1969-02-10

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give a brief statement to the house about the government's progress in establishing relations with the People's Republic of China. Our embassy in Stockholm has been instructed to get in touch with the embassy of the People's Republic of China in order to convey the Canadian proposal that talks concerning relations between the two countries be held at a mutually convenient time and place in the near future. I hope that before long we shall have a reply from the Chinese government and that representatives of our two countries can then begin to discuss the question of recognition of the People's Republic of China and the exchange of embassies between Ottawa and Peking.
We also hope to be able to take this opportunity to explore with Chinese officials the whole range of Sino-Canadian relations, and to discuss the possibilities for expanding and developing our relations in a number of areas. Even without diplomatic relations, we have been able to develop our trade, exchange correspondents between Ottawa and Peking, and increase contacts between Canada and China in a number of fields in recent years.
There will be a number of questions for our officials to discuss with the Chinese. It is not only a question of working out a satisfactory basis for recognition and the exchange of embassies, but of reaching agreement on a number of details relating to the operations of a Canadian embassy in Peking and a Chinese embassy in Ottawa. Since these questions are
to be the subject of discussion, I do not think it would be appropriate to say any more about them now.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Roy-al: First of all, Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat awkward to attempt to respond to a statement concerning the People's Republic of China without having notice, but I suppose members of parliament have been made aware, by statements, of the government's intentions in this regard. I would hope those countries of the world such as Italy, Belgium and Canada that are now engaged in serious negotiations with the People's Republic of China will be flexible enough so that the Nationalist government of China as represented in Taiwan will not by its action be outside the world community. However, presumably this would be a decision of the government of Taiwan and not a decision of the government of China.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Of course it is quite unrealistic for 700 million of the world's people to be outside the ordinary diplomatic exchanges among nations, and I think that anybody who has made a study of international matters feels that a change would have to be made, I personally hope the day will not be too far removed when the People's Republic of China can take its place as a member of the United Nations, because I believe that universality of membership in the United Nations is an objective that all countries should pursue.
Obviously the negotiations will take place in secret, but you know, Mr. Speaker, white papers do not have to be lengthy documents and it would be a help in a so-called participatory democracy if the government's intentions toward the People's Republic of China and the Nationalist government of China were made the subject of a white paper.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we of the New Democratic party welcome the announcement that has
February 10, 1969
5308	COMMONS
Relations with People's Republic of China been made today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). As the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) has just indicated because of reports in the press we have been aware of the moves the government has been taking. We are glad, however, to have this progress report made on the floor of parliament itself.
We wish the government well in the discussions into which it is now proposing to enter, and we hope they will be successful. We are glad to note that the discussions will be concrete, in that the government aims not just at formal recognition but at the actual exchange of ambassadors.
We would like also to support the plea made by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, which we have made for years, that the Canadian government go the further step and urge that the government of the People's Republic of China be seated in the United Nations.
Any views that any of us have on this matter are entirely apart from any question of ideology. Whatever social or economic philosophy the people of Mainland China may be following, the fact is that they are 700 million people, a very large proportion of the world's population, and it has been quite unrealistic for them to be outside of the family of nations, in the way that has obtained for the past number of years. We welcome the statement; we wish the government success in these important negotiations.



CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-169, to amend the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, very briefly the purpose of this bill is to benefit the consumers of Canada by requiring that the manufacturers and retailers of manufactured products, such as appliances, state at the point of sale the life expectancy of their products, thus informing the purchaser of what service timewise he or she is going to get for his or her dollar.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

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

Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Does the Department of Labour issue documents which are of the nature of press releases, press communiques, news releases or the like and, if so, how many such documents have been issued since July 1, 1968?
2.	What has been the cost of (a) printing headings or cover sheets (b) typing the stencils (c) mimeographing or other form of duplicating (d) collating and stapling (e) addressing and mailing the said documents?
3.	With respect to the paper used for the said documents, what is (a) its quality (b) the quantity used and the cost thereof?
4.	What is the estimate of the number of manhours consumed in the preparation, production and distribution of such documents?


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: 1. Yes, 66.
2.	(a) $39; (b) Not applicable; (c) $60; (d) $140; (e) $25.
3.	(a) No. 7 bond 16 lb.; (b) 125,000 sheets, $250.
4.	110 hours.


LODGING FOR VISITING PERSONNEL
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Does any department of the federal government rent apartment suites or single dwellings for the purpose of providing lodging to out of town personnel, out of town departmental personnel, or foreign visitors?
2.	If so, what departments have made such arrangements?
3.	If so, how many such units have been rented or leased and what is the per unit rate?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. Yes.
2.	(i) Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; (ii) Public Service Commission.
3.	(i) One 10 room staff house at Elliot Lake, Ontario, leased at $135 per month; (ii) One apartment suite is leased in Toronto under the bicultural-bilingual exchange program at an annual rental of $3,636.
Two apartment suites are leased in Quebec City under the bicultural-bilingual exchange program, each at an annual rental of $3,300.
February 10, 1969


SALE OF LANGUAGE STUDY AIDS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Does the Queen's Printer, or any other official of the government envisage the sale at a reduced price of records or other aids whereby the study of French or English could be brought within the reach of all Canadians and, if not, for what reason?
2.	What is the government doing to make culture available to those of limited means, does the government have a policy on this matter and, if so, what is this policy?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Public Printing and Stationery and the Department of the Secretary of State as follows: 1. The Queen's Printer has no records or other aids available at the present time for the study of the English or the French languages.
The role of the Queen's Printer is to meet the publishing requirements of government departments, and no request has yet been received for the publishing of such material.
2.	The Secretary of State Department through its associated agencies extends culture in a variety of ways to all Canadians.
The National Film Board provides a nation wide service by distributing films through film libraries to educational institutions, clubs, societies; the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation provides Canadians with a national broadcasting service in French and English, operating networks of television and radio stations and producing and procuring programs of information and entertainment; the National Library lends books to all libraries in Canada and provides reference services to institutions and private citizens; all accredited students and researchers have full access to the Public Archives; the National Museums
Manufactured goods (paint, putty, resins, etc.) Total shipments of all paints in Canada Exports of "paint and related products"
* -preliminary
2.	Research more or less directly related to paint technology is carried out in several government laboratories, including Building Research NRC, Applied Chemistry NRC, National Defence, Public Works Testing Laboratories, and the National Gallery. Expenditure for 1966-67 was about $190,000.
Questions
collect, conserve, catalogue and exhibit objects all year round in their respective fields, conduct research, plan and execute static displays and travelling exhibitions and arrange lectures, guided tours, films slides and extension programs.
Books, monographs, brochures and catalogues are available free or at a nominal cost. The new National Arts Centre will present French and English performing arts to Canadians by subsidizing tickets to reduce rates. The Canada Council, through a system of grants and scholarships helps Canadians to study the arts, humanities and social sciences.


CANADIAN PAINT RESEARCH PROGRAM
Mr. Caouetle: 1.	What was the total value of production and exports of the Canadian painting industry during the last fiscal year?
2.	Does the government carry out any research in the field of paints in order to develop a Canadian technology?
3.	Does the government subsidize the Canadian paint research program undertaken by the University of Toronto and, if not, will it consider subsidizing such research?
4.	To the government's knowledge, has the University of Toronto received any grants for its Canadian paint research program from the Paint Research Institute of the Federation of Societies of Paint Technology or from the Canadian Paint Manufacturers Association, and were any such grants abolished in recent years?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the National Research Council and the Department of Industry as follows:
1.	Information on the Canadian painting industry is available on a calendar year basis only:
1966	1967
$200,950,000	$210,634,000*
187,148,000	-
2,084,000	2,062,000
3.	The National Research Council does not give subsidies nor grants to universities, but does make grants to individuals. Dr. J. E. Guillet of the University of Toronto holds research grants from federal government agencies which last year totalled about $35,000.

February 10, 1969
Questions
4.	Yes. According to the latest information obtained by the Department of Industry, the University of Toronto has received from the Paint Research Institute of the Federation of Societies for Paint Technology financial support for one of its research programs for the years 1966-68. This program concerned photochemical reactions in polymers a field which has been considered to have importance to paint technology. The Federation of Societies for Paint Technology, in turn, receives support from the Canadian Paint Manufacturers Association and other Canadian paint associations.
It is understood that the Institute's grant to the University of Toronto is not being continued for 1969.


ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF CARTER COMMISSION
Mr. Gilbert: 1.	Did the Department of Finance commission six studies to be undertaken by the Institute for Policy Analysis of the University of Toronto regarding the economic effects of the recommendations of the Carter Commission on Taxation?
2.	What were the general results of these studies on the economic effects of the Carter Commission recommendations?
3.	As a result, were certain of the Carter Commission's recommendations adopted and did these studies confirm certain of the Carter Commission's views and, if so, what was the nature of each such recommendation confirmed?
4.	Was the Minister of Finance aware of these studies and their conclusions prior to presenting his budget to Parliament on November 30, 1967?
5.	Does the present Minister of Finance accept the general conclusions of the six studies sponsored by his Department?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minisler of Finance):: 1.
Yes.
2.	These results are evident in the studies themselves, with suitable reservations about the assumptions and qualifications and they cannot readily be summarized.
3.	The budget measures presented on October 22nd represented the views and conclusions of the Minister and the government not those of the Royal Commission, as was indicated in the Budget Speech. The Budget proposals were made after taking into account a wide range of views submitted to the Minister in letters and briefs as well as departmental and interdepartmental studies of the issues including academic articles and studies of the kind to which reference is made.
4.	The studies were not completed by November 30, 1967.
5.	The studies were prepared for the information and assistance of those working on tax reform measures in the government and others who are interested in the subject. The government's conclusions and views on these matters will be made known when it puts forward its own proposals for consideration.


HUMBER-ST. GEORGE'S-ST. BARBE, NFLD., POST OFFICES
Mr. Marshall: 1.	What post offices are to be closed in the electoral district of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe in the Province of Newfoundland?
2.	What is the reason in each case as to why such decision is being taken?
3.	What was the annual revenue of each post office to be closed and cost of operation?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned:
1. Post Office
Point-au-Mal Fox Island River Humbermouth-Corner Brook
2.	Reason for Closing 3. (a) Revenue

Limited usefulness	234.00
Limited usefulness	49.00
Extension of Letter	5,280.00
Carrier Delivery Service
North Boat	Limited usefulness
Harbour
Steady Brook	Limited usefulness

110.00
556.00
(b) Cost of Operation $
800.00
600.00
l 6,818.00 PM's salary < 3,758.04 Asst's salary l 720.00 Rental
11,296.04
800.00
1,200.00
February 10, 1969


TROIS-RIVIERES-DONNACONA WHARVES AND RETAINING WALLS
Mr. Malle: 1.	With regard to the construction of wharves and retaining walls along the North bank of the St. Lawrence River, between Trois-Rivieres and Donnacona, in what projects has the federal government participated since 1963?
2.	What was the total cost of construction, in each case?
3.	What was the total of the government's contribution, in each case?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minisler of Public Works):: 1 and 2. The Department has constructed retaining walls at the following locations:
Year
1963-	64
1964-	65
1965-	66
1966-	67
1967-	68
Location Champlain Ste. Marthe Cap de la Madeleine Champlain Ste. Marthe Cap de la Madeleine Cap Sante Cap Sante Champlain Ste. Marthe Cap de la Madeleine Champlain Ste. Marthe Cap de la Madeleine Champlain Ste. Marthe Cap de la Madeleine
Cost of Construction $ 44,400
117,900
127.000
4,100
1,460
13,500
69.000
97,300
52.000
115.000
85.000
47.000
Questions
3.	The federal contribution was 100% in all cases listed above.


GRANT TO NATIONAL HOCKEY TEAM
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	What control does the federal government have over the allocation of the $200,000 grant that they are making to Canada's National Team?
2.	What is the money being used for and what is the budget of the National Team and just who is on the payroll and for how much?
3.	Is there now an agreement for the National Team to be taken out of the hands of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association at the end of this season and, if so, in whose hands will it be?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The Federal grant to assist Canada's National Hockey Team is paid in the form of advances to the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association in meeting a budget previously approved by the Government on the recommendation of the National Advisory Council on Fitness and Amateur Sport.
2.	The authorized budget is attached. If is not customary for the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association to divulge details of its payroll except to its own membership.
3.	Arrangements are now in progress for Hockey Canada Incorporated to take over the management and operation of the National Team Program.


NATIONAL HOCKEY TEAM BUDGET 1968-69 SEASON
[Stage Direction]
Management and Operating Expenses	West $	East $Promotion, advertising, etc.	3,500	3,500Audit (both teams)	1,500	Equipment purchases	7,000	7,000Ice Rental, practices Management salaries, incl. managers, coaches,	2,000	2,000trainers, office staff Management travel and expenses, including	34,000	27,800scouting trips, etc.	7,000	3,400Office Rent	300	500Printing, Postage and office Supplies	1,600	1,600Telephone and Telegraph	3,000	1,000Trainer Supplies	1,800	1,500Insurance, travel, accident on players Miscellaneous including medical, repairs and	1,350	1,350maintenance	3,933	3,455Total Expenses	66,983	53,105
5312
Questions
[Stage Direction]
February 10, 1969
Game and Training Camp Expenses	West	East
	$	$
Training Camp: Transportation, 80 players	4,000	4,000Meals and Accommodation, 80xl0x$12	4,800	4,800Miscellaneous expenses	500	500Games in Canada: Transportation	23,500	17,500Meals and Accommodation on road	5,200	5,200Games Expenses including Referees, and	Miscellaneous	2,000	2,000Total Training Camp, Game Expenses	40,000	34,000Overseas Game Expenses:	Transportation: three tours including World	Championships, Prague	35,000	15,000Player Expenses, including scholarships	90,000	80,000Total Expenses	231,983	182,105Total program, West, East	414,088SUMMARY OF REVENUE:	Games in Canada, approximately 40 in total	80,000	60,000January International Tournament	12,000	12,000Games overseas	16,000	20,000Games prior to Championships in Prague	6,000	Total Team Revenues	114,000	92,000Total combined Revenue	$206,000Proposed Federal Government Grant	200,000CAHA and other sources	8,000
Total

Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancou-ver-Kingsway): 1.	What is the patient-capacity of the federally-owned Coqualeetza Hospital near Sardis, British Columbia?
2.	What has been its daily average of patients since January 1, 1967?
3.	Has the federal government initiated talks with the Government of British Columbia with a view to having the provincial government take over this hospital for either extended care patients or as a mental hospital?
4.	If so, when were these talks initiated?
5.	What was the response of the provincial government to the offer of the federal government?
6.	Is the provincial government prepared now to take advantage of the federal government's

willingness to turn over the hospital to the Province?


John Carr Munro: 1. The present rated capacity of the Coqualeetza Indian Hospital is 95 beds.
2.	1967, 84 patients; 1968, 45 patients.
3.	The Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance of the Province of British Columbia initiated discussion concerning the future of the Coqualeetza Hospital and its possible use as a mental health and geriatric facility. These talks followed upon the continuing liaison carried on at the operational
February 10, 1969

level concerning the appropriate method of hospitalizing within the existing system of hospitals the Indian patients in British Columbia requiring tuberculosis or mental hospitalization.
4.	April, 1968.
5.	It was apparent that a careful study was required of a number of factors bearing upon the best future use of the hospital. These factors relate to the integration of the hospital into the total health care system, the selection of an agency to operate the hospital, future financing of the hospital and the suitability of the building itself for various possible uses. Rather than "a response to an offer" there was agreement to carry out such a study prior to further action.
Questions


PRODUCTION AND EXPORT OF ELECTRICAL POWER
Mr. Caouetle: 1.	What amount of electrical power was produceu in the Province of Quebec in 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 and what percentage was exported?
2.	What amount of electrical power was produced in the Province of Ontario in 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 and what percentage was exported?
3.	What amount of electrical power was produced in the Province of British Columbia in 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 and what percentage was exported?
4.	What amount of Canadian produced electricity was exported to the United States?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisfer of Industry and Commerce):: The Dominion Bureau of
6. The Province continues to show an in- Statistics reports that: 1. Electric Energy in
terest in acquiring the hospital.			the Province	of Quebec:	
					Export +
				Deliveries	Deliveries
Exported	to other	to otherProduced	to U.S.A.	Provinces	ProvincesYear	000's Kwh.	Percentage of Production	1965	57,004,835	0.08	8.63	8.711966	62,741,625	0.04	10.04	10.081967	63,884,038	0.04	8.27	8.311968 (prelim)	64,983,106	0.06	7.48	7.542. Electric Energy in Ontario:	the Province	of	Deliveries	Export + DeliveriesExported	to other	to otherProduced	to U.S.A.	Provinces	ProvincesYear	000's Kwh.	Percentage of Production	1965	44,858,009	6.90	0.61	7.511966	48,583,007	6.68	0.26	6.941967	52,106,559	5.95	0.31	6.261968 (prelim)	56,076,755	4.51	0.52	5.033. Electric Energy in British Columbia:	the Province	of	Deliveries	Export + DeliveriesExported	to other	to otherProduced	to U.S.A.	Provinces	ProvincesYear	000's Kwh.	Percentage of Production	1965	18,831,987	1.63	0.06	1.691966	21,055,699	3.86	0.03	3.891967	21,594,526	2.47	0.02	2.491968 (prelim)	23,005,994	3.06	0.10	3.16
February 10, 1969
Questions
4.	Exports of Electric Energy from Canada to U.S.A.:
Year	000's Kwh.
1965	3,684,121
1966	4,397,333
1967	3,993,888
1968	(preliminary) 3,647,550


POST OFFICES CLOSED IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Gleave: 1.	How many post offices have been closed in Saskatchewan since September 1968?
2.	How many post offices are scheduled to be closed in the Province of Saskatchewan during 1969?
3.	Where are they located and what is the reason for the closure of each?


Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: 1. Fourteen.
2.	Eleven.
3.	(a) Cymric, Leney, Oakshela, Battrum, Calderbank, Halvorgate, Mutrie, Strong Pine, Feudal, Battle Creek, Beaver Flat, (b) Due to limited usefulness in each case.


CANADIANS ON U.S. QUOTA BASIS
Mr. Wooliiams: 1.	Has the government any knowledge of a new Immigration Act which recently became law in the United States placing Canadians on a quota system with peoples of other nations?
2.	What is the quota for Canadians wishing to go to the United States to live and work on a permanent basis?
3.	Has the Canadian Government protested to the American Government that Canadians are having to wait seven months to a year before they are advised whether they can be admitted to the United States?
4.	What is the average time taken to process applications by Americans wishing to live and work in Canada on a permanent basis?
5.	Has the Canadian Government received complaints from various corporations and industrial concerns in Canada that this new immigration legislation in the United States is discriminating against Canadians going to the United States to take employment?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of External Affairs and Manpower and Immigration as follows:
1.	The Canadian Government has been aware of the possible imposition of a ceiling on Western Hemisphere immigration into the U.S.A. since the relevant legislation was first

introduced in the United States Congress in 1965. The ceiling came into effect on July 1, 1968.
2.	While an individual quota has not been established for Canada or the other countries concerned, an aggregate quota has been imposed limiting immigration from all independent Western Hemisphere countries collectively to 120,000 per year.
3.	The Canadian Government places a high value on the traditional absence of any numerical restrictions on the freedom of movement of citizens of Canada and the United States across our shared international border. It is therefore the view of the Canadian Government that the introduction of a numerical limit on the movement of people between the two countries is regrettable in principle and sets an unfortunate precedent. The views of the Canadian Government were made known to the United States Government when the law was introduced in 1965 and again in 1968.
4.	On the average, it takes approximately three months from the date on which a formal application is first received from an American citizen until the granting of landed immigrant status can be authorized.
5.	No.


INCOME TAX RECEIPTS
Mr. Matte: 1.	During the last fiscal year, what was the total amount of personal income tax received by the government from all parts of Canada?
2.	What is the total amount of personal income tax received by the government from the Province of Quebec?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: The information is not available in the form requested. However, the following information is provided:	1. Federal
personal income tax assessed for the 1967 taxation year, exclusive of Old Age Security tax, for all parts of Canada amounted to $2,717,246,000.
2. Federal personal income tax assessed for the 1967 taxation year, exclusive of Old Age Security tax, attributable to the Province of Quebec amounted to $502,436,000.


