsibility in this house to urge and prod as we see necessary in order that the government may take its part in this federal state about which the minister has been speaking?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Agreed.


Norman Edward Fawcett: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to make another speech. I would just like to assure the minister that I was not trying to blame him or the Minister of National Health and Welfare for water and air pollution. I realize that jurisdictional problems are involved in these questions, and indeed I referred to them. My first question is the one in which I am most interested. I believe the minister answered in the negative and said it was impossible to obtain information from the mining companies with respect to their potential in given areas. I would like to know whether there is a yes or no in that answer. Is it a fact that it is impossible to obtain information from mining companies as to the potential of the areas in which they are operating?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I do not know about the details of every plant in this country, but there are ways and means by which the government gets to know about these things. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics, for example, distributes a tremendous amount of information, and my department gains a great deal of information through the investigations and visits to which I have referred. If you want to be dramatic about it, if you really need the information, we can always contact,
March 22, 1988	COMMONS
I presume, the Department of National Revenue which is a good source of information. But I do not think there is an atmosphere of mistrust between the government and industry in Canada. My visits to different industries, mining areas, gas and petroleum fields, and the like, have convinced me that there is a tremendous amount of good will on the part of industry toward the department. And vice-versa. It is, of course, easier to get information when you send a cheque, and I presume we may have gathered more information with regard to coal and gold, because of the assistance provided to those industries, than we have with regard to nickel, lead and zinc. But this is only a suggestion. I think we are well informed with regard to all minerals.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the minister on his summary of the operations of the department. I consider that this department has functioned very well since the changeover. I am one of those who came to the parliament of Canada from the mining industry, and when I came I was very surprised that the then department of mines and resources really did not have anything to do with mines, and very little to do with resources. It was a very archaic operation.
I hope that the recent additions to the minister's staff will not provide the kind of pollutant that we are trying to get rid of, and which plagued two other departments recently. I hope the minister will be able to continue the type of development in which he is engaged. His department is very important to the province of Ontario from which I come, and we have been very pleased with the development that has taken place. I have been interested in the work the department has done in regard to the development of minerals, particularly in the Arctic and off the northern coasts of Canada. I have also been interested in following the developments on the polar and continental shelves.
I believe the remarks made by my colleagues the hon. members for Timmins and Nickel Belt indicate that a tremendous amount of mineral resources will be made available to Canada. As development takes place in our outlying areas we will find that these natural resources are one of the basic sources of wealth of this nation. For this reason I am pleased by the work being undertaken by the department. The amalgamation in the department of mines with respect to the treating and processing carried out in
DEBATES	7987
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources various forms of mining has been very helpful. The people in my area are very appreciative of the work done by a previous deputy minister in the development of improved methods in the processing of the iron ore of the area in order to make it an economic product. The federal mines department did a great deal of work in this area.
I have also been very interested in the remarks of the minister over the months. In my opinion he has proven to be a very capable and progressive young minister. Because he is a capable and progressive minister I made the remarks that I did a few moments ago. I have seen other departments suffer because they have not been as fortunate as his. I do not say there is any similarity between the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, because obviously they are two different people, but they are handling two departments which I think have a great deal in common, and there is a certain amount of overlapping in them.
I agree with the minister that there is a division of responsibility in this field. We have a federal state and therefore a problem with the division of jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments. These problems do not necessarily arise out of our constitution but from the British North America Act, which in my opinion is amendable. That, however, is not the point I wish to make. If the minister sincerely believes that a program should be undertaken, it probably could be undertaken if the federal government gave leadership. The programs in which the federal government has given leadership over the years have been pretty broad and fairly progressive.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
With regard to programs where we have sat back and waited for the federal government to co-operate with the provincial governments, such as the area development program, we have found that the provincial authorities either did not have the resources or did not have the foresight and the vision which would allow them to go beyond the established area. This is a field in which the federal government has a very good record.
The minister mentioned his responsibility in the realm of water. I was surprised, when I sat on a committee which was discussing the water level of the Great Lakes, to learn that there were approximately 15 departments in the Ontario provincial government
March 22, 1968


Mr. Cowan:: Would the hon. member permit a question? I should like to ask him which minister said that the pollution of the Ottawa river is a disgrace, and how did he propose to correct it when he becomes the leader of the Liberal party? Did he explain why he does not do something about it now?


