1969-01-14

PRIVILEGE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in connection with the publication of the standing orders of the House of Commons in January, 1969. It will be noted that in a provisional reprint of the rules published in 1966, the coat of arms appeared on the standing orders. In 1967 a further reprint was made, again with the coat of arms thereon. The reprint that has been delivered to members of the House of Commons has had removed therefrom the coat of arms and for it has been substituted the Speaker's chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am
amazed to see the degree to which there is approval by members of the cabinet of this surreptitious act. I would ask, because this took place during your absence while visiting India, who made the decision for the removal of the coat of arms? The number of ministers who have applauded would indicate that what was done must have come about through the action of the cabinet; otherwise they would not have been applauding an act that cannot be justified outside parliament. As a member of this house I take the strongest objection to steps being taken by this government, outside parliament and parliamentary decision, to bring about a severance of our traditions. If changes are to be made they must be made by parliament and not by cabinet or by certain cabinet ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: This trend has been going on for some time, and I am surprised that it apparently receives the support of the cabinet, if one is to judge by the earlier applause of cabinet ministers. I ask Your Honour to look into this matter, and once and for all put an end to the erosion of our traditions in this country by the actions of a government that
will not bring these matters before parliament but act under the table.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Presidenl of ihe Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, very little needs to be said about this. As you will note, neither I as government house leader nor the government was responsible for the publication of the document. In any event, I can tell the right hon. gentleman and the house that the coat of arms in fact is on the picture. There is a coat of arms on the chair which is portrayed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps Your Honour will note that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert has raised a question of privilege and the government house leader has made a statement. I consider it my duty to consider the matter raised by the right hon. gentleman.



MOTION TO INCORPORATE NEW STANDING ORDERS IN JOURNALS

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of motions consequent upon the changes made to the rules of the house. These are primarily for the purpose of accommodating the order paper to the procedural changes. I believe there is general agreement to their acceptance. As my first motion I move:
That the Standing Orders, as amended and reprinted by the House on December 20, 1968, be incorporated in the Journals of the House.
I understand from the table that this is desirable from the standpoint of the records of the house.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I raise something for the sake of clarification. There were a number of amendments made with regard to agricultural bills, and so on and so forth, and the matters were referred quite properly to the agricultural committee. With the greatest respect, as a member of the standing committee on
4236	COMMONS
Supply Committee Motion finance, trade and economic affairs, I am wondering what the thinking was in referring the fisheries improvement loans bill to the finance committee, since we thought it would have been better for the fisheries and forestry committee to deal with this matter. They have greater expertise available to them in dealing with this matter than have the members of the finance, trade and economic affairs committee. I think perhaps that point could be taken up.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, consequent upon the changes with respect to the business of supply I would like to move, seconded by Mr. Olson-
-that order numbered (1) appearing under the heading "Government Orders" on this day's order paper, relating to the committee of supply, be discharged.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Again, Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the minister to supply continuing items on the order paper in the new form, or is this to be a complete discharge and the removal therefrom of the present item? Otherwise I think it will be a breach of new standing order 58(1).


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member anticipates my next motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with standing order 58, and the proviso attached thereto, I move, seconded by Mr. Olson-
-that this house at its next sitting consider the business of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?']
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the changes with respect to the commit-

DEBATES	January 14, 1969
tee of ways and means I would like to move, seconded by Mr. Olson-
-that order numbered (2) appearing under the heading "Government Orders" on this day's order paper, relating to the committee of ways and means be discharged.
Further to that perhaps I may say it would be the intention to deposit on the order paper the ways and means resolutions which have yet to be dealt with.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the house will recall that by provisional order made during the last session it was established on an experimental basis that the proceedings of committees be transcribed and printed in a bilingual form. I understand there has been a general acceptance of the new form, and the motion which I am now going to put before the house is to extend the new form of the committee proceedings for the balance of the current session in the manner in which they were printed in the experimental period. Accordingly I would like to move, seconded by Mr. Olson, -
-that the provisions of the order of the house adopted November 15, 1968, with respect to the reporting, transcription and printing of committee proceedings, be extended and continued for the balance of this session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will have noted that order No. 32 is the only remaining resolution on the order paper of the former resolutions preceding bills involving a charge on the fiscal resources of the treasury. As indicated the bill is now under study by the government as a result of representations received. Therefore it would be in order to withdraw resolution No. 32 standing in the name of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). Accordingly I would like to move, seconded by Mr. Olson,-
-that the order for the consideration in committee of the whole of the following proposed resolution be discharged and the said resolution withdrawn:
"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the disposition of Indian claims, and
January 14, 1969
in relation thereto to provide for the establishment of an Indian Claims Commission; to provide for the duties of the commission, its decisions and awards; to provide for appeals from the decisions and awards of the commission to an Indian Claims Appeal Court; to provide assistance to Indian bands in preparing and pursuing claims; and to enact such financial provisions as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the act."


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I must make the observation that this resolution was placed on the order paper as recently as November 12. Now we have a clear indication that the government in power has no legislation ready. In hoping to remove this order from the order paper the government house leader has given no assurance as to when legislation on this very important subject matter will be introduced. We are therefore being asked to agree to this motion without any assurance that legislation to establish a measure to deal with long standing Indian claims will be dealt with. Certainly there is a clear indication that no legislation was ready at the time the resolution was brought in and certainly none is ready now.
I must protest the resolution being placed on the order paper when in fact no legislation was ready. I believe the house is entitled to some sort of undertaking, that would be forthcoming very shortly, so that this matter will not be let drift, and so that this very important and long standing irritation will not be left to deepen and worsen as it is already a very difficult problem.
In closing I should like to say that since the government is unable to produce legislation that is satisfactory it might be appropriate for the house to proceed under rule 16-A which provides for-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I dare say that may have been some kind of Freudian slip; I don't know. It might be appropriate for the house to proceed under rule 68(1) which provides for the introduction of a bill upon motion to appoint a committee to prepare and bring it in. Since the government is unable to produce legislation on this subject, I would suggest that the government bring in a measure to refer the matter to the appropriate standing committee, with instructions that there be consultation with the Indian people and that a bill be brought in for the house to consider.
Indian Claims Commission Resolution [Translation]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Leader of the Opposition had paid some attention to the proceedings on the last day before the adjournment, he would have noted that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) raised that problem and I gave an answer which seemed satisfactory to him.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition rose I was rising to discuss the same point. I disagree with the minister when he suggests that his reply to the question of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) was in any sense satisfactory. In view of the new rules, I appreciate, as do my colleagues that there is no place for a resolution which anticipates a money measure. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, however, that when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) seeks to remove this item from the order paper the government has a duty to inform the house when the legislation will come before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I have not looked up Hansard but I think my memory is correct when I say that the minister who just spoke was unable to give the hon. member for Skeena any date as to when this bill will be before the house, and he has not done so today. I say seriously to the government that they ought now to say to the house when this bill will come before it if ever. If the minister does not want to tie himself down to a date which he might not be able to meet, let him take a date which he will be able to meet.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The members of this house and the Indian community in Canada have a right to know whether the removal of this resolution means that the subject matter is wiped off the order paper of this House of Commons, at least for this session, or whether this is merely a cleaning up affair and that the bill relating to the claims commission will be before the house some time during the next four or five months, and at approximately what date.
I fully support the protest made by the Leader of the Opposition, and there would be no sense in my putting it in my own words. If I may say so, it was put in words that are fully satisfactory to anyone concerned with

4233	COMMONS
Indian Claims Commission Resolution this matter and I do not want to repeat what he said. I think the President of the Privy Council, the acting Prime Minister-whoever he may be-or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has a duty to tell us approximately when we may expect this bill relating to the Indian claims commission.
If you will permit me before I sit down, I should like to say that it is a matter of great pleasure to welcome the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) back to the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I should like to express the pleasure I am sure everyone feels, that he is now sufficiently recovered to resume his duties.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to inform the house that I fully agree with the two previous speakers to say that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should be able to tell us when he intends to introduce the bill providing for the establishment of the Indian Claims Commission he referred to last December 20.
You will recall that a dispute arose in Cornwall at the end of 1968 and I think that such a bill could prevent further incidents of the same nature. Before accepting the proposal made by the government house leader, we are entitled to request from the minister the assurance that the bill will be introduced as well as details about when it will be introduced.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about this matter. Perhaps before doing that, however, I might associate myself with my leader in welcoming the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources back to the house, and extend also the same welcome to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). I am sure we are all happy to have both of these members back with us.
Several of those who have spoken today referred to the statement made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on December 20, and this prompted me to look up what he actually said. These were his concluding words on that occasion:
I hope to be in a position to introduce this hill when the house reconvenes in January.
If these words meant anything they meant that the bill was to be introduced today,

DEBATES	January 14, 1969
January 14. I suggest that the minister does owe to the house a clear statement as to when this bill is going to be placed on the order paper.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member, if I have understood the text which I have just read, I said that I hoped to introduce the bill when the session would be resumed in January. I cannot bring it in today, but I can assure the house that the bill will be tabled in the forthcoming weeks, probably before the end of the month.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I draw the attention of the house to the fact that the government is now supporting and substantiating the statement made by the Prime Minister, and is giving us bum answers.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it might be of assistance to the house to make a brief announcement in respect of the proposed business for the coming week. We propose to begin on orders of the day today with the four bills relating to pesticides, pest control and animal contagious diseases; the four pieces of legislation in the name of the Minister of Agriculture. These bills are closely related one to the other in administrative structure, and it is felt they could be most effectively dealt with as a group by the standing committee on agriculture. It is the government's hope that they might be given early passage at the second reading stage so that they might receive more intensive consideration in committee. Following committee study, a more informed opinion would be possible as to the amount of time to be taken to deal with them on the report stage and third reading.
The order we propose for calling the items would be as follows: Nos. 19, 18, 20 and 43. Following those items we would ask that government order No. 7 be called, second reading of the act to amend the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act. In view of the fact that the measure was extensively debated earlier in the session, we hope that it too would receive rapid passage at the second reading stage.
January 14, 1S69

The next item would be No. 25, the legislation with reference to the Bretton Woods Agreement Act and related statutes. The intention would be that the bill be referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs for a more detailed study. The next item to be called would be government order No. 30, second reading of the legislation to establish the fresh-water fish marketing corporation. The motion proposes reference of the bill to the standing committee on fisheries and forestry. It is anticipated that interested persons from western Canada concerned with the industry will want to make representations to the committee with respect to the bill. In view of the debate on the general subject matter which has already taken place, it is not anticipated that debate on the second reading stage would be too extended.
The next item would be No. 13, for second reading of an act to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act, that is to say, the drug prices bill, which would be referred to the standing committee on health, welfare and social affairs. On Thursday I expect to be in a position to make the customary announcement with respect to further business for the balance of this week and for next week.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that either the minister who has just spoken or the Minister of Agriculture, when he deals with these bills, will be able to assure us that the new pest control bill is in no way related to the late, unlamented rule 16-A, which we hope is buried forever.



WHEAT-LICENSING SALE OF PITIC 62

Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce the licensing for sale in Canada of Pitic 62, a wheat variety which was bred in Mexico. In the interest of brevity I would request permission to table copies of a press release which sets out details of this action taken by the Department of Agriculture today. The house will appreciate that important segments of the grain industry have expressed considerable interest in making a wider range of wheat classes available to farmers. This variety is of a different class and has the advantage of being higher yielding, but it is distinctly inferior in milling and baking qualities to our own milling wheats. Details about seed supplies, grades, etc., are outlined in the documents that I hope to table.
Grain
In conclusion, I think it cannot be overemphasized that because of its inferior baking and milling qualities, this class of grain, while it is called wheat, is not wheat in the sense that it will be allowed entry into the marketing channels that are normally considered for wheat in Canada today.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the last statement of the Minister of Agriculture because in the news release, which is in much greater detail-the minister did not read it-the Board of Grain Commissioners advises that, because of its inferior quality, Pitic 62 would only be eligible for grading into the feed grades of wheat. So it does not mean anything in the way of assisting in developing a new variety of wheat that might be more acceptable than our high protein variety sold in the markets of the world.
I would be more interested if at this stage the minister was looking into the matter of the four or five idle ships waiting in the docks of Vancouver for dry wheat. The government should be doing something to get the grain to these ships.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Probably if the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth prime minister's conference had been flirting a little more with markets than with skirts the farmers would have been better off.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, grain and livestock farmers are of course always looking for good wheat grain varieties to raise, and better varieties are still needed, but I suggest, sir, that this hardly can be called a variety that is to any great degree better than those we now have. It may be that in the future our experimental stations will crossbreed this grain to bring a higher yielding feed grain than we have now. However the shortcomings that the minister specified in his announcement points to the fact that this grain is hardly worthy of mention in this house and is hardly worth getting excited about. There may be parts of the prairie provinces, or certain sections of Ontario, where this grain can be raised, and it may be that Quebec and the maritimes may be able to use this variety-I do not know; the minister has not said. It is subject to smut and bunt and other crop diseases, which is hardly an additional asset to the grain industry in Canada. So I hope the minister will see

January 14, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry to it that the department will watch very carefully the use of this grain, and where it is used.
May I conclude by agreeing with the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), that all that can be said here is "big deal". This country and the farmers in it have been anxiously awaiting about 20 different kinds of announcements and statements that this minister could be making, on the order for motions, that are more greatly needed than this one.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, one which arises out of the statement of business just given us by the government house leader. Is the Minister of Finance prepared to give the house an undertaking on when he will lay upon the table the ways and means motions relating to income tax and estate tax changes arising from his budget. I ask this question in view of the concern I have expressed on a number of occasions about this legislation and the growing concern about it throughout this country.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: hope to lay these upon the table in the very near future, within a matter of a few days.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the minister whether during the interval, and immediately before the resolutions are before the house he might give an assurance to the people of Canada that the iniquitous estate tax bill is going to be amended so as to preserve home farms for farmers across Canada, and also save small businesses from destruction.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to deny the allegation made by the right hon. member, and indicate that when an estate of $500,000 is left outright, one half to the widow and one half to one child, the ultimate tax is $125,400 as compared with $147,781 under existing law. This is not a small business.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Are we to assume from the answer of the Minister of Finance that the

government proposal is to proceed without amendment or change?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, small changes are always made to taxation bills. I do not propose major changes, but there are always technical amendments proposed to such bills, as my hon. friend knows.


John George Diefenbaker: This means the wiping out of family farms.


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: I should like to address this supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Has he received extensive protests about the proposed estate tax bill from people right across this nation?


Edgar John Benson: I have received far fewer protests with regard to the estate tax bill than with regard to the 2 per cent social security tax, and the total number of protests received this year was smaller than those received with regard to the baby budget brought in last spring.


John George Diefenbaker: Canadians have now
given up hope for any action on the estate tax bill.



FINANCE


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask some questions of the Minister of Finance relating to another subject. Is the government considering steps to bring down unconscionable interest rates which are now being charged on loans and mortgages, and if so what are such steps?


Edgar John Benson: course the government is not in favour of high interest rates.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edgar John Benson: High interest rates exist
because of conditions in money markets both in Canada and throughout the world.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's assertion that the government is against high interest rates, I should like to ask him what he and the government are proposing to do to reduce the crippling rate of nine and three eighths per cent which the government has set under the National Housing Act.


Edgar John Benson: As my hon. friend knows, this rate is set automatically under the legislation,
January 14, 1969

and I am sure that my hon. friend and all of us look forward anxiously to proposals with respect to housing which will be brought forward by my colleague, the Minister of Transport.


David Lewis: I agree we are anxiously looking forward to them.
I should like to ask another supplementary question on the same subject. In view of the very large profits reported by chartered banks in recent months as a result of high interest rates, will the minister give favourable consideration to amending the Bank Act in order to restore some control over the level of interest rates in the market?
While I am on my feet may I also ask the minister whether he would consider referring this entire subject back to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs for renewed study in the light of the galloping rates of interest from which this country is suffering.


Edgar John Benson: Again I would recommend to my friend when looking at the results of operations of financial institutions to look at the results of operations of all financial institutions, and in fact to see whether or not the average consumer who obtains a consumer loan is paying a higher interest rate now than he did before. I think the hon. member will find the consumer is paying lower interest rates.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not say this unkindly but I really do not need a very elementary lecture on finance and loans.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a point of order he should make it and not make a speech.


David Lewis: My point of order is that instead of indulging in that kind of useless stuff the minister should recognize his duty to answer the question I asked him as to whether there will be any amendment to the Bank Act, and as to whether this subject of the galloping interest rates will be referred to the standing committee. That is what I asked him about.


Edgar John Benson: I can answer the first question quickly by saying that at present there is no intention to amend the Bank Act.
Inquiries of the Ministry



AMENDMENT TO ALLOW INCREASED BORROWING BY TRUST COMPANIES

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Is it the minister's intention to put before this house legislation amending the Trust Companies Act so as to allow increased borrowing power to trust and loan companies? If so, when may we expect such legislation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, amendments to the Trust Companies Act are presently under consideration by the government. We will probably be presenting legislation to amend the Trust Companies Act later in this session.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question. Will the provisions include increasing the powers of trust companies to borrow capital?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to make the contents of the bill known when it is presented to the house.



HOUSING


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Minister of Transport and in view of his undertaking that the report of his task force will be tabled in the house within 30 days of the completion of hearings, and this day being the forty second day, could the Minister of Finance advise us when the report will be tabled?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this is not a supplementary question. I will recognize him in due course, but at present I see an hon. member of his party who wishes to rise, the hon. member for Abitibi.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. It is not "where the hell is the Prime Minister" but when will the white paper on housing come before us?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, that subject matter comes under the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Transport. I will be glad to draw the hon. member's question to his attention.

January 14, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



POSSIBILITY OF CANADIAN REPRESENTATION AT VATICAN

Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Can he tell us when the appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican will become official?


George James McIlraith: [DOT]am afraid I am unable to answer that question, Mr. Speaker.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General and ask him whether he is contemplating any review of the most recent of several announcements regarding the increase in the rental charges for post office boxes, which doubles and in some instances quadruples the charges made prior to those in effect prior to eight days ago.


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: No, Mr. Speaker.



DISTRIBUTION OF PORNOGRAPHIC ADVERTISING

Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburlon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Postmaster General. Can the minister inform the house as to what action has been taken with respect to the recent widespread distribution [DOT]of pornographic advertising by an organization in California known as Collectors Publications?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, we have taken away the use of the mails from these people.



EFFORTS TO AVOID INTERRUPTION OF POSTAL SERVICE

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask tthe Postmaster General whether agreement has been reached with the president of the letter carriers union so as to avoid the possibility of any further interruption of postal service.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house I should like to make a fairly extensive reply to this question.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister wishes to make an extensive reply, it would have to be on motions. Has the minister leave of the house to revert to motions for the purpose of making this statement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eric William Kierans: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the letter carriers union should have criticized implementation of the five-day week. At its last annual convention the union passed a resolution calling for the early implementation of the five-day week. This measure was also recommended by the Montpetit commission of inquiry. It is being implemented both to achieve cost savings- and these are in the order of $13 million-and to improve working conditions.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the union deemed it advisable to state that they had not been advised of this change before January 2.
The first letters announcing the changes in detail were sent to the union by the assistant deputy minister on October 3.
Later on, in October, November, December and during the first week of January, 13 exchanges occurred between the officials of the department and the union representatives either through correspondence or meetings.
Some of these meetings were held last week and even this morning. I am ready to meet the union leaders at any time, if necessary, and I told them so right from the very first meetings which took place in my office.

