1969-02-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-27, an act respecting the Quebec Savings Bank, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



FISHERIES AND FORESTRY

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry-Mr. Crossman.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see Votes and Proceedings.]

Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table two sets of correspondence. The first is an exchange of correspondence and telegrams with the several provincial premiers concerning items to be included in the agenda of the constitutional conference next week. The second is an exchange of telegrams with the prairie premiers following on their meetings of last week. Included are my answers on various subjects they talked about.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether his government has considered the financial proposal reportedly made by the government of Quebec concerning the continuation of Terre des Hommes.
Would the Prime Minister indicate any decision his government may have reached?
Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. I only saw the telegram from Quebec City this morning, suggesting some form of federal assistance. We will give very careful consideration to it, Mr. Speaker, in due course.



THE MINISTRY


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to establish a separate ministry of housing and urban development as recommended by the task force on housing and to appoint the present Minister of Transport as the new minister of that department?
A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Probably the Prime Minister did not hear my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I did not think the hon. member was serious in asking the question. Obviously we cannot appoint a minister to a department which has not been created.


John Gilbert: That is why I thought he missed the first part of my question. Is it the intention of the government to appoint a separate ministry as recommended by the task force on housing?


Mr. Trudeau:: We are not considering the question, Mr. Speaker. We are waiting for a memorandum from the Minister of Transport, which he said he would send to cabinet.


John Gilbert: This question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the statement that the government is preparing recommendations and legislation to be ready within three weeks, when is it the intention of the minister to bring that legislation forward?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: As the Prime Minister just stated, it will be
Inquiries of the Ministry preparing a memorandum to cabinet indicating the parts of the report I feel are within the jurisdiction of the federal government and on which early action should be taken.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: supplementary question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Would that include removal of the sales tax on building materials?



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Can he tell us whether negotiations have been undertaken between Air Canada and the Canadian Pacific Airlines for the possible amalgamation of those two airlines?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that this question was asked last week, but the minister could perhaps answer it just the same.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the forthcoming visit of President Nixon to Europe, for the purpose of consultations with members of the Atlantic alliance, and in view of the wide range of subjects of mutual interest to Canada and the United States, will the Prime Minister say whether discussions are under way with a view to arranging an early visit by the President to Canada?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: The subject has been raised, Mr. Speaker, between the government of the United States and the Canadian government, but there is nothing precise to report.


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question. In view of reports that Prime Minister Wilson of the United Kingdom may be visiting Washington, will the Prime Minister say whether the government is considering extending an 
February 7, 1969
invitation to visit Canada during his trip to North America?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am considering that and, depending on the dates and on the eventuality of the trip itself, it would be something that would lead me hopefully to arrange a visit to Canada by Prime Minister Wilson, either at that time or at some other time.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the Prime Minister does in fact arrange discussions with the President of the United States regarding Canada's position in respect to NATO, will the Postmaster General and the Minister of National Defence accompany the Prime Minister, so that Canada's position can be placed before the President in all its clarity and simplicity?


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I put it to the right hon. gentleman because I believe it concerns a matter of government policy. In view of reports that a number of drug firms in the United States are making payments of $120 million to cover overcharges that had resulted in excess profits, is the government of Canada studying this matter and considering any legislation that may be necessary, so that any similar overcharges in Canada might be repaid?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker. I will read it in Hansard.



THE SENATE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister in connection with the projected suggestions of Senate reform, which we have had ever since the days of Mackenzie King.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: He left before doing that.


John George Diefenbaker: He did make a reform. He substituted live Grits for dead Tories. I ask the Prime Minister whether or not, in view of the massive nature of the changes, there has been any consultation with members of the Senate, and in particular whether

February 7, 1969	COMMONS
government supporters in the Senate were consulted before this course was entered into? Secondly, has he any means whereby such changes could be made or brought about constitutionally without the consent of the Senate?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: In reply to the first question, Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation on the constitutional question on several occasions in caucus and caucus committees. We have discussed the future of the constitution, and all the subjects that were raised as a result of last February's federal-provincial conference.
I was not, of course, in a position to spell out in detail to caucus what propositions we were making, because they were considered confidential, but the caucus was encouraged to discuss all aspects of federal institutions, including the Senate, and the subject was discussed. There were many senators present at the time as they always come to our caucus meetings.
On the second question, Mr. Speaker, this is a legal opinion for which I am being asked, but I would say that I see no desirability of proceeding with such a reform of the Senate without ample consultation with the Senate, and without giving the Senate a chance to express its views on the subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the discussion that took place in the Senate yesterday afternoon, led by Senator Connolly, a former leader of the Senate, and other senators, to the effect that this was the first knowledge they had of such ideas being held by the government, what has the Prime Minister to say?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think the Prime Minister should say what he feels should be said in this regard on another occasion, rather than in an answer to a question at this time.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE SEATING ACCOMMODATION FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS

Mr. Gerard Laniel (Beauharnois):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether apart from the seats allocated to hon. members, proportionally to their party representation, to attend
DEBATES	5265
Inquiries of the Ministry the federal-provincial conference, there will be seats for other members not chosen to be part of the official delegations of observers?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, there will be no other seats in the room itself, since all available ones have been, as mentioned by the hon. member, allocated among the various parties. But in an adjoining room, a closed television circuit will enable the members of all parties to follow the conference in all its details. It will be, I think, room 371 in the West Block.



ROYAL FAMILY


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the universal affection with which the Queen Mother is held in this country, will not the government reconsider its decision to cancel the honour accorded her of a 21 gun salute on the occasion of her birthday?


John George Diefenbaker: Is this part of the just society?


Mr. Speaker:: While the question is being considered the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hast-ings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister based on the question asked a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Palliser. His question was based on a Canadian Press dispatch which stated that in response to a cabinet order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows very well that he has to ask the question directly. If he wants to ask a supplementary question he should do so without quoting a newspaper story or report, on which his question is based.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, the Prime Minister was unaware of this important situation and I was explaining it to him. Let me rephrase my question. In view of the cabinet order issued last Friday cancelling the royal salute on the anniversary of the coronation, the birthday of Prince Philip, the
5266	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry birthday of the Queen Mother and on two other royal birthdays, and in view of the affection, especially for the Queen mother, in this country, will he ascertain whether that order can be rescinded?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, we in this government believe that we should express our affection otherwise than by shooting guns.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That shot you down, George.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government hopes by this tremendous savings to recoup the losses in respect of the Bonaventurel


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the very stringent economic situation now existing in respect of western agriculture, can the minister say when the Canadian Wheat Board will announce the final payments on wheat, oats and barley for the last crop year.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I have already given the dates and have said that the cheques would be received about the 10th day of April or about that time.


