1969-02-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in French and English-Mr. Femand-E. Leblanc (Laurier).
[Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce asking him whether, in view of the imminent danger of wheat still held on farms spoiling during the warmer months that are now approaching, the minister could tell the house if the government is formulating any plans for the assistance particularly of those parts of western Canada that will encounter especially severe problems in this regard.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisfer of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture usually answers this type of question, while I am mostly involved in questions of wheat transportation and marketing. With the consent of the hon. member we might wait until the minister comes in and let him answer that question.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River);: I have a supplementary question for the minister to pass on to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister urge the Wheat Board and the transportation agencies to pay particular attention to the situation in northern Alberta
and in the Peace River country where, as a result of difficult weather conditions not only last fall but the year before, many farmers are in desperate circumstances.


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Gu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that it has come to our attention that many of our competitors in the wheat markets of the world are now making long term agreements with their importing nations for the duration of 20 years at interest rates which are as low as 3 per cent, is the federal government contemplating the adoption of a similar policy with regard to our surplus wheat stocks?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I announced five weeks to two months ago that these facilities existed for the developing countries that are in need of better financing terms to buy Canadian wheat. They were approved by the cabinet and we are now making efforts to find a number of countries which could be classified in that group and would use these facilities.



REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT

Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise the house when farmers can expect their final wheat payment cheques for last year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have said that they would be received by the first week of April.



AVAILABILITY OF BOX CARS

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Can the minister tell the house whether, in the course of his personal supervision of the railways in their allocation of box cars he has also requested the companies to pay attention to the distribution of cars among shipping points that have not yet delivered the units or the one or two bushel quotas. Do they get priority, to the exclusion of points that have completed delivery of three and four bushel quotas?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This was indeed
brought to the attention of the railways at the last meeting in Winnipeg a few days ago.
February 27, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry



INCREASED SHIPMENTS THROUGH WEST COAST PORTS

Jean-Luc Pepin: May I be allowed to say something cheerful, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: This may be out of order, but perhaps I should hear the minister.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have been sitting here, Mr. Speaker, hoping that somebody would do me the privilege of asking me whether transportation to the west coast is improving. It is. On the first occasion I attended the Transportation Committee in Vancouver on February 5 there were 22 ships waiting. Now there are only nine.


Mr. Hees:: They got tired of waiting and went home.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, except for the two I have already acknowledged left in early February-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I realize the minister is anxious to give pleasant news but perhaps he should wait until the opportunity has arisen. If a question were asked-


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: The minister says things are improving as far as the box car situation is concerned. Mention was made of the Peace River area. I have from time to time drawn attention to the situation in northern Saskatchewan. Can the minister say whether he has made clear to the C.P.R. the fact that northern Saskatchewan is being discriminated against in this area served by the C.P.R. and that action should be taken in this regard?
Has the minister brought this situation to the attention of the railroad and pointed out the serious position in which farmers find themselves because they are unable to market any grain in certain areas of Saskatchewan?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I believe I have already answered that question, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to look at this from the western point of view rather than from a local point of view, which I recognize is important too. I just wanted to say that the rate of unloading has been improving throughout the month-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if we should not go onto another subject?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the right hon. gentleman rising to ask a supplementary question?


John George Diefenbaker: I am happy to see the
minister so anxious to give his story about something else, but I ask him what he is doing about the situation in northern Saskatchewan except to issue statements full of hope and optimism.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce indicate to us whether there has been an improvement in the grain situation?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be more appropriate for the house to give consent to revert to motions, at which point the minister could make a statement?


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker.


Grant Deachman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was interrupted by the hon. member just as I was putting a question to the minister. My question has not been answered. May I have a reply to my simple question, as to whether or not there has been any improvement in the rate of grain shipments from the Port of Vancouver?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker, and give two figures only with reference to grain unloadings on the west coast. In the first week of February the railways were unloading between 300 and 350 box cars a day. In the second week the number rose to 400 to 450. In the following week the average was 550, and this week, for three days, we have an average of 625 box cars unloaded on the west coast.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I call the attention of hon. members to the fact that if we spend too much time on the first one or two questions, some of our colleagues who do not sit in the first or second rows will be most unhappy because they have not had an opportunity to ask their questions. I would ask the co-operation of all hon. members in the hope that we can move on to the next subject.



PENSIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
February 27, 1969	COMMONS
Minister of National Health and Welfare and it is supplementary to a question and answer of last November 19. Can the minister say what progress is being made by the review committee which is studying our welfare and pension programs? Can he say whether attention is being given to the possibility of increasing the old age security pension in proportion to the increases in wages and salaries?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, all of the income maintenance programs and social welfare programs are being reviewed in this study. No firm conclusions have been arrived at, so it is impossible to say whether any conclusions will relate to an increase in old age security or to some other solution that may be adopted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question. Can the minister say when we might expect to learn the results of that review?


John Carr Munro: I hope in due course, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten
o'clock.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Would the minister tell this house whether any steps have been taken to break off diplomatic relations with Nationalist China and to establish such relations with continental China?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as both the hon. member and the house know, we are now engaged in discussions with the Peking authorities. This is bound to affect our relations with the nationalist government of China, but in what way the future alone can tell.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs say whether in this connection, prior to the discussions which are now going on, any action was taken or whether a special emissary was sent to contact Peking authorities, over and
DEBATES	6007
Inquiries of the Ministry above the recent contacts, with regard to our establishing relations with Red China?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Angus MacLean: A further supplementary question which perhaps I should address to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister say whether at any time during the past several months he has used the good offices or services of Professor T. K. Lin of McGill University to discuss this matter with the government at Peking?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is difficult for the Chair to determine whether discussions had with one particular individual involve a question of urgency. If there is urgency, which is not apparent to the Chair, then the question might be answered by the Prime Minister.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, this is a very urgent question. At the present time, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, this matter concerns both governments, and negotiations are underway. We feel we should understand the background against which they are taking place.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, having carefully considered the question and the urgency, the answer is no.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister of external affairs let the house and the country know the identity of these negotiators for Canada? Who are the people who are negotiating?


Mitchell William Sharp: At the present time, Mr. Speaker, the contacts are being made through the Canadian ambassador in Stockholm, who I think is a very respectable gentleman.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Si. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs of which I have given him notice. Would the minister advise when the Woods committee report will be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I answered before, the government is now preparing a white paper and both the white paper and the Woods committee report will be referred to the committee later this session.
February 27, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry TELEVISION



QUEBEC-REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING EDUCATIONAL BROADCASTING

Mr. Sleven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Secretary of State. Has the federal government refused a broadcasting licence to Radio-Quebec? If so, for what reason? Before the Secretary of State answers, Mr. Speaker, may I ask him to take it easy so that the people translating, in the confessionals, can keep up with him. He talks a little fast and we cannot always understand the translation.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps if the minister were allowed to answer the question in writing it might be easier.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government presently having talks with provincial authorities on the question of the sharing of jurisdiction over educational television? If so, when will the minister announce a policy on this matter?


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


An hon. Member:: Let the minister answer, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems that not only the people in the confessionals are having difficulty in hearing the question. The minister did not seem to hear it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: May I repeat it, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Secretary of State whether the government is presently having talks with provincial authorities on the question of the sharing of jurisdiction over educational television. When will the minister announce this policy on this matter-s'il vous plait.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first question, I believe you asked the hon. member to put it on the order paper, at least that is what I understood.
As for the second question, I must say that talks are going on with many provinces about the construction of transmitters for educational television but those talks do not have any bearing on the division of constitutional responsibilities in this field.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister about the granting of a T.V. licence to Radio-Quebec. Will

the decision be taken by the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission or by the cabinet?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, broadcasting licences are granted by the C.R.T.C. It follows the policy which has been that of all Canadian governments since 1932, and that is not to grant licences to provinces or their agents. Formal instructions are now being drafted and will be communicated to the C.R.T.C. in a few weeks.
On the other hand, I wonder what prompted the hon. member's question. To my knowledge, and although I have been away no application for a licence was submitted to the C.R.T.C., but perhaps it escaped me.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary question.
How can the minister give such an answer when a licence has been granted to Station CKUA in Alberta?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is an argumentative question.


Martial Asselin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The minister just said that he has not received any application for a licence from Radio-Quebec and that, if he received one, it would be through the normal channels. However, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission has already granted a permit to Station CKUA, in Alberta, which is precisely a commission acting as an agent of the government of Alberta. I would like to know what direction the minister will give to his policy.


Mr. Speaker:: It is obvious that the matter raised by the hon. member is argumentative and, for that reason, I do not think his supplementary question is in order.


Mr. Andre Foriin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question to the Secretary of State.
In answer to the first question put to him on the matter, he mentioned agreements with various provinces, without naming them, however. Would he do it now, and tell us as well if an agreement has been concluded with the province of Quebec on that matter?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I did not speak of agreements, but rather of talks, contacts and discussions. Now the study group who is specifically charged with the setting-up of educational television, that is with the installation of transmitters, has met with high
February 27, 1969

officials of many provinces, some being from the province of Quebec.
I do not have with me a report of those talks, and even if I did have one, I am not at all sure that it would be appropriate to reveal its contents before the study group has finished its own report.



ESTABLISHMENT OF STATIONS IN SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. Can he inform the house of any progress in establishing certain television stations in Saskatchewan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for a statement of a very general nature which should be given by the minister on motions.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to a minister whose words never outrun his thoughts, the Postmaster General. Has he anything to report on the investigation into yesterday's theft of mail bags in Montreal. Also, is he taking steps to protect valuable consignments on passage through the mail?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can report that an investigation is being conducted by three different forces, postal investigators, the Montreal police and the provincial police. May I say that the amount in question was exaggerated. Although it is a very large amount it is, according to our best information, somewhat less than $200,000.



REFUNDS ON BOX RENTALS

Mr. Mac T. McCulcheon (Lambion-Kenl):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Postmaster General announce any plans to refund extra payments made by the holders of many post office boxes in cases where those box holders have responded to post office demands this year for extra payment-in other words, where double payments have been made.


Eric William Kierans: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Orders have already gone out to the effect that increased amounts of money demanded of people who had signed
Inquiries of the Ministry contracts prior to the announcement of increased rates are to be refunded. In other words, where we have asked those people to absorb increases after their original contracts were signed, we shall refund the extra money asked of them.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whii-by):: May I direct my question to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Is he now prepared to say when we may expect the tabling of the Woods report on industrial relations in French and English?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot announce that, but I can tell the hon. gentleman that the problem with the French translation has been overcome. When and if the Prime Minister decides to table the Woods report we shall make a statement as to how we will proceed with it.


John Edward Broadbent: May I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Is he prepared to say at this time when the government intends to table the report?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.



GUYANA-SHIPMENTS OF BAUXITE TO CANADA

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: May I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I asked that minister what measures the government is prepared to take with respect to the reported statement of the Prime Minister of Guyana concerning the cutting off of bauxite supplies to Canada, a step that would bring serious hardships to certain industries of this country. Is the minister now prepared to answer the question?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a report yet from our office in Guyana, but I have spoken to officials of Alcan. As I understand the situation, the Prime Minister of Guyana did not go beyond any statement he had previously made on the same subject.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister has made inquiries to
February 27, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry that extent, may we know what the previous statements on the same subject were?


Mitchell William Sharp: I can only assume from what I was told that the officials of Alcan did not think there had been new developments that caused them any additional concern.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: May I ask a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to keep questioning in this manner, but this is an important subject. Was not the statement made by the Prime Minister of Guyana either yesterday or a few weeks or months ago, to the effect that supplies of bauxite would be cut off to Canada if certain conditions were not met?


Mitchell William Sharp: This, Mr. Speaker, is the information that I have requested our office to obtain from Guyana. I thought my interim report might help to allay the hon. member's fears.



ESTIMATES


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a question for the President of the Privy Council, but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that we on this side of the house agreed to the sending of the final supplementary estimates to the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee in the belief that there would be ministerial attendance to deal with the votes, some of which are of an unorthodox nature, will the Prime Minister try to ensure that there will be ministerial attendance so that questions raised on that committee will be dealt with?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I might answer that question because I may be one of the ministers involved. My presence was requested this morning at one of the committees of the house. I would have been there had I been notified. I apologize anyway. I will be there next Tuesday.


Some hon. Members:: Too late, too late!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe I am just rephrasing the question, but may I ask it as a supplementary. What we are interested in is ministerial attendance in the house when these estimates come back next week. Can we be assured that when the supplementary estimates are before the house under the new scheme on Monday,

Tuesday and Wednesday that the individual ministers will be here rather than one minister piloting through the whole bill?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will take this up with the house leader. If he knows in what order the estimates are to be presented he will ensure that the ministers are here. I do know plans have been made for one minister to be here because this question was asked of him yesterday and he said he would be present for discussion next week.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: believe my colleague from Peace River was referring to the attendance of certain ministers at the session of the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee where there are one dollar items of a legislative nature. I refer specifically to the Minister of Transport responsible for housing, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and also the President of the Treasury Board who is responsible for this bill.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the case of the Minister of Transport, I know he did give an undertaking yesterday to be present at a time mutually convenient to the opposition parties and to ourselves. I know he made this suggestion for a possible date. Regarding the other ministers I might ask the President of the Treasury Board to answer.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Presidenf of the Treasury Board):: It is my understanding the
Minister of Transport, one other minister and myself will be present to answer questions.



HARBOURS


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce which might aid in the solution to the question posed earlier today by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Has the minister asked the Minister of Transport to recommend to his colleague the Minister of Public Works the immediate deepening and draining of the depth of water, a comparatively speedy, inexpensive and simple undertaking alongside the wharves of Victoria, where there is a very fine elevator belonging to the Alberta Wheat Pool-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is referring to communications between the ministers. The question is not acceptable on this basis.
February 27, 1969	COMMONS



WATER RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
STEPS TO PREVENT POLLUTION OF BOW RIVER Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norlh):
My question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This question is in reference to the national problem of pollution and the report from the provincial government that the Bow River and other rivers in western Canada have reached a serious state. Is it the intention of the department to remedy the situation with regard to pollution under federal jurisdiction?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I already answered that question a few days ago. I am studying the problem now. I have received representations from the hon. member for Calgary South and I hope to make a report in this respect in the near future.


Mr. Woolliams:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the hon. member for Calgary South is also digging the minister. Is this included in the estimates of this year? Surely the minister can tell us that.



CANADA WATER CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE ACT

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO HOUSE REVIEW Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West): A
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister inform the house when we can expect the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act to come before this house?
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: When the house leader announced the order of business for the balance of the session, he stated this measure would receive first reading during this session.



EXHIBITIONS


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Can the minister tell us whether he has any supplementary explanations or information concerning the statement made to the house yesterday by the Prime Minister as to the proposals the minister has made to the province of Quebec about "Man and his World"?
DEBATES	6011
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this subject will be submitted to the municipal council by the executive committee of the city of Montreal, on Friday. It will then be decided whether or not the city of Montreal agrees to our proposals. In so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, I was in touch, a few minutes ago, with Mr. Beaudry who is the Minister of Industry and Commerce for the province of Quebec. He informed me that his government is still considering the proposals I made Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
In connection with the proposals made to the Quebec government, is that government not bound to guarantee the deficit of Expo, for 1969, before it is in a position to operate Man and his World?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has indicated clearly yesterday that our proposals covered two points. First, there is the Dozois proposal which is well known. Secondly, there is the matter of an agreement by the city of Montreal to settle its share of the Expo deficit. All these points must be agreed to by the three governments concerned.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Has the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce considered granting an interest free loan in order to guarantee to the province the financing of Man and his World?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, far from it, Mr. Speaker. The federal government will in fact pay the interest.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that within the last two months there have been price increases ranging from 25 per cent to 40 per cent on wood products related to the building industry, raising the cost of new homes anywhere from $1,000 to $2,000-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot preface his question this way. He should ask the question directly.
February 27, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Scoii:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister inform the house what steps are being taken to investigate the cause of such incredible increases in such a short space of time?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The Director of
Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act watches all significant price movements, and studies them, to determine whether they are as a result of any actions which may constitute an offence under the Combines Investigation Act.



INQUIRY AS TO SETTING UP OF PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Can the minister say when the prices and incomes commission is going to be established?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I welcome the eagerness, Mr. Speaker, with which the hon. member looks forward to the establishment of this commission. I have almost completed my consultations with interested economic groups. There will be some consultations with provincial finance officials and I hope to appoint the commission next month.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Bernard Dumont: I would like to put my question to the future Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Since he has stated that a $5 million subsidy will be paid for the construction of an oil refinery and a deep water wharf at St. Romuald, could the minister indicate also whether that will include facilities for the export of asbestos?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question could well be put on the order paper.



COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: My question is to the minister of regional and economic expansion. It relates to earlier questions I asked with regard to signing of the comprehensive development plan for Prince Edward Island. Can the minister now give the date when and where such signing will occur and who will be the signing officials?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: I hope in a few days to be in a position to give this information to the house.


John Angus MacLean: Would the minister say whether this agreement will be signed by the Premier Of Prince Edward Island in his capacity as premier, and not merely as president of the Economic Improvement Corporation? In other words, will the agreement be between the two levels of government?


Jean Marchand: No. Should an agreement be reached, it would be between the two governments.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni):: As a further supplementary question, since there has been some indication that the plan might be decided a week from tomorrow can the minister confirm if this is correct or not?


Jean Marchand: I hope I can confirm or deny it soon.