William Arnold Peters: I suggest the solution is much easier for the candidate than it will be for the next prime minister of Canada. I am not suggesting that election promises, even those made by Liberal members, will necessarily be kept. I was just pleased to learn that he knew it was a problem.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I should like to refer to the Ottawa river watershed, which has been of great interest to me. I have been concerned with another department in connection with this matter because we seem to have no control over that waterway at all. There are 500,000 cords of pulpwood driven on lake Timiskaming, and this is a very important industry in northern Quebec as well as on the Ontario side. We have not been able to control the driving of the logs simply because the season extends over a long period of time. This is not really a river drive. The logs are hauled by tug and therefore it takes all summer to haul the quantity of logs that has to be hauled.
What really concerns me is the fluctuation in the river level, because that is associated
27053-502i
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources with pollution in the area. On occasion the drains from the towns along the waterway are exposed to the air and one can see the raw sewage being dumped into the lake. I presume the minister was referring to the Ontario water resources branch when he said that occasionally we do not get the co-operation from Toronto that we should get. I felt that way myself when they insisted that I make a number of expansive changes where I live on the lake, but neglected the municipalities along the lake. It did not seem to me I was contributing to that problem nearly as much as they were.
Over the years there have been so many different changes in the act that Ontario Hydro and Quebec Hydro have been permitted to do certain things. For example the Department of Public Works allowed Quebec Hydro to open the new dam to allow a certain amount of water out, but they did not tell the power company when to shut it off. By the time the week end was over, the water level had risen 14 inches. Nobody really controls the thing. No one considers what is going to happen in Ottawa or the other areas below the dam. There has to be some control, but no control has been developed to this date.
I should like to say a word or two about the mapping service. This is an area in which I believe Canada is a long distance ahead of most other countries in the world. We have the longest shore line in the world and probably the largest uninhabited territory in the world. The mapping facilities we have been able to develop in Canada are second to none. The reproduction machinery we use for map compilation is probably as good as has been developed. I understand that many countries are interested in the technology we have been able to develop in this field.
Perhaps this is an area the minister could consider when we are talking about assistance to foreign countries. I had the opportunity of discussing with several cabinet ministers of countries in East Africa, the way in which Canada could be of assistance to those countries. Since many Canadians are reluctant to make a general contribution in the form of external aid but are willing to provide technical assistance, and since one of the problems of these countries is their inability to develop a mapping service to make surveys of the potential of their countries, I was wondering if the minister would give some consideration to making some of our people available to these countries. This would enable them to
March 22, 1968

Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources take advantage of the techniques we have developed to a very high degree.
The last point I should like to mention, Mr. Chairman, is the roads to resources program. I should like to ask the minister to extend this program this year. I have said that the work being done in remote areas by the federal government and by provincial governments in this field has been very extensive. When I look back at the history of northern Ontario, I am always impressed to find that when the initial survey crews went through northern Ontario before the turn of the cen-try, about 1886, they made an assessment of the potential of northern Ontario in resource materials.
It is interesting to note that during that short period of time, probably not more than two years, the ten crews surveyed the whole potential of northern Ontario. They made a catalogue of the many resources of the area. Since that time both the federal department of mines and the provincial authorities have completed the catalogue. It is interesting to note that this survey of northern Ontario not only pinpointed where the mines were going to be, but where townships were going to be developed that would be suitable for cultivation. This is surprising when you recall that these areas were all covered with timber at the time. The townships indicated on the survey are almost identical with the farming areas and townships that exist today. The mineral areas were pointed out long before silver was found at Cobalt or gold at Kirkland Lake.
This roads to resources program is not the haphazard development it may seem. When we agree to a roads to resources project, we are not taking a chance on the development of some resource as a result of the implementation of that project. We are fairly sure, as a result of the outline that has been given by the geologists and other members of the mines branch. I hope therefore the minister will extend the life of the roads to resources program. I am aware of the fact that anomalies are produced. I am sure one of them will be the new road to resources from Timmins to Sudbury, which is being developed. It seems that if somebody has a friend about 20 miles off the route, the road is made to curve in that direction. The road may just as easily lead to resources 20 miles off the straight line as it would in a staight line, but I suggest the government should leave a little bit of the development to the entrepreneur. I consider that Brown Industries have enough money to

look after themselves. I suggest that the route of roads to resources be plotted from the minister's point of view, rather than from that of the interests it may serve. We should look at it in a fairly detached light.
At a later point I should like to say something about the Gold Mining Emergency Assistance Act and the problems connected with it. Perhaps the result of such a discussion will be a blueprint for the mining industry for the next two year period, that will enable that industry to make decisions.


Mr. Germa:: saying that the fish were received in good condition, but that the stuff was inedible because it tasted of some carbolic substance. That taste could be attributed directly to the pulp mill operation 50 miles from the Great Lakes.
So, clearly, if the minister has a responsibility to protect the Great Lakes he ought to extend his jurisdiction 50 miles from the Great Lakes shoreline. It is no good saying: Federal jurisdiction ends at the shoreline, and beyond that you are under provincial jurisdiction. Great Lakes water comes from the streams that feed the Great Lakes. I think this matter ought to be pursued with the provinces and pressure ought to be applied to clean our water.
The minister probably does not know that even though the fishermen and camp owners on the Spanish river obtained a court injunction against the then Kalamazoo Vegetable Parchment Company, the then premier of Ontario brought in special legislation giving Kalamazoo the special privilege to pollute the river. Understandably, on resigning that premier was appointed to the Kalamazoo board of directors. I believe at that time he was appointed to the boards of 17 different corporations.
I want to bring to the minister's attention a communication I received. I believe the minister also received a copy of it because his name appears on the long list of recipients. The letter in question was from a Mr. William R. Warnick, a professional engineer of R.R. 2, Lowbanks, Ontario, and in it he talks about the fertilizer plant near Dunnville, Ontario, which received wide publicity as a result of a C.B.C. program to do with fluoride pollution. The writer says that 12 tons of fluoride every day find their way to the lake Ontario area. He says that about 4,639 tons, or about 36 million pounds per year, are dumped. The writer's figures show that about 200 box carloads of fluoride every year find their way into the Great Lakes system. Fluoride flows down a number of creeks and the Grand river to the Great Lakes. I know that the water at Niagara Falls is polluted. One has only to walk on the street in Niagara Falls near the escarpment to know that the Great Lakes are polluted; you can smell the pollution as the mist passes over you. For many years our policy toward water in Canada was called the two stream policy by the medical officer of health for Sudbury: There was the downstream and there was the upstream. The lucky people lived upstream
March 22, 1968

