1968-02-07

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of standing committee on transport and communications-Mr. Macaluso.
[Editor's note: The text of the foregoing report apepars in today's Votes and Proceedings.1

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

Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Is the Government of Canada dock at Victoria Beach, Manitoba, restricted as to public access?
2.	If so, (a) is the restriction seasonal, (b) by whom was this restriction enacted and has the federal government made any representations relative to this restriction?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. No restriction of public access for legitimate wharf business.
2.	(a) and (b). Not applicable.


TRAINING COURSES TAKEN BY INDIANS
Mr. Orlikow: 1. How many Indians in each province took courses under the provisions of the Manpower Training Act in each month in the years 1965 1966 and 1967?
2. How many Indians in each province took courses under the provisions of the Technical-Vocational Training Act in each month in the years 1965, 1966 and 1967?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. A
breakdown of monthly figures showing the number of Indians who took courses covered by the Occupational Training for Adults Program, which became effective on April 1, 1967, is not available. However, the following table shows the number of those enrolled in training from April 1, 1967 to November 15,
1967. These figures represent only those Indians who could be identified as such:
Province	Number Enrolled
Maritimes	22
Quebec	317
Ontario	373
Manitoba	353
Saskatchewan	145
Alberta	20
British Columbia and Yukon Territory	98
	Total 1,328
2. The figures in the following table cover Indians in training under programs 5 and 6 of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act. Figures are not available for the other programs under the legislation.
Known	Indian	enrolments	
in TVTA (Programs 5 and 6)			
From April	1, 1964	to April 1	, 19671964-65	1965-66	1966-67Province	TVTA	TVTA	TVTAMaritimes Not available 9	144Quebec	176	113	333Ontario	435	799	1,360Manitoba	171	459	1,845Saskatchewan	35	246	770Alberta	1	40	19No break-	No break-B.C. and Yukon	92	down	downTotal	910	1,666	4,471


APPLICATIONS TO MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Brand: 1.	Have applications and renewal applications to the Medical Research Council for support of work to be conducted in the fiscal year (a) 1967-68 (b) 1968-69, been approved?
2.	If so, what was the total number and total dollar value of applications and renewal applications submitted to the Medical Research Council for support of work to be conducted in the fiscal years of 1967-68 and 1968-69?
64S8

February 7, 1968
Questions
3.	How many applications for support for 1967-68 and for 1968-69 were approved in full, approved in part, deferred for later consideration, and rejected?
4.	What was the total dollar value approved for 1967-68 and for 1968-69?
5.	What was the dollar value of applications approved by the Medical Research Council after the autumn 1966 and autumn 1967 meetings on its Grants Review Committee expressed as a percentage of the total of the dollar value of applications for each year?
6.	Is the percentage change in Part 5 indicative of the change in the judgment standards applied or a change in the calibre of the applications submitted, and to what extent is the change attributable to one or to the other?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: In so far as the Medical Research Council is concerned, the answer is as follows: 1. Yes. The Medical Research Council took action on applications for grants in aid of research for
1967-	68 at four meetings. Applications for
1968-	69 have been considered at one meeting to date; applications have also been, or will be accepted for consideration at three further meetings.
2. The total number of applications and renewal applications submitted to the Medical Research Council for grants in aid of research to be conducted in 1967-68 was 1,511; the dollar value of those applications totalled $22,036,314.78. The applications for grants in aid of research submitted to the Medical Research Council to date for 1968-69 number 1,468, with a total dollar value of $25,497,408.76.
3. No. of applications		1968-69 (First meeting only)
for grants in aid	1967-68	
Approved in full	803	457Approved in part	363	113Defererd for later consideration	46	207Rejected	299	76
A further 615 applications have now been submitted for 1968-69 for consideration at the second meeting in March 1968.
4.	The total dollar value of applications for grants in aid approved for 1967-68 was $14,906,310.23. The total dollar value approved, to date, for 1968-69 is $10,112,895.00.
5.	The percentage of the total value of grant applications approved in November 1966 was 60 per cent; in November 1967, 42 per cent.
6.	The percentage change in Part 5 was due to the large number of applications deferred

at the November 1967 meeting for further consideration. Deferment of this number of applications is required because of uncertainty at the time concerning the total number of applications to be received for 1968-69 and because of uncertainty concerning the funds which would be available for the grants in aid program.


CENTENNIAL MEDALS, FORT WILLIAM CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Badanai: 1.	How many Centennial Medals were awarded to citizens in the Constituency of Fort William?
2.	What are the names of the recipients?
3.	Who made the recommendations for the awards?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: 1 and 2. The distribution records of the Centennial Medal are not set up in such a way that the names of recipients in any particular location can be extracted.
3.	Nominations were solicited from federal and provincial levels of government and from national associations in the fields of the arts and sciences, education, welfare and charitable organizations, veterans groups and many others.


SEIZURE OF TAX RECORDS, WINNIPEG
Mr. Sherman: Have certain companies in Winnipeg had their records seized during January, 1968, by investigators of the Taxation Division of the Department of National Revenue and if so (a) have they been accused of any breaches or irregularities under the Income Tax Act (h) under what authority were these seizures made (c) have any similar seizures been made in Canada in the past twelve months and, if so, where and when?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable, (c) Not applicable.


SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTS, NORTHWESTERN QUEBEC
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works called for tenders for the removal of snow for the 1967-68 season from office buildings at (a) La Sarre (b) Amos (c) Normetal (d) Senneterre (e) Macamic?
2.	If so, in what newspapers and on what date?
3.	At what price and to whom have these contracts been awarded?
February 7, 1968


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: 1, 2, and 3: (a) La Sarre: Tender call for snow removal was advertised in newspaper L'Echo d'Abitibi-Ouest on October 30, 1967. A contract was warded to Carmel Aube, La Sarre, at $1,400 for two years, (b) Amos: No tender call, existing contract was renewed, (c) Normetal: No tender call, existing contract was renewed, (d) Senneterre: Snow removal is included in the general cleaning contract, (e) Macamic: No tender call, existing contract was renewed.


NEWSTART PROGRAM, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What projects are (a) in being and (b) in prospect in the Newstart program for Prince Edward Island?
2.	What is the total amount of expenditure by the Government of Canada involved in these projects?
3.	What members of the Public Service of Canada are assuming responsibility for this program in Prince Edward Island?
4.	Where will such personnel be located?
5.	What is the amount already expended in inaugurating Newstart in Prince Edward Island?
6.	What benefits are expected to accrue to the residents of Prince Edward Island as a result of the Newstart program?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. (a) None, (b) Prince Edward Island Newstart Incorporated is at present developing its projects, and a statement of the number of projects in prospect would be premature.
2.	A precise estimate is not yet possible, but it is anticipated that the total will be between $2.5 million and $3.5 million.
3.	No members of the public service of Canada are assuming responsibility. Prince Edward Island NewStart Incorporated is a non-profit corporation established by the federal and provincial governments under the Societies Act of Prince Edward Island. In addition to financing, it will be able to get technical assistance from the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	As of December 31, 1967-$40,000.
6.	The Prince Edward Island NewStart Incorporated will address the training needs of some of the economically disadvantaged adults on the island. The methods developed
Orders for Returns
will help these people to secure better jobs. The primary aim is to experiment with methods of improving adult training programs generally.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Nielsen: For each of the first three quarters of the year 1967, what was the payroll in the Yukon for (a) employees of the federal government (b) employees of the territorial administration?
Return tabled.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION GREEN BELT EXPROPRIATIONS
Mr. Thompson: 
OPERATING SURPLUSES OF PROPRIETARY CORPORATIONS
Mr. Caoueite: 1.	What operating surpluses have been returned by the "proprietary corporations" since their inception?
2.	In connection with the corporations which have not had operating surpluses, is it intended to reorganize their structure and management?
Return tabled.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have had two questions on the order paper for almost

February 7, 1968
Motions for Papers
two months now, Nos. 867 and 868. I do not see why there should be any difficulty about answering either of them, but I should particularly like an answer to No. 868 because it concerns the winter works program and this program will be over soon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: In this connection it might interest the hon. member to know that this session there have been 996 questions placed on the order paper, 876 of which have been answered. There are only 122 outstanding. I am sure he will agree that this is a good performance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: I rise on a point of order which is also a question of privilege. Starred question No. 387 has been on the order paper for 41 months. The very purpose of starred questions is to enable members to get expeditious answers while avoiding the loading of the question period. This particular question relates to one which was asked on Friday and again yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Much too long a time has gone by since this question was first put down by me. It could have been answered by the end of September.


Hon. E. J. Benson (President of the Treasury Board):: I would simply like to say that this is a question which involves Your Honour and the commissioners of internal economy of the house. It is a matter for the commissioners and Your Honour to decide, and when this has been done an answer will be forthcoming.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, the question was deliberately phrased so that it does not involve Your Honour. It asks what is the intention of the government. Your Honour has no right to introduce legislation. If there is to be legislation it must be introduced by the government since it involves, in this case, the expenditure of money.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I can assure the minister and the hon. member that I have no intention of introducing legislation. I think the point of order made is well taken. There is no question of privilege. I assume the hon. member has made his representations for consideration by the government.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to call notice of motion No. 30?
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



AUTHORIZATION FOR NON-PAYLIST ALLOTMENTS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 30-Mr. Bell (Carleton):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all Treasury Board orders listed in sessional paper No. 41A tabled by the President of the Treasury Board on the 1st day of November 1967, authorizing non-paylist allotments from finance vote 15 during the fiscal year 1966-67.
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept this motion. Treasury Board minutes authorizing the allotments in question are minutes of the Queen's Privy Council, and governments have always taken the stand that minutes of a committee of the Queen's Privy Council are not subject to being produced in parliament. The minutes are made available for the examination of the Auditor General and this constitutes, I believe, an adequate safeguard that the authorizations respecting the allotments are in order. I believe the precedent should be maintained that minutes of committees of cabinet should not have to be tabled.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker,
perish the thought that I should be a party to an undesirable precedent, particularly since I expect to be on that side of the house within a matter of months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has the floor.


Edgar John Benson: On a question of privilege-


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw the motion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
February 7, 1968


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker_


Mr. Starr:: The hon. member for Carleton is on a question of privilege.


Edgar John Benson: He is not. On a question of privilege I would like to say we would not welcome the hon. member to the Liberal party on this side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Can we have order, please?