IMMIGRATION


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Three days ago the hon. member for York South asked the minister whether he would consider tabling the directive issued in his department, making clear the distinction to be used between deserters and draft dodgers for immigration purposes. Has the minister decided what he is going to do in this matter?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in this case such documents have always been regarded as privileged and by long tradition have not been tabled in the house.


John Edward Broadbent: Then would the minister consider making a statement on motions in the early future?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I did indicate to the house some time ago that this question was under review. When the review is completed I will be making a statement in the house. I cannot predict at the moment when that occasion will be, but the statement will be made.
February 27, 1969	COMMONS



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Barney Danson (York-Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that one of the student rioters at Sir George Williams College is claiming friendship with a distinguished Canadian noted for his persistent efforts to overthrow the government, would the hon. gentleman in question be asked to join his hippy friends in incarceration?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



BANKRUPTCY


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, this is a follow-up to my question of yesterday to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Did a trustee in bankruptcy recommend in 1967 that the President of Stoa Gallery Ltd. of Montreal be "brought before the courts to stand trial for fraud and falsification," and what action is the government taking?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The facts in the hon. member's question are correct. At the time the report was made by Mr. Margiese, the trustee, the subject of bankruptcy was and had been for some time under intensive investigation by the R.C.M.P., at the request of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy. Whatever evidence was discovered as a result of that investigation was, as is the usual practice in these matters, submitted to the Department of Justice.


Mr. Fairweather:: As a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice may I ask whether charges have been preferred against the person involved as yet?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: No, sir.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmoulh-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Can he advise the house what is the present status of the approximately 200 labourers and trades helpers at C.F.B. Halifax who have been waiting over two and a half years for their pay adjustments?
DEBATES	6013
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member does not feel that this is a question that might be considered at the time of adjournment in view of the fact that it refers to these people who have been waiting for two and a half years. Is that not an indication that the question might be debated at the time of adjournment?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under very active consideration by the department, and the minister might be able to give some answer. This concerns a small pocket of men and the question must be resolved within the department.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister which unfortunately I have asked him several times over a period of several months. Can he tell us when we may expect to have tabled in the house the report of the commission on security?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I don't know yet, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the applause is not for me personally, but for my sustained efforts.
I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the fruitful and sustained efforts of the federal government to protect the wheat trade in Canada, could the minister tell the house whether the cabinet or the Department of Finance are considering taking effective steps in the near future to protect particularly the Canadian textile industry, which employs 23 per cent of the Quebec manpower, and which is experiencing more and more difficulties?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Minister of
Finance is responsible for short term policies: in this field, and I think he will make the relevant statements in due course.
6014	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
As far as I am concerned, that is in respect of long term policies, my department as well as several others are conducting at this time a study on the textile industry in Canada, and I hope to receive in a few months the conclusions of that study, which will enable me to answer this question.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinihe):: Would the minister be kind enough to have an investigation made on the footwear industry which is going through a very difficult time?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister advise whether he has received a request from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the Canadian Federation of the Blind for a meeting with himself and his colleagues in the near future, and if so, has a date been set?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not know the precise details but I do believe I am meeting with them next week.



CIGARETTES-SIGNS IN AIR CANADA AIRCRAFT

['I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:\nGovernment House\nOttawa\n27 February, 1969\nSir,\nI have the honour to inform you that the Hon. D. C. Abbott, P.C., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 27th day of February, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.\nI have the honour to be, Sir,\nYour obedient servant, Louis-Fromont Trudeau Brigadier General\nAssistant Secretary to the Governor General.\nFebruary 27, 1969', '[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)']
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the appalling increase in Canada in lung and cardio-vascular diseases has the minister had any meetings with the Minister of Transport regarding the signs on Air Canada planes stating "cigarette smoking only"?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, but I will take the matter under advisement.



Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister consider sending a special representative again to see General Gowon, this time to request him to take steps to have the consistent bombing of hospitals and other nonmilitary targets in the Biafra area stopped?

DEBATES	February 27, 1969


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Because of the most recent bombings of Red Cross hospitals and headquarters in Biafra will the Canadian government now consider requesting a full scale investigation of these atrocities by some international agency such as the United Nations in order to alleviate conditions for civilians?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if I thought any such action by the United Nations would be useful I would not hesitate, but I doubt if this could come before the United Nations, since it is an internal matter affecting the internal affairs of a member state of the United Nations, which would not agree to it being discussed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: As a supplementary question, would the Canadian government issue a formal protest to the Nigerian government deploring the most recent bombing of hospitals?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think it would be just as appropriate to make representations that the war should come to an end by the cessation of the resistance.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-151, an act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, without any amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House
Ottawa
27 February, 1969
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. D. C. Abbott, P.C., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 27th day of February, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Louis-Fromont Trudeau Brigadier General
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.
February 27, 1969

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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, at this time perhaps I might ask the house leader as to the nature of the business for the rest of this week and next week.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the house leader who is in Winnipeg today I should like to advise the house that today we will be dealing with the motion for the second reading of Bill C-173 respecting the organization of the government of Canada. When we have completed that stage we will deal with that bill in the committee of the whole house. We are to continue with that bill again tomorrow.
Next Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday have been set aside by a special order for the Business of Supply relating to the supplementary estimates. If it appears that this business may be completed before the time of the daily adjournment on Wednesday the house leader, after consultation, will let us know what the additional business will be. Next Thursday is to be a regular allotted day for the Business of Supply.
Finally, next Friday we plan to resume the debate on the motion for the third reading of Bill C-138, relating to the Bretton Woods Agreement Act. After that we would take the two agriculture bills, Bill C-157 respecting pest control products and Bill C-112 respecting the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: that Bill C-173, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters relating or incidental thereto, be read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole.
He said:
fTranslation]
Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this significant and substantial legislation, I
Business of the House
do not intend to go into details about each clause. This bill relates to many government institutions-some new, some already existing. It will be up to the responsible minister to deal with the relevant provisions for each department, agency or corporation which might come under this legislation. As for the questions of a general nature that might be raised by the proposed amendments, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) will deal with them. Consequently, I intend merely to emphasize the principles on which the provisions of this act are based.
Government agencies, as well as all social institutions, are subject to constant changes to which we must adapt ourselves from time to time. As representatives elected by the people, all hon. members are duty bound to keep constantly up to date on such changes. And we must be ready to consider and to adopt any bill that could enable the government of Canada to accomplish its functions in a better way, as it is faced with new conditions.
That is why the present government has to assume particular responsibilities, regarding this house and the people of Canada. In fact, its role is to set up a vast program of reform and reorganization of all the governmental apparatus.

Since last June this government has proposed or instituted major reforms in three key areas of government. First I announced a restructuring of the cabinet committee system which enables the cabinet to function more effectively. This has been done, and we think with great benefit to the efficiency of the executive arm.
One member of the cabinet, as a consequence of this, who has been most active both within the cabinet and as a legislator is the government leader in the other place. As the work load of that body has become more demanding, his responsibilities for supervising and co-ordinating legislation has also increased. One of the provisions of this bill will bring his office under the Salaries Act and thus place him on the same footing as his cabinet colleagues.
Improvements in the cabinet's methods of processing questions of policy are important to our parliamentary system, and so are improvements in the legislative procedures of this house. The changes in the house rules which we adopted before the Christmas recess are making it possible for us to handle more systematically the greatly increased
6016	COMMONS
Government Organization volume of legislation and other business which has been coming before us in recent years.
During fhe debate on the house rules the opposition argued that in a democratic government the criterion of efficiency should be applied to the administration rather than to the legislature.
While many of us do not accept the part of that argument which applies to the legislature, we can all agree that efficiency is a desirable goal for an administration. The new rules will enable this house to add a large number of laws to the statute books at each session, and we must assure ourselves that the public service is organized to administer those laws as effectively and economically as possible. That is the purpose of the many changes proposed by the present bill. Each of them has been planned in response to a clearly defined need.
In one case an area of relatively new and rapidly expanding activity has called for the creation of a new department. We can foresee that the whole field of communications will be of growing importance to Canada and will require increasing federal government involvement.
For example, the impact of man-made satellites on our everyday lives is going to be revolutionary, and we can only guess at tffe implications of the new techniques of information storage and transmission. Canada is playing a leading role in the development and manufacture of these new instruments of communication. In our second century they may well prove as essential to the unity of our country as our transportation systems have been since confederation.
The government must be prepared to deal with complex questions of public administration and policy in this wide ranging field. Under the terms of this bill, this responsibility will be assigned to a single minister heading the department of communications.

The reorganization proposed in this bill will in some cases enable the government to face more effectively problems which are not new but could not be solved adequately within the present structures.
We know-and this was often said at the recent constitutional conference-that regional disparities have existed since the very first days of Confederation. We also know that the federal government has attempted, especially

DEBATES	February 27, 1969
for a few years now, to reduce such disparities by having recourse to equalization payments, cost sharing programs and an increasing number of regional development projects. Most of those regional development programs were the responsibility of five ministers, I should say of several departments and various agencies.
Mr. Speaker, after all such programs have been consolidated under the sole Department of Regional Economic Expansion, we shall be clearly in a better position to achieve real coordination and centralization of our endeavours and undertakings in such a worthy and vital sphere in respect of our country's future. At the same time, we can group the many experts who, up to now, were trying to implement the regional development programs inside various departments.
However, we shall not content ourselves with merely following up what has been under way until now. The new department at the present time is in the process of revising the traditional notion of regional development.
The new policies will benefit from past experience, but they will also take into account today's new economic conditions. Later on, during discussions, the minister will have the opportunity to state in detail how he intends to consider the whole matter. But, on the other hand, he will be sufficiently empowered by the provisions of the act to implement the new policies of regional expansion.

the council has been subject to ministerial supervision. This bill will accord the council an independent status similar to that of the Economic Council of Canada. Like the Economic Council, it will become a separate employer and will have the right to publish its own reports.
In one case the bill grants additional powers and responsibilities to an existing department which complement those which it presently exercises. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was set up during the last session of parliament to provide a focal point for the protection of consumer interests. As we are all consumers, the department's activities have aroused a great deal of interest and support both in Canada and in other countries. The provisions of this bill will enlarge and strengthen the department's role by assigning to it a number of regulatory activities, designed to protect the consumer, which are presently carried on by other departments. These include the prevention of fraud and misrepresentation in advertising and packaging, and the maintenance of standards of safety and quality in food and drugs. The inspectors designated by the minister under the provisions of this bill will ensure that these standards are maintained in retail outlets. This will provide more effective protection for the Canadian consumer.

The main purpose of some other amendments in the legislation is to increase governmental efficiency while at the same time reducing administrative costs. The most significant suggestion in that regard concerns the establishment of a Department of Supply and Services. The Glassco Commission had recommended the grouping, within a single department, of common services such as purchasing and supply, in a way that such a concentration would be advantageous. Only in the volume of the operations involved, the government can make substantial savings. It also happens that experts with much diversified knowledge will be brought together and will, therefore, combine their abilities. In the last few years, following the recommendation of the Glassco' Commission, the purchasing services have been systematically organized within the Department of Defence Production. The proposed department will be responsible for procurements as well as for other administrative services.
That will enable us to enforce the supplementary recommendations of the Glassco
Government Organization Commission and to provide most of the common services needed by the various government departments.

In two cases the bill provides for the consolidation of two existing departments or of an existing department with a branch of another existing department. The Department of Industry will be merged with the Department of Trade and Commerce, and the forestry branch of the Department of Forestry and Rural Development will be transferred to the Department of Fisheries. In both cases the objectives of the component parts and the services provided by them are similar in nature or complementary. The new departments, therefore, will be able to provide a wider range of co-ordinated programs while achieving substantial administrative savings.
I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that the over-all effect of the many changes proposed by the bill is not to increase the number of governmental departments. Although the bill creates five new departments, it consolidates or abolishes five existing departments. So the total number of departments remains unchanged. Despite the length and complexity of the bill's provisions, our purpose has not been to make the government itself larger or more unwieldy but to eliminate duplication, to simplify administrative structures and to provide better service to Canadians.
I want to add only that we are doing all this in order to keep up with the changing times. I know that there has always been objection over the years to various forms of change or reorganization. I thought that as a matter of co-operation and dialogue with some of those who might object to the provisions of the bill I would supply them with a very good quotation which, for obvious reasons, I cannot use myself. But it might be worth reading. It is a statement by a certain Roman gentleman of 2,000 years ago who, talking of this process of reorganization, said:
We trained hard-but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn that later in life we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -while producing confusion-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
February 27, 1969

Government Organization


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It seems that hon. gentlemen opposite do not want to hear the rest of the quotation.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Nowlan:: This is the best part of the speech. It is the first emotion in the speech. And after all, it is 2,000 years old.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am glad that I have been able to draw the attention of a few hon. members of the opposition. I should not be surprised if I have even evoked the attention of a few of our own members on this side. This gentleman, Mr. Petronium Arbiter, speaking just about 2,000 years ago, was indicating a frame of mind which we of course reject. We believe that to live is to change, and that to progress is to adapt and modify to such changes. This is the spirit which on our side inspired this bill. But hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the house, or at least some of them, are welcome to use the quotation if they want to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it might not be unfair of me to commence by saying that some of us might have expected the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to give us a few constructive insights into some of these problems.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
have learned that this never happens.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Let me say to the Prime Minister that as far as the note on which he ended is concerned, certainly life is full of change and certainly governments and people must be encouraged to change with the times, but one of our quarrels with the present government is that it talks a great deal about change but does very little indeed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As to the bill itself, I do not propose to comment in detail on very much of it. Apart from the new Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the bill obviously is part of what one must expect to be a continuing process in government, a continuing process of new organizations to some extent and the disbanding of old organizations as conditions change. It certainly does not appear to us from anything in the bill, or anything the Prime Minister said this afternoon, to represent any very revolutionary or
[Mr. Trudeau.)
far-reaching change in the approach to the administration of government in this country.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I am disappointed with one major point in the bill. I touched on it yesterday and will not refer to it at length today. But since the minister to whom I was speaking yesterday did not see fit to make any comment, perhaps I might evoke some kind of reaction from someone on the government benches. I am referring to the need for reforming and changing the status, the position and the legislation governing the Auditor General. I will simply content myself with referring the Prime Minister to the few very wise remarks I made on this subject yesterday and corn-commending them to the attention of the members of the government. It is a matter of disappointment to me that neither the financial administration bill nor the government reorganization bill face up to the increasing importance of the Auditor General being made fully independent of the government and fully responsible to parliament. I doubt that any question involving public administration in this country is of such great importance today as the one I raised yesterday and which the minister did not consider important enough even to respond to.
There are some things that are a little difficult to understand and are perhaps not of fundamental importance so far as this bill is concerned. Some of us were surprised to see the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Forestry put together, and we certainly did not obtain any enlightenment from what the Prime Minister said this afternoon. It is a little difficult to see how these two departments mesh. It would seem, to some of us at least, that they should continue as separate departments because they are quite separate functions, even though on appropriate occasions they might both be presided over by the same minister. Certainly the Prime Minister, regardless of what a minister may say on the matter in the future, did not give the house any explanation with regard to this change.
I think the decision to place the Science Council of Canada on an independent basis will surely commend itself to the house generally.
Reference was made to the new Department of Supply and Services, the establishment of which was recommended by the Glassco commission. I expect this will command the support of the entire house.
February 27, 1969	COMMONS
The new Department of Communications to which the Prime Minister referred is, I think, an obviously appropriate step to meet changing conditions and it represents a reasonable concept, although on reading the bill I was surprised at the very narrow definition of the responsibilities of the minister. In view of the roving responsibilities that the minister seems to be discharging today, if he has to stay within the narrow confines of the provisions outlining the duties of his new department he will find himself very severely restricted indeed as to the number of subjects with which he can deal. Certainly the bill leaves the future of the Post Office Department in some uncertainty. Certainly the reorganization of this department is a pretty clear indication of something that the Prime Minister touched upon in closing. He pointed out that it was said by a Roman nearly 2,000 years ago that reorganization per se does not necessarily produce a better service, and we are certainly seeing this today in the Post Office Department. It is a fairly clear indication that reorganization in itself will not necessarily result in improvement.
The Department of Industry has been merged with the Department of Trade and Commerce and has become the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. My recollection is that the Department of Industry was set up a few years ago by a Liberal government with tremendous fanfare and with loud announcements of what it was going to accomplish. People on this side of the house questioned that at the time, criticized the establishment of the new department, said it would involve a waste of money and predicted it would not produce good results and would be a very costly venture. It seems now that there is no disagreement on the subject after a lapse of a few years. It seems to be agreed again that industry should go along with trade and commerce and that this aberration which lasted for a few years should be eliminated. This seems to involve the admission of a substantial error on the part of the government.
The main change in the bill, so far as the effect on the country as a whole is concerned, relates to the new Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I should say in passing that I do not know whether it represents the totality of the government's war against poverty. I am not sure I know what happened to the government's war against poverty except that it seems to have died somewhere along the way. Certainly the poor people have lost 29180-382
DEBATES	6019
Government Organization
the war so far. But where is the war against poverty? There is nobody in the house, unless I am under a delusion, who believes that a program to attack regional disparity will in itself eliminate poverty in this country because it has been made very clear by the Economic Council of Canada, among others, that there is a great deal of poverty in areas that do not suffer from regional disparity. I must make the point in passing that so far the government has not given any indication of a determination, either by itself or in cooperation with the provinces, to start the war on poverty which was declared by the Liberal government some years back and then abandoned. When we ask about it the Prime Minister is prone to say that he does not have to read the report of the Economic Council of Canada to learn about poverty. I do not think anybody in the house does. I do not claim we first discovered poverty, but the question is: When is the government going to do something about it?
The new department is being established as part of the government's attack on the problem of regional disparity in the country. Dealing with the problem in the country as a whole and not with specific reference to the Atlantic provinces where a special agency has been in operation, I point out that the new department will involve a greater degree of co-ordination of the federal agencies concerned with this question today. I should emphasize that it does not involve anything like complete co-ordination of the activities of the federal government or of the federal agencies concerned in this matter. Virtually every department of the federal government is involved in the problem of regional disparity. The policies of the Department of Finance are obviously important, the policies followed by the Treasury Board in fiscal matters are obviously important, and the policies followed by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) are also obviously important.
I want to emphasize as forcefully as I can that the agencies which are being consolidated in the new department must not be understood to involve anything like an adequate degree of co-ordination if the government is going to make an effective attack on regional disparity. It would be very unfortunate indeed if members of the house or citizens of Canada deduced from what the Prime Minister has said that the new department will in itself provide the necessary degree of co-ordination.
February 27, 1969