and the unlucky ones lived downstream. This worked pretty well when we were a very young nation with a small population. But today almost everyone lives downstream from someone else, so this policy has to be changed.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The minister mentioned a possible amendment to the Income Tax Act under which industry would be allowed a tax write-off in connection with money spent on pollution control equipment. It is debatable whether this would be a good policy because its application would mean we were asking the people of Canada to make a donation to enable industry to instal anti-pollution equipment, and I do not think this is a fair charge against the public.
I believe the cost of installing anti-pollution equipment is a fair charge against the profits of the company developing the resources. If those resources are worthy of being developed, then all the expenditure properly involved in their development should be borne by whomever is making a profit out of the operation, not by the rest of Canada. I do not see why Canadian citizens should have to subsidize profit making corporations in an area such as this.
In some countries a method of weighing pollution and imposing taxes accordingly has been adopted-the reverse of what has been suggested in this committee. As I pointed out, there is one plant which is dumping 4.8 tons of fluoride into lake Erie every eight hours. Why should we not levy a penalty of so much a ton in respect of the pollution which this plant sees fit to pour into the Great Lakes? The penalty could be $100 or $200 a ton, I do not care how much. But as the pollution is reduced, so would the penalty be reduced.
I understand that an incentive system of this type is in use in one of the most heavily industrialized areas of the world, namely the Ruhr valley. The money collected is used by the government to instal further anti-pollution equipment. In the long run the cost of this equipment is provided by industries contributing to pollution. I would point out that usually the pollution is in direct proportion to the profits a company makes, because if it is not considered necessary to install anti-pollution equipment, profit rises. This is why it is hard to persuade industry to spend money upon equipment which is regarded, in some cases, as non-productive. So instead of the taxpayer having to contribute to the cost
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources of anti-pollution equipment I suggest a penalty tax imposed on a tonnage basis as an incentive to companies to clear up pollution, in order to rid themselves of extra taxation.
The letter I spoke of was addressed to the director of the Ontario water resources commission and in it the writer asks a total of 33 questions. I wonder whether the minister has taken the time to read this letter and whether he has replied to those questions which concern his jurisdiction. I do not intend to read out the 33 questions but I believe the minister should consider this letter and perhaps give an answer to some of the questions-for instance, to question No. 24 which asks whether there is any truth in rumours that there have recently been stillbirths in humans, and to question 25:	"Can you
account for my cat bearing her last few litters stillborn and deformed?"
Mr. Chairman, when we hear of animals being stillborn and deformed it is time we began to investigate. I have no doubt that human beings can endure more of these poisons than can small animals such as cats, but eventually the concentration builds up until it reaches a point where harm is done.
With these few words I would ask the minister to consider what I have said, especially about the cost of pollution abatement equipment needed by industry. I sincerely believe this should be a legitimate charge against industry and not a charge against the taxpayers of Canada.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, it seems that it might be possible to pass the supplementary estimates for National Defence which represent salaries. We need those votes to complete this month's pay. I understand that both sides would agree to passing these at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is correct that there have been conversations on this point, and the minister has described the position as we understand it. We suggest that the item we are now discussing under the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources be allowed to stand and that the National Defence items be called and agreed to without debate.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: That is agreeable to us, provided it is without debate.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Does the committee agree that the supplementary estimates of the Department of Energy, Mines

March 22, 1968
Immigration Act
and Resources be allowed to stand and that the supplementary estimates of the Department of National Defence be now considered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence Services-[DOT]
15c. Operation and Maintenance and Construction or Acquisition of Buildings, Works, Land and Major Equipment and Development for the Canadian Forces, $58,769,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Defence Research-
35c. Research Satellite Program-To provide for the design and instrumentation of a series of satellites to carry out a scientific research program agreed upon jointly by the United States National Aeronautical and Space Administration and the Defence Research Board, $500,000.
Item agreed to.
Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: As far as we are concerned we are prepared to go ahead and complete the others.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think it is five o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Jean-Luc Pepin: 
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of private business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-28 an act to amend the Criminal Code (Capital Punishment, Form of Sentence)-Mr. Cowan.
Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to stand discussion of Bill C-28 provided it does not lose its position for discussion next Friday afternoon, or the following Friday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that Bill C-28 retains its position on the order paper for next Friday or the following Friday?
Seme hon. Members: Agreed.
[The Assistant Deputy Chairman.]