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is very difficult for the Chair to follow the exchange between the minister and the hon. member. I gathered that the minister was rising on a question of privilege, and I am not sure whether he proposes to pursue the matter. If not I will recognize the hon. member for Carleton.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, the minister will not be here in this house at that time.
I wish to withdraw the motion, Mr. Speaker, and I will take other steps to show the appalling abuse of the contingency fund.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion dropped.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION RESPECTING OFF-SHORE DRILLING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In view of the announcement of the decision of the government of the province of Quebec to grant prospecting rights in the gulf of St. Lawrence to certain French oil companies, does the government agree with this course of action proposed by the province of Quebec and, if not, what action does the federal government intend to take?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the question is well put, for I do not know exactly what happened in that area between Quebec and France. The reports I have seen in the papers, I think, would not
27053-407J

Inquiries of the Ministry allow the question to be asked in the manner that the hon. member did.
As regards the continental shelf of the gulf of St. Lawrence, the situation at present is as follows: the two levels of government, the central government and the provincial governments, claim to have jurisdiction.
Both governments, Ottawa and the provinces, have issued exploration permits on the continental shelf of the gulf and some of these are competitive.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the minister has to do with the question of the boundaries of the St. Lawrence river and the gulf of St. Lawrence. Has the government considered conferring with the provinces of Quebec, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick to define the boundaries of the St. Lawrence river between the river and the gulf of St. Lawrence?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this is a legal matter which is now under study. The Prime Minister announced a few weeks ago that he was preparing a report on this. I feel we should wait till he has brought it before the house.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on the reference made to it with regard to off-shore mineral rights in respect of the British Columbia coast, is the federal government negotiating with the provinces concerning the sharing of the proceeds from these resources, as I think the Prime Minister indicated the government would do?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what the Prime Minister said; that is, that he would have an announcement to make on that subject.


Michael Starr: In due course.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In due course.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the
February 7, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Fisheries. In view of the statement by a British authority, Dr. Anthony Mi-chaelis, to the effect that the radioactive plutonium at the site of the crashed United States plane near Thule, Greenland may create a very serious danger to the fishing grounds off Newfoundland, may I ask the minister whether his department or any other department of the government is examining this potential danger and, if so, whether any action has been taken to prevent this if it is scientifically possible to do so?


Hon.   H.-J. Rcbichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, first may I advise the hon. member that the statement made by Dr. Mi-chaelis as reported by the Canadian Press is rather hypothetical. He said "if". It is not really based on actual fact.
After consultation with the experts of the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada and the radiation protection division of the Department of National Health and Welfare, the oceanographers of the Fisheries Research Board have assured me that there is no possibility of any significant radioactive contamination, as a result of this incident, of any waters used by Canada or Canadian fisheries.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister whether any scientific team from his or any other department of government has visited the site of the unfortunate accident in order to assure themselves that every possible measure is being taken to prevent any danger to the fishing grounds off Newfoundland.


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Speaker, I cannot
assure the hon. member that such a team has visited the site, but as the hon. member is well aware my officials as well as the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada and the radiation protection division of the Department of National Health and Welfare have been in contact with the proper authorities in this regard. Also, as I have stated, we have the assurance that there is no possibility of any radioactive reaction in waters this side of the Atlantic.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What does the minister mean by his statement to the effect that the Atomic Energy Control Board has been in touch with the proper authorities? Does he mean the government of the United States and, if so, what branch of that government?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a
position to tell the hon. member what branch, if any, of departments of the United States government has been contacted, but I am aware that the Atomic Energy Control Board has been following this incident since the bombs were dropped, and we have the assurance from them to the effect that there is no danger to our Canadian waters.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the fact that the offices of his department are now perfectly reorganized in a new building, could the hon. minister tell us whether he intends to replace sergeant No. 337, who greets us at the entrance to this building, by a bilingual commissioner?


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



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revelsiolce):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to direct this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I regret his continued absence from the house; I trust it is not due to internal affairs. As this question is related to the question I asked the Acting Prime Minister yesterday there may, however, be an answer to it today. When Prime Minister Harold Wilson of the United Kingdom visits Ottawa following his talks in Washington will the subject of a 1968 commonwealth prime ministers' conference be on the agenda for discussion?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wilson is coming to visit the Prime Minister, and I think it is reasonable to assume that this particular question will be among the very many items to be
discussed.
February 7, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether his department has decided to issue a stamp to commemorate the late Colonel John McCrae, a doctor, lawyer and poet, who gave the world the poem "In Flanders Fields".


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that question should be placed on the order paper.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I think the Postmaster General is ready to give an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps he could give the answer in writing.



TOBACCO-IMPORTS FROM SOUTH AFRICA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether he is now in a position to tell the house what government policy is to be in respect of tobacco presently being imported duty free from South Africa; and has the government as yet completed its investigation to ascertain whether all this tobacco came from the Union of South Africa? I ask this question because government policy in this regard will affect plans of Canadian tobacco growers having regard to the size of this year's crop. This must be decided now. A major tobacco company may well be suffering injury because of some uncertainty as to the source of this tobacco.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Oxford, I wish to state that there has only been a single importation of tobacco from South Africa, that there has not been any lately and that the department is carrying on its investigation, in order to give a more elaborate answer to the hon. member's long speech.
Inquiries of the Ministry



NORTHERN AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
representatives of territorial councils AT DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCES
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Now that the Prime Minister has personally intervened to have an elected member of the Yukon legislative council, the member for Whitehorse East, seated as an accredited observer at the constitutional conference, will the Acting Prime Minister assure the house that representatives of the Yukon legislative council will be invited to participate in future conferences of this nature?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest the hon. member is asking for a statement of policy, and I doubt whether the question can be asked in this form.


Erik Nielsen: May I rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the assurances the Prime Minister has given this house that direct representation will be had in respect of elected representatives of the two northern councils, and now that one such representative has been seated, will the Acting Prime Minister assure us that this policy of the government will be followed in the future?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to refer this question to the Prime Minister, as I know how important it is to members of the territorial councils and to my hon. friend.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who has just stepped out of the chamber, but perhaps some other member of the government will take it as notice. What consideration is the government giving to combating the increasing health and welfare problems caused by alcoholism in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is a very general question which I believe should be placed on
COMMONS DEBATES	February 7, 1968



EXPO '67 INQUIRY AS TO DISPOSITION OF ASSETS

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry the order paper. If there is special urgency in respect of this matter the hon. member might give notice and it can be discussed later.
Barry Mather: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for housing. Can he give the house an explanation as to why he is holding up the appearance on the order paper of the resolution preceding the bill to amend the National Housing Act to reduce down payments, which he promised would be put on the order paper on Monday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suppose the question is in order, although it does contain an allegation and to that extent it would not be acceptable. However, I think the minister should be allowed to reply.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, because of the very important conference which has been going on we have not as yet had a cabinet meeting this week. We will probably have one tomorrow, at which time I will bring this matter to the attention of the cabinet. As the hon. member knows, resolutions have to be approved by cabinet and the Prime Minister. Let me assure him that it will be on the order paper very soon.


Michael Starr: You could do it at eight o'clock in the morning, before the conference starts, if it is that important.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. In view of the very nice personal letter the minister sent me about designated areas, may I ask him whether this means he is going to reconsider the designation of Saint John under the area incentive program.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. The government has announced that Robert Shaw will preside over the winding up of Expo '67. In this regard will the government inform the house what priority is to be given to the settling of the multi-million dollar deficit associated with Expo '67, what claims the government will make on the assets of Expo '67-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Carman Coates: -and whether the government will derive any benefits from the continuing version of Expo '67 that will be operated by the city of Montreal?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the very serious situation, regarded by many as worse than water pollution, will the Minister of Finance say whether tax incentives will be extended to control air pollution?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have answered two or three questions of this kind recently, and I would refer the hon. gentleman to Hansard. I do not have the exact references.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the acting government house leader. I am receiving copies of letters addressed to the chairman of the parliamentary committee on northern affairs. I wonder whether the government house leader could discuss this matter with the chairman of the committee on northern affairs so these representations might be heard.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: have taken notice of the hon. member's suggestion, Mr. Speaker.
February 7. 1968	COMMONS DEBATES



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Is the government giving consideration to withdrawing Canada's air and land forces from Europe?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this question should really be directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of National Defence. As has been explained on numerous occasions, the policy which was set out in the white paper of 1964 indicated a certain reduction in the forces that we would have in Europe. This has been the policy in the years since and is still the policy of the government. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence are now in the process of working out with our NATO allies what the contribution will be for the next year, and a projection for the next five-year period.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. What action has the minister taken with regard to the separate school situation on the Cape Croker Indian reserve, to which I drew attention yesterday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that this is a repetition of a question that was asked yesterday, and the suggestion was made that it might be placed on the order paper or that the hon. member might give notice for consideration of the question at the time of adjournment.


Edison John Clayton Loney: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that since the health and welfare of approximately 90 Indian children depends on immediate action by the Department of Indian Affairs, the matter is indeed urgent.


Mr. Speaker:: Certainly, and I will take that into account in making sure that the matter is given preference and priority at the time of adjournment.
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



MARITIME PROVINCES-REGISTRATION OF LOBSTER FISHING VESSELS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. On February 6 the minister released a notice that all lobster fishing boats in the maritime provinces must be registered by the Federal Department of Fisheries as the various lobster fishing districts opened for fishing in 1968.
Can the minister assure the house that the required serial numbered licence plates are now available, and that the implementation of this legislation will not curtail lobster fishing in district No. 3 which opens on March 1?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the registration plates are available, and no lobster fisherman will be deprived of his right to fish lobsters if he qualifies for a licence due to the fact that there might be delays in supplying the plates. Our officers in the field have been instructed accordingly, and I am positive there will be no delays in the distribution of the plates.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the opposition in some areas to lobster fishing on Sundays, could he advise us whether anything has been done by his department to discover the feelings of fishermen in various areas with regard to this matter?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have issued instructions to officers in the field that when fishermen apply for their 1968 lobster fishing licences they should be asked whether they are in favour of or against lobster fishing on Sundays. I can assure the hon. member that if it is the wish of the majority of lobster fishermen that no lobster fishing should be carried out on Sundays, the regulations will be amended to that effect.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries. Considering the fact that industries throughout this country may operate on Sundays, how can government legislation prevent any man, whether in the fishing industry or otherwise, from working on Sundays?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest this is now a legal matter, and I am not sure whether the minister should give a legal opinion at this time.
6466	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry AIRPORTS



INQUIRY AS TO MUNICIPAL USE OF NATIONAL DEFENCE FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, notice of which I gave him yesterday. Is the government giving consideration to a change in policy with regard to the use by municipalities of airports of the Department of National Defence where civilian services are being phased out?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that he is now asking for a statement of policy which normally should be made by a minister on motions.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State whether a recruiting team of the Public Service Commission is now in Washington seeking senior officers for the public service of Canada, and if so, what is the reason for it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Public Service Commission that indeed there is such a recruiting team in the United States specifically seeking classification specialists who are required by the bureau of classification revision, and that this was undertaken only when it became very clear that it was impossible to fill these needs from labour resources within Canada.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is it a fact that the Department of National Defence has a team of its own seeking to recruit employees?