Government Organization That is as plain as the nose on your face, Mr. Speaker. Unless there is some such program as the minister is now proposing, and similar to what used to be done under the former trades training program, we cannot hope to get much industry in areas of slow growth.
This is a very important measure that the minister is proposing to adopt and I support it. I regret that it has taken the government four or five years to come around to this way of thinking, but better late than never. If this aspect of the program is an essential one, then I am pleased to see action taken on it.
I have emphasized the need for full coordination among all federal departments and agencies, between the federal government and the provinces, and among the federal government, the provinces and private groups and individuals. This goes far beyond the concept of co-ordinating the few federal agencies that will now come under the wing of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Co-ordination is required right across the country.
In the Atlantic provinces a special federal agency has been established for development purposes. It was first established as an advisory council that would conduct studies and make recommendations. In the year 1963 the Liberal government made a tremendous amount of noise about converting the Atlantic Development Board into an administrative agency.
I had some reservations about what was done. In the first place, I had some reservations about the allocation of a specific sum to the Atlantic Development Board, and I was by no means convinced that the step being taken at that time was right. But the government and its supporters of that day trumpeted this change from the housetops, declaring it would accomplish tremendous things for the Atlantic provinces. There was practically no end to the benefits that this step would confer upon the Atlantic provinces. This conversion of what had originally been established into an administrative agency was going to mean that money would be put in its hands in order to lick the problems facing that area. At least, that was the story four or five years ago.
I admit that there have been disappointments. Certainly the hopes that were held out by the government of Canada were illusory. Most of us who followed the work of the board were disappointed that it did not develop some kind of plan that had a reasonable degree of activity. Were my hon. friends or
[Mr. Stanfield.!
their predecessors in the same party completely wrong in 1963 and 1964 when they conceived this new and magnificent idea which they announced with such noise? I think it is pretty clear now that they think they were completely wrong to create this administrative agency at that time. They exaggerated the results that could be obtained. As I say, we were all disappointed that the board did not develop a plan, but during the course of the last five or six years it has gained in experience.
I suggest, as I have suggested previously, that instead of emasculating this agency the government should strengthen it to some extent. It now seems to be agreed that this region must be developed as a whole. The Atlantic Development Board could be the central focus for economic development for the region as a whole. It could be the central focus in terms of co-operation with the provinces and with the whole community, both of which are certainly necessary.
What the minister is proposing now is to put regional development into the hands of a highly centralized bureaucracy in Ottawa. Instead of there being more movement into the region in terms of effecting solutions, instead of there being a more effective involvement of the region in its own problems, there is a movement toward a high degree of centralization in Ottawa. Without being offensive or unfair, everything is now going to be in the hands of the minister and Tom Kent. Everything will depend on these two gentlemen.
As I say, I think the Atlantic Development Board should be strengthened. The board could be converted into an effective agency for co-ordinating developmental efforts in the region. It could be an effective agency for co-ordinating the activities of all federal departments and agencies in the region, not just the agencies that the minister is going to administer. It could also play some part in tailoring programs to the needs of the region.
I suggest in all sincerity that the same kind of agency could be very important and of great assistance in that part of Quebec east of Three Rivers, an area that is properly of such great concern to the minister. I would recommend that instead of emasculating the Atlantic Development Board the minister consider using it as an effective co-ordinating agency. The government of Quebec should be consulted on the establishment of a comparable agency to supervise and co-ordinate the developmental job required, particularly in the eastern part of Quebec.
COMMONS DEBATES	6023
Government Organization


An hon. Member:: It does.
February 27, 1969
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I apologize for interrupting the Leader of the Opposition but I wish to remind him that the city of Three Rivers does not exist. Its correct name is Trois-Rivieres.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my hon. friend. I shall be careful to call Trois-Rivieres by its correct name in future. I thank my hon. friend for bringing this point to my attention. It seems that some of us do not yet understand some of the finer points connected with place names.
As I was trying to say, I hope the minister is fully aware of the implications of my remarks. I ask him to reconsider what he has in mind about the Atlantic Development Board. He ought to use it for the purposes I have suggested. Also he ought to consider consulting with the province of Quebec on the establishment of a similar agency to meet development problems east of Trois-Rivieres dans cette province-la.
I suggest that changes in the Atlantic Development Board will weaken it and will involve loss of time and continuity in solving certain problems. Those changes will also bring about a degree of centralized bureaucracy and the minister will find effective coordination difficult to achieve under the new proposals.
I wish to ask another question about the general policy of the department in question. No doubt the minister is aware that the Economic Council of Canada, when discussing the problem of regional disparities, placed great emphasis on the development of growth related services in provinces which have not yet reached an adequate standard of growth. The Economic Council paid a great deal of attention to this matter in its report a couple of years ago. Although the bill empowers the government to make grants to provinces to help with the building of provincial infrastructures-I presume the grants will go toward certain kinds of development, road building, assistance to transportation, and so on-I wonder whether the bill envisages the kind of assistance the Economic Council of Canada regarded as essential if some regions of slow growth in the country are to move forward as rapidly as they ought to. I therefore ask the minister to consider seriously whether the bill fully incorporates the recommendations of the Economic Council in this regard.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Someone said it does. I do not know whether the minister said those words. I will not trespass much longer on the good nature of the house, but we must ask ourselves whether this government and the Liberal party are not swinging around like a windmill in certain areas of activity and responsibility. One year they set up a Department of Industry, which many said was not needed or necessary. Then, two or three years later they discovered their mistake and put the industry portfolio back under trade and commerce where it ought to have been all along. The government at one time appeared to be opposed to the establishment of so-called growth centres; now we wonder whether it may go to the other extreme. They took the Atlantic Development Board, which prior to 1963 had been set up as an advisory council, and made a great fuss about converting it into an effective administrative agency. Then in 1969 they decided after all that that step was an awful mistake and they reduced the status of that agency to that of an economic advisory council. From my reading of the bill that council will not meet very often.
From what I have seen, the government has really been going around in circles. The number of agencies potentially available for development purposes in the Atlantic provinces has been reduced. I know hon. members from the west as well as those from the east are concerned about what will happen to programs like ARDA and FRED. Others wonder whether there is truth in the rumours that P.F.R.A. is to be abolished. Hon. members on both sides of the house wish to be reassured on these points. Certainly it would be tragic if inadequacies under P.F.R.A. were to be the scapegoat for the inadequacies of other federal programs in western Canada. So I repeat to the government; Stop going around in circles. Do not swing too far in either direction in the concept of growth centres.
I assure the minister that he will run into political trouble over the growth centre concept; nevertheless, he will not find me giving him trouble unless he pushes the concept too far in either direction. Although I shall support him in that concept, I think he will find there will be no public acceptance of it by people across the country until it has been fully explained and sold to them. I ask him not to swing too far in either direction and to explain to the house exactly what he has in mind with regard to the definition of a region. Does he intend to consult the provinces on
'6024	COMMONS
Government Organization the definition or location of a region? Also, could he explain precisely the form of aid he proposes to make available to certain industries?
The bill, which is now before us eight months after the election was held, is only a skeleton. I hope the minister will put flesh on the bones.
Finally, may I make this point. It will not offend the Minister of Finance who is not present in the house. To be effective, any program must have available to it financial resources. It is one thing to pass a bill and *create agencies to administer a program, but it quite another to make a program work. If the minister is to do the job I know he hopes to do, he will need massive financial backing from the government. The entire effort must be massive if we are to overcome regional disparities in this country. The present measure ought to be regarded only as part of the war against poverty in Canada. I hope that very soon the government will continue by other means its attack on the prevalent problem of poverty in this country.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: Culminating in his going to Victoria.
Mr. Douglas	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): The effectiveness of that attack upon the housing crisis can be shown by the fact that last summer the government set up a task force to deal with housing. It became known as the travelling circus, and after spending thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money it brought forward only one really serious recommendation, namely, that the government should remove the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, something which the opposition had been trying to tell them for the last five years, and at no charge at all. The only proposal that came out of the task force's efforts was immediately shot down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) who said he had no intention of removing the sales tax from building materials. Apparently Hellyer proposes and Benson disposes. To revise the old saying, Hellyer hath no fury like a woman scorned.
I am not criticizing the idea of reorganization. I am pointing out that these reorganizations of departmental responsibilities may have been admirable in themselves but that they failed for the lack of any over-all planning and because the government did not allocate to them the resources necessary to make them effective.
The inevitable fact is that the government has never seriously adopted the goals which were set out by the Economic Council of Canada in its various reports. Starting with its very first review in 1964 the Economic Council began to delineate objectives toward which the country should move. The major goal they established is that we must have a maintenance of economic growth and full employment. They suggested three things which had to be done if we were to meet that goal. First, they recommended a growth rate
February 27, 1969

to prevent it. Surely the lesson is clear. The government's refusal to plan and its refusal to co-ordinate the economy can mean only growing unemployment, rising prices and economic dislocation.
In the measure before us the government is going to establish a department which will be responsible for attempting to eliminate regional economic disparities. This is a sound proposal. Members of this party have long advocated that a department of government be given this particular responsibility. It should be kept in mind, however, that regional disparities can only be eliminated in a growing and expanding economy, and that poverty is not only located in some areas to a greater extent than in others but that pockets of poverty are to be found in almost every part of the country.
The department which is to be set up to deal with regional disparity can only be effective if it is given adequate financial resources. The fact that it is being allocated merely an additional $37 million would indicate to me that the government does not intend to make any radical departure from its past policies. Merely moving some of the five various agencies which have been operating into a single department and abolishing the Atlantic Development Board and setting up an advisory committee is not going to deal with this problem unless the government is prepared to make massive sums of money available to this department to launch an all-out attack on poverty to remove some of the regional disparities which, if not removed, will tear confederation apart.
We submit that the proposed departmental reorganization gives no indication whatsoever that economic goals are being set or that economic policies are being put into motion to attain those goals. There is a growing need in Canada today for a department of government which has over-all authority to co-ordinate and supervise those activities which have to do with economic growth and full employment. I think what we really need is a department of economic affairs which would have the responsibility of co-ordinating the monetary, fiscal and investment policies being implemented by various departments of government. If the government is not prepared to do that there ought to be some co-ordinating body established, preferably in the office of the Prime Minister, whose task it would be, having been acquainted with the goals set by the cabinet to see that the various departments of government play their part in carrying

Government Organization
out the various programs so that the goals set by the government could be achieved.
I would be interested to hear from the government as to where the Canada Development Corporation is going to fit into this reorganized government structure. I think the Canada Development Corporation should be under the direction of whichever minister is going to co-ordinate the government's economic programs. If this agency is to be a genuine economic tool and not merely a mutual loan fund with the government as a silent partner, it has an important role to play in attaining some of the goals set by the Economic Council of Canada.
I think the Canada Development Corporation ought to be given three important tasks. The first task is to promote the processing of more of our primary products here in Canada. The fact is that at the present time more and more of our extraction industries are in the hands of foreign investors who have set up subsidiaries in this country purely for the purpose of supplying their parent companies with certain raw materials. Because they are selling to their parent companies they can sell at the lowest possible price. Consequently their profits are low and they pay very few taxes and can use their low profitability as an excuse for paying low wages.
Most serious of all, these companies are primarily concerned with getting raw material out of the country in its most primary state. We see this, for instance, in the province of British Columbia and in my own constituency where sawmills have been closed allegedly because of a lack of logs yet every day boatloads of unprocessed logs are going out of the ports of Vancouver Island. We are exporting jobs. British Columbia is shipping out coal and iron ore. We are exporting copper ore, and in other parts of Canada we are exporting nickel, lead, copper, zinc and pulp.
I am not suggesting we should not export any raw material. I am suggesting that if we are going to have economic growth and full employment, and if we are going to provide jobs for the young people we are training, then more processing must take place in Canada. This means supplying the necessary capital to expand existing Canadian-owned industries and to start new Canadian-owned industries for the purpose of processing raw materials to develop the Canadian economy. I think the Economic Council of Canada has to be charged with the responsibility of rationalizing our industry so we can break out of the branch plant syndrome which is inhibiting
February 27, 1869

Government Organization our economic growth. Finally, I think the Canada Development Corporation has to be given the task and the means of increasing Canadian ownership and control of the Canadian economy.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I would like to know from the government where in this reorganization there is any machinery or program for implementing any of the recommendations of the Watkins report. The government has been very casual about that report. Here is a report which says that no other country in the world has so much of its economy owned and controlled outside its borders as has Canada. Here is a report which indicates that we are rapidly reaching the point of no return, that we are rapidly losing control of our economic affairs. Any person who studies history knows that inevitably political control always follows economic control.
What does the government propose to do about the Watkins report? What is there in this reorganization that will give to some department or agency of the government the responsibility for developing greater Canadian ownership of our economy and eventually regaining control of that part of our economy which is now in the hands of foreign investors? I can find nothing here that indicates the government intends to do anything at all about the recommendations of the Watkins report or about the dangers to which it drew the attention of the Canadian people.
We cannot object and we do not object to the government shifting around its departments and reallocating responsibilities to various ministers. That is the prerogative of the Prime Minister. But I have been disappointed, as I am sure many members have, and I think the people of Canada will be disappointed, that in his entire statement today the Prime Minister said nothing at all about the goals and objectives which this reorganization proposes to make possible. The Prime Minister talked about reorganization so that the departments could administer the laws. But surely departments have the task of doing something more than merely administering laws. Surely departments are tools to be used for the purpose of setting up and following certain definite social and economic programs. Surely the task of government is to set desirable goals and to organize and co-ordinate all the resources of government to make possible the attainment of those goals.

There is nothing in what the Prime Minister said today which indicates that the government has any concept at all of what the role of government is in a modern society. I do not wonder that the Prime Minister closed by quoting the phrase that reorganization can be used as a method for creating the illusion of progress. I suspect that that is all this measure will turn out to be, an illusion of progress.
Unless the government, in the course of the discussion in committee of the whole, can give us some idea of what its goals and objectives are, I think we will be justified in concluding that this is merely another reorganization, that it is a playing around with departments and agencies which are in search of a policy, that this is a government with no clearly defined goals and with no concept of what it is trying to do or where it is going. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a sad day for Canada that a government starting a new term of parliament has nothing better to offer the Canadian people than this sterile reorganization of departments without any clear indication of what those departments are supposed to accomplish or what the Canadian people can expect them to achieve.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to take part in the debate on Bill No. C-173. This very thick bill contains all kinds of clauses, namely provisions to set up new departments.
Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to say that the new departments will certainly not straighten out the present economic situation, which is upside down and maladjusted, because the more we set up new departments, the more we increase government expenditures which make taxation necessary, and in turn, taxes reduce the purchasing power of the people.
To ensure the welfare of society, it has to be left with some purchasing power consistent with the economy and the gross national product. However, by setting up new departments, we upset the balance, we tax and overtax the people so that new departments can exist, new civil servants dan be assured of salaries of $15,000 to $30,000 and new positions can be created for new university graduates. That will be the result of the new departments. They will not change anything to economic conditions. The more departments we establish, the more troubles we create in the economic area.
February 27, 19G9	COMMONS
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I am strongly against the creation of those new departments which will be of no help to the economy and will contribute to reduce the purchasing power instead of increasing it. It is not the establishment of new departments that prevents industrial development, but the limitation of the people's purchasing power. In fact, industries know what to do and what to produce even if they do not have money. But the people have no money to buy their products. There is no lack of production in this country, Mr. Speaker. We have accumulated a production surplus in 1968. We have been accumulating surpluses since 1944, even since the war, and those surpluses are being used up through exportation only or in time of war.
Mr. Speaker, if Canada's economy is to operate freely, normally, the purchasing power must be left in the hands of the Canadian taxpayer, who is the main consumer. We are facing a problem of consumption, not one of production. It seems they want to solve the production problem through the creation of new departments. They want to produce more, when we do not know what to do with the present production. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his colleagues know that the industry can produce more, but the fact remains that there are a million unemployed people in Canada who do not produce at the present time.
If we had a sound economy and a reasonable purchasing power, the industry could function because the purchasing power would move constantly in the hands of the taxpayers and would keep our industry and our economy moving.
Mr. Speaker, there are several things in Canada that must be changed but it is only a question of balance. We have no problems in the field of production; our problems are now located at the level of the consumer. I do not know whether the departments will engage in production. I do not know whether they will provide for transportation.
A government exists only to balance the economy of a nation, and not to take the money of the taxpayers and to spend it for them. It does not exist to create all sorts of troubles for the taxpayers or to prevent them from investing, from developing their industry, or to prevent all sorts of economic agencies from expanding. These problems would
DEBATES	G029
Government Organization not exist if the purchasing power was constantly balanced with production and consumption.,
It is in this field that changes should be made in order to improve our economy.
I feel I am completely in order and even in agreement with the views expressed by the Prime Minister this afternoon by suggesting very briefly as part of our regular parliamentary proceedings, a somewhat original way to present the problem in order to grasp the easiest, most efficient, most constructive and most realistic solutions.
I do not want to put the ministers to shame but may I tell them very frankly that, so far, they have only found and given answers to imaginary problems. The basic problems have not even been located and they are applying poultices right beside the sore spots. How could we find remedies to problems which are yet to be diagnosed? How can we heal our wounds by putting bandages on the healthier parts of the body?
That is exactly what has been going on since June 25, 1968, since the day the new government came to power with a full majority, something that had not been seen in seven years. The government has simply raised the rate of interest on capital belonging to millionaires. They are now paid 7 per cent instead of 5 per cent interest, which is $20,000 more every year, for every million, without any additional work, but that is done by taxing all Canadian citizens even those who get no revenue, either from their work, or from their capital.
The salaries of the best-remunerated civil servants are being increased. For instance, those who were making $50,000 a year, will get $75,000; those who were earning $35,000 will now earn $45,000 and those who were getting $26,000 will now have $35,000; in addition, the tax-free allowance will be increased from $6,500 to $8,000 and so on.
The creation of new departments is the wrong way to balance our economic system, because no one wants to put it in balance, no one wants to take the time to study the situation and place our economy on a pivot.
But in the meantime, the cost of living increases, for every child, every student, every sick person, every blind person, every invalid, every pensioner, every mother of a family, more than 13 million citizens without income must pay more for their basic needs.
In the meantime-and of this the ministers and the members of the Canadian Parliament are aware-we see the salaries of our steadiest
February 27, 1969