I am also surprised that the union should have stated that the coincident move on February 1 to a new system of letter carrier delivery represents a retrograde step for the employees or for the public. The cost saving of this move is approximately $3 million, which represents a significant saving to the Canadian taxpayer.
This new system differs significantly from the old straight-line or straight-through delivery criticized by the union. Under that system letter carriers left the post office in the morning and continued on their walk, on occasion eating their lunch on the way, until they had completed their deliveries. Under the new
January 14, 1969

system of non-return delivery, letter carriers, after completing their morning round, will be provided with free transportation to the nearest post office, to their home or to a restaurant, whichever they prefer. The difference lies in the fact that under the new system they will no longer return to the post office to sort letters for afternoon delivery.
Now, what is involved? An average of about 20 first class letters are sorted on each day for delivery in the afternoon. Considering the time involved, I do not consider this procedure economic. The effect upon householders is that these 20 or fewer first class letters will be delivered the following morning instead of that afternoon. This represents 20 first class letters of which, on the average, at least three quarters are business mail, such as bills, divided among the 150 points of call on that afternoon walk.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
On the issue raised by the union of lay-offs as a result of the five day week, here are the facts. A total of 2,068 positions will become redundant as a result of these changes. To take care of these employees we stopped all hiring as of last October 1. As a result, alternative positions at the same salary have been found for all but 601 of the more than 2,000 employees affected. We have in hand another 215 unfilled vacancies. This leaves us 386 positions. To take care of these we intend, and have so informed the union, that all persons in redundant positions will be maintained on strength for 60 days after February 1. As a result of normal retirements this should open up a considerable number of other vacant positions. At the end of that 60 days we will discuss with union officials any unresolved cases and settle those to the satisfaction of both parties concerned.
Finally, I should like to say this. The post office is undergoing radical change. The public is underwriting that change to the extent of some $90 million a year in increased rates. Post office employees have secured, and rightly so, major wage increases in the past few years. The five day week is being implemented, as I said, to improve working conditions. I invite unions to co-operate with us in achieving a common goal-a better, more efficient post office which serves the public better and which is, by no means least of all, a better place to live and work in.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, we all want an efficient postal service in Canada. I asked my question because many people want some
Inquiries of the Ministry assurance that the Postmaster General and the government generally will make an earnest, sincere and reasonable effort to ensure there is no interruption of service. There is a widespread feeling in the country, and I myself have shared in that, that the prolonged strike last summer was unnecessary, and the result of the government's failure to bargain and discuss questions in good faith until the strike commenced.
I am not rising today to speak for the union; that is not my business, nor is it my place to do so. The members of the union are quite capable of speaking for themselves. Nevertheless I am not exactly comforted by what I interpret as the righteous attitude this afternoon of the Postmaster General.


An hon. Member:: The self righteous attitude.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He expressed surprise at this and surprise at that; he expressed surprise at the reaction of the union. If one wishes to talk about surprise it must be noted that a good many Canadian people are rather surprised at the quality of the mail service existing at the present time. I hope the Postmaster General will bear in mind, as I am sure he will, that while it is all very well to talk about savings you do not save very much unless you have a willing and co-operative work force. I did not rise to lecture the Postmaster General but merely to express the hope that these grievances will be discussed in good faith with a view to reaching a genuine and satisfactory solution which will preserve the working conditions of the men concerned, and will ensure the Canadian public of good postal services that will not be interrupted by any unnecessary stoppage of work.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: It
was obvious as one listened to the Postmaster General that, like the Prime Minister, he has learned Marshall McLuhan's message very well:	You can say one thing and mean
another.
On a number of occasions both inside and outside the house the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) endorsed the basic principles of the Freedman report, that workers shall be consulted and that workers shall not suffer as a result of technological changes. Yet here we have an illustration of government thinking. It is clear that a great number of workers will be laid off as a result of the government's decision to implement the five day delivery. On a number of occasions the Postmaster Genera] made clear and precise statements

January 14. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry that not a single postal worker would be laid off because of the new system. The remarks are in Hansard, Mr. Speaker, although this is not the time to read them. The minister knows he made those statements, yet today he can only say that at some time six months from now, if there are postal workers for whom positions have not been found, the government is prepared to discuss that matter with its employees.
I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that either the minister lied when he made the statement that no one would be laid off, or he has changed his mind. Now the minister says this new system means there will be a better service. He said that when a post office worker went back to the post office he picked up only 30 new letters for delivery, of which two thirds may have been bills. Now, none of us like getting bills, but the fact is that the 30 letters we are speaking of were delivered on the same day they were received in the post office. Under the new system they will not be delivered until the next day.
The minister says the department is going to save money and it will be more efficient. Of course he is talking nonsense and I am sure he knows it. He said arrangements will be made to pick up letter carriers at noon to take them back to the post office or to some place where they can eat lunch. This is something new. That decision could not have been discussed with post office workers two days ago, because when I was in Winnipeg last week I met postal workers who are delivering mail and that matter was not mentioned. I may say that some of those postal workers are delivering mail in the fringe areas of my city where there is no public transportation or restaurant.
The temperature in Winnipeg and most of western Canada last week hovered at about 30 degrees below zero. The workers were very concerned-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member that the rules allow him to make a brief statement at this time. Perhaps he will keep that in mind in the course of the remarks he is making.


David Orlikow: I was coming to the end of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, which I submit have been no longer than the minister's statement. I was trying to deal precisely with matters the minister supposedly dealt with. I say the letter carriers are concerned and have a right to be concerned about the unilateral and arbitrary decision of the department, something which is not new for that department.

We have a new Postmaster General but we have the same old gang in the top positions in the department. Unless the minister comes up with a new plan, the workers are not going to accept the idea that a substantial number of them will have to eat their lunches outdoors in very cold and wet weather simply because there are no provisions for transportation and thus no opportunity for them to have their lunch break. I say to the minister, and this is not a threat, that I think I know how the postal workers in many cities feel, and unless the department meets these legitimate complaints there will be another stoppage very shortly.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolietie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the great importance of the statement made by the minister over the week-end, to the effect that industries should co-ordinate their efforts in the development of new products, can the minister tell the house whether that statement will be followed by the adoption in his department of a new policy to that effect?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, not specifically, I was referring to the use of existing legislation. Some proposed legislative measures, for instance the creation of a corporation to encourage exports, could have an indirect effect. It is a well known fact that the development of exports helps the rationalization and development of industry within a country.



HONOURING OF CONTRACTS BY DEVCO

Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. Will Devco honour the contracts in force at the time of its takeover?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, I
could not hear the question. Would the hon. member repeat it?


Donald MacInnis: Will Devco honour the general agreements that were in effect at the time it took over from Dominion Coal?
January 14, 1969


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know all the implications of the question. I shall look into it and may answer tomorrow. In principle I say that the corporation should keep its word and live up to its agreements, but I think this is too broad a question to answer at this stage.


Donald MacInnis: In asking a supplementary question I might say I am quite satisfied with the minister's answer that the Devco people will keep their word, but will the minister take a close look at the Devco retirement plan and assure the miners involved that the company will keep their promise?



AIR POLLUTION


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Is Canada's Department of Justice having any discussion and dialogue with the department of justice in the United States with reference to the legal action of the justice department of the United States against the leading automobile manufacturers because of their refusal and/or neglect to place on automobiles air pollution protection equipment?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. This matter would properly fall, I would think, within the authority either of the Minister of Transport or the minister of consumer affairs.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then perhaps I could put the question to the minister of consumer affairs, his having heard the first question. Is Canada itself taking any action in connection with air pollution devices for automobiles and the failure of the automobile manufacturers to instal the necessary equipment? If so, what action is being taken?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to air pollution as a general subject, my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare is responsible. As to the proceedings both in Washington and California with regard to automobiles generally, and automobile warranties and exhaust devices particularly, the officials of my department are studying very carefully the evidence and the inquiries being held in both jurisdictions to determine what action is appropriate in Canada.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker may I put one more supplementary question, and again I address it to the Minister of Justice. Since this matter is in his field I ask him now: Is Canada contemplating taking any legal action with reference to manufacturers of cars providing air pollution protective devices on their automobiles, the same as is done in the United States?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that if the investigations of my colleague the minister of consumer affairs demonstrate the need for legal action, then it will be taken.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question either to the Minister of Finance or to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that the government has acted upon a recommendation of the special joint committee on the public service of Canada with respect to the salaries of deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers, when will it act upon the recommendation of the very same committee for increases in the pensions of retired civil servants?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think the first step to which the hon. member has just referred was attributed rather more to the recommendations of an outside committee known as the Clyne committee. With regard to the second part of the question, as I have told the hon. member this matter is still under consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten
o'clock.



ASSISTANCE TO NATIONAL SKI TEAM

Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Has the minister or his department received an application for a grant to assist the national ski team which will represent Canada and, in the affirmative, what is going to be done about that application?


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I shall call the attention of the minister to this inquiry.

January 14, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry



IMMIGRATION


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration possibly I could direct this question to the acting minister. It has to do with the application for political asylum of nine Polish seamen who have disavowed communism and desire to remain in Canada. The matter has been before the appeal board and has been decided adversely. Is there not something that the government can do in order to assure that these men, desirous of remaining in Canada, can be granted political asylum inasmuch as they fear that if they return to their own country they will be visited with recriminations, if not worse?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to forward this question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. However, as the right hon. gentleman knows, the decisions of the board of appeal are final and binding and I think it would not be wise, from the minister's point of view, not to respect the order of the court. In any event I shall submit the question to the minister.


John George Diefenbaker: May I just add that I realize the legal position under the law, but surely humanitarian considerations should be paramount in a matter such as this and these Polish people should be given the same rights as those Czecks and others who have left communist countries to seek freedom in our country.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the acting minister. Have government lawyers in these immigration cases been instructed recently to advise the tribunals of Canadian policy regarding asylum for refugees from communist countries?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such orders, but I shall refer this question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Maiher (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Having in mind the further substantial increase across
Canada in the cost of living recently, is consideration being given to introducing the type of prices control legislation which, to use a perhaps overworked word, would have enough guts in it to protect the wage earners and the pensioners of the country?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government is clearly set forth in the white paper which I tabled ini the house on the day we adjourned for the Christmas recess. Since its tabling I have sent some 500 copies of the white paper to leaders of labour and industry, and to the university economic community for their comments. Comments I have received so far are very favourable to the policies enunciated in the white paper. I am now engaged in winding up a series of consultative meetings with business, labour and the academic community, receiving their comments on the white paper, and I would hope to implement the policies spelled out in the white paper before the end of February.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a question.
Could he tell us when he will introduce a bill dealing with the administrative tribunals in order to amend the present legislation? He talked about it at the end of 1968 and he promised that such a bill would be tabled. Can he tell us when this will be done?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly what
legislation the hon. member is talking about; is it the one amending the Exchequer Court or another one?


André-Gilles Fortin: It is the bill dealing with the administrative tribunals which was discussed at the resolution stage. At that time it was said that a new legislation on administrative tribunals could be passed. The minister said then that such a measure would be advisable.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are now studying that measure and I will be in a position to present to my colleagues and to the cabinet a new bill intended to make the Exchequer Court a court of appeal for the judicial review of all administrative tribunals of the country. As for a date I cannot set any date at the present time.
[Mr. Gendron.)
January 14, 1S69

Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: Where the hell is the
Prime Minister?



SHIPPING


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Transport I wish to direct this question to the acting minister. On January 2 the Minister of Transport announced an increase in wharfage storage rates and lying-up charges at some 3,500 government wharves throughout Canada. Will these increased rates estimated to produce some $300,000 a year in additional revenue, be applicable to the inshore and offshore fishermen on the Atlantic coast?


Hon. James Richardson (Acting Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of this question and reply tomorrow.



TENDERS FOR DIGBY-SAINT JOHN FERRY

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport but in his absence I shall direct it to the acting minister. Have tenders for the new Digby-Saint John ferry been awarded and have contracts been let for the new terminals?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, there has been discussion between the C.P.R. and the government officials with regard to the vessel but I do not believe that the tenders have in fact been let.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Robsrt Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Can he give to the house and the country an indication of when the Prime Minister may find time from his busy round to join us in this chamber in discussing the nation's business?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I expect the Prime Minister to be back in the house on Monday.


Robert Muir: As a
supplementary question, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister, during his audience with His Holiness the Pope, will discuss with him his abortion bill? Further, when the Prime Minister returns to Canada will he return to this house or is he going on another vacation?


George James McIlraith: I think I should answer that interjection. He is attending the Commonwealth conference.



DAMP WHEAT-LIFTING OF EMBARGO

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Earlier in the week the wheat board authorized three bushel quotas. However, because of a lack of box cars and an embargo on shipments of damp grain only a few farmers have been able to deliver the three bushel quota and some farmers were not able to deliver any grain at all. When can we expect the embargo on damp grain shipments to be lifted so that more farmers can deliver damp grain up to the three bushel quota?


Jean-Luc Pepin: There is no change on that subject, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley James Korchinski: When can we expect the lifting of the embargo so that damp grain can move out of country elevators?


Jean-Luc Pepin: A few weeks ago there was too much damp grain being moved. We now need dry grain of certain grades for export. It is a very complex situation and if I have a chance I would like to explain it.



INSTALLATION OF DRYING EQUIPMENT BY ELEVATOR COMPANIES

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether or not the Board of Grain Commissioners, his department or the government have announced any regulations, or will they be, permitting the installation and operation of grain drying equipment by elevator companies at country elevators? Is this now being considered, and when can we expect such permission to be given?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, that suggestion, along with many others, was considered in taking steps to alleviate the problem in western Canada. I will look into this matter again and see if we have any direct applications for the installation of these facilities in country elevators. However, I should like to advise my hon. friend that there are several hundred on-farm grain dryers in western Canada which are not

January 14, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry being used at the moment because of the inclement weather.


John George Diefenbaker: And also because of the 10 cents per bushel.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Is the minister aware that some country elevators are now using grain dryers under the provisions and regulations of the Board of Grain Commissioners?



EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF BOX CARS

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Minister of Transport but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister without Portfolio. Would the minister inform us whether or not a co-ordinator has been appointed to establish equitable distribution of box cars in western Canada and whether the Canadian Transport Commission has been instructed to look into the equitable distribution of box cars?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the allocation of box cars in the west is followed closely by the Canadian Wheat Board which reports to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I believe he has the information concerning box cars.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the failure to receive box cars at so many points and because of the uncertainty in respect of the way allocation is made, I should like to ask whether the government is now giving consideration to the appointment of a transport controller so that allocation may be done with fairness and equity to the farmers of western Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I might answer the question at least in part by saying that there is already a transportation committee made up of the Board of Grain Commissioners, the Canadian Wheat Board, the railways and the grain companies. This committee is constantly keeping in touch with the box car situation.


John George Diefenbaker: Not very successfully.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is a matter of opinion.


John George Diefenbaker: Ask the farmers.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Members of the Committee are doing their best. They might consult the hon. member for Prince Albert to get more enlightenment in respect of what should be

done. However, with the mental and physical resources available to them they are trying to figure out these very complicated problems. We have one awkward situation in Vancouver which stems from two very desirable developments. With the approval of everybody in this house, it was thought that the proper thing to do was to give high priority to the movement of high moisture grain to terminal elevators. Everybody seemed to be in favour of that. It just so happened that at the same time sales were made which could not have been anticipated. Sales to China were higher than had been expected; sales to Japan were also slightly higher than expected. So it happened that two very desirable things conflicted.


John George Diefenbaker: It just happens that that is not an answer to the question. The minister used a lot of words chasing an idea. I asked whether consideration has been given to the appointment of a transport controller, such action in previous years having actually brought about a reasonable degree of equity?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, consideration has also been given to that. A co-ordinating committee of the transportation committee I referred to has been established in Vancouver. This committee meets on a weekly basis. There are 6,800 box cars of grain under load or at Vancouver, and the first priority of this committee is to ensure that the on-loading of grain will be maximized. This should bring about an improvement.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Agriculture who I am sure is aware of the action of the United States government in changing its regulations last week on imports of tomatoes into that country and the disastrous effect it could have on our own Canadian industry. Can the minister state whether the government is prepared to tell us now what its decisions are on the recommendations in this regard presented by the greenhouse industry almost nine months ago?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware that there have been several changes in the United States import regulations respecting tomatoes. The most recent one has just come into effect within the last day or two. The hon. member also knows we are watching this situation
January 14, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	4249
very closely. We will be considering what action will be appropriate in view of what the United States has done and, indeed, what ramifications this will have in the market.


Harold Warren Danforth: Can the minister say whether the government is prepared to announce its decision on the specific recommendations made by the greenhouse industry and, if not at this time, when this might be expected?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I cannot give a specific date in respect of when an announcement will be made. I do not think I can add very much to my statement that all these things will be taken into consideration.



HARBOURS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Can he say whether plans have been completed for the proposed harbour development at Corner Brook, Newfoundland, and whether provision for this work has been made in the estimates of his department?
Hon. Arlhur Laing (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the question as notice and give an answer tomorrow, if I may.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Oza Tetrauli (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Transport. In his absence, I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary.
Could he bring us up to date on the negotiations regarding the construction of the Chapais-Chibougamau airport, in the constituency of Villeneuve?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything to be added to what the Minister of Transport has already said in the house.



QUEBEC-LOCATION OF INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address a question to the Minister of Transport, but in his absence, I will direct it to the acting minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry Is the department in a position to communicate its decision regarding the choice of a site for the future international airport in Quebec?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker, not yet.


André-Gilles Fortin: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the acting minister tell us approximately at what date this decision will be made public?



PRAIRIE GRAIN ADVANCE PAYMENTS ACT


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the announcement made during the recess regarding the payment of 10 cents a bushel to a maximum of $600 as further funds that the farmers might draw, I understand that this will require an amendment to the prairie farm cash advance payments act, or whatever the statute is. When will the Minister of Agriculture bring in these amendments?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture will not be bringing in these amendments at all. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be bringing them in. It is a fact, however, that an amendment of the cash advances act is required to increase the amount. The statutory amounts are $1 for wheat, 70 cents for barley and 40 cents for oats.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Since the Minister of
Agriculture has not talked with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, can the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce tell us when he will bring in these amendments?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I can only confirm what the Minister of Agriculture says. As usual, he is extremely well informed. The selecting of a date is in the hands of the house leaders of the parties. We will do our best to bring this legislation in as early as possible and will count on the co-operation of members on both sides of the house.
4250	COMMONS
Pesticide Residue Compensation INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government house leader. Will the minister check to make certain that the Minister of Transport is here tomorrow to answer important transport questions, particularly in view of the fact that according to the new roster he was supposed to be here today? Apparently he is here in Ottawa looking tanned and healthy after his holiday.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is attending a ministerial meeting with provincial ministers on highway safety, a subject of general and great public concern. I would point out that in fact the department is represented here today and has responded to questions.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the minister feel it is a good thing to start the new year with a roster system which is not being honoured?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)



AGRICULTURE


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: the second reading and reference to the standing committee on agriculture of Bill C-155, to provide compensation to farmers whose agricultural products are contaminated by pesticide residue, and to provide for appeals from compensation awards.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my proposal that four bills, C-155, the pesticide residue compensation bill, C-154, the plant quarantine bill, C-156, amending the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and C-157, the pest control products bill, be considered by the house together. The reason for this suggestion is that they are very much interrelated. The first three mentioned all make provision for compensations to primary agricultural producers in certain situations and the first contains a general provision creating an opportunity for producers to appeal the level of compensation awarded. The fourth bill, C-157, deals with pesticides, as does the first one.
The pesticide residue compensation bill provides for appeals against compensation awarded under this new act as well as under other acts to which these appeal provisions are also applicable. These appeal provisions are made applicable to the plant quarantine bill and the Animal Contagious Diseases Act