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the continued practice of Air Canada of transferring certain of its employees out of Winnipeg, can the minister

DEBATES	February 7, 1968
say why he takes the position that this is a matter exclusively for negotiation between the union and the company?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think the question as asked is not in order. The hon. member is asking why the minister has taken a certain position, and this cannot be considered an acceptable question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: Order, please.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member may ask a related question, in view of the fact that I have not accepted the first one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Minister of Transport whether the often stated government policy regarding transfers from the Winnipeg air base still stands?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I did not say yesterday that this was a matter to be negotiated exclusively between the company and the union. I said I was continually involved, and I am involved, because the government is interested in this matter and its relationship to the policy which was laid down by the government and the undertaking given by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the minister that he is attempting to reply to a question which has been ruled out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but the minister did not answer my question, which was in order. Would the minister try again?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the two questions were related in a sense, and I attempted to answer my hon. friend's question by saying that the government is interested in and concerned about the question of transfers because it is related to the undertaking of the Prime Minister which, as I said, would be fulfilled. For that reason I have been involved in negotiations with both parties. But, as I said yesterday, I am circumscribed by the fact that there is a contract between them, and this is a limitation on the flexibility which is available to me, representing as I do the government interest in the question.
February 7, 1968



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Complon-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Can the hon. minister tell the house whether the cheese subsidy will apply in 1968?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, should the dairy policy be modified, any change will be announced in the house in the normal fashion.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has he any plans under consideration to increase the efficiency of the dairy policy as it now affects farmers with small herds?


John James Greene: As the hon. member may be aware, early in January the dairy commission announced its policy with respect to quota entitlement, which gave consideration to the owners of smaller herds and reduced the minimum quota considerably to enable the owners of smaller herds to continue to qualify for subsidy.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask him whether he can advise the house and the people who use the port of Halifax whether the National Harbours Board and the officials of the various government agencies involved in the port have co-operated in any way with the Danish Maersk lines in the very successful palletizing trials which were carried out last week, and if it is the intention of the government, because of the apparent success and tremendous savings brought about by this facility, to extend it to the rest of the piers in the port of Halifax.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether this is a matter of urgency. Perhaps the question might be placed on the order paper.
6467
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR TRANSPORT



VANCOUVER-INQUIRY INTO C.P.A. PLANE ACCIDENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether an investigation will be carried out into the accident of the C.P.A. jet liner in Vancouver early this morning.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am sure we all regret this tragedy but at the same time give thanks that it was not more serious and that there was not a greater loss of life than was the case. A headquarters team of investigators has been dispatched from the department to investigate the accident, and will be on the scene later today. A local Department of Transport investigation team was on the scene shortly after the accident, and is still there. A full report will be made public in due course. The 707 and its crew was leased by Canadian Pacific Airlines from Standard Airways of Seattle, as my hon. friend probably knows.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and ask him when he expects to table the white paper on constitutional reform with respect to the Yukon.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I expect to table it when it is completed.


Erik Nielsen: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister put aside his flippancy for a moment and give the house an indication of when that might be?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I am not attempting to be flippant, but the hon. member has pressed this matter while knowing all along that we have embarked in its preparation. I should like to have the economic report which is presently being prepared in the Yukon before we proceed with or finalize the constitutional report, and this may take a month or two.

6468	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting BROADCASTING



IMPLEMENTATION OF CANADIAN POLICY

Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: the third reading of Bill No. C-163, to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential and related provisions.


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, on the motion for third reading of this bill I wish to move in amendment that the house go back into committee of the whole to correct a slight mistake in clause 28. This clause was not discussed in detail in committee of the whole. The trouble is that under this bill, when a licence is granted to the operator of a community antenna television operation he is required by the terms of the licence to maintain the integrity of all the programs received. He cannot alter a program. In fact he will not know what is coming over the air, since he is only a receiving station.
Many of the C.A.T.V. operators are licensed to receive programs from the United States. They must maintain the integrity of the program being broadcast. If some candidate or a supporter or opponent of a referendum in Canada chooses to advertise over a station in the United States, the program will come over community television in Canada and the operator can be brought into court under this clause 28 as it now stands.
I should like to move, in committee of the whole, that certain words be deleted from clause 28. The words which cover C.A.T.V. operators are "a receiving undertaking". I have been told that the situation is covered by the Canada Elections Act, section 99, subsection (2) which reads:
Every person who, with intent to influence persons to give or refrain from giving their votes at an election, uses, aids, abets, counsels or procures the use of any broadcasting station outside of Canada, during an election, for the broadcasting of any matter having reference to an election, is guilty of an illegal practice and of an offence against this act punishable on summary conviction as provided in this act.
This section does not cover the case of a citizen of the United States or a citizen of some other country than Canada, going on the air in the United States in an effort to influence the voting within 48 hours somewhere in Canada. In order to delete this phrase from clause 28, which refers directly to C.A.T.V.

DEBATES	February 7, 1968
operators, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona:
That the said bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering clause 28 thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. Will anyone wanting to stand in support of calling in the members, please stand.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. MacRae:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. McCutcheon:: I, too, was paired.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I shall detain the house but a few minutes to point out some of the views of the official opposition on this measure. I promise I will not go through any convolutions in which the members of a party support a motion and then do not vote for it, as the N.D.P. did when they forced a vote upon us within the last few minutes.
This measure, in the form of the white paper on broadcasting, came before the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts in December, 1966. That committee made its report to the house in mid-March, 1967. Its proceedings will be found running from page 1342 to 2117 of the committee reports. Subsequently the measure was debated on second reading in the house and was further considered in committee of the whole. At least 90 per cent of the debate that took place on this very vital topic cannot be quarreled with, and speaking on behalf of my colleagues I can say we took as responsible a position as we possibly could toward a subject that is extraordinarily vexatious to a great number of Canadians. I will deal with the points of vexation a little later.
If we have a quarrel it is with the government. First and foremost there was its delay in appointing top officers to the C.B.C., and more particularly in filling the office of president, sometimes described as the second most important position in the country, second only to that of the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). Many months ago Mr. Oui-met indicated that he wished to retire as president, and we were confronted with the suggestion that his replacement should be appointed only after this bill had received parliamentary approval. Mr. Ouimet finally solved that dilemma by saying he was moving out willy-nilly, and subsequently new officers were appointed.
I suggest that during that time, when C.B.C. employees were under a great deal of stress, the government allowed to remain at the top level of the C.B.C. a vacuum which could only disturb the morale of the employees and prevent the C.B.C. from carrying out its responsibilities to the country. We had the example-and the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) tabled the correspondence the other day-of defiance continuing from within the middle ranks of the C.B.C.
6470	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting To reinforce that point I refer to page 6127 of Hansard for January 29 and the text of a letter sent by a Mr. Claude Sylvestre, Secretary of the Association of Producers, to the Secretary of State on November 6. I quote from that letter because I think it is symptomatic of the viewpoint of some within the public service of Canada, within the C.B.C., who are defiant not only of their own top people but of the will of parliament. In his letter Mr. Sylvestre wrote:
We believe that our prime role, as producers, is to reflect and to interpret the living reality in a country. We do not believe that official government thinking is necessarily the kind of objective thinking which should be the basis of political and cultural information.
Note the clever use of the word "government", when he should really be saying that parliamentary thinking does not reflect the views of our country.
The C.B.C. is obliged to bring to light all forms of power in the sense that it must allow a confrontation of forces and debates on the relative values of any given society. If we are to be the vehicle for or to promote one political line then we are willingly conniving with an organ of propaganda.
What political line are they being asked to promote, Mr. Speaker? I think the political line, if that is the expression that must be used, is nothing less than the unity and selfpreservation of the country that all of us are sworn to serve in this chamber.
I continue to quote from the letter:
We have at all times refused to do so; we refuse to do so today, when what you are saying is in short that the Left will be tolerated on the condition that it be reactionary. And in this way our function as producers will remain while governments come and go.
That, sir, is a clear statement of defiance by an element that, for its numbers, has great importance in promoting ideas on a countrywide basis or on a very large regional basis.
The Secretary of State in what I thought was a good reply, dated November 10, quoted from Mr. R. B. Bennett who brought the original legislation dealing with the C.B.C. before this house many years ago. She quoted Mr. Bennett as follows:
Properly employed radio can be a most effective instrument in nation-building with an educational value difficult to estimate.
Farther on she quoted Mr. Bennett as follows:
Without such control radio broadcasting can never become a great agency for the communication of matters of national concern and for the diffusion of national thoughts and ideas and without such control it can never be the agency by

DEBATES	February 7. 1988
which national consciousness may be fostered and sustained and national unity still further strengthened.
Sir, the word down through the years, from the wisdom of that particular statesman through royal commissions, committees of inquiry, parliamentary committees and the like, has been that the C.B.C. can be and should be a great weapon in fostering national identity and national purpose. I only wish that the Secretary of State had been a little less ladylike in replying to Mr. Sylvstre's group and had told them where to go in very short order. I think this was defiance. Further, I think it was defiance that perhaps the Secretary of State and the government brought on themselves simply by failing, when Mr. Ouimet became a lame-duck president, to appoint somebody who would step in and clear up that very gray and uncertain area that exists between top management of the C.B.C. and the group at the producers' level.
While the government has procured two people who in the long run will undoubtedly prove their value and service as the chief broadcasting executives of the C.B.C., still there must be something seriously amiss with the corporation if those appointments could not have come from within its own ranks. I think the C.B.C. should be a place where people can embark on long-term careers, starting at no matter what level but always having the chance to reach the top. It is a matter of personal regret to me, considering the series of crises which have beset the C.B.C. over the last few years, that apparently nobody at the top level was considered of sufficient merit to be appointed to either one of the two topmost posts.
Changes were made in this bill during its consideration in committee of the whole, and I would be remiss if I did not thank the Secretary of State for being amenable to three changes that seemed of particular interest and value to my colleagues and myself. Changes were made in clause 2 covering the important declaration of principles dealing with the national system and the private system. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) proposed one of the changes and I a second, both of which were accepted, and for that we are grateful to the minister.
A change was also made in the penalty clause. To us it seemed important that we should not stigmatize this industry, and I
February 7, 1968