IMMIGRATION ACT


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-30, to amend the Immigration Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this proposed amendment is to give permanent status under the Immigration Act to immigrants who have suffered from a mental disease or disorder but who apparently have been cured. Persons who have been convicted of and imprisoned for crimes are granted permanent status after a period during which they have demonstrated their rehabilitation. Under the present provision of the act persons who have ever suffered a mental illness are not given a like opportunity to prove their recovery.
In the white paper on immigration the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) has in fact recognized the sheer discrimination contained in the present regulations by indicating the government's general intention. At page 24, paragraph 58, the white paper contains the following statement:
Scientific knowledge and medical skill have reduced substantially the element of risk once inherent in certain illnesses. The present grounds for prohibition do not altogether reflect this advance. Nor are they altogether in line with modern medical and sociological concepts, particularly in respect to mental illness and epilepsy. Persons actually insane or suffering from contagious or infectious diseases ought not to be admitted as immigrants or non-immigrants, unless they are coming to Canada by previous arrangement and under proper safeguards to take treatment. However, an illness that has been cured or brought under control, to the point where no danger to public health or safety exists, should not be a bar to either temporary or permanent admission. Nor should mental or physical defectives be excluded for that reason alone, but only if they represent a danger to society or are not assured of private care.
I am now very pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has indicated to me that he approves the general intent of this bill. He agrees with me that one of the most urgent needs for change in the Immigration Act is the removal of that section which authorizes the minister to issue a deportation order on a legally entered immigrant if the said immigrant should have the misfortune to enter a mental home.
At present, under the Immigration Act, a landed immigrant who has the misfortune to be admitted to a mental hospital is immediately placed under deportation order, and this order is not removed after the patient has
March 22, 1968

been discharged from hospital fully recovered, even though he may enjoy many years of good health and never suffer a relapse.
This is a total disregard of justice, for even though the unfortunate individual has completely recovered from his mental illness he cannot recover his status as a landed immigrant. Although he may live an honourable life, reaching old age, he cannot qualify for citizenship because the act as it stands does not give the minister the power to remove the deportation order.
The fact that a deportation order is never acted upon in instances such as this does not alter the fact of this outmoded legislation, which is the worst encroachment on the rights of individuals ever to be put on the statute books of Canada. For many years I have viewed with alarm the retention of the present provisions of section 5 of the Immigration Act dealing with insanity, and I am thankful that we have been promised the removal of these provisions. Immigrants who have suffered from a mental disorder and who have been discharged as cured from a mental hospital, if all other qualifications required under the Citizenship Act are met, should not be denied Canadian citizenship.
I know of cases of persons right now who are unable to qualify for Canadian citizenship because of this monstrous section in the Immigration Act. These unfortunate individuals, with families, directing their own businesses, even employers of labour, suffered a nervous breakdown and had to undergo treatment in an Ontario mental institution for a period of months, but they were later discharged as cured and they have never suffered a recurrence of the disease.
Until this legislation is amended not only is such a person unable to qualify for Canadian citizenship but he cannot leave the country, say, to visit his homeland, which is a perfectly normal desire, for if he were to do so he would find himself in the prohibited class of persons who could never re-enter the country.
Now, sir, I wish to give you some of the details of a case in my own constituency. Without requiring lengthy consideration, any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that here was a case of unparalleled inconsistency in government legislation. In 1954 an order of deportation was issued against a man in my constituency, whose name for obvious reasons I shall not divulge; but the facts are all too true. Two and a half years after his arrival in Canada from Italy he was confined in the Ontario Hospital at Port Arthur for a
Immigration Act
period of two months, following a nervous breakdown. After his discharge from hospital he continued to work for various companies, including the Canada Car Company of Fort William, until 1957, when he accepted a position with the Marathon Corporation of Canada. Then in 1961 he started a business of his own, which he still operates, employing three other persons. At about this time he applied for Canadian citizenship, but was of course rejected.
When the present government took office in April, 1963, this fellow appealed to me for help to obtain his Canadian citizenship. Although I received a sympathetic response from the department, my representations on his behalf met with no more success than his previous attempts. Nevertheless I kept at it in the hope that surely there would be a breakthrough in this unjust regulation, and today I am pleased to say that this breakthrough has occurred, or is about to occur.
I personally appealed to the then deputy minister of citizenship and immigration, and on March 26, 1964, I received a reply from which I wish to quote in part as follows:
I have reviewed the immigration branch file concerning your constituent, which indicates that he was granted landed immigrant status in May, 1951. He was getting along satisfactorily but unfortunately, in August, 1953, he became ill and was committed to the Ontario Hospital at Fort William. He was discharged after a short time but within a matter of days was returned to the hospital where he remained for over a year.
Full particulars of the case were referred to the immigration medical advisers who diagnosed his condition as "schizophrenia catatonic type". An immigration inquiry was held and in February, 1954, his deportation was ordered on the grounds that he had become an inmate of a hospital for mental diseases. Although his appeal was dismissed, as he had been discharged from the hospital and had resumed his employment, deportation proceedings were deferred indefinitely.
e (5:10 p.m.)
Over the years, this individual has called periodically at the immigration office in Fort William, in an effort to have his landed immigrant status restored. Unfortunately, his history of mental illness places him within the categories of persons whose admission to Canada is prohibited by statute. Under the present Immigration Act there is no provision for removing him from the prohibited classes and unless legislation is passed to change this situation no action can be taken towards his landing.
No unfavourable reports have been received concerning this individual and you may assure him that in his present circumstances he may be allowed to remain in this country indefinitely under deferred deportation proceedings. You might also wish to advise him that the immigration officials will review this matter from time to time and that if any change occurs which would allow for