Richard Russell Southam: In view of the serious economic situation, would the minister ask the officials of the Canadian Wheat Board to get the cheques out a little earlier.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development who reports for the Cape Breton Development Corporation. In his absence possibly the question might be taken as notice by the acting minister or the parliamentary secretary. Would the minister be in a position to advise when the pre-retirement program for Cape Breton miners proposed by Devco will go into effect and, if not, can he give assurance that due and timely notice will be given the coal
[Mr. Hees.l
DEBATES	February 7, 1969
miners who are affected, so that they can prepare for the future.


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: I will bring this to the minister's attention.



RESEARCH


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whit-by):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt. A few days ago I asked him if he had completed his review of the government's policy in respect of scientific research. He seemed to be a little bewildered about the question.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted by the hon. member's continued interest in my extracurricular reading and I would be glad to discuss it with him, both fiction and nonfiction, outside the house at any time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to thank hon. members for their applause but I am not at all sure I share the same-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question he should ask it without making a speech.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think this is a very serious matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Don Valley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, and is supplementary to the one asked earlier by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. Can the Prime Minister say whether he has assigned to any cabinet minister responsibility for the review of the government's scientific policy and if so to which minister.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The committee which has been mentioned is an interdepartmental committee under the chairmanship of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. This committee has undertaken a
February 7, 1969	COMMONS
review of government programs for the support of research, development and innovation in Canadian manufacturing industry. I think this clarifies the situation.
Mi-. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement of the Secretary of the Treasury Board to the Senate committee yesterday, that Canadian science policy is an accidental byproduct of separate cabinet decisions, can the minister indicate when the house might expect a statement from the government about priorities in respect of scientific policy?


Jean-Luc Pepin: With respect, Mr. Speaker,
when we debate the reorganization bill there will be an opportunity to bring this question to the floor of the house.



HATE LITERATURE


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Prime Minister. Is the government taking any steps to prevent the use of telephones for the dissemination of pre-recorded hate messages which are now being transmitted in the city of Toronto and which are causing concern to may people there?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I have just heard of this this morning. I cannot tell the hon. member of any concrete steps in this place, but I would remind members of the house that the government has introduced in the Senate a bill on hate propaganda, with the intent of curtailing all forms of communication which are not legitimate debate, and which are aimed at disseminating hate against groups in Canada.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Could the Prime Minister give the house any indication when the proposal will be brought before this house?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot of course predict what will happen in the other place. It will be brought before this House as soon as the Senate finishes considering it.


David Orlikow: In view of the fact that it is obvious some senators are not enthused about the proposed legislation, is the Prime Minister discussing with the Senate house leader the possibility of hurrying it up?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
DEBATES	5267
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY



PARTICIPATION IN PROGRAM BY MARITIME PROVINCES

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I suppose I should direct to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister assure the house that in spite of the apparent cancellation, retardation or postponement of various development projects in the Atlantic provinces, along with the apparent abandonment of the Atlantic Development Board, it is not the purpose of his colleagues to drive the Atlantic provinces out of Confederation in time for them to qualify for some of the $20 million increase provided for the Canadian international development agency in the next fiscal year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NELSON RIVER, MAN.-RE-NEGOTIATION OF AGREEMENT

Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio who is responsible for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is there any feature of the agreement signed in 1966 by the federal government and the government of Manitoba concerning power development of the Nelson river that precludes re-negotiation of its terms in whole or in part?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member realizes that he is asking the minister to make a legal interpretation of an agreement. A question in those terms cannot be asked at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may ask a supplementary question, or perhaps try to rephrase the question the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre put to the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. May I put it this way: Is the federal government willing to renegotiate the agreement with the government of Manitoba regarding the power developments in the north, particularly as they affect the Indians South of Indian Lake?


Otto Emil Lang: I will check into the matter, Mr. Speaker, but so far as I know the question is hypothetical; I do not know of any approach from the government of Manitoba requesting a renegotiation.
February 7, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry LEGAL AID TO INDIAN FAMILIES AFFECTED BY EXPROPRIATION


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since, according to the reply of the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the government of the province of Manitoba has not asked for any renegotiation of the Nelson river power development, is the minister's department providing, or does it intend to provide, legal counsel or legal aid to those Indian families affected by Manitoba Hydro expropriation procedures?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the question was put to me a few days ago, and I answered that the government of Manitoba had given the people concerned financial assistance for legal advice, in order to find a solution to the problem.


Edward Richard Schreyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the government of Manitoba is the expropriating authority in this case, does not the minister think that the federal government should be providing legal counsel for these people?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is argumentative.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether the Canadian Transport Commission recently approved a 73 per cent rate increase for services provided by Nordair to Hallbeach in the Northwest Territories?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that this question should be placed on the order paper.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can indicate at this time when it is expected that the review of Canada's external affairs policy will be concluded? Does he expect it will be concluded during the current year?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I expect it will be concluded during the current year. Of course the review has been advanced in some parts more than in others. There are some decisions we have already taken-the decision concerning China, the first steps concerning the Vatican and our trip to South America. Those were all parts of the review. Certain stages have been reached in various parts of this review, but the bulk of it will be announced later this year.



HOUSING


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St.John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Does the minister intend to withdraw his recommendation to abolish the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, in view of the statement made in the house last night by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think
the question as asked is argumentative and should not be accepted at this time.



REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOWING REPORT OF TASK FORCE

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether it is his intention to make to the government a package recommendation of a comprehensive nature with regard to housing, or whether it is his intention to give priority to certain aspects of this matter. I ask the question particularly in view of the reported shortage of mortgage money in the month of January and the continuing escalation of interest rates relating to mortgage money for housing.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will know that it is not customary to indicate what will be included in recommendations to cabinet; but I think it would be fair to tell him that the matters I am most interested in are those which I feel have the greatest urgency and which should be acted upon within a matter of weeks, or months at most. These are the things which will be given the greatest priority.