R.C.M.P. PERSONNEL
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many members of the R.C.M.P. are (a) officers (b) non-commissioned officers (c) constables?
2.	How many R.C.M.P. personnel have left the service during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
February 10, 1969

3.	How many R.C.M.P. personnel have been recruited into the service in each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
4.	What are the five most common reasons given for leaving the service, apart from retirement according to policy?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: 1.	(a) 230 officers; (b) 3,136 non-commissioned officers; (c) 5,193 constables.
2.	Number of R.C.M.P. personnel who have left the service during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive, including retirement, are as follows: 1960-61, 247; 1961-62, 289; 1962-63, 278; 1963-64, 287; 1964-65, 325; 1965-66, 414; 1966-67, 394; 1967-68, 365; 1968-69, 252.
3.	Number of personnel recruited into the service in each of the years 1960-68 inclusive, are as follows: 1960-61, 526; 1961-62, 587; 1962-63, 629; 1963-64, 370; 1964-65, 592; 1965-66, 741; 1966-67, 976; 1967-68, 862; 1968-69, 621.
4.	(1) For other employment. (2) Release because of marriage prior to meeting Regulation requirements. (3) For higher pay than is provided by the Force. (4) Domestic problems. (5) To obtain a higher education.


NATIONALIZATION OF CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Has the Cape Breton Development Corporation completed nationalization proceedings and, if not, when will they be concluded?
2.	Have the shares or the property of nationalized firms been purchased?
3.	What was the book value of each of these firms at the time of purchase?
4.	What criteria were used in the evaluation of such properties?
5.	Were the former owners paid in cash or in interest bearing bonds?
6.	What amount was paid by the Cape Breton Development Corporation for the purchase of each firm?
7.	Has the Cape Breton Development Corporation taken advantage of section 10 of its Act concerning expropriation and, if so, what is the present stage of the proceedings?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. See No. 7 below.
2.	No.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	See No. 7 below.
5.	Not applicable.
6.	Not applicable.
Questions
7.	The properties of the "Companies" mentioned in Section 2(d) of the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act were expropriated by the Corporation on March 30, 1968 pursuant to Section 10 of that Act. Evaluation of the companies' properties is still being made according to the criteria set forth in Section 12 of the CBDC Act. Settlement action will be considered when this evaluation has been completed but at this stage it is impossible to supply an estimate of when all proceedings may be concluded.


BILINGUAL MEAT INSPECTION MARK
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Does the government intend to amend paragraph 5 of section 8 of the Meat Inspection Regulations in order to provide that the inspection mark be in both English and French and, if not, for what reason?
2.	What is the present stage of the study on the printing of labels in both official languages undertaken by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
3.	Will this report be laid before the House and, if not, for what reason?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture and Consumer and Corporate Affairs as follows: 1. Section 8 of the Meat Inspection Regulations deals with the application for registration under the provisions of the Meat Inspection Act and there is no paragraph 5 in that Section.
The Meat Inspection mark is provided for in part 4 Section 68 of the Meat Inspection Regulations. This section was amended on December 8, 1965 to provide for a redesigned Meat Inspection mark bearing only the word Canada together with the establishment number in figures.
Paragraph 5 of Section 68 which required the legend mark to be in English was revoked on December 8, 1965.
The original legend bearing the words "Canada Approved" was left in the regulations in order to provide for a transition period from the English language legend to the one bearing only the word Canada.
2. Preliminary discussions have taken place with a number of trade associations on the subject of the use of both official languages on labels in order to ascertain the extent to which bilingual labels are now used and to consider the technical, marketing, legal and graphic problems encountered in

February 10, 1969
Questions
bilingual labelling. The discussions are informal and exploratory and consideration has not so far been given to the preparation of a report on the subject.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


WELFARE MINISTERS CONFERENCE
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What were the results of the Welfare Ministers' conference held January 16 and 17, 1969?
2.	Does the government intend to establish a national legal-aid program to ensure that all citizens are equal before the law and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What study groups were established and what was their membership and terms of reference and when will they report to Parliament?


John Carr Munro: 1. The federal-provincial conference of Ministers of Welfare, which is now being held annually, was convened to consider a number of problems of mutual interest in the social welfare field. Major attention was given to the Canada Assistance Plan. The ministers agreed to collaborate in a variety of activities aimed at making their welfare programs more effective, particularly as they affect disadvantaged and alienated persons. They agreed to set up a number of task forces, working groups, and intergovernmental committees to achieve these objectives. The question of Indian welfare was considered, and the Ministers of National Health and Welfare and of Indian Affairs and Northern Development repeated the federal government's offer to the provinces to share in the costs of welfare programs to ensure that Indians would receive the same level and quality of services provided to other residents of the province. It was agreed that continued negotiations would be held on this subject.
2.	The question of federal support to provincial legal aid programs was discussed, but no conclusions were reached. Further consideration will be given to this subject at future conferences. The question of the establishment of a national legal aid program was not discussed. If and when any action is taken in this matter, it will be announced to parliament in the usual manner.
3.	It was agreed that three study groups would be set up. The first will develop a

research program on alienation as it relates to social assistance recipients. The second will study the possibility of a developmental approach to public assistance, with the aim of directing the major public assistance programs toward the rehabilitation of those who have a potential for complete or partial selfsupport. A study will also be undertaken of cost factors in social assistance, with special attention being given to improved financial and statistical reporting and better methods of analyzing caseloads and the factors contributing to rising assistance costs.
The determination of the terms of reference and membership of these study groups is being worked out in collaboration with the provinces. Reports of the studies will be made to a conference of federal and provincial Ministers of Welfare.


RETRAINING COURSES IN ADDITIONAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Noble: Is it the intention of the government to offer retraining courses in languages other than English and French, as suggested by the International Labourers' Union?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minisler of Manpower and Immigration):: The Department of Manpower and Immigration does not intend to offer retraining courses in languages other than English and French. All occupational training purchased by the Department of Manpower and Immigration for adults to be placed in such training by Canada Manpower counsellors is provided in French or English.


GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE-LANGUAGE CAPABILITIES OF APPLICANTS
Mr. Noble: How many applicants for the 29 vacant places in the eight week retraining programme at George Brown College in Toronto are being refused because of an imperfect command of the English language?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No applicants for these vacant places have or will be refused because of an imperfect command of the English language.
February 10, 1969


AUTHIER, QUE.-PUBLIC BUILDING
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works purchased land in Authier, constituency of Abitibi, Que., in order to construct a public building and, if so (a) what price was paid for the land (b) how does the Department intend to use it?
2.	Does the Department of Public Works own any other undeveloped land in the constituency of Abitibi and, if so (a) where are the lots located
(b)	how much was paid for them (c) how are they to be used?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes. (a) $850; (b) No decision has been made since this project was deferred because of the cancellation of the winter works programme.
2. Yes. (a) One lot at Taschereau; (b) $500;
(c)	It is proposed to erect a standard plan post office on that site.


EMIGRATION INFORMATION
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Since 1960, by year, how many persons have emigrated from Canada?
2.	To what countries did such persons emigrate?
3.	What was the occupation in Canada of each such person who emigrated in 1968?
4.	What was the average age of those who have emigrated since 1960, by year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Dominion Bureau of statistics reports that:
1. Emigration from Canada
To	To
Calendar Year United States United Kingdom
1960	48,682	11,3061961	45,209	10,3441962	47,579	7,4321963	51,512	5,2401964	49,995	9,7761965	49,656	10,2411966	28,837	9,2461967	38,854	10,066
Source: (a) Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice United States, (b) General Register Office, United Kingdom.
2.	Information only available for the United States and the United Kingdom.
3.	Immigrant aliens admitted to United States whose last permanent residence was
Questions
Canada, by major occupation group, 1967
(latest available):
Total	38,854
Professional, technical, and kindred
workers	6,519
Farmers and farm managers	36
Managers, officials and proprietors, except farm	1,028
Clerical and kindred workers	2,051
Sales workers	494
Craftsmen, foremen and kindred
workers	3,051
Operations and kindred workers 1,383 Private household workers	355
Service workers, except private household	1,380
Farm labourers and foremen	57
Labourers, except farm and mine	809
No occupation	21,691
4.	Average age of emigrants from Canada to United States, 1967=25.7
Note: This information is available only for emigrants to United States and for the year 1967.


YARMOUTH, N.S., NEW START PROGRAM
Mr. Comeau: 1. (a) Was office accommodation for the New Start Programme offices at Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, and at Lac Labiche, Alberta (i) purchased or (ii) rented, if (i), what was the total purchase price in each instance, if (ii), what is the annual rental in each instance (b) was office equipment, furniture etc. purchased or rented for these two New Start offices and at what cost in each instance and was re-decoration carried out in either or both of these two offices and, if so, at what cost (c) has any other property, building, vehicle or other similar major item been purchased in connection with the operation of either office and, if so, at what cost?
2	(a) How many persons are directly employed
as part of the New Start Programme in the Province of Nova Scotia (b) what proportion of the budget for New Start operation in Nova Scotia is accounted for by (i) salaries and wages, and (ii) capital expenditures?
3.	(a) How do the wages and salaries in each category of employment of the New Start Programme in Nova Scotia compare with national, provincial and local wage and salary scales (b) was any attempt made by those responsible for hiring personnel for employment with "New Start" in Nova Scotia to adjust wage and salary scales at a level with those prevailing locally?

February 10, 1969
Orders jor Returns


Russell Clayton Honey: A NewStart corporation is an autonomous, non-profit company set up under the provincial legislation of the province in which it operates, and requests for information about its internal management should therefore be made to the corporation concerned.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Gleave: What Departments of Government and Crown Corporations rent or lease space in the City of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (a) for how long (b) from whom (c) at what yearly cost?
Return tabled.


THE PRIME MINISTER-LIVING AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
Mr. Beaudoin: For each of the years since 1961, what amounts were allocated by the federal government as living expenses for the Prime Minister and for the maintenance and operation of his residence and household, apart from his salary?
Return tabled.


HOLDINGS OF SHARES IN BROADCASTING STATIONS
Mr. Mather: 1.	What are the regulations governing the holding of shares in Canadian radio and television broadcasting stations by non-Canadian corporations?
2.	Have special arrangements been made by the CRTC with regard to the amount of stock held by non-Canadians in the Canadian Marconi Co. Ltd. and its broadcasting division, CFCF Radio (A.M. and F.M.); and CFCF TV?
3.	If exceptions have been made in respect to the regulations in this regard, on what basis or for what reasons was this done?
Return tabled.


RAILWAY TRACKAGE OF CANADIAN RAILWAYS
Mr. Matte: In each province, what is the total length of railway track owned by the CNR and by the CPR?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister of National Revenue. It has to do with the seizure of a truck and commodities thereon brought in from the United States by Indians claiming their rights under the Jay treaty of over 150 years ago. Would the government advise whether or not this very harsh treatment of seizure under the particular circumstances will be ameliorated by a withdrawal of the seizure? After all they were our allies for generations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much the government knows about this, but I think we ought to have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman knows that even if the government does not know as much as it ought to in questions of this kind, the right hon. gentleman is allowed to ask the question but not to convey the information.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to convey any information. I simply ask this: First, will this harsh treatment be immediately avoided by a release of the truck and also the goods seized? Secondly, in view of the fact that the treaty rights with Indians should be upheld, even though juristically they are not in effect, does the government intend to respect the Jay treaty and the rights of these Ind'ans by bringing in legislation to actually rectify our failure over the years to approve the Jay treaty?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I do not know whether that question should be directed to me or to the Acting Prime Minister but, as far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned, it only enforces the law which does not contain any treaty. As for the incident of the seizure of the truck, officials are considering the consequences of that action.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether the policy of applying the
February 10, 1969

law of which he speaks is one which has been followed over the last number of years, or whether it is a policy which has just been operative in recent times.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I do not think that is a new policy, Mr. Speaker. A certain custom might have been condoned in the past concerning some Indians in the area, because it is well known that in some houses, the living room is in Canadian territory while the kitchen is in American territory. It is rather difficult to control all that, but upon my return from hospital, I knew that there had been some problems about certain customs. Anyhow this whole problem is under consideration.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to address this question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In his absence perhaps I might put it to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that more than 300 workers of the Kelvinator Company of Canada at London received lay-off notices last week, and in view of the fact there has been a recent change in the ownership of this company, will the government make representations to the parent company in the United States in the hope that these workers might not lose their jobs?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr.	Speaker, the question has
already been brought to the attention of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration by one of the members on this side of the house. I understand that representations are also being made by the department to prevent, if possible, these lay-offs and, in the event the lay-offs are inevitable, at least to make the transition for these people much easier through the services of the manpower department.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Earlier, Mr. Speaker, I was asked a question about the lay-off at the Kelvinator Company. I was somewhat ambiguous in my answer but I should like to be more specific. I said the matter was brought to my attention by a member on the government side. I should have said it was brought to my attention by my hon. friend from London East (Mr. Turner).
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



MIDDLE EAST-EXTENSION OF PRIVILEGES TO JEWISH REFUGEES

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will remember that I asked last Monday about the possibility of Canada admitting Jews from certain Middle East countries. Apparently the Jewish people of Iraq are particularly vulnerable at this time and I should like to ask the minister for a progress report.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, since this question was raised in the house the government has received a number of representations from the Canadian Jewish Congress and also from certain associations of Protestant churches, which have supported the plea that Canada take measures to provide a home for these Jewish people of various countries of the Middle East. These groups will be meeting this week with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and probably myself, to discuss how best we can take effective action. It is most important to realize, as I am sure my hon. friend knows, that we want to take action of a kind that will be most helpful to the people concerned, and will not result in any reprisals or any other actions that would be detrimental to their interests.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE SUBMISSION OF NEW TAX-SHARING PROPOSALS

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: In the
absence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance who are in another place-not the other place-I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government of Canada will have new proposals to make to the federal-provincial conference on the matter of tax-sharing?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the Prime Minister made very clear at the conference this morning, which I had the privilege of attending, all matters affecting the division of powers both on the spending and taxation side are open for discussion at this conference. He said he would welcome just as open a discussion on these matters as he would on other matters in respect of which there are specific proposals from the federal government.
February 10, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



CANADIAN REPRESENTATION AT BASEL BANKERS MEETING

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether Canada was represented at the meeting of western central bankers at Basel which is reported as having reached an agreement on a plan to combat the flows of speculative funds from one country to another, and did we agree to the plan?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this question as notice in order that my colleague the Minister of Finance can answer with authority.



TRANSPORT


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether the government will be taking the opportunity this week, while the premier of Prince Edward Island is in Ottawa, to make a full and clear statement on action in respect of the construction of the Northumberland Strait crossing?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I saw in the press that the Premier of Prince Edward Island indicated that he is desirous of meeting a group of cabinet members when he is here, and I imagine that may be one of the matters he will want to discuss. I would think that an early, definite statement in respect of the crossing could be expected.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Sainl John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister in this connection? Has he any information with regard to meetings that will be held by the government with the Atlantic premiers, apart from the conference itself, on such matters as Atlantic union, transportation, and things that are important to those provinces?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am quite satisfied that the premiers of those provinces would not lose an opportunity of making their views known to the government, and I am sure members of the government would be very happy to hear what they have to say while they are in Ottawa.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, can I take it that the government is also interested, and will

show some leadership, in the matters 1 have mentioned, namely transportation, Atlantic union and other questions important to the Atlantic provinces?



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Has the minister received representations from non-profit organizations, such as professional groups like doctors, church groups, co-operatives, trade unions and the ethnic press, to the effect that the new postal rates will mean the end of many of their publications, and difficulty for all their publications?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in order. It is not sufficient to ask what representations have been received by a minister.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could rephrase the question I tried to ask the Postmaster General, and ask the minister whether he is reviewing the new postal rates set for non-profit publications, in view of the difficulties being experienced by these publications.


Eric William Kierans: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that all of those who support various non-profit organizations take account of the increased costs of their projects.



NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING FIVE-DAY DELIVERY

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Is the minister now in a position to report any progress in his discussions with the leaders of the postal workers unions on the question of five-day delivery?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I met on Thursday for a lengthy period with the national council of the two unions. I am at their disposal. They are continuing their own discussions. I expect, or hope, that I will have something to say tomorrow.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. SpeakeT, I have a supplementary question for the Postmaster General. As a result of his discussions with the unions, is the government or his
February 10, 1969



department contemplating giving mail delivery to businesses and retail establishments on a six-day basis?


Eric William Kierans: No, Mr. Speaker; the question of extending the five-day week has not come up.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the limited number of inspections under P.F.A.A., when does the department expect to complete payment to those eligible for payment?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, no specific date can be given at this time. Some of the inspections had to be delayed because harvesting was not completed last fall in some of the townships. The severely cold weather in the area until a very few days ago also prohibited the normal inspections that would have gone forward at that time.



TASK FORCE-PUBLICIZING OF RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE AGRICULTURAL CONFERENCE

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that some reports of the task force on agriculture have been made public, is it the policy of the minister to release to the public all the papers of the task force on agriculture prior to the agricultural conference in late March?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking the minister to make a policy statement. The question as asked is not in order.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: May I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker? Will the minister release these policy papers to the public prior to the conference in late March?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: They are not policy papers; they are position papers containing findings and some alternative recommendations of the task force. It is our hope that all nine of them-I believe there are nine separate papers-will be ready and translated so that we can distribute them to the approximately 400 delegates who will be invited to attend the agriculture congress. When they are released or sent to the delegates who will be attending, I see no reason why all members of this house, and indeed the press, should not have copies of them also.
Inquiries of the Ministry CONSUMER AFFAIRS



TETRACYCLINE-EVIDENCE OF PRICE FIXING

['I have dealt with this question on a number of occasions and really have nothing more to add to what I have already said.']
Mr. James A. McGraih (St. John's East):: In
the absence of the minister, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Does the government have any evidence of price fixing in Canada on the part of companies manufacturing the drug tetracycline, and if so what action is the government contemplating?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question should be placed on the order paper.



Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs based on the important announcement he made today in connection with the discussions which are to take place with the People's Republic of China. In any such discussions would the government of Canada bear in mind the principles of national self-determination, nuclear non-proliferation, and other principles contained in the universal declaration of human rights?


Mitchell William Sharp: I can say to the hon. gentleman that one of the purposes Canada has in mind in establishing relations with the people who are under the control of the government of the People's Republic of China is to facilitate the sort of international discussion that has produced the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the declaration of human rights. By bringing about a closer relationship with the government of that country we hope we can promote the acceptance of these principles in that area, as well as in other parts of the world.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister did not deal with the third proposition I put before him, that of national self-determination, which I think is of some importance.


Mitchell William Sharp: I certainly did not mean to overlook that. It is the very foundation upon which relations between states are based, and certainly we hope that the government of the People's Republic of China will support that principle as strongly as we do.

February 10, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for clarification. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said, in answer to an earlier question, that it is the intention of the government to exchange diplomatic relations with Mainland China, as if this were a firm decision. Will this not be dependent on negotiations that are to take place, and also to some extent on the terms to be agreed?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated on a number of occasions, and so has the Prime Minister, that it is the purpose of this government to establish relations between Peking and Ottawa and to exchange diplomats. Whether we achieve that purpose will of course depend not only upon our own actions but upon actions of the People's Republic of China.
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): I have a supplementary question. Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs assure the house and the people of Canada that such an agreement between Mainland China and Canada will not be at the expense of the government of Taiwan?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have dealt with this question on a number of occasions and really have nothing more to add to what I have already said.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Max  Bailsman@Waterloo: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and ask him whether he or his department is giving any consideration to a feasibility study of a guaranteed annual income for veterans.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking a question of very wide scope. He is asking the minister to give a policy statement, which, I suggest to him should not be done at this time.


Mr. Salisman:: I wonder if I might make my question a little more specific and ask the minister whether he is considering the question of a guaranteed income for veterans.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid the second question appears to be very much like the first one, and I suggest to the hon. member that the rules applying to the second question apply to the first one, and vice-versa.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has Canada been participating in the talks or consultations which West Germany has been holding with her western allies over East Germany's restrictions on access to Berlin, and what is the Canadian government's position in regard to the latest attempt to deny access to that city?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have been kept
informed of these discussions through our membership in NATO. Since we are not one of the four powers involved, we have not been direct participants in the discussions, so it has not been necessary for us to take a position.



FISHERIES


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Canadian government obtained the views of the new United States administration on the implementation by Canada of the 12 mile Canadian exclusive fishing zone?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have not entered into discussions with the new United States administration. There have of course been a number of consultations with the United States government in this field over a number of years, but not recently at a ministerial level.


David Anderson: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can we assume from the minister's reply that it is the intention of the Canadian government to discuss this question with the United States authorities in the near future?