March 22, 1968
Immigration Act
restoration of his status, his case will he considered.
In view of your interest I am sorry that my reply is not more encouraging. Yours sincerely.
On March 30, 1964, I replied to the deputy minister as follows:
Your letter of March 26th dealing with the case of the owner of an insurance and travel agency and resident of the city of Fort William is one which requires further explanation.
This individual was granted landed immigrant status in May 1951. According to your own statement, he was getting along fine. He was a good worker and I have the testimony of the firms he worked for.
In August 1953 he suffered a nervous breakdown, and was admitted to the Ontario Hospital at Port Arthur, Ontario. A few days later he left the hospital, to return for several months.
Because he was an immigrant, without a certificate of citizenship, the case was brought to the attention of the Immigration Department, the officials of which ordered his deportation on the grounds that he had become an inmate of a mental hospital. He appealed the deportation order, which was dismissed. However, as he had been discharged from the hospital and had returned to work, deportation proceedings were suspended.
Since 1954 he repeatedly visited the Immigration Office at Fort William, in an effort to have his landed immigrant status restored to enable him to apply for and obtain Canadian citizenship; this has been denied to him.
In your letter you state that, under the present Immigration Act, there is no provision for removing him from the prohibited classes and, unless legislation is passed to change present regulations, no action can be taken to have his deportation order removed.
In the next paragraph of your letter you state that no unfavourable reports have been received concerning this man and that, in his present circumstances, he may be allowed to remain in this country indefinitely under deferred deportation proceedings.
In the same paragraph you state the Immigration officials will review this matter from time to time, and if any change occurs which would allow for restoration of his status, his case will be considered
What is there to review, may I ask, when the man has been absolutely normal for ten years?
I have spoken personally to the priest whose church he attends regularly. I have questioned people who know him and respect him, none of whom had even the slightest idea that he had been a mental case.
I look upon the disposition of this case by your department as being highly unsatisfactory, and I would ask you to be good enough to have an inquiry made by some competent person, as soon as possible.
On May 7, 1964, I received the following memorandum from the deputy minister:
As the result of your letter of March 30th and our subsequent telephone conversation, I have prepared a full report concerning all the circumstances in the case of the individual who has been allowed to remain in Canada under deferred deportation proceedings since 1954.

First, let me say that my letter of March 26th is factually correct. Under present legislation there is no provision for removing him from the prohibited classes and as his landed immigrant status cannot be restored, it is proposed to allow him to remain indefinitely under deferred deportation proceedings. His file is brought forward and reviewed periodically along with those of a number of other persons whose situation is identical. This review is carried out so that the cases will not be forgotten and to ensure that if it becomes possible to restore landed immigrant status to these persons, it will be done as quickly as possible.
Let me assure you that all concerned are as dissatisfied as you are with the old fashioned provisions of the act pertaining to mental disorders. I would be very pleased if there were some means by which the minister could exercise discretion to 'land' this individual and with this thought in mind, full particulars of the case have been referred to both the departmental legal adviser and the Department of National Health and Welfare for review.
Our legal adviser has expressed the opinion that the deportation order made against him was arrived at in a regular manner, in accord with the requirements of the Immigration Act and there was no error or irregularity in the proceedings that would afford grounds to quash it. When arrived at regularly in this way there is, of course, no discretion in the minister to quash the order-the minister being required in this respect to obey the law as much as other persons. The legal adviser has expressed the opinion that it is not possible to quash the deportation order.
The National Health and Welfare officials have reviewed the file and according to their report, he was treated in the Ontario Hospital, Fort William, on two occasions-from August 18, 1953, until September 8, 1953, and from September 27, 1953 until November 6, 1953. At each admission the diagnosis was the same-catatonic schizophrenia. Catatonic schizophrenia is a psychotic illness.
They state that 'insanity' is a legal, not a medical term. For practical purposes they regard psychotic illness and insanity as synonymous. Consequently, were he now being examined as an immigrant he would be certifiable under Section 5, s.s. (a) (i) of the Immigration Act for previous insanity (catatonic schizophrenia). The accuracy of the diagnosis in relation to the symptoms upon which it was based leaves no room for manoeuvre.
In their report it is explained that when the Immigration Act was framed, insanity was regarded as an incurable illness. It is now known to be temporary in certain cases. This individual, following successful treatment in 1953, has been well for over ten years and they would consider that the risk of recurrence is very small indeed. The certification under Section 5, s.s. (a) (ii) which would be applicable now would be based upon history alone. It is quite possible that his present condition would permit of no certification at all.
However, Section 5, s.s. (a) (ii) refers to immigrants who have been insane at any time. 'Upgrading' would require the 1953 diagnosis to be shown to be wrong and unfortunately, all the evidence in their possession indicates that it was correct.
I realize that this report is rather lengthy and somewhat involved but I do hope that it will convince you that we have not treated him unfairly
March 22, 1968

and that his landed immigrant status is not being restored because the Immigration Act precludes this action.
Now, Mr. Speaker, one can readily understand what prompted me to introduce this bill, which has been on the order paper for over two years and which I hope the house will approve in principle without delay. I wish to express deep appreciation to the minister and his officials for their co-operation and understanding in respect of this vital question. I also express the hope that everyone present will vote for the passage of this bill.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member resumes his seat I should like to direct a question to him. I was shocked by the callous disregard for the person involved in the letters which the hon. gentleman has received. Is it not the opinion of the hon. member that the very unfortunate attitude of the deputy minister in respect of this unfortunate immigrant is symptomatic of the schyz-ophrenic mind of the deputy minister concerned.