think the minister made an obeisance to common sense when she agreed to that change.
The major change was the deletion of clause 47, which had been the subject of considerable palaver behind the scenes, thus saving days and days of debate. Again the official opposition is grateful to the minister for deleting that clause dealing with five-year budgets. We must be jealous of the right of parliament to exercise control, and therefore I think that by and large we have mollified the worst features in this legislation.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
However, I believe there are still areas of weakness which remain in what we as a parliament have done. I do not think we have met head on the expansion problem, the extension of radio and television service to Canadians who either do not receive it now in any shape or form or who receive only one type of service and would like the advantage of having freedom of choice. I do not believe we have resolved the concern of many Canadians who believe there should be more effective control within the public system on the part of top management with regard to those who are on the production line. Indeed, the minister herself has referred to rotten management within the C.B.C. In that area we can only hope that Dr. Davidson, a good sensible Nova Scotian, and Mr. Picard from Montreal will be able to come to grips rapidly with problems which of this type have been raised by several hon. members.
Third, I do not think we have really solved the problem of parliamentary control of the budget of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Millions of Canadians have never had the idea sold to them properly-indeed, many parliamentarians have not either-why the corporation should use such a large amount of public funds. These three areas of challenge face the new officers. As I say, the Conservative opposition wish them well in the discharge of their duties. However, until we can see the results in these three areas we still have to be convinced that this legislation is in the best interests of the public.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the opening observation of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) about the division. It seems to me that a comment of this nature is the last thing which should come from the ranks of the official opposition. The government has put off, temporarily I hope, the question of five-year financing for the C.B.C. The minister said there will be a separate bill on that
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting subject later. In the interval I hope that members who have some doubts about five-year financing will use the time to frame other proposals. Five years may be too long a period but I think one year is too short. Some period such as two years or three years will, I trust, be agreed upon eventually. I think the important point in respect of any large organization, whether it be the C.B.C. or indeed another government department or crown corporation, is that for both capital and operating purposes the financing should be for a period of longer than one year.
There is a tendency here to do things simply because they have been done in the past. It has been our custom to examine and pass the estimates of every department and agency each year. I hope that in time this practice may change. It would be no great blow to democracy. I point out to hon. members that in the United States the state legislatures meet only once every two years and pass the budget then for that period. In the United Kingdom the British Broadcasting Corporation never comes to parliament for money because it has other means of financing. I believe that any organization as big as the C.B.C. or, indeed, as big as many government departments, could operate more efficiently if the officials knew what the financing of the organization would be for a period of two or three years. We may reach the point where the estimates of departments, agencies and crown corporations will go on a three-year cycle. This would mean that we would examine one-third of them each year. Perhaps this would mean that there would be a more searching examination than there is at the present time.
When we deal with estimates here we do not actually go into the separate items in great detail. We use the time devoted to the consideraion of the estimates as an opportunity to make speeches on various subjects. We all do this and it seems to be a defensible practice. But the actual detailed spending receives very little close scrutiny. I suggest that in future we might adopt this other method of operation. I look forward to the proposed government bill in respect of longterm financing for operating costs and any counter measure which other members may have.
There are two other points with regard to the bill to which I should like to refer briefly. There is the clause which urges Canadian
6472	COMMONS
Canada Deposit Insurance Act broadcasters to use Canadian talent and creative resources. I hope that this will be considered seriously by the broadcasters and by the new council. I have discussed this matter in detail before so I will not do so again today. However, the production centres of Hollywood, New York and London are full of Canadians who have gone there because there were not sufficient employment opportunities in Canada. They are always very grateful for the training they received in this country on the broadcasting networks and in our theatres. However, employment opportunities have not been present here because we have not been willing to spend sufficient money to keep them employed full time in their occupations. There is a very long list of Canadian actors, producers and writers who are employed in the United States and the United Kingdom. I hope this point will be considered seriously by the members of the council.
My final point has to do with the composition of the Canadian Radio-Television Council. Obviously the type of person appointed to this council is of the utmost importance. On both the board of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Board of Broadcast Governors we have had in the past very talented people. We have also had some people of very ordinary ability whose appointments were purely political. The new regulatory authority will have very great powers and it would seem to me that the persons appointed to this council should be of the very top calibre. I hope that in their selection political considerations will not be a major factor. I imagine that at the present time the government is trying to find the people who will take over the duties of the council. I hope the government will be successful in its efforts in this regard and will be able to fill these positions in less time than it took to find competent people for the C.B.C. The future of broadcasting in this country will be dependent upon these people.


The Acting Deputy Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Is
the house ready for the question? Shall the motion carry?


Mr. Monteith:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)



CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION ACT


John James Greene: the second reading of Bill No.
[Mr. Prittie.l
DEBATES	February 7. 1968
S-24, to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.


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


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Speaker, certainly not. We are waiting for an explanation from the Minister of Finance.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for having kept my hon. friends waiting for a few moments but I was detained in my office by a true blue supporter of the Conservative party who wanted to meet me.
Mr. Speaker, we are now on second reading of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act. The main object of the bill is to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act with a view to allowing it to co-ordinate the deposit insurance granted under its terms with deposit insurance granted under any provincial deposit insurance plan.
Under the terms of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, which was passed earlier this year, the deposits entrusted to banks, trusts and loan companies incorporated under federal acts are insured within the statutory limits. The corporation is also authorized to issue insurance policies to institutions incorporated under provincial acts, with the agreement of the province of incorporation, the deposits entrusted to those institutions being insured to the same extent as those entrusted to federal institutions.
At the present time, the act requires that every deposit of a member institution shall be insured within the limits provided in the act. The corporation is not authorized to insure only certain deposits of the member institution to the exclusion of others. It cannot insure deposits in some provinces to the exclusion of deposits in other provinces.
Since the passage of this legislation earlier this year, the province of Quebec has established a deposit insurance plan which applies to all deposits accepted in Quebec by the institutions which accept deposits and transact business in that province. The administrative authority, the Quebec deposit insurance board, is also authorized to insure deposits accepted outside Quebec by institutions incorporated in Quebec.
In order to reduce to a minimum the duplication of coverage, costs and inspection
February 7, 1968

between the federal and the provincial plans, in the case of an institution covered by both, discussions were held between officials of the federal government and of the government of the province of Quebec. This matter has also been discussed in June by officials during a federal-provincial meeting dealing with financial institutions. The agreement arrived at following these discussions was summed up in an exchange of letters between the Minister of Finance and the premier of Quebec, letters which have been tabled in the house on July 9. This bill is mainly intended to allow for the implementation of this agreement.
The following are the main provisions of the agreement: with regard to institutions incorporated in the province of Quebec, the Quebec deposit insurance board will insure deposits in the province, and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation will insure deposits outside of the province. With regard to institutions incorporated in the other provinces and exercizing their activities in Quebec, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, with the consent of the province of origin, will insure all deposits other than those made in Quebec, and the Quebec deposit insurance board will insure deposits made in Quebec. This provision requires that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation be authorized to insure not all but some of the deposits of a member institution, and it will be granted this power by the present amendment. The amendment will also allow the corporation to enter into agreements with the province of Quebec or, as the case may be, with the Quebec deposit insurance board, in order to co-ordinate the two plans. Those agreements will have to deal with several questions, such as the definition of the location of a deposit. The amendment will also enable the governor in council to pass regulations, as needed, in order to authorize the corporation to comply with the provisions of those co-ordinating agreements when they are not provided for in the legislation. There is also the authority to exchange information concerning provincial institutions insured both by the corporation and by the Quebec deposit insurance board.
Although the main object of the bill is to enable the Corporation to co-ordinate its insurance with the insurance of the Quebec deposit insurance board, the amendment has been drafted in general terms, so that similar arrangements may be concluded with any province which may have established a deposit insurance system.
Canada Deposit Insurance Act
As far as the federally chartered institutions are concerned, the federal government has already assumed the responsibility of setting up financial and control requirements. A very exhaustive system of regulation and control has been in force for a long time. Deposits entrusted to those institutions are insured under a statutory provision of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act. We therefore believe that each province should accept the control and insurance which apply to those institutions under federal legislation. The provinces should not add the insurance or the inspection provided for in their own legislation. The amendment applies therefore only to the insurance of provincial institutions and not to that of federal institutions.
During the discussions between officials, it was recognized that when a province adopts a deposit insurance scheme, the insurance of the institutions incorporated under provincial legislation can create problems only if, following a lack of premium revenue, the adequate reserves cannot be constituted, except over a long period of time. To remove that difficulty, it was agreed during the discussions that, provided the authorization is granted by parliament, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation will be willing to grant short-term loans, against sufficient security, to a provincial agency entrusted with the administration of a deposit insurance scheme in order to allow that agency to meet shortterm liquidity requirements. It was felt that this auxiliary supply of liquidity would enable the province to adopt and administer a scheme with lower reserves and revenue than would otherwise be necessary. It would be understood that these short-term loans would be consistent with agreements concluded between the corporation and the provincial agency and would be granted provided the province refrained from levying a tax or establishing a system of premiums which would cause expenses to federal chartered institutions as far as deposit insurance in the province is concerned, where deposits are already insured by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The amendment under consideration will permit the corporation to extend such shortterm loans, subject to terms and conditions provided by the governor in council and to an agreement which will also have to be approved by the governor in council.
Another subject dealt with in the amending bill is technical; it would provide a better method than the one now provided in the act
6474	COMMONS
Canada Deposit Insurance Act to assess the premium of any member institution for the year during which it becomes a member institution.
The amending bill describes the premium year as running from the first of May to the 30th of April of the next year and provides that, for the premium year during which an institution became a member institution, a premium on a prorata basis will be payable for the period of the premium year to run at the time the institution becomes member institution. This amendment provides a more equitable method than the one now in the act and will clear up any doubt as far as the premium payable for the first year of deposit insurance is concerned.
An amendment allows the corporation to approve methods for calculating the total amount of deposits serving as a basis for premiums. This provision has given rise to a few technical difficulties, since only deposits to a maximum of $20,000 per person with each institution are covered by deposit insurance. An institution must therefore co-ordinate its obligations toward every person individually, in order to know the exact amount of insured deposits for the calculation of premiums. In view of the practical problems raised by such calculations, it has been deemed advisable to allow the use of approximate methods. Under its regulations, the corporation recognizes an approximate method in calculating the appropriate total. Under a proposed amendment, the corporation is authorized to use or accept approximate methods which may prove suitable.
The bill contains a further amendment providing for the permanent insurance of deposits entrusted by a person to two or more member institutions which have merged. At the present time, the act provides for a maximum insurance of $20,000 per depositor in any institution. Where a depositor has deposits in more than one member institution, he can be covered in each of them up to a maximum of $20,000. Were the act not amended, the merging of two member institutions could result in reducing the maximum deposit insurance of $20,000 granted a depositor in each of the two merging institutions, to a $20,000 maximum insurance with the new institution after the merger. The amendment will provide that the deposits taken over at the time of the merger will remain insured in the new institution. Therefore, the depositor will not see his deposits go without insurance because of the merger. The money entrusted after the merger by a person to the remaining