Government Organization wage-earners going up, as well as the rates of interests charged by money lenders of every category. Why don't civil servants do something about it? It seems to me that they could do so, since there are now 21 departments.
To summarize, 8 million citizens-producers through their salaries and their interests, earn increasingly high annual incomes, while 13 million dependent citizens, children, students, pensioners, unemployed, mothers at home, and the sick, see the cost of living going up without getting any increase in the income they are already drip-fed by the civil servants of the department of social or antisocial welfare.
I am not accusing anyone. I am only showing the obvious results of an economic policy which dates back to about 1944, the end of the last world war, to the decisions that stemmed from the Bretton Woods agreements, in July of 1944, and to the introduction of family allowances, which have been the same for the last 25 years. I am not disputing the fact, I am only asserting it. And my observations are so accurate that they reveal immediately the real source of the problems as well as their solution, for the problems are diagnosed and localized in the facts themselves.
Mr, Speaker, I ask the ministers and all the members who represent 21 million Canadian citizens to realize that I am a Canadian citizen and to forget, for a moment, that I am a member of the opposition. They will then understand that we have all to suffer and to enjoy the economic guidance which our government is forcing upon our great Canadian businesses and which will be reflected in our villages and towns as well as in the slums of of our large cities, such as Montreal, Toronto, Halifax and Vancouver.
In a twinkling, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of 21 million Canadians, without hurting anyone, we can re-establish and maintain the economic balance between family and corporation incomes.
This is where we must intervene. The officials must look after that problem. They must consider if there is some balance among the various classes of society.
e (4:40 p.m.)
Revenues, expenses and profits must be balanced. No organization in the world can operate if it does not balance its revenues, expenses and profits. But in Canada, this is of no concern. New departments are simply established and the taxpayers' money is spent
IMr. Latulippe.]
to no purpose, because if the Canadians do not have a purchasing power, departments will not operate.
The present Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Marchand) will have a fine department. He will have many things to do, but he will not have the money to do them. Who, in that department, will be responsible for increasing the purchasing power so that our economy will be balanced?
Mr. Speaker, a balance must be established in the case of requirements, costs and prices. There is no one looking after this situation at the present time. The cost of living is rising because of increased salaries and interest rates. Money is loaned at 9, 10 and 24 per cent because the government lets exploiters bleed the people. Canadians as a whole are being exploited. Inflation is attributable to a few individuals who take advantage of the present system. They are allowed by the government to increase their interest rates which in turn increase their personal incomes totalling billions of dollars.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that in 1968 capital gains amounted to $28 billion and $40 billion were expended out of a total production worth $68 billion. This tremendous economic imbalance must be made to disappear. Nothing is being done about it. New departments intended to establish other agencies are being created. Farmers and industrialists will be told they are ignorant and that "smart alecs" with university diplomas will show them what to do, what to produce and how to export. For instance, if there are no funds available for production or consumption, nothing is done about it.
A balance is essential between management, employees and dependents. Nothing of the kind is provided with the establishment of the new departments. Moreover, there must be a balance between capital, labour and the right to live. The bill makes no provision whatsoever for that balance. It simply provides for expenditures on the part of the government side; as far as the people are concerned, it provides for new taxes.
How can we acheive balance with such plans and rataplans? Balance must exist between production, consumption and capital ization. Actually, in Canada, there is too much capitalization and not enough consumption, for which there is no money left. Almost everything relates to capitalization which, incidentally-I have previously quoted figures in the house in that connection-is protected by the State.
February 27, 1969

Large capitalizations are realized, on which no tax is levied. There are direct and indirect capitalizations. Some capital is set aside; in fact, the State allows reserves on which no tax is levied. Small wage-earners are taxed; their pay envelope is emptied. They get only the stub of their pay cheque. They have nothing left. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, what is there to improve in Canada?
I have before me an article published in the June 24, 1968 issue of La Presse. It is about a report on bankruptcies in the furniture retail business throughout Canada. I quote:
During the first nine months of 1968, last period for which statistics are available from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, a total of 89 furniture and electric appliances stores went bankrupt in Canada. Their deficits totalled $6,651,000. This amount is double that of the same number of bankruptcies during the same period in 1967, the value recorded for that period being $3,430,000.
Therefore, the number of bankruptcies in the furniture business would have more than doubled in a year! How can the industry survive? What is the department going to do in such a situation? Will the department give the people more purchasing power so that they can buy the products and keep the stores from going bankrupt?
Businesses are going bankrupt because they cannot sell their goods. They are compelled to sell them at a loss, and then have to go into liquidation.
This happens all over Canada not only in the furniture industry, but in all industries generally, except big businesses operating with millions of dollars and who are supported by the government and protected by taxes and duties.
There are new departments to deal with regional disparities, but the industries already established cannot operate because they do not know if they will find a market for their products.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Henry P. Latulippe: What is the trouble, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for St. Boniface rises on a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I would like only to point out that the hon. member speaks so rapidly that I have trouble following him. Could he repeat one of the things he has mentioned?
Government Organization


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I think that the hon. member for Compton has duly noted the remarks of the hon. member for St. Boniface.


Henry P. Latulippe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I apologize, indeed, for speaking a bit fast. As a matter of fact, one does not always realize that simultaneous interpretation is in progress and that other people want to listen. I am going to try and speak more slowly in order at least to enable hon. members to understand and to catch the main points of my argument on the situation of our economy.
Then, those 21 factors-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. Would the hon. member be kind enough to speak more slowly and to limit his remarks to the bill now before us?


Henry P. Latulippe: I think, Mr. Speaker, that I am complying with your suggestion, since the bill provides for the setting up of new departments which are intended to administer the nation's business.
Since the state does not produce anything and that its only task is to administer the country, it is only fair that it should do its job equitably, in such a way as to allow Canadians to live reasonably well in a country of plenty.
At all events, Mr. Speaker, I shall try not to depart from the object matter of the bill and if you think I am going off the track you will only have to remind me again.
These 21 factors of our personal, familial, social and national economy must be kept in balance at all times, under the learned guidance of a government aware of its responsibilities, within the framework of our present monetary, economic and political systems and our constitution.
We do not want to change anything, to upset anything, because our present economic system is good, in spite of some abuses that must be corrected. Hon. members on the government side should understand us when we say that we are in favour of credit, rather than ignore us.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
They will not listen to us because they think we want to upset everything, but we do not want to upset anything at all. We want to keep everything which is good, which is of service, we want to keep the agencies which are functioning well. When these federal
February 27, 1969

Government Organization agencies do everything they can to be of service, we give them credit for it. We do not object to that at all but we do object to the setting up of new agencies, new departments which are going to cost millions when the people already lack the necessities of life and what they need to keep the country's economy working properly.
In fact, it is not by taking from the people its capital and by putting it into the hands of officials earning $25,000 to $50,000 a year that we are going to keep our economy in operation.
There are enough departments at the present time. The point is to guide them towards sound goals, a complete balance of our economy. Our present departments, with their qualified officials are in a position at the present time to perform reasonably this task so as to bring about the development of our citizens.
Such principles are clearly set forth in the Universal Bill of Rights passed by the United Nations on December 10, 1948-20 years ago-and in the Canadian Bill of Rights passed by this house on August 10, 1960, which can be found in chapter 44 of the Revised Statutes of Canada.
It would be so easy to bring these great principles into concrete form through technical legislation adapted to the intellectual capacities of ministers and hon. members.
That is the point I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker. I believe all members will agree with me. Our economic chariot has a large wheel and a small wheel, and it is turning round in a circle. Instead of bringing the small wheel to the size of the big one, so that the chariot may go straight, all we do is to reduce more and more the size of the small one, and the more we do so, the more we turn round in a circle. The new departments will do nothing else but reduce the size of the small wheel of the economic chariot, which means that we will keep on turning round in a smaller circle. It is the only thing those new departments will do, I am sure.
Included in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is the question of credit. We may refer to personal credit, family, municipal, provincial, federal, national or international credit, because it has always something to do with finance. No matter what kind of credit we are talking about, personal, family, social, municipal, provincial, federal, national or international, it must first of all be human, logical and intelligent. Whether we have to do with the personal, family, social, municipal, provincial, federal,

national or international capital, it must first of all be human, logical, intelligent, suited to man and his material, intellectual and spiritual nature.
Such is the task we should get down to, that is what, according to the Bill of Rights, we should emphasize, consider and put into practice. Credit too must be logical; it must enable us to fulfill the purpose for which credit or capital was created, or legalized. And credit, that economical fact, must be intelligent too; it must meet efficiently the needs of the human being.
All men are created to live in a community, in an ascending hierarchy, the highest degree of which, above ministers, senators, governors, presidents and members of parliament, kings and princes, popes and cardinals, is God himself, sole creator of all visible and invisible things.
Mr. Speaker, to speak fairly, in our society, one must start by knowing what is a human being and, if we adopt laws, it is for him. Therefore, it is to help the Canadians to grow, to prosper and to fulfill themselves that we legislate, and not to trouble them, to burden them with mortgages, to get them into debts and to let them live in uncertainty. Our present system is an uncertain one in which all Canadian citizens are concerned, taxed and taxed again extremely. It is no longer possible to tax those citizens because it is taking the bread out of their mouth. However, there is bread and wheat in Canada. We do not lack anything but we are not able to get the upper hand, to put together the methods and the techniques that are necessary to get our economy to function properly. We find it impossible to fit the economic chariot with wheels of equal size to enable it to follow the right path and to render a service to everybody from the smallest to the biggest.
The government must administer the common weal and if possible go too far in the society, if there are enormous capital reserves that are not taxed, it should see to it. It is not the new boards that will see to it because they have no business to intervene in this field. This is why I would ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to intervene, with all his organization, in order to take away the surpluses where they exist and to distribute them where there is need for them.
We have 21 million Canadians in Canada. This means we need buying power for 21 million people. If we have 13 million people
February 27, 1969	COMMONS
lacking this buying power, it is up to the government and to the ministers to balance the economy, so as to allow every citizen to have whatever he needs to fulfill himself. In that respect, socialist or communist minded laws will be of no avail because they deprive the individual of his freedom. The individual was born a free man and a free man he must remain as long as he does not interfere with the freedom of his neighbour.
I would have much more to say, Mr. Speaker; however, I will just ask hon. members and the government to think it over, to consider the economic position of Canada and to find out what is wrong with it.
The answer is not to increase the output of an industry by mechanizing it, thus putting three others out of business. Nor is it to subsidize an industry, employing 10 people while another one employing 100 workers is compelled to go out of business because it cannot sell its products. This is no answer. As everybody knows, today industry depends on science, on technology and hardly on manpower. Industry will never be the answer to the problem of manpower. The answer is elsewhere. Industry does not pay salaries which enable citizens to enjoy a decent living. For an output of $10,000, salaries average $1,500; and with a salary of $1,500 you cannot buy $10,000 of products. This is a truism. One need not be a genius to understand that.
Once more, Mr. Speaker, I urge our ministers and our officials to assume their responsibilities so that we may give our people the benefit of our capital in circulation instead of wasting it on salaries to employees.
I am not against university graduates, I am not against high-ranking officials, but I think we have enough of them at the moment. Let those who are in office assume their responsibilities and discharge their duties properly since they have all the qualified personnel they need.
The dissatisfaction of society is not due to the civil servants, but rather to the fact that families do not have what they need to live decently. Everything is there to meet their medical or housing needs except money, because with a 10 percent interest on loans, housing construction is restricted. That is where there should be real control. A managed economy is acceptable in the field of housing, but instead the sales tax on building materials is increased to 12 per cent and the rates of interest on loans for housing are also raised.
DEBATES	6033
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


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

Has the hon. member finished his remarks?


Henry P. Latulippe: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have finished but I oppose this motion.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bechard in the chair.
Albert Béchard: Order, please.
House in committee of the whole on Bill C-173, an act respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters relating or incidental thereto. As it is five o'clock I do now leave the chair.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills without amendment: Bill C-148, an act to regulate interprovincial and export trade in freshwater fish and to establish the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation; and Bill C-152, an act to amend the Veterans Land Act.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg)-Canadian Pacific Railway-request for survey of train accommodation; the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Transport-subsidies on intraprovincial ferries.
The time being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.
Private Bills



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
February 27, 1969

Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster) moved: that Bill S-22, respecting Gillespie Mortgage Corporation, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is brought before the house in order to change the name of Gillespie Mortgage Corporation to City Home Mortgage and Savings Corporation, and, in French, Habitat Urbain, Societe d'Hy-potheques et d'Epargne. The company was incorporated by statute in 1955 under chapter 70 of the statutes of that year. It was owned by a well-known Vancouver businessman, Mr. Harry Gillespie, who operated the company until 1960 when he went into semi-retirement. The company remained dormant or inactive until 1967. In that year an agreement was effected between Mr. Gillespie and Home and Dominion Investments Limited under which the Home Company agreed to purchase all the shares of the corporation. The Home Company was owned by a Mr. Pyper of Kamloops, British Columbia, in the main. All the other shareholders of the company are Canadian citizens.
Part of the arrangement with respect to the purchase of shares is that, since Mr. Gillespie owns other concerns, the new owners of the company will change the name of the company so that Mr. Gillespie's other companies will not be confused with it. All aspects of the purchase have been concluded, with the exception of the change of name.
Essentially, the bill is very simple. Clause 1 changes the name of the corporation. Clause 2 empowers the company to contract under the new name and binds the company to any contracts heretofore made under the old name. Clause 3 states that nothing in the bill affects the existing rights of the company. I urge the house to consider this bill in committee, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Pelers:: Mr. Speaker-


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order. I have spoken to my hon. friend and to other hon. members, and I understand it is their intention to talk this bill out. I further understand that members of the hon. gentleman's party have no particular objection to this bill but, because of provisions in the rules, wish to utilize the time
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard) .1
available at present. May I therefore suggest we call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to accept the suggestion of the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I suggest we revert to committee of the whole.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-173, respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters relating or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Bechard in the chair.
Albert Béchard: Order, please. I am advised we must wait until the Royal Assent. Is it agreed that I rise and resume the chair?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. Is it agreed that we suspend the sitting until 5.40 p.m.?



SITTING SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
At 5.10 p.m. the sitting of the house was suspended.
9 (5:50 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General that this honourable House attend him immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
And being returned:
February 27, 1969
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to amend the Customs Act.
An Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.
An Act to regulate interprovincial and export trade in freshwater fish and to establish the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
An Act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
An Act to amend the Veterans Land Act.
Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest the house return to the committee of the whole?



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the whole of Bill C-173, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters relating or incidental thereto- Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Bechard in the chair.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Six
o'clock.


Albert Béchard: It being six o'clock I now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
The Chairman:: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill C-173. The committee will turn to part I, fisheries and forestry. Shall clause 2 carry?
On Clause 2-Department established.