Hubert Badanai: I regret to say to the hon. member that I cannot agree with his definition. The deputy minister was merely following the legislation. It is up to parliament to change the legislation in order that the deputy minister or any other official would be in a position to do something for this person, under the legislation. If this bill should pass, the officials from now on would be a little more sympathetic.


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, the members of the New Democratic party fully support the amendment brought forward by the hon. member. Possibly the reason he has brought this forward is that, having been born in a European country, I believe Italy, since coming to Canada he has experienced some of these problems at first hand in his area, and therefore has become very sensitve to them. No doubt he is very anxious that these problems be cleared up, not only for the benefit of the people whom he represents but also people all across Canada who are in a similar position.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
If the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) were here, he could cite many examples of the same problem that the hon. member has experienced. He could give in detail the results he has obtained in trying to help these people. I also come from a riding in
Immigration Act
which many immigrants live. In the last ten years in particular a number of Italian, Greek, German and central European immigrants have come into my riding. Some of them have had problems which are quite similar to those cited by the hon. member. It gives me pleasure to rise and support this amendment because I also am sensitive to the problem and should like to see the amendment carried.
I was very glad that the hon. member gave the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) full credit in this respect, because the hon. member knows as well as the rest of us that this minister is a man of great compassion and understanding. I do not doubt that this compassion and understanding derives from his training in the labour movement and experience as a former member of the C.C.F. party and the New Democratic party. I am sure that experience had a great deal of influence on him. We are happy to understand that he supports this amendment.
The provisions of this section were probably drafted at a time when there was not a great deal of immigration to Canada. It was probably passed when we had limited immigration to this country. It may be, therefore, that the problem did not arise with such severity as it does today. If I have any criticism of the section and this amendment it is with regard to the word "insane". Hon. members will notice that the section reads in part, "are insane or, if immigrants, have been insane at any time", and so on. The word "insane" is not generally accepted by Canadians today. It connotes something that we do not really like to think about. We have got rid of the title "insane institutions" and call them mental institutions. I would hope there would be a further amendment to the section and the word "insane" changed to the phrase "mental illness", because what the amendment is aimed at is that if a person suffers from mental illness, and through treatment is cured for at least seven years, this indicates that he should be considered to be a proper applicant for Canadian citizenship. We agree wholeheartedly with this principle and would like not only this amendment to be adopted but a change made in respect of the word "insane".
I notice that the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) seconded the motion. I think he could tell us about this problem in dramatic terms, because he comes from a riding in which many European people live. He has probably had similar experiences with regard

March 22, 1968
Immigration Act
to the problems of immigrants. I should also like to think we were big enough and possessed enough understanding to make further amendments in order to deal with these problems.
I am sure hon. members have had the following experience. An applicant has applied for immigration to Canada, he and his wife have passed all the necessary tests, but they had one child who was mentally ill. As a result of the child being insane, in the rough words of the section, the applicant has been refused permission to enter Canada. I have heard of devious methods being employed to overcome this difficulty. The father and mother come into this country with the rest of their children and leave in Europe the young-ester who is suffering from a mental illness. Then they get down on their knees and try to persuade the minister that the youngster should be admitted to this country now or at a later time. I should like to think we were big enough that if this type of case arose the youngster could be brought over here, and even if that child were not granted Canadian citizen status the family could live together and the child could be given the treatment and facilities necessary in order to cure the mental illness. He could later be made a Canadian citizen.
These are some of the improvements that we of the New Democratic party would like to see adopted in our immigration laws. As I said, if our main expert on the subject of immigration was in the house, the hon. member for Greenwood, I think he would be able to explain the problems in more detail and more persuasively than I have. We would like to see this amendment adopted, and other changes made to the legislation so that more applicants for immigration to Canada would be accepted.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we in this group approve of the suggested amendment and have no objection to it. We will not delay its passage by making any lengthy speeches. I just want to commend the hon. member for introducing this bill and the amendment contained therein.