DEBATES	February 7. 1988
institution will not be insured as long as the total amount of the deposits of that person taken over at the time of the merger does not fall below $20,000.
At present, the corporation defines the term "deposit" by regulation, subject to the approval of the governor in council. A provision in the present bill will abolish the right to modify the definition of the term "deposit" by a regulation of the corporation after one year from the day when the present bill comes into force. Any change in the definition of the term "deposit" made after that date will require a special act of parliament. This provision was added to the bill by an amendment presented by the Senate committee on banking and commerce. The government believes that the present procedure in order to define the term "deposit" and change the definition will do for a while yet; therefore, it did not suggest that the definition of the term "deposit" be established by the act. However, the government is not opposed to this change in the bill as it allows the present method to remain in force for another year.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, the minister has given a lengthy outline of the technical changes proposed in this bill. I do not propose to deal with them at any length. I do, however, say to the house that I feel the government is very lax in not paying proper attention to the business of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We had the same experience last Monday evening when we had to wait for some time for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to appear. Even though the minister said that this afternoon a prominent member of the Conservative party was visiting him, I suggest that he should have told that gentleman to get out of his office so he could attend the House of Commons. In fact, the minister should have been waiting here when we finished dealing with the previous piece of legislation. This situation prevailed the other evening. There are so many amendments in this bill to an act that has been in force a very short time that it indicates to me a lack of proper preparation before the original legislation was presented to the house. I am not going to say anything critical about the actual items in the legislation, but I think this could well be a lesson to the government to have its legislation better prepared so that it
February 7, 1968
COMMONS DEBATES	6475
does not in future have to bring in amendments such a short time after the passage of the original legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Tardif in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time, at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could obtain the feeling of the house regarding item 49 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill No. S-29, an act to provide for the dissolution of Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation. I understand there was an agreement to adopt this measure without debate, but before having it formally called is it possible to obtain the feeling of the house on this matter?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of debating this matter but I would like to say a brief word on it. If at some future time Trans-Canada Pipe Lines wanted to construct another loop or undertake a similar endeavour to raise money, we might find it advantageous to have kept this link in operation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps it would be better, before I allow the hon. member to continue, to put the motion before the house.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CROWN CORPORATION


Lawrence T. Pennell: the second reading of Bill No. S-29, to provide for the dissolution of Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, if the circumstances had been such that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines was going to loop its line, the financial arrangements would obviously have had to be different from those made in the case of the new company, the Great Lakes Pipe Line Company. I think it is for this reason it was
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation agreed that this bill should not be brought forward until that decision was made. However, I am quite sure that the arrangements which will be made now for the financing of the construction of sections of the pipe line to be looped under the agreement which Trans-Canada has with the government will not be the same as those which were made previously to build the original Trans-Canada pipe line.
For this reason I agree to the passage of this bill. May I say, however, that in the years when the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation was in existence it was possible for the general public to ascertain the rate of the flow of gas, its quantity, and the tariff being charged because this information was contained in the report of the corporation which was presented to parliament through the minister. From this point of view the report served some purpose. I have always suggested that we should double the salary of the president of the crown corporation and I believe my suggestion has been supported on a number of occasions. The deputy minister has been acting as the president of the crown corporation and has received no remuneration for that job. I think the work performed by the deputy minister in supervising the operation of this pipe line company has served a purpose, and we hope that the time will come again when the government will find it necessary to re-establish this type of corporation to assist in the development of areas where the business community may not be able to raise the money required.
For this reason I am of the opinion that we will be doing a service by winding up the business of the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation. However, I should like to say that I believe it has served a valuable function and that its report to parliament has been particularly useful in that it made available some statistical information which might have been more difficult to obtain otherwise.
Deputy Speaker: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Tardif in the chair.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Transfer of property and obligations.
Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, might the committee be informed what are the rights,
6476	COMMONS
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation property, liabilities and obligations which shall become rights, property, obligations and liabilities of Her Majesty? Are we becoming richer or poorer as a result of the dissolution of the corporation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, this is a good occasion on which to thank the house for its co-operation in this matter. I might also take this opportunity to thank the people who have been serving in this corporation in the past. As the committee knows, they served without receiving any financial compensation, so I think the committee should offer a vote of thanks to them for having done so.
With respect to the financial situation in which my hon. friend is interested I may say that all administration costs of the corporation have been paid from the revenue received and there remained, as of December 31, 1966, a surplus of $693,484.80. Since that date the sum of $690,000 has been transferred to the crown. This morning I asked for a report on what was left in the piggybank. I do not have it with me but I believe it amounts to roughly $3,400. A cheque has already been prepared for the transfer of that money to the Receiver General of Canada. Since 1963 this corporation has only had annual meetings of the board of directors, made submissions to parliament in annual reports and carried out necessary correspondence.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
As the hon. member for Timiskaming said, there is no reason therefore, for keeping this corporation in existence. If, however, the federal government decides to go into that kind of operation again it will be a simple matter to create a new corporation at that time. I feel that the present bill is a straight housecleaning operation and I am delighted to observe that my friends in the house agree.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Repeal of 1956, c. 10.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: In connection with clause 4 I should like to say I have a feeling that the repeal of chapter 10 of the 1956 statutes is to settle a few ghosts that occasionally haunt this chamber still and which some of us remember.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was deliberately taking a calm, mundane approach to the whole thing in order that 1 would not awaken those ghosts

DEBATES	February 7, 1968
to which my hon. friend has referred so kindly.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Michael Starr: Now, by leave.


Jean-Luc Pepin: third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



FISH INSPECTION ACT


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: the second reading of Bill No. S-27, to amend the Fish Inspection Act.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: If the house agrees, it might be more appropriate for me to explain this bill in the committee of the whole. The bill consists of three minor amendments to the Fish Inspection Act. It might be more appropriate for me to give my explanation when the bill is before the committee of the whole.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks made by the Minister of Fisheries in connection with the proposed amendments to the Fish Inspection Act. Generally speaking, the people in the fishing industry, as represented by the Fisheries Council of Canada and in my home province of Nova Scotia by the Fish Packers Association, are in agreement with the amendments proposed in this bill. Quite rightly, the people engaged in the fishing industry are proud of the fact that they have in the past been shipping fancy quality fish and fish products not only to all parts of Canada and to the east and west coasts of the United States but also to the United Kingdom, Europe and Australia. It is in their best interests that the Fish Inspection Act be clear and concise so that it will assure quality fish being shipped by Canadian processors not only to their markets in Canada but to their export markets as well, and also that fish and fish products shipped into this country are up to our standards of quality.
February 7, 1968

The first amendment is of a minor nature. It simply expands the meaning of the word "container" as defined in the original Fish Inspection Act to include the wrapper or confining band used in the packing or marketing of fish. I can understand the necessity for this change in wording because marketing procedures for some types of fish have changed considerably since the 1949 Fish Inspection Act was introduced. I refer here to the packaging of dry salted cod which used to be marketed in large wooden boxes and sold in bulk quantity at the retail level. At the moment, confining bands are also used in the marketing of whole lobsters and crabs which have been cooked and frozen. I therefore agree with the proposal to amend this section. In clause 1, paragraph (h)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member that on second reading he can only discuss the principle of the bill. He cannot refer to the details of the proposed amendments. I realize the hon. member wants to consider the matter in a general way. Perhaps we might allow him to continue his contribution, but at the same time he might keep in mind the confining of his remarks to the principle of the bill, so far as that is possible, rather than the details of the clauses.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: It may be that the hon. member would prefer to go into these details when we are considering the bill clause by clause. As you have just said, Mr. Speaker, normally on second reading we do not refer to the individual clauses of a bill. The remarks which the hon. member is making now are really proper on either clause 2 or clause 1 of the bill.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your suggestion and I shall endeavour to confine my remarks to the principle of the bill. I had hoped to deal briefly, since I believe I will be the only speaker for our party on this measure, with some of the clauses. If you will bear with me, Mr. Speaker, since the clauses are not too contentious, I should like to refer to clause 1, paragraph (h), the amendment which proposes expanding the meaning of the word "processing" to include the canning of fish. This also seems to me to be a valid change since the canning of fish all over Canada plays a very important role in the marketing of our fisheries products. We have only to think of our vast salmon canning industry, as well as our tuna, lobster, herring, mackerel, clams, fish cakes,
Fish Inspection Act
sardines and cat food, to realize the vast importance of the canning of fish to the industry as a whole. As we search for ever greater markets for our fish products, this aspect of the industry will play an ever increasing role. In my opinion, fish canning should be included under processing.
I now come to the final amendment in this short bill. This amendment changes the words in section 10 from the original wording, which was:
No person shall import, export, sell for export or have in his possession for export any fish intended for human consumption unless the fish is wholesome and fit for human food.
The new wording of the section reads:
No person shall import, export, sell for export or have in his possession for export any fish intended for human consumption that is tainted, decomposed or unwholesome.
I should like to state at once, Mr. Speaker, that I agree with the intent of this amendment. Certainly no one with any interest in the fishing industry could approve of shipping fish for human consumption that was tainted, decomposed or unwholesome.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The fishing industry at the present time is going through a very trying and difficult period. The high labour and operating costs which are affecting other industries are also having their effect on the fishing industry, and the situation is so desperate that only the strongest financially backed fishing companies can hope to survive. This condition has been brought about by an increase in fishing activity without a resultant expansion in our markets. Fish processors have also found it practically impossible to pass on their increasing costs of procuring, processing and packaging, and high interest, marketing and transport charges, when selling their product in competition with the product of other countries in which costs are obviously lower.
The fact that those who follow the Roman Catholic faith are no longer required to eat fish on Friday has had a damaging effect on the marketing of our fish and fish products, both in Canada and in the United States. When one considers these facts and realizes that Canadians per capita, only consume about 13 pounds of fish annually, one realizes the extent of the marketing problem that faces our industry.
Somehow Canadians must be made to realize that seafood offers them top value in today's high-priced economy. When you buy at the retail level one pound of fish fillets for 69 cents you are getting 16 ounces of protein

February 7, 1968
Fish Inspection Act
without any fat or bone. There is absolutely no waste, and at the same time you are giving your family valuable minerals and protection against goiter through the iodine content of salt water fish. It is also well known that doctors recommend that those who are overweight or suffer from heart disease eat more fish and cut down on starchy, fatty foods.
With all these factors to encourage the increased consumption of fish there should be little difficulty in marketing our fish production. But apparently we have fallen down in our efforts to teach Canadians the proper methods of preparing fish. I know that the fisheries department, through its cooking school, has been active in this regard; fish recipes have been brought forward. Nevertheless, more must be done. Perhaps we should borrow a page from the French in this regard. They place more emphasis on the cooking and preparation of fish than on the cooking and preparation of meat in their diet. One of the first steps we must take is, of course, to ensure that our fish arrives at market in A-l condition, and to ensure that is the purpose of this amendment.
While I do not disagree with the intent of the amendment there are one or two matters relevant to the act which I wish to point out to the minister.
The Fish Inspection Act of 1949 and the regulations under it cover a large area. The act has wide powers. From reading sections 4 and 5 we gain some idea of the heavy responsibilities that are placed on the shoulders of our fish inspectors. Section 4 of the act reads as follows:
4.	(1) An Inspector may at any time
(a) enter any place or premises, or any steamship, vessel or boat, or any railway car, truck, carriage, car, aircraft or other vehicle used for the carriage or storage of fish and may open any container that he has reason to believe contains fish,
(b)	require to be produced for inspection or for the purpose of obtaining copies thereof or extracts therefrom any books, shipping bills, bills of lading, or other documents or papers, and
(c)	take any samples for inspection.
Section 5 reads:
5.	A person interested in a decision of an inspector in respect of any inspection, grading, marking or other matter under this Part or the regulations thereunder may appeal to the Minister in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Governor in Council.
There is no provision in the act for an appeal, except to the minister. Of course,