DEBATES	January 14, 1969
by the bills presented. There is, therefore, very good reason for considering these four measures together.
I should like to repeat the suggestion made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) that all these bills be referred to the standing committee on agriculture for detailed consideration clause by clause.
To refer to the specific bills, Bill C-155 has reference to the proposed pesticide residue compensation act. As is well known to all hon. members, pesticides have become an integral part of our food production picture, as well as having a multiplicity of uses around the home, in the garden, in public recreation areas and indeed in many of our industries. We just could not economically produce some of our important crops without pesticides.
I suppose that most of us dream of the day when pesticides will no longer be required. Agricultural scientists are striving to come up with alternatives to these control materials and are having some measure of success, but the promised land is not yet in sight so far as doing without some of these very useful chemicals in the production of agricultural products is concerned.
Pesticides are rendering a magnificent service to agriculture and, indeed, to the public at large, but from time to time in spite of careful research and testing the use of pesticides in accordance with recommended practice leads to a residue remaining in food that renders the sale of the food in violation of the Food and Drugs Act.
To protect the public interest we have some very stringent requirements concerning the use of these potentially dangerous materials. Our rules are especially strict in regard to pesticide residues in food. The sale of agricultural products containing even minute quantities of residue can be banned under the Food and Drugs Act. This can work a real hardship on an individual farmer because not only does he lose the immediate revenue from his produce but contamination may be such that future marketings may also be affected.
The pesticide residue compensation bill is designed to assist farmers who suffer losses because of pesticide residue through no fault of their own. More specifically, this bill provides the Minister of Agriculture, through the governor in council, with authority to pay compensation to farmers for losses resulting from pesticide residues in food products which are withheld from sale as a result of action under the Food and Drugs Act.
January 14, 1969	COMMONS
Eligibility for compensation is dependent on the residues not having occurred through the fault of the farmers. Also, the use of the pesticide must have been in accordance with recommendations made, approved or concurred in by the Canada Department of Agriculture.
Passage of this bill will restore confidence to those farmers who wish to use pesticides according to directions in the economic production of crops and who may have felt some uncertainty because of the significant losses experienced by a very few farmers as a result of pesticide residues. In framing this act the aim has been to make it as easy as possible for the farmer to establish his eligibility for compensation and the amount of compensation while at the same time not interfering with the normal rights and responsibilities of farmers and, indeed, manufacturers of pesticides.
The bill also provides for the appointment of assessors to hear appeals from compensation awards. The powers of the assessors are binding and provide for confirming or varying the decision of a minister and referring cases back to the minister for such further action as may be necessary. Perhaps I should also add that any producer of primary agricultural products will be eligible for compensation.
Pesticide residues include residues of all pest control products such as insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and fumigants. The bill provides that compensation may not be paid until steps have been taken by the farmer to reduce the amount of loss and to pursue any action the farmer has in law against the manufacturer of the pesticide, or any other person.
The provisions I mentioned earlier for appeals against levels of compensation paid under this act may be made to apply to other acts where provisions are made in such other acts for their application. There are two other acts which will be dependent upon or referred to in the provisions of this act in so far as compensation and appeals from amounts of compensation are concerned. It might be well for me to point out at this stage that the financial consideration would not amount to more than $100,000 annually. This is based on our experience. Indeed, the amount may be substantially less because we must find a situation in which in fact the food and drug directorate has banned the sale of some product before the farmer would become eligible. It must also be established that the residue of these chemicals got into the food through no
DEBATES	4251
Pesticide Residue Compensation fault of the farmer. While there have been
some cases in the past, we do not expect that this bill will result in a very large drain on the public treasury.
Perhaps I might proceed to an explanation of Bill C-154, the plant quarantine bill.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, since some of these bills are quite different in their import perhaps we could deal with them one at a time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 assume the hon. member is raising a point of order at the moment. Obviously there is only one bill now before the house. I suggest to the minister that this is what he should do, and I also suggest that he should not deal with the other bills at this time unless there is agreement on the part of hon. members.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree that if there is not agreement to deal with all these bills at the same time-the suggestion is that they are interrelated-and hon. members wish to deal with them separately, under the rules that is the way it will have to be done. If there is not unanimous agreement to deal with all these bills concurrently, I have concluded my remarks on Bill C-155.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I express my thanks to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) for his co-operation in this regard. We would rather deal with these bills one at a time because there are definite principles involved in each of them to which we would like to give very serious consideration. My remarks this afternoon will not be at great length because I believe there is general agreement among all members that legislation of this type is and has been needed for some time, perhaps ever since the extensive use of chemicals in the control of diseases and insects that affect crops which provide human and animal food began.
Having considered the terms of the bill and listened to the explanatory remarks of the minister, I believe there is a strong feeling in the house that the basic issue we must always keep before us is the health of animals and humans who consume food produced from the soil on farms where chemicals are being used. We must consider, on the other hand, that in view of the conditions under which food is produced at the present time we in fact need not only the chemicals we now have but new chemicals to control the various pests and
January 14, 1969

Pesticide Residue Compensation diseases that from time to time affect farm production.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I think the minister is right in his contention that the government will not have to spend great sums of money in implementing this legislation because I believe that under the provisions of the bill there is very little recourse for a farmer to obtain redress when his crops are condemned because they are contaminated by pesticide residue. It seems to me that before an individual can present a claim to the government he must on his own initiative exhaust all other courses open to him. He must exhaust all avenues of approach, including the companies which provided the chemicals and the custom operators who applied them to his property or adjacent properties. Therefore it appears that once more the onus has been placed on the primary producer, the farmer. Not only is he faced with the loss of the sale of his products, which may be reduced greatly and in extreme cases may be barred from the market completely, but he is faced with the additional expense of making a claim or pursuing an appeal through the various avenues open to him.
There is one other matter that I think should be, and perhaps will be, explored when this bill is referred to the standing committee on agriculture. I was very pleased indeed to hear the minister emphasize over and over again that it was the intention of the government to refer the bill to the committee. This will give an opportunity to those members of the house directly interested in the subject, and the various experts, companies and individuals concerned with this question, to go into the matter in a very thorough and exact manner in order that the farmers of this country, the primary producers, will have the very best possible bill that it is in our power to enact.
I believe that one of the main problems we should be attacking as a group vitally interested in the welfare of this generation and generations to come concerns the type and composition of the chemicals that are applied to the land. We sometimes find that the application of chemicals to crops can create greater problems because of their residue or action than those which it is sought to control. I speak of chemicals that do not after application break down or change their form in any manner and are therefore a constant threat to the environment in which they are

used. They may be a constant threat to animals because of their presence in the topsoil of the land to which they are applied. They may be a constant threat to fresh-water and, indeed, salt-water fish because these chemicals are sometimes carried away through soil drainage to our rivers and lakes and thus to the ocean. Some of the chemicals used lodge in the bodies of the insects they are intended to control and thus are a real threat to various species of bird life of which we in this country are so proud.
My primary point in asking the minister to deal with each of these bills separately was that although they are related in that they deal with chemicals the principles involved are of such magnitude and the ramifications are so great that I believe we must have an opportunity to express our views in regard to each of them. In principle we believe that the action of the government in introducing this bill is commendable. When reviewing the bill we would like an opportunity to deal with each of the clauses in a very explicit manner. In particular we would like from the government explanations of the regulations set out in the bill. After considering the bill I am of the opinion that although its specific purpose is to provide compensation to farmers, the manner in which the bill is drafted means it will be almost impossible for farmers to receive extensive redress for damage. In fact, if they are able to receive compensation it will only be after a long and costly dialogue with the government and the other parties concerned. In the course of our review of the bill we might find a much swifter method of resolving matters as between the injured parties, the farmers, and the government. It is my hope that we shall be able to do this.
We in this party will endeavour in the consideration of these bills to pay every attention to safeguarding the welfare of the people and the animals that consume the production of our soil. Second, we shall investigate these chemicals thoroughly to ascertain whether or not they will remain as active agents in the years ahead. Third, we shall do our very best on behalf of the farmers to make sure that when this legislation becomes law it will be in the most workable form possible.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks made by the minister and by the speaker for the official opposition. I must say that Bill C-155 is a very important piece of legislation and it is my hope that it is just the start of a series of
January 14, 1963

legislative changes regarding the use of pesticides. While this bill deals with compensation to farmers whose agricultural products have been contaminated by pesticide residue it nevertheless leaves much to be desired in the field of control, something that the house must look at very carefully in the months to come. This bill can be described as legislation to provide compensation to those farmers whose products have become contaminated by the use of government approved pesticides. Basically this is the content of the legislation before us.
While I agree with the preceding speaker that legislation of this type is certainly long overdue I believe that compensation for loss is only one facet of the problem. I feel it is imperative that the Department of Agriculture in conjunction with other government departments do far more research into the possible effects of pesticides before they are released for public use. I find it rather disconcerting to realize that over the years we have been using pesticides which in many instances have contaminated the soil and the products grown in it. There is not doubt that this type of soil pollution is extremely widespread not only in this country but in every country in the world. The relatively few cases of this type of pollution which becomes public knowledge are only a fraction of those which really take place. However perhaps the most disconcerting aspect of the pesticide problem is the fact that government agencies have approved their use only to find out later that very severe contamination has taken place.
I would be the first to admit that pesticides are certainly required in the agricultural industry. In British Columbia there are many kinds of farms and pesticides are certainly required to control some pests. In the past one of the problems has been the lack of proper co-operation between the federal and provincial departments of agriculture. It seems to me that in many instances of problems of pollution of agricultural products there has not been the proper degree of coordination and co-operation between the provincial and federal departments concerned.
I can think of a case which took place several years ago in Grand Forks. I am quite certain that the minister and his department are well aware of the problem that arose when contamination took place and the farmers concerned were placed in an extremely awkward financial position. They had been raising milk cows and sending their milk to the creamery. Contamination was discovered,
Pesticide Residue Compensation and very naturally and logically the creamery had to refuse to take the product. For at least two years a great fight went on, first with the provincial member for the Grand Forks district and then with the department of agriculture of British Columbia. Finally the matter reached the federal field and eventually partial compensation was received by the farmers who had the contaminated product. I think this is a good case to illustrate the point that research facilities are needed desperately in this field.
The above problem in regard to pesticides arose initially because of the use of a pesticide called Aldrin which was used to spray potatoes, I understand. Once Aldrin gets into the soil it often converts itself into a more toxic pesticide called dieldrin. This is the pesticide that caused the problem in the area to which I referred. It did not occur in the crop for which it was used but was found several years later in the hay which cattle had been eating. It took months to search for and find the source of this contamination.
It seems to me that we in Canada have been far too hasty in giving the green light to the use of certain types of pesticides without thoroughly investigating the results which might occur because of a particular pesticide coming into contact with something in the ground and becoming more toxic. We are the only ones that can be blamed. We have allowed this to take place. I am not saying that one government has been more negligent than another, but certainly once these problems are pointed out we should make sure that legislation to protect against this type of problem is placed upon the statute books of our country.
There are one or two more points I should like to make about the use of pesticides. I must say I am very pleased to see a clause in the bill which gives the minister, before paying any compensation to a farmer, the right to insist that the crown be allowed to sue the manufacturer. At least, that is how I interpret the legislation; if I am in error the minister can correct me. I think this is a good provision, but at the same time we must not forget our obligation to the Canadian people to see that proper testing of pesticides is carried out before they are released for general use in Canadian agriculture.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Over the past several years a great deal of work has been done on pollution problems. I do not want to stray too far from the bill under discussion, but it has been found, for
January 14. 1969

Pesticide Residue Compensation example, that the unwise use of D.D.T. sprays has resulted in extreme damage to wildlife and to fish, with consequent economic disadvantage to the public in general. One of our big fish hatcheries, the Bow River fish hatchery in the east Kootenays one of the finest on the North American continent, had its entire stock of fish pretty well wiped out one year when D.D.T. got into the water. The province of British Columbia was financing the plant, but again this is an example of loss to the public. The cause is very difficult to trace. We also see the indiscriminate use of sprays for various pests. While we do a top-notch job of eliminating pests, it must be the over-all, final results that determine the use of particular pesticides.
Many questions will be asked when the clauses come before the committee, but perhaps the minister could indicate to the house in his wind-up speech what the regulations will cover. I think that sometimes we leave far too much to the regulations sections of bills and that certain regulations should perhaps be incorporated within the bill itself. If there is anything extraordinary in these regulations, then I for one would appreciate it if the minister would outline to the house what it is.
There is a host of pesticides-I have referred to one particular pesticide, Aldrin- and there is not time to go into them all during this debate. However, before I close may I say a word or two about pesticides generally. I would not want the Canadian people to think that they are in danger of losing their lives as a result of eating certain agricultural products, but I should like to read one paragraph from "Science" magazine for September, 1967. Basically the paragraph points out that while pesticide residue in food, in animals and so on is rising and causing a great deal of concern in practically every nation on earth, the safety standards that have been set by the World Health Organization have still not been breached. I should like to conclude my remarks with this paragraph:
The residues of pesticide chemicals consumed in a normal well-balanced diet are substantially below the limits set for acceptable daily intakes by the World Health Organization and United Nations committees and below the safe levels anticipated when legal tolerances are established on tire raw foods. Although this conclusion is reassuring, it cannot be said that pesticide residues in foods are not a matter for continued concern. Unpublished data, obtained from objective samples of raw food examined to determine compliance with tolerances, show (i) that for each of the last three years almost half the lots examined contain residues, mostly below tolerance levels, and (ii) that over

half these lots contain mor? than one residue. Even though this investigation does not show a statistically valid difference, there is a finite increase in the daily intake of total chlorinated organic compounds. From these findings, we conclude that continued surveillance and attention to pesticide residues in foods are required.
Although I feel that the bill is a step in the right direction, I hope it is just a start in a real program to fight the soil pollution, air pollution and water pollution problems that are facing Canada today.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Ralliement credi-tiste I should like to pledge our co-operation so that the four bills of which the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Olson) spoke a while ago can be studied as rapidly and as efficiently as possible.
Those bills are of great interest to the farmer as well as to the people in general, the consumer, etc. I should like to reassure the minister with regard to our position in this regard.
Bill No. C-155, as already pointed out so aptly by those speakers who preceded me, is really a step forward and constitutes an improvement with regard to the use of those products which, unfortunately, have become necessary to increase the income possibilities of those who deal in agricultural production. Unfortunately, in general the Canadian farmer is not sufficiently informed by the companies on the nature of those products. There is far more concern about promoting their sale than about giving sufficient information on how to use them wisely with a view to reducing eventual losses that might result from this use.
I congratulate the minister on having accepted that the bill be referred to the committee on agriculture where it can be discussed at length and looked into more carefully, and where we can make suggestions to improve it. But, before we do so, I should like to ask whether that part of the bill which concerns indemnities to farmers will also apply to pastures because it sometimes happens that pastures are damaged by herbicides causing serious problems for the farmers. The bill is not clear about this, but I am convinced that the minister can give the house some information in this regard.
In any event, I am pleased with this bill as well as Bills Nos. C-154, C-156 and C-157, which are all related. We are very much interested in them; they will surely bring improvements. Still, as mentioned by the
January 14, 1969

speaker who preceded me, there must be a joint effort made to promote general knowledge of those insecticides and pesticides with a view to limiting their ill effects as much as possible. That is probably what the Minister of Agriculture was thinking when he introduced Bill No. C-154 which we will discuss a little later, I hope.
In any case, Bill No. C-155 is acceptable in principle and is a step forward. Knowing the minister as I do, I am convinced that he will be very happy to accept the suggestions we might make to him to improve the bill further. In the meantime, I can say that Bill No. C-155 was needed, that it comes at the right time and that we can hope for appreciable results.
As for the compensation that will be paid to farmers, it is a matter of secondary importance because it must not be considered as a source of income. The damage was done quite by accident and the government will have to make it good to some extent. The aspect of the bill which appeals to me is a clause by which the farmer himself will have to try and get compensation from the companies or the individuals involved.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Secondly, the government will not act as a dictator when requiring the consent of the farmer-if I understand correctly it is the intent of the bill-to institute any legal action if necessary, on his behalf, and I assume that the department's legal action will not be taken at the farmer's expense.
This is a question which can be asked because if the action is taken at the farmer's expense, he could lose all the money he might have received as a compensation and he would not be any better off than if nothing had happened.
Mr. Speaker, those are the few remarks I wanted to make on Bill No. C-155.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a few moments to speak of a few matters burdening my mind. When the bill was first introduced I was elated, hoping it would cover more ground than I found it actually covered on subsequent examination. I know that it provides for compensation in cases where food is contaminated, but compensation might well be merited in other cases where food is not contaminated but stunted or affected during growth as a result of the effects of insectides or pesticides. I had hoped that when the bill was being

Pesticide Residue Compensation drafted the department would consider such matters.
I recall a particular instance in which a department of government other than the Department of Agriculture was involved where 2-4-D was used on what was called a P.F.R.A. pasture. It had a certain effect on a farmer's garden and he complained to the department. The department did not take the farmer at his word. Specimens of damaged crops were submitted to the provincial laboratory concerned, but neither the department nor the farmer was able to obtain a statement saying that there had been damage or that there had been no damage. On checking with the laboratory personally I was told in a telephone conversation that an insufficient quantity of material was analysed for the laboratory to be able to give a definite answer. As a result the farmer was not granted compensation. Other farmers tried to substantiate his contention by signing statements to the effect that to the best of their knowledge-and these were knowledgeable farmers-the damage in question was caused by the use of 2-4-D. No compensation could be paid in that case, however, because no proper analysis was made. Therefore there was no substantiation of the claim.
I had hoped that the department would keep matters like this in mind when drawing up the provisions for compensation. I wondered whether the department's thinking had gone that far. I realize that where it can be proved that food has been contaminated there will be compensation. All the same, I think it might be a good idea for the department to take into account matters similar to the one I have raised when considering the provision of compensation. Perhaps the minister might say something along these lines when he sums up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief because rather than criticizing the provisions of the bill I think it can be said that all of us more or less agree with its intent and recommendations. There are one or two points that need to be clarified. Where the wording of the bill says that the minister may do certain things on such terms and conditions as prescribed by the regulations, etc., does that wording refer to the Minister of National Health and Welfare or to the Minister of Agriculture? I ask that question because, although we are dealing primarily with the Minister of Agriculture in this bill, the Minister of
January 14, 1969

Pesticide Residue Compensation National Health and Welfare comes under its aegis and he too must be considered.
I wish to speak about making information available to the agricultural community. Certain useful publications carry information that is useful to our farmers and I think it would be wise to allow such publications to be made available to farmers at reasonable subscription rates. Farm publications carry excellent material; their reports are most helpful to farmers and many of our farmers are worried because some of those publications may have to go out of business.
Often problems are encountered when trying to enforce a particular piece of legislation. Too often we find that the fieldmen who are directly involved in policing legislation are not given proper training before they go into the field. I suggest to the minister that this aspect ought to be looked into before fieldmen are turned loose to police this legislation. I think they ought to be given adequate training before being put into the field. If fieldmen do not have adequate training we shall continue to receive complaints along those lines. We have received such complaints in the past. Whether they were valid I am not prepared to say.
On page 3 of the bill we find these words at the beginning of clause 4: "The Governor in Council may make regulations." I emphasize the word "may" and suggest that it ought to be changed to "will". Too much permissive legislation is not good. We must have some permissive legislation in order to allow the minister to determine what to do. Yet in Bill C-155 I think the word "may" ought to be changed to "will" wherever possible.
Another point that bothers me, as it no doubt bothers many other people in Canada, is that the Department of National Health and Welfare must continually inspect the insecticides at present on the market as well as those that are coming on the market. Too often in the past insecticides have been put on the market without sufficient investigation of their particular properties and the results obtained from their use. The minister should make sure that under the regulations this matter will be looked at closely.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
There is another point I would like the minister to clarify. Is it the intent that the farmer must pursue legal action against the manufacturer. I suggest that the government and its agencies are the bodies which should take legal action against a manufacturer

because in many cases a farmer is not prepared to take action against an individual who happens to be a close friend and is the agent of a manufacturer. I am sure other methods are available whereby the government or its representatives could take action against a manufacturer after a farmer has lodged a complaint with the manufacturer's agent.
Clause 5(3) says that in paying compensation the minister must take into account any amounts realized by a farmer "as a result of any steps taken pursuant to subsection 1 or as a result of any legal action taken on behalf of the farmer." Would such amounts of money be deducted from the compensation involved? I think it would be contrary to the regulations to deduct such an amount if the legal proceedings were instituted by the crown.
With respect to clause 5(5), under what conditions could a farmer receive compensation to which he is not entitled? If the farmer wins a case in a lower court but the manufacturer involved appeals to a higher court which reserves the decision of the lower court, would the farmer then be liable to repay the compensation he has received to the crown? Can the minister clarify this point? How could a farmer receive remuneration for something that the Department of National Health and Welfare determines is not subject to sale? Further, if a farmer did receive remuneration for such a product would he have to hand it over to the crown?
The agent of a manufacturer is placed in a very precarious position and the question arises whether he should be the one held responsible for selling a product. I suggest that many agents throughout the country have no way of knowing the ingredients in the products they sell, and I believe it would be a retrograde step to make them responsible for the products. I believe we should hold the manufacturers responsible and leave their agents alone. An agent in a rural municipality is having a hard enough time at present making a living by selling products which he believes to be of good quality. Some protection should be afforded manufacturers' agents.
I also wonder whether or not consideration should be given to the payment of compensation to processors as well as producers. In many cases processors find themselves in exactly the same position as producers. There have been many cases where creameries have lost their stocks owing to ingredients found in the products delivered to them when those
January 14, 1989

ingredients could be traced back to a manufacturer. Further consideration should be given to this matter.