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: of many persons and their families who could make valuable contributions to our country.
I think it can be said that these experts in the field of mental problems feel that the existing immigration law is deficient in three respects. First of all it is medically unsound since the mentally ill do, in many cases, recover. Second, it is inflexible and restrictive because in deciding whether to admit these people we should not confine our consideration to their past illness but take into account many other factors, especially the medical opinion and their family circumstances. Third, the existing prohibition is costly to our country because many qualified people who could contribute something to this country are lost to Canada as a result of this absolute prohibition against immigrants who have been mentally ill, even for a short period of time.
I think it can be said that, subject to an amendment which I intend to move in committee at the request of the sponsor, Bill C-30 will meet with the general approval of the medical associations which gave the joint committee the benefit of their views. Certainly the bill would make the present Immigration Act much more flexible. It does recognize that these unfortunate people who have been afflicted with insanity can recover and make a worth-while contribution to the Canadian community. It allows the governor in council to take into account not only the advice of a medical practitioner but the general circumstances of each individual case.
I realize that the Canadian Mental Health Association was critical of a bill similar to Bill C-30 as it was presented to the house originally. I believe the basis for that criticism has for the most part been met by the revision to Bill C-30 made by its sponsor, and which I will be proposing. It is true it does not speak of mental diseases, but it speaks of symptoms of insanity, which is pretty much the same thing.
As members will recall, the government retained Mr. Joseph Sedgwick, Q.C. to report on immigration law. Part II of his report dated January 27, 1966 and later tabled in the house carried a recommendation on the section of the Immigration Act now under discussion. At page 5 he said:
The provisions of the act dealing with "Prohibited Classes" on grounds of health, should, I think, be reviewed, particularly section 5(a) (ii) which bars persons who "are insane or, if immigrants, have been insane at any time".
Many highly desirable immigrants may have had a mental breakdown which resulted in extended treatment, and even confinement in an
Immigration Act
institution. But such persons may, and often do, make a complete recovery, and if they have recovered their past misfortunes should not be, as it now is, an absolute bar to their admission.
I should like for a moment or two to review the law as it presently exists. First of all I will read section 5(a) of the Immigration Act, chapter 325 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, volume 5. It reads as follows:
No person, other than a person referred to in subsection (2) of section 7, shall be admitted to Canada if he is a member of any of the following classes of persons:
(a)	persons who
(i)	are idiots, imbeciles or morons,
(ii)	are insane or, if immigrants, have been insane at any time,
(iii)	have constitutional psychopathic personalities, or
(iv)	if immigrants, are afflicted with epilepsy;
Then section 7 (2) reads as follows:
In addition to the persons described in subsection (1), the following persons may be allowed to enter and remain in Canada as non-immigrants:
(a)	persons authorized by the minister to enter Canada for treatment and care at any health resort, hospital, sanitarium, asylum or other place or institution for their cure and care and, after entering Canada, while they are actually under such treatment and care;
(b)	persons passing in transit through Canada under escort or guard; and
(c)	holders of a permit.
This last subsection takes us to section 8 of the act which reads as follows:
(1)	The minister may issue a written permit authorizing any person to enter Canada or, being in Canada, to remain therein.
(2)	A permit shall be expressed to be in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months, and during the time that it is in force a permit stays the execution of any deportation order that may have been made against the person concerned.
(3)	The minister may at any time, in writing, extend or cancel a permit.
(4)	The minister may, upon the cancellation or expiration of a permit, make a deportation order respecting the person concerned and such person has no right of appeal from the deportation order and shall be deported as soon as practicable.
(5)	The minister shall submit to parliament within thirty days of the commencement of the first session of parliament in each year a report showing all permits, with particulars thereof, issued during the preceding calendar year.
So we have the situation where wealthy people in Canada can bring in a person who has suffered from a mental illness, temporary or otherwise, and have them hospitalized in Canada under a permit, provided they can make arrangements with the provincial government and can cover the cost which, I understand, is in some cases about $50 a day. Here we have people who in many cases may not recover from their illness, who can come

March 22, 1968
Immigration Act
into Canada-although it is true they may not be able to stay too long-whereas people who have recovered long ago from a temporary mental illness are still barred from coming.
There is a discrimination here, and the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) makes common sense to me and, it appears, does also to all hon. members of the house. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration is fully in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Fort William, which I will be moving at the request of the hon. member. This amendment was drafted after discussion with the minister and the government, and it is one -which is acceptable to the government.
Before I resume my seat perhaps I should advise the house as to the number of permits which have been issued in the last couple of years pertaining to the classes of persons outlined in section 5, and who are permitted to come into Canada under section 8 of the Immigration Act.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
In 1966-67 there were respectively 65 and 72 idiots, imbeciles and morons admitted under section 5 (a) (i) which is the subparagraph before the one we are now seeking to have amended. In those years there were 37 and 41 respectively who were insane at some time. In so far as psychopathic personalities are concerned there were 2 and 6 in those years who were admitted. In 1966 there were 72 admitted who were suffering from epilepsy, and 60 in 1967. The total number of persons admitted in these classes was 176 in 1966, and 179 in 1967.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Yes.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Does the hon. member have any data to show how many were allowed entry who were mentally retarded?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: No, I do not have that figure. Mental retardation is a question of degree, and there may be some under one of these headings who were mentally retarded. However, I do not have a figure which I would regard as being good enough to answer the question specifically. These figures include both immigrants and non-immigrants to Canada, but they are based mainly on immigrants. I hope I will be able to move an amendment during committee consideration of the bill.
[Mr. Ryan.l


Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: I should like to say a few words on this bill. It is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate on a measure moved by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai). I should like to concur in the statement on mental illness made by the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa). I just do not like this term "insane" and I believe some change should be made.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that Canada has always prided itself on keeping families together. No matter what any person may think about immigration policy in the past, in the present or in the future, I hope this policy will be maintained. However, the area mentioned by the hon. member is one area in which we have been lax.
I should like to say a few words on a subject which is not related to mental retardates. In the last few years, under our immigration policy, a large number of university students have come to Canada to work, mostly in agriculture. Some 1,500 have come to the tobacco areas of Norfolk, Oxford, Elgin and Brant from different countries in the world. In view of the present labour situation, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), for whom I have the highest respect, has decided to cut down the number of university students coming to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I should like the minister to take another look at that policy because, of that group coming to Canada, a large number are staying here. In this way we have attained a number of university graduates in Canada, so I believe the minister should take another look at the policy to make sure we get as many into this country as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-
Sylvester Perry Ryan: As I said, Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment to clause 1 of this bill. The amendment does answer, at least in part, the objections of the hon. member for Broadview. The amendment refers to "symptoms of insanity" rather than using the stark term "insanity". The other change is that a medical opinion is required to the effect that the insanity symptoms are not likely to recur. I submit to the committee that this is a reasonable requirement. It does
March 22, 1968

tighten slightly the control of admissions, but that may be a good thing.
I have pleasure in moving, therefore:
That Bill No. C-30 be amended by striking out lines 10 to 17 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"in council upon evidence satisfactory to him, which shall include the evidence of a qualified medical practitioner, that
(A)	for at least seven years immediately preceding the date of his application for admission he has neither been a patient in any hospital for the treatment of his insanity, nor suffered any significant recurrence of the symptoms thereof, and
(B)	the symptoms of his insanity are unlikely to recur."


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Spadina appears to be acceptable with one exception. I notice that in (A) he has included the words ''for at least seven years immediately preceding the date of his application for admission he has neither been a patient in any hospital". I am wondering whether the hon. member would agree to qualify that and insert the word "permanent" patient. Some people who have breakdowns do require outpatient treatment even though they are out working in society after treatment for their illness in hospital. In other words, they could be outpatients rather than inpatients.
One would like to think, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member is referring to a permanent patient. There is this limitation of seven years, and it could easily be suggested that a person is a patient if he is receiving outpatient treatment. As you know, when persons recover from an illness they sometimes have a slight relapse. This usually means they have to go back to hospital for a week end or some short period for shock treatment, or some type of treatment, and this would mean that the seven year period would commence from the time they were discharged from hospital. Surely the hon. member for Spadina does not have that in mind.
Patients in hospital beds are usually sent to the hospital by medical doctors. Then after treatment they are discharged. However, sometimes the discharge is conditional upon their attending the outpatient clinic for further treatment. Therefore I would ask the hon. member to consider this change, in the interests of those who may be placed in this position.


Mr. Haidasz:: Mr. Chairman, in support of this objection might I suggest that the amendment be changed to read "has neither been hospitalized for the treatment of his
Immigration Act
insanity" or mental illness. Perhaps that would be acceptable to the hon. member who proposed the amendment.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Chairman, might I have a minute or two to consider this. There is some difficulty with the words that follow, "nor suffered any significant recurrence of the symptoms thereof". It might well be that if a person went to hospital as an outpatient and took two shock treatments he would be eliminated under this part in any event.
This question has been well considered by the minister of immigration, and I take it by the justice department, and it seems to me that at this point it would be dangerous to insert a word like "permanent". It would be too all embracing. It may go a little too far, even further than the hon. member for Broadview, who has the best intentions in the matter, would like to go.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the latter part of paragraph (A), which says "nor suffered any significant recurrence of the symptoms thereof". It is a question of fact. If a person goes to hospital as an outpatient, it might be for treatment that is determined to have no relationship to mental illness. Or it may be for something so insignificant that it would have very little or no bearing on the decision. If it did, then I would think there would be quite an outcry about it.
If we do find, Mr. Chairman, that there are cases arising which give cause for concern, there is always the remedy of making further amendments. However, I submit to the hon. member for Broadview that we would be taking a great step forward if we were to put the bill through as amended at this point. Knowing he is favourable to the amendment I ask him to support it, even though the bill is not as perfect as he might like.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.
Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I obtain unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions in order to table a document?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to revert to motions?

March 22, 1968
Business of the House


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


William Arnold Peters: What tor?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not appear to be consent.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is for the purpose of tabling the trade agreement between Canada and Rumania.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I ask again whether the house will give unanimous consent to revert to motions.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



TABLING OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN RUMANIA AND CANADA

Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) I should like to table the agreement signed this afternoon between the Socialist Republic of Rumania and Canada. I beg leave to table the trade agreement itself and the
exchange of letters concerning (a) Rumania's purchase undertaking and trading opportunities and (b) an explanation of the provisions of the Canadian customs law relating to the direct shipment required. May I thank the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, might I announce the business for Monday. We will continue with supplementary estimates, but I am not in a position to say which department will come first.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock this house stands adjourned until 2.30 p.m. on the afternoon of Monday next.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]

[Stage Direction]
30c, L66c.

[Stage Direction]
15c, 35c.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 25, 1968