TORONTO-OFFICIALS TO COME TO OTTAWA FOR DISCUSSION

John Gilbert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, directed to
February 7. 1969	COMMONS
the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that officials of the city of Toronto have referred to the recommendations of the task force on public housing and urban renewal as "disastrous" and the social planning council of Toronto called them "kindergarten arithmetic", is it the intention of the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask a question.


John Gilbert: -is it the intention of the minister to call to Ottawa these officials to discuss the recommendations with him?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to recommend to them that they do the kind of research which is necessary in order to evaluate some of the projects presently in place. After they have done that, we can have a discussion as to how we can provide the best accommodation for people of low incomes, the best value economically, but more important the best value in so far as sociological and psychological benefit to the people being served is concerned.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister of Transport thinks there is any real possibility that his recommendations on housing will be any more illuminating than his answer to my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North rising on a supplementary question?


David Orlikow: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Will plans which have been completed or almost completed by municipalities, in co-operation with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, with regard to urban renewal and public housing be permitted to proceed in the very near future, or is there an indefinite freeze-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my recollection that a similar question has been asked at least once in the last few days and replied to by the minister.



L.S.D.-INVESTIGATION BY R.C.M.P. INTO ILLEGAL IMPORTATION

Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In light of the testimony given in a London, England, court hearing yesterday of
DEBATES	5269
Inquiries of the Ministry a charge against Michael Wool-Lewis, is the R.C.M.P. investigating the suggestion of complicity between Canadian businessmen and United States criminal organizations to transport l.s.d. to Canada from Europe?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it is the practice of the R.C.M.P. to co-operate quite closely with authorities in other countries in an attempt to prevent effectively the illegal importation of certain deleterious drugs and related substances into Canada. I would not want to give any detail in a particular case as to the state of investigation, unless it had come to a conclusion and there was something I could disclose properly at that time.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Solicitor General undertake to advise the house of any other evidence of the involvement of national or international criminal organizations in the trafficking of l.s.d.?


George James McIlraith: I will undertake to look at the question and its implications and bring forward an answer to it.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION OF FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENTARIANS

Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question.
Would he take advantage of the federal-provincial conference to ascertain what are the feelings of the provincial premiers toward a possible Canadian association of federal and provincial parliamentarians, of which the main purpose would be the progress of our federalism and through which there would be a continued dialogue between the representatives themselves, in addition to that which exists at the ministerial and committee of officials level?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: That idea appeals greatly to me, Mr. Speaker. I cannot promise to talk about it at the conference itself, since it is not an item on the agenda, but I shall certainly undertake to do it at the two private receptions and in private conversations I will have with the provincial premiers. I thank the hon. member for having suggested the idea.
February 7, 1969

Freshwater Fish Marketing Report [English]



INCOME TAX


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the Department of National Revenue is collecting income tax at the source which appears to be based on the inclusion of the social development tax, and in view of the fact that the bill for this tax is not yet even before us, may I ask the minister how long the government intends to collect a tax that has not been approved by parliament.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Not very long, Mr. Speaker. I hope to have it approved by parliament in the very near future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government facing the possibility that its bill might be defeated?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
was last year.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-148, to regulate interprovincial and export trade in freshwater fish and to establish the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore) moved:: That Clause 3 (1) be amended by placing a semicolon after the word "province", on line 14 and by substituting a comma for a period after the word "years" and adding thereto the following: "and shall be actively engaged in the fresh water fishing industry as fishermen".
He said: I thought that the Minister without Portfolio may have some statement to make on the amendments proposed, but in the absence of any statement I would like to [Mr. Trudeau.)
make a few comments at this time. Under the old rules, the resolution preceding the measure calling for a Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was debated in the house, and the bill received first reading on December 18 of last year. On January 16 the bill was again before the house and was given second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
On Tuesday, January 28 the standing committee met and a clause by clause study was given to the bill. The bill was amended and reported to the house. But I would point out that only those amendments which were made in committee by members supporting the government were accepted by the committee, even though the amendments moved by the opposition members who served on the committee were in keeping with the minister's stated intent, and were therefore basically in line with the government's policy and its program. I hope it will be possible for every member of this house to read the evidence as tabled by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry respecting Bill C-148 as it occurred on January 28. This evidence indicates the basic weakness of the committee system. It indicates the committees' lack of authority to suggest, to approve, to improve, to amend or to recommend changes in the legislation brought before us. To date, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry has served only as a rubber stamp for this government's legislation. Its hearings have been ineffective, frustrating and time consuming.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member to remind him that according to our new rules the only matter before the house at the present time is the particular amendment proposed by the hon. member, and I doubt very much whether this should be the occasion to speak on the general procedure followed either by this or by any other committee of the house. I think the remarks which the hon. member is making now-which I am sure are important to him-might better be made at the third reading stage of the bill. If the hon. member has a protest to make, in my view it should be made when there is a general debate on the bill which, according to the new rules, should take place on third reading. I realize that some of the remarks he has made until now are introductory in nature and I assume that in due course, and perhaps very soon, he will submit to the house his views in connection with the amendment he proposed.
February 7. 1969	COMMONS