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


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to answer briefly some of the questions raised by hon. members who took part in the debate. However, I suggest that more specific answers to the questions raised by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) could be given when the bill is considered in committee. I assure hon. members that officials from my department will attend the committee hearings where they can go into specific detail on a number of questions the hon. member raised when he referred to particular clauses of the bill. When bills such as this were considered in committee of the whole hon. members will recall that there was a prohibition against referring to specific clauses on second reading. I am not taking objection to that being done now but I think it would be a far more beneficial use of our time if these questions were raised during hearings of the agricultural committee.
The hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Dan-forth) dealt with the point of a farmer having to sue a manufacturer before being considered for compensation under this bill. That provision is in the bill, and perhaps I should read the words in the clause. They are:
-until the farmer has taken any steps that the minister deems necessary-
In defence of the public purse and the treasury we have to make sure that anyone who tries to claim compensation under this bill has taken all steps necessary to recover any loss or damage he may have suffered from whomever was responsible for it. I think there is considerable latitude in that provision, indeed, sufficient latitude so that the minister can be fair and just in considering what should be the necessary steps before a farmer becomes eligible for compensation.
Another point raised dealt with the establishment of complete safety in the use of chemicals before they are sold to the public. I think that is being too extreme. Had we taken that attitude years ago some of the progress we have made with herbicides and fungicides, many useful chemicals now available to farmers, in fact almost indispensable, would not have been made. Much progress would have been delayed. The hon. member for
Pesticide Residue Compensation Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) referred to one bad case but there have been very few of them. Chemicals are tested, but to require absolute certainty that no residue will ever appear in subsequent crops, or in the food manufactured from those crops, would be too severe. As a result many useful chemicals helpful to farmers could not be licensed, and I do not think we should go that far. I think the record of performance over the years has been very good with respect to testing and labelling of these products.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Kor-chinski) wanted to know whether or not compensation could be provided in the case of products that are not necessarily saleable. I should like to make it very clear that this bill is not for the purpose of compensating farmers for losses or to guarantee the efficacy of a chemical or even in respect of the damage a chemical might do. It is only to provide compensation to a farmer if by government action he is unable to sell his product. This is spelled out in one of the clauses. No compensation can be paid unless the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) through the food and drug directorate does in fact prohibit the farmer selling his product. It must be a government action which does in fact result in loss of revenue or loss of income to the farmer. But if government action were taken, for example, to reduce yields rather than increase them or to do other things that did not involve contamination of food, this bill would not take care of that kind of loss. That, of course, would be a matter between the farmer and whoever sold or recommended any of these things.
When the government is involved as a result of the food and drug directorate prohibiting the sale of a product then there is compensation. I think it should be very clear that there can be no compensation paid unless the food and drug directorate has been involved in prohibiting the farmer selling his product.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw also asked about the terms and conditions that may be established by the Minister of Agriculture or the Governor in Council. Indeed, I think he asked who would make these regulations. I believe it is fairly clear it will be the governor in council who will approve the regulations under this act just as is the case in respect of all other acts, but of course they will be recommended to the governor in council by the minister who is responsible for

January 14, 1969
Control of Plant Pests
administering the act, in this case the Minister of Agriculture.
I do not wish to continue further because I am sure hon. gentlemen realize there will be a far better opportunity to probe into these details when the bill is before the standing committee on agriculture where greater information will be available to members.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on agriculture.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to standing order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be debated at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow)-Indian Affairs-proposed native task force to develop policies; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Immigration Cases-instructions to government lawyers; the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau)-Transportation across bay of Fundy.



AGRICULTURE


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: the second reading and reference to the standing committee on agriculture of Bill C-154, to prevent the introduction or spreading of pests injurious to plants.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it will take me perhaps longer than until five o'clock to give the introductory and explanatory remarks on Bill C-154.
Preventing the introduction and spread in Canada of insects and diseases destructive to our farm crops and forests is one of the most important roles performed by my department. Prevention is essential if agricultural productivity and quality are to be maintained and if expensive control and eradication programs which add greatly to cost of production are to be avoided.
The need for effective safeguards has grown as the movement of plants and plant materials in Canada and between Canada and other countries has increased. The plant protection division of my department, which administers the Destructive Insect and Pest

Act, last year issued more than 8,200 permits for importation of plants, plant materials and plant products and inspected some 282 million plants, 10,800 pounds of tree and shrub seeds, and 80,000 tons of plant products from 33 countries. There were more than 1,100 interceptions of plant parasitic insects and disease organisms, of which more than 500 were of serious nature.
The Destructive Insect and Pest Act, while it has served Canada well, was drawn up in 1910 on the premise that injurious insect pests and diseases would be excluded either by outright prohibition of host materials or by visual examination of plants and materials at the time of entry to Canada. However, the growth of international trade in agricultural products, the increasing speed of transportation and a greater knowledge of the risks involved has pointed to the necessity of introducing more modern inspection, quarantine and disinfection techniques. The new plant quarantine act, which we are proposing to replace the older legislation, provides for these newer techniques.
This bill, like its predecessor, provides authority for inspection and certification that plants and plant products being exported meet the requirements of importing countries and is essential in keeping the doors abroad open to Canadian products. Last year departmental inspectors certified for export more than six million plants, 20 million board feet of lumber, 1.4 million containers of fruit, two million hundredweight of seed potatoes, and above five million tons of cereal grains and cereal products. The standards imposed on these products by foreign countries have become increasingly stringent in recent years-a situation which makes it imperative that the department have greater authority to carry out inspection and certification programs which will ensure acceptability of Canadian products in international trade.
Prompt imposition of quarantines in affected areas is important in preventing the spread of insect pests and diseases throughout the country. One quarantine of long standing prohibits the movement from Newfoundland of certain articles and commodities capable of carrying the potato wart organism or the golden nematode. A somewhat similar quarantine was imposed on the southern part of Vancouver island following the discovery there of a golden nematode infestation in 1965. More recently, quarantine restrictions have been placed on the movement out of the province of cereal grain, hay and straw from two southwestern Ontario counties. The last
January 14, 1969

was imposed following the discovery of infestations of the cereal leaf beetle, a pest that could seriously damage cereal grain crops throughout Canada.
Although area quarantines are helpful in curbing the spread of insects and disease, there are occasions when effective control or eradication requires that individual farms be quarantined and restricted as to the kind of crops that may be grown. Such is the case with potatoes, the prime host of the golden nematode. Eradication of the nematode requires soil sterlization accompanied by a lapse in potato production for several years. But existing legislation does not provide the authority needed to restrict, from general or specific agricultural use, properties or premises which are infested or suspected of being infested. It will only take me about two minutes to finish, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: Agreed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: To provide the highest degree of protection against insects and diseases it it also vital that authorities have the power to control movement in Canada-and order their destruction if necessary-of plants which, although they may not be infested themselves, serve as hosts for disease-causing organisms. Such a plant is common barberry which is the alternate host of stem rust.
Tighter controls should be accompanied by a broader base for compensation. Under the existing act compensation may only be paid in cases where infested plants or crops are destroyed in the interest of pest and disease control. It is now proposed to provide authority to extend the grounds for compensation to cover certain situations where sale of plants or use of infested properties is restricted or prohibited. In addition, the provisions for appeal against levels of compensation paid, as provided in the Pesticide Residue Compensation Act, are being made applicable to this act.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It
being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, private bills, notices of motions.



CANADA LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE PROVISION FOR THREE WEEKS ANNUAL VACATION

Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading and reference
Vacation Leave Bill
to the standing committee on labour, manpower and immigration of Bill C-14, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (three weeks annual vacation after three years).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I move the second reading of Bill C-14 in a very hopeful mood. We are in the midst of a session during which all the indications are that we are going to do a lot of business. We are going to pass 40 bills in 80 days. We are moving ahead and clearing out the cobwebs and laying the groundwork for a new and more just society. This is what the papers tell us.
As a matter of fact, one of the most outspoken advocates of change is the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) who feels that the time has come for real improvements in the labour field. I think it can be said that he has already demonstrated that he means what he says. Therefore, since the bill I am presenting calls for a very modest step forward I cannot imagine that this house will do anything else but accept this motion and refer this bill to the committee in an attempt to get it on the statute books during this session of parliament.
As I say, the bill is a very simple one. It proposes that the Canada Labour (Standards) Code be amended in so far as it provides for holidays with pay. That legislation at the present time provides for two weeks holidays with pay for all employees who have at least one year's service with the same employer. The very modest proposal in Bill C-14 is that the Canada Labour (Standards) Code be amended to provide that any employee who has three years service with the same employer shall from that time on have at least three weeks annual holidays with pay each year.
I should point out that there are some collective agreements which provide even better holiday arrangements than are suggested in this bill. Likewise, there are many people in professional employment who gets this much or even more vacation in the course of a year. I am sure we all agree in principle that, with advancing technology, the need to distribute employment, and with the acceptance of the philosophy that we are here not just to work but to enjoy some of the benefits of work, it is little enough to suggest that workers in this country, certainly after three years, should enjoy at least three weeks annual holiday with pay.
I recognize that in the federal area we cannot legislate for all of the workers in this country but only for those who come under

January 14, 1969
Vacation Leave Bill
federal labour jurisdiction, but there is a tendency in Canada for provincial labour laws to be patterned after federal labour law. I feel, therefore, that if we take this step here at the centre it will only be a matter of time until it will be the law across Canada.
I submit this bill confident that the idea behind it meets with the approval of all members. I hope that under these new rules, when on second reading we emphasized the fact that we are referring the bill to the committee for study, the disposition of the house will be to do that with this bill. I hope it will not be talked out. I ask instead that members agree to second reading and agree to its reference to the appropriate committee, so that before the end of this session we can make it part of the law of Canada that after three years workers are entitled each year to three weeks holidays with pay.


Mr. Charles Turner (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I have read with interest some of the speeches made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey). I must say that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made an excellent choice for this very important cabinet post. The minister is a self-made man who a few years ago worked for 30 cents an hour. After long hours of hard work and study he has risen to one of the most important posts in this new government. I should like to congratulate the minister on his appointment because I believe he is the right man in the right post. Although he rose to the top he has never lost his deep concern for the working people of this nation, and he is keenly interested in all their problems.
Annual vacations with pay have been provided for by law in industry subject to federal labour jurisdiction since 1958. The first federal law, the Annual Vacations Act, required employers within its scope to grant their employees paid vacations of one week after one year of employment and two weeks after two years of service. This act was replaced in 1965 by Part III of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code which provides for a vacation with pay of at least two weeks.
I suggest that the government of this nation lead the way and take a good hard look at this bill so that employees under federal labour jurisdiction will be provided with three weeks annual vacation with pay after three years of service. I have always believed that if governments lead the way in matters concerning labour problems many labour and management disputes would disappear.

We are living in fast changing times regarding employment possibilities in this great nation. We are being forced to retrain workers as they are displaced from their jobs owing to technological change in the industries of this country. I believe that by taking a good look at this bill we could create a great many new jobs as a result of increasing employment opportunities by perhaps 2 per cent. Vacation periods could be spread over a 12 month period and we could find full time jobs for many workers. True enough, company expenses would rise a little, but on the other hand we all have to contribute through various agencies to help support people who are unable to find work.
We must all realize that not everybody in this country can attend university and become lawyers, teachers, doctors, dentists, engineers and so on. Somewhere along the line people have to do the work in industries and it is up to us in this house to provide the necessary jobs so that men can provide their wives and families with the necessities of life and live with dignity.
Industries across this nation have in the past tried to be good members of our society, but sometimes they are slow to change with the times. I think it is time that the legislators of this nation established the best minimum standards and working conditions, and let collective bargaining take over from there.
The proposed standard in Bill C-14 of three weeks vacation after three years of employment with the same employer is still somewhat in advance of present practice in industry generally, although in the past three years there has been a trend toward this standard upon completion of a lesser number of years of service. The 1965 working conditions survey reported in the Canada Department of Labour publication "Labour Conditions in Canadian Industry, 1965" showed that for all non-office employees surveyed, approximately two million or 27 per cent received three weeks annual vacation after less than ten years service. The same survey showed that for all office employees surveyed, approximately 950,000, 46 per cent, received three weeks annual vacation after less than three years service.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The 1967 survey shows that for all nonoffice employees surveyed, two and a quarter million, 38 per cent, received three weeks vacation, 12 per cent of them after less than five years service. The same survey shows
January 14, 1969

that for all office employees surveyed, 1,100,000, 53 per cent, received three weeks vacation, 22 per cent of them after less than five years service. A further 51 per cent of nonoffice employees received three weeks vacation after periods of 10 to 15 years service, and 1 per cent received three weeks vacation after 15 years of service. In the case of office employees, 36 per cent received three weeks vacation after periods of 10 to 15 years of service, and 1 per cent after 15 years of service.
I believe these figures show that we are moving in the direction of three weeks vacation for all workers. I also believe that in our society we must change our thinking and that the time is ripe for making an advance with this kind of legislation. We ought to ensure that there are good minimum vacation standards for people in the labouring field, who need holidays more than any others. All people, whether members of this house or not, are aware that there are today increasing pressures on family life. It is also true to say that in most cases members of families do not know each other well; they do not enjoy the day to day contact which is needed for a strong family life.
We live in a society that is travelling so fast that both parents have to go to work daily in order to pay for the necessities of life. The only time the family can enjoy themselves as a family group is on Sunday and during the family vacation. It may not be possible to take action this afternoon in this regard, but I do hope this bill will be given serious consideration by parliament because as the affluent society becomes more and more productive it is our desire that it will no longer be necessary for people to continue to work as hard as they have in the past.


Mr, H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Bill C-14 introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I agree with him that under the new rules the bill should go to the committee on labour, manpower and immigration and there be fully discussed. I listened with interest to the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner) and noted the statistics he put on the record. They were most interesting and point up very well the necessity for the opposition to have adequate research facilities in order to deal with these important matters. The hon. member undoubtedly obtained his statistics and figures from the Department of Labour, as he had every right to do. This is one reason why
Vacation Leave Bill
I hope we will proceed very quickly to provide adequate research facilities for members of this house.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out that in a number of contracts throughout this country in the private sphere, let us call it, annual vacations of three weeks are provided after the period of employment as set out in his bill. I believe this is one reason why the bill should go to committee, because there we could hear from officials of the Department of Labour and from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) on this question. Persons from private industry could also be heard, and the committee would be in a position to assess this matter after having gone into it fully.
I know of cases where private industry follows this practice. I am thinking of the United Mine Workers contract in the Atlantic area. This practice is carried out there. This matter should be fully studied. This practice should be followed especially by crown companies which are subject to the laws of this parliament.
I am not going to go into the matter any further, Mr. Speaker, except to point out that the Annual Vacations Act referred to by the hon. member for London East was brought into effect by a Conservative government in 1958 and was absorbed into the Canada Labour (Standards) Code in 1965. I think the matter is important. This party believes that the bill should go to the committee to be fully looked into. The committee would then be able to make representations and recommendations to parliament for possible action.


Mr. David Wealherhead (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to take part in the same debate with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) this afternoon. He is one of the most senior members in this house and his sincere concern for social justice is well known. Nineteen years ago, while in my last year of the modern history course at the University of Toronto, I wrote an essay for my professor, Mr. Frank Underhill, on James S. Woodsworth, the first leader of the C.C.F. party who held the seat of Winnipeg North Centre continuously from 1921 until his death in 1942. The present member for Winnipeg North Centre, who was elected to the seat on Mr. Woodsworth's death, had been a member of this house for seven years when I wrote that essay, and at that time I certainly had no idea that I would be debating with him in the House of Commons nearly 20 years later.

January 14. 1969
Vacation Leave Bill
While checking into the background of Bill C-14 it was very interesting to read the debates in Hansard on similar bills that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre introduced in recent years. In August, 1964, the hon. member moved second reading of a bill to provide for three weeks vacation with pay to all those workers in Canada under federal jurisdiction, including railway, transportation and communication workers, bank employees, etc., as long as they had been employed by the same employer for five years.
The relevant federal legislation at that time provided for one week's vacation after one year's employment and for two weeks vacation after two years employment. The government speakers in that debate stated, among other things, that since a comprehensive labour code was going to be introduced by the Liberal government in the near future, amendments of this kind should not be made piece by piece in the meantime.
In 1965 the Canada Labour (Standards) Code was passed by parliament, which among other things provided for two weeks annual vacation with pay for all workers under federal jurisdiction who had worked for the same employer for one year. Then in March, 1967, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre moved second reading of a bill similar to the one now before us, calling for three weeks vacation after working for three years for the same employer. In October, 1967, a similar bill was again brought forward by the hon. member.
While only about one-tenth of the labour force in Canada comes under federal jurisdiction and the remaining 90 per cent under provincial jurisdiction, all labour legislation passed in Ottawa is important, not only because of its direct effect on the 10 per cent under federal jurisdiction but also because it should show the way for the provinces and give them the incentive to provide better minimum labour legislation for the 90 per cent of employees directly under their jurisdiction.
I believe the federal government should definitely lead the way in reform labour legislation, as in reform legislation of all kinds. However, since such federal labour legislation tends to be so influential on similar provincial legislation, the federal legislation has to be well considered and realistic because of its effect on the whole economy of our country.