Mitchell William Sharp: I can assure the hon. member that we in the government recognize that this is one of the more urgent questions facing us, but we have not yet determined how best we can make progress in achieving our objectives.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the Acting
February 10. 1969	COMMONS
Prime Minister inform the house what progress in being made on Canada's territorial sea and fishing limits bill with the government of France, since the base lines have been determined near the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, and there would appear to be some difficulty-


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubts whether that question is in order. The hon. member is asking the minister to give a statement of a very general nature. Unless there is urgency in the matter which escapes me, the question is not in order. However, if there is, perhaps the minister might want to reply to the question.


Mitchell William Sharp: Of course the whole question of fishing zones is a matter that affects not only our relations with the United States but also our relations with France, with whom we have a treaty. These matters have been the subject of a good deal of attention within the government, because we realize that if we are going to make progress in one direction we probably have to make progress in all directions with all the countries affected. I have not yet personally engaged in any discussions with the French government, but the matter is very much before us at the present time.


James Aloysius McGrath: have a supplementary question. Would the minister call upon the services of the government of Quebec in this regard? Perhaps they might be a little more helpful.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the wholesale protests over the increased rent on post office boxes, has the Post Office Department initiated a review of this problem?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in order. Perhaps the second part of the question is in order but it should be prefaced by a statement. However, this caveat having been made, perhaps the minister might like to reply to the question.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, we announced the policy that we were trying to recover the costs of the rental of post office boxes in various communities across the country, and that policy still stands.
DEBATES	5323
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation COMMUNICATIONS



ALLEGED COLLUSION BETWEEN TELEPHONE AND CABLE TELEVISION COMPANIES

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but in his absence and the absence of his two substitutes may I direct it to the Postmaster General, who will have some interest in the subject matter under the new reorganization of the government. Is his department or the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs conducting an investigation into a case of apparent collusion between Bell Telephone Company and five cable TV companies in the Toronto area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question should be placed on the order paper.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Otto E. Lang ((Saskatoon-Humboldl) for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: that Bill S-4, respecting the marketing of articles containing precious metals, be read a third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-148 to regulate interprovincial and export trade in freshwater fish and to establish the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, be read a third time and passed.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I rise to speak briefly on the third reading of Bill C-148, an act to regulate interprovincial and export trade in freshwater fish, and to establish the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. It is my opinion that this particular act has received a thorough study by all concerned, at all stages of the bill.
The measure was first debated at the resolution stage under our old rules of procedure, and was given first reading on December 18, 1968. On January 16 the bill was again before
February 10, 1969
5324	COMMONS
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation the house where it was thoroughly debated, given second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. The standing committee met on Tuesday, January 28, a clause by clause study was carried out, and the bill as amended was reported to the house.
On Friday, February 7, the house again dealt with this measure at the report stage and members on this side of the house did their best to amend the legislation in order that the corporation, when opening its doors for business, might be truly representative of the people whom it was designed to serve. In this we were only partly successful, but the subamendment moved to our amendment by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) indicated a change of heart on the part of members supporting the government, and we believe the corporation will be better served by an advisory committee of 15 members, of whom at least one third should be persons or representatives of persons actively engaged in the freshwater fishing industry as fishermen.
It is unfortunate, in our view, that the government could not accept the suggestion that the Auditor General be appointed to carry out an annual audit of the accounts and financial transactions of the corporation. We took this stand because the bill does not indicate who will keep the books, who will be responsible for the preparation of financial statements or who is to be responsible for auditing the accounts of the corporation. The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) has stated that in the end the Auditor General may well be the auditor appointed to audit the books of the corporation. However, his refusal to place this wording in the act raises some doubts in our minds concerning the person or persons who will ultimately be responsible for auditing the accounts of the corporation. After all, the Canadian taxpayer has a considerable stake in this corporation. It is to receive, initially, a grant of an amount not exceeding $100,000, with power to borrow up to five million dollars, backed up by the resources of the federal government, which really means by the people of Canada.
It is easy to understand our concern with regard to the responsibility for auditing the books of this corporation when one looks at some of the classic examples of mismanagement and improper estimating which have come to light recently. The increase in expenditures over estimates for the refitting of the Bonaventure, the increase in expenditures


over the estimates for the National Arts Centre, are staggering and they literally have the taxpayers of Canada hanging on the ropes.
When setting up this corporation we are dealing with an estimate, made by someone within the department, and we are told that a grant of $100,000 will enable the corporation to meet initial operating and establishment expenses. From experience of the examples to which I have referred, we have no way of knowing what the actual costs will be. We can only hope and pray that this estimate will be more accurate than estimates made in the past, since under clause 15 (1) the corporation is required to conduct its operations on a self-sustaining financial basis without appropriations therefor by parliament. If the initial estimate is too low, what happens to the corporation? Neither the bill nor the minister has been very clear on this point and I suggest it is one which he may wish to clarify.
The same question would apply to the amount which may be borrowed by the corporation, since the amount of any bank loans shall not exceed five million dollars. I presume this figure is also an estimate. I cannot help but wonder what would happen to the corporation if its total funds became tied up in property and in holding fish in storage to obtain higher prices. Certainly the fishermen could not come to its rescue, and I wonder whether the responsibility would not rest with the federal government or the provinces to provide more capital.
It is evident, Mr. Speaker, that under the terms of this all-encompassing legislation covering the buying, filleting, freezing, packaging and preparing of fish for market, high costs will be involved at the initial stage. The corporation, according to its purposes and powers, must not only buy and prepare fish but it must store, ship, insure, import, export, market, sell and otherwise dispose of fish and fish byproducts manufactured or produced by it. In addition it must establish branches or employ agents in Canada or elsewhere. It must make loans of working capital on a seasonal basis to persons engaged in fishing for commercial purposes in a participating province, and do all such other things as are necessary to the carrying out of any of its functions under the act. And it must do all these things, Mr. Speaker, on a capital grant of $100,000.
It seems to me that what we have before us is another faulty estimate. If this corporation is to carry out all the requirements of the freshwater fish industry I question the judgment of the man or men who made the initial
February 10, 1969	COMMONS
estimate covering the requirements of the board.
If the corporation can be established and become a successful, effective organization, providing better prices and services to inland fishermen, using the amounts as listed in this bill, the corporation will in my view have achieved its objective. There can be only one purpose for this corporation, and that is to provide some 7,000 inland fishermen in the vast area covering northern Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories with a better standard of living through a higher percentage return on the fish they catch. Under private enterprise, according to the Mclvor Committee report, fishermen received between 50 per cent and 60 per cent of the export price. These figures are known, so it will be up to the corporation to do better.
It will be the responsibility of the corporation to bring about an improvement in the bargaining position of our inland fishery, by co-ordinating supply and demand and by providing uniform standards and quality control. It will be the responsibility of the corporation to improve the quality of all the fish it places on the market, so that the consumer will have confidence in Canadian fresh water fish products.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
It will also be the responsibility of the corporation to co-ordinate the handling and processing of all freshwater fish; and, most important of all, it will be the corporation's responsibility to see that the hoped for higher export earnings will be passed on directly to the fishermen. In the final analysis it is the lone fisherman with whom we must be concerned. Unless his earnings are increased, unless he is given an opportunity to improve his status in the community, unless he is given a better income to provide for the needs of his family and for the education of his children, this whole exercise becomes one which only increases government bureaucracy, without providing any real assistance for the people it was designed to help.
Since the marketing board concept for an inland fishery is an entirely new departure- to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, this is the first time we have had a federal fresh fish marketing corporation in Canada-I cannot help but wonder what efforts are being made by all the governments concerned to acquaint fishermen who reside in this vast
DEBATES	5325
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation area with the authority as well as the scope of the operations of the board.
In view of the marketing difficulties experienced by our fishermen, which in effect brought about the establishment of this marketing board, I cannot help but wonder whether the Canadian government has made a formal approach to the government of the United States to agree on a method of inspection of whitefish satisfactory to both governments. This is an important consideration at the initial stages of the setting up of this corporation. Apparently some 80 per cent of all our fish exported to the United States consists of whitefish. Since there is no standard inspection and since the whitefish at times are infected with a parasite, making the fish unacceptable to the United States authorities although that fish may be accepted by our Canadian authorities, I suggest to the government and the minister piloting this bill through the house that, if the freshwater fish corporation is to be successful, this is one area in which the government ought to consider taking action.
I wish to say that we, on this side, support this legislation. We hope, for the sake of the people in the vast area the corporation will serve, that the corporation will be successful in its operations.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on third reading of Bill C-148, an act to regulate interprovincial and export trade in freshwater fish and to establish the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, will be brief. The hon. member for South Shore who has just taken his seat gave the house a comprehensive resume of how this legislation will affect our freshwater fishermen. I am rising at this time to suggest to the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang), who is piloting this bill through the house, that he should look at the record of a fish marketing board which was set up in Saskatchewan a number of years ago under a socialist government in that province. As I recall, the record of that board, was none too enviable. We ought to make certain that the board to be set up under this legislation is not similar to the one set up under that socialist government. Under the previous board Saskatchewan fishermen complained that the return they received from their product was too low and not equitable to the cost of production. The administrative costs of that board were also too high.
February 10, 1969
5326	COMMONS DEBATES
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation
Before regulations under the present bill are finally implemented I suggest that the minister take a look at the records showing how the previous board operated. A close study of that situation may be well worth while. I am sure he will appreciate what I am referring to.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few brief comments on this bill. We have had a good debate at all stages of the bill, one of the last to go through a resolution stage before the rules changed. We had a lively discussion in committee and, although we did not succeed in getting amendments through, at least the government accepted several of them in a watered down version. The result is better legislation.
Before the minister replies to our questions and closes debate I would ask that, in the course of his summation, he shed some light on the government's timetable regarding the establishment of a salt fish marketing board,-and I hope you will permit me to speak for just a moment on this subject, Mr. Speaker. I shall not speak as to the merits of a salt fish marketing board, but I do express the hope that the board to be set up under the present bill is a forerunner of a similar board to do with the marketing of salted codfish.
Meeting with the president of the Newfoundland Federation of Fishermen, the Minister of Fisheries indicated that it was the government's policy to set up a marketing board for the marketing of salt codfish. Considering the serious marketing problems facing this industry we hope the government is sincere, and will set up such a board. Perhaps in reply the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan might take us into his confidence, as his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries did with the president of the Newfoundland Federation of Fishermen.
We in this party, Mr. Speaker, support this legislation. We wish the minister well in this particular endeavour. At the same time we point out that any piece of legislation is only as good as those administering the legislation. For the sake of our fishermen we hope fish prices increase, and that the markets remain stable and improve in size. In all these respects we wish the minister well.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker,
I hope I am not out of order under our new
(Mr. Southam.]
rules in asking the minister responsible for piloting this bill through the house to reconsider the decision with respect to appointing the Auditor General to serve as auditor of this corporation. When the amendment was before the house the minister said he was not in favour of so appointing the Auditor General, because he wanted to remain flexible in the matter of appointments. His position seemed vague, and I for one would prefer the minister to take a definite stand on this matter.
Could this bill not have a provision written into it similar to section 16 of the measure establishing the National Arts Centre, or section 35 of that setting up the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation? Those sections specify that the Auditor General of Canada shall be the auditor of the corporation in question. I think hon. members of the house feel that our own Auditor General ought to audit the books of this corporation, and I am at a loss to know why the minister turned down the amendment the other day. I hope he will give the matter second thoughts, and that the Auditor General will be permitted to audit the books of the corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I expect hon. members know that according to the rules the minister is not entitled to reply on third reading. Of course if hon. members agreed by way of unanimous consent that the minister be allowed to reply to some of the speeches made, there would be no difficulty. Otherwise, by virtue of citation 166 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, there would be some difficulty in allowing the minister to reply at this stage.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the minister be given the consent of the house to speak at this stage. I would also like to suggest that Your Honour, or perhaps the Committee on Procedure and Organization, might take another look at this point in view of the slight change of emphasis which has been made with respect to second reading and third reading. Under our former regime the second reading was extremely important and treated as a substantive motion which permitted the mover of second reading to reply at the end of the debate. The second reading stage has now been slightly downgraded, at least, the second reading vote, and the third reading stage upgraded. It seems to me it
February 10, 1969	COMMONS
makes sense that on the third reading it should be regarded as important for the minister to have the right of reply. All I suggest today is that we consent to the minister replying, and I hope he will give a favourable reply about the Auditor General. I think the right of reply at this stage might be looked at in the light of the changes made in the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is of great interest. As a leading member of the committee in question, I am sure he will want to initiate discussion. He may suggest that instead of the right of reply being on second reading, it could be on third reading so that citation 166 would not apply at third reading but would apply to second reading. This is something to which hon. members will want to give consideration. For the moment the Chair is guided, I am afraid, by the precedents, although as I suggested a moment ago there is no difficulty if hon. members agree. I assume they will agree to allow the minister to reply at this time.


Mr. Lang (Saskaloon-Humboldl):: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the indulgence of hon. members in allowing me to say a few words at this stage. I also appreciate the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I had no real intention to rise and speak at this point. It is really only to answer several of the questions raised by hon. members that I do so at this time. The matter has had very full debate and I will not cover any ground already traversed.
The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) was somewhat concerned about the amounts of money specifically referred to in the bill. This, of course, is the best estimate at this time as to the amounts which in effect are appropriate maximums for the various purposes involved. It is difficult to decide when a maximum is in fact a reasonable maximum, but it would be a bad principle to enlarge these amounts indefinitely above what is reasonably to be expected. Should these expectations not be verified by the developments, we might be in the position of having to look at them again, but this is our best expectation at this time.
I would like to assure the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam) that we had a careful look at the manner of operation of the fish marketing board which
DEBATES	5327
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was an experiment in the province of Saskatchewan. We looked at its controversial record to which he referred in rather more definite terms. Marketing of fish is by no means limited to the borders of one province. However, the scope and power of that fish marketing board were necessarily limited to one province. In that regard this corporation we are now setting up will be much better off, because it will have the marketing control over the bulk of the freshwater fish from a very large area and the main control over almost all fish of a specific species. This board will be in a much better position to improve marketing conditions than was the Saskatchewan Board.
I will not comment on timetables for salt fish marketing boards or other endeavours in that regard. My colleague the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) has very much in mind the problems in this area. He will no doubt bring forward appropriate solutions to these problems in due course.
I regret to say to the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that I have nothing to add to the remarks made the other day in regard to the Auditor General. At that time I indicated I supported the sentiment of those who felt this was a proper use of the Auditor General. I indicated that the point of not legislating specifically was to allow some flexibility and some discussion about this matter with the corporation itself and the possible use by them of commercial auditing facilities in different aspects of their business prior to the formal audit, and the consequent convenience of using the same people for the audit. Certainly the use of the Auditor General is not in any way excluded.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I wonder whether I may ask a question of the Minister without Portfolio? Could he tell us whether the Canadian government has made a formal approach to the government of the United States asking them to agree on a method of inspection of white-fish which would be mutually satisfactory? This is a very important matter and I would like to know if representations have been made along these lines?


Otto Emil Lang: I do not
have anything new to report in regard to the discussions in areas like this which are going on at all times. I have no specific report to make in regard to the creation of this particular board.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
February 10, 1969

Export and Import Permits Act



EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Kon. Olio E. Lang (Saskaloon-Kumboldl) (for lhe Minisler of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill S-25, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill to amend the Export and Import Permits Act is a fairly simple one. It extends for a further period legislation which has been in effect for a considerable period of time. Legislation in 1947 created the Export and Import Permits Act as a successor to the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act. Since 1954 the bill has been brought before the house at three-year intervals to be re-enacted in each case.
The re-enactment at this time is scheduled for a five-year period as against the three-year period previously used. It is our feeling there may well be merit in having re-enactment of this bill by each parliament. The three-year period could bring it back before the same parliament for a second time, which is undesirable. Accordingly, this amendment is for a longer period.
The only other change in substance is the inclusion of the Canadian Dairy Commission Act in the list of acts under which action may be taken. This is really a housekeeping matter since this change in the Export and Import Permits Act has already been made in the Canadian Dairy Commission Act.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
It is under this legislation that certain steps can be taken by the government in regard to some matters of export and import control. The export control may relate to such matters as arms and ammunition or may supplement certain other specific intergovernmental arrangements that have been entered into. The import controls are similarly designed, frequently to supplement other governmental action and particularly to supplement action where stabilization of price is being undertaken under some other legislation.
The purpose of the act is also to ensure that in certain cases goods which are of particular importance to Canada may not be exported outside Canada without regard to the interests of this country. Therefore the bill before us is a fairly simple continuation of the existing legislation, and I am pleased at this point to move its second reading and that it be referred to the appropriate committee.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, as the minister has indicated, this is essentially a housekeeping bill to provide for the extension of the legislation for a further period of five years. The extension to five years instead of the normal three years is not a matter to which anyone will take much objection.
Certainly the need for the extension of the legislation is quite manifest. As the minister has outlined, its chief purpose is to enable the government to impose import controls particularly so far as agricultural products are concerned, so that it will be possible to carry out the provisions of the Agricultural Stabilization Act, the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act, the Agricultural Products Board Act and the Fisheries Prices Support Act. To these is now to be added the Canadian Dairy Commission Act.
If that type of price stabilization is to work satisfactorily it is essential that the government have power to impose import controls on goods which would otherwise come in, undersell Canadian subsidized products and thus make the workings of our stabilization legislation ineffective. The chief point I would like to make in that connection is that I hope the government will be more active than it has been in the past in making use of this act. During the past four or five years the government has been very loath to use the act and put import controls into effect in cases where Canadian agricultural products were being damaged simply by the failure to use the provisions of the existing legislation. As a matter of fact, during that period some import controls were done away with. I recall that last year when poultry producers, particularly turkey producers, were in very considerable difficulties the government refused to take action and put import controls into effect. Speaking for this party I would say we are not only in favour of this legislation being renewed but that we are strongly in favour of it being used more effectively than has been the case in the past several years.
Dealing with the application of the act so far as export controls are concerned and the protection it provides, particularly with respect to the export of warlike material of any kind, I think that protection is manifestly necessary and nothing more needs to be said about it. The same applies so far as certain rare metals are concerned and metals which are in short supply from time to time. I anticipate that the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs when
February 10, 1969	COMMONS
examining the bill would like further information with regard to the extent to which the act is being made use of at present, and would like some expression of the intention of the government as to how effectively it will use it in the future.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, we are all interested in seeing this bill reach the standing committee where we can examine it in details. The bill involves a clear example of the kind of power possessed by governments but which is not used by them in certain cases where the national interest would be best served by doing so.
My party feels that the scope of the bill should be enlarged to cover all imports and all exports, rather than being confined to those specified in it. My reason for saying this is fairly straightforward. Quite obviously the reason that warlike materials and some agricultural products were included originally under the provisions of the act was that there existed an urgent need in those areas for the government to exercise control at some stage of their import and export. Even though in the past governments have been reluctant to act on these matters, they possessed the power to do so if the national interests or the interests of specific industries were in jeopardy. But by restricting this power to cover only certain items we run the risk of emergencies arising with respect to other items, and the government would not be able to act even if it wished to do so.
The legislative process is a lengthy one. It takes time to bring legislation before the house, to examine it and to pass it. There can be no other way to handle legislation in a democratic nation and this must be recognized. It is for this reason that we think the government should possess the power to act in case of emergencies with respect to other items.
With respect to import restrictions the provisions of the bill deal almost solely with agricultural products. I think it must be clear to many hon. members that there are other goods which stand in the same jeopardy as the agricultural products listed in the bill. My area of Waterloo has two major industries, a textile industry and a shoe industry, which from time to time are seriously jeopardized by imports from foreign countries. Sometimes the production costs in those countries cannot be ascertained, and it is difficult to apply the anti-dumping legislation, even difficult to define whether dumping has taken place.
DEBATES	5329
Export and Import Permits Act
The powers given the government under this bill have to be used sparingly, not as a form of national protective policy or as a way of getting around agreements that we have entered into under GATT. This is very important. But on occasion some of our major industries that are large employers of labour are seriously jeopardized, and I can foresee the necessity for the government to take immediate action. When such an occasion arises is not the time to start thinking about legislation. The legislation should be in existence and ready for implementation. Therefore we would like to see such blanket powers included in this bill.
[DOT] (3:20 cm.)
There have been occasions when the provisions of the act have been inadequate to protect the national interest. A year or two ago minerals like copper and nickel were in short supply and Canada, one of the major producers of these commodities, faced shortages of these minerals for its own industries. Our own industries were not able to obtain the copper and nickel which they needed, while many exportations were taking place. During that period the Minister of Trade and Commerce was asked concerning his intentions to act in this regard. The answer we received was that exports are more important than looking after the internal needs of our own industries. This to me is a very unacceptable proposition. If we are to move away from the exportation of raw materials as has been the case in the past and become more of a manufacturing nation, which we are capable of becoming and should become, we must ensure, particularly in those areas where we are major producers of raw materials, that those raw materials are not denied to our own manufacturers. In looking at this bill I do not think such protection is available under the enumerated powers in the bill.
I should also like to say a word about war materials. Under the consolidated Export and Import Permits Act it is clearly indicated that the government of Canada has the power to prohibit the export of war materials of various kinds. Our quarrel is simply that the powers possessed under this act have not been exercised in order to carry out what I believe is the considered judgment of the Canadian people. We have been guilty of complicity in the war in Viet Nam by sending war materials from this country to the United States. Our people did not want to participate i a that war and yet our government has
February 10, 1963