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I was endeavouring to explain just why it was necessary, as a result of conditions which existed in the committee, to bring the amendment before the house at the present time. I would not wish my words to be construed as a reflection on the chairman of the committee, for the evidence will show that he has been fair and impartial. The doubts which I mentioned expressed my concern about the over-all effectiveness of the entire committee system.
When the rules were changed, the members of the house and the Canadian people were led to believe that more authority would be placed in the hands of the committees. They were to serve as a sounding board for legislation, in the hope that out of our deliberations would come changes and improvements which would be helpful. This was my understanding. The function of the committees was to speed up the legislative process, so that the time spent in committee would not have to be spent again in the house. This may have been all right in theory, but in actual practice it is not working out according to plan. We must still come to the house with our amendments, suggestions and recommendations for improvement in the legislation, in the hope that the government will take our recommendations seriously.
It is for these reasons that I have filed notice, pursuant to standing order 75 (5), that Bill C-148, an act to regulate interprovincial and export trade in freshwater fish and to establish the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation be amended by these three amendments:
That Clause 3 (1) be amended by placing a semicolon after the word "province", on line 14 and by substituting a comma for a period after the word "years" and adding thereto the following:
"and shall be actively engaged in the fresh water fishing industry as fishermen".
That Clause 18 (1) be amended by striking out the word "may" in the first line thereof and substituting therefor the word "shall" and by adding after the word "Committee" in the last line thereof the following:
"and at least one-third of whom shall be actively engaged in the fresh water fishing industry as fishermen".
That Clause 17 be amended by adding thereto a new sub-clause (3) as follows:
"The accounts and financial transactions of the corporation shall be audited annually by the Auditor General".
I wish to make it very clear that we in this party are not opposing the legislation. During the various discussion stages of the bill we made certain recommendations which we thought would be helpful, but at no time
DEBATES	5271
Freshwater Fish Marketing Report have we registered direct opposition to the measure now before us. We are hopeful that some of the many problems faced by our inland fishermen will be resolved by the marketing corporation, and that the major goal of the corporation, which is to obtain a larger share of the export price and of the consumer price for the fishermen, will be realized. To date the Canadian inland fishermen, when selling their fish, have been in a relatively weak bargaining position, and if they did not like the prices offered for their fish all they could do was to threaten to quit. But this would have been an empty threat, for in many instances the fishermen have no other training and there are no other employment opportunities available to them. I am informed that this is especially true in the northern parts of Saskatchewan, in Manitoba, Alberta and in northern Ontario where the fishermen are mostly Indians and Metis.
The very remoteness of these fish producing areas has presented vast problems to this particular industry, and in my opinion this factor will continue to present a very thorny problem to the marketing corporation, which it will require all the ingenuity, imagination and resourcefulness of the president and his associates to surmount. According to the Mclvor Commission report-a commission appointed in July of 1965 to bring in recommendations on this important industry-the fishermen in our inland freshwater fishing industry receive only some 50 to 60 per cent of the export price. It is the major task and responsibility of this marketing corporation to increase the percentage of return to our fishermen, otherwise this whole exercise-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must confess to the hon. member that it is not clear to me in what way what he is saying now relates to the amendment before the housing. As I see it, the amendment: "and shall be actively engaged in the fresh water fishing industry as fishermen" should be the subject of a limited debate in the house. The hon. member knows that there has already been a general debate on second reading and there will be another debate on third reading. If the rules are to be interpreted in such a way that there may be a third general debate at the report stage, I would think we will be heading into difficulty in the interpretation of the rules. So I invite the hon. member to limit his remarks within reason to the particular amendment now before the house.
February 7, 1969

Freshwater Fish Marketing Report [DOT] (11:50 a.m.)


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I am endeavouring to do just that. I appreciate your comments and 1 shall try to relate my remarks to the amendment. It is my understanding that the government of Canada is setting up this marketing board, in co-operation with the provinces concerned, in order to assist the fishermen in the marketing of their products so that they received a better price. In my opinion, if this board is to meet with any measure of success, it will require the complete co-operation of all the fishermen concerned.
This is a statement of fact borne out by events in every other industry. If I may give an example, at the present time there is a slowdown in mail deliveries in the Post Office Department. When labour is unhappy over wages or terms of employment it goes on strike, and we see a complete shutdown of the particular industry.
For these reasons we believe that the inland fishermen must be guaranteed a place on the board of directors of this marketing corporation as well as on the advisory board of the corporation. There is no provision in the bill to guarantee that the fishermen will be represented on the board. In our view one way to make sure that the fishermen will be behind the board is to guarantee their representation on the board. After all, if things do not go according to plan it will be fishermen themselves who will be the most seriously affected.
These are not my views alone; they were endorsed by the Minister without Portfolio when he spoke before the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry on January 28. At one point he said that he is fully on record in the house a number of times as indicating there should be adequate representation from the fishermen's groups on the advisory committee. Even the Mclvor Commission report recommends that the membership of the board provide adequate representation of regional interests. I submit that one can rightly interpret regional interests in this matter to be directly applicable to the fishermen concerned. For these reasons I hope that the government will give favourable consideration to our amendments concerning actual representation of fishermen on the board of directors, and on the advisory board of this corporation.
Finally, I wish to refer to the financial control of the corporation. Clause 15 of this bill provides that the corporation is to be a

corporation within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act. Clause 16 provides that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) may make grants to the corporation up to $100,000 for initial operating and establishing expenses, while under clause 17 the governor in council may guarantee and make loans to the corporation up to $5 million. There is nothing in the bill-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It has been brought to my attention that the hon. member may be referring at this time to the second or third amendment, although I am not too sure whether that is the fact. I would remind him that we should discuss the first amendment, so perhaps he would make his comments on the second and third amendments when they are reached, I hope later on today.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of your ruling, having placed my case before the minister for the appointment of fishermen to the board of directors and to the advisory board, I will have further comments to make on the third amendment after we dispose of the first two.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to confine my remarks to the substance of the amendment before us. I think the amendment is rather important, though I must confess, as it is written and as I try to relate it to the rest of clause 3, it is rather difficult to understand it clearly. Nevertheless, as I say, I believe it to be an important amendment, because if there is to be established a board of directors for this Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, I think it is essential and certainly worth while that at least some members of the board of directors be actively engaged in the industry itself.
As I construe the intent of the amendment moved by the previous speaker, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), it would seem that he is proposing in the amendment that of the members of the board of directors, which consists of nine persons, four be appointed from among those who are actually fishermen. If that is the intent of the hon. member's amendment, I think it ought to be supported.
On the other hand, if he is going beyond that and suggesting that a majority of the members, or that every member except the chairman or president of the board be chosen from those engaged in fishing, then it would seem to me a rather impractical proposition. Therefore I will proceed on the assumption that the hon. member is suggesting that three
February 7, 1969