[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
As has been pointed out, only one province, Saskatchewan, requires three weeks paid holidays, and that after five years of employment, while four provinces require two weeks holidays, four provinces require one week's holidays, and one has no legislation dealing with annual vacations at all.
In the 1967 survey prepared by the Canadian Department of Labour only 12 per cent of non-office employees and 22 per cent of office employees in all industries received three weeks vacation with pay after working less than five years. The same 1967 survey shows that in industries under federal jurisdiction only 5.1 per cent of non-office employees and 6.6 per cent of office employees received three weeks vacation after working less than five years. Accordingly, an amendment to our Canada Labour (Standards) Code making three weeks vacation compulsory after only three years service would be too sudden an economic change, not only for the industries under federal jurisdiction but also too sudden for the provinces to implement in the near future for the industries under their jurisdiction.
I am sure everyone in the house is generally in favour of longer and longer vacations with pay, and with the rapid increase of automation and the resulting increased productivity of each worker there is no doubt that paid vacation periods will become longer and longer. I hope and expect that federal labour legislation will be in the forefront in promoting this. I do not wish to be harsh but while the general intent of the hon. member's bill is commendable, it shows the lack of practicality and responsibility which members of his party often portray, because they know that they will never have to assume the reins of government and so will never have to try to carry out any of their proposed legislation. It would have been just as easy and had as much practical effect if the hon. member had proposed three weeks holidays after two years service or three weeks holidays after one year's service since the hon. member knows that he will never have to take the responsibility for any such legislation as a member of a government party.
In addition to two weeks paid vacation after one year of service the Canada Labour (Standards) Code also insists on eight legal holidays with pay as a minimum requirement for industries under federal jurisdiction. The provisions in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code are, of course minimum provisions and
January 14, 1S69

Vacation Leave Bill
there is nothing to prevent the negotiation of longer paid holidays by collective bargaining between union and management or between an individual employee and employer in cases where there is not a union.
A great number of collective bargaining agreements provide for three weeks and longer vacation periods, but very few have obtained them for three years employment or less. I suspect the reason for this is that the unions themselves do not generally believe it is reasonable to ask for three weeks vacation after only three years of employment, and so they press for matters which they feel will be considered more reasonable, namely, increased wages, better working conditions, more attractive pension plans, etc.
In the debate on a similar bill in March 1967, referred to previously, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) who represented the former riding of Prince at that time, spoke quite clearly on the need for longer vacations because of the ever-increasing pressures of modern life on the family unit. However, he went on to discuss the problems of longer periods of leisure for most people who have not learned to use their leisure creatively.
I certainly hope and expect that we will be able to keep increasing the minimum length of paid vacations by amending existing federal labour legislation from time to time and that in the meantime the federal government and all levels of government will encourage and actively support various types of programs that will enable people of all ages to learn to use their leisure time more happily and effectively.
In conclusion I would like to say that a three week annual vacation with pay for a relatively short term of employment is on the horizon and will be commonly accepted within a few years. However, for present economic reasons the bill before us this afternoon is a little premature.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for his Bill C-14. It seems to me that the federal labour code is continually being shortcircuited by collective bargaining and by labour unions negotiating the basis of contracts and fringe benefits in various parts of the country, and that we have found it less necessary to amend the labour code in order to provide definite guidelines or laws with respect to the length of vacations that we think our people should have. On the one
hand we co-operate with the labour unions through our manpower and labour departments. We try to work in co-operation with them so that they can institute collective bargaining and handle the vacation and pay aspects. On the other hand it is being suggested that we should establish just what these should be by providing three weeks vacation after three years of service.
I presume it would be somewhat dangerous for me to say that employees should not have three weeks vacation, and I will not say it. However, I am concerned about vacations which become periods of moonlighting. While I agree with my good friend, the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner), I must say that if people definitely went on vacations I believe it would be of great assistance to the Canadian economy. One of the problems I have noticed over the years, especially in recent years when people have had so much spare time anyway, unless they happen to be members of parliament, is that a great deal of moonlighting is taking place in people's spare time. This creates a problem.
It is my belief that we should endeavour to increase productivity so as to reduce the inflation which is confronting us at present and in this way earn a three weeks vacation which can then be taken and enjoyed. I firmly believe, as does the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that people are entitled to this holiday and should have it. I may say that I am a little confused by the proposed section 16 which reads in part as follows:
-provided however that every employee who has had three years of continuous employment by one employer is entitled to and shall be granted a vacation with vacation pay of at least three weeks.
I wonder if this could be explained for my benefit because it seems to me it should read: "shall be granted a vacation with pay or vacation pay of at least three weeks." In other words, I do not believe it is required in the labour code that if a person received a vacation he should also receive vacation pay. In this case it would have to be 6 per cent, as I understand it, over and above the regular pay he would get when taking a vacation.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
There is a great deal of work to be done in Canada in cementing relations between labour and management. Labour organizations must accept responsibility as soon as possible for taking a fearless look at the problem of productivity. At the same time, they must receive our support in seeing to it that

January 14. 1969
Vacation Leave Bill
people who work a given number of hours receive the vacation that is due them; that productivity in Canada is stepped up; and that we are all able to enjoy a much rosier economic picture than is in view at this time.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most qualified people to speak on the advantages of a three-week vacation are the members of this house who have just enjoyed one. Indeed, they might add to what has already been said about the advantage of having three weeks instead of two, because if we had only two weeks we would have returned here a week ago. I think we might also relate the question of holidays to the question of productivity. I am not so sure that in embarking upon this type of analysis I would agree with the conclusion expressed by the previous speaker.
This subject is certainly one which has engaged the attention of people throughout the world. Perhaps hon. members might be interested in a few remarks which were made 14 years ago in Geneva on the occasion of the 37th session of the International Labour Conference by one of the delegates who gave a brief analysis of what, in his opinion, an annual paid holiday meant. He said:
There is no doubt that annual paid holidays have biological, social and economic objectives. First, they enable the worker to recuperate psychologically and physiologically, after his hard year's work. Secondly, holidays enable him to change his surroundings and engage in cultural recreation, sport or travel; this is socially useful as well as providing a solution for the fatigue problem, for rest without change is not sufficient for him to recover his strength and his ability to do his job. This brings me to the economic objective, for the holiday enables the worker to recover his productive power.
However, scientific experiments have shown that in order to achieve these objects it is necessary that the holiday should not be less than two weeks, for if it is shorter the worker will return to his employment without having recovered his biological balance.
On that occasion the convention endorsed and ratified the principle of two weeks' holiday after one year of employment. As I say, this was 14 years ago at a time when automation was perhaps just beginning to make itself felt.
The bill as placed before the house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is one which perhaps deserves thorough analysis, if only for the reason that a 50 year old employee who because of automation and dislocation in industry has to change his employment from one company to another under federal jurisdiction would find himself

starting again at the bottom of the ladder, thus receiving shorter holidays than an employee aged 23 who commenced employment three years before at the age of 20. Such a man at age 50 would perhaps require three weeks' holiday far more than his junior colleague.
We are living in a time of automation which requires dislocation of employment. Therefore rigid approaches to questions of holidays may not be entirely suitable. It seems to me that while the federal government has to set the pace in certain broad areas, and will do so, at the same time it has to approach the matter in a flexible manner, perhaps reflecting in its deliberations and final decisions a concept of holidays that is related to the age of the worker.
We all know that a worker at the advanced age of 60 might require a longer holiday than a worker aged 25 or 30. Therefore I think the whole question requires study. Rather than boxing it in within the scheme proposed, we should study the question of dislocation caused by automation and the development of human resources. We might perhaps ask the question: Why only three weeks after three years? It might well be the case that a longer holiday is required in certain segments of industry that warrant it and a shorter holiday in others that do not. As some hon. members have already indicated, there has to be a certain relationship between holidays and productivity.
I agree we must recognize the fact that the federal government sets the pace for the private sector, and an initiative of this kind would have this effect. But rather than go into the question in this manner it seems to me we should approach it in greater depth, and before making a final decision analyse all of the factors that I have briefly outlined.


Mr. Guy Le31anc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I shall give my opinion on the bill brought forward by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
It is obvious at once that this bill will meet the approval of all legislators, who must necessarily be interested in the Canadian workers' lot.
In view of the constantly increasing pace at which our society is evolving, we know that owing to the progress of technology, the number of working hours is bound to decrease, and that consequently within a few years, we shall have to give serious consideration to
January 14, 1969

organizing the leisure of the Canadian people, who, may be, will want to specialize in the field of research, in order to further develop our country and the rest of the world.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Of course, the purpose of the bill is readily understood, since the title is as follows:
An Act to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (Three Weeks Annual Vacation after Three Years).
Theoretically, this is a very good thing, but a hasty application of this measure would probably result in numerous complications.
At present, under the Canada Labour Code, if I am not mistaken an employer is required to grant an employee two weeks vacation with pay after a year of employment.
I think it is necessary to add, and I emphasize the fact, that eight days of vacation with pay, eight statutory holidays, are granted anyway according to the Labour Code, over those two weeks vacation.
The honourable member for Winnipeg North Centre, as I said earlier-if my memory serves me right-always shows a great deal of perseverance and consistency in his views. I think that we can congratulate him for this positive approach which he has always cultivated and which can be rated among his good intellectual habits.
In fact, we can notice that the sponsor of this bill already introduced a similar bill in April 1965. He also introduced one in 1964 when he suggested that a three weeks annual vacation with pay should be granted to an employee after five years of employment with the same employer and I notice that, at the outset of the debate, the honourable member for Halifax recalled the basic principles which had been used when preparing the Canada Labour Code.
The code was based on the principle whereby it was important to set up minimum standards because it could be dangerous for the balance of our industry to aim towards standards setting up too high maximums. In order to adopt such measures, in spite of the good intentions of those who wished to introduce them, we are still convinced that several years of research or experience are necessary.
I have opposed the opinion formerly expressed by the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) when he said that by implementing such a measure overnight once again the consumer would foot the bill, once again mothers and small wage earners would suffer heavy
Vacation Leave Bill
deprivations. The honourable member mentioned also the financial difficulties the adoption of this act could mean for small Canadian industrialists and businessmen.
The standards proposed by the bill stipulate a three-week holiday after three years of employment. Those standards outdistance by far present practice in industry, not only that which falls within federal jurisdiction, but industry in general. Looking at working conditions in the Canadian industry in 1964, as reported in a publication of the Department of Labour, and in the industries that fall within federal jurisdiction, we note that this practice is far from a minimum and far from general. Instead of generalizing it, a study should be made of the evolution through the years.
We then see that only 12 per cent of the employees, other than office personnel, have three weeks off after less than 10 years of employment. Of all employees, office and others,-of which there were 2,500,000-15 per cent only had a three-week holiday after less than 10 years of service. Granting three weeks of holidays after relatively short periods of service was far more general amongst office personnel, perhaps because of the more sedentary nature of the work. Numerous other statistics could show us how complicated it would be to apply this legislative measure immediately. Looking at figures, for instance, in the article "Vacations with pay 1964, all industries", we note that:
s (5:50 p.m.)

Total number of reporting units, non office employees, 19,057. Office employees, 19,267.

The number of those who enjoy a three weeks annual vacation with pay, after less than ten years of service, amounts to 15 per cent while for the office workers, the proportion is only of 26 per cent. After ten years of employment, for the non-office employees, the proportion is 22 per cent compared with 26 per cent for the office employees.
It is clear that for most businesses which give three weeks annual vacation or more to employees with several years of service, the length of service is much more than three years.
It would be advisable also, I think, after a study of what happens in practice with regard to vacation in the industry and businesses in general, to study the policy followed by the provinces.

January 14, 1966
Vacation Leave Bill
In Saskatchewan, for example, according to the Labour Code, employees can enjoy two weeks annual vacation after one year, and three weeks after five years.
Three other provinces, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia, legislated so that the employee would have two weeks annual vacation after one year of service.
Four provinces, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick, legislated so that the employee would only get one week vacation.
Two provinces, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, have passed no legislation on this subject up to now, at least as far as I know.
With regard to the Canada Labour Code, we know that the labour standards came into force on July 1, 1965. With this code, the vacation period extended from one week to two weeks for employees with one year of service, taking into consideration the eight general statutory holidays

the eight non working days-with pay, as I mentioned earlier. That was, a few years ago, a substantial improvement in the case of numerous employees.
A proposal such as the one in the bill now under study, that would increase substantially the standards concerning annual vacations, could hardly be seriously considered at this time. I think it would also be wise to consider the International Labour Organization in this field.
According to the 1964 statistics, a group of experts has already completed the study of that problem throughout the world and come to the conclusion that there was a tendency to extend the vacation period in numerous industries.
As regards the future, one would obviously hope to grant three weeks annual vacation, but not at this time, because of the complexities involved and of the general practice.
It is, at present, the best solution. Such was my opinion in the past as it still is now. I believe it is in accordance with the principles of our party and with the respect due to private enterprise.
When I think of private enterprise, I do not think only of the boss or the owner but of the employees also. That is why I find it normal, since a reasonable minimum is already provided in our Labour Code, to leave to collective bargaining the task of setting the length of the annual holidays in relation to the years of service and of discussing the matter with the bosses taking into account the nature of

the industry, the work, the number of employees and a host of other conditions we all know. We must all ask ourselves how far the legislators should go when setting minimum standards for working conditions, without interfering in the field of collective bargaining, and I think that it is one of the basic principles which inspired the people who drafted our Labour Code-and who are still working on it

to improve our labour legislation and the lot of the Canadian workers.
Where the labour market is steady enough to enable an employee to accumulate several years of continuous employment for the same employer, it seems that there is no obstacle to an effective trade union organization. The present government, just like those preceding it, has taken a great interest in the improvement of labour conditions. In fact, we know that the question of holidays, of annual vacations, holds more and more the attention and to what extent the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEaehen) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) concern themselves in retraining our labour force, in order to enable it to play an effective part in our country.
Our Speeches from the Throne, which always reflect the principles of our governments, have never neglected the labour policy, as shown by the legislation passed during the last session and by the bills now appearing on the order paper. It is obvious that in all areas of Canada, we must have healthy workers and that we must take their needs into account by granting them reasonable holidays. But the government which is responsibly playing its part cannot infringe on the rights and privileges of the Canadian people. This is why we are always striving in that field to provide maximum justice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It being six o'clock, the hour for consideration of private members business has expired and the house will resume its business at eight o'clock.

At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Olson for second reading and
January 14, 1969
[Stage Direction]
reference to the standing committee on agriculture of Bill C-154, to prevent the introduction or spreading of pests injurious to plants.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there are two sentences I ought to add to complete my explanatory remarks in respect of Bill C-154. The legislative changes proposed are not expected to result in any increased expenditure that would not have occurred under the provisions of the existing legislation. The adoption of new techniques will result in the reorientation of resources rather than the need for additional ones.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of our party, the official opposition, to say we support wholeheartedly the intent of this bill, C-154, to prevent the introduction or spreading of pests injurious to plants. Any legislation which can strengthen the hand of the Department of Agriculture is certainly welcomed by farmers and by the citizens of this country generally. I think we should have nothing but praise for the plant protection division of the Department of Agriculture which has done a great deal over the years to protect the producers of agricultural products from the ravages of pests. Sometimes these pests come into this country quite unknown to the individuals who bring them in but are spotted by officials of the department. So, we welcome this legislation. There can be no argument about that.
The minister has indicated there will be ample time before the standing committee on agriculture to examine the various clauses of this bill. Any necessary amendments or changes can be proposed and discussed with the officials of the department. I believe it is only common sense that we should support this legislation. I propose to be very brief because I sometimes think we waste a lot of time saying that we approve of a bill. Perhaps the minister could tell me whether this bill would limit in any way the bringing in of insects for study by the people in our research laboratories in order that they may gain useful information in this manner. I presume safeguards will be set up. We know that across our country there are research laboratories where the effect of pests is studied and evaluated.
In respect of the common sense approach to this subject, we need only look around us to see examples of situations in which insects have been transplanted into the country in
Control of Plant Pests
order to control other pests. This practice sometimes causes a great deal of damage and upsets the balance of nature as well as the whole scheme of things.
We do approve of this measure and there will be more said by members of our party when we examine it during the clause by clause study before the committee on agriculture. In concluding my remarks, I reiterate our support for this measure.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in making my remarks on this bill I shall endeavour to be very brief. I know it is almost as surprising to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) as it is to me that I am talking on a bill of this kind. However, I shall be brief because one of my colleagues is anxious to speak to the next bill. There is no question but that members on all sides of the house approve of the kind of activity the national Department of Agriculture has been carrying on in the field of supervision and control over import and export of plant, vegetable, animal and insect life.
Man has always been making great efforts to play around with his environment in an endeavour to control it. Sometimes the extent of the repercussions of this playing around have been somewhat painful. When mankind has tried to introduce various and sundry plant, animal and insect life into his environment in the hope it would help him, even if the help is only of an aesthetic nature, sometimes the long term effect has been, if not harmful to health, at least a pain in the neck.
One can think of examples such as the sparrow, the starling and the Colorado beetle which are hardly native to Canada. Then, there is the spruce budworm and the Dutch elm disease which we still cannot learn how to control now that they are here. I do not envy the Minister of Agriculture and his officials who will have to make very great efforts in order to bring this type of thing under control. In Saskatchewan a story is told about a person who claimed an exemption on his income tax. He said a horsefly got in with the bees and all the honey tasted like horse manure, so he could not sell it.
In respect of the import and export of what this bill calls pests I might say that I always considered these insects to be Liberals, but the bill gives a much broader definition. Of course, my interpretation includes various and sundry plant life as well. Seriously, may I suggest that while a very good job is being

January 14, 196S
Control of Plant Pests
done with regard to the supervision and control of the import and export of these commodities, there is a need for further control. This control needs to be extended to a greater degree inter-provincially, and when provinces fail to do an adequate job in this field within their own boundaries I hope the minister and his department will not hesitate to act. There have been instances of plant and insect harm within provinces when provincial governments have failed to take action. I hope the department will act in such cases, even though it might be said that, according to a narrow interpretation of our constitution as it stands, the federal government does not have jurisdiction.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I was pleased to hear the minister report on the number of permits issued. It sounded very good when he said that his people have inspected 282 million plants. I suspect these were in bulk lots. In any event, that is a great volume to oversee and the department must have been reasonably successful in overseeing the importation of that number of plants since we are not aware of the outbreak of any kind of plant disease as yet.
It is also my hope that what takes place in private circles in experimenting with plant and insect life is supervised very closely by the department. I am sure this is being done. From what I have been able to read about what can be done genetically in terms of insect life I understand that the destruction of one kind of insect may lead to repercussions in respect of that insect life several generations later. I must admit that, as a layman, when I mention this matter I do so in order that the minister and his staff will be able to educate me and other hon. members to a greater extent.
In this regard, I suppose the department also concerns itself with individuals, such as tourists, who might bring plants or insects from other countries. I hope the officials at the ports of entry and exit will, with all tact possible, examine carefully those plants which could harbour insect or bacteria life harmful to this country.
There is no quarrel on the part of this group with the intent and purpose of this bill. We may ask other questions and seek more information when it is before the committee. As to the general nature of the bill as it now stands, it certainly has the support of the members of this group.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty to inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say in closing the debate how much I appreciate the complimentary remarks which have been made by hon. members regarding the activities and functions of the Department of Agriculture in attempting to control the spread of disease among plant life. The hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) asked a specific question in reference to this bill limiting the importation of insects. The answer is no, not exactly, but there are provisions for the introduction of insects for research and that sort of thing. This will be done under conditions to prevent their escape. There will, of course, be much more detail available to hon. members in respect of each clause and, indeed, an extension of some of the statistics I have given if members are interested when we consider the matter before the standing committee on agriculture.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on agriculture.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: second reading and reference to the standing committee on agriculture of Bill C-156, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Animal Contagious Diseases Act embody two major changes. One deals with the way in which compensation rates are set for animals ordered slaughtered. The second provides for an appeal by the owner against a compensation award under the act.
For the past 43 years the federal government has compensated owners of animals that have been ordered destroyed under eradication programs for Johne's disease, brucellosis and tuberculosis.
Up to now, compensation rates have been prescribed in the act. From 1925 to 1949 the compensation rates were a maximum of $60 for grade cattle and $150 for purebred cattle. The basis for this compensation was two-thirds of the value of the animals slaughtered.
January 14, 1989	COMMONS
In 1949, the compensation rates were revised to provide a maximum of $40 for grade cattle and $100 for purebred cattle. The full value was paid up to the maximum rate. In the last revision in 1968, rates were established at a maximum of $70 for grade and $140 for purebred.
The owner's total return for an animal ordered slaughtered is the meat salvage value plus the compensation awarded by the government. Where the sale of the animal's carcass is unlawful an additional amount equal to the value the carcass would have had if the sale were lawful is paid by the government.
The proposed revision retains this provision so that the farmer would either be able to recover the meat salvage value by selling the carcass or, where this is forbidden, by recovering the carcass value from the government. The amendment provided is that compensation rates would no longer be set by the act. These maximum rates would be established by the governor in council. This would allow a more flexible approach to compensation. Value of purebred livestock and, indeed, of grade dairy cattle for instance, can change markedly even within a year's time.
The second change being proposed is the amendment to provide for appeal against a compensation award. At the present time no such appeal is available. The amended act would permit the owner of an animal ordered slaughtered to appeal against the amount of the award or to appeal where no compensation is awarded at all under the appeal provisions included in the pesticide residue compensation act. The appeal privilege would not delay the destruction of diseased animals.
This bill, C-156 relates directly to some of the provisions of Bill C-155. I am not going to go over them, but the procedures there are the same. Bill No. C-156 cites Bill C-155 and its provisions as the procedure used when an appeal against compensation is being made by the farmer.