Export and Import Permits Act refused to act when it clearly has the power to do so.
Therefore there are two points which our party wishes to emphasize. First, the bill should be enlarged to include the emergency powers that may be necessary to protect industries which are in danger of extinction in this country, especially those industries which we have made a decision to support. Second, the government should pay more attention to the desire of the Canadian people in respect of controlling our own future, our utilization of our resources and our unwillingness to participate in other people's immoral wars. When the bill is before the committee we intend to present these points. We hope we will have an opportunity to bring forward some amendments which may be acceptable in order to make what we think would be worth while part of the provisions of this bill.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, similar to the two preceding speakers I should like to say that the Export and Import Permits Act and the amendments now before us should be used effectively under the changing conditions in Canada generally. In the field of agriculture particularly we have a tremendous ability to produce. There is also a tremendous ability to produce on the part of our neighbour to the south and the European communities. It was stated by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), as reported in the press, that there is scarcely a developed nation in the western world that is not capable of producing a great deal more agricultural products than can be consumed by that nation. This means in effect that the market for dairy products so far as Canada and many other countries are concerned is practically limited to the country. I assume that is the reason the dairy commission is specifically included in this bill.
In respect of the production of feed grain in western Canada and corn in Ontario we find that the market is flooded with these products from other countries and that our own producers are at a serious disadvantage. I do not think we should allow ourselves to drift-I repeat, drift-into the position where we will be buying supplies from overseas or from our neighbour to the south which we can produce efficiently and easily at home. If we do not follow the policy of using our own resources we will find ourselves trying to get foreign exchange to pay for products which we should be producing here. As has been mentioned, this applies to turkeys and rape-seed in western Canada and to vegetable production as well.
[Mr. Saltsman.l
I hope the government will use the power it is taking through this bill. In the agricultural sector particularly I believe we are entering what might be described as a selective position. It will be necessary for us to maintain an export market for much of our agricultural production. At the same time we will have to maintain a domestic position in respect of other parts of it. It is my impression that we may not be able to apply effectively the Customs Tariff dumping provisions in the areas I have mentioned. Therefore I support this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I rise to point out to the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am of course heartened by the sentiment of the hon. members in the opposition who have tended to show, it seems to me, great trust and confidence in the government, a trust and confidence which of course is not misplaced-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


Otto Emil Lang: -in urging that the power should be made broader, indeed, than in the contemplated amendments now before us. The government, of course, in amending the act is conscious of its general philosophy of moving the world toward a freer trade position. I would not want to think that hon. members would fall into the trap of backing free trade generally and at the same time demanding specific protection for specific purposes one after the other.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Speak to the members on your own side.


Otto Emil Lang: This is a very difficult and yet sometimes politically attractive position to get into. The bill before us will now move to the committee. I shall be very interested to hear hon. members pursue some of the lines of inquiry they have indicated here in order to see how far their general philosophy goes and how far they are really talking about a specific area interest. I am pleased, therefore, to move the second reading and referral to the committee.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
February 10, 19G9
[Stage Direction]
Aeronautics Act
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill S-14, to amend the Aeronautics Act, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-14 now before the house for third reading deals with amendments to the Aeronautics Act. As hon. members know, this act regulates and controls civil aviation in Canada. The amendments contained in Bill S-14 have been studied in detail during a clause by clause consideration by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. They have been fully outlined and explained at the second reading stage.
The minister in whose name this bill stands would, I am sure, like me to express his appreciation to hon. members for the study the bill was given in the committee and here in the house and, through that study, the demonstration of the need for the amendments and desirable improvements contained in the bill. Therefore I am pleased to recommend that the house give third reading.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, all I have to say is that in spite of all the glowing descriptions of the government by the minister we have very serious reservations about powers given to the government to act by order in council. We are not going to vote against this bill on third reading but we file a caveat because we still have this reservation in our minds. Subject to that reservation, I assume the bill will pass and we will wait to see how it operates.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, in order to be clear about this bill I should like to ask the minister one question. Following the passage of the bill will the Department of Transport have the authority to spend sums of money on improvements or expansions of airport facilities in Canada, and will this money be spent without the department having to come to this house for approval?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am always hesitant to give a legal interpretation in answer to hon. members' questions. I am sure the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) would be delighted to do so were the hon. member to approach him at any time.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, this is not a very satisfactory answer at this time. The question I asked is important and hon. members require an answer. If what I suggest is in fact the case, this is a pretty serious situation. Parliamentarians should have some control over spending by the government, and apparently by this measure we are giving the department a free ticket to spend money on airports. Surely we should have a more definite answer to this question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill S-19, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act, be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, I intended to reply to the minister after he had made a statement. If he does not intend to do so I should like to comment on the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I take it the minister is not going to make a statement. It was my impression that we had debated this matter on third reading. That was my mistake. I recognize the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the removal of the $5,000 limit in respect of which the minister's approval is required for construction of any facility on a navigable water makes every dock, boathouse, launching ramp or other facility on a navigable water subject to approval by the federal Minister of Transport. In addition, facilities already in existence can now be ordered removed. The act, as this bill proposes to amend it, will apply to every work which projects over a body of water, no matter how small. It will include even a couple of planks built on a couple of posts on a very small stream in any part of Canada.
This is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation ever brought before parliament. I
5332	COMMONS
Navigable Waters Protection Act am positive that the Department of Transport could not possibly enforce it. At the present time there are in existence many facilities such as boathouses, wharves, launching ramps and marinas which have not been approved by the minister. If the owner could prove that these facilities cost less than $5,000, before these amendments are adopted, he would be fairly safe to go ahead without applying to the departments. These amendments remove that $5,000 limit. Every navigational facility will now be brought under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Facilities of any size on any body of water no matter how small will be covered by this measure.
The interpretation of the word "navigable" has never been made clear, and I appreciate the difficulties involved. At the moment there are two obvious tests. There is a difference in the interpretation of "navigable" by the Department of Public Works and the interpretation by the Department of Transport. The term "navigable water" was interpreted by a number of witnesses who appeared before the transport committee as any body of water on which you can paddle a canoe. Therefore this measure has been extended to every situation involving a body of water in Canada.
I have been very close to the work done by the harbours and rivers branch of the Department of Public Works because I represent a part of the country in which there are many cottagers and tourist operators. Whenever they go to the Department of Public Works seeking approval for the construction of a wharf, a launching ramp or a boathouse on a small body of water, they have been told that this was never the intention of the B.N.A. Act in respect of navigable waters. These people have been told that the B.N.A. Act was never intended to cover small structures such as launching ramps or boathouses on small lakes or rivers. They have been informed that the B.N.A. Act was intended to relate to large navigable waters such as the oceans, the Great Lakes and larger inland lakes. They have been told not to ask the government to build a dock on Beaver Creek, for example, because that is not a navigable water in terms of this act.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
We now have the Department of Transport coming along and saying that this is all right for the Department of Public Works but the Department of Transport will control navigation on any body of water no matter what its size. This has been a real problem and it has
[Mr. Aiken.1
DEBATES	February 10, 1969
not been cleared up. In fact, the amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act that we are now considering make the situation worse. Just a week ago I was at a meeting in connection with the facilities in Algonquin Park. One outfitter there was disgusted that a body of water in the park in which he was interested had been declared navigable. He said there were six month old frogs in that creek that had not even learned to swim; yet it had been declared a navigable water.
This is a very sloppy piece of legislation and the Department of Transport cannot possibly carry out its provisions. They cannot possibly carry out their responsibilities because the act will provide that every person who proposes to build a dock, launching ramp or boathouse which extends over the water will be required to obtain a permit from the Department of Transport. If he does not do so, he runs the risk of the department coming along later and saying: We are sorry, but you must take this construction down. People who propose to build these structures will not have the protection that exists now under the section which provides that if the structure costs under $5,000 they are safe. Now there is no limitation. This means that under the legislation the department will undertake to receive applications from anybody in Canada who wants to build a dock or a boathouse. I know the department cannot do it; it is an impossible task.
A few years ago the province of Ontario tried to catch up on their responsibility in this matter and found it was impossible. There were docks and boathouses all over the province and they could not possibly do it. That is only one province. I do not know how the Department of Transport expects to carry out its responsibilities in this regard for the whole of Canada. This will be a carte blanche for every federal marine agent to go to a private owner in Canada and say: Remove your boathouse because you did not obtain a permit. They will be able to do this without any reason being expressed.
This legislation will also make it possible for a cottager to go to the Department of Transport and say that the fellow next door to him is building a dock and he wants the department to stop it. He can ask whether his neighbour has obtained a permit to build the dock. If the department says it did not bother to require a permit to be obtained because it was just a small dock, the man making the complaint can have the building of the dock stopped because his neighbour does not have a permit. If this man is not stopped, the
February 10. 1969	COMMONS
department is derelict in its duty. If he is stopped, it is unfair to the man who is trying to do exactly what his neighbour has done. I am seriously concerned about this situation.
The minister tried to clear this matter up at the report stage. I do not have his exact words, but in essence he said that the department was not going to worry about little docks with a couple of planks. This was also said in the committee. But it is not what the bill says. The bill says that included within its provisions is every little dock with a couple of planks. I ask, Mr. Speaker: At what point is the Department of Transport going to carry out its responsibility? At what point is it going to be derelict in its duty? I think this legislation leaves the situation wide open.
I should like to mention the situation in which the provincial authorities are placed. At the present time, if you want to build a boathouse or a dock and want to be sure it will not be torn down, you must go to the provincial department of lands and forests, or whatever department is concerned, and obtain a permit to occupy the land under the water because it is provincial crown land. Therefore you must either obtain a patent of ownership for that little piece of crown land under the water, or an annual permit to occupy it, that is, a licence of occupation.
This situation has created a mess for the province because all the docks built without permits are there and a lot more are being built without permits. Some are being built with permits. It is an impossible situation because there are in Canada hundreds of thousands of facilities of this type. It is impossible for even the provincial authorities to regulate this matter. I remember that about 15 or 20 years ago the provincial government of Ontario decided to survey the situation with regard to its responsibility for docks and boathouses on inland lakes. After they looked at the situation for a while they decided it was an impossible task and had to leave it alone. Now we have the federal department wanting to take on the same responsibility in connection with ten provinces and the territories, despite the fact that to my knowledge it is a job that no provincial authority has been able to handle.
If at the present time you want to build a dock with two planks and a couple of posts, you must go to the provincial authority and obtain a licence to occupy the land under the water. Now you will also have to go to the federal Department of Transport and obtain a licence to build a facility on the surface of
DEBATES	5333
Navigable Waters Protection Act the water in order to comply with this bill. There is no use saying that if it does not project too far into the water it does not obstruct navigation, because if it projects one foot over the water you are obstructing a channel that someone may have used. Whether the construction projects one foot or two feet, if it projects over the water at all you are obstructing navigation. There is nothing in this bill that says how far such a construction shall project before it obstructs navigation. If it projects five feet will it be all right, but if it projects seven feet will it be an obstruction? If it projects 15 feet will it be all right, and will 20 feet be too far? There is nothing in the bill that deals with this question; there is no definition of what constitutes an obstruction in this respect. There is absolutely nothing the department can physically do to carry out the provisions of the bill.
A number of other objections to the bill were raised by the members of the committee. The committee went into this matter fully. Questions were asked but I do not think they were satisfactorily answered. There was a debate on this matter at the report stage, but the bill left in a very vague and unsatisfactory state. We moved amendments at the report stage and they were defeated.
I cannot understand the Liberal members supporting this bill, particularly those who have cottagers or tourist facilities in their ridings. I do not know how they will be able to go back to their constituents and explain the situation when someone says he has been ordered to take down his boathouse because it projects over the water. Will the member concerned say that he is sorry but he did not understand what was actually happening when this bill was passed? There are not in the house at the moment very many members who will have this responsibility. I hope those members who are here understand what is being done, because in the not too distant future they will perhaps have to explain this situation to their constituents.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
However, the government has its majority. They have defeated our amendments and we are now on third reading. They are entitled to have their will unless we want to filibuster until the end of time, and we are not prepared to do that on third reading. But the bill is sloppy, poorly drafted and dangerous. If the majority of the house feels it should be passed, then I am going to ask that it be passed on a division.
5334	COMMONS
Navigable Waters Protection Act


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on Bill S-19 to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act. While the bill before us does bring in some good changes, I felt that the over-all act is still wholly inadequate. In the committee and in the house the bill was discussed and I hoped that one or two major amendments would be brought forward by members on the government side.
I do not know if all members of the house are aware of the fact that the Navigable Waters Protection Act does not apply to all organizations in Canada. For example, the main users of our water resources are provincial and federal Crown corporations. They are the ones that use the navigable waters of this nation, and we find that they are not covered by this act. I think they should be. In my frank opinion the government and the minister are derelict in their duty to the people of Canada when they fail to include the main users of our great water resources. It is a disgraceful attitude for the government in the year 1969 to ignore the damage which can be done to water resources by failing to bringing in another amendment to include Crown corporations under the act.
This afternoon I would like to speak rather briefly to point out why I feel further amendments should have been made to Bill S-19. I am very disturbed by the fact that Crown corporations are excluded from the provisions of the Act. I come from the province of British Columbia where we have had some pretty sad experiences of what can happen to the navigable waters of a province merely because there was no agency that could insist on a proper job being done when certain hydro dams, for example, were being built. Here we have a bill amending the Navigable Waters Protection Act and excluding those agencies which most often do not take into consideration all the effects of the damming of certain rivers or lakes. This is the reason I suggest to the government that the bill is anything but adequate.
I feel that Canadians are very anxious that we exercise much tighter control over the use of our water resources than we have had in the past. During the committee hearing the legal counsel pointed out to the members of the committee that unless we specifically include in the act provincial and federal Crown corporations they will be exempted because of a clause in the Interpretation Act.
It seems to me that the greatest omission that has been made is that these Crown corporations are not going to be forced to do the will

DEBATES	February 10, 1969
of the federal government. Farther on in the act under section 12 we find that the federal government may exempt any group, individual or corporation from the provisions of the act if it so desires. If they can provide a good case for the construction of a dam or the flooding of a certain area or the diversion of a river, then the federal government has the right, under the act as it now stands, to exempt them from the provisions of the act. But if Crown corporations are not included- and they are not included either in this bill or in the old act-then they are home free and can do anything they wish in so far as the damming of waterways is concerned.
I would like to give the house several good examples of what has happened because we have not had sufficient protection in the act to insist on surveys being made before projects were commenced. It seems to me essential in this day and age that in the exploitation of our water resources we consider every aspect before proceeding with a project. If dams are to be built, I feel that proper ecological surveys should be made. We should know the results upon the local economy, upon wild life, vegetation, pollution, fish, tourism and a number of other related aspects. I hope that the concept of the multiple use of our resources will replace the blind, single-purpose development which apparently we have in Canada today.
I also want to point out that when the Navigable Waters Protection Act was before the house for second reading the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) spoke about the damaging effects which the Portage Mountain Dam in British Columbia was having on the whole of the Mackenzie River system. He pointed out that the provincial government did not go to the federal government for permission to build the dam. Protests were made but nothing was done. I think this is an excellent example of the need for control. Absolutely no ecological studies were made. As a result, we find that a neighbouring province, Alberta, and the area to the north of that province, are suffering. I am certain something could have been worked out to the satisfaction of all the governments concerned had full and proper surveys been undertaken before the project commenced. No improvement will be possible until an amendment along the lines of the one I have suggested has been enacted.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
About a week ago I received a letter from a group of interested university people on the
February 10, 1989	COMMONS
very subject upon which I am speaking. It outlined clearly the need for immediate action in the field of resource control and should be of interest to every member of the house. I understand the letter has been sent to several newspapers; if any hon. member would like a copy of it I would be glad to supply one. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read it into the record. I could outline the gist of it, but I think reading it would give a clearer picture of what these people are asking us to do. The letter comes from the Department of Electrical Engineering of the University of Alberta, Edmonton. It is dated January 28, 1969, and was addressed in this case to myself, though, as I say, it was sent to several newspapers. It reads as follows:
We are concerned that there seems to be a lack of policy by both the federal and provincial governments in Canada with regard to evaluating the ecological implications of the development of our natural resources. It appears that in the exploitation of these resources little or no attention is being given to the consequences upon the local economy, wildlife, vegetation, prevention of lake and river pollution, preservation of scenic beauty and other related values which ultimately mean so much to the Canadian people.
For example, it has recently been brought to our attention that there has been a considerable disruption of the ecology in the Peace River delta area in northeastern Alberta. A large portion of this area lies in Wood Buffalo National Park. Before the Portage Mountain Dam was built, the spring floodcrest on the Peace River provided a natural damming of the waters of the Athabasca River. This damming of the Athabasca River permitted it to back up and flood the forementioned delta area. This annual flooding was a vital factor in the ecology of the region. As a result, the area was able to support large numbers of muskrat, and to provide good spawning conditions for whitefish and goldeye in Lake Athabasca and adjacent waters. The muskrat provided a livelihood for the local Indian population-approximately 1,200 people-and the fish have supported commercial fishing for many years.
Now, all this has been threatened by the Portage Mountain Dam which will eliminate the floodcrest on the Peace River. Already, the water level of Lake Athabasca is some eight feet below normal, and is threatening the whitefish population. Both Richardson Lake and Mamawi Lake are dry and Lake Claire is now only five feet deep and is expected to freeze solid this winter. It has been estimated that in this year alone a quarter of a million muskrat will perish due to abnormally low water levels. The lack of water in Mamawi Lake has virtually eliminated the goldeye run in Birch River.
The above ecological changes were predicted and brought to the attention of the provincial authorities while the Portage Mountain Dam was in its planning stages. Apparently the information went unheeded.
Once more a dam is being planned without any apparent attention being given to the ecological
DEBATES	5335
Navigable Waters Protection Act repercussions. We are referring to the proposed Bighorn Dam on the North Saskatchewan River near Nordegg, Alberta. Already it is apparent that this dam will considerably affect the local wildlife population and at this stage one can only guess as to what else. Since we are very concerned about the possible consequences of this project, we are bringing it to your attention in the hope that you can initiate a critical review of this problem. We hope that a proper review of all aspects of the Bighorn Dam will serve as a precedent for similar future projects.
We are continuing to investigate this matter and will forward to you any additional information.
This letter is signed by seven professors from the department, and if hon. members wish their names I shall gladly read them. It underlines the very point I am making. We are allowing projects of this sort to take place in the absence of any surveys to find out what the over-all picture is likely to be in a few years time. It is simple enough. Engineers in our hydro corporations, for example, are given a job to do. They are asked to check as to the possibility of damming a river. They do this, and I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, they do a good job. Next, they turn in an engineering report stating how much the dam will cost, the amount of power it will supply, and so on. They are trained to do this. But they do not take into consideration the various points to which clear reference is made in the letter I have just read.
I say that as Members of Parliament for the Dominion of Canada it is our duty to see that we get the best possible return from the use of our resources-in this particular case, the water resources of the nation. You know, Mr. Speaker, that we have some excellent examples to the contrary in British Columbia; I have mentioned some of them in debate previously. I think it is the utmost stupidity on the part of the federal and provincial government to close their eyes to the need for proper reports being made before taking steps which might allow our resources to get away from us. In British Columbia we have a number of fine hydro projects, but in most instances they were designed and built for one purpose only. The ecological effects behind the dams on the areas affected were never taken into consideration.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
In every province of Canada lakes have been flooded without the land first being cleared. I agree that it is necessary for us in this country to have cheap electric power. We build dams in order that cheap power may be supplied to our people. But included in the development costs of any power project must
5336	COMMONS
Navigable Waters Protection Act be the cost of studies undertaken to determine the effects on wildlife in the area to be flooded. Ecological factors have been ignored. That is why I suggest that Crown corporations ought to be brought under this legislation. We could ask Crown corporations to lay before us alternatives to projects to be undertaken. Crown corporations would examine the general ecology of an area to be flooded and determine how much it would cost to replace wildlife which might be destroyed.
I can tell you, sir, what has happened in British Columbia. I have spoken both inside and outside this chamber on a number of occasions on what has been happening in British Columbia. We built the High Arrow Dam; yet no ecological studies of the Arrow Lakes, which stretch for 140 miles, were made before building the dam, the result being that between 69 and 90 per cent of the area in which fish spawn has been destroyed.