Mr. Davis:: Mr. Chairman, Bill C-173, an act respecting the organization of the government of Canada, goes a long way toward bringing the administration of the nation's non-renewable resources together in a single department. Our fisheries are renewable and our forests are renewable. Both are very important national resources. Bringing them together in a single department makes sense,
Government Organization because good management in both cases involves the same principles of conservation. It makes sense also because these two great resources are often found in close proximity one to another.
Physically and economically speaking, our fisheries and forest resources have a great deal in common. Often they are found in, or are dependent upon, the same great watersheds. Usually a healthy forest resource means a healthy fishery. Often the wise harvesting of our trees serves to perpetuate our fishery both from a commercial and a recreational point of view.
There are conflicts, of course. The thoughtless spraying of trees to control insects and disease damages our fisheries. Also, a "cut and get out" philosophy in our forests can lay waste, not only a great deal of future forest land but also many miles of our best fishing rivers and streams. So, we have to be careful. We have to manage the total resource, the forests and the fishery, with the same general idea in mind, that of maximizing the total benefit to the Canadian people as a whole.
In talking about our fisheries and forests, I am tempted to add wildlife. I have noted, for example, that the Glassco royal commission on government organization recommended that wildlife be included along with the fisheries. If wildlife were included along with fisheries and forestry, we would have a complete package. We would bring most of the nation's renewable resources under a single administration, under a single government department in Ottawa. We would have, in a single department, all of the "wild" living resources whose reproduction and growth have a great deal to do not only with the improvement of our general environment in Canada but with the preservation of our great outdoors and the long run health of Canadians.
Jurisdictionally, we have an interesting contrast here. Fisheries, under our constitution, is totally a federal matter. Forestry, meanwhile, is largely provincial. Fish, collectively, are a national resource. Trees, in the main, come under provincial jurisdiction. Hence the name of the new department, Fisheries and Forestry.
The word "fisheries" comes first because we in this parliament, our national parliamentary institution, have all the powers necessary in order to not only carry out research on fish as a resource but also to conserve, manage, process, and market, fish and fish products.

February 27, 1969

Government Organization
The word "forestry" comes second in the name of our new department, Fisheries and Forestry, because here we are confined, in the case of forestry, largely to the role of research. The federal government's role in research is very important. The industry of ideas, research, in effect, knows no boundaries. It is therefore important for us to do collectively, and without regard for our provincial boundaries, as much research as we can at the national level.
But when it comes to the administration of our forest resources, the provinces are paramount. It is up to the provinces to say which trees are left alone and which are cut down. It is up to the provinces to say which companies do, and which do not, get tree farm licences, and so on. It follows that the protection of this resource, in the sense of the prevention of disease, insect damage and forest fires is basically a provincial responsibility, even though the federal government may from time to time help out in this respect.
I have said that the federal role in respect of forest research is a dominant one. It is big relative to that of the provinces. The federal government spends, roughly speaking, one dollar on forest research for every dollar that the industry spends on research and development. For every dollar the federal government spends on forest research and development, the provinces collectively spend about ten cents. So, the federal role in respect of research and related development is a large one indeed.
The federal government's forest research bill adds up to about $18 million per annum. This figure appears small at first glance when compared with the total value of our forest products, which currently is about $5 billion per annum. In other words, less than one-quarter of 1 per cent of the national income is being spent by the federal government on forest research and development. One half of one per cent, is the figure for government and the forest industry together. This figure is low compared with many industries. It is low compared with agriculture, which in this country spends about three-quarters of one per cent on research. In the case of mining, the comparable figure is 1 per cent or roughly double the forestry rate. In the case of secondary manufacturing, it is about 3 per cent. In the case of certain growth industries such as the chemical industry and the electronics type industries, the figure is upward of 5 per cent of their total sales which goes to research.


[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
To repeat, in forestry we spend about one quarter of 1 per cent federally and a comparable figure is spent by industry, totalling one half of 1 per cent of the gross sales of the forestry industry. So, the total effort in Canada on forestry is low relatively speaking, and as compared to other industries and even the federal effort which is roughly half the forestry total, is small in over-all industrial terms.
Now, I should like to turn to fisheries, where our research effort is a large element of the departments responsibility but is not the total picture because, in the fishery, where we have national pre-eminence we are responsible also for conservation, for management, for processing and often for marketing as well. Confining my comments for a moment to research, the federal effort mounted through the Fisheries Research Board and through the Department of Fisheries itself is of the order of 5 per cent of the gross sales of the commercial fishing industry in this country. So, you can see that the total research effort in the fisheries area is much greater proportionally than it is in forestry.
As I have said, the responsibility of the federal government in the fisheries area includes development. We spend in total about $50 million a year on fisheries. This $50 million should be viewed in the context of the total output of the commercial fishing industry of about $400 million. In other words, roughly $1 is spent by the federal government on research, development, conservation, management and so on, as compared for every $8 of total sales of the product. If I were to confine the calculation to raw fish, to the fishermans income, the ratio would be one in four. So the federal taxpayers role in respect of the commercial fishery in Canada is a very substantial one indeed.
The roles of the federal department include inspection, which is very important particularly in connection with the maintenance of the quality of fish. The good reputation of fish as a food is dependent on quality and hence on our inspection service. This is true especially in the case of freshwater fish caught mainly on the prairies and in respect of a number of our groundfish products on the east coast. The Department of Fisheries, particularly in recent weeks through the fisheries price support legislation, has also entered the market to a greater extent than ever before. As a result of legislation which was passed recently, a federal agency is being set up to
February 27, 1969	COMMONS
act as a single seller of freshwater fish, principally in the United States.
The fisheries price support legislation is effective in respect of the Great Lakes where the federal role has been to stabilize the price of the freshwater fish from that source. We are looking ahead to 1970 when the federal government will, under federal price support legislation, stand ready to buy frozen groundfish products, to bid the price up in the market and to stabilize the price, particularly to fishermen, for many years to come. So, the Department of Fisheries is concerned not only with the resource and with its optimum management but also with inspection, the quality of the product and the marketing process.
The management of the resource presents a problem, particularly in international waters beyond our own Canadian jurisdiction. Hence the importance of including as much water area under Canadian jurisdiction as possible. In the case of certain resources, including those in salt water which like the crab and the lobster extend to the edge of the continental shelf, we have the complete say as to what is caught, how much is caught, and how this catch relates to the sustainable yield from that source. But in the cases where we are competing with other nations, it is a catch as catch can situation, a no-man's land, an unregulated fishery.
I think it must always be the policy of the government to endeavour to bring order out of chaos in this particular industry. In the case of some treaties, we have managed to limit the catching effort of other countries, and in some cases we have had to limit our own catching effort. In those circumstances, it has been possible to develop the resource in an orderly manner, to maintain production and to get an economic yield from that particular fishery. However, these cases are exceptions rather than the rule.
We have endeavoured, particularly on the west coast and now also in the case of the lobster fishery on the east coast, to institute systems of licence limitation. We can only do this when the fishery in question is totally under Canadian jurisdiction and control. The main objective is not to limit the catch but to limit the amount of gear, the number of vessels, to the point where the income of the average fisherman is as high as it can be. Its administration should be such as to create a reasonable differential in favour of the fisherman relative to the income of the community in which he lives. The principal objective in
DEBATES	6037
Government Organization licence limitation is to raise the income of the average fisherman, but it also has the effect of better conservation and the wise management of the resource itself.
There are other side benefits to the dollars spent on research, conservation and good management, than that of the commercial fishery itself. I am referring here to the sports fishery, to recreation. In many parts of North America today the investment in pleasure boats, in gear and in services for the sports fisherman is a multiple of the investment of the total commercial fishery in that area.
For instance there are six times as many privately owned sports craft on the west coast today as there are commercial fishing craft. The total investment in the sports fishery on the west coast is considerably in excess of commercial fishery. So, the dollars spent on the propagation of more fish of higher quality-in this case of salmon-also creates a benefit for the whole community. Therefore, the earlier figure which I gave of an investment of about $1 by the Canadian taxpayer for every $8 in commercial yield would have to be modified for this very considerable yield in pleasure and convenience to the sports fisherman and the pleasure boat owner.
Several hon. members have already spoken on this bill, and I would like to refer very briefly to their comments related to fisheries before I sit down. The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) was concerned about the ever increasing expenditure by federal government departments. I would like to point out that the combined department of fisheries and forestry in 1969 will spend less money, fewer taxpayers dollars, on its administration than the two separate departments did in the immediately preceding year. The employment in terms of man hours of the work force in the department will also be down as compared to 1968.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was concerned about growth centres, particularly as they relate to the expansion of the economy of the Atlantic region. He made a request that in the development of our resource industries we should not be unduly preoccupied with the idea that a few centres should be the only centres in the future to attract investment, particularly investment which can be influenced by federal government policy. I would like to assure him that in the case of the forest industry, and also in the case of fisheries, it will be the intention of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry to
Government Organization make sure that the expansion of our resource industries takes place where it is most likely to be profitable to the owners of companies and more particularly to those who work in the industries and earn a wage either in the mills where forestry is concerned or as fishermen.
m (8:20 p.m.)
In other words, there will not be a conscious policy of directing new industry and investment to metropolitan areas. But I must also tell the hon. member that we shall be very concerned about improving the efficiency of both the forest industry and the fisheries industry in order to make them commercially viable, able to stand on their own feet and to get along with less federal aid in the form of subsidies in the future.
Finally, I should like to refer to the comments made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) who talked about national objectives as distinct, so to speak, from departmentalised objectives. I agree we must always have national objectives and goals. These goals are unlikely to be spelled out under the names of departments such as that of Fisheries and Forestry. I think the principal objective of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry should be more comprehensive. Conservation in the sense of good management is such a goal; in other words, keeping the future in mind so as to yield the greatest possible return to those who use these resources, and at the same time minimize the burden on the Canadian taxpayer.
The management of fisheries, forestry and wildlife resources should be carried out in such a way as to extend their commercial use as much as possible and to increase their other values like recreation which only now are coming into focus as more and more Canadians are able to take to our woods and waters.
I have covered only briefly the activities of this department. I believe the department can expand in a meaningful sense in the direction of conservation and resource management. In the case of remote communities which may be abandoned in the future, small ones mostly, there is a great future in tourism and in recreation. My experience on the west coast has been that the abandoned fishing communities of a decade or so ago have now been occupied by a wave of tourists from the United States and by Canadians who are getting to know our coast better. I am sure this will

February 27, 1969
happen not only on the west coast but on the east coast and on our inland waterways as well.


Mr. Crouse:: I welcome this opportunity to speak on Bill C-173 which will be known as the Government Organization Act, 1969. I listened with interest to the comments just made by the Minister of Fisheries and I hope a little later to make a few observations on them.
There are 15 clauses in this bill calling for new departments and amendments with regard to existing ones. We on this side are not asked to deal with these items on an individual basis; it seems to be the purpose of the government to bring in measures in Wholesale fashion grouping fish and chips, telecommunications and postage stamps, industry, trade and commerce-which, we believe, should never have been separated by the Liberal government in the first place- and so on. The bill before us calls for the establishment of a Department of Regional and Economic Expansion, authority for which should have been sought in a completely separate measure in view of the vast area covered and the many complex problems involved.
The bill also calls for a Department of Supply and Services, amendments to sections of the Consumer and Corporate Affairs Act, a substitution for the National Health and Welfare Act, the establishment of a Medical Research Council, the establishment of a Science Council of Canada, the granting of corporate powers to the Royal Canadian Mint, an amendment to the Ferries Act, amendments to the Government Companies Operation Act, increases in the salaries of ministers and members of the Privy Council, plus changes in the Senate and House of Commons Act and transitional changes in ministerial functions.
As far as I am concerned, this bill is a legislative nightmare. It is impossible to deal with it in its entirety. It is the product, it seems to me, of a confused and uncertain government which can do no better than bring this hodge podge of legislative proposals to the house and dump it in our laps, saying, in effect: this is the best we can do.
Though it is true the present Prime Minister has only been in office since 1968, Canada has had a Liberal government ever since 1963 and the present bill is a sorry admission on the part of the right hon. gentleman of failure to organize the administration, in particular the various ministries, into an effective unit.

February 27, 1969	COMMONS
The first part of this bill, dealing with Fisheries and Forestry, is really a housekeeping measure. It moves the Department of Forestry away from the minister of rural development and places this important primary industry under the administration of the Minister of Fisheries. It is obvious that the government has been planning this move for some time because, since, the beginning of this session the book of estimates has listed the expenditures for fisheries and forestry under the heading "Department of Fisheries and Forestry". I do not oppose this change, but I have reservations about the manner in which the problems experienced by these two important industries can be related directly one with another, especially in the Atlantic provinces.
For example, when spraying was carried out in New Brunswick in an effort to control budworm infestation in the forests of that province, the spray was washed from the trees and carried to the rivers and streams, destroying large numbers of trout and salmon and creating considerable problems for departmental officials both federally and provincially. I cannot but wonder which hat the minister will wear when such problems come to his attention. Will he try to aid the fisheries or will he try to help the forestry people when a conflict of interest arises?
I note the bill calls for one deputy minister to be responsible for assisting in the administration of the combined Department of Fisheries and Forestry. Whoever fills this position will have to be knowledgeable in both industries, since every province of Canada counts either fishing or forestry, or both, among its primary industries. Then again, conditions in the fishing industry vary greatly as between one coast and another. It goes without saying that they are altogether different from those in the forest industry.
To all who are concerned over the present economic state of the fishing industry on the east coast, the announcement on Thursday, February 20, by the Minister of Fisheries in which he outlined the program of assistance for the groundfish industry was welcome news. The minister said tonight that the federal role with respect to the commercial fishery is a very substantial one. With this, I would agree.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I should like to point out at this point that some 75 or 80 per cent of all our fish production is exported. This is helpful in bringing
DEBATES	6039
Government Organization foreign exchange to this country. It also helps our balance of payments problem. In other words, we are only showing good business sense when we spend something like 5 per cent-I believe that was the figure the minister gave-on research for our fishing industry.
The government's main objective, which was outlined a short time ago by the minister, is to bring about a permanent improvement in the marketing of Canadian frozen groundfish. In order to do this, the minister has proposed to take advantage of the fisheries prices support legislation by entering the market and initiating a purchasing program that is designed to strengthen and stabilize the market. It is planned to sell the supplies accumulated through ordinary commercial channels, and it is proposed to hold the reserve stocks until the export price is high enough to cover the basic costs of production in Canada.
These costs must include an adequate price to the thousands of Canadian fishermen in the Atlantic provinces who are completely dependent upon the fishing industry, who have no alternative means of employment, and who are facing serious financial difficulties while endeavouring to provide for the needs of their families in this inflated, high cost economy in which we are living today.
The guideline that has been suggested by the minister as a fair price to our fishermen is the average price paid for the years 1965, 1966 and 1967. I find no fault with this proposal, but I would point out that the minister's plan can only succeed if sales of groundfish are expanded both in Canada and in the United States.
The minister's proposal is initially a holding operation to enable funds to be supplied to the processors in order that they can proceed with the orderly marketing of their products without dumping them on the market at sacrifice prices. The fact that this government has finally shown some backbone, that it has at long last decided to recognize the regional disparities that exist in the Atlantic provinces, and that it has finally decided to aid these people by announcing a policy for the fisheries development, giving new hope to the people in the Atlantic provinces, has had a salutary effect upon fish prices. Instead of acting like a rudderless ship that is exposed to every wind and wave fisheries now has a sea anchor in the form of the government's announced policy to aid the industry in meeting the intense competition our processors are facing in our tradititional markets from foreign suppliers.
February 27, 1969

Government Organization
I think it is regrettable that this government, like the Pearson government that preceded it, waited so long before it took action; that it waited until some of the processors in the Atlantic provinces had to close their doors, until all the processors' funds had been spent and the fishermen had used up their resources and were desperately seeking aid while their debts piled higher and higher.
That was the situation, and the government cannot say that it was unaware of these desperate conditions because speaker after speaker on this side of the house who came from the Atlantic provinces made very effort to acquaint the government with the needs of their people and to encourage it to accept its responsibility by taking action to deal with this problem.
As I said earlier, part of the minister's program for the fishing industry is a holding operation, the success of which will depend upon marketing more of our fisheries products in Canada and the United States. To do this the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry will have to enlist the aid of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, utilizing trade commissioners and every sales minded person within the department in the hope that we can increase our exports of fish and fish products not only to our traditional markets but to other parts of the world. We must also put out better literature and encourage more people in Canada to eat more fish.
I suggest that while the literature that has been published to date has been helpful, it has lacked imagination. Perhaps I am being bold in making this suggestion, but I should like to suggest to the minister the adoption of a new slogan that would go something like this: "We dare you to be thin by consuming more of Canada's nutritious, non-fattening seafood". I ask the minister to try that for a heading and then to follow it up with a series of recipes that would be helpful to anybody who was desirous of losing weight. Certainly, this sort of nutritious protein food is very helpful to anybody who is trying to follow a diet and take off a few excess pounds. However, I leave that suggestion with the minister.
It is my understanding that a study of the marketing of fish in Canada is presently underway, the cost of the study being shared by the industry, through the Fisheries Council of Canada, and the federal and provincial governments. To date we have heard nothing

of the results of this study. I hope the Minister of Fisheries will find it possible to give the house an interim report on this matter in the not too distant future.
While we are on the question of surveys, I understand that the Atlantic Development Board was conducting a study in depth of the marketing of Canadian fish products in the United States. However, this board has now been swallowed up by the proposed department of regional development and will be replaced by an advisory council, as proposed in the bill, to be called the Atlantic Development Council. I cannot help but wonder whether this study has been finalized and, if so, whether a report is available. If the study has not been completed, then have the funds for this work which had been granted to the Atlantic Development Board been returned to the minister of regional development and handed over to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry so that this very worth-while project on behalf of the fishing industry can be completed? Perhaps the minister would comment on these matters, which have always been important but which are even more important now.
The long term loans proposed by the minister as a special measure for the fishing and processing firms in 1969, plus the midterm and long-term measures that are contemplated for restructuring the operations of the processors between now and the 1970's, will be helpful in improving our competitive position. Any program that makes for greater efficiencies in any industry cannot help but narrow the gap between production costs and market prices, thereby putting the industry on a sounder financial footing.
The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry suggested in his over-all program that beginning in the early 1970's it will be necessary to centralize our frozen groumdfish operations in fewer growth areas. The minister is no doubt aware that such a program, while highly desirable from the point of view of efficiency, creates serious social problems for our people. I believe that the suggestion that we centralize our frozen groundfish operations was first made by the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, and in view of the larger ships that are required to conduct a year round fishery, and also ini view of the emphasis placed on the expansion and development of our offshore fishery, the trend toward centralized growth centres was a natural evolution in the fishing industry.
February 27, 1969