William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, we in this party are very happy to see Bill C-156 come before the house. We realize that with changes in farm practises, changes in compensation have been long overdue. In the past farmers have been paid at a very low rate for animals which have been destroyed once they were contaminated by a contagious disease. This has caused great hardship. In some cases, for instance in respect of dairy herds, this has driven particular farmers into bankruptcy. We think this bill will give the individual farmers much more
DEBATES	4269
Animal Contagious Diseases Act insurance. We are also very happy to note that the farmer will have the right to appeal against the judgment of a particular assessor.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
In this light we think the bill certainly has merit and we go along with it in every respect. I know it is very closely related to the bills we have been discussing today and we believe it is a step in the right direction in the field of agriculture. I note there are some other fields that are not covered by the bill. At other stages of the bill these matters can be given consideration. I am sure that farmers in some other fields are subjected to loss because of contagious diseases contracted by their herds and I think it is only fair that they should be compensated. Perhaps their herd contracted the disease through no fault of the farmer. I know many farmers whose herds have been afflicted with rabies. They have been compensated to a degree but the farmers themselves have had to undergo long and very painful treatment. They have perhaps been doctoring their animals for some period of time and have been in contact with the disease. If the farmer has a scratch or any opening to his bloodstream he can become affected by the disease.
I know that the likelihood of this happening is very small, but it is a matter that I would like to see considered. I am sure that in all fairness the minister will, in the later stages of this bill, see fit to deal with this question.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, for a long time the matter of changing the compensation in respect of animal contagious diseases has been under consideration by a committee of the house; in fact, ever since I have been here. I presume there are few members in the house who remember the problem that developed in respect of scabies in sheep and the political repercussions of the Gardiner days with regard to that problem. Therefore I ask, why has September 26 been chosen as the cut-off date? Has it any significance? I presume the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) expected us to pass this measure long before now, and that is the significance.
The matter of compensation is a unique one in terms of animals that are slaughtered, in that the nation's agricultural community is always concerned when there is an outbreak of a contagious disease. I can remember back to those days when there were throughout the
January 14, 1969

Animal Contagious Diseases Act country dozens and dozens of herds that suffered contagious abortion. These herds were kept and milked. There was nothing wrong with maintaining a brucellosis herd. These cows continued to give milk and were part of an economic unit.
I am not suggesting that we go back to those days, because I think Canada should be very proud of the job that has been done by the Canadian veterinarian service in the eradication of this and almost every other contagious disease in the animal field. The job that has been done with regard to brucellosis control has meant that most of the farming areas in Canada are brucellosis free. The eradication of this disease has been brought about over a period of time and, with a great deal of education, has been highly successful.
Therefore there will not be many cases of brucellosis. There will not be many epidemics of t.b., scabies or any of the other diseases faced in the agricultural field. There are three diseases that we, hopefully, will not have to face in epidemic proportions. One is foot and mouth disease, which of course is in a totally different category from the other diseases about which we have been speaking because in the case of the contagious diseases of scabies, brucellosis and t.b. it is not likely that they will again reach epidemic proportions.
We go into an area and ask a farmer to allow the government to control his herd until the disease is eradicated. We will be doing this not only to the advantage of the farmer but in a wider sense to the advantage of the community and the whole area. This is very true in respect of brucellosis control. For this reason, I do not think we should be so niggardly about the compensation that we pay. If a person has a good herd, the compensation that will be paid by order in council will probably not be much more satisfactory than that paid under the present regulations.
If a farmer has a low grade herd which has contracted brucellosis, the meat can be used and if meat prices are reasonably high he will, with the compensation, probably realize the value of the animal. I suppose it is very difficult to talk about an average in this regard, but I presume that the average, registered dairy cow today is worth approximately $700 to $800. Some of them run as high as $40,000, and I suppose they go down to $250. But the average would, I think, be well over $700. Why, then, should we ask the farmer to bear the whole brunt of the brucellosis control in his area when he may not have had anything to do with the introduction


of brucellosis? Therefore I suggest we should be much more generous in this field and make payment on the basis of fair sale value. If the cow is worth $700 we should make up the total value of the animal, taking into consideration the sale of the meat. We should make a settlement on the basis of the total value of the animal. This is not very much. Last year we paid out a very small amount of money in respect of this control.
However, one of these days, unfortunate as it may be, we will again have an epidemic of one of these animal diseases. We are no more immune to an outbreak of anthrax or foot and mouth disease than other countries which established these kind of controls a long time ago. There is no reason why a farmer would try to cover up the disease for a period of time because everyone in the agricultural community realizes that it must be taken care of at the earliest possible date.
We saw last year in England the eradication of a large percentage of the agricultural production in certain sections of the dairy industry. Canada should be proud of the assistance given by the Canadian veterinarian department which went to their aid on that occasion. But this was a calamity; it was a major emergency. I would like to see the retention of any control under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act that will work toward the immediate eradication of a disease that is contracted by a herd. I suggest that the minister has no legitimate reason for not listening to the representations made by every farm organization for fair value for the animal that is slaughtered.
The regulations that will be passed will not be in that field. If they are, let us make them the regulations and let us say so. This raises another problem. Nobody in this country will be more busy than the governor in council if we continue referring all decisions in respect of regulations to that body. I think we should make the regulations and decide that compensation paid should be on a fair value basis. The minister is to be congratulated for making provision in the bill for appeal, but I think fair value should be the basis for the payment. It should not be a matter of deciding that so much will be paid for pure bred cattle, so much for grade cattle, etc. Compensation should be based on the fair replacement value.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
There might be another outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at which time a farmer may lose his whole herd through no fault of
January 14, 1969	COMMONS
his own. The fact that he may get this kind of compensation or even double this compensation will not replace the herd that he has lost. We are not speaking in terms of large amounts of money. Last year we paid out $680,000, and the year before we paid out $600,000, to which we added the rabies assistance program. This is another program which should be included in the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and which should be administered by the federal government. In 1967-68 we only paid out $21,000, and in 1968-69 we appropriated $21,000, some of which was not used. We pay only two fifths of the amount that the provincial governments pay and the provincial governments have a totally different concept of the value of the animals than we have.
I agree with the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott) that the rabies prevention program should be included in the act and that some consideration should also be given to the people affected because the amount of money necessary for the large number of shots required is considerable. I understand that 21 injections must be given over a period of some weeks, and I expect that the pain suffered is quite considerable. We cannot provide protection by any simpler means. I suggest therefore that the minister should give consideration to an amendment which would bring the rabies program into the act. Rabies is one of those odd diseases which involves wild life. The rabies epidemics fluctuate greatly, as I have seen in my area as well as in other areas. An epidemic starts for no apparent reason, and so far as the farming community is concerned the problem is very serious for a period of perhaps two years, following which it disappears for some time.
It would appear that the rabies eradication program will have to be undertaken on a broader scale than programs for the eradication of most other animal diseases and prophylactic measures taken. However, the federal government has a better record in the eradication of these diseases than have the provincial governments. I suggest that we should not pay two fifths of the cost of the provinces for the eradication of animal diseases but that we should rather introduce a program on a national scale with the assistance of the provincial governments. As I said, this has not been an expensive program. Nevertheless more money could be spent on it with greater success because the amount necessary has not varied much over the last eight or ten years. I am sure that this winter 29180-270
DEBATES	4271
Animal Contagious Diseases Act there will be outbreaks of rabies in this area and I am sure the matter will be raised again.
The efforts which have been made by the Department of Agriculture in the eradication of these various diseases are very commendable. I think the officials of that department would be the first to agree that Canadians have been very co-operative in the carrying out of these programs. The co-operation which has come from the Bruce county area has been quite surprising. I can well remember the time when whole herds were diseased and farmers were buying the cattle and shipping the milk. This was only 25 years ago. So, the eradication program has been gradual and it has been successful. We should not put this heavy obligation solely on those who have been involved. They also have a great deal of other expenses beside the replacement of cattle. As the minister probably knows, barns have to be disinfected, a complex operation, and when barns and barnyards are disinfected some pastures have to be closed for a period of time. The federal government inspectors take over that operation which leads to a great dislocation of the whole farm operation. This assistance has been provided successfully and fairly voluntarily.
I suggest therefore the minister should not turn this responsibility over to the governor in council. It should also be remembered that a great deal of work is turned over to the governor in council by each department of the government, so that in the end they will be the busiest people in Ottawa. We could easily solve this problem by writing in a fair replacement value for the animals that are lost, taking into consideration grade cattle. They can be more easily replaced than purebred cattle. A purebred does not necessarily mean an expensive animal, but the replacement value should be fair. If it happens to be the top animal in a man's herd, it does not have an average value but rather a set value. I do not think the course advocated would greatly raise the amount that would have to be paid in compensation. As I said, not much over half a million dollars was paid out last year. We have a large agricultural community in Canada and this amount of money does not seem excessive for the eradication of contagious diseases.
I hope, therefore, that the minister will consider the inclusion of a clause providing for replacement value rather than leave to someone else the decision as to how much should be paid. The minister is to be congratulated for including the appeal clause, to which I have no objection.
January 14, 1969

Animal Contagious Diseases Act
In closing may I say also that I have no objection to the inclusion of the date of September 26, 1968 except to ask the minister whether it has any other significance than to indicate the delay in passing this legislation because of certain other events.


Mr. Roland Godin (PorJneuf):: Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to represent a mixed territory, that is a territory where industry and
farming live side by side, and as far as cattle breeding is concerned, there are many model farmers in my region because they do everything they can to improve their herds as much as possible.
One knows, for instance, that over the last ten years many of those farmers took advantage of the services provided by the artificial insemination centre in Saint-Hyacinthe and for 50 years those cattle breeders have been choosing their breeding stock with the utmost care. They never hesitated either to make rather important purchases of better developed choice animals when the results expected from their cattle were too long in coming.
Finally, I can say that during that period those farmers benefitted to a great extent from the advantages put at their disposal by the provincial and federal governments, such as the grants for the purchase of good cattle as well as the advice about feeding and other matters given by the government technicians. It goes without saying that such an improvement does not come about without the cattle breeders spending large sums of money, since the operation costs of a farm have been increasing from year to year.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, at first sight Bill No. C-156 now before the house could make us happy because it proposes amendments to increase the compensation to be paid for animals to be destroyed because of contagious diseases. In fact, experience has taught me that the present compensation was not very fair in view of the economic changes the farmers must take into account, and the amount of $70 for destroying grade animals, as well as the amount of $140 for pure bred animals, which was set in 1958, is clearly not enough if one considers that a Holstein cow values between $175 and $200 ten years ago is now worth between $450 and $600. I will not go as far as to insist on the figures quoted by the previous speaker who mentioned a cow worth $40,000, because there are only one or two in a constituency. At any rate, we have generally referred to cattle worth $500 to $600


and for all those reasons an amendment to the legislation is essential.
However, the main object of the bill is to withdraw the amounts paid as compensations and the following recommendations can be read:
His Excellency the governor general has recommended to the house the present measure to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act to remove from the act the amounts of compensation specified for the horses and cattle slaughtered pursuant to the act and to permit the governor in council to prescribe maximum amounts for such compensation;
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that bill will give rise to patronage and I quote paragraph (b) of section 1:
-such value to be determined by the minister or by some person appointed by him for that purpose.
Mr. Speaker, there is no problem, because as stated by a Montreal commentator, the minister is well-informed about cows since he owns 250. At the present time, the minister is assisted by technicians-former members of the Cooperative federee and farmers-and I feel that it is no longer necessary to worry about the bill now under consideration. But let us suppose that one day or another a minister is inexperienced-it has happened, Mr. Speaker, because he may be a lawyer or an economist, in short, a person who has never seen a cow and could barely tell a dog from a cat-he could refer to another provision of the legislation, because in fact, it has been specifically expected that mistakes could be made and I quote:
-to provide also for an appeal by the owners of animals slaughtered where no compensation or less compensation than the maximum prescribed is awarded to the owners.
Mr. Speaker, in such a case, if the minister is not sufficiently informed, he would be compelled to appoint someone who would be in a position to apply the act adequately. However, if the person who has been elected is a Liberal condidate who, for instance, was defeated in the last election, and goes in a riding to assess the herd of a Conservative, of a Creditiste or a political organizer, one can imagine what kind of assessment this will be. In a case like this, the farmer will have to appeal again to the board. I am quoting section 2, which says that an ordinary civil servant is to assess the value:
-where no compensation is awarded for that animal on the ground that the failure to award compensation was unreasonable.
January 14, 1969

One can easily imagine how easily a farmer will be sent packing. I am quoting further:
Every appeal to the assessor referred to in subsection (1) shall be brought within three months from the date the owner receives notification of the decision or the compensation that is the subject of the appeal or within such longer period as the assessor may in any case for special reasons allow.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that this is just political manoevring, which will only result in arousing discontent and creating problems which will have to be solved by other civil servants.
I submit we have enough civil servants as it is. Are we going to hire some more people to correct mistakes? Though it is rather complicated, but it is a way of hiding the unemployment situation.
The fact that the rate of compensation was changed only twice in 20 years proves that we have allowed ourselves to be outdistanced in that field. Standards must be set ahead of time to ensure compensation that is proportionate to the losses incurred. To my mind, those standards are also necessary to give renewed confidence to the stock-breeder and keep him from delays in revealing cases of illness in his herd because, as you are aware, when illness strikes a herd, for lack of capital, a farmer could refrain from reporting the facts and so be responsible for the resulting epidemic.
For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this should be looked into seriously. I bring my remarks to a close by saying again to the hon. minister that I am convinced of the danger inherent in leaving it to one or two civil servants to set the amount of compensation. I ask him to tell us what he intends to do to improve this bill which must have been drawn up by some incompetent person. However, as I know he is acquainted with the problem, I should like him to reassure us and tell us what he intends to do to correct the situation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the house that if the minister speaks now he closes the debate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, if I may reply to some of the questions that have been raised, I should like to say that there has been a very good record of performance, if I may use those words in describing the results of the contagious diseases eradication programs that have been carried on for a number of years.
Perhaps hon. members would be interested in the record so far as brucellosis and tuberculosis are concerned. For example, in the 29180-2701


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question. May I bring to the minister's attention the date of September 26. Is it possible that a more recent date would be more applicable.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I was thinking about that matter and I am not sure of the implications that would be involved in changing the date because of some settlements, if you wish to call them that, which have been made with respect to compensation during the intervening period. Certainly I would welcome a discussion of this matter in committee tc see if there are implications or
January 14, 1969

Animal Contagious Diseases Act ramifications that would cause us difficulty if we were to consider a more recent date.
So far as the possibility of partisan political considerations entering the decisions of the assessors, I think one can rule that out. I do not see any possibility of that happening at all. There is now a maximum of $70 and $140 for compensation, depending on the classification of animal that is ordered to be slaughtered. We intend to raise this level to bring it more in line with present day levels; but still there will be a maximum to be prescribed in the regulations laid down by order in council.
To answer the question of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) as to why fair replacement value is not considered instead of some maximum value figure, I wish to say that we hope the compensation will be fair. We also believe that a maximum must be laid down, otherwise we might get into a great deal of difficulty in having animals assessed. My hon. friend pointed to that problem. There is a wide variation between the values of so called purebred and registered animals, and we want to be fair. At the same time we must be very careful to make sure it is not profitable for the farmer to have a contagious disease among his livestock. Some responsibility, certainly not all of it, must lie with the farmer. To the extent that there is negligence of any kind in allowing a disease once started to go beyond the point it would have gone if there had been good husbandry, the farmer is responsible.
This bill does not intend that there shall be any profit to anyone having a serious contagious disease in his livestock.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member ought to be in his proper seat.


William Arnold Peters: I agree with the minister that compensation should be considered at a reasonable percentage of replacement value. This would provide equitable compensation to some who have had serious losses. On the other hand, those with animals at the low end of the value scale would not suffer so much loss as those who have high quality animals. I think that we ought to prevent abuses from developing in this area.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We can take all that into consideration in committee. I think it is fairly obvious that we intend to recommend new maximum levels that are higher than the ones


that are prescribed at present. One could not consider seriously the question of leaving values open ended, without a maximum limit. The assessors making assessments in the field ought to be guided by regulations which have been laid down and authorized by order in council, and although we can make changes I think we must have some upper limit in the matter of values. It is also fair to say that the surroundings of high priced, purebred registered animals are more hygienic than those of many other animals.
Another point that was raised was the matter of the federal government becoming directly involved in the eradication of rabies. I think the hon. member who drew that question to the attention of the house answered his own question. One of the greatest problems in eradicating rabies stems from the fact that the disease is carried by wildlife. Though a great deal of work is being done by the provinces in co-operation with the federal government it must be anticipated that the process will be long drawn out, again because of the fact that the disease is carried by wildlife throughout much of Canada.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I must advise the house that the bill provides for the governor in council to establish the maximum levels of compensation, the current rates being $70 for grade animals and $140 for purebreds. The bill provides for new rates to be set by the governor in council, as I have said. We believe there are sufficient funds in the current estimates to provide for the additional compensation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. A, Olson (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading and reference to the standing committee on agriculture of bill C-157, to regulate products used for the control of pests and the organic functions of plants and animals.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the last of the four bills that, as I said earlier this afternoon, are related. Hon. gentlemen will realize, of course, that pesticides have a great deal to do with the high standard of living enjoyed by
January 14, 1369
[Stage Direction]
the average Canadian today. Not only do they enable farmers to produce greater quantities of high quality food more economically, but they also make it possible for all of us to live, work, and play in considerable more comfort than did our forefathers.
The list of pests arrayed against us is formidable. There are about 2,500 different kinds of insects and related organisms that from time to time attack Canadian crops and gardens. There are 2,000 plant diseases. There are 1,000 kinds of weeds. There are several hundred kinds of animal diseases and other animal pests to plague us.
It is estimated that one third of all crops is lost to weeds, pests, and disease. What would be the toll without pesticides? It is a fact that some crops just could not be grown at all without chemical help, while the yields of other crops would be greatly reduced. Food quality would also suffer because many items would be infected with worms, fungi and insects.
The agricultural community is naturally the big consumer of pesticides but these chemicals also have hundreds of uses in industry and in the home. Fumigants kill bugs in warehouses; growth suppressants keep down weeds on airports; insecticides kill aphids on ornamental trees; rodenticides rid our houses of mice; repellants keep dogs away from flowers, and so on. There is a very long list of these chemicals that are useful.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I think hon. members will also realize that pesticides are opening up new recreational areas, allowing us to use what were previously unbearable locations. Pesticides are now a very important part of all our lives. We certainly could not live in the style to which we have become accustomed without them. But pesticides have dual personalities. It is true that they bring us untold benefits, but they can also get us into trouble if they are not handled properly. Careless use of pesticides can lead to food contamination, damage to crops, as well as human and animal injury.
I have mentioned that scientists are making steady progress in coming up with new and alternative methods of controlling pests, such as improved management practices, resistant crops and biological control. But these alternate controls are not yet adequate to protect crops, gardens, animals, or indeed ourselves, and therefore pesticides will be needed far into the foreseeable future.
Government control of the manufacture and use of these potentially dangerous substances is necessary if we are to protect peo-
Control of Plant Pests
pie from the misuse of pesticides. My department registered more than 3,300 different pesticides for use in Canada during the past year. This great number indicates something of the difficulty of the job of keeping tab on ail these different pest control products. To do this job adequately we need the very best, most modern legislation possible.
The bill now before us, in general terms, brings the Pest Control Products Act of 1939 up to date. While it is framed in the same general context there are some significant differences and improvements. The increased use of pesticides and associated products, and a greater concern over their potential for harm as well as good necessitate a broader authority for regulation than in the past. This is provided in the proposed legislation by adding the authority to regulate the manufacture, handling, use and advertising of such control products. Authority is also included to regulate manufacturing establishments in regard to prescribed control products for export or interprovincial movement. The present act provides only for the regulation of the product itself as to composition, packaging and labelling.
In addition to true pesticides, the new legislation also applies to other control products and products to be used along with or as a supplement to pesticides and control products. The present act provides only for the regulation of actual pest control products. Examples of products covered by the proposed legislation, not covered under the present act, would be plant growth modifiers such as sprout inhibitors, potato top killers, and fruit stop-drop sprays; emulsifiers, stickers and stabilizers for use with pesticides and other control products.
We have also provided for protection against the danger of cross contamination. For example, cross contamination could occur when the same mixing equipment is used for different pesticides. Two chemicals might be perfectly harmless by themselves but when mixed they are sometimes lethal. Cross contamination could also occur when control products are stored near food, and the use of a pesticide on food crops at harvest time could cause residues that are harmful.
The present act does provide some protection for the public against deception in merchandizing pesticides but only indirectly. This bill permits more specific control over certain labelling, advertising, and packaging practices that are difficult to regulate at present. For example, the use of numbers in the
[Stage Direction]
January 14. 1969
Control of Plant Pests
brand name of products may bear no relation to the strength of a product even though it could be construed as doing so. Potentially hazardous compounds may be packaged in containers that resemble other harmless commodities. The new legislation retains the authority of the present act to regulate products through registration, standards and labelling, but adds authority over packaging.
Authority is provided in the bill for registration of premises in which certain prescribed control products may be manufactured for subsequent shipment interprovincially or abroad. These prescribed products could include those which include living organisms in their manufacture. These organisms could pose a public hazard if not handled properly. Indications are that this type of control product will be in production soon and special regulatory powers will be necessary to ensure effectiveness and safety.
In my view, this new legislation will continue to give effective service to the agricultural industry while at the same time providing greatly improved means of protecting the public interest. In conclusion, I should say that the cost of administration will increase somewhat as regulations are approved covering the new activities, and we estimate that the total additional costs would be approximately $60,000 annually when the regulations are fully implemented.
Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, as a prelude to my remarks in respect of Bill C-157, I would like to make these observations. The life of the pioneers of this continent was hard but simple. They were farmers and hunters living in isolation in small communities, unconcerned about the outside world. Their existence was free of many of the problems facing the people of this the twentieth century which, in many instances, have been created by the exploitation of succeeding generations. It has been stated that two grim spectres beckon mankind toward oblivion. One offers instant wholesale death by nuclear means and the other guarantees eventual starvation when the population exceeds the food supply. The powers that be in our world of today are struggling in an all out effort to postpone these evil days.
I propose to deal with this bill only in respect of how its aspects affect our food. Man is rapidly changing those once immutable features around him, the soil, atmosphere and water, even our seas and their complete production. The basic conflict is between the mounting need for food and fibre and the