Mr. Crossman:: That is a provincial matter.


Randolph Harding: Yes, it may be a provincial matter but navigable waters come under the jurisdiction of the federal government. If Crown corporations were included we might have some planning and prevent losses of spawning grounds. Questions should be asked. How are the destroyed fish to be replaced? Are you going to build fish hatcheries, or ladders up falls so that fish can climb farther up mountain streams to spawn? Will fish different from those which have been destroyed be introduced into the new lakes with the hope they will spawn? Such questions ought to have been answered by studies.
A few miles south of the Canadian border and close to the town of Creston the United States authorities last year began to build the Libby Dam. The reservoir basin behind the lake will spill 40 miles into Canada. Yet two or three years before the United States authorities began building the dam they ordered an ecological survey of the affected area. They wanted to know what would happen when the area was flooded. I have a report of those studies in my files. The United States authorities knew exactly what had to be done to replace lost spawning grounds and to preserve wildlife. Alternative plans were laid out. We in Canada should expect nothing less from our Crown corporations. Those who benefit from hydroelectric developments ought to insist on such studies.
As we obtain more and more leisure time our people will look to the great outdoors for recreation. The legislators of this nation ought

DEBATES	February 10, 1969
to make sure that our natural resources are passed on to future generations unimpaired. We must not destroy what we have.
In British Columbia a dam is being built on the Columbia River at Mica Creek. They are blocking off a lake 125 miles long; yet the provincial government will not clear all the standing timber from the area. Oh, a small chunk will be cleared so that from the top of the reservoir you will think that a beautiful job has been done. But for centuries that reservoir will be polluted because drifting, rotten trees will spoil the water, and what should be a recreational area and a navigable water system will be ruined. You can see the same sort of thing in Duncan Lake, also known as Bennett's Lake. It is partly in my riding. The condition of that lake is a national disgrace. Most of the land was not cleared before flooding and you can hardly get a rowboat through the upper portion of it because of all the drifting material in the water. Here in this parliament we talk about conserving resources for our people and yet we allow this sort of thing to take place. Here we have a chance to bring Crown corporations under the Navigable Waters Protection Act and prevent such pollution. Even if the federal government must pay for studies to be undertaken, it ought to do so. We ought to preserve our resources and not allow their stupid destruction, as has taken place in scattered areas from the east to the west coasts of Canada.
Accordingly I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg):
That Bill S-19 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for the purpose of reconsidering Clause 4 thereof.
The purpose of reconsidering clause 4 is to allow us to bring federal and provincial Crown corporations under the act.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. members for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) and Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) have expressed sentiments which meet with my wholehearted approval. I had an opportunity to speak on second reading of the bill, and I hoped that the persuasive, gentle and reasonable arguments advanced by all opposition parties would move the government, if anything could, to review its position and bring forward reasoned and sensible changes in this legislation.
To show the nonsensical situation which has developed in Canada may I repeat something I dealt with during a previous stage of this bill when we were considering what were
February 10, 1969	COMMONS
the rights of people under this legislation. Some years ago we were considering the construction of dams in British Columbia. I have special reference, of course, to the dam at Turtle Mountain. I had every reason to believe, from trips I made up the river and from discussions with naturalists and scientists, that a dangerous situation could develop such as has been dealt with in some detail by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I asked the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, who was negotiating with the government of the province of British Columbia in an attempt to secure an arrangement under which this project would go forward, what was going to be done about securing permission under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I asked the then Minister of Public Works, the hon. Mr. Deschatelets, now a member of the other place, who I thought took a very reasonable and sympathetic approach, to assure me that he would guarantee this matter would be brought under the provisions of the parent legislation, the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
That act provides that people planning construction must file with the appropriate department of government, at that time the Department of Public Works, a projection of what their plans will entail. Notice must be published in the Canada Gazette as well as in newspapers circulated in the area. This would give opportunity to people whose potential rights could be damaged to make objection to the federal government which has sole jurisdiction with regard to navigable waters in this country.
When I asked questions in the house the then Minister of Public Works assured me this was under consideration. I have no doubt in my mind that the minister was quite definite in his belief that this was a project to which the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act applied. I am reinforced in that belief by the fact that collateral projects have been constructed in the same area, one in particular being a temporary bridge across the great Peace River for the passage of personnel and material. This involved the same Crown corporation that was engaged in the construction of the dam, and an application was made under the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I may be wrong in that, but certainly it was the same people engaged in the same project. Notice of this project was advertised in the Canada Gazette
DEBATES	5337
Navigable Waters Protection Act and the newspapers. Permission was obviously secured because the project was completed. It was constructed and used during the course of the construction period of this dam in British Columbia. This was a situation where the authorities in British Columbia and the federal government had an understanding that it was necessary to secure permission from the federal government to construct this project as envisaged by the terms of the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
Because the ambition of two or three men to complete this project as rapidly as possible was involved, although it would result in bringing about a deterioration in the situation at Hudson Hope, down the Peace River and all over the Mackenzie system, no application was made, there was no advertising in the Canada Gazette, and the matter was allowed to proceed. I think it was shocking that this was done.
The hon. member for Kootenay West has spoken about the results and I want to put something on record. I quote from the January, 1969, edition of Western Fish and Game, page 36. The article was written by Richard Wright, obviously a person concerned as a private citizen about what is happening to the area. He made a personal inspection trip last fall along with some companions. I will not burden the house by reading the whole article but I quote these important words:
Crossing the Peace west of Hudson's Hope we saw what had been a mighty river reduced to a mere trickle. Sandbars and rocks were high and dry with a small stream running between the massive canyon walls. We learned later that the Alberta fish and game branch were concerned with the effect this lack of water might have on their wildlife and waterfowl, and the Northern Transportation Co.-
Another federal Crown Corporation.
-blamed the dam for lowering the river levels in the Northwest Territories and consequently damaging several barges. "The mighty Peace has been harnessed", an ad in the local paper said. From where we stood it looked more like it had been destroyed.
Today this work goes on. Water for a reservoir now being accumulated behind the dam will flow north and south up the Rocky Mountain trench some 200 miles. There is a suggestion this may provide recreational facilities, but looking at the photographs which accompany this article we see that construction of the dam is proceeding with huge masses of timber, debris and logs scattered all around. I feel it will be impossible for any recreational value to be derived from this enterprise for many years to come.
February 10, 1969

Navigable Waters Protection Act
Before proposing these amendments the government should have listened to the very reasonable and moderate request made from this side of the house. In the course of a generation many of the people of this country will have moved into the large metropolitan districts. They will have to seek recreation in order to provide a balance for a rational society. In the 40 years I have lived in the north I have seen people come into the north not to exploit but to ravage and assault the north and take away the resources. They have been careless regarding what they left behind. These are benefits which should have been left for the people of the future.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
To my mind the Peace River dam is one of the greatest examples of the harm, damage, destruction and deterioration that have been caused by a few men acting regardless of their duty to their country and to the generations who will come after them. For this reason, sir, I have no compunction at all in indicating that I am prepared to support the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to second the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding). I am sure that in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) was made aware of our discontent that Crown corporations were not included under the provisions of this bill. I am also aware that he may try to substantiate his case by referring to the fact that this would involve a constitutional issue. I respectfully suggest that this matter could be resolved at a later time and the Crown corporations should be included under the provisions of the bill because so far as the constitutional issue is concerned I believe the minister is trying to muddy the waters. I suggest that quite an amount of water could be muddied if the bill is allowed to pass in its present form.
I know that my colleagues from Winnipeg North Centre and Winnipeg North are aware of the situation in Manitoba, and no doubt the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow) will speak about it. A real storm has blown up in regard to the action of a Crown corporation in taking it upon itself to construct a dam which adversely affected navigable waters in that province and below the

province. The question has been asked in one press article:
What happens when a Crown corporation floods out a community of nearly 600 Indians and Metis in the name of industrial progress?
This could be used as an analogy in any province of Canada. If we allow situations like this to exist and do nothing about them the House of Commons will be held suspect in the eyes of the people adversely affected.
Various articles have appeared in the press about this situation and I shall refer briefly to a number of them. One of them stated:
Five university professors presented a brief to the government which cast a wholly different light on the situation. Conservationists, wildlife experts, engineers, ecologists, more professors of various disciplines, and other knowledgeable people began to issue statements.
It is ridiculous that a province should be allowed to implement a program of its own without sending its engineering studies to the federal government so that there may be more than one party involved in the preparation and the planning, particularly when more than one province may be adversely affected. I quote again:
The report, prepared by the provincial resources department's own experts, documented that Hydro's plan would result in "devastation" to an area equal to 20 per cent of the province's total territory. Its authors warned that about 2,175 square miles of now beautiful lakes, rivers and potential resort areas would be rendered sterile; that all wildlife habitat, and revenue derived from wildlife, would be lost from the area for at least 100 years and that the seaport of Churchill would suffer serious repercussions-
With respect to that one point alone, the adverse effect on the port of Churchill which it is suggested could result from this plan, I believe hon. members would agree that this bill should be sent back to committee for further consideration.
It was also pointed out that various types of wildlife in the area would be affected. It was stated that flooding in the area can bring about a radical change in a huge Canada goose nesting ground. It was also pointed out that the project will eliminate a great chunk of barren ground caribou wintering range in Manitoba.
I could point out many other arguments to prove that the province itself should not have the prime and prior right to construct a dam on any river which would impair the navigable portions of the river. I had thought that the Minister without Portfolio would have an answer prepared in time for the third reading of this bill, but that has not been the case.
February 10, 1969	COMMONS
We got no answer from the minister and so naturally my colleague from Kootenay West had to present this amendment.
Many experts have pointed out the problems to the provincial authorities, with the result that they are taking a second look to see whether or not the dam in question should be constructed and the water diverted. Even though construction of the dam has started, and it would not be economical to continue the project without ensuring the provision of the added water facilities, we must look at the social consequences to affected communities. In this area I suggest that the federal government has a prime responsibility along with the province to make sure that the matter is looked at in its entirety.
I should like to refer to a brief presented by Professor Edward Kuiper, former chief engineer in the provincial water resources branch and a consultant to Manitoba Hydro in that capacity. He said that no alternatives to the proposed Southern Indian Lake diversion scheme were ever adequately studied by Manitoba Hydro. I suggest that this is a clear indication that such schemes should be studied in their entirety to determine what effect they will have on the communities involved. This was not done in Manitoba. Professor Kuiper's brief added:
Therefore no one is presently in a position to state that the proposed high-level Southern Indian Lake diversion is better or worse than any of the four alternative diversions.
Again this points up the fact that there should have been further discussions and consultations before any decision was rendered in this case. The people in that area have been very adversely affected. I suggest that the federal government should consider amendments to this legislation whereby such matters will be covered. I am positive that if the federal government does not assume this responsibility the provinces will not assume it either. They are primarily concerned with their own economies because they must consider the long-range economic effects without taking into account all the social consequences.
I heartily support the amendment that has been proposed. Many things can be accomplished in this house if the government is willing to tackle them. In this case I say the government must have the will, and this house as a whole must ensure that this legislation properly protects all those who are adversely affected.
DEBATES	5339
Navigable Waters Protection Act
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment moved by my colleague from Kootenay West. I specifically do so because of the tremendous problems raised by the plan of Manitoba Hydro, acting for the Manitoba government, to divert the waters of the Nelson River in order to construct a very large hydro project. This government and this parliament are involved and ought to be very concerned about this project because the former government approved the expenditure by the people of Canada of a very large amount of money to help pay for this project.
I have no objection to the development of the Nelson River. This is a tremendously important project that will produce a very large amount of power which can be used by the people of Manitoba and may indeed be sold to the province of Ontario or the province of Saskatchewan. It is expected that the surplus will be sold in the middle west of the United States. However, it is disturbing to say the least that a project of this tremendous scope, which will involve a billion or more dollars, is being proceeded with while the facts about it, if they are known, are known only to the government of Manitoba.
In the past four or five years the government of Manitoba commissioned a number of studies by various expert groups to determine the facts involved in the project. A key part of the whole plan is the diversion of the waters of the Churchill River into the Nelson River in order to provide a more regular flow in the Nelson River where power plants will be constructed. It is quite evident from reports which the newspapers in Winnipeg have been able to obtain that not all the facts in respect of the transfer of water from the one river to the other have been taken into account.
My colleague, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg), has referred to the effect on the Indians at Southern Indian Lake. This community of 600 Indian and Metis people is probably the only community of its kind in Manitoba, if not in all Canada, where not a single person receives welfare from either the federal or provincial governments and where the breadwinners earn from $3,000 to $6,000 or $8,000 a year. For an Indian or a Metis this is a fantastic income. These 600 people are being told by the hydro authorities that they must move because their community will be under 35 feet of water.
February 10, 1969

Navigable Waters Protection Act
It is true that hydro has offered them alternative sites, but a group of university professors hired by the government of Manitoba has questioned, because of the way in which the area is to be flooded, whether in fact there will remain a viable fishing industry. All these factors were studied by the government or by Manitoba Hydro. Even though public hearings have been held and even though the Indians have hired eminent counsel, to date the government of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro have categorically refused to make public the studies that were made. If there has even been a better illustration of a kangaroo court I do not know where you would find it because the government, which permitted hearings by its water conservation board into the effects of the project, refuses to give to the Indians or others concerned the documents which it commissioned. It well may be that the government would argue that there are differences of opinion between the experts, but surely it ought not to be the right of any agency, whether federal, provincial or private, to say that although they have the information and all the reports they will decide what they will make public. Surely that type of thing should be ruled out from the start.
As I say, we have an important role to play here because, first, the federal government is providing a substantial part of the money for the Nelson River project and, second, the federal government is the trustee for the Indians. We have always said that the restrictions on Indians by virtue of the Indian Act exist because the Indians are not ready to look after themselves and are not sufficiently well educated or adjusted to live in our modern wage-earning, profit-making society. We say that we, the great white fathers, must protect the Indians from themselves. I notice that the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) is listening. This is the attitude we have taken. I submit that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot take the position taken almost every day by the Indian Affairs Branch that we will decide what is best for the Indians and then take no action when a group of 600 Indians are to be moved forcibly and against their will from the community in which they have lived for many years.
I shall come back to the Indians in a moment, but I wish to make clear that it is not only the Indians affected in respect of whom we have a responsibility. When I was in Winnipeg I was told that if this project goes ahead and if the waters of the Churchill River are diverted into the Nelson River, it

is quite likely that the flow of the Churchill River will be cut by as much as 75 per cent. If that happens there will immediately be an effect on the port of Churchill. The minister as a member from Saskatchewan, should have a vital interest in the port of Churchill. Churchill has been having difficulties because of the short season and poor town planning. If 75 per cent of the water of the Churchill River is diverted there will be times of the year at Churchill when there will not be sufficient water to meet the drinking and sanitation needs of the town.
One might ask what the situation will be if the salt water from Hudson Bay should flow up the Churchill River. I do not know and I do not know whether the minister is informed in this regard. It is stated in one of the reports which the government of Manitoba has refused to make public that if the water is diverted the flow of the Thompson River as it passes through the town of Thompson would certainly be very much greater than it would normally be. It is hoped that in ten years time Thompson will be the size of Sudbury. We are told that the Thompson River will rise 20 or more feet, that bridges will have to be rebuilt and that the whole area will be changed. What will happen as a result?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Certainly the federal government has a responsibility and ought to look into this whole situation. Unless the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West, is accepted, we will have no opportunity to do the kind of thing we are suggesting the federal government ought to do. Before a navigable stream is allowed to be changed as a result of the plans of any agency we should make sure that all the information required is made public. This should be done whether a federal or provincial agency is involved. It should also be done even when a private agency proposes the change.
We talk very frequently about our desire that the Indians should learn to speak for themselves so they do not need a white member of the government or the bureaucracy, a social worker, a do-gooder or a magistrate to speak for them. The Indians of Manitoba have taken us at our word. They have probably gone farther than any other group of Indians in the country in creating an organization to speak for them. They are doing so in an increasingly effective manner. I should like to put on record what the president of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood has said. I
February 10, 1969
quote what Chief David Courchene said, as reported in an article in the Winnipeg Free Press of January 22, 1969:
The Manitoba Indian Brotherhood president, David Courchene said in a statement Tuesday the brotherhood is "appalled with the arbitrary action taken by the government".
He went on to state:
-the procedure showed the government's lack of concern for Indian people.
"Such action in the midst of negotiations is a clear and obvious indication of the government's lack of consideration of Indian people. It is also an obvious indication of a lack of good faith for, while inviting participation at hearings .. . decisions have already been made.
The government obviously subscribes to the 'might is right' philosophy in negotiation. We are sure the people of Manitoba will be as incensed, shocked and appalled at the Manitoba government's denial of basic justice and lack of good faith."
The people of Manitoba are appalled and they expect that the federal government, which as a vital stake in this whole question, will not hide behind what I consider to be the spurious argument that an agreement has been reached and there is nothing it can do about it, or the argument that the Indians are not members of a reserve and therefore are not the responsibility of the federal government.
I hope the government will not hide behind the argument that at this late stage it cannot amend this measure in the way the hon. member for Kootenay West has suggested. I appeal to the government to accept this very moderate and sensible amendment in order that it may have the time and the opportunity to undo what I consider to be a basic injustice to the people of northern Manitoba, be they Indian or white.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I was present during the committee consideration of this bill when the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Richardson) from Manitoba had certain things to say about this measure. I am delighted to see that he is now in his seat.
I anticipated the amendment moved this afternoon by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) who in fact served notice of his intention to do so during the course of the committee's consideration. Let me make it clear, as did our house leader, that we on this side intend to support the amendment.
I find it a little difficult to understand why this amendment is necessary at the third reading stage in view of what the minister said about the bill during the brief discussion which took place in the committee. I do not 29180-338
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion want to put words into the minister's mouth, but he indicated that he was in favour of such an amendment and wanted to give this matter more consideration. I am sure he would have done so were it not for the fact that the chairman of the committee ruled him out of order in view of the fact the committee was dealing with clause one. In other words, the discussion was just about at an end and the chairman ruled that we could not go back to clause 4 for the purpose of moving an amendment.
Perhaps I could indicate what the minister said during the committee stage. He suggested that the amendment was a very important one which contained constitutional ramifications, and he referred to the federal-provincial conference. He suggested this matter might be another item on the agenda of that conference. The minister suggested to the committee that he was seriously in favour of such an amendment, that the exclusion of Crown corporations under clause 4 of the bill constituted a very serious anomaly and that consequently we could expect to see the bill amended in this form when it came before the house for third reading. May I call it five o'clock?
[Translation\



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to standing order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Housing-provisions to assist low income Canadians; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) - Post Office Department-dispute with Letter Carriers Union-downward rates revision; and the hon. member for Kootenay-West (Mr. Harding)-Rental charges for boxes.

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, notices of motions, public bills.
Is it understood that all the notices of motions preceding No. 33 on the order paper will stand?


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
retain their position.



February 10, 1969
Finance


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is that
agreed by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NOTICES OF MOTIONS


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia) moved:: of the hon. gentleman, who was at that time a backbencher and not the house leader; however, I think he rates as a pretty fair authority. The President of the Privy Council said at that time:
The second of the major areas in which I feel that our slowness in law reform has worked prejudice for the individual has been that of the civil law under federal jurisdiction. Here again I should like to pick two examples: The priority over other creditors which the Crown claims for taxes; and, the heavy stick which Crown expropriators swing against small property owners. In respect of the first, a brief review of the federal taxing statutes illustrates what an advantage the treasury claims over other creditors. With regard to income tax and sales tax, for example, the respective laws provide that all taxes, penalties and costs can be claimed by the Crown as a debt due in either the Exchequer Court or other competent court.
In the case of income tax-
It was my unhappy experience with one of my clients that the income tax people moved in. The hon. member here refers to their moving in as a group of in-laws and hastens to add, quite unlike his own in-laws.
In the case of income tax, what the Department of National Revenue commonly does is to issue a certificate that the tax has not been paid. That certificate simply is registered in the court as proof that there is a sum due. It is entirely equivalent to the situation of a businessman who has sued and obtained a judgment for a debt. The difference is that the Crown is given the right to skip the ordinary court proceedings and has the amount of the debt set at what it claims, not at what a court has found. This situation works a particular hardship on other businesses in the case of the bankruptcy of a debtor business-
In another situation, the priority given for government taxes works a particular hardship in the case of the intrepid creditor pursuing the hidden assets of a chronic non-payer. The writ of extent, which is the authority issued by the Exchequer Court to collect the tax debt against property, can be used by the department to claim prior security in hidden assets smoked out by an energetic creditor. The creditor does all the work and the revenuers move in to reap the benefit-
Then he said:
As between the small businessman and the government, why should the government have all those advantages? Why should not the government be confined to the same rights as any other creditor? I suggest that the respective taxing statutes should be changed to take away the Crown's priority for taxes and put it in the same position as other creditors. Surely the important principle here in connection with bankruptcy or non-payment of debts is who can best afford to bear the loss, the small businessman or the vast resources of the government? The answer is obvious.
The answer was obvious to the minister then, and it is obvious today. Therefore I 29180-3381
Finance
would ask that my motion be given the unanimous support of this house.