or four members of the board of directors be selected from among those who are actively engaged in the industry as fishermen, and I would support the amendment on that basis.
I also think it is important that there at least be some representation of those engaged as fishermen on the board of directors, inasmuch as the board will, in a sense, be operating with and spending money that is really the fishermen's money. I understand that there will perhaps be an establishment grant in the order of $100,000 paid by the federal government and each of the three provinces, which will be contributing on a prorated basis, such as $50,000 federal and $25,000 from each of the three provinces, or some proportion of that sort.
Once the $100,000 establishment grant from the federal and provincial governments has been received, all of the operating expense of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board will come out of the proceeds of the corporation's operations, which in turn will be derived from the production of the fishermen themselves. Therefore, if the money of these fishermen is going to be spent in operating the board and paying its administrative costs and salaries, it seems only logical that the fishermen be granted some direct say at the board of directors level.
The minister may well reply that provision is made later on in the bill, in clause 18 or so, to enable the minister to establish an advisory board consisting of 14 or 15 persons. It may well be that the minister may want to select five, six, seven or eight of the 15 members of this advisory board from among those who are actually engaged in fishing. But it is interesting to note that there is nothing specific in the legislation that provides that the advisory board shall necessarily have fisher-men-producers actually on the board. It seems to me that the minister would want to agree that the legislation should make some specific provision to include fishermen on the advisory board.
It may be that there will be a number of fishermen on the advisory board but I would insist that there be at least 2, 3 or 4, some small number such as that-I would not want to go beyond that figure for practical reasons-on the membership of the board of directors itself. I do not know what arguments the minister would advance in opposition to this amendment, but we shall soon find out.

Freshwater Fish Marketing Report [DOT] (12 noon)
I have also one further argument to advance in support of the contention that there be some fishermen among the membership of the board of directors. There is a tendency, human nature being what it is, for boards or administrative bodies to start making free with other people's money. We can see how that has happened with the Canadian Wheat Board. One can see it happening with boards of directors of private corporations. Once set up boards of directors or similar administrative bodies establish themselves in lavishly furnished headquarter offices and they do not stint on the trappings that go with administrative offices. I feel that such a tendency toward extravagance would be curtailed if on the board to be set up one or two actual producers or fishermen were included. Their presence on the board might restrain any tendency toward extravagance by other board members. I think this is a concrete argument, and I believe there should be provision in this bill for the inclusion of two or three producers or fishermen on the board to be set up.
I will say no more, Mr. Speaker, because I am interested to hear the remarks of the Minister without Portfolio. I hope he will support the amendment.


Mr. Lang (Saskaloon-Humboldl):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Speaker, if the minister rises now will he terminate debate?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is referring, of course, to a substantive motion moved by a minister on second reading or third reading. What is before the house at the moment is an amendment moved by an hon. member. Therefore the participation of the minister will not close debate.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us was raised in committee and the committee decided, in its wisdom, against allowing it. I had the opportunity of commenting to the committee about the amendment, and I wish to say that our position at this time remains the same. The amendment is an undesirable one. The purposes of the corporation are of a commercial nature. Marketing is to be the corporation's prime objective. The possibility exists that the corporation may engage in many different facets of the fishing industry. It is therefore important that the men appointed to be directors should be chosen
February 7, 1969

Freshwater Fish Marketing Report from the ranks of those who have had experience in operations of commerce. It is important for the participating provincial governments, which will appoint five of the directors, and for the federal government to have as much freedom of action as possible in appointing at any time persons most suited to undertake the work of directors. That freedom of action would be destroyed if the amendment were to carry. I am therefore opposed to the amendment.
I find difficulty in interpreting the words of the proposed amendment. Is it intended to exclude men who have recently been active fishermen but are not now engaged actively in fishing? If the amendment were to carry it would make much more difficult the appointment to the board of men qualified to handle the business of the corporation. The corporation is to be set up on the lines of a commercial venture and it is designed to serve the best interest of the fishermen themselves. I might add that I have had difficulty in finding line 14 of the clause referred to in the amendment. I presume line 6 is the line intended to be referred to.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: No. It is line 14 on the page if one begins counting at the top of the page.


Daniel Aiken Lang: I thank the hon. member for his explanation. We wish to be flexible in our choice of prospective directors. If the amendment were to carry we should lose that flexibility and eliminate the possibility of choosing exactly the right directors for the job. It is important for our fishermen that the board function adequately.


John Howard Lundrigan: It is important for hon. members to understand, Mr. Speaker, that under the legislation responsibility for fish marketing is to pass from the private sector of our community to a corporate body set up by various governments. The amendment provides that on the body to be set up there shall be fishermen representative of Canada. Fishermen from various parts of Canada will be asked to serve on the board.
As the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) indicated, the amendment before the house was one of the amendments moved in committee. It did not pass in committee. I will not take up the time of the house by explaining in detail what happened in committee; it is enough for me to say that if hon. members read the committee proceedings they will see how totally inadequate is our

present committee stage in the legislative process.
The proposed amendment seeks to make certain that active fishermen are appointed to the board. The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) said, "Oh, you can take my word for it. On this corporate body there will be representatives of fishermen. I give you my guarantee that this will be so.'' We wanted a commitment of this kind from the minister so that the fishermen of Ontario, the prairie provinces and other parts of Canada would know they are going to be represented on the corporate body. As I say, the minister gave his word, or we interpreted his remarks to mean that he had given his word. In view of that commitment we thought the minister would support the amendment that has been moved. Unfortunately, in the discussions before the committee on this point we learned that the government does not intend to appoint fishermen to the board. We learned that they want on this corporate body people who are experts in marketing, in commercial aspects of fisheries, in finance, negotiations and so on. Although he had given his word, the minister turned around and argued that there was a need to appoint experts to the board and that fishermen might not be able to fulfil the requirements.
Another point which was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) was that fishermen were not well enough educated to occupy positions on the board. That remark left me thunderstruck. I was really taken by surprise.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a question of privilege?


Mr. Speaker:: 
Edmund Boyd Osler: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is very difficult to present correctly something out of context. I think the point at issue at the moment is the definition of a licensed fisherman. It would be possible for a group of semi-literate fishermen in a far away community to fall into the hands of unscrupulous.
February 7. 1969	COMMONS
representatives who had taken a licence. I was in no way reflecting on the intelligence of the fishermen.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member this is not a question of privilege but a point of debate, and he will have the opportunity to take part in the debate later if he so wishes.