[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
However, in my opinion, the change need not be so disturbing to our people socially as was first anticipated, providing that the moves are made gradually after careful planning by the industry and the provincial and federal governments. Communications are a vital part of this program. If good highways are built to provide easy access from country areas to the centralized fishing centres then fishermen and fish packers will have little difficulty in commuting to their places of work. This type of living is preferred by many Canadians; and though travelling to and from work for a considerable distance is time consuming, many prefer travelling instead of living in congested areas where rents for accommodation are generally very high. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that in today's society it is almost impossible to obtain suitable accommodation in the congested centres of Canada. However, before beginning on a program of centralized growth centres for the fishing industry, the federal government should realize that it must also be willing to share in the cost of highway construction in the provinces concerned so that easy access may be provided for people living in the country to established growth centres. I urge the government to give a problem of this magnitude top priority for discussion at future federal conferences so that the provinces and the federal government may cooperate on this matter to the best advantage of all concerned.
Finally I point out to the minister responsible for fisheries and forestry that his announced policy for the fishing industry has already helped in that it has given our people new hope where little hope had existed for the past two years. But this policy alone will not cover all problems of the fishing industry. If he and his officials are thinking in terms of developing centralized growth centres in the early 1970's, the time to start planning those centres is now. A study should be made of all existing plants processing fresh fish, salt fish and frozen fish blocks. The areas surrounding these plants should be studied in an effort to determine the distances travelled by existing fishermen and plant workers. I am glad to see the Minister of Public Works present in the house. I submit that the Department of Fisheries and Forestry ought to work in co-operation with the Department of Public Works to determine what will be potential growth centres, so that funds may be earmarked for suitable wharves, breakwaters, skidways,

Government Organization freshwater supplies, channel and harbour lights as well as suitable dredging programs to take care of today's modern trawlers.
The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry ought to be working in co-operation with the minister responsible for regional economic expansion on the type of planning to which I have alluded. There is one thing I should like to know, however. Who will take initiatives? Who will go ahead with these types of projects? In my native province of Nova Scotia, when the captain of a ship becomes ill and the mate takes over, unless there is agreement between the mate and the bos'n on the course that will be followed, that ship will go around in circles. If the ship is in port and the captain is not aboard that ship will not even begin its voyage. That may illustrate one of the weaknesses of this bill. It defines certain powers for the minister responsible for regional development; it gives certain powers to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, there are 15 parts to the bill, and powers are divided so greatly that one may wonder from which source the initiatives to begin much needed projects will come. I hope that as a result of the provisions of this legislation one minister will not say, "Let George do it," and shrug off his responsibilities. That is the danger inherent in this type of legislation. Organization and co-operation with all governmental departments whose activities are in any way related to the fishing industry should be the watchwords of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry in the next few years. Only through well planned and well coordinated programs can the Atlantic fishery reach its full potential and play its role in the future growth and development of the Atlantic provinces.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak only on that part of Bill C-173 dealing with fisheries and forestry. My remarks will be confined to part I. I am sorry that the minister responsible for fisheries in the Conservative government, the hon. member for Mal-peque (Mr. MacLean), is not here. I am sure he could have made some interesting observations on the matter under consideration.
Our party, Mr. Chairman, does not object strongly to the establishment to the new Department of Fisheries and Forestry. We do not see any sinister motives behind the desire to establish it. By the same token, we see no great point, in the light of past experience, in establishing it. No doubt the minister will justify the government's position. He is a
February 27, 1969

Government Organization very articulate and plausible spokesman. That will not hide the fact that the Department of Fisheries has been shunted around from one part of the government structure to another. Formerly, it was controlled by the Department of Agriculture. We hope that in this bill we shall see more than mere structural changes. We hope to see the government display a change in attitude.
Although the minister is responsible for fisheries, including inland fisheries, I am disturbed at the idea that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board may not have come under his aegis, since I submit it would have been logical to bring that board under the minister's jurisdiction. While fisheries are primarily the responsibility of the federal government, forestry comes under provincial jurisdiction to a large extent. Consequently, the new department will be mainly concerned with fisheries and not so greatly concerned with forestry matters. Both industries, however, are controlled by large monopolies and in both industries the employment potential is declining. On the west coast there are really only two fishing companies, B.C. Packers, which is part of the Weston food octopus, and the Canadian Fishing Company which is owned, of course, by New England interests. These companies co-operate one with another. They own other subsidiary companies, the most notable of which is Todd Brothers. Similarly, the forestry industry in British Columbia is controlled by three or four large forestry concerns which are mainly subsidiaries of United States companies.
A moment ago I mentioned declining potentials for employment in our two basic industries. The minister said the damage might be offset by encouraging more sports fishing in the area. Nevertheless, that will not solve the problem of what we ought to do with those who are displaced by the decline in these industries. May I cite an example, Mr. Chairman. It is clear that the inshore fishery of Newfoundland is in a difficult position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mark Willson Rose: Up the Bullet! I was in the province last week. The federal government is making available this year, as it did last year, $1.5 million for the relocation and assistance of those who are scattered on the islands surrounding the Newfoundland mainland. That indicates to me that there must be a real difficulty in the inshore fishery, since the federal government would not spend money to

the tune of $1.5 million on programs of relocation and assistance if there were no difficulty. My concern is this. Many fishermen who were, independent-they may not have enjoyed a high living standard-will be shipped to urban centres and lose their independence. The rural poor may become the urban poor. I do not want the rural poor to be shipped to larger centres just to provide cheap labour for pulp industries and the various packing concerns. We must guard against that happening. To avoid that, we must upgrade the skills of those being moved and make them more competitive with others living in urban centres, As I say, it is no good taking fishermen who are independent and shipping them to urban centres under relocation programs if those fishermen have not been trained to meet the challenges of urban society.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
In British Columbia this year, for various reasons, three canneries will have to close. One is at Sunnyside, the other is North Pacific Cannery and the third is the one at Klemtu. What is going to happen to these people who depend not only on fishing but also on cannery work for their livelihood? Many of these people are native fishermen. Will these people be once again forced to the lower part of the economic totem pole? I think we have to consider these things. I am told there are meetings going on now between the unions and industries to investigate possible retraining programs for these people, but the proposals seem ludicrous. As usual there is too little, too late. The suggestion being advanced by the department of manpower is that half the cost of this retraining should be paid by the department, one-quarter of the cost paid by the fishing companies and the remaining one-quarter by the union. Why should a worker who is being replaced pay for this retraining when he has already paid for it through his taxes? I do not object to the companies paying because, in my opinion, they do not pay their share of the corporate income tax. If they did, then I would feel this training should all be paid for by the department of manpower, as it is their responsibility.
But the essential question about joining Fisheries and Forestry under one ministry really boils down to this.
Will the basic philosophy of joining the Departments of Fisheries and Forestry under one minister be one of conservation or will it be one of continued exploitation? In other
February 27, 1969
words, will private interests take precedence over public interests? Fisheries interests and forestry interests have traditionally been antagonistic to one another. The forest industry has been guilty of severe crimes contrary to the interests of the fishermen. An example of this is the denuding of mountains, the "cut and get out" philosophy which is responsible for the flash floods which destroy the spawning beds. Another example is the logs being driven down the river destroying salmon beds.
The Department of Fisheries had the power to stop this rape of the salmon beds in the Stellako River, but they pulled their punches. The provincial interests concerned with logging moved in and; to hell with the salmon, the logs went down! Various native communities such as Greenville and Aiyansh, which depend for their livelihood on the fishing industry, are at the mercy of Columbia Cellulose. The responsibility for such situations is that of the Minister of Fisheries. He has the power to have the department put a great deal more effort into conservation activities rather than exploitation. Certainly, it is desirable to harvest our resources at the maximum yield, but this has to be correlated with the possible long term effects. Spawning grounds which survive river driving are threatened today by pesticides being sprayed on the trees which ultimately leach through the ground to the rivers.
I have attempted to give examples to the minister and to the house of how the logging industry and the fishing industry very often work at odds with one another. I am certain the minister is completely aware of the problems in this regard. I hope the minister will recognize that the people are concerned about the future of our resources.
Why not have a government policy to stop river driving? Why not compensate the fishermen for water pollution? The Minister of Agriculture recently introduced a bill under which farmers will be compensated for soil pollution. Your new department, Mr. Minister, gives you a tremendous opportunity to right many wrongs. It all depends upon which side you are. I know you are a reasonable, plausible, articulate and even eloquent man. I ask you to consider some of the suggestions which have been put forward by our party. Get on the job in connection with international fisheries treaties and stop talking about them.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member should address the Chair.
Government Organization


Mark Willson Rose: The Japanese and Russian ships, Mr. Chairman, are invading the halibut fishery in British Columbia waters. I have received information that the halibut industry will suffer a $3 million loss of revenue this year. Plug the holes in the 12-mile fishing limit around the Queen Charlotte Islands before foreign interests have time to establish so-called historic fishing rights. Salmon licence limits should not be proceeded with as they will turn the fish boat business into something similar to the taxi business in many large cities where a car, because it bears a licence, sells for a price out of all proportion to its value. The vertical integration of the industry must not be contributed to by allowing Class A licence holders, notably the fishing companies, to purchase any more boats for approximately five years. This moratorium will prevent company control from happening.
On the subject of vertical integration, it would be helpful if fisheries improvement loans could be used to refinance mortgages now held by boat owners in debt to the fishing companies. The government should listen to the Prince Rupert Co-operative which owns no boats and runs the risk of being frozen out by a limited number of fishing companies and by ownership which is in the hands of interests not necessarily concerned with their welfare. They should listen to the Pacific trawler's and the fishermen's union. Because of the licence limits, the fishermen will be unable to tie up their boats for one year because they may lose their licences. We are likely to have more boats than ever chasing fewer fish.
Aid to the Atlantic groundfish industry was announced at the same time the transportation committee arrived in St. John's, Newfoundland. This took a great deal of steam from the Newfoundland Bullet issue. The government should make certain this aid does not get into the hands of the packers and the fishing companies. Some of it at least, should trickle down to the fishermen. One of the problems of the east coast fisherman is he does not get an adequate return for his fish because he is at the mercy of the fishing companies. Codfish selling in the United States for 26 cents a pound gives a return of 1J to 2| cents to the fisherman. This is not good enough. I think it is even worse than the return to the farmer.
The New Democratic Party, Mr. Chairman, sees much potential for evil and much potential for good in the fisheries and forestry reorganization and merger. However we must

6044
February 27, 1969

Government Organization insist, on behalf of the people we represent, that structural changes are not enough. A whole new system of attitudes and priorities must manifest itself. Eminent people such as Dr. McTaggart Cowan and Dr. Peter Larkin claim that the whole world's food chain is imperilled by chemicals scattered carelessly, such as defoliants in war and pesticides in peace.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The question then becomes much more than the cost of a few fish or of some esthetic value such as scenery. Our whole oxygen supply is threatened if we do not mend our ways. The minister has a responsibility to make certain that determined leadership is exercised so that all Canadians can see the government is dedicated to the welfare of future Canadians. He must resist stubbornly any efforts by the fast buck boys to destroy what is irreplaceable. Sir, we will all be watching.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Chairman, we are
informed that the house will study Bill C-173 entitled "Government Organization Act, 1969" providing for the establishment of a Department of Regional Economic Expansion with the object of insuring social justice and economic balance, according to the hon. member for Langelier who is the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Marchand). Such legislation would thus contribute to create a decent living standard for those who want to live outside large urban communities.
I would like at this time to remind the minister of his hope that his new department would assist certain areas to further their development.
For instance, let us consider the case of my own riding, the country of "white gold", as asbestos is sometimes called. Its mining would help in the development of this region if industries were established there, and the refining of this crude product would result, for example, in the manufacturing of asbestos shingles, insulating mineral wool and asbestos fibres used in the processing of fibro-cement.
I notice that this bill deals also with the designation of special areas and I quote:
The Governor in Council may, by order, designate as a special area, for the period set out in the order, any area in Canada that is determined to require .. . special measures-
All these statements appear to be very well meant. Should these industries be established in the near future, our 400,000 unemployed

would find work, especially those 200,000 who, as everybody knows, live in the province of Quebec. Besides, I think the government would automatically reach its intended objective which would rid Quebec especially of the terrorist activities we are witnessing at the present time.
Who will venture to think that we will be able to prevent such terrorist acts as long as there are economic disparities such as those which now exist.


Albert Béchard: Order. I will kindly remind the hon. member for Frontenac that we are now considering Part I of the bill which deals with the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, and not the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The hon. member will have the opportunity to speak of regional expansion when we come to that stage of our proceedings. I would ask him to confine his remarks to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry.


Bernard Dumont: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your remarks.
Like the previous speakers, I was summarizing the bill and I was just coming to the object of this debate when speaking of the possibility of eliminating certain regional disparities.
As our agriculture is in an appalling state of stagnation, it would be advisable, for instance, to see to it that the province of Quebec is reforested that would be useful to farmers since such an undertaking would represent unusual wealth for the next 20, 25 or 30 years. Moreover, when I heard some hon. members deal with the problems of fisheries, freshwater fisheries and others, I was saying to myself that if we undertook intensive reforestation throughout the country, more fish might survive, because how many times have we not noticed that fish disappear as forest borders move back?
In that connection, I know that everyone who spoke before me recognizes that, in Quebec, people do not live on freshwater fish or miraculous draughts of fishes. But the fact remains that we can surely contribute to progress by supporting the resolutions capable of assuring the greatest development of those industries. In Quebec, we are faced mostly with problems of deforestation. We therefore invite the new minister to turn his attention to this crucial problem. At the present time, if there are 200,000 unemployed in Quebec, it would only be logical to hire them for reforestation work. This undertaking
February 27, 1969

would provide them with a job while ensuring for tomorrow the abundance that mother nature was good enough to give to our rich country which, unfortunately, was overexploited in the past. In fact, by thus misusing our riches, we have prepared the way for very serious problems which, today, force us to create new departments in order to remedy these difficulties.
Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to talk endlessly on these points, but I realized a while ago, while listening to those who spoke before me, that there is now in Canada a certain rivalry between the fishing industry on the west coast and the one in the Atlantic provinces. Some hon. members for Newfoundland and Nova Scotia were happy to learn that the fishing industry on the west coast had suffered losses. But since in Quebec we are levelheaded people, who are willing to co-operate, let us join hands in order to make sure that each Canadian receives a sufficient income. Thus, we will see terrorism disappear and abundance reign in Canada.