when you are dealing with a perishable product like fish this procedure takes much valuable time which one can ill afford.
Sections 6 and 7 of the act read as follows:
6.	For the purposes of this Part, inspectors may administer oaths and take and receive affidavits, declarations and affirmations.
7.	(1) Whenever an inspector believes on reasonable grounds that an offence against this Part or any regulation thereunder has been committed, he may seize all fish and containers by means of or in relation to which he reasonably believes the offence was committed.
(2)	All fish and containers seized pursuant to subsection (1) may be detained for a period of two months following the day of seizure, unless during that period proceedings under this Part in respect of those fish and containers are undertaken, in which case the fish and containers may be further detained until such proceedings are finally concluded.
(3)	Where a person is convicted of an offence against this Part or any regulation thereunder, the fish and containers by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, upon such conviction, in addition to any penalty imposed, are forfeited to Her Majesty and may be disposed of as the Minister may direct.
These sections are pertinent to our discussion since they contain the only authority under which an inspector can enforce the changes which are contained in the new subsection 1 of section 10 as set out in clause 3 of the bill. For example, let us assume that an inspector takes a sample of fish for inspection and as a result of his analysis he condemns the shipment. We must ascertain the conditions under which the tests were made. Was the fish sample, for instance, taken on Friday afternoon? Was it placed in the trunk of a car and then conveyed to a fish inspection site on Saturday? The place may have been closed and it may be that the fish was not examined until the following Monday. Section 4(c) of the act says that the inspector may at any time "take any samples for inspection". But the act does not say whether he must put this sample on ice or take it immediately for inspection. These matters are not spelled out, and they should be spelled out more clearly. Also, if the inspector were vindictive he could put a fish processor out of business by being seemingly overzealous in carrying out his duties. This, of course, would be tantamount to an outright fraud perpetrated by the federal government on the fishing industry. I agree with the intent of this bill but I am concerned about abuses that might arise under the powers that are granted to fish inspectors.
February 7, 1968

In view of my concern and the concern of some men in the industry with whom I have discussed this matter, I think the minister should give thought to bringing in further amendments to this act. For example, if any action is taken by an inspector to condemn a shipment of fish, would it not be desirable to have the inspector's opinion substantiated by another inspector or by scientists of the Fisheries Research Board? I ask the minister, if a fisheries inspector says that a bacteria count is too high, what avenues are open for the fish packer or processor to make an immediate appeal, keeping in mind always the perishable nature of his product? Part of subsection (2) of section 7 says:
All fish containers seized pursuant to subsection (1) may be detained for a period of two months-
Let me give an example of what I mean. A fisherman may land 30,000 pounds of swordfish worth something like 40 cents a pound to the fisherman-that represents a $12,000 catch-and during unloading one or two of the swordfish might be laid against an oil cask, thereby becoming contaminated. If those two fish were seized by an inspector and the entire catch were also detained, substantial loss to the fisherman and processor could be the result. I also wish to ask the minister what efforts his department is making at the retail level to ensure that fresh fish which has been so carefully packaged, inspected and shipped is kept on ice or under refrigeration prior to sale.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
According to a return recently tabled the Department of Fisheries expended $34,525,757 on the administration of Canada's fisheries for a 12-month period. I believe this is money well spent upon one of our great primary industries. But if the minister would in future direct some of these funds toward solving the marketing problems which now confront the industry, and the training of competent fishermen, of whom there is a great shortage at the present time, I believe the money spent would bring even greater benefits to the industry.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those bills which have a centennial flavour about them inasmuch as they were introduced in the Senate last year. It seems regrettable, bearing in mind the multitude of problems within the fishing industry, that the government should have been content to bring down a measure of such small
Fish Inspection Act
significance as the one new before us. Naturally I am more familiar with the situation on the west coast, though having listened to the representations made by representatives of the Atlantic provinces in the house from time to time I have come to appreciate that the problems on the Atlantic coast, while different, are of no less importance.
I had hoped that the minister would have produced a bill covering more than one page and concerned with whether, for example, a container means something which has a wrapper or a confining band about it or whether we need to include the word "canning" in the act, although, as we all know, canning was being carried on in this country many years before most of us came to this chamber.
The minister himself appeared to recognize the insignificance of this bill in relation to the total consequences of his department's activities when he declined to make an introductory speech on second reading saying he would prefer to wait until we got into committee and were dealing with details. That is all the bill involves-details. We are asked to consider whether or not canning should be regarded as a part of processing, though it has been commonly understood for many years that this is so. Then we are asked to approve the addition of a few words relating to the import or export of fish, intended for human consumption, that is tainted, decomposed or unwholesome.
I am not saying that these items are unimportant in themselves. Certainly they are important; otherwise they would not be the subject of legislation. But in relation to the total responsibilities and activities of the department and the almost insurmountable problems which confront the fishermen of this nation I am surprised that the minister and the government should have been content to introduce in our centennial year a bill consisting of a single page of legislative provisions. Perhaps this accurately reflects the interest of the government in fisheries matters. Otherwise it would hardly have contented itself with making a few inconsequential amendments of the kind before us.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, while I am not directly involved in fish inspection or with the Department of Fisheries, I was very interested to note several years ago that the fishing regulations had not been changed for a long period of time. I think 1952 was the year in which they were last altered.

February 7, 1968
Fish Inspection Act
It was interesting to recall that when we were discussing the adoption of a bill of rights for Canada certain points which the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse) made today were raised by him in that debate. I understood at that time that the method of fish inspection is, as the hon. member told us, about as undemocratic a process as can be found. An inspector may board a boat, seize it and hold the fish until they rot. He can do this without a warrant and the owner has no right of redress. He cannot claim compensation and is not entitled to take advantage of due process of law as granted by the Bill or Rights. It was certainly my hope that we could apply the safeguards contained in the Bill of Rights to the provisions of the Fish Inspection Act. This would prevent repetition of many of the abuses which have taken place in the past.
I agree with the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that the amendments proposed here are of a minor character. In one instance we are concerned only with a change in technology. In another there is a change in wording, presumably to take account of a decision in a court case which concerned this subject. A far more important amendment to the act which I had hoped the minister would introduce would concern itself with changes in the method of inspection. I am sure that the Bill of Rights could legitimately have been applied in this field so as to limit the authority of the inspection branch of the Department of Fisheries and see to it that the work is done with a greater sense of responsibility toward the various interests concerned. The bill before us provides as follows:
No person shall Import, export, sell for export or have in his possession for export any fish intended for human consumption that is tainted, decomposed or unwholesome.
Who is to decide whether fish is intended for human consumption or whether it is unwholesome? I presume it will be the inspectors, perhaps the same inspector we heard about previously who went aboard a ship and said: "This ship is in quarantine and I shall hold it until we decide what we shall do about it." I suppose it is the inspector who will decide what is to be done and the owner of the ship can either like it or lump it because there is no appeal from the inspector's decision. Changing the wording of the legislation will not make much difference if the process of inspection under the statute is abused. Charges were made a number of years ago, probably before the minister
[Mr. Peters.)
assumed his present office. He shakes his head. I can remember when the Bill of Rights was before parliament. The officials of the feed grain inspection service and of the fisheries inspection service were singled out as offenders every day of the year against the rights of individuals to a proper hearing. Before we make any changes I think we should have a report from the minister on the reason for these changes and on what the inspection branch is going to do. It seems to me that we are modifying the provisions on behalf of one side rather than providing protection.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I have heard of the serious situation in the fishing industry. I have talked to one hon. member who had an unsatisfactory personal experience in that industry within the last year, and I know that the industry is not in a healthy state. I agree that we must enforce regulations in order to ensure high standards, but in order to correct the abuses that existed previously I wonder whether we are giving the inspectors too big a weapon to use without the restrictions that would normally apply under other legislation. Here the right is being given to enter private premises, to seize books, to tie up a ship loaded with fish, and to grade fish to a certain standard. When a ship is tied up for a certain length of time its fish cargo becomes unmarketable. I think the act should be modified more extensively than is proposed by this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. It is understood that if the Minister of Fisheries speaks now he will close the debate.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I wish to reply briefly to some of the remarks that have been made. I agree that this bill is making only a minor change in the Fish Inspection Act, but I would like to remind the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) that the fish inspection regulations were amended in 1967 after full consultation with the industry from coast to coast. For two years, 1965 and 1966, we held a series of meetings with representatives of the industry at different points from coast to coast. We also consulted fishermen's organizations and unions and discussed the proposed changes in the regulations with them. On May 11, 1967, an order in council was issued establishing the new regulations.
February 7, 1968



Hon. members have referred to incidents in the past, but I am not aware of cases where fishermen or dealers were deprived of their rights. Fish is a perishable product. It must be inspected at the time of landing. Section 13 of the new regulation provides:
Where an owner of fish or fish containers or any person acting on his behalf is not satisfied with a decision of an inspector regarding the acceptability under these regulations of the fish or such containers, he may appeal the decision to the minister who shall order a reinspection.
In other words, it is stipulated that the minister shall at once order a reinspection, and the owner or his agent is entitled to be present at that reinspection which is usually carried out not by the officer who made the original inspection and seizure but by scientists or two or three other representatives of the inspection branch. We depend largely on our fish export markets and we must have fish inspection regulations which are effective and which will protect the Canadian fishing industry.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse) referred to the difficulties which the industry is at present experiencing, particularly because of the devaluation of the pound sterling. This is a problem which affects mainly the salt fish industry. I would point out that we are now taking action at the retail level in areas where we have jurisdiction, and here I refer to the domestic market. In the larger cities we have officers who are in continuous touch with the retail market and who supervise the handling of fish. Only a month ago my department issued a booklet showing how to handle fish at the retail level, and it has become so popular that we have been forced to ask for additional reprints. This booklet clearly defines how fish should be handled at the retail level.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I ask that I be permitted to give any further explanations with respect to the bill when we study it clause by clause in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Tardif in the chair.
On clause 1-
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the minister for bringing my attention to the amended regulations. I would like to ask him how successful they have been. The complaint made some years ago concerned the lack of an appeal process, and I would like to know to what extent this process is now being used. I do not seek exact figures but I would like to
Fish Inspection Act
know in what percentage of case it has been used.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, since the new regulations have been in force there have been three or four cases where there has been an appeal. In all these cases no further representations were made to me by the owner. This led me to believe that they were satisfied concerning the appeal. There has been one case, however, in respect of which the matter is before the court. I believe this is the only one. I would not be in a position to discuss it now because I do not believe the case has been settled. It is a fact that the industry is taking advantage of these new regulations, particularly in respect of the right of appeal. I must accept the appeal because the regulations state that the minister shall order a reinspection. This is done at once. There has never been any case where there has been undue delay in respect of the reinspection.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have a question I should like to direct to the minister while we are considering clause 1 and have the proposed amendments to the Fish Inspection Act before us. Could the minister tell the committee why it has not been considered desirable that the Fish Inspection Act should in any way apply to fish entering into interprovincial trade within the country? I understand that the act and the regulations apply only to fish products being imported into or exported from Canada. I have the impression that in the field of agricultural products, meat, for example, the federal inspection services operates in respect of meat moving across provincial boundaries. I wonder why the same regulation has not been considered necessary with regard to the movement of fish products.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I believe the fish inspection regulation applies in some cases to the movement of fish from province to province. However, the Fish Inspection Act is only effective in a province if approval by order in council of the province concerned has been received. I know that it applies in several provinces. In the Atlantic provinces, for example, where the fishing industry is of major importance, the fish inspection regulations have been accepted in most cases in respect of the movement of fish from province to province. The Fish Inspection Act is