Gerald William Baldwin: On the point of order Your Honour raised in regard to the question of the debate in the committee, I do not think this is the time to debate the point of order involved in the ruling by Your Honour. I think your point of view is quite correct, but I would point out that one of the possibilities envisaged at the time the new rules were introduced and debated in the house was that on the report stage an amendment might be moved by reason of certain discussions and statements made in the standing committee. In other words, an amendment such as the house is now considering may have to be based upon certain aspects of the proceedings in the standing committee. The direct point Your Honour made is of course quite acceptable, but we hope it will not rule out the possibility for a member of this house, in moving an amendment at the report stage, to base his support for the amendment on certain facts disclosed in the standing committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I join with the hon. member for Peace River in asking Your Honour to study this matter in the event it arises again, as I am sure it will. An amendment moved and defeated in the standing committee can be moved at the report stage; surely that should carry with it the right to put forward the same arguments here in the house. I recognize Your Honour's view that we should not revive debate on extraneous matters, but in the old days bills went to the standing committee and then came back to Committee of the Whole. It was a very common practice to read evidence from the minutes of proceedings and evidence in an attempt to win a point in the house which had been made and perhaps lost in the standing committee.
I think the general proposition which Your Honour is making is valid. Debate should not be revived, but I would hope this would not rule out the right to read evidence in the house from the minutes of proceedings and evidence, when necessary, to support an argument. Your Honour is perfectly right in trying to keep us to the subject matter of the proposed amendments, but surely arguments
DEBATES	5275
Freshwater Fish Marketing Report related to those amendments should be in order.


John Howard Lundrigan: I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that both hon. gentlemen took the words right out out of my mouth on that last point. I think it is in order for me to make reference to the point about the level of education of fishermen. So as not to misquote the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre I will quote from page 218, report No. 11 of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry:
I am not a specialist in fishing, but as a tourist going to the fishing areas I see the quality of education of many of these people and I submit that there would be a danger in stipulating exactly how many people had to be on the advisory committee-
This was an indication by him that there was a lack of education and this was his argument against utilizing people in an advisory capacity from the fishing sector of the population. I am sure all hon. members who are interested in the welfare of the fishermen of Canada are in favour of this amendment. It is a refutation of the argument of expertise presented by the minister and other hon. members.
On page 4 of Bill C-148 there is an indication of the purposes and powers of the proposed corporate body, which go far beyond the level of expertise that would indicate that the people in question would have to be marketing experts and financiers. The terms of reference of the corporation include everything from taking the fish from the fisherman's boat to putting it on the plates of the consumer. This is the whole gambit of the fishing operation. The only thing in which the corporation is not involved is the actual catching of the fish. Clause 7(a) states that the purpose of the corporation is to:
-buy fish and dress, fillet, freeze, package or otherwise prepare fish for market:
This is an indication of a process which is a far cry from the type of expertise which the minister indicated in his argument. Clause 7(b) states:
-buy, manufacture or produce fish products and fish by-products and package or otherwise prepare fish products and fish by-products for market:
All eight subclauses of clause 7 indicate that the purposes of the corporation takes in the whole gambit of the fishing operation. My contention is that fishermen occupy a very important segment of the total fishing operation in that they are the people who are expert in the actual catching of the product and bringing it to the point of departure for
February 7, 1969

Freshwater Fish Marketing Report market. I contend this is the most important sector.
One of the biggest problems in the fishing industry in Canada is the fact we have not taken the advice of people expert in certain aspects of the fishing operation, people whose livelihood depends on it. Hon. members from the Atlantic region have seen indications of government officials going to fishing communities and having break-waters constructed without regard to the benefits to be derived from these structures by the people who will use them. These programs have not been based on a knowledge of the industry and have been set up without ascertaining what is necessary.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, practically every person engaged in the total fishing operation will in one way or another play an active role in the corporation. I think the intent of the government is to have the fishermen now involved in the trade become employees of the corporation. There will be tradesmen, financiers and marketing experts on the board. The only people completely left out are the people for whom this legislation is designed, the fishermen of Canada.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
I know that hon. members have been chitchatting back and forth ever since I began my remarks. If I had the privilege I would like to point out exactly what took place in the standing committee, but I know that to do so would take up the time of the house. I could show exactly the kind of flimsy arguments that were advanced by the minister and some of his colleagues against having fishermen on the board. We challenge the minister to present us with any indication of a sound argument against having these people on the board. He has said that we can take his word for it that the government is interested in the fishermen and in hearing their views. We ask him to give us proof of that in this legislation by accepting the amendment. We will then be happy with the minister's word.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a few words of support to the argument in favour of the amendment. This amendment, if accepted, will ensure representation of the fishermen on the board of directors. It is a straightforward matter. The fishermen will have to co-operate with this new board and unless they do so the board will not function

properly. The way to get it to function properly is to have fishermen appointed to it.
When the minister introduced the bill, and again during the deliberations of the standing committee, he guaranteed that fishermen would be represented on the board. If there is such a guarantee why can we not put it down in writing? I think the government is convinced that there is no fisherman capable of handling the job. I am convinced the government is not serious when the minister says he can guarantee that fishermen will be on the board. A moment ago he said this was an undesirable amendment. Is it undesirable to have fishermen represented on the board?


Daniel Aiken Lang: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would like the record to show that the hon. member is referring to a conversation in the committee. The commitment we discussed in the standing committee was in relation to the advisory committee and not in relation to the board which the hon. member is now talking about.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I accept the minister's excuse but I point out that when we introduced a similar amendment with respect to the advisory committee the same arguments were advanced against it. I submit that the minister has no real excuse for not accepting this amendment other than that the government and its members on the standing committee do not want to accept any reasonable amendment brought forward by the opposition.
I hope hon. members will have read the evidence printed in the 11th volume of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry before voting on the amendment. It was very obvious in the standing committee, and it is again very obvious today, that the government does not want to ensure that fishermen will be represented. I honestly feel it will be a mistake not to accept this amendment.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baitleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite certain that I would like to be tied to the specifics of the amendment but it seems strange that the legislation does not guarantee that some of the persons who produce the particular product involved, in this case fish, will be represented on the board. If for some reason the country found it necessary to socialize the services of lawyers and if a board were formed to look after the payment of lawyers and the act establishing the board did not provide for lawyers to be represented on it,
February 7, 1969	COMMONS
I think the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) would find it very strange indeed.