Mr. St-Pierre:: May I say in opening, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Fisheries is a gentleman for whom I have the highest respect. I think many of us in the house appreciate the calm, studied, very sane and common sense way in which he brings his case to the house from time to time. It had not been my intention to speak tonight except that the minister himself brought up an aspect of his department which I felt did deserve some comment from me. My comments will be brief.
He spoke of the importance of drawing base lines for establishment of a 12 mile limit of Canadian territorial waters. I jotted down his remarks at that time. This may not be them precisely, but I think I have the sense of them: "Hence the importance of delineating lines to contain as much water area as possible for Canada." This strikes particularly at a point on which Canadian governments for some time have shown very little but timidity and apparent indifference to the needs of fishermen on both the east and the west coast. As I intend to point out in a few moments, this apparent indifference is now extending to the question of sovereignty in the Arctic waters.
However with regard to the west coast, and I know the minister knows this well, the failure to draw the base line from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the southern sections of the Queen Charlottes has left two
29180-383J

Government Organization very valuable fishing banks of the groundfish industry open to foreign invasion. Foreign fleets are in there in force, particularly Japanese and Russian. They are taking more fish than our Canadian fishermen and they are endangering the fisheries resources on these two banks in the Queen Charlotte Sound. They are doing so essentially because the Canadian government refuses to stir itself to draw this line from Northern Vancouver Island to the bottom of the Queen Charlotte islands.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I have spoken of an apparent indifference and timidity on the part of the government. If I did not use the word "apparent" in conjunction with the word "timidity" I use it now. It is to me seemingly rather timid if countries such as Ecuador and Iceland are capable of drawing lines to establish sovereignty around their coasts but we are not. Canada, with the longest coastline of any nation in the world, still has not established its lines despite the fact that we declared a 12-mile limit and drew some of these lines in 1964.
What I should like to refer to during these few minutes is the question of how much real concern there exists in respect of this important issue among those members who sit in the front benches across the house. As an example of this, let me deal with something which has arisen in the last few days as referred to in the public press and in the house. I have in mind the question of Canadian sovereignty in Arctic waters.
As hon. gentlemen probably know, the United States plans to send the ship Manhattan through the Northwest passage, sometime this summer breaking her way through ice without benefit of icebreakers. As far as can be learned Canada will not have an observer on the Manhattan. It appears that the United States disputes that we can hold Parry Sound, which is part of the Northwest Passage, as Canadian territorial water.
In this regard I asked a question yesterday of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I should like to read that question and the answer which appear at page 5978 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of recent newspaper reports that the United States government does not fully accept Canadian sovereignty with respect to the twelve mile limit off the Arctic islands, will he inform this house whether our position on this matter is being made clear to the United States government?
February 27, 1969

Government Organization
The Secretary of State for External Affairs answered as follows:
Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have had a number of discussions with the United States government about the definition of our territorial waters and fishing zones. As I said, we do not always obtain agreement on our position, but we are pressing it as effectively as we can.
Yesterday in this house the minister said we were pressing our position effectively. As it happened, last night on a national television program, another person had something to say about this matter. I can name her as I happen to have been a colleague of hers for years. Miss Pat Carney of the Vancouver Sun had something to say about this matter. As I said earlier, I have considerable respect for the Minister of Fisheries as a minister. I can also say to the house that Miss Carney is an extremely accurate reporter and it is her custom to double check her facts. I consider her to be one of the most reliable reporters in this city.
Let me read a part of Miss Carney's report to the nation yesterday in respect of the Canadian position on Arctic territorial waters.
She said, and I quote, "one gets the impression that nobody in Ottawa has bothered to sit down and figure out what we should be doing in the Arctic. Officials cannot even agree on whether Parry channel lies in Canadian waters." I urge hon. members to listen to this statement and realize how four departments feel in this regard. "The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which administers the adjacent islands, is sure it does. The Department of External Affairs thinks it does, although a spokesman says the issue is fuzzy. External affairs minister Mitchell Sharp said in the house today that there are some points in dispute". Again to quote Miss Carney, "some transport officials insist that Parry channel is an international waterway outside our territorial limits because the entrances are between 40 and 60 miles wide, well in excess of the traditional three mile limit". The C.O.T. hasn't yet caught up with our position of 1964. And finally the Justice Department; "The Department of Justice has never heard of Parry channel."
In view of these facts can we believe there is real concern and real sense of purpose in the government in respect of this important issue involving national sovereignty over Canadian arctic waters? This will have a great effect on the welfare of our fishermen on both coasts. Therefore, I urge the Minister

of Fisheries to impress upon his colleagues that this is a vital matter to the fishermen and the nation. I thank hon. members for their attention.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this part of Bill C-173 which unifies or integrates the responsibility for forestry with the fisheries portfolio. I have serious reservations about using the words "unification and integration" because we are all aware of the chaos which developed when these words were applied to the change of our Canadian forces. I hope very seriously that the results of this change will not be as drastic.
In so far as the province of Newfoundland is concerned, this change is a very important one because these two natural resources are very closely allied in that province. I say this to emphasize the close relationship of fisheries and forestry to the needs of a great number of Newfoundlanders. I welcome this change because the forestry portfolio will now be the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries who I feel is one minister who does not spend all his time dialoguing, but appears to be trying to use a common sense approach. His introduction of the prices support legislation in the groundfish industry is the only marked development or improvement I have seen in my short few months here in parliament. I hope that the promised legislation for the salt cod industry will be forthcoming very soon. I emphasize my concern because in another month Newfoundland fishermen will be preparing their gear for the coming season. Judging from their feelings and their experiences last year, which result from the weakness of their industry, there is very serious doubt about their willingness to bother fishing at all this coming season.
It is my hope that after so many years of the floundering attitude and approach of the minister's predecessors, we will see a marked and steady progress in this important industry. I am sure this change was the result of the realization of the critical state of this industry. The action was brought about by the sincere and lengthy appeal of my colleagues on this side of the house who emphasized the neglect of the industry in the Atlantic region over the past year.
When I emphasize the importance of the alliance of forestry and fisheries in Newfoundland I do so because over the years, due to the limited length of the fishing season, fishermen have turned to the forestry industry for employment. Therefore, I hope that the
February 27, 19G9
minister will realize the important relationship of these two great God-given natural resources and the great contribution that can be made by intertwining his department's planning and studying. I note that in the annual report of the Department of Forestry and Rurral Development much time and money have been spent on various research programs and studies to develop our forest potential. I note, too, the specific problems with which we in Canada are faced.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I, therefore, hope there will be a concerted effort of communication while the change is taking place, so that we will not once again become overpowered with research studies, conferences, task forces, royal commissions, duplication and the ensuing waste which will result. I say this because all the research has been done and all the studies must be completed, if I can judge by the booklets and pamphlets that come flooding into my office daily.
I am deeply concerned, however, and I hope the government is also, with the infestation of insects which is causing a serious deterioration of our forests. I refer to the spruce budworm in New Brunswick and Ontario, the jackpine sawfly in Quebec and the balsam woolly aphid in British Columbia and Newfoundland. The hemlock looper has become a serious threat to our forests, and unless something is done very quickly this infestation will seriously affect the two main paper mills in the province, Bowater and Price Brothers Limited, which are by far the main employers of our work force in the central and western areas of Newfoundland. Indeed, if this disease is not stopped it will destroy the economy of a large portion of the province.
This infestation is nationwide. I am sure the minister is aware of the situation. I cannot stress forcibly enough how important it is to tackle the control of this disease which threatens our vast timberlands right across the dominion. This industry is so vital to our economy. I am sure that everyone in this house is aware of the importance to the nation of the paper industry as well as the other products of our forests.
The planners in the department of forestry are well aware of this threat and are recommending immediate action. I hope their advice will be heeded so that we do not have more serious problems in years to come. I
Government Organization hope, too, that the importance of federal-provincial co-operation will not be overlooked in the important areas of conservation and preservation of our forests. In this connection, need I mention the great hazard of forest fires, which must be controlled by continuing surveillance?
While on the subject of federal-provincial co-operation, I am concerned that, in spite of our vast timberlands in Newfoundland, the price of building materials in that province remains higher than in any other part of Canada. Most of our building lumber has to be imported. It seems very strange that a certain type of lumber that sells for $72 per thousand board feet in Montreal sells for $172 in Newfoundland.
I point this out, Mr. Chairman, to try and impress upon the government the need for the consideration of priorities. In a province where the need for housing is so great, and earning power so low, we must be cognizant of the danger of giving away our timber rights to ambitious speculators who have no concern for the province but are concerned only with their greed. I hope the minister responsible for housing will take note of this problem when considering his solutions to the housing shortage in Canada.
I should like to refer to the views of the Prime Minister on the interrelationship between departments. I express my concern with regard to equating the priority of the conservation of the potential beauty of the forests of Newfoundland with other pertinent factors. I refer to a proposed second national park in the Bonne Bay area of Newfoundland, where the cloak-and-dagger tactics of various levels of government and departments, and a complete lack of sincerity, will destroy a potential Mecca of forest development not equalled in the whole of the nation. Because of evasiveness and intrigue, it is impossible to determine from anyone in government the facts about an area which could be the means of bringing great prosperity to a province through the development of a national park that is considered to be of fantastic value by everyone other than those who can do some good for the Canadians they represent.
There is great potential wealth in our forests. The by-products of our timber resources do not stop at paper and building materials. The paper industry is finding new avenues of use for these resources, even in the field of clothing materials. The prospects in this field are only being tapped at the present time.



February 27, 1969

Government Organization But the mere changing of a department will not cure the problems. The continued changing of names of agencies under departments will not solve them. The solution of our problems in all phases of government activity lies in the use of practical, common, business sense. This is a basic principle that seems to be forgotten in this way-out intellectual age. I refer to action.
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that many other hon. members will have more to say as Bill C-173 progresses through the various stages. I conclude by repeating my hope that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry will give this important, new responsibility the attention it deserves, for the benefit of all Canadians.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the committee, because we are only on part I of Bill C-173, the purpose of which is to amalgamate the Department of Fisheries with the Department of Forestry and give the minister the job of handling both fisheries and forestry. Coming from British Columbia, this makes eminent sense to me. I think it will make eminent sense to many British Columbians. I congratulate the minister on his new portfolio and wish him every success in it.
We have heard a fair amount this evening about the commercial fishing industry. I would like to put in a plug for the sports fisherman, since no one has as yet mentioned his part in the industry.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
minister did.


David Walter Groos: Unfortunately, I was not here to hear the minister's remarks. However, I am very pleased to note that he was the first to draw attention to the importance of the sports fishing industry. This industry is particularly important in the province of British Columbia, where the dollar value of the sports industry is so great, when you take into account the fact that the value of the engines and sports equipment used in it far outweighs the net returns from the commercial fishing industry. As we all know, the sports fishing industry is growing and becoming more important all the time.
While on the subject of the sports fishery, 1 would point out that out west we have in the last few years heard rumours of a possibility that there may be a licensing provision applied to sports fishermen. I hope the

minister will discard this idea very quickly, if it is ever brought to his attention.


John (Jack) Davis: Agreed.


David Walter Groos: This sport is one of the few things a man is able to do free these days, namely, to go out in a boat, cast a line out in the ocean and catch a fish. I hope we will be able to do this for nothing, certainly as long as I am a member of this house and the minister is Minister of Fisheries. I trust that the minister will retain the commercial fishing free zones in order to allow the sports salmon to escape from the ocean to the mouths of the rivers in sufficient quantities to replace their stocks as the years go by, thus permitting the sports fisherman a chance to catch these salmon free from commercial fishing operations which in the past have decimated entire runs of salmon in certain rivers. Over the years commercial fishing operations have so depleted the stocks of salmon available to sports fishermen that the annual take per boat has diminished very considerably.
I am very comforted by the action taken over the past couple of years by the minister's predecessor, who permitted commercial fishing free zones. I have noted an increase in the take per boat. In the area of southern Vancouver Island, in particular, this is very heartening to the sports fishermen. I know these people will be 100 per cent behind the minister if he continues, and expands if necessary, the commercial fishing free zones.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I would also like to commend to the minister's attention the development by private industry in co-operation with both the federal and provincial governments of the "plus tree program" which, as you know, is the development of super Douglas fir trees. As I understand it, the program is limited at present to the Douglas fir species, but in my opinion it certainly holds great promise for the future of our province which stands pretty high in the export of forest goods. As all hon. members of the house know, my province also stands very high in fishery products export and production. Of course, this will require continued co-operation among private industry, the federal government and the provincial government. As a conservationist, I am particularly heartened to note the co-operation that has existed and continues to exist between industry, the two senior levels of government and the sports conservation groups, all four
February 27, 1969

working together for conservation purposes, generally.
The amalgamation of the two portfolios, as I said, makes eminent sense to me for a number of reasons but principally because so much in conservation involves forests, fishing and water. With this joint portfolio it is you who will be able to bring new life-


Albert Béchard: I regret that I must advise the hon. member that he must address the Chair and not the minister directly.


David Walter Groos: I apologize, Mr. Chairman. It is the minister who will be responsible for the various conservation programs. I am most impressed with what has been done recently and I trust it will continue at an accelerated pace in the future. It certainly shows great promise if it continues to increase productivity at its present rate.
Finally, I should like to remind the minister that in future plans an oceanographic institute is to be established in the Victoria Esquimalt harbour area. I hope these plans will not be allowed to remain dormant for too long. An oceanographic institute in Victoria similar to the one in existence in the Bedford Basin at Halifax will be of great benefit, not only to our community but to Canada and the world at large.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Chairman, I believe my colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West set out very clearly and succinctly a number of points about which we are greatly concerned now and have been for some time. I want to touch on only one of the items initially raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. But before I do so, I would like to make a brief comment in passing about the reference to the salt fishery by my friend, the hon. member for Victoria. I am sure he knows, as should everyone else on Vancouver Island, that there is a tremendous amount of abuse of our fisheries by people from the United States, almost with the aid and succour of the customs officials one would think. It is common knowledge that a number of United States citizens, some of whom even boast of it, supplement their pension income by coming over from Port Angeles to Victoria and engaging in sports fishing activities off the Qualicum Beach, Campbell River area. These people drive mobile campers and engage in a process of catching salmon by the dozens and canning them within these trailers or campers. Then, they take case after case of salmon back to the United States.

Government Organization
In many instances, they sell the canned products in the United States and boast about this means of supplementing their pension incomes. This practice has been going on year after year. No one knows the amount of fish that is caught in this way because it is done to some extent illegally and by subterfuge. The fisheries department knows about this, the conservation officers know about it, the provincial government knows about it, the customs officials know about it, and the general public knows about it, but no one does anything. It goes on and will probably go on this coming year. I am sure the minister has heard about it. With all the value that the sports fishery may have, this practice is destructive because it is an extraction from a resource that is already presumably overfished to a large extent on a commercial basis. Commercial fishermen whose livelihood depends on salmon find that their fishing season is curtailed, but right out in the bay or in the harbour they see so-called fishermen engaging in a semi-illicit commercial canning operation the products of which are taken back to the United States. So, with all the concern about the sports fishery, I think some concern should be shown about this practice.
However, the item with which I wanted to deal relates to the point raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. I refer to the straight baselines and the 12-mile limit, a point which was underscored by my friend the hon. member for Coast-Chilcotin. I think it is perhaps an almost accepted fact of political life that members of the opposition can spend many months and years in parliament complaining about a particularly grievous situation, raising questions about it and proposing solutions. However, when a member on the government side engages in the same sort of condemnation of government indifference, there is a tendency for people to sit up and take notice. The matter is extremely important. Because of the way in which the hon. member for Coast-Chilcotin approached it, I think the house owes him a debt. We should be grateful to him for having developed this into an almost non-partisan complaint. Ever since 1964 when the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act became law, we have been making speeches in parliament and outside it and we have been asking questions of the government as to just when the straight baselines on the Pacific coast would be drawn. For years, we got answers from Mr. Paul Martin that we could not decipher, but none the less they were
February 27, 1969

Government Organization answers which added up to nothing except perhaps that sometimes he was engaging in negotiations with the United States. We got answers from Mr. Robichaud, who was the minister of fisheries at that time to the effect he really did not have much to do with it because the matter came under the Department of External Affairs. He would always bow to Mr. Martin.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
In those years, one thing was obvious. It was that the government took no action. In retrospect I think I can assert that it intended to take no action. That is the logical conclusion. One of the most ridiculous aspects of it then was the fact that here the Parliament of Canada had passed a law giving Canada the right to draw straight baselines by order in council, while on the other hand the Government of Canada was engaged in negotiating the position of those baselines with a foreign country. In other words, the government went to the government of the United States to ask: Where would you like us to put these baselines? Presumably, this is still the situation. As a consequence, almost five years later we still do not have any straight baselines on the Pacific coast, at least. Yet an absolute guarantee was given us by the government of the day in 1964 that these straight baselines would be in effect on the basis referred to by the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin, namely, from the northern end of Vancouver island to the southern end of the Queen Charlotte's.
The former prime minister, Mr. Pearson, said they would be in effect by the end of 1964. Well, 1964 came and went, and we had no baselines. The year 1965 came and went, and still we had no baselines. It is like a broken record. And even today no baselines have been drawn. The hon. member for Coast Chilcotin points out in extremely lucid language what is likely to happen to us if we continue much longer to procrastinate in drawing these baselines, one, where it was promised they should be drawn and, two where they should logically be drawn. In this situation a government promise and common sense happened to coincide. An hon. friend behind me says it might be done in time for the by-election. Mr. Chairman, I don't care when they do it, as long as they do it quickly. If the effect is favourable from the point of view of the government in the riding of Comox-Alberni, that will be all right, too. But something has to be done about it soon, because as every day passes foreign nations are putting themselves in a position where
[Mr. Howard (Skeena) .1
they can claim historic fishing rights in what would otherwise be Canadian waters.
We had enough of that when Mr. Pearson was prime minister, after the announcement was made that Canada intended to institute a 12-mile limit. The first thing the former prime minister said to the President of the United States was: Don't worry about it, because we shall guarantee that your historic fishing rights off the west coast will not be disturbed; we shall give in on this before we begin to do anything. This sort of thing is typical of the Liberal party and the Liberal government as far as our relations with the United States are concerned.
The other day a Japanese long liner was arrested for fishing within the 12-mile limit we now have, the one which follows the sinuosities of the coastline. Instances have been reported on a number of occasions on which fishing boats of the soviet Union have been observed fishing within area which would today be Canadian waters had the government of the day drawn the baselines where it promised to draw them. But all this has been ignored so far.
There is an item in the current edition of the Pacific Troller in which a west coast skipper, Gary Cadorin, describes an encounter with one of the vessels. He writes in precise detail, giving the geographic co-ordinates of his position, the weather conditions, the depth and other factors at the time. He tells how he was caught up in the net of a Russian side trawler, SRTM 8-461 of the Mayak class, 178 feet in length, and gives a lengthy description of what he saw. Other fishermen have had similar experiences. I asked the minister about this early in the session-on October 8, as a matter of fact. I asked him when it was intended to move along the lines I have just been advocating. Let me quote, in part, from his reply. I must say that those who have congratulated the minister on being articulate, on his precision of language and on his ability to say what he means ought to look closely at this statement. The hon. gentleman glossed over the whole issue completely and ignored the whole principle by saying, for example, that there had been no fishing by Russian fishing vessels within Canadian fishing zones.
That is probably quite true. But in my original question and in the presentation I made later on the subject I never claimed there had been. The minister says that by Canadian fishing areas he means areas within
February 27, 1969	COMMONS
12 miles of the Canadian coastline. The Russians have been observing our 12-mile limit so they are within their rights, said the minister. That is just a lot of rot, and the minister knows it. It is just a lot of bunk. The Russians have been observing our 12-mile limit, he says, and I have no quarrel about that statement being factual. But this simply means that the Russians have not gone in further than the 12-mile fishing zone which exists at the moment. But what about that area in Queen Charlotte Sound to which the hon. member for Coast-Chilcotin referred? What about the area which would be encased by a line drawn between the upper end of Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands? This is the area we are talking about. We are not talking about the 12-mile limit which exists now as an extension of the sinuosities of the coast. There was no question of the Russians establishing historic fishing rights within our 12-mile limit as it exists today, and for the minister to have referred to that was, I suggest, an attempt to evade the facts, the use of a red herring to draw attention away from the point at issue.
The Soviet Union is certainly in a position of being able to establish historic fishing rights in an area we might include as territorial water if we were to draw straight baselines from headland to headland. The minister will not deny this; it has been documented on more than one occasion.
Perhaps I can sum up no better than by quoting from the publication Pacific Troller of February-March, 1969, because there is an article here which puts the matter in its correct terms as far as the fishermen of British Columbia are concerned, as far as British Columbians and all Canadians are concerned and as far as the minister ought to be concerned, too. Beginning at the bottom of page 3 of this publication, we read as follows:
To us, Vancouver and Queen Charlotte Islands are not mere pinpoints of rock on the horizon, hut two large segments of our mainland stretching along two thirds of our coast-not barren rock, but a continuation of our mainland populations, industries, business and security.
To us, a mere gap of water between these two large bodies of land does not constitute a freeway for any foreign nation to legally enter, rape our fisheries and endanger the defence of our domains, from the security of a narrow striD of international water. To us, those waters lying within the outside headlands of Vancouver and Queen Charlotte Islands are our waters and we should declare our legitimate and exclusive right to utilize them for the security of our outer and inner domains, for commuting between two areas of our province, for harvesting our fisheries and for conservation of our fisheries.
DEBATES	6051
Government Organization a (9:50 p.m.)
It is too bad the minister did not say that and do something about it.