equally urgent need to preserve the quality of our environment. This is the perspective in which to view the continuing debate over the value and hazards of pesticides and drugs. I mention drugs because they do relate to certain organic functions in animals.
Of course, the use of pesticides and drugs is not the only way in which man is unrespectful of his environment. The growth of cities, clearing of forests or draining of swamps, the future prospect of weather control, run away population, the adulteration of foods-all of these promise to change this once undisturbed earth irrevocably. Men can no longer approach nature merely to exploit her. They must now learn to manage her wisely. They must decide what kind of environment they really want, what quality of life they desire.
If we talk of pesticides and drugs only in terms of benefits and hazards, we fail to grapple with the basic question. Men do need to know exactly what these chemicals do and what liabilities their use may incur. But then we must decide whether, where, and how to use them to help build the kind of world we want. This is where Bill C-157 can play a very important part.
To my knowledge, the pesticides most widely used are D.D.T. and its breakdown products, aldrin, dieldrin and lindane. In experiments and studies reported to have been carried out by specialists of the University of Miami School of Medicine concentrations of D.D.T. and dieldrin were found in many humans. Traces of pesticides were found in the tissues of stillborn and unborn babies. The greatest concentrations were found in the fat tissue, but the liver, kidney and brain also carried the residue.
At this time I would like to put on the record an excerpt from an article that appeared in the Globe and Mail a few months ago under the heading, "Pesticides Held Threat to Unborn." It reads:
"An expectant mother can poison her unborn child by drinking milk from a cow that has browsed on forage sprayed by some insecticides," an official of the National Health and Welfare Department said not long ago when addressing 75 pilots attending an aerial pest control conference sponsored by the Ontario health department.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
It was further stated that careless crop spraying can have far-reaching effects. Chlorinated hydro-carbons used in some pesticides have the longest effects and can be stored in fat deposits and in milk in cattle.
January 14, 1963

One authority said that insecticides coupled with the effect of radio-active fall out could produce babies with two heads and six fingers. A survey of short horn cows found a ratio of 30 parts of insecticide to one million parts of milk. An infant child does not have the resistance to insecticides that an adult has and therefore is vulnerable.
It seems also that it would be difficult to deny the use of pesticides has caused death in fish and seagull populations. D.D.T. deposits have been found in fish. This situation is of concern to government wild life and fisheries departments. It is now evident that with the indiscriminate use of insecticides there is a danger that man eventually will not be able to find relaxation in fishing because the fish will be contaminated. He would not be able to enjoy hunting because the wild fowl and wild animals would be contaminated; and the ocean would fail to be a source of protein because even the ocean would be contaminated.
Dr. Keit Ronald of the University of Guelph said insecticides have reached the antarctic and penguins are being affected. He said the antarctic once was considered to be a sterile part of the world but that it is not any more; it is polluted with insecticides. Dr. Ronald said the day is coming when insecticide will be sold in the same manner as poisons with purchasers signing a poison register.
I support Bill C-157 because it will fulfil some urgently needed controls. Another consideration that should not be overlooked is revealed in a statement by Professor Lamont C. Cole of Cornell University division of biological sciences. He contends that certain pesticides like D.D.T., which can kill both helpful and harmful species, actually make life easier for the pests. He followed that thought with the warning that D.D.T. and other persistent types of pesticides carry perhaps the greatest potential long term hazards to mankind.
The United States secretary of the interior in his reference to pesticides said that we have strained mind and dollar to bend nature to our satisfaction. Yet, we do not know what the effects may be, nor do we anticipate possible consequences. Blithely we carry on our multimillion dollar programs in the pesticide field with wholly inadequate research. We could be building our own fools' paradise. The day of reckoning may not be tomorrow, but who knows about the day after?
At this time I should like to refer briefly to the case at Grand Forks, B.C., more specifically known as Sunshine Valley. The farmers
Control of Plant Pests
there had their hogs, cattle and milk declared unfit for food by the federal food and drug directorate. This was the result of contamination caused by Aldrin which had been used for the control of wireworm in potato crops. It was found that effects of this material remained potent for a long period and would kill wireworm nine years after being administered to the ground. The residue of this chemical was passed on to livestock through forage grown on the potato ground years after being treated with Aldrin.
Much of Sunshine Valley, which is two miles wide by ten miles long, has been rendered useless by contamination. The complete production of several farms has been declared unfit for food. This is a glaring example of a pesticide having been made available before sufficient research work was done so that the end results would be known. In Sweden plans are being made to cut down on the use of insecticides and weed killers to prevent food becoming polluted by chemicals whose long term effects are not known. The Swedish natural science research council which is working on the problem has called public attention to the lack of knowledge available on what biocides do to human beings and whether they can produce cancer. For some time Swedish recommendations discouraged the use of chemicals on food crops during a prescribed safety period before harvest. The period varies from three to 45 days depending on what chemicals are involved. It is calculated to give time for the chemicals to disperse before the plants are used.
The Science council in Sweden now is recommending against spraying. Carrots grown in such soil can contain a higher percentage of dieldrin than the soil surrounding them. Poisons can also enter the human system through eggs. Grain treated with mercury compound has, when fed to hens, produced eggs containing the same substance. The Swedish government now has forbidden the use of dressed seed as feed for chickens.
Bills C-157 supplies provisions that should eliminate some of our pesticide problems. I should like to make a few observations about a product known as Stilbestrol. This material when used in animal food or by pellet implantation has a pronounced effect on the organic function of animals. It is a dangerous product with practically no control. My experiences with this product were disastrous to say the least. As a result of its promiscuous use, damage resulted to a group of mink ranches to the extent of about $750,000. The mink were exposed to Stilbestrol through the

January 14, 1969
Control of Plant Pests
cereal content of their ration which was prepared by a large well-known corporation. Our experience and the experience of others has proven that there is an accumulation of residue in the animal tissues because our mink received a very small amount of Stilbestrol over a period of six weeks following this period, they broke down physically. Many died and practically 90 per cent were sterile.
Further, evidence given by the veterinary general before the agricultural committee indicates that the residue does accumulate. This was borne out by the fact that swine had been declared unfit for human consumption after a residue of Stilbestrol above the point of human toleration had been detected. Thousands of cattle across this country are being fed Stilbestrol. Many also carry Stilbestrol pellets in their ears. I am disturbed about the loose handling of Stilbestrol and its effect on humans who must surely be exposed to its residue constantly. The health of our people should be our first consideration. Therefore, I trust some satisfactory control of Stilbestrol may be exercised through the provisions of Bill C-157. This would possibly help to reduce death by cancer.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is timely. Perhaps we should have had the tighter controls which will be possible under this bill even before now. I am concerned about the basis on which the Department of Agriculture will be able to make decisions when it comes to the point of control. One may very well say we will see that some manufacturer may or may not be able to distribute such and such a product, but the important thing really is to know before the product is released what it will do. It is important that there be sufficient staff and sufficient research data so that it may be known what a given chemical product will do. I am a farmer and I know there are chemicals being used by farmers who, as a result of personal contact with them, have ended up in hospital. This is not a general situation but I know products have been sold which can cause rather serious sickness on the part of those who use them if they are careless or if they are get down-wind of these products often enough.
We should be concerned about the effect of these chemicals on human beings. If the Department of Agriculture is to control such chemicals the first thing they must know is what those chemicals will do to individuals who use them and what they will do to the environment in which they are used.

[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
It is quite true that if we were to remove from the market the chemicals which are now being used in agriculture, our agricultural production would drop severely. It is also safe to say that chemicals have been released for use without sufficient consideration as to what they will do to the environment in which they are used. For example, if on the prairies you use a chemical spray which destroys substantial amounts of foliage on the trees, what do you do to the bird population in that area? The bird population is important. If you use chemicals which cut down the ability of honey bees or ordinary bumble bees to survive, what do you do to the insect population and the production of honey in a given area?
The manufacturer is interested in producing a product, advertising and selling it. If he derives a profit thereby he is happy and has achieved his objective. If no one prevents him from deriving this satisfactory profit he is certainly not violating any law, except the law of nature. The law of nature is pretty important because we all live or die by it, as the case may be.
At the moment on the prairies, and I suppose anyplace else, you can use what is called a low volatile spray for spraying weeds, or the standard spray. The low volatile spray will not drift to the same extent the other will. You can use a contact spray for killing weeds or a spray which is taken into the body of the weeds which literally causes them to explode and die. Each one has a different effect on the surrounding countryside and each one varies in respect of the drift aspect.
This is the kind of thing about which the Department of Agriculture should be concerned and I do not think there is enough money or time being spent in this area. Let me give an example in respect of seed treatment. Every spring beginning about March we see a flood of advertising in western Canadian and, I am sure, in eastern Canadian periodicals advising farmers that such and such a treatment should be used on seeds. These advertisements indicate how much is to be used, what a wonderful boon this is if you apply it to the seed, and what you accomplish by the application. I know for a fact that you can get a number of research men in universities together who will argue among themselves as to whether it is worthwhile to use this seed treatment, yet this treatment is advertised and the farmers are urged to use it. This year, as a result of crop conditions,
January 14, 1969



our seed has suffered damage, and we have already seen suggestions from experts and technicians to the effect that we would be well advised not to use this seed treatment at all. In spite of this, thousands of dollars are being spent on advertising to sell this treatment to the farmer. These are the things about which we should concern ourselves.
I am concerned about the basis upon which control is to be established and used. We must consider the actual application on the farm and the general effect of these chemicals on the general environment in terms of water, air and ground pollution. We must not forget that a great deal of this chemical does not simply disappear but becomes a permanent part of the environment into which it is released, whether it is the soil or the water.
Let me urge the Department of Agriculture to concern itself about this aspect and not merely to be satisfied to control what exists or what particular manufacturers choose to offer the public. There are other ways of controlling insects besides dousing them with chemicals. It has been established that insects can be controlled in many cases by biological methods without using chemicals. This alternative method has not been given sufficient attention, and sufficient money has not been spent to develop this method of controlling insects. We continue to douse them with chemicals.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the two preceding speakers have dealt with much of the subject matter with which I intended to deal. This has relieved me of a great burden of responsibility. However, in respect of a collateral issue I think I should make it clear to the house that we have now virtually concluded the fourth bill placed before us today. Contrary to what has been said in some places, these are not unimportant bills. They comprise massive legislation which will have a considerable effect on the lives and fortunes of many thousands of Canadians.
It is of some credit to the house, and to the new basis under which we are proceeding, that we understand that under the new practice we will be following, second reading is not taken to mean an acceptance in principle of what is contained within the four corners of a legislative measure. It is in fact a stage in the legislative process during which we can examine the legislation and then refer it to the appropriate standing committee for examination in depth. If we see fit we can then take issue with the provisions of a bill. I
Control of Plant Pests
am pleased to see that this procedure is being followed.
I know there will be occasions when opposition members and, perhaps hopefully, some government members will be compelled to suggest that certain measures are not good or of advantage to the country. On these occasions, we will feel justified in taking a stand even at the second reading stage. I thought I should make that position clear at this particular time.
At this point I should like to refer to another phenomenon which has come to my mind after listening to what has been said about these legislative proposals. I have in mind the substantial extent to which the government is asking this house to give it the power to regulate by order in council. I do not intend to go into detail, but an examination of the regulatory clause 5 of this bill makes it clear at first blush how very substantial are the rights this house is yielding to the government. This is emphasized by the other bills which have already been passed. I am not going to quarrel about this, but it is a principle I do not like. I think we have gone too far in this direction in the past.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
We have given to the government over and over again, in bill after bill, year after year, parliament after parliament, power to act by order in council and ministerial decree. Our rights then vanish; we do not see them again in this house. The effects of the exercise of rights are of course, felt by people all over this country. I say this because I want to emphasize very strongly the need for a right for this house to examine and scrutinize the impact of ministerial decrees and orders in council.
It is true that a committee has been set up. I had the honour to be a member of that committee. We have not had an opportunity to discuss these matters because we have met only once. I do not fault the committee or the chairman for that. But I urge the government to proceed with all speed to make sure that the committee meets often so that before this session is passed we will have arrived at an acceptable method whereby when we do grant the government, as we are now doing by clause 5 of this bill, the very substantial powers which the minister is seeking, there will be some method of examining, those cases where, in the opinion of members of this house, there have been abuses of the rights given to government.

January 14, 1969
Control of Plant Pests
We are probably the only democratic country at the present time which does not have that right in its legislative assembly. I want to make this point, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is most important. There is no doubt that the government will continue to seek powers of this kind. More and more we will find that bills are simply vehicles from which is suspended the right to pass regulations. There must be given to this house the checks and balances to meet this situation. I make this point now. It is a collateral point but I think I can choose no better time than this to emphasize it.
I shall now deal with the merits of the legislation. I am interested in it. I farmed for some years until I descended into public life. I have some knowledge of what is involved. I had the honour to serve as a member of the health and welfare committee which sat in 1963. At that time there had been recently published a remarkable book by the late Miss Rachel Carson, "Silent Spring". The committee was given very wide powers of reference to examine the impact of herbicides and pesticides on environment, on the human existence. We invited Miss Carson to appear before the committee. Because of ill health she was unable to come to see us, but she sent us some documentation. We had a very full examination of this matter but toward the end of the committee's hearings the representatives of the agricultural chemical industry appeared before it. I am not faulting them. It was a lobby; there is no question about that.
This industry serves a special need. There is some question in my mind whether the special need which it serves is balanced against what may well be the general detriment to society from the use, or I should say the abuse, of these chemicals. In any event, these representatives appeared before the committee and after their appearance the committee made a report which to my mind was a very mild one; it did not go as far as it should have. At the conclusion of the report, the committee said certain things. I will read from the report of the health and welfare committee which dealt with food and drugs in 1963. On page 566, of the report, after making what I consider to be very mild recommendations, the committee said:
The committee finds that it will not be able to complete at the current session of this parliament its inquiries into the matters referred to it for report and, accordingly, recommends that this committee be re-established and appointed early in

the next session of this parliament to resume the studies and continue the inquiries initiated by this committee.
The committee was re-established but it did nothing at all. It decided not to pursue its studies in connection with this very serious problem and turned its attention to other matters dealing with drugs generally. It made some very useful recommendations in that respect, but it did not pursue its inquiries nor has there been to my knowledge any committee since that time which has pursued or even attempted to conclude the inquiries which we initiated in 1963.
We have not heard a great deal about Miss Carson's book, although there has been a subcommittee of the United States Senate sitting under the chairmanship of a very distinguished senator and former governor from, I believe, Connecticut, which has been inquiring into environmental hazards and has made some very useful recommendations and proposed some legislation. I do not think it would do any harm at this time, having regard to the fact that this matter is being referred to committee, to read some extracts from this book to remind the house of the grave dangers pointed out by Miss Carson. In her foreword Miss Carson quotes Albert Schweitzer who said:
Man has lost the capacity to foresee and to forestall. He will end by destroying the earth.
In the foreword to the book there is also a quotation from E. B. White as follows:
I am pessimistic about the human race because it is too ingenious for its own good. Our approach to nature is to beat it into submission. We would stand a better chance of survival if we accommodated ourselves to this planet and viewed it appreciatively instead of skeptically and dictatorially.
I should like to read two other quotations from the book:
We poison the caddis flies in a stream and the salmon rims dwindle and die. We poison the gnats in a lake and the poison travels from link to link of the food chain and soon the birds of the lake margins become its victims. We spray our elms and the following springs are silent of robin song, not because we sprayed the robins directly but because the poison travelled, step by step, through the now familiar elm leaf-earthworm-robin cycle. These are matters of record, observable, part of the visible world around us. They reflect the web of life-or death-that scientists know as ecology.
On page 237 we find these words:
Human exposures to cancer-producing chemicals (including pesticides) are uncontrolled and they are multiple. An individual may have many different exposures to the same chemical. Arsenic is an example. It exists in the environment of
January 14, 1969

every individual in many different guises: as an air pollutant, a contaminant of water, a pesticide residue on food, in medicines, cosmetics, wood preservatives, or as a colouring agent in paints and inks. It is quite possible that no one of these exposures alone would be sufficient to precipitate malignancy-yet any single supposedly "safe dose" may be enough to tip the scales that are already loaded with other "safe doses".
In support of that I should like to tell the house what was said by one of the doctors who appeared before the committee. I tried to find the actual evidence so I could read it to the house, but I could not find it. However, I recall one of the doctors who appeared before the committee being examined on this particular point. He said it will be utterly impossible for 15 or 20 years at least to come to a determination as to the extent to which the constant intake of these pesticide residue may affect the reproductive capacity of the human race.
It may well be-I have not kept up with this-that scientists are now been able to say that this statement is not correct. However, it certainly has not come to my attention and I have tried to keep in touch on with the problem. This was a very serious statement made at that time.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Miss Carsons' critics said that she was an alarmist and was colouring her facts. She was justified in doing so because of the serious nature of this problem. In many cases what she said was confirmed by evidence given before the subcommittee of the Senate in the United States.
I say all this not to oppose this bill but to reinforce the fact that the agriculture committee should take adequate time to resume the study which was commenced in 1963, to examine the further scientific evidence which has now become available, and to see to what extent it might be possible to introduce safety features into the use of these pesticides. I notice that the legislation is substantially different from chapter 209 of the Revised Statutes, The Pest Control Products Act. I should like to call the attention of the minister to the fact that when I was examining the then legal adviser, Mr. Curran of his department, I asked him questions regarding the legal basis upon which the legislative program dealing with pesticides and pest controls had been put forward. It was suggested that, similar to food and drugs, the act was probably based upon the Criminal Code. I do not know whether or not this is the case but I mention it because I think this is another aspect which 29180-2711
Control of Plant Pests
the committee may look into, namely the extent to which the wide reaching proposals in the bill and in the regulations are in fact valid. I am not suggesting they are not, but certainly if the government is going to take these powers onto itself it wants to have the utmost assurance that its legislation is in fact valid and constitutional.
I notice for example that for the first time the government is seeking under its regulatory power the right to control the use of controlled products, and this probably comes dangerously close to the regulation of trade and commerce which may or may not be valid. I just throw out this suggestion so that when the committee comes to examine this bill they may call before them the proper officials of the Department of Justice and of the Department of Agriculture and examine these things quite carefully.
I think we must retain the very utmost value that is in the pesticides and herbicides we have developed. At the same time, we must make sure that we do so legally and with the greatest degree of safety to human beings in order that we might have the best of both worlds. I make this plea to the minister to ensure that when the committee examines this particular legislative proposal these things will not be forgotten.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say just a few words on this bill. 1 think it is a bill which has the unanimous support in principle of members in all parts of the house. We agree very thoroughly with the purpose which it sets out to achieve. I believe that the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Noble), the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) and also the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) have all voiced our real concern that this legislation should be backed up with adequate and continuous research. I think the hon member for Peace River made an excellent suggestion when he said that the committee should go into the whole question of the balance between the good and bad features of these pesticides in the light of the most recent scientific research. I should like to mention an aspect that I do not think has been directly touched upon, that is, not only the whole balance of nature and the effect of pesticides on the plant and animal life but its effect in the home. I think there is a doubt in the minds of a great many people as to the effect a number of these pesticides have on