Daniel Aiken Lang: There might not be any lawyers left.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: I
would ask the minister to consider the matter in that light. I am a primary producer and I know that a similar matter has been a bone of contention with farmers for some time past. When a man is involved in an area of primary production for a lifetime or half a lifetime he picks up an education that an expert on marketing may miss.
As another illustration I cite the discussion we had in the house the other day on the appointment of a transport controller to expedite the movement of grain. A practical producer on the government side of the house and practical producers on this side of the house suggested that something like this should be done. But the Minister without Portfolio, who had not been involved in this matter, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) said it should not be done. It does not seem rational.
If the Minister without Portfolio would introduce an amendment guaranteeing fishermen the right to representation on the board I might withdraw my support for the present amendment, but if he is not going to write into the legislation that the producers of this product shall be represented on the board and if he is not willing to recognize the fact that producers of this product have a right to such representation, then I question his good judgment and the good judgment of the government. It is a reflection on the fishermen that they should not have a right to representation on the board. It is the ultimate insult for these people not to be represented. For this reason I support the amendment.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak against the amendment. The purpose of this board is to market fish. The object of setting it up is to improve the position of the fishermen by making, we hope, better and more successful efforts to market fish. We know full well that our fishermen are successful in catching fish because if they were not we would not have the problem of marketing and selling we are facing now. Therefore we need the best possible people on this board to do the job for which we are setting it up, which is to market fish.
So far as the proposal that all four of the federal appointees should be actively engaged
DEBATES	5277
Freshwater Fish Marketing Report in fishing is concerned-I think this is what the amendment seeks-this obviously would not serve the purpose which we are attempting to serve with this bill. The federal government will have only these four appointees on the board. To provide that they should all come from a particular profession which is not essentially the profession that can best help the board, in other words, the fishing rather than the marketing profession, would be a negative and retrogressive step. Quite clearly, if we want this board to function properly and want to be successful in selling fish we must make sure the best possible group of people are on the board.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
The minister has assured the house that an active fisherman or fishermen will certainly be appointed to the board. But to restrict him entirely to members of this profession would be a mistake. Members of this profession certainly could add a great deal to the deliberations of the board, and it is for this reason the Minister of Fisheries intends to appoint members of this profession to the board. But I believe it would be absurd to tie his hands and make it impossible for him to appoint a man who, for example, is expert in the field of selling freshwater fish or a man who has devoted his life to marketing. This would not serve the interests of the fishermen, it would not make this board effective, and in the long run it would probably make this legislation ineffective. I am not saying that fishermen cannot understand the problems of marketing and I am not saying that they should be kept off this board, but I am saying that in the matter of marketing we need people who are expert in that field.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Has be read in detail the terms of reference of the corporate body to be established? The terms of reference set out the power and purpose of the marketing board. The minister and the hon. member have done the same thing; they have misrepresented the purpose of the marketing board. The purpose is not only to market fish. If the hon. member will read the purpose and powers he will see that the board will be doing everything but cook the darned stuff.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wishes I could read the purpose as stated in the bill. Perhaps this would be acceptable to him, and I believe it is necessary. Had he read the bill himself he would not have to ask me to read it for him. The
February 7, 1969

Freshwater Fish Marketing Report hon. member asked me specifically about the purpose. Here is what is set out:
The Corporation is established tor the purpose of marketing and trading-
"Marketing and trading" are the words used there.
-in fish, fish products and fish by-products in and out of Canada-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would invite the hon. member to return to the specific issue before us at the moment which is the amendment.


David Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the hon. member who has just spoken does not know, but I believe most people in this house know the purpose of the bill. Perhaps this is the reason he has made an error in his attitude toward the bill. He does not understand the purpose and therefore does not understand who should be on the board.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Again I would remind the hon. member that we have before us a specific amendment. I would invite him to restrict his remarks to that amendment.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker? I suggest it might be in order to allow the hon. member to continue because what he is saying points up the arrogant attitude some people have toward this measure.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for being the cause of your displeasure. I recommend to every member of the house that he read the purpose and powers which are set out on page 4. The amendment would completely tie the hands of the Minister of Fisheries in respect of appointments. If, for instance, each province decided to appoint someone to this board from the fishing industry it would then be impossible for the federal government to appoint marketing experts to the board. One can see the problem with which the minister would be faced if he did not have control over the appointments. If the provinces decided to appoint experts in fishing as opposed to experts in fish marketing, it would then fall upon the federal Minister of Fisheries to rectify the composition of the board in order to restore the balance and make sure that experts in the field of marketing were appointed to the board.
I could go into this matter at length but I believe the point is relatively simple. It destroys the arguments in respect of the need for
[Mr. Anderson.j
the amendment. I shall therefore sit down, but before doing so I would urge all members to vote against this amendment.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, may I say that last week the fisheries committee met for a total of five hours. Report No. 11 contains the evidence taken at that committee. A number of hon. members were on that committee, not including the hon. gentleman who just spoke. We deliberated for five hours before that committee the purpose of this legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member does have a point of privilege, possibly he would get to it quickly.


John Howard Lundrigan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is necessary that I point out the background in order to establish the point of privilege. The hon. member said that I do not understand the purpose of the legislation. We spent five hours before the committee on that matter and the hon. member was not even present.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I
recognize the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon).


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. I was not present at the meeting of the committee on that day because I had been taken off in view of the fact that I was in my riding on the west coast. I did, however, take the opportunity to look at the evidence taken before the committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It
might be in the interests of our deliberations on this bill if we heard the hon. member for Lambton-Kent.