Mr. Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question? Does the Crown not have to produce proof that it has a substantial claim in a case oi this nature? Does the Crown not have to produce some form of proof that it has a charge under income tax or some other tax?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, this is usually done in the form of a certificate. I tried to make this clear in my address. In the ordinary course of events, an individual pursuing a debtor has to go through the whole course of proceedings, and when this has been done he files a notice. The Crown can then come along and say that his notice is wrong and it has a claim for X number of dollars. The Crown then files a certificate to this effect. This is the extent of its proof. It is almost impossible to upset that kind of certificate.
Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) has brought to the attention of the house a very important question. With his usual eloquence he has put before us a number of reasons why the proposal embodied in his notice of motion should be given very serious consideration. While one may be very sympathetic to the proposal, it would seem to me there may be other points of view to be brought forward in this respect: for example, the effect of the adoption of this proposal both on the revenue itself and on the taxpayers, who would possibly have to make up for any sizeable amounts of revenue that might be lost to the Crown if this existing privilege of the Crown were changed.
I think it would be useful therefore to have this notice of motion studied by the appropriate standing committee. Perhaps it would be helpful if I once again brought to the attention of the house what I think is the real purpose of notices of motions of this kind. The rules of parliament provide that members cannot introduce bills which will have the effect of changing the balance of ways and means. In other words, they do not have the right to bring bills before the house involving legislation which can affect taxes or financial statutes.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
But in order to give members the opportunity of putting forth their views on matters that would come within the broad definition I have mentioned, the Standing Orders permit members to place on the Order Paper notices

February 10, 1969
Finance
of motions in which they state the change they have in mind in a general way so that when the notice of motion comes before the house it can be generally discussed. However, it should be made clear that if such a notice of motion should happen to be adopted formally by the house, it would not actually amend the legislation which the proposal in question is designed to affect. For that matter, if the notice of motion does not formally pass in the time set aside for its consideration under the rules of the house, it does not mean that members of the house are necessarily in opposition to it. Instead it means only that all those who wish to be heard on the question have not had a chance to express their views. So it seems to be useful to place again on the record the real purpose and the true role of notices of motions standing in the names of private members. In this case the hon. member for Sarnia has made good use of the opportunity given to private members to place their views on the record on matters of importance which affect ways and means, which affect financial and taxing legislation and which, under the rules of parliament, cannot be brought forward in the form of formal legislation by private members.
Because, as I suggested at the opening of my remarks, the hon. member has brought forward a proposal which deserves serious consideration, it is now my intention to move, seconded by the hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Pilon):
That the said motion be deemed to have been withdrawn and that the subject matter thereof stand referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Is it
the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Pilon:: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that on account of the federal-provincial conference and because of the snowstorms all over our big country we adjourn until 8 p.m.?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being six o'clock this house stands adjourned until 8 p.m.
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. Lang (Saskatoon-Humboldt) (for Mr. Hellyer) that Bill S-19, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act, be read a third time and passed.
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned at five o'clock I had endeavoured to review what happened in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications during the committee stage of the bill. The Minister without Portfolio from Manitoba (Mr. Richardson) who was piloting the legislation through the committee, left the impression that he looked upon the proposed amendment as a very serious one. Were it not for the ruling of the committee chairman the minister would have sought advice from committee members on the amendment, which at that time was moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), the mover of the amendment now before the house. The difficulty was procedural and arose from the fact that the hon. member either was not present in committee during discussion of clause 4 or had omitted to move his amendment to clause 4. There was an understanding in the committee, however, that we would be returning to clause 1 for a general discussion. At the conclusion of the general discussion on clause 1 the hon. member for Kootenay West endeavoured to move the amendment he has placed before the house today. At that time the Minister without Portfolio from Manitoba said, as reported at page 219 of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 12 of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
If it is to be left to me to decide, then I would appreciate the opportunity to have further views of the Committee. I think that we have a very serious difficulty here, as I explained when we talked about this matter last week. It was considered before the amendments were suggested and brought forward for consideration.
February 10, 1969

He goes on to say:
Can we have your permission to discuss this? I may be out of order here in the face of your ruling-
Then he was interrupted by the committee chairman who ruled that he could not entertain an amendment to clause 4 since clause 4 had already been adopted by the committee. Yet, it was understood by most of us that we were having a general discussion on clause 1.
Later, when replying to a question raised by a committee member when we were discussing procedure and wondering whether we could consider the amendment in committee, the minister said, as reported at page 221 of the evidence of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for January 27:
Yes. On this point of jurisdiction, yes. This is why I said that I do not know the full feelings of the Committee but I think I am beginning to sense them now. Certainly it will be given every possible consideration.
Then clause 1 was agreed to and the bill was passed in committee. The minister gave an undertaking to the committee, as will be found if one reads page 221 of the evidence. I understood that the minister was taking the matter under advisement and would report to his colleagues in cabinet what he felt were the views of the committee. In that basis, even though the amendment had not been adopted, we allowed the bill to pass the committee stage.
Today the hon. member for Kootenay West has moved a similar amendment and I would be interested to hear the remarks of the Minister without Portfolio from Manitoba, who had the responsibility of piloting this bill through committee. I am sure that his colleague, the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan (Mr. Lang) will be pleased that he does not have the responsibility of answering hon. members' questions. That hon. gentleman has had the responsibility all day of piloting the various stages of bills through the house.
During his speech the hon. member for Kootenay West, the mover of the amendment, said there were serious deficiencies in the legislation which he would endeavour to correct with his amendment. He said that the bill endeavours to regulate and to impose penalties; it regulates what individuals may or may not do in erecting works or obstructions to navigation. He also said, I believe, that the provisions of the bill in their present form would not apply to federal or provincial
Navigable Waters Protection Act Crown corporations set up to develop hydroelectric power. These developments have taken place in British Columbia. Indeed, he said that similar problems exist in every province of this country. Most provinces of Canada have provincial Crown corporations set up to develop hydro-electric power. These developments have led to certain works being done near navigable waters. For instance, many rivers have been diverted in the interest of hydroelectric development and as a result navigation of those waters, as defined in this act, has been seriously impeded. Actually, the navigable waters no longer exist.
I submit we should not forget that conservation is important, and this legislation has aspects touching on conservation. It is necessary to protect and conserve our navigable waters.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
We are concerned, too, with conservation in its broader aspect, that of preserving our rivers and streams for present and future generations to enjoy. Conservation is an important subject and we are concerned particularly here with the development of hydroelectric installations by Crown corporations. The hon. member for Kootenay West has referred to projects of this kind in British Columbia. I could refer to developments which are taking place in my own province of Newfoundland, and in Labrador. Many rivers have been diverted for the sake of hydroelectric power generation. Rivers have been dammed, impeding navigation on those rivers in the strictest sense in the process. This is what the bill before us sets out to regulate. Yet, we find this surprising anomaly in the provisions before us, one which the minister himself admitted when he was piloting the measure through the committee.
I think there is only one reasonable way of solving this difficulty. The government should accept this amendment because, after all, all it asks is that the bill be referred back to committee. I would point out that we are dealing here with amending legislation, legislation which cannot be considered as being of an urgent nature. If the bill were referred back to committee, the committee could go into these questions in great detail. Then, the minister could fulfil his undertaking to reach, if possible, a consensus among members of the committee, and proceed along more satisfactory lines. Furthermore, this course would enable the government to study the constitutional aspects involved and possibly to consider having the bill referred to the next
February 10, 1969

Navigable Waters Protection Act meeting of resource ministers. Certainly, the bill in its present form makes no sense to us on this side and I am sure it makes no sense to supporters of the government. And if the remarks of the Minister without Portfolio <Mr. Richardson) are any indication, I contend it makes no sense to him, either.
I would refer hon. members to the minutes and proceedings of the committee on transport and communications for January 27 when this bill was the subject of clause by clause study. If hon. members, and the minister in particular, wish to approach this matter in a reasonable way I suggest they should accept this amendment. By so doing they would show they were really interested in the subject and that the government has confidence in the work of committees of the house under the new Standing Orders. After all, we are not here merely to rubber stamp committee reports or amending legislation. If this legislation were referred back to the committee there would be an opportunity to seriously consider the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Kootenay West and its far-reaching implications.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister not intend to comment on this amendment? I see the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson) is present, Mr. Speaker, and I think this is his legislation.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister without Portfolio):: I am certain that all the points which have been raised on the third reading of this bill were fully discussed in committee. They were also considered when the bill was reported back to the house. However, I would be glad once again to state the government's view.
I believe there have been at least two main areas of concern. This afternoon the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) was concerned about the removal of the $5,000 limit. He indicated this would mean that docks and boathouses, whether large or small, would be subject to the requirements of the act. I believe we went into this exhaustively on other occasions, but I should like to emphasize again that only docks and boathouses which obstruct navigation will be affected by this legislation. Under the act as it exists in its present form it would be possible for someone to build a boathouse or a dock costing less than $5,000 in such a way as to obstruct navigation. The purpose of the act is
(Mr. McGrath.]
to protect our navigable waters, so it is obviously an improvement to include a provision covering any obstruction to navigation regardless of cost. Surely, this is the answer to the point the hon. member raised.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am sorry, but I don't follow it.


James Armstrong Richardson: The hon. member cannot follow it? Well-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Possibly if I were to ask the minister a question it would be fairer to him. Would he accept a question for clarification?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The minister has used the phrase "obstruct navigation". He has indicated that if a structure does not obstruct navigation it is not affected by the act. But at what point does a dock, for example, obstruct navigation? Does it depend upon the number of feet it extends into the water? There is no definition in the act.


James Armstrong Richardson: It is impossible to define on paper or in legislation what constitutes obstruction in every situation. The question must, ultimately, remain one for the judgment of the minister. It cannot be defined in terms of distance in feet. But if there is obstruction to navigation, the structure concerned will be covered by the act and it makes no difference whether it costs less than $5,000 or more.
I believe the most important point with which we have to deal is that put forward by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I was concerned about it in the committee, along with everyone else. The hon. member pointed out this afternoon that the act does not necessarily apply to Crown corporations or to provincial governments. I might mention in passing that in fact most provinces and most Crown corporations have made application under the act. But, having said this, I still know it to be true that in law the provinces are not required to seek approval under the legislation. This is a matter for concern.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I think I should say this. Bill S-19, which we are now considering, does not either strengthen or weaken the act in this respect. The main purpose of this bill is to make certain necessary amendments in the act and it was not thought desirable to introduce major constitutional considerations. This is a relatively minor bill. It did not seem appropriate to get involved with major federal-provincial discussions in relation to a minor
February 10, 1969

bill amending this act. I need not point out, on this day of all days that the federal government and the provinces have a number of matters to discuss. I would agree that at some time in the future this subject should be on the agenda, but I do not believe it is appropriate for the federal government to take unilateral action by suggesting in an amendment to this act that the provinces automatically be required to make application under the act, since the Federal government has not had prior consultations with the provinces. That is the government's position. It is not that we do not agree that consideration should be given to this matter and that the provinces should be consulted.
We should try to find a way to have the provinces and Crown corporations make application under the act, but we should not do so in this bill, particularly without first consulting with the provinces. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that answers successfully and completely the points that have been raised.


Randolph Harding: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the minister would permit a question? Is it not a fact that, even if the amendment were included in this bill, under Section 12 of the act, the federal government could still exempt any Crown corporation or any provincial government?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that would be true.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Richardson) accepted the suggestion that he speak at this stage of the debate. However, I must say there are two matters which were discussed this afternoon and this evening to which he did not make reference. He made a passing reference to some of the discussion which took place in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, but he did not seem to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), namely that in the committee he showed some interest in the amendment that my colleague the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) sought to make. It was suggested this might be dealt with later. I realize it was inadvertent on his part, but the minister said a moment ago this matter was discussed when the bill was reported to the house. I must point out there was no debate at the report stage of this bill. It was passed without debate because there were no amendments at that point. This is the
Navigable Waters Protection Act first opportunity there has been to deal with this matter since the committee stage. Someone from the government side should deal more thoroughly with this point. As I read the evidence of the committee's meeting on January 27, the matter appears to have been left in the air. Indeed, it appeared as though the minister thought my friend from Kootenay West had a point which should be seriously considered.
I realize the minister has spoken and I was going to say he cannot speak again, but he can following the vote on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I hope he will speak again. He can use the time which it takes for the vote to prepare another speech.
I trust the minister will also deal with another matter which was raised this afternoon. As the minister is from Manitoba I thought he would deal with the question of the Indian people at South Indian Lake. It was pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow) that there was a distinct relationship between the powers of the federal government over navigable waters and what is happening to the people in that area. I do not need to rehash the points and arguments made this afternoon by my two colleagues, but what bothers all of us in this situation is the buck-passing that takes place. The Manitoba government blames Manitoba Hydro, Manitoba Hydro blames the government and they all blame Ottawa. When we try to find out from Ottawa what is going to be done because it is getting the blame, the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lang) says there has been no request from Manitoba to renegotiate the contract. Meanwhile, these people are having the whole area where they earn their living flooded by the action of the Manitoba Hydro, but it seems impossible to get any statement in the house concerning the matter.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) raised the matter the other night during the course of a late show. It is not good enough for the government to skate around this issue. As I have already said there will be an opportunity for the minister to speak to the third reading motion after the vote on this amendment. I should qualify that of course. If the amendment carries, the minister will not have to speak as the bill will go back to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications and the

February 10, 1969
Division
minister can deal with it there. Perhaps it would be a favour to him if this amendment were to carry. He could then deal with it in the more quiet atmosphere of the committee. I hope that will happen, but if it does not then I call upon the Minister without Portfolio, or some other spokesman for the government to speak before the vote is taken on third reading and to deal with these two points, namely the attitude to my hon. friend's amendment regarding Crown corporations and what the government has to say about its responsibility with respect to the Indian people at South Indian Lake?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? Possibly prior to putting the question I might make this observation: The amendment moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) appears to me to be a rather novel procedure in the light of our new rules. While I have no hesitation in putting the amendment, I would like to make this reservation. I would like to discuss this procedure with Mr. Speaker.
The question is on the amendment. Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few more words about his particular amendment. As I look around the house I see the minister in his place, and to his left I see a sign. This may be the last indication by a gasping party hanging on the ropes. I am sure it will be a pleasure to have Tommy Douglas back in the house tomorrow. It is interesting to consider whether the hon. member has the right to advertise in the house, but I am sure it will not matter after tonight.
Let me refer to the record in respect of this particular amendment. It seems to me to be a strange situation when a majority is in favour of an amendment made by the opposition, but that amendment is not accepted.
February 10, 1969

I happen to be a member of the committee on Transport and Communications, and I have no hesitation in saying that had it considered this amendment by my colleague, the hon. member from Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), it would have been passed. I am sure that the majority of the members of this house will vote against the amendment, and we cannot seriously consider this as being strange.
Let me refer briefly to the fact that of the various subjects brought up for discussion in the committee, one of the most important was referred to by a witness in reply to a question as to whether or not the act applied to the Crown. In answering he said that the Navigable Waters Protection Act did not apply to the Crown, federally or provincially. He indicated that if a province did certain work on a navigable water without seeking the prior approval of the minister, there was no part of this act under which we could compel the province to remove the work or meet the specifications imposed by the federal government.
In view of the federal government's refusal to accept the proposed amendment, we have no alternative but to vote against the bill before us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must draw his attention to Beauchesne's citation 165(3) and (4) which read as follows:
(3)	By moving or seconding an amendment a member, if he utters a few words, actually speaks to the main motion. It is only after the amendment has been put by the Speaker that it is considered a new question.
(4)	A member who speaks in seconding an amendment is unable to speak again on the original question after the amendment has been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of.
Again I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he cannot speak again at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to suggest that the hon. Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Richardson) is not prevented from speaking at this point. It was our hope that he would take advantage of the opportunity now to say those things he did not say when he was on his feet before.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Give him time, he is getting up.
Navigable Waters Protection Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I can only wait so long for the Minister without Portfolio to rise. Is the house ready for the question?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am amazed that the Minister without Portfolio from the province of Manitoba will not avail himself of the opportunity to speak on this subject which has probably received more newspaper coverage in the province of Manitoba than any other matter in recent days.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) has raised this question several times and expressed concern about the consequences of this Nelson River project to the Indians in northern Manitoba. I am sure if he were here he would speak at this time. Since he is not here, and knowing of his concern for the welfare of the Indian people in northern Manitoba, I must state that even though he is a member of the government his sincerity would compel him to rise again and speak to this matter. I hope when I am finished the Minister without Portfolio from Manitoba will endeavour to make a statement. The people of Manitoba have the right to assume that the Liberal government in Ottawa is conniving with the Conservative government in Manitoba to ignore the rights of the native people there.
It may be that the hon. minister is so busy with his cabinet duties he does not have the opportunity to read the reports to which I have referred earlier in Winnipeg newspapers, yet I am sure he is much more closely in touch with the Winnipeg Free Press and the type of things that newspaper expresses than any of the rest of us. Let me refer for a few moments to press reports which have appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press almost every day. Let me read from an article which appeared in this newspaper on December 20:
A group of University of Manitoba professors is urging the provincial government not to grant Manitoba Hydro a licence for the raising of the water level in South Indian Lake-


Mr. Guay (SI. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to inquire whether the hon. member is now speaking to the bill or referring to matters pertaining to the Manitoba provincial government?


David Orlikow: I am surprised that the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), with his broad experience at the municipal level in the province of Manitoba, is not aware of the fact that this project to which I have referred is affected by this government in two ways.
5350
February 10, 1969

Navigable Waters Protection Act This government will have to contribute a substantial part of the money to finance this project. If the federal government is to provide the majority of the money, it has the right to look into the terms of the agreement.
Since the plan to divert water from the Churchill River into the Nelson River involves a navigable stream, I suggest that under the provisions of this bill the federal government has a responsibility. The reason my colleague moved the amendment, which the hon. member for St. Boniface obviously voted against, has relation to the fact that this project involves a navigable water in respect of which the federal government has a responsibility. This is typical of what one can expect from government members. When a navigable water for which the federal government has a responsibility is affected by a provincial project, we feel this government has the right to be concerned and insist that the proposal, in fact, be in the interests of the people, including Indians in northern Manitoba, even though the hon. member for St. Boniface may not be concerned. When I am finished, if the hon. member for St. Boniface does not agree with me, I urge him to get up and speak in this house. The people of his constituency would be happy to know that he can speak, and that he does occasionally speak.
[DOT] <9:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Orlikow: If I may proceed, Mr. Speaker, from where I was so rudely interrupted, I refer again to the report in the Winnipeg Free Press which reads:
A group of University of Manitoba professors is urging the provincial government not to grant Manitoba Hydro a licence for the raising of the water level in South Indian Lake, thereby flooding the homes of more than 500 Indian and Metis people, until all alternatives to the scheme have been fully assessed.
Later in the same news story there is this statement, and the hon. member for St. Boniface should be interested in it:
Not only would the Indian and Metis homes be flooded, but the water would inundate about 1,100 square miles of forested shoreland-almost three times the area mentioned during a debate on the scheme in the legislature last spring.
Beautiful rocky shorelines and wide shady beaches in the area would give way to impassable swamps of drowned forests and piled-up debris, a situation which would probably prevail for many decades to come.
Trapping in the area would be greatly reduced, if not eliminated, while there was a danger, with

present spawning grounds being destroyed, that commercial fishing on the lake would no longer be profitable.
Several days later the Winnipeg Free Press made a further report on this question. I quote from the Winnipeg Free Press of January 25:
The real area of concern, therefore, is not centred on the engineering validity of the project but on the consequences of flooding the natural and human resources in the area and on whether these were taken into proper account before the scheme was approved.


Mr. Lind:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


David Orlikow: Certainly.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: Has the hon. member looked into the riparian rights of the Metis along this lake shore?