February 7, 1968
Fish Inspection Act
applicable in respect of fish moving from province to province if such fish is to be exported. This applies particularly with regard to freshwater fish which moves, for instance, from Manitoba to Ontario before it is exported.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Dealing in tainted, decomposed or unwholesome fish.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, in my earlier remarks I mentioned the necessity for the rapid examination of any fish that may be seized by an inspector. I know the minister is aware that this may not always be possible. I notice from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald for February 6 that work is being carried out to provide wharfage and a working area at St. Margaret's Bay for the Fisheries Research Board. I should like to ask the minister whether this new branch of the Fisheries Research Board on the Atlantic coast between Halifax and my home town of Lunenburg is to be equipped to handle samples of fish seized by an inspector so that the examination could be speeded up. Will this branch be able to certify as to the freshness and wholesomeness of the sample or in effect approve the inspector's original contention that it should be rejected? Is it the intention of the department to utilize this new branch of the Fisheries Research Board in this manner?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The inspection is not normally done by the Fisheries Research Board. It is done by the fish inspection branch of the Department of Fisheries. However, there have been cases involving dispute concerning the decision taken by the fish inspection branch when samples have been sent direct to the board, for example, to confirm bacteria counts or for other major reasons. I can well understand the concern of the hon. member that there should be very little time elapse between when the samples are taken and when the inspection takes place.
At different points along the coast close to major fish landing points we have fish inspection laboratories where inspections are carried out. We have received very few complaints. In fact I do not know of any since we established the new inspection laboratory on the northeast coast of New Brunswick, from where I had received some complaints in the past. There are four major fish centres in that particular area. Since that new laboratory has

been established we have received no complaints from the industry concerning delays in respect of inspection of samples taken by our officers.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I realize that the minister may not have all the information at hand in order to answer this question. However, I should like to know the number of inspection centres available at the present time in the four Atlantic provinces, for example.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I do not have the details but I will obtain them for the hon. member. I know there are a number of centres. We have a central laboratory in Halifax. This is the central laboratory for the eastern division. We have one at Shediac, New Brunswick, and three or four in Nova Scotia. There is one at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. Should the owner not be satisfied with inspections at local laboratories he may take advantage of the central laboratory in Halifax. He may be represented there or appear himself to witness the inspection.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: As I mentioned earlier, some people in the industry are concerned about the clause which states that any fisheries inspector may take any samples for inspection. Apparently there have been instances where samples have been picked up and have been placed in the trunk of the inspector's car on one afternoon and not delivered to the Halifax inspection centre until the following day. The minister is well aware that if there had been any doubt about the quality of the sample when it was taken, for example, on Wednesday afternoon, it certainly would have deteriorated by Thursday morning when it was delivered to the inspection laboratory in Plalifax. I wonder whether any method could be instituted which would speed up this inspection service or whether any teeth could be put into this clause which would ensure that samples picked up for inspection are properly iced and immediately taken to the inspection centre. This seems to be a very valid concern on the part of some of the fresh fish producers of Nova Scotia.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, there may have been such incidents before the new regulations were introduced. The new regulations which were passed by order in council dated May 11, 1967, I believe were implemented around July 1 of that year. Since then I have not received any complaints. Our officers are instructed that if they are handling fresh fish the fish must be kept well iced and
February 7, 1368	COMMONS DEBATES	6483
delivered to the inspection centre with the least possible delay. If they are handling frozen fish the fish must be kept frozen. So I do not see any problem. If they are handling samples of canned fish there is no problem, because there can be a delay between the time the samples are taken and the time when they are inspected in the laboratory.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
This is a matter which was fully discussed with the fisheries associations of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and other provinces. As these matters were discussed I now feel free to say that such problems no longer exist as a result of the cooperation we have received. Our inspection officers have had very strict orders to abide by the instructions they have received to this effect.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


An hon. Member:: By leave, now.


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



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence) moved:: That certain regulations and orders in council relating to the unification of the Canadian Armed Forces laid before the house on Thursday, February 1, 1968, be referred to the standing committee on national defence.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention to delay the passage of this motion or to comment in detail, but I should like to point out that this practice of the government in taking action to refer a subject to a committee for examination is a practice that should be extended. Let me point out that in 1964 the standing committee on privileges and elections was unable to complete its study, apart from a consideration of the Canada Elections Act, because the session came to an end. It did make a report and certain recommendations to the effect that the committee be set up again at the earliest
Reference to Committee on National Defence possible time during the following session. We have heard nothing about this since. Likewise, the committee on Indian affairs held several meetings and attempted to obtain authorization to visit a number of Indian communities. It did not get that authorization before that session ended. That committee hopefully thought the government would take the initiative to refer the same subject matter to the committee again. This has yet to happen.
I hope the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) can persuade his colleagues, at least those who are interested in the business of the country rather than a certain election, to see that some action is taken in respect of these two vitally important matters. I refer particularly to the subject matter considered by the committee on privileges and elections and the subject matter referred to the committee on Indian affairs. One of these matters is very important to me. It is more important to me than regulations and orders resulting from the unification of our armed forces.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make one or two brief comments. During a meeting of the defence committee some seven or eight months ago we were told about the urgency of adopting the unification bill. A Liberal majority on that committee prevented us from hearing all the witnesses we wished to call on the basis that the unification bill was an urgent matter the government wished to conclude. The government wanted to get the bill passed in order to end uncertainties in the armed forces. At this time, some seven or eight months later, we are presented with regulations necessary to make some of the provisions of that bill effective. The bill itself was only proclaimed on February 1 of this year, just a week ago.
It is very clear that the urgency suggested by the government at that time was merely a smokescreen to hide the facts in order that the measure could be passed as quickly as possible without hearing all the evidence of the witnesses. This is a perfect example of steamroller tactics, as demonstrated clearly by subsequent events.
I should now like to ask the minister how soon he proposes that the committee will meet to consider this matter and whether he has in mind that if the committee objects to some of these provisions the government will change the regulations. Is this motion designed purely for show and intended only to fulfil an undertaking given at the time the committee considered the unification bill?
February 7, 1968
6484	COMMONS
Reference to Committee on National Defence


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must remind the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know what provisions there are for those who leave the service because they do not wish to serve in a unified force. I have in mind those who may be serving the last half of a final five year re-engagement period who no longer wish to remain in the forces. Will they lose those benefits which would otherwise accrue to them if they had served the full term, leave benefits and the like?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must again advise hon. members that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the time the committee will meet I must say this is out of my hands and in the hands of the steering committee. We have accepted the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) that there should be a joint meeting of the committees on external affairs and defence to discuss NATO and NORAD commitments. As a result of the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) my predecessor referred the subject matters of certain orders in council to the committee. When the request was made it was suggested by the hon. member for Edmonton West, I believe, that the regulations would not be changed in principle as a result of integration.
A question was raised by the hon. member for Calgary North regarding the time required to rewrite regulations and orders, the implication being that since we had only produced them there was no urgency. I would like to point out that Queen's Orders and Regulations represent something like 1,000 pages. Most of them had to be rewritten in terms of the new structure of the forces; they had to be translated into French and they had to be printed. This, of course, takes time. In this particular instance only eight orders in council will be referred to the committee, as was requested. Therefore I think we are simply honouring a commitment. When the committee will meet is not at my command but I am trying to expedite matters in this respect. The procedure we are adopting today was suggested by an hon. member on the other side of the house and I accepted it.
[Mr. Harkness.l

[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) asked me a question about an officer or man who was not willing to serve in the new environment. The hon. member asked what would be the position of such a man. I believe his position would be just like that of any other serving officer or man who leaves the services in normal circumstances. This is his option. We would not force anybody to serve against his will. There are no special provisions except that he has to declare himself, I believe, according to the law, within two months after proclamation of the act. After that the provisions already in the act are applied.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked the minister was whether that person would lose benefits. Perhaps it would be better to have somebody raise this question in the committee. I do not want to take up the time of the house now. It may be too technical a question to answer here.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to some kind of penalty I am sure there is no penalty involved. The man would be entitled to the normal benefits. That is the interpretation I place on the act. This question can be aired in the committee and I have no objection to that, but it seems to me that the obvious answer is that there is, of course, no penalty involved.
Motion (Mr. Cadieux) agreed to.