Mr. Corbin:: Mr. Chairman, after speeches by five or six hon. members, I realize that several of my ideas and opinions have already been emphatically stated.
I personally feel that the merging of the Departments of Fisheries and Forestry is a step in the right direction to work out a closer control on the rational development of our natural resources. I agree with some of the comments made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) although I do not always share his opinions.
The natural balance with regard to the development of our forests creates serious conservation problems. I live in one region where lumber operations are sometimes done in an intelligent manner and always on a large scale, but sometimes with the most serious consequences for this natural balance.
For the past twenty years, freshwater sport fishing has declined considerably in our area because of the lack of consideration on the part of some developers who have no respect for nature and demolish practically everything in their way. The result is that our lakes and rivers and their fauna are on the verge of disappearing.
In my opinion, the stocking of our lakes and streams-not their poisoning (untranslatable pun on "empoissonnement" and "em-poisonment")-should go hand in hand with the rational development of our forest resources. Creating and developing fish hatcheries ought, or at least should, closely follow lumber operations. I realize that many officials do not quite share this opinion.
Fortunately, considerable progress has recently been made in that respect in New Brunswick, through the establishment of an important salmon breeding station at Mac-taquac. Consequently, two smaller trout breeding stations had to stop their activity and since then my area has been left without any suitable stocking facilities.
My own province of New Brunswick is also faced with the problems of fish extermination, owing to the uncontrolled use of insecticides to exterminate the spruce budworm. And heaven knows how much irreparable damage has been brought about by that practice which seriously affected the balance in nature. And, eventually, let us make no
February 27, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion mistake about it, we are the ones who suffer for it.
Uncontrolled exploitation of the forests should no longer be permitted. I congratulate the government and the minister, Mr. Chairman, for the way they are choosing to follow. Perhaps someday we shall be able to put the management of our national parks in the hands of the minister of Fisheries and Forestry. I think that this is very desirable.
However, I would ask the minister-and this is my last request-to establish a public information campaign more extensive than any undertaken so far on the conservation of our renewable natural resources, such as trees and fish, with emphasis on those species most popular for sport fishing. Some work has been done in this direction, but I think much more could be done.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the minister will give serious consideration to this suggestion.


Mr. Harding:: Mr. Chairman, it is very close to ten. Do you wish me to continue?


Albert Béchard: Does the committee wish to call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Béchard: It being ten o'clock it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, on February 12 I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) whether he would initiate an investigation into whether or not there was adequate space for the travelling public aboard the Canadian Pacific Railway train "The Canadian".
In 1919 it was said in this house that if there was one thing that had bedevilled the public life of this country it had been the influence of railway corporations. Again, in 1936, it was said that the railways in Canada

were far from being merely an economic problem; that they were born of, nourished in, are, and will continue to be, part of Canadian politics. I appreciate those two comments very much.
On January 21 I posed a question to the Canadian Transport Commission, drawing to their attention that Canadian Pacific had taken off a daycoach from its coast to coast run from Vancouver to Montreal. At that time I asked the commission whether they would initiate an investigation to determine why a number of people were left standing on the platform as a result of this daycoach being removed. It was suggested that there were not the number of people left standing on the platform that I had indicated, and that really there was no need for alarm.
Another question that I addressed to the president of the Canadian Transport Commission at a meeting of the Transport Committee, was whether or not the railway company could deliberately reduce the quality of passenger service with the ultimate objective of eliminating that particular train. To this date I have received no reply.
In 1966 Canadian Pacific ran a train called "The Dominion". Similar statements were made at that time as are being made today in connection with their train "The Canadian". At that time it was said that if "The Dominion" were taken off an additional 20 cars would be required on "The Canadian". Today, we have less than 10 cars on "The Canadian", and cars are being taken off day in and day out.
a (10:00 p.m.)
Another question may be raised with regard to a telegram sent to the agent in Calgary under date of February 2, I believe. It was to the effect that train No. 2 at Moose Jaw had 31 passengers in sleepers, although there was accommodation for 116. In this connection also, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that Montreal sleeper No. 205 was removed from service on February 8, although there was a great demand for sleeping accommodation.
An acknowledgement of these matters was received from the company's passenger representative through the C.T.C. He suggested that the telegram ought to have been sent to the sleeping car conductor of Train No. 2 at Medicine Hat. He also suggested that the space referred to in the body of the telegram referred only to accommodation being released by passengers detraining at stations
February 27. 1969	COMMONS
east of Regina, through to Winnipeg. He also suggested that if a person ticketed, say, through to Indian Head were occupying certain accommodation at Vancouver, a message would be given to the sleeping car conductor indicating that space was available from Indian Head to Winnipeg. In that case, the conductor could sell the space as far as Winnipeg. There was confirmation of the fact that there were 31 passengers in sleepers at Moose Jaw, although the figure of 116 spaces being available was said to be questionable. It was also said that there was no lack of available space to accommodate passenger traffic.
However, when one examines the situation, certain discrepancies appear. The information I have certainly points to the fact that fares were reduced on January 1 for local and short haul traffic but that this reduction was not made known to conductors working the trains I have mentioned. Apparently ticket agents for Canadian Pacific Railways have not heard of the reductions. The explanation may lie in the fact that although the reductions came into effect in January, fares had previously been raised to accommodate Christmas traffic. That may explain part of the difficulty.
As for the matter of the sleeping car conductor selling space at Moose Jaw, it seems that the conductor was off duty at that point and could not have done what was suggested.
It has also come to my attention that cars 205 and 105 were removed from service on February 8 and February 13 respectively west of Winnipeg, and that all space was taken in the sleepers with the exception of space in the car which comes off at Regina. "The Canadian" now has two through sleepers, an observation car with three compartments, and a diner. May I refer to Order No. 4642 of the Railway Transport Commission. Section 3(2) says:
The notice and request required by subsection (1) of this section shall be accompanied by data showing the number of passengers carried on the train or trains during the two years immediately preceding the date of such notice-
Bearing in mind all these factors, I thought it most important to instigate inquiries into the situation and put the results of my inquiries on record. I am sure hon. members realize that sleeping car accommodation on today's trains is far from adequate to meet existing demands. Only tonight I heard that people were trying to book space on trains leaving for western Canada. No space was available and will not be available for some time. It seems impossible to obtain accommodation on trains when one needs it. I draw
DEBATES	6053
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion these matters to the government's attention and ask, when will the government assume its responsibility to the people of this nation by having Canadian Pacific provide adequate passenger train accommodation?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by the office of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) that the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission is at present investigating complaints relating to difficulties experienced by potential passengers in obtaining reserved space on "The Canadian". The reduction in the size of this train and the type of service presently rendered by this train are also being investigated. Inspectors of the Railway Transport Committee are presently riding these trains as part of the current investigation.



HISTORIC SITES-ADMINISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE OF VIMY MONUMENT

Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, the question I directed last week to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) may have seemed of little importance to some people. This is why I thought advisable to hark back to the subject tonight on the adjournment motion.
I understand the department is considering-or even has already taken the decision- to transfer the administration and maintenance of Vimy Park to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. However, I strongly object to this decision, and this for several reasons.
Believe me, I hold no grudge against the Commission. On the contrary, I feel it takes admirable care of war cemeteries in Commonwealth countries around the world. Since I have had the opportunity to visit several of them in six countries of Europe, I am well able to testify to that.
However, Mr. Speaker, I make a difference between a war cemetery and a commemorative park of the size of Vimy Park, which lies behind a field where Canadians surpassed themselves in bravery, and where several of them sacrificed their lives for the defence of freedom and democracy. As a matter of fact, this park is part of the Canadian territory and remains a lasting remembrance on the European continent. It is made up of 250 acres in France, where stands the most
6054
February 27, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion imposing and the finest of monuments in all of Europe and where thousands of tourists, both Canadians and Europeans, go each year.
If we hand over the administration and maintenance of that park to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, we shall no doubt blur the identity of that Canadian territory in France, even if some Canadian employees are kept. The administration will be British, the technical board will be composed of representatives from London or Arras. Therefore, I am convinced that our influence will decrease gradually, in the long run, and I would say that the same remark applies to the Beaumont-Hamel park, known as Newfoundland Park.
Such a decision will, I think, raise political issues which were surely not contemplated by the civil servants who made that recommendation.
Mr. Speaker, if we consider the rather lukewarm relations which have been existing between Canada and France for a few years, especially between Canada and the great general who does not care too much for Great Britain, we give him a splendid opportunity to create difficulties for the Canadian government and we open the door to all kinds of innuendoes on his part.
Those who are called upon or have been called upon in the past to arrange remembrance celebrations on French soil know from experience how small details like those can have their importance in certain cases.
The department has already accepted compromises which in certain cases I considered as unfortunate and I suggest to the minister to check on that matter with his officials and our ambassadors in Paris and London.
More important still are our relations with the French people, those who really remember, and I do not understand why we should not assume ourselves the task of ensuring the maintenance of our commemorative monuments and the parks where they are situated.
I will even go farther, Mr. Speaker. I am one of those who believe that the Canadian government should be more interested in Vimy Park. We should develop this Canadian territory in France by constructing a commemorative building-perhaps for the second world war-which could house a military museum, a restaurant, lounges and also other services which could be self-supporting, most of them I think.

[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I know in advance the reply I will get to my representations because I inquired these last few days from certain employees of the department. I have been told that the superintendents of the Vimy and Beaumont-Hamel parks will be retained and that the technical direction only will come from the regional office in Arras which is under the authority of London.
But I am not satisfied, Mr. Speaker, because I have the impression that in the long run Vimy Park-and I repeat it-will lose part of its Canadian identity and will be considered as all our other cemeteries, small parks and monuments in Europe, when it should be the contrary.
Another decision that I deplore is the gradual disappearance of the office of the Department of Veterans Affairs at our London embassy.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell you that I am greatly disappointed by those two decisions. I intend to bring the matter up again, to do everything in my power to have those decisions re-examined and I ask the minister whether it would not be possible not to go any further until the matter has been deferred to the Committee on Veterans Affairs.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I thank and congratulate the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Laniel) for the interest he has always shown and continues to show in the problems of our veterans.
With regard to the question he has raised tonight, I should explain first of all that there are in Europe 13 monuments recalling Canada's participation in the first world war.
The upkeep of those monuments, except for the Vimy and the Beaumont-Hamel ones, has for many years been entrusted to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission under an agreement between Canada and the Commission.
Under the terms of this agreement, Canada reimburses the Commission for the expenses incurred in this regard. The hon. member for Beauharnois has agreed that the work done by this Commission is of exceptional quality.
Since the beginning, our department and the Commission have always co-operated very closely, and our relations are excellent. Of course, Canada is a member of that Commission.
TMr. Laniel.]
February 27. 1969	COMMONS
To give a more definite answer to the hon. member's question, it is true that we recently entered into negotiations with the commission with a view to incorporating in the agreement the maintenance of the Vimy and Beaumont-Hamel memorials, so as to take advantage of the Commission's experience and resources in that field. If those negotiations are successful,
I can assure the hon. member for Beauhar-nois that the identity and distinctive character of Canada will be fully respected. I want to point out-as it is my duty to do so-that if the agreement is entered into, it will apply to the maintenance of those two monuments only. The Minister and the Department of Veterans Affairs will always continue to assume the responsibility of the decisions to be taken as far as those two memorials are concerned. As in the past, the Canadian supervisors will be remunerated by our department, according to the scale in force in Canada. As far as the memorial ceremonies are concerned, their organisation will continue to be a Canadian responsibility.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member for Beauhamois that the standard of maintenance will remain very high and that, come what may, the Canadian character of those monuments will be entirely maintained.



TRANSPORT-SUBSIDIES ON INTRAPROVINCIAL FERRIES

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my question in the house directed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) was to inquire if any agreement had been reached between the Canadian Transport Commission and the province of Ontario on the cost-sharing of subsidies on intra-provincial ferries. I am aware that several months ago an approach was made by the Canadian Transport Commission to the province of Ontario to decide on future cost-sharing for the ferries serving Manitoulin Island in my riding of Algoma. This island has been served for the last five years by three ferries. These ferries have been subsidized by the federal government by an amount in excess of $200,000 per annum. They operate during the late spring, summer, and early fall months.
Two of these ferries are large and ply between Tobermory, at the tip of the Bruce Peninsula, and South Bay Mouth at the eastern end of Manitoulin Island. This service has been in existence for many years and,
DEBATES	6055
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion because more and more people have been seeking the beauties of Northern Ontario in recent times, the service has become inadequate. It is now common to have people waiting in their cars at the ferry dock at Tobermory for 12 to 14 hours during July and August. We need a larger and faster ferry to serve this area. With the advent of longer holiday periods and more people travelling every year, this bottleneck will only get worse.
At the west end of Manitoulin Island during the past five years we have had a ferry service operating between Meldrum Bay on Manitoulin Island and Blind River on the north shore of Lake Huron. This ferry has also served Cockburn Island once a week. I have been told by the Canadian Transport Commission that this service is to be discontinued this year. This is a backward step and will have a detrimental effect on the tourist industry at the west end of Manitoulin Island. This government is committed to an aggressive attack on regional economic disparity. How can a region develop if the government withdraws one of its communication links? As a separate item, the subsidy of some $45,000 per year may appear to be a large amount to provide a ferry service. However, as an investment to stimulate the economic development of a whole region it is not a large amount. Government departments should not be compartments isolated from each other. This subsidy is warranted from a regional development point of view and should be retained.
I realize the government believes the provinces should pay part of the cost of a ferry service operating entirely within the province. The province of Ontario does pay for many ferries operating entirely within it, such as the St. Joseph island ferry and the Glenora ferry operating between Prince Edward county and Adolphustown. These ferries are paid for 100 per cent by the provinces.
The people of Manitoulin island do not care whether the provincial or federal government pays for the ferry service as long as it is retained at Meldrum Bay and improved at South Bay Mouth.
I believe that consideration should be given by the water transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission to the retention of these two ferry services as a package deal as far as the subsidy is concerned, and to approaching the shipping industry on a competitive basis to ensure good services. Nothing makes for a poorer service than the lack of
February 27, 19S9
6056	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion competition. When the shipping industry receives an operating subsidy which automatically fills any deficit, it does not tend to get out and dig tor business.
I feel this has happened in the case of the ferry service between Blind River and Mel-drum Bay. There has to be some new formula worked out for this subsidy to encourage an aggressive selling campaign of the service to tourists. Then, and only then, will this ferry be more self-sufficient and less of a burden on the government.
Five years ago when these operating subsidies for Manitoulin Island ferries were established, a public hearing was held on the island by the Canadian Maritime Commission.
I have received many letters from organizations and individuals requesting that a hearing be held this year by the Canadian Transport Commission on Manitoulin Island. These are the people most concerned with this matter. These are the people whose lives and livelihood are affected by the decisions of the commission. Therefore, it is natural that they want the hearing held there.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
The shipping season is now only a matter of a few months away. Decisions must be

made now in order that a good transportation service will be available for the summer tourist season. I believe the federal government should bring pressure to bear on the government of Mr. Robarts in Toronto, which seems to be dragging its feet on this matter, in order to resolve the question. The people of my constituency not only want to know what service will be provided this year, but what plans are being made for a future, improved service. The time is late. We want answers now.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, the question of the future of the Tobermory-South Bay Mouth ferry has been raised with the government of the province of Ontario and a reply is awaited indicating what interest the province may have in the continuance of this intra-provincial service. The federal government has indicated its willingness to discuss the future of the service, but could not undertake to participate in any improvement or building of docks without having reached a satisfactory agreement with the province.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house adjourned at 10.24 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 28, 1969


[Stage Direction]
Third report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in French and English-Mr. Femand-E. Leblanc (Laurier).
[Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]