David Orlikow: I am not a lawyer, and I am not an expert on riparian rights. But one does not have to be an expert in the law to know that the white people of Canada, those like the hon. member, myself and the other members of this house, have a moral responsibility to the native people of northern Manitoba.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member-


David Orlikow: I permitted a question, Mr. Speaker, and when I have finished I will be glad to hear the hon. member.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: The hon. member has not answered my question, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Kootenay East used to ask the hon. member for York-Humber all the time: What about the riparian rights of these people? I am just asking him whether he has looked into the riparian rights of the Metis around this lake.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I answered the question by saying that I am not an expert on riparian rights, and I do not think one needs to be in order to appreciate this problem. The hon. member laughs. I assume he laughs because he is not very concerned about the problems of the Indians in northern Manitoba.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: I certainly am concerned about the problems of the Indians, Mr. Speaker, but I would like the hon. member to realize what riparian rights are.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt as to the relevancy of the hon. member's remarks. I am prepared to give him
February 10, 1969

the benefit of the doubt, but I would appreci-cate it if he would demonstrate to me how the remarks he is now making relate directly to the bill. If he cannot do this, perhaps he would like to deal specifically with the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Orlikow: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the bill deals with any works which affect navigable waters. Obviously, if you divert 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the waters of the Churchill River there will not be much left in the way of a navigable stream. Therefore, it seems to me that what I am saying is directly related to the bill.
I know that hon. members opposite want to get on with the business. However, my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), when we were discussing the amendment appealed to the Minister without Portfolio to discuss this matter further, because it is of vital concern to the people of the hon. member's and my own province. The minister did not see fit to deal with this question. I am sorry that I have to take the time of the house, therefore, to deal with this very important matter and thereby preventing the house from proceeding to other business as hon. members opposite would like to do.
If the minister had dealt with the subject, it would not be necessary for me to continue with these remarks. As I was saying, the article in the Winnipeg Free Press reads:
The real area of concern, therefore, is not centred on the engineering validity of the project but on the consequences of flooding the natural and human resources in the area and on whether these were taken into proper account before the scheme was approved.
That is precisely what we would like to know, namely, whether the federal government looked into this question before it gave approval to the plan, not only its approval in a general way but before it agreed to put hundreds of millions of dollars into this project in northern Manitoba. I am not objecting to the development of hydro power in northern Manitoba. I am just as concerned as every other citizen of the province that we use the resources we have. But I want to be sure, as do the people who are much more knowledgeable and experienced than I in these matters, the professors of the University of Manitoba, that all aspects of this matter have been studied by the government. The professors of the University of Manitoba were asked to study the question and make reports to the government. These reports have 29180-339J
Navigable Waters Protection Act been conveniently hidden by the government. I do not know why. I do not know whether the Minister without Portfolio knows. I do not know whether anybody in the federal government knows or has ever thought to ask, but it seems to me that the people of northern Manitoba have a right to know what was in those reports and what the effect on northern Manitoba will be as a result of this tremendous undertaking. The Winnipeg Free Press states further:
-if the serious loss of natural resources in the area and the cost of relocating people affected by the flooding and providing them with a new, strong economic base is added to the engineering costs of the Manitoba Hydro project, does it still stand up as the only plan which could have been used in the circumstances?
It seems to me that ministers of the Crown have a responsibility to look into this question. Amongst the reports which the Winnipeg Free Press says were tabled with the Manitoba government, and which they have refused to make public so far, is one which the Free Press summarizes as follows:
The report, made public for the first time yesterday in an exclusive Free Press story, forecasts that the flooding plan would ruin natural and human resources in the Southern Indian Lake area and would also have serious side effects on the northern towns on Churchill and Thompson, and the Indian community at Nelson House.
There are at Nelson House 1,300 Indian people. If you have a serious effect on 1,300 people at Nelson House, plus the 600 at South Indian Lake, you have a total of 2,000 people who may move from a position where they have until now been able to earn their own living. This is not a position, I am sure we would all agree, in which too many of our Indians find themselves because they have to depend to a large extent on welfare provided by the federal government. The Winnipeg Free Press article continues:
The report says that the proposed flooding would probably mean the end of profitable fishing and trapping industries in the Southern Indian Lake area and would make the new enlarged lake useless for anything other than the water storage reservoir which is planned-
The report says that because of high water in the Burnt wood River after flooding there would be adverse effects on natural resources in the Nelson House area, and that the people may no longer have a satisfactory base for a major part of their existing livelihood-
John Hicks, president of the Churchill Whalers Co-operative Association, said that up until now-
That was January 25.
-the association had not been "too worried" about the possible effects of a reduced flow in the Churchill River after the diversion scheme on the white whale industry in the river estuary.
February 10, 19G3

Navigable Waters Protection Act
But he added: "In view of what this report says I would imagine we would want some clarification from the provincial government on this matter."
The white whale industry at Churchill provides about $16,000 in wages during the summer months to 120 Indians, Metis and Eskimos employees. Mr. Hicks agreed that any injury to the industry would be a bad blow for the people in the area.
I do not want to continue,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Orlikow: -although I could go on for hours.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
It does seem to me that the Minister without Portfolio from Manitoba has a moral responsibility to the people of Manitoba to put on the record what the federal government knows about these very serious charges which have been made by responsible people in Manitoba. These people have been aggravated by the absolute refusal of the government of Manitoba and of Manitoba Hydro to make this information available to anyone who has the ability to study and evaluate it. It seems to me that until the minister does make this information available, we in this group will not believe that the government is prepared to do anything. We certainly cannot vote for the bill as it is as the present time.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: May I ask the
hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) a question? Has the Whalers Association, which the hon. member mentioned, not the right to appeal under the riparian rights rule? Could the hon. member explain that to me?


David Orlikow: I said earlier in answer to a question from the hon. member that I was not an expert on riparian rights. I think the hon. member should communicate with the former member for York-Humber who used to be a Liberal, I do not know whether or not he is one now, and he can get all the information on riparian rights from that former member.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: Yes, but we used to hear about riparian rights from the former member for Kootenay East.


David Orlikow: He is on the hon. member's side too.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk at any length on this bill-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
IMr. Orlikow.]


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Good for you. But there is something at stake here. The flow in the South Saskatchewan River has been lowered so that when two kids put a canoe in the river they cannot even float the canoe down from Saskatoon to Prince Albert. This is part of the same system that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) is talking about because the South Saskatchewan and the North Saskatchewan flow into the Churchill. What is really being discussed here tonight is whether or not we are concerned about the level of water in navigable rivers.
It is fine to talk about riparian rights, whatever they are. I have some notion about what the hon. member opposite was talking, because at one time I tried to dig a couple of ditches to run some water from one place to another and someone said to me "you haven't got the water rights so you cannot run the water down that ditch". That is what riparian rights are about. Let us not lose sight of the real issue by talking about some technicality. What is at stake here is the fact that two or three years ago the people in the city of Prince Albert and the city of North Battle-ford found their water unfit to drink. The water was being polluted upstream to such an extent that it was not fit for use. This is what people have been trying to discuss here this afternoon and evening, and this is what members on this side of the house have been hoping would be answered. This is our purpose. I thought it advisable to point out these facts because they represent my point of view on the matter.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question. The minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) was here a few moments ago but I see he has left so perhaps the Minister without Portfolio could answer it. What action, if any, has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development taken to make arrangements for those Indians who have been dispossessed by the rise of the Peace River created by the Portage Dam and by the present construction on the river north of Manitoba? Does the Indian affairs department look after the rights of the people in this respect, and if so, what have they done?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
are still waiting for an answer from the Minister Without Portfolio.
February 10, 1969


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I have covered all the points several times, but I will be glad to state the government's position once again for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I think the main point that seems to be concerning him and other speakers is the fact that provinces and Crown corporations are not required to make application under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. As I said earlier today, in most cases they do but there have been instances where they have not made application and the law does not require it. The government's position is that this is a minor bill which is making a lot of useful amendments to the act, but the government does not want to make this minor bill into a major constitutional issue. As I said earlier today, there is enough going on today in that field without adding navigable waters. It is my belief that it would be a good idea to require provinces and Crown corporations to make application under this act, and I have said so. However, I do not believe, and this is the government's position, that it would be appropriate to achieve this purpose in Bill S-19 because, as 1 said, the bill would then become a major issue.
All this bill is doing is tidying up the act. I think we should pass this bill and then, in due course, get down to the other major consideration of federal-provincial relations with regard to navigable waters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the minister sits down would he comment on the situation at South Indian Lake?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the situation at South Indian Lake is a case in point. If Crown corporations and provinces were required to make application under this act, then there would be federal jurisdiction. Since there is no federal jurisdiction, the matter of whether the province had to make application under this act is not open to debate. I do not think this matter can be settled in this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So
the federal government is washing its hands of that situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Hon. Jack Davis (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-151, an act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry on Friday, February 7, 1969, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? Now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


John (Jack) Davis: the third reading of the bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the minister intends to make a statement at this time? I understood at the committee stage that he was most anxious to discuss an amendment, and that he might give us the benefit of his views now.


John (Jack) Davis: As the house knows, this bill received second reading, was referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, and is now back in this chamber for third reading. It deals with the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. More particularly, it increases the number of commercial lenders and makes a new provision with respect to interest rates, one which is more realistic in present circumstances. Finally the bill increases the liability of the government as a result of the new financial provisions in the proposed amendments to the act.
I should like to refer, now, to another desirable amendment to the act. This proposed amendment was incorporated in a notice
February 10, 1969

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act which I sent to the Clerk of the House on February 5, 1969. I also commended it to the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry during the course of its deliberations on Thursday, February 6, as many hon. members present know. The notice I sent to the Clerk of the House of Commons was to the effect that after Bill C-151 had been reported back to this house I would propose under standing order 75 the following motion:
That Bill C-151, an act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, be amended by renumbering clause 2 thereof as subclause (2) of clause 2 and by adding as subclause (1) of clause 2 the following:
2.	(1) All that portion of paragraph (d) of
subsection (1) of section 3 of the said Act following subparagraph (ii) thereof is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"did not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars;"
As hon. members know, the intent of this amendment would be to raise the maximum individual fisheries loan limit from $10,000 to $25,000. I understand the authorities were concerned about whether or not this amendment constituted an additional charge on the Consolidated Revenue fund, or, alternatively, an increase in the contingent liability of the government. They were concerned, in other words, lest a message of recommendation of the Governor General might be necessary before such an amendment would be in order. I say "might" because I am personally not convinced that this amendment would, if carried, increase the liability of the government over the $20 million covered by this legislation.
There is, however, another and important reservation. I am advised that the proposed amendment is not acceptable on another and altogether different ground for reasons which are only now becoming clear because they relate to the new rules under which this house is operating. I now find that any amendment of the character to which I alluded in the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, or such as I have read into the record, would not be acceptable because the intent of the amendment is sufficiently different from the main provisions of Bill C-151 as to disqualify it. Accordingly, at least in the opinion of the authorities, it cannot be contemplated at any stage after the adoption of the motion for second reading.
I, personally, believe that the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act must be amended in the way suggested, in other words, so as to permit the maximum amount of a loan to be

increased from $10,000 to $25,000. I am therefore proposing, with the support of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), to introduce another bill which will contain a single clause to this effect. It will be identical in almost every respect with the bill to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act which was passed in 1965, dealing exclusively with the ceiling on individual loans.
This is an important provision. I believe it must be enacted, and enacted soon. I find that fishermen across the country need loans in excess of $10,000. Indeed, it is debatable whether $25,000 is adequate for their purposes, either for building new boats or for re-equipping existing vessels. I, therefore, undertake to bring in a new bill and, as I have said, I have the assurance of the office of the President of the Privy Council that this will receive top priority. That is my statement, Mr. Speaker.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I listened with interest, Mr. Speaker, to the statements made by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis), and I wish to comment briefly on the bill which is presently before the house.
When the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act received Royal Assent on July 11, 1955, the amount of any loan which could be made to an individual fisherman could not exceed $4,000 and under the terms of the loan it was repayable in full over a period of not more than eight years.
The Act was amended on March 20, 1959 to provide broader coverage to individual fishermen, and the term "fisherman" was more clearly defined. The Act was again amended on March 23, 1962, extending the powers granted to the Minister to June, 1965. On June 23, 1965, the legislation was further revised raising the amount of any loan to fishermen from $4,000 to $10,000, and the repayment period was extended from eight years to ten years.
Since the latter change was made we have seen a substantial rise in the cost of living. Inflation has eroded the purchasing power of the dollar and the cost of goods and services to Canadians has been rising constantly. In my opinion, the act has never been fully utilized by our fishermen; only 2,586 loans to a total of $6,168,800 have been made since it was first brought in as long ago as December, 1955. If the present ceiling is retained, the legislation might well be used to even less effect in the future.
February 10, 1969

It was for this reason I proposed in the committee that the act be amended with specific reference to the amount which might be borrowed and the term set for repayment. I realized that my proposed amendment dealt with the finances of the country. At the same time, the changes I suggested had to do only with loans being made by lending institutions, and since such loans are fully secured, normally by way of mortgages on articles purchased, or liens on the equipment and stock of borrowers, I considered they would not impose any new responsibilities on the government. However, in any event, my amendment was not accepted by the committee.
What do we see happening now with regard to this legislation? There is no proposal to extend the period during which loans have to be repaid. Instead, we are being asked to sign a blank cheque in respect of the rate of interest to be paid by fishermen on loans approved in the future. This represents a vital departure from the provisions of the original act which stated simply that the rate of interest to be charged on the loans was not to exceed 5 per cent per annum, simple interest. We are told, now, that in connection with future loans made under the act fishermen will have to pay a rate of interest to be prescribed by the Governor in Council. That is what the bill says. The rate of interest that is set may well be the same as the rate prescribed under the National Housing Act; or it could be higher. No one knows, except members of the cabinet who will set this rate under order in council. The bill provides, for the guidance of fishermen, that the rate of interest on fishery improvement loans shall be set by the Governor in Council. But this is not what the minister says, Mr. Speaker. He, of course, is privy to discussions in cabinet and he knows what the cabinet proposes to do. Surprisingly, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) has not seen fit so far to amend this legislation in accordance with his statement at the annual meeting of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union at Vancouver on Saturday, February 1. This is what the minister had to say about interest rates to the fishermen of British Columbia:
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
You will be able, within the next month or two, to borrow this money from a wide range of commercial sources at a lower interest rate than the rate paid by the biggest corporation in the country. In a month or two you will be able to borrow money at 71%. This is less than the 8 to 81% which B.C. Packers has to pay for new money.
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act It is only 1% more than the "cost of money" to the Federal Government itself-to the Government of Canada which will be guaranteeing every loan made under our new federal Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
The interest rate itself is geared to the interest rate paid by the Government of Canada on its long term loans. If Ottawa pays 6% on its new borrowings, then you will be asked to pay 7%. If the federal borrowing rate falls to 5%, then you will pay 6%. If it goes down to 4% then you will pay 5%. The difference is always 1% and the rate under these new loans will go up and down along with the changing cost of money to the Canadian Government in Ottawa.
However, we tried to amend the act; at least, we tried to incorporate the minister's words into the bill. We suggested in the committee that the bill should be amended and that the rate of interest to be charged should be 1 per cent only above what it costs the government to borrow money. We did not receive any support on our effort to have the words of the minister's statement included in the bill. Liberal party supporters seemed more interested in supporting a partisan approach to this matter rather than permitting the official opposition to amend the legislation in keeping with the stated intent of the minister. If it is the government's intention to gear the interest rate on fishery improvement loans to the interest rate paid by the government of Canada on its long term loans, why does it not come out and say so, and spell it out in this legislation? What have you over there to hide from the Canadian fisherman? No wonder the fishermen of Canada to date have looked with obvious mistrust and misgiving at this particular act.
Since the inception of this act, where have the loans been made, Mr. Speaker?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mostly in British Columbia.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: My hon. friend says, in British Columbia. During the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968, a total of 280 loans were made in the total amount of $1,273,924. This total covers all Canada. Since we are concerned with the lack of use of this legislation, I wish to place on the record the number of loans and the amount obtained in each province during the last year.
If we look at the report, as tabled, of the Deputy Minister of Finance-I am referring to the 1967-68 annual report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968-we see that in British Columbia 147 loans were made for a total amount of $987,905. In Alberta, there were no loans and there is no amount. In Saskatchewan, there were no loans. In Manitoba there was one loan $2,500. In
February 10, 1969

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act Ontario there were 3 loans for $2,085. For New Brunswick, one of the provinces of Canada with a large and growing fishing industry, there were no loans and there is no amount.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In Nova Scotia, there were 46 loans totalling $159,889. In little Prince Edward Island, there were a large number of small loans for lobster boats. The 80 loans there totalled $113,945. The biggest fishing province of all, Newfoundland, has no loans set against it and no amount. I am sure the hon. member from Newfoundland will have something to say about this later.


James Aloysius McGrath: That shows how interested the government is in the Newfoundland fishing industry.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A total of 280 loans have been made under this legislation for a total amount of $1,273,924. I wonder why this legislation has not met with greater favour among our fishermen? Obviously, our fishermen are a good risk. The report tabled for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, shows that since the inception of the act the government has paid only nine claims amounting to $4,543. What other industry, what other lending institution, can boast such a record? I submit this record shows the strong character of our fishermen. It shows their integrity and desire to adhere to a principle or a set of values. It is evident that once a fisherman assumes a financial responsibility it is not something he takes lightly. It is a burden to be carried and a debt to be repaid, even though sometimes it is repaid at great personal sacrifice-a sacrifice he, his wife and family bear.
These facts must be stressed strongly by the minister and should somehow be recognized in a special release from his department. At the very least, these facts should be recognized by the minister when he moves his amendment. It is his stated objective to amend this legislation at a later stage by bringing in a new bill.
The minister has suggested that the amount which may be borrowed should be increased to $25,000; but he said nothing about increasing the time permitted for the repayment of the loan. As a result we, on this side of the house, are prepared to move a subamendment, if necessary, stipulating that the loan shall be repayable in full, according to the terms thereof, in not more than 15 years. A fisherman will not take this extra time to pay if fishing is good and his earnings are high.

The life expectancy of his wooden boat is greater than 15 years. In my view the fisherman ought to be given this extra time if he requires it, in order to meet his payments.
I am pleased the minister has indicated his intention to move a motion at a later date calling for an increase from $10,000 to $25,000 in the amount which can be borrowed. In today's inflated, high cost society, this amount is still not adequate to assist our fishermen in getting established. But even in biblical days, a few loaves and fishes fed the multitude. I suppose it is not necessarily the quantity of material available that matters but the manner in which it is used which is important.
The fisherman will have to work out his own program under the new terms of the loan. We endorse and approve the amendment, even though the minister's methods of promoting the change are rather strange. I say this because this bill received second reading on January 21, 1969. At that time there was no mention in the bill of changing the upper limit of the amount to be borrowed. The measure received second reading and was referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry for clause by clause study. However, in a speech on February 1 in Vancouver the minister had this to say about the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act:
No doubt you will ask me how you, as an individual fisherman, can hope to own your own boat. I will reply by saying that you should take advantage of our new federal Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. This Act, which has recently been updated, is geared to finance loans of up to $25,000. You can borrow up to 75% of the cost of a new boat, or new gear, or a new shore installation. You can borrow up to $25,000 from any bank, or credit union, or insurance company. And you will be able to borrow this money at a lower rate of interest than is available to anyone else in Canada -anyone that is except the Government of Canada itself.
e (9:40 p.m.)
Let me say at once that we agree with the minister and approve of his suggestion that the loan limit be raised. However, we disagree with the kite-flying methods used by this cabinet when endeavouring to establish government policy. For example, the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans), says we should get out of NATO while the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) tells the nation that NATO is vitally important to the future protection of this country. At the same time the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), says that neither minister was stating government policy. The minister in charge of housing, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), states the 11
February 10, 1969

per cent sales tax on construction machinery and building materials should be removed in order to speed up housing development in Canada. At the same time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has told the house that the sales tax will only be removed over his dead body.
These controversies do not aid our regional problems, do not strengthen our national unity and are obviously put forward by the government to keep the country guessing while they procrastinate on policy. This is what the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) has been doing, procrastinating on policy. While the fisherman waits for a definite policy under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, the minister goes kite-flying in British Columbia. While the fishermen on the Atlantic coast wait for a program of subsidies which will enable them to improve their fishing fleet, or wait for an indication from the minister with regard to his over-all policy for fisheries development, all we receive from him in reply to questions concerning policy are negative and evasive answers.
Since the diversification of groundfish production became firmly established on the Atlantic coast, seldom in our history have there been occasions when the fishing industry has been so severely or widely threatened. Only three or four species have enabled the industry to remain solvent. Groundfish are being sold today in many instances for less than the cost of production.
In order to avert still more serious dislocations in fishing activity, which will be most difficult to repair once they have occurred, quick action is needed on the part of federal authorities. Constant losses and tightening credit, plus escalating costs for equipment, plus some of the lowest prices in history for groundfish products, have placed our fishermen and producers on the Atlantic coast in a precarious position. Despite all our effort to have the Minister of Fisheries and the government act on this important matter, to date all we have had from the government is a do-nothing, procrastinating attitude. We need action from this government on Canada's territorial seas and fishing zone limits. This act was passed in 1964 and yet we heard today from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) that discussions and deliberations are still going on with the governments of the United States, France and other countries on this important matter.
The government promised the fishermen during election campaigns in 1962, 1963 and 1964 that this act, when passed, would be

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act implemented by unilateral action. We need action from the government on conservation measures, and this can only be done adequately by calling another conference on the law of the sea. The fisheries industry needs a spokesman at the United Nations to alert other fishing nations to the fact that our resources on our continental shelf are not inexhaustable. When we ask what is being done about this very serious problem, the only reply we receive is that it is under consideration; maybe something will be done next week or next year. When are we going to see something done on these urgent matters?
These are but a few of the urgent matters requiring attention, but I stress them to the Minister of Fisheries and the government in the hope that something will be done. In view of the large area, the large number of fishermen and their families as well as the ancillary industries which are affected by our fisheries, I express the hope this government will take early action to correct some of these problems which are creating serious financial difficulties for the fishing industry of the Atlantic provinces.