January 14, 1969
Control of Plant Pests
the deterioration or adulteration of food products.
In my own province there are quite a number of small farms and market gardens which grow their own products without any kind of inorganic or pesticide materials. They believe that when the balance of nature is upset the food products deteriorate. I am not saying that they are correct but I believe we do not know the answer to that, and in order for this legislation to be thoroughly protective we should know the answer to this question. Another matter concerns these compressed air or aerosol containers for destroying pests. I am not at all sure that a build-up of potentially noxious materials does not occur around the home. If the pesticides are not very carefully controlled a build-up may occur which may very well be deleterious to health. This is also something that the committee could and should look into. Before licences are given for the production and handling of these materials producers and distributors applying for registration should be required to show proof of their effects and their controllability.
I am sure that the regulations will have some kind of standards which the producers must meet before being allowed to put their products on the market. I may also suggest that it would be a good idea to require that these pesticides be a genuine improvement on existing ones before the producers are permitted to put them on the market. As is the case with so many food products, in order for a competitor to get the market he often makes some non-essential change in his new product. I think that is something that needs watching. In other words, we must be careful that under this legislation we do not issue licences to permit the slow deterioration or adulteration of foods and of the atmosphere in our homes and cities. We are concerned about the dangers of cigarette smoking and of other products. I believe there are dangers in these pesticides that perhaps we do not even suspect at present. We do not want to issue licences for slow murder by way of pesticides.
So, having said this, I think that all of us are convinced that this is an excellent piece of legislation. I certainly hope that the committee will be able to improve on it and to make sure that all the loopholes are stopped.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I should like to lend my support to the words spoken by hon. members on this side of the house on this important

piece of legislation. I realize that this is one of the most important pieces of legislation that this house has before it at this time. The minister has suggested, in reply to a question asked by me concerning another piece of legislation, that the matter would be discussed before the committee. There is a danger in this legislation being referred to a committee. I imagine that everyone in this house realizes that all of us cannot attend all committee meetings. It is absolutely certain that the questions I have on this matter will not be answered because I will not be able to attend the committee meetings dealing with this subject since I have to serve on other committees. I had hoped that some of these questions would be answered on second reading of these bills. The fact they will not be illustrates one of the fears that I have with regard to the new rules.
e (9:50 p.m.)
I should like to inform the minister that I am concerned that he may designate any person as an inspector or analyst for the purpose of the act. In all sincerity I suggest to him once again that "any qualified person" should mean exactly what it says and not mean some political appointment. We have seen that sort of thing too often in this country. In every department I can think of there are unqualified people who are trying to enforce the provisions of this particular act. Therefore, I would ask the minister to pay particular attention to this point, because I am sure everyone in the house agrees that it is essential to have qualified people implement a measure of this importance.
There is another matter in connection with which I would lend my support. As the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) suggested when discussing the previous bill, there is a great need for the provisions of this bill to encompass the entire nation. If any province wants to stand in the way of this bill it should be told to get into line with the rest of the country so that the measure is applicable to the whole country. As the minister has suggested, there must be a broad application.
I would also lend my support to the minister's statement that all provinces must come within the terms of the bill. At this particular stage of our development we cannot allow special status to any province with regard to the implementation and enforcement of the legislation we pass here. Once more I ask the minister to put teeth into the bill, teeth that
January 14, 1969

can be sunk into any agency that does not live up to the requirements of the bill before us. If we do not put teeth into these bills, then there is absolutely no point in debating them in this house; we must make sure that they are enforced.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I must
advise the house that if the minister speaks at this point he will close the debate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have but five or six minutes so may I briefly express my appreciation to hon. members opposite for the way in which these bills have been handled today. I want very quickly to answer some of the questions asked.
The hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Noble) expressed his concern about the residual contamination of some of these pesticides which is found in many places. I share his concern and the provisions of this bill will substantially strengthen the hands of the Department of Agriculture in trying to avoid this contamination as much as possible. We must rely on scientific knowledge, of course, but we are trying to keep abreast of this.
The hon. member expressed particular concern about di-ethyl-stiibestrol. Stilbestrol will not be covered under the act because it is not a pesticide but a female sex hormone which is used in fattening animals and as a growth stimulant. There is a measure under the Food and Drug Act for testing the residue of this di-ethyl-stilbestrol in meat found in packing houses. If anybody violates the act the meat products are condemned and indeed an offence is committed if the level is high enough to be harmful to human beings.
The hon. member pointed out that we do not know all that we need to know about the long-term effects of di-ethyl-stilbestrol and other residues, but we are sincerely trying to keep up with developments and amending our regulations accordingly.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) suggested that we must know in advance what will be the long-term effects of these residues. I agree that this would be desirable, but I suggest to him that if we conducted tests for 15 or 20 years-which is the period of time that it would take for the levels of the residues to become dangerous- we would in fact be denying our producers certain benefits during that period.
The hon. member also referred to the problems all farmers have with toxic substances such as mercury and mercurial dust used in fumigating seed. However, new products have
Control of Plant Pests
recently been introduced which I suggest are a great improvement and much safer to use.
I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) in connection with the new procedures. I should like to give him the undertaking of this minister, at any rate, that it is not the intention to abuse the authority that has been granted by way of making regulations by order in council. However, I am sure he knows that regulations to give administrative effect to bills passed by this house have always been made by order in council; this is not something new. I share with him his hope that the committee on delegated legislation-I think that was the one he was referring to-will make sure that these procedures will not be abused.
With regard to the comments of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), the manufacturers of the products she referred to are required to prove the efficacy of their pesticides before they are put on the market. This particular regulation will not only be retained, but indeed strengthened.
I think it is also fair to say that all of the remarks that have been made by members on both sides of the house are not criticisms of the bill, but on the contrary are supporting comments that reinforce the need for the amendments that are now before the house. I hope we will put these amendments into effect in a fair way and as quickly as possible.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Sko-berg), I believe it was, wanted to be sure he could attend the meetings of the committee. I do not know whether he is a member of the agriculture committee, but if he has time he has every right to attend the meetings of the committee, whether he be a formal member or not, and to participate in the meetings. He does not have the right to move motions or to vote but he does have the right to participate. I welcome him to the meetings and hope he will be there when the detailed examination of the bills takes place.
In conclusion, may I again express my appreciation to hon. members for the way these bills have been handled today. I hope that very soon the standing committee will have the opportunity to deal with them so that much additional information about the various clauses can be given hon. members when they examine them in detail.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on
agriculture.
January 14, 1969
4284	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 40 deemed to have been moved.

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, late in 1968 representatives of Indian organizations from every province in Canada met to form a National Indian Brotherhood. They met, I think, with the Prime Minister and with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and made a number of proposals to the government. First of all, they proposed that a task force of Indian people be appointed to look into the problems of Indians and to make recommendations for the solution of those problems. They proposed to the government that the government recognize the National Indian Brotherhood as an advisory committee to the government on the problems of Indians. The government, of course, listened as it always does with courtesy, but the answers to the requests of the National Indian Brotherhood were, as usual, to say the least less than satisfactory. Because of the answers that were given to my questions I have risen this evening, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
We hear a great deal about poverty. The report of the economic council says that 20 per cent of our people live in poverty. That is, families of four with an income of less than $3,000 a year are poor. Yet 75 per cent of our Indian people have an average annual income of less than $2,000. In 1963, 47 per cent of Indian families earned less than $1,000 a year. It is not surprising therefore that Indians are dissatisfied with their lot.
We hear a great deal about the lack of adequate housing in this country and we all know of the slums existing in every Canadian city. Yet it is fair to say that most slum dwellers live in palaces when one compares their dwellings with the dwellings of Indians on the reserves. Eighty six per cent of Indian homes are devoid of such elementary facilities as sewers, septic tanks, flush toilets, running water and telephones. I know the minister will tell us that a great deal of money is being spent by his department in helping Indians. But, Mr. Speaker, all that is being done almost exclusively on the advice of


white civil servants and white experts. Almost no Indians have been listened to or consulted in any way on these matters.
Recently the minister was in Winnipeg listening, as he has done in other parts of the country, to the opinions of our Indians with respect to the amendments to the Indian Act which the government has been talking about for so long. If one reads the submissions of the Indians, and I have read them and I presume the minister has given them consideration, one will see how far we are from facing the basic problems of the Indians. They ask that the regulations under the old act having to do with housing and community improvement be amended. Under the old act there were no regulations enforcing minimum housing standards. People talk about educating the Indians. People criticize Indians because their children do not go on to attend high school. I wonder how many white children would go on into high school if they came from a family of six or eight children who had to live and study in a two room house on an Indian reservation. Yet the authorities have never set minimum standards of Indian housing because it has been assumed that Indians are accustomed to and like conditions that are much worse than those that would be tolerated by the rest of the Canadian people.
The Manitoba Indians have asked the government to establish a development fund which Indians could use to develop the resources of the reserve and which would be controlled not by officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and its white advisers but by the Indians themselves. They have also asked for educational facilities to be sharply upgraded, and that this should be done in consultation with the Indian people themselves. I could go on, Mr. Speaker, in much greater detail. A number of briefs have been presented and the briefs have been clear.
One thing which the Indians want more than anything else is their right as citizens of Canada, and surely they are the original citizens of Canada, to direct and manage their own affairs, to make their own decisions and to learn their own mistakes.
We hear a great deal from the present minister. Sometimes we hear the other side from the other minister, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras), and we wonder who is really running the shop. We have heard a great deal about the subject of listening to the Indians. Yet at the same time the minister
January 14. 1969

proceeded with the reorganization of his department, which instead of decentralizing its affairs centralized them, moving the Indians further away from the decision making than previously. So, Mr. Speaker, I come back to my question of last month. Will the minister really pay attention to the proposals of the National Indian Brotherhood and give the Indians a meaningful role in managing their affairs?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that the hon. member has referred to the consultations we had in Manitoba. I would have liked him to be there because I had invited him. The hon. member, who is so eager to talk about the problems of the Indians in the House of Commons, did not even go to the trouble of coming to meet the Indians. I think that if he really cared about the lot of the Indians, he would surely have attended those consultations.
I had very useful consultations with the Indians in Manitoba and they made positive proposals. The president of that association, Mr. Courchesne, showed a very commendable broadness of mind and I think we made considerable progress.
Since I have been Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, we have had consultations with the Indians. For the first time, the representatives of the governments took the trouble of meeting the Indians and asking them what they want and what could be done to elaborate a better policy so that they can become first class citizens in the Canadian society.
We recognized that it was a good thing that the Indians should be able to get together in associations. We invited the National Association of Indians to come to Ottawa and the department paid the travelling expenses of the Indian leaders who spent a week in Ottawa to discuss their problems with me and the department officials. We also had a very useful meeting with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
Never since the welfare of the Indians has been a matter for concern have there been such numerous and fruitful contacts between the government and the Indians.
I have come to the same conclusion as the Indians themselves, namely that we must
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion elaborate a policy that will allow the Indians to become first class citizens.
I am the first to admit that there is much to be done for the Indians in the field of housing and employment. We have made considerable progress in the last few years, when there were hardly any-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -housing units. We have built 5,500 units in the last three years. I shall come back to this later.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. Order.



IMMIGRATION CASES-INSTRUCTIONS TO GOVERNMENT LAWYERS

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it very plain at the outset of my remarks that I am not attacking nor do I intend to attack the Immigration Appeal Board, but I wish to make it equally plain at the outset of my remarks that I am going to attack, and as vigorously as I possibly can, a party which appears before the Immigration Appeal Board. I refer to the Government of Canada and the Department of Manpower and Immigration. I hope that I can prove that the procedure of the government and of the department in the case of the nine Polish seamen makes a hollow mockery of what the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of this country had trumpeted about as the just society.
On December 20 last I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen):
-has the government communicated to the immigration appeal board its policy concerning Canadian asylum for people from communist countries?
The minister replied:
No, Mr. Speaker, the board is empowered under the law to deal with this matter. I think it would be an unwarranted interference for me or any member of the government to communicate with them on this point.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Then I asked this supplementary:
If it is government policy, and we have been told by the present and former Prime Ministers that it is, surely this statement should be made before the board to help it in its decisions. This
January 14, 1969
4286	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion is what I was asking of the minister, not to interfere but to place that general statement before the board.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Haidasz) followed this up by saying:
May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? May I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether his representative before the Immigration Appeal Board will take government policy into consideration?
The minister replied:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I give my hon. friend that assurance.
What a kicking around of words! All I was asking was that the government instruct its advocate before that board to make exactly the same point the minister conceded to the parliamentary secretary. But what happened was that no such point was ever made to the board. The counsel briefed on behalf of the Department of Manpower and Immigration did not go before the board and did not say that it is government policy to grant asylum in Canada to those who are political refugees.
Today, I raised the question again with the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration to see whether perhaps a government counsel had been instructed, in the light of that exchange briefly on December 20, to change his or the government's tune in the submission to the board in the case of these nine Polish seamen. Most of us know there can be no justification for the alibi that this is a matter which is before the board and therefore the government should stand back.
The fact is the government is represented before that board by a lawyer and the government gave him some kind of instructions to appear before the board. Quite obviously, they have not given this lawyer instructions to present to the board a statement of government policy that Canada in the past has given refuge to people from Communist countries.
I shall conclude by quoting one of the most amazing answers ever given in the House of Commons. It is so amazing that it skipped completely over the head of the fourth estate. This is found in Hansard for November 27 at page 3248 in reply to a written question of mine about illegal Greek immigrants into Canada. I had asked the minister
Did any of the above-
Referring to Greek nationals
-seek refuge in Canada on political grounds and, if so, how many requests were (a) granted (b) refused.


The answer was that no figures are available. If a government department or minister does not know how many people have come to Canada and have asked and pleaded with us to give them asylum because they would be imperiled if they went somewhere else then, sir, it is no government at all.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) for his question. As he mentioned earlier, he asked a similar question on December 20 last which was followed by a supplementary question by the honourable member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) who also shows a particular interest for those Polish seamen seeking asylum in Canada.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that desertion by Polish seamen is not a new thing. These seamen are not the first to desert and ask for political asylum.
In 1966, the department had to deal with seven cases of deserting seamen who wanted to seek political asylum; in 1967, there were 22 such cases and 29 in 1968. The honourable member for Halifax-East Hants said a while ago that the department made a mockery of requests for political asylum. The department does not make a mockery of those requests but the person concerned must give proof of being a political refugee. Until now, there has been no proof that, in the past, deserting Polish seamen, or their families were victims of maltreatment on the part of the government once they had returned to their country. Certain cases were accepted by the department, thanks to a permit granted by the minister.
In this case, the request was turned down by the Appeal Board; some time ago, a new request was turned down and, last week or the week before, a new appeal was made to the board which is due to give its ruling this week. I can assure the honourable member that if the applicants prove to the board that upon returning to their country they will be maltreated or persecuted by their government, the commissioners will grant their request and allow them to become Canadian citizens.
Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that Canada, more than any other country, facilitates immigration: proof has been given of this. I therefore fail to see why constant
January 14, 19B9	COMMONS
attempts are being made to blame the present government, claiming that it prevents immigration or puts restrictions on it. In some cases, for the protection of the Canadian citizens, special attention must be given to certain requests and that is why we have made changes in our restrictions to immigration.
The honourable member can rest assured that the Department of Immigration does everything possible to study fairly all requests for immigration coming from various countries, but he must also understand that we cannot-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.


Gérard Loiselle: -accept all the requests that are presented.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.



TRANSPORTATION ACROSS BAY OF FUNDY

Louis-Roland Comeau: The subject I wish to deal with is certainly not new to this house. We have brought this matter to the attention of the Department of Transport on many occasions and I am disappointed that there is not a member of the Department of Transport here tonight.
It is my information that about 15 years ago there was a considerable push for a tram-car ferry from Digby to Saint John. Approximately ten years ago a ferry for carrying all kinds of road vehicles was proposed. Approximately six years ago the real push was made, but it was then realized that we might be too late and that south western Nova Scotia had perhaps missed the boat. Since then what have we received? The Princess Helene was replaced by the former Princess Nanaimo, renamed the Princess of Acadia. This ferry that had become obsolete in British Columbia was supposed to be the answer to our transportation problems.
Mr. Regan, the present leader of the Nova Scotia Liberal party, referred to this matter on July 26, 1963 as recorded in Hansard at page 2697. My information is that in 1963 there was almost a firm agreement between the government and the C.P.R. and that only the dots on the "i's" and the crosses on the "t's" had to be accomplished. What has happened since then?
Since 1965 some 22 questions have been asked by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan), all relating to this matter.
DEBATES	4287
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion In 1968 I personally raised the matter about a half a dozen times. The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) has raised this matter on many occasions since he has been here. The answers provided to these questions by the ministry have ranged from: the matter is now under study; we are now negotiating; we are experiencing technical difficulties and, lately, the service will be provided soon. When is "soon", Mr. Speaker?
The Trudeau announcement of May 30, 1968 related to a multi-million project; a $17 million freight-auto-passenger service. That evening the Liberal candidate was interviewed at a political rally. He indicated that a decision had been made to proceed with the building of a ferry and the terminal this year. That was 1968.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
It is a shame, Mr. Speaker, that politics is abused to this extent. There is no patronage, but no boat either, and the people of southwestern Nova Scotia, in the Annapolis Valley, are frustrated, infuriated and depressed by announcements that keep repeating the word "soon". Every time there is political prestige or political headlines to be made, it is the same story-"soon". The Digby Courier of January 9, last week, contained an article wherein a councillor reported to that newspaper that news reports indicated that the tender for the new ferry to run between Digby and Saint John would be awarded soon and that contracts for the terminal would be let in the near future. The same story appeared again last week.
Today I asked a question in the house and received the same answer. What is the secret? Why the sea of secrecy? I say to the government, tell the people, tell the boards of trade, tell the municipal and town governments, tell the M.P.'s and the business people what the hold-up is. What is the problem? Tell us so that we do not have to start anew every time a new government or a new minister is appointed. If the government is not responsible for this and it is the C.P.R. or other agencies that are responsible, why make announcements at all?
It is the responsibility of the government to provide this essential highway link and they should be able to overcome these difficulties. There is an economic future for the Atlantic area but the whole transportation problem must be solved, not only water transportation but air transportation. There is a future for our fishing industry. There is a future for eastern agriculture. There is a possibility of
January 14, 1969
4288	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion attracting new industry, but we must stop playing politics and use a little bit of common sense.
I suggest to this just society that transportation is the key, and that we must get on with the job.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the ferry service from Digby to Saint John has been

operated for many years by the Canadian Pacific Railway. It has now been agreed that the responsibility for providing a new vessel for this service belongs to the C.P.R. The C.P.R. has received tenders for the construction of the new vessel and should make an announcement in the next week or so as to where it will be built and when it will be ready.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Wednesday, January 15, 1989