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Kent):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure my contribution will be that great but I appreciate the introduction. I am a little concerned about one matter. Is this a social measure or is the corporation to be a true marketing board? If it is the latter, then I feel that this amendment certainly should be welcomed by hon. members. Just because a person happens to be a fisherman, I see no reason that he should be precluded from being a member of this corporation. Indeed, I think some members from the trade definitely should be on this body. My point is that the general statement of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) that there will be fishermen on this corporation would not mean anything in a court of
February 7, 1969	COMMONS
law. If he has in the back of his mind that there should be fisherfolk appointed to the corporation, then I see no reason that he should object to the addition of a couple of practical fishermen at least.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak very briefly on the amendment being proposed at this time. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment 100 per cent. For many years I have said that we have too many governmental agencies on which there are no practical people. As time goes on the gap becomes wider and wider. I believe the amendment is quite in order and should be supported by members on both sides of the house because it tries to spell out the idea that we must have practical people on this body.
It has been suggested that the fishermen are capable of catching the fish but cannot be of assistance in marketing it. I am sure the hon. member who made that statement should realize, if he does not, that in every industry there are practical people who actually are doing the work in that industry. These people make themselves aware of the problems affecting their industry. I am sure the same holds true in the fishing industry as in the building industry, the transportation industry or anything else. There are some very excellent people in this industry who have as much expert knowledge in the field of marketing as any university graduate. 1 respectfully suggest that in this case many individuals could be named, I am sure, by members from the Atlantic provinces, who could do an excellent job in marketing.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
It is not in keeping with what we know to be the facts in this country for any member to suggest that the government must have absolute authority in the making of these appointments. The minister has suggested that this amendment might limit his choice of individuals. The bill spells out very clearly how many people will be on the board of directors. I am sure there is ample scope to choose some members from among people who are experts in fishing. The four additional members, as the amendment suggests, should be actively engaged in the freshwater fishing industry as fishermen. This does not necessarily mean individuals who go out with nets and lines, but it does mean that they must be actively engaged in the industry at the time of appointment, doing exactly those things which give them knowledge of the industry with which they are concerned.
DEBATES	5279
Freshwater Fish Marketing Report
I suggest that the amendment does not attach strings to this part of the bill as the minister suggests. It spells out that there must be people on the board with practical knowledge of the industry. I do not suggest for one minute that the university graduates who invariably end up in these positions are not qualified. However, on a number of occasions in the agricultural industry we have experienced the appointment of people to particular positions who were not qualified in a practical way and could not keep track of what was taking place in the industry at a particular time.
The proposed clause 3 indicates that these individuals shall be appointed for a period not exceeding five years. This makes it very clear that the people appointed by the Governor in Council are not permanent. If they are not doing their jobs they can be removed, and I suggest that if they do not do the job they should be removed. Very often people are appointed to commissions and boards who are unable to represent the industry they are appointed to represent. Very often they continue in their positions, for reasons with which we are all familiar. I urge members on both sides of the house to accept this amendment which will not undermine in any way the authority of the minister in charge of this department.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to understand why the government cannot accept this: amendment, particularly in view of the fact, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis), during meetings of the committee that studied this bill, gave assurance that the fishermen would be represented on the board. What happens when the minister leaves his present portfolio? Perhaps he might be moved to a portfolio more suited to his talents. We may have a new minister of fisheries who would not have the same regard for the representation of fishermen on the board. In view of the minister's attitude it is difficult to understand why the government refuses to accept this reasonable amendment which merely ensures that people who are actively engaged in the industry will have some say and influence as to how the fruits of their labour will be marketed.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) referred to the fact that fishermen were successful at catching fish, in fact, too successful because this board had to be created. He implied that all fishermen are-good for is catching fish. I suggest to the hon.. member that this is an outmoded concept.
February 7, 1969

Freshwater Fish Marketing Report


David Anderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


James Aloysius McGrath: I did not interrupt the hon. member when he was making his speech.


David Anderson: I rise on a point of order. I appreciate that I was not interrupted by the hon. member while I was making my speech, but on the other hand I did not refer to him as he has done to me. I did not state that fishermen are incapable of doing anything else. I think they are capable of doing other things and doing them well, but I say they are extremely successful at fishing. Marketing seems to be an area in which we have not had the same success, and that is the reason for this bill.


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member did make the suggestion from which I drew that inference. He went on to refer to the amendment as a negative and retrogressive step. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the attitude of the government toward this amendment is both negative and retrogressive. This concept is no longer accepted. It is outmoded to think that fishermen are merely good at catching fish and no good for anything else. It is a shameful concept and a shameful thing for a member of the government party to suggest. This is what the government is suggesting by refusing to accept this amendment.
The hon. gentleman, in trying to defend the government's attitude, went on to say that the government has to ensure that we get the best possible people on this board. Is he suggesting that fishermen are less than the best possible people? Surely they know more about fishing than anyone else. Who would know more about the marketing of fish or the people who buy fish than those actively engaged in the industry?
I suggest that on reflection the hon. member will wish he had not said these things. If he came from the Atlantic provinces he certainly would not have said them. Perhaps he said them because he comes from the province of British Columbia where the industry is operated on a different basis. Otherwise it is difficult to understand why he would put the proposition forward that fishermen are not capable or qualified to participate in the functions or deliberations of this board.
I am becoming increasingly suspicious about the government's preoccupation with experts and computers. We saw an example of what experts can do in respect of the refitting of the Bonaventure. We can well do without that kind of expertise.

I regret to note that the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister without Portfolio and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) are absent, but we are pleased to have the house leader here. Perhaps after consultation with the Minister without Portfolio, who has the responsibility of piloting this bill through, they might have a change of heart, having listened to the debate in the house and examined the report of the committee. Perhaps as reasonable men they might come to the conclusion that this is a reasonable proposition, a reasonable amendment, and that only an unreasonable government would reject it.


Mr. McCulcheon:: Mr. Speaker, I should like-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must remind the hon. member for Lambton-Kent that he has already spoken and has the right to speak only once. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


James Aloysius McGrath: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Crouse) negatived.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


Edmund Boyd Osler: That clause 13 be amended by adding the words "or in the immediate vicinity thereof" immediately following the word "Winnipeg".
He said: This is a terribly controversial clause, Mr. Speaker. I anticipate at least as many fireworks between the members from the east coast and those from the west coast who happen to sit on opposite sides of the house, because I know that both groups would covet the privilege of having the head office of this corporation in their own areas so they would get to know many of the fine fishermen who we are assured will be board members.
The decision was made that the head office of this corporation would be in the city of
February 7, 1969

Winnipeg. It was pointed out that the words "the city of Winnipeg" were highly restrictive in that the head office of the board would be confined to the centre core of the city. This amendment was designed in order that this would not be the case. It would amend the bill so that the metropolitan city of Winnipeg, the finest city of Canada, the heartland of the country-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Boyd Osler: -would be eligible for this head office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, how could I keep my seat after those wonderful words about the great city of Winnipeg? Like the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier), I represent the city of Winnipeg itself and I suppose I should therefore adopt a parochial position and say that the head office should be in the core of my city. But I think it does