Randolph Harding: want to make a few brief remarks on this bill, Mr. Speaker. I was frankly amazed when the minister announced at the start of the discussion that he would like this bill to pass and that another amending bill would be introduced. I think this is a sign of sloppy drafting. In my opinion, the legislation should be held up and a completely new draft introduced.


John (Jack) Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not propose that any bill be brought in to amend this bill or to deal in fact with any part of this bill. As I understand it, the subject matter of my proposed amendment is outside of this bill and therefore can only be accepted in the form of another bill. This proposal of mine is not one to amend the bill now before the house, but to bring in another bill which fits the rules better and indeed would only be acceptable as a separate bill and not as an amendment to this bill.


Randolph Harding: I thank the minister for his explanation, but I understand the new bill will still amend the same act which his bill is amending. Is that not so?
Does the minister tell us he cannot introduce legislation such as this? My understanding of statutes is that a bill to amend an
February 10, 1969

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act act can be all-inclusive. In my opinion there is no need for two bills to amend the same act in the same session. However, I will not press the point. I feel, Mr. Speaker, this indicates quite a number of very important issues have been missed. I would like to see an all-inclusive bill introduced.
There is just one point which I should like to leave with the minister in view of his suggestion that another bill might be introduced. He probably has this already in mind. I am happy to hear that the ceiling will be raised. However, I am not sure that $25,000 is the proper amount. In 1965 the amount was raised to $10,000. The minister has suggested this amount should be raised to $25,000 and I am of the opinion it should be higher than that. I agree with the previous speaker that an extension of the repayment time is essential. The hon. member made an excellent presentation in this regard.
A point was brought to my attention in connection with boat insurance. I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, just what the limit is in so far as insurance on fishing vessels is concerned. I recently received a letter from one of my constituents suggesting there should be a sharp increase in the ceiling on boat insurance. There is no doubt values have risen immensely in this particular field and permissible insurance ceilings should rise accordingly. I ask the minister to study this problem, if it is really a problem, facing the industry at large.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker, but I too am very interested in all these bills which affect certain sections of the various industries of Canada. I think we cannot be too careful in making sure that the legislation being put on the statute books is good legislation and deals with values and prices as of 1969.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker I rise only because I would like to take a leaf out of your Honour's book and enter a caveat with respect to some of the points that were made by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis). He said that he had consulted the authorities. That is quite a phrase. Sometimes the authorities are people, sometimes they are books, and there are plenty of both.
I agree with the minister when he says that in order to amend this bill in a way that might involve the expenditure of money not envisaged in the bill as it was first presented,

it would be necessary to bring before the house the approval of the Governor General. But when he says that he cannot amend this bill, which is a bill to amend the original act, by adding to it other amendments to the original act I think he had better go back and discuss that with the authorities again. As a matter of fact, I suggest to him that he might be in even greater difficulty bringing in a second bill in the same session amending the original act than he would be by trying to get some amendments incorporated into this bill. It all depends on what he does.
He says that the amendments in his new bill will not be amendments to this bill, that they will be amendments to the original act. But if there is any inconsistency or any conflict I suggest he could be in the same kind of trouble that our friend Jack Pickersgill got into on one occasion. I would remind the minister that there have been occasions when bills that had already been presented and started were amended beyond what was originally intended. It used to be that this meant going beyond the terms of the resolution preceding a bill. We have done away with that, but we still have to consider the intention of the bill as agreed to by the Governor General.
For example, I think of the medicare bill which had written into it a clause having to do with other than medical services. At first, it was argued that this could not be put into the bill because it was not part of the original intention. But when the government finally did do it, it did so by bringing in another recommendation from the Governor General. There was the Canada Pension Plan, and I remember once or twice that Mr. Garson did this kind of thing in the days when he was here. I am sure there are other examples of this, where matters that were germaine to the general subject were brought into the amending bill before the house.
As I say, I think it would be less difficult to amend this bill by adding something else, as long as you get the approval of the Governor General, than it will be to bring in a second bill in the same session amending an act on the statute books. Frankly, I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) is the best one. The minister should let this bill stand or ask that it be withdrawn and bring in a completely new bill incorporating the things in this bill that he wants and the other proposals that he would like to make.
I do not raise this as a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, the minister did not present
February 10, 1969

his arguments as a point of order but I felt that I for one could not let his remarks go unchallenged as though they were the gospel. As you know, the gospel, can be according to various authorities, and I think this might well have to be looked into.
I would urge the minister to consider asking that this bill be withdrawn, or at least asking that it stand, and that he bring in a completely new bill, so we will have one bill at this session making all the amendments that he wants to make to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to agree with the previous speaker. As I said on an amendment the other day, we are making our way with these new rules and I think once again there has been sloppy work on behalf of the government. Surely, the government has the staff and the facilities to enable these bills to be amended in committee. I would like to thank Hansard for spelling that word "kafuffling" right the other day. This is just more kafuffling.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock by consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There is no agreement.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the minister's remarks on third reading of this bill. We had a fairly wide ranging discussion on the resolution that preceded this bill before the new rules were established. We had a good debate on second reading of the bill, and I understand there was a wide ranging discussion on the bill in the committee.
Since the bill was first introduced, Mr. Speaker, and following remarks that were made regarding the serious problems facing the fishing industry in Canada, more particularly the crisis facing the groundfish industry in eastern Canada, we have seen the government relax its rather rigid attitude. Initially, the minister indicated the government was not going to do anything about the crisis in the groundfishing industry until the end of the present fiscal year, which would be in March. Notwithstanding the fact it had been pointed out to the minister that the crisis was a real one, that fish plants were closing down in the province of Newfoundland, that five plants closed down in the last calendar year,
DEBATES	5359
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and that there was a danger of other plants closing, the minister did not intend to act until the end of the fiscal year.
However, as a result of the representations made in this house, the minister relaxed his rigid attitude. He has now given us an undertaking that he will be making a statement to the house before February 21, at which time he will be announcing interim and long-term measures designed to cope with the problems facing the groundfish industry in eastern Canada. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the acting government house leader if we are going to descend into the omnibus Criminal Code amendment debate again tomorrow.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the announcement of government business that was made by the house leader on Thursday, February 6, indicates that the omnibus Criminal Code amendments bill will be before the house tomorrow. If that should pass, perhaps we could go back to the bill that was before the house until ten o'clock today. If we deal with that matter then we would take up bills C-155 and C-154.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, ten days ago I quoted the opinion of the Canadian Welfare Council that the report of the Hellyer task force on housing includes no proposals to help the one million Canadians with annual incomes under $5,500. I asked the minister what other proposals he had to provide housing for these people. Tonight, I ask him the same question, or whomever he has delegated to answer.
I am not denying that there are some good proposals in the report but they are proposals that would help the upper income levels of our population. The decision to cold storage
February 10, 1969
5360	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion public housing and urban renewal is a shocking betrayal of those who most need help, those who cannot possibly provide homes by their own efforts. Up to now the government has discriminated in favour of those best able to provide houses for themselves. What we need now is government discrimination in favour of the lower income half. I refer to the elderly, the single parent families, the great group headed by women with dependant children, employed people whose wages will not allow them to buy a home under any circumstances or even rent one that is not a firetrap, a rat trap, or both. The method of attacking existing public housing projects for their bad features does not provide an excuse for failing to build good, modern ones. In a second brief presented to the task force on November 29 last, the mayor and council of my own city said:
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The city ol Vancouver is extremely concerned at any suggestion that the federal government withdraw or in any way limit its involvement in urban renewal schemes. On the contrary, it is the city's view that such involvement must be increased.
While the brief states that there has been a reaction against the concentration of low income and welfare recipients into areas stigmatized as "ghettos", and while admitting that the idea of public housing has not yet been accepted by all communities, nevertheless, the brief suggests:
-the city feels very strongly that public housing, as presently contemplated, is one way of accommodating those people who are economically unable to provide for their housing needs.
The federal task force has failed the city of Vancouver. It has failed the people of Vancouver, thousands of them, who need housing and cannot get it on their own. It has failed the people of every city across Canada who are in the same miserable dilemma. By seeing only home owners and potential home owners, by raising the N.H.A. mortgage limit to $35,000, by proposing to remove the interest ceiling altogether, the minister has ensured that housing for the upper income half will continue to be the aim of government policy.
The New Democratic party urges the federal government to begin with the needs of the two thirds of Canadian families whose annual incomes are below $7,500. Public housing? Yes. Rent supplements? Yes, if accompanied by a program of rent controls and the enforcement of local housing codes. This, of course, means co-operation with provincial
[Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) j
governments. Why not? The task force was composed of a distinguished group of academics with a sprinkling of practical builders and a strong-minded politician. I wish it had taken time to look at the report of the guidelines committee of the Canadian conference on housing held in Toronto last October, which said:
Canadian housing goals will not be easy to achieve. They require much higher priority within the public economy (federal and provincial) and should be seen to be as socially essential as education. No government is spending according to the priorities this conference insists on.
As long as government allocations for housing are insufficient, priority within housing budgets should go to helping those with the greatest need-
And those last two words are underlined.
-including ethnic minorities, regional areas and poverty groups, whether through housing policies or through employment and income policies.
I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that the hard working and comfortable task force has turned this advice upside down. It has provided a blueprint that helps those best able to help themselves.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I believe all members of this house are genuinely concerned about proper housing for all Canadian people, especially those most in need. This evening, on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hel-lyer), I should like to say that a close and careful reading of the report by the task force on housing and urban development will dispel many fears expressed by the Canadian Welfare Council and others, and will clearly show that there are many recommendations designed to assist Canadians with low incomes.
Such recommendations deal with expanded programs for limited dividend housing; easier down payment requirements; proposed alternatives to present public housing projects; income supplements; easier terms of payment, rental and the acquisition and improvement of existing homes as well as many other recommendations. I am sure the minister, in presenting his proposals to the government based on the report, will incorporate many of these recommendations and that Canadians of low and moderate incomes will be given a wide choice and expanded opportunity for better living accommodation.
February 10, 1969



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-DISPUTE WITH LETTER CARRIERS UNION-DOWNWARD RATES REVISION

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my question the other day the minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the answer to that is no.
I will overlook the somewhat presumptuous flippancy of the reply and ask how I could possibly know his answer would be in the negative, having noted some very definite and distinct changes he has made in respect of such things as the five day delivery in rural areas, the imposition of the five day delivery in the rest of the country and having noted the number of quick turns some of his colleagues like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) have had to make in certain important areas. We are all aware of the increasing protests from publishers of all kinds of important publications in respect of the drastic increase which will soon be imposed upon them.
I was interested in the comment of the leader of the N.D.P. in Ontario. I do not believe in the organ in question and I am reasonably sure I would disagree with most of the information it disseminates. But political parties are essential to a democracy, and they must be able to communicate with the citizenry.
Not long ago two large and important national organizations, even larger than the N.D.P., stated their views and disappointment in this matter. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture on February 3 passed a unanimous resolution on postal rates. This resolution on postal rates asked the government not to implement, as presently worded, Bill C-116 raising postal rates for newspapers and periodicals. The resolution also indicated that the impact of this bill on farm publications would result in increased mailing costs ranging between 230 per cent and 2,000 per cent. It pointed out that the farm press was a vital tool in farm production and management, since it kept farmers informed of technological innovations.
On the same day the Canadian Labour Congress dealt with the same question. Let me read from a Canadian Press release on this matter:
The Canadian Labour Congress has accused the federal government of curtailing freedom of expression by imposing what the C.L.C. terms exorbitant postal rates for non-profit publications.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
William Dodge, C.L.C. secretary-treasurer, said yesterday several trade union publications may have to cease publication because of increased postal rates scheduled for April 1.
The article then continues:
Mr. Dodge said the postal rate increase threatens freedom of expression because the printed word is the only effective way a union or a similar organization has of reaching its members. He said the increase would also result in the loss of employment in the printing industry, pulp and paper and related fields.
The article then states:
Mr. Dodge said the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers estimates that its postal bill for its bi-monthly, Canadian Transport, will climb from $1,057 to $29,696. The international association of machinists has estimated that the cost of mailing its weekly, The Machinist, will go up from $9,024 to $99,840.
These increases are absolutely phenomenal and the portents are painful, indeed. We have been told by these people that there is a great danger that Canadian publications will have to bow out and we will find the Canadian unions having to put up with United States publications in their fields. As one of the editors said, it is ironic that after years of fighting for independent Canadian union papers we may lose them now because of measures taken by our own government.
It is a serious thing that so many important groups in our society will have their capacity for communication so drastically curtailed. There is one other aspect involved and that is competition with United States publications which Canadian post offices will still have to carry. This process will not help the minister much in his deficit fighting activity.
I can think of another type of competition; that is competition from government departments. Will the organs of organized labour in Canada be forced out of business by the exorbitant rates? Will the publications of the Department of Labour go through the mails easier?
To take another example, will publications of institutes of international affairs and like groups have to be diminished or curtailed while External Affairs, the journal of the Department of External Affairs, goes out with regularity and ease? One can imagine the amount of critical content on government policy which the department's publication will include! I doubt, indeed, if the minister's speeches on NATO will ever find their way into this slick magazine.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I am not complaining about the free use of mails for such purposes. A government
February 10, 1969
5362	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion should be able to communicate with its people, and vice versa. The franking privilege works both ways, and so it should. But a government should not have a monopoly or a near-monopoly on the communication of ideas and information on any aspect of public policy or national interest. Therein lies the danger.
I join the many organizations, groups and individuals who have appealed to us, and I am sure they must be appealing to the minister every day, if not every hour on the hour, to take another look at the ramifications which will stem from the imposition of the legislation and to look at the whole question of the communication of ideas of important groups within this country.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, this question and this type of proposal has been answered on many occasions in the past. I will only refer to the example of the Canadian Labour Congress. They have submitted a brief to the government and will be presenting it later this month. They have made reference to the increase in postal rates. I will then repeat publicly what I have already told Mr. Dodge and others privately:	I admit that the
increases, on a percentage basis, appear to be and are, in fact, substantial. On the other hand, when one breaks down the increases into a cost per subscription per year, in fact it is very minor indeed.
In a long letter which I wrote to Mr. Dodge with respect to 11 major journals, the editors of which met with me in my office, I stated that in most cases the figure was about 30 cents, 40 cents or 50 cents per annum. An increase of this order for weeklies or bimonthlies would cover the entire increases in the postage rates, as astronomical as they may appear to be when cited in absolute terms by my hon. colleague. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this is all relative. What is not relative is the fact that the Post Office would have operated at a deficit of $130 million this year; that by changing the philosophy of the Post Office and charging those who use its services on the basis of user cost and not on the basis of indirect subsidy by the government, we are accomplishing a great deal.
By far the greatest impact will be felt in the business sector. These are the people who use the mails the most, and they will be paying for it. What do we accomplish if we reduce that deficit from $130 million to about $30 million? The government will have $100 million to spend on other priorities, whether


they be in the field of increasing its armed forces, education, regional development, putting satellites into the sky, or any other program.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't forget pensions.


Eric William Kierans: But we will not be faced with subsidizing a service that is of value to the people who use it. Neither the C.L.C. nor the agricultural community have experienced any such increases in 20 years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding).



POST OFFICE BOXES-RENTALS

Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I asked the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) whether his department had reviewed the decision which he made last fall to increase Post Office box rentals. His reply was in the negative. I must agree that some of the postal rates on mail, etc. were in need of adjusting. However, I am not only opposed to the increase in the post office box rentals but feel that they should have been eliminated altogether. This Liberal administration talks about a just society. I certainly believe in this concept, but I do not support the fact that nearly every move made by the present administration is in the opposite direction. The increase in post office box rentals is a small but a good example of injustice. One would imagine that within the Post Office Department there would be no discrimination so far as the main services were concerned. This is not so, for we see in our smaller centres and in rural areas a clear cut case of discrimination when charges are made to the local residents for the privilege of having their sorted mail placed in a post office box. In the larger urban areas the mail is delivered to the residences and no extra charge is made for this service.
Mail arrives at their homes free of charge and this service, which the urban areas have and need, is paid for out of the general post office revenues. In the smaller communities, however, there is no delivery to the homes. The residents are forced to go to a central location for their mail. This is both time consuming and costly. In addition, if they wish to obtain their mail after regular post office hours, they must rent a post office box or do without their daily mail. If those living in the urban areas can have a free delivery service to their homes, the least the postal department can do for those in the smaller centres
February 10. 1969
is to give them free use of post office boxes. This would be one way of bringing a greater degree of justice to our mail service.
I understand the Postmaster General's desire to increase the revenues of his department. The former box rentals were discriminatory because the small centres were forced to pay for this service when the larger areas were receiving free delivery. Today, this unjust cost to the residents of the smaller centres has been compounded by the sharp increase in box rentals everywhere. I again protest this increase on behalf of many of my constituents.
I would like to pose several questions for the minister's consideration and, I hope, reply. Is it not cheaper for the post office to put the mail in boxes than to deliver it? The answer obviously is, yes. Then, as one of my constituents put it, why do we have to pay for an inferior postal box service when the home delivery is free? It irks me to see the sharp increase in post office box rentals. We are told the increases must help to pay the cost of operating this facet of postal service. At the same time we know that two U.S. magazines, Time and Reader's Digest, pay only about one third of their total mailing costs.
The Canadian public subsidizes the mailing costs of these publications to the extent of just over $1J million. In view of this type of subsidization of non-Canadians, I again urge the minister to review his position on post office box rentals and, for a first move, to roll the rents back to the old level finally, he could eliminate these charges to bring a little more justice to those who are forced to use these boxes. Let us make all our moves in the right direction to bring about a just society.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, there are several ways of answering this question. In the first place I would like to point out the fact that there has been no change whatsoever in the rates for the rental of post office boxes since the year 1927.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion (10:20 p.m.)
Obviously, the cost has increased a great deal since then. We are not making any profit on this service; we are indeed losing on it, but we are trying to lose less than we did. The people in small communities where these facilities are available are not being discriminated against. They can get their mail free, just as anyone in a large city or on a rural route. In these small post offices they can get it at a general delivery wicket, and a great many of them choose to do this. On the other hand, in these small communities there are businessmen, professional people, families, who prefer to take advantage of an additional facility. Boxes are therefore made available to them as an additional service. In other words, they have a choice, no matter where they are, of getting mail free on general delivery or of engaging boxes which will enable them to collect mail at any time convenient, and enjoy many other advantages besides.
In other words, the boxes are available at all times, as is the general delivery. Rural route and urban deliveries are made once a day. I think I should repeat once again my reply to the charge, which is always intermingled with whatever valid criticism is made, that we are discriminating in favour of two United States magazines. We are not. The subsidy granted to these magazines is part of what has been granted to the magazine industry. We are not discriminating either against them or in their favour.
I do not know what else there is to be said about this question. We are trying to operate on the basis that those who use our services should pay for them. The less we need to subsidize services for which the government can legitimately charge, the less will be the tax burden on the Canadian people or, alternatively, the more the government will be able to do to satisfy other public needs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: wish they would do so.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Tuesday, February 11, 1969