FINANCE


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: the second reading of Bill No. S-23, to amend the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act and the Criminal Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the amendments contained in this bill cover two separate matters. The first group of amendments provides for the introduction of a pure nickel coinage in place of our present silver alloy coinage. The second provides authority for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to invest some of the resources of the exchange fund account in certain short term securities of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Hon. members may recall that on December 23,	1966, the Minister of Finance
February 7, 1968	COMMONS
announced that the government intended to change from a silver coinage to a pure nickel coinage some time during 1968, and that proposals to amend the Mint, Currency and Exchange Fund Act would be presented to parliament to authorize this change. The reason for making an advance announcement of our intentions, of course, was to give the automatic vending industry and other interested parties time to make the necessary arrangements required to cope with a new coinage.
Before dealing with these matters it might be helpful if I were to explain why it became necessary to plan to abandon the use of silver in the coinage and to use pure nickel in its place. As the Minister of Finance said last year, this decision was forced upon us by events over which the government of Canada had no control. We have had a silver coinage since the early years of confederation, and during the last century there has been virtually no change in the coins. The problem today is that silver has become a scarce commodity. There is very little increase in annual production year by year, but a large increase in demand.
Apart from the traditional uses of silver, the increase in demand has resulted in part from the many new industrial uses found for this metal. As a result of the growing scarcity of silver, most countries have found it necessary in the last several decades to abandon the use of silver in favour of less scarce and less expensive coinage materials, so that Canada is now one of the few countries in the world still maintaining a silver coinage. However, the increasing scarcity of silver was not a problem until about three years ago, when it became apparent that the reserves of silver maintained by the United States were being depleted more rapidly than heretofore. This meant that the ceiling price of $1.29 per ounce was bound to be exposed to strong upward pressures, thereby making silver uneconomic as a coinage material.
In the face of this situation the government of the United States in 1965 announced its intention to discontinue the minting of silver coins and began to issue coins made of cupronickel and copper toward the end of the same year. Since the new laminated United States coins performed in exactly the same way as silver alloy coins when used in coin machines -and, of course, their unusual construction was decided upon with this end in mind-the change-over raised no difficulties with respect to coin machines. For our part, we felt that
DEBATES	6485
Amendments Respecting Composition of Coins coins made of a homogeneous metal or alloy would be more attractive than a laminated coin, and our researches into the suitability of various alternative metals led to the choice of nickel.
We have been pleased to observe that there have been no doubts expressed by the Canadian people as to the suitability of pure nickel as a replacement for the silver alloy used in the coinage. The new coins will be reasonably similar in appearance and ring to our present coins. The nickel counterparts of the two silver coins most widely used, that is, the 10-cent and 25-cent pieces, of course will have exactly the same dimensions as the present coins and will be roughly similar in weight. Since pure nickel is a harder material than silver alloy, the new coins will wear better and will resist corrosion more effectively. Indeed, experience with the use of 5cent nickel coins since 1922 has already demonstrated that nickel is eminently suitable for use as coinage. At the same time, having regard to the pre-eminence of Canada as a nickel producer, its wider use in our coinage is most appropriate.
The only problem created by the changeover to nickel coins arises from the widespread use of coins in the vending machine business, and from the fact that the coin selectors used in them are designed to reject magnetic metals, including nickel. In the last few decades, and particularly in the last few years, the sale of goods and services by means of vending machines has become quite large. It is estimated that there are between 400,000 and 500,000 of these machines in Canada carrying a relatively sophisticated coin selector for the purpose of testing the genuineness of the coins.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
In addition to these there are many other coin operated machines, and I am thinking of those used in parking meters, for example, which usually employ more simple methods of testing the coins and are therefore not likely to be affected by the changeover to nickel. Since our existing silver coins and the new coins will continue to circulate side by side for years to come, it will be necessary for the sophisticated type of coin selectors to be replaced by others capable of accepting the new nickel coins as well as the existing silver coins. It is also desirable, of course, in the interest of the tourist trade at points on our border with the United States, that such replacement selectors should be able to accept
February 7, 19S8
6486	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Composition of Coins both varieties of United States coins, as is the case with the present coin mechanisms.
During the last two years, therefore, the officials have been exploring these technical questions with the representatives of the automatic vending industry and with the manufacturers of coin mechanisms. As a result, various manufacturers have now designed new types of coin selectors which it is expected will meet the requirements that I have just mentioned. I am also glad to report that these mechanisms are to be produced in Canada rather than in the United States, as has largely been the case up to now.
I would like to be able to announce the date on which the distribution of the new 10-cent and 25-cent coins made of nickel would commence. However, this is not yet possible. After consulting with the various interests concerned I feel we must provide more time for the new coin selectors to be tested, purchased and installed. Almost a year ago the Minister of Finance said that the change-over would take place some time during 1968. This decision has not been changed.
A firm of management consultants has been engaged by the department to investigate and report upon the availability of new coin selectors and the time required to instal a sufficient number of them in vending machines. I would expect that after this report has been received and studied, perhaps within the next month or so, I will be able to give a more firm advance notice of the date on which the mint will begin issuing the new nickel coins. I would also expect to announce the decision of the government concerning proposals for compensation. The department is now exploring the practical feasibility, as well as the desirability, of compensating these vending machine operators for a part of the expense that they will incur in replacing their present coin selectors with new ones.
An explanation concerning some of the coins described in part II of the schedule may be helpful. Hon. members will recall that on August 18 last the Minister of Finance announced that for a short period a special issue of 10-cent and 25-cent coins containing 50 per cent silver and 50 per cent copper would be issued. Up until then our coins contained 80 per cent silver. This change was made necessary by the increase in the price of silver which took place at that time after the United States lifted the ceiling on the price of silver. These new silver coins will continue to be issued by the mint until such time as we are ready to begin issuing nickel coins later


this year. They are therefore included in the schedule along with the proposed nickel coins.
We are also providing authority in the bill for the issuance of 50-cent and one dollar coins containing 50 per cent silver to cover the possibility that we might wish to mint such coins in the future for numismatic purposes only.
Our discussions with the representatives of the automatic merchandising industry have led to the suggestion that it would be sensible to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the change-over to a nickel coinage to reduce the size of our 50-cent and one dollar coins. The present coins are regarded by the public as being too bulky to be carried around. It was therefore felt that a reduction in the size of these two coins, and particularly that of the 50 cent piece, might turn out to be a convenience to the public and probably to the vending industry. With this in mind, and after consulting with various interested groups, the bill proposes that the weight and size of the 50-cent and one dollar coins made of nickel will be somewhat smaller than the present coins of the same values.
One other amendment should be mentioned. The existing statute establishes the Royal Canadian Mint in Ottawa. The present bill proposes that the mint may be established anywhere within the national capital region. This change is intended to give the government a greater freedom with respect to the possible relocation of the mint. We intend to build a new mint in the next few years to replace the present structure which was built in 1908 and is now overcrowded and inefficient. A modem factory-type building will enable the mint to produce a larger output of coins without resorting to shift work, and also enable it to seek some export business, as it should. No decision has yet been taken on a new location.
I would like now to turn to the two amendments which deal with the exchange fund. This is a special account in the name of the Minister of Finance in which the government holds most of its foreign exchange assets, that is, its gold and U.S. dollars.
Under the act at present the minister may purchase with money in the account (a) gold; (b) U.S. currency, U.S. dollar bank deposits or treasury bills or other obligations of the United States; (c) other currencies freely convertible into gold or U.S. dollars and deposits in these currencies; (d) securities of or guaranteed by the government of Canada; and (e) securities of the International Monetary Fund
February 7, 1968

maturing not later than five years from their date of issue. These latter securities are issued by the I.M.F. in connection with our obligation under the "general arrangements to borrow" to provide, along with the nine other most industrialized member countries of the I.M.F., up to $6 billion of additional resources to the I.M.F.
The bill before the house will broaden somewhat the investment powers of the exchange fund. Clause 5 of the bill will amend the act to enable the fund to purchase securities of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development maturing not later than two years from their date of issue.
The securities which the exchange fund would expect to purchase with this authority are the special issues of two-year central bank bonds which the I.B.R.D. first brought out in 1964 and which are offered only to central banks and other government institutions. These bonds are denominated in U.S. currency and are offered every six months. The last issue was on September 15, 1967 and was sold to central banks and other governmental institutions in 43 countries and to one international organization. The issue was for $100 million U.S. and paid an interest of 5f per cent. The characteristics of these bonds and their attractive yields make them an appropriate investment for some of the money in the exchange fund.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
In addition, they offer a vehicle for us to provide some further financial support to the International Bank, support well warranted by the bank's success and effectiveness in the field of economic development. With the tightness in capital markets of the world and the bank's desire for additional loanable funds, the bank has been encouraging more governments and governmental institutions to invest in these securities. In this amendment we have an excellent opportunity to serve directly Canada's interest by providing an attractive alternative investment for the exchange fund and at the same time assisting the I.B.R.D. in its important work in the field of economic development.
The second amendment to this part of the act is technical in nature. The present act provides for the transfer to the consolidated revenue fund at the end of each year of that portion of the exchange fund's net income derived from interest and discounts on the securities held in its portfolio. It does not
Amendments Respecting Composition of Coins provide, however, for the transfer of other income realized by the exchange fund, most of which is derived from trading operations.
The Auditor General and the public accounts committee of this house recommended the transfer of these other profits to the consolidated revenue fund, and the Department of Finance undertook to obtain the necessary authority. While we were awaiting an opportunity to open up this act for amendment we did, in fact, obtain the authority by an item in supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968, vote 23a. This vote authorized the transfer of these other profits for the calendar year 1964 and subsequent years. The amendment in clause 6 of the bill before us will supersede this item.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring forward once again a matter that I brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) on the orders of the day a few weeks ago. I refer to the frustration experienced by the Canadian people as a result of their inability to procure by purchase 50-cent pieces and dollars as mementoes of the celebration of the Canadian centennial. I have been told on good authority that these are available but not to the general Canadian public. There are people who have large amounts of these 50-cent pieces and dollars. For example, a large well known retail firm in this country is offering 50-cent pieces for sale but you have to pay $3 for them. As a result of the way the distribution of these 50-cent pieces and dollars has been managed the Canadian public is being rooked.
Consequent upon the change-over from silver to the new metal, about which the minister has advised us, people are not able to purchase these coins. Not only from the firm I have mentioned in Canada but if you write to Iola, Wisconsin, you can get silver dollars or 50-cent pieces. If you write to Turner, Montana, you can also get 50-cent pieces. As a matter of fact, in the Numismatic News for January 29, 1968, the heading on page 31 reads: "Less than 1 per cent of the people in the United States and Canada will ever own a Canadian commemorative centennial set of coins". The article reads in part:
This is one of the most highly recommended sets with a solid future. Do you realize that many Canadians have never seen a set, let alone own one? They have been waiting for their banks to get these coins but the mint was forced to stop regular minting of dollars and halves early in the year because silver was worth more than their face value. With 1967 now gone, no bank will have them

February 7, 1968
Business of the House
but the public still wants them. Yes. the prices have been going up because of greater demand than supply and prices will continue to rise as supplies are getting smaller every day. You can test this yourself by just advertising to buy, and if you have any luck in buying please sell us your surplus. We need rolls and sets.
I quote from an advertisement in this newspaper:
We made a fortunate purchase 1 Would you like some truly Gem BU Dollars and halves of 1967? These have never seen the inside of a bag. These are just as they came off the coining presses. Limited supply-only two rolls of each per order. True Gem 1967 dollars, $77.50 per roll; true Gem 1967 half dollars, $77.50 per roll.
You can obtain these coins by writing to Turner, Montana. People have to pay these exorbitant prices simply because of the mismanagement and lack of foresight of the government in assuring that the coins were not sold in huge lots to foreign purchasers so that Canadians could be rooked if they desired a centennial dollar or 50-cent piece. You can write to Bloomington, Illinois, and obtain these coins. This firm is selling Canadian dollars at $55 per roll and half dollars at $75 per roll. There are Canadian proof-like rolls of half dollars available at $72 per roll. I must say that I feel this is another example of mismanagement of the country's affairs by this government.


Frank Howard: It might be hazardous to ask to call it six o'clock now but I shall try anyway.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to calling it six o'clock now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General what he intends to bring before the house tomorrow.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, we propose to continue debate on item No. 47 which is now before the house. This will be followed by item No. 60, second reading of Bill No. S-22. Then we would go on with item No. 46, second reading of Bill No. S-21; item 43, second reading of Bill No. S-18, an act to amend the Publication of Statutes Act. If the Minister of Labour is available we will be able to call item No. 57, but I enter a caveat regarding that item. I suppose there is some doubt in the minds of hon. members if we will get that far.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 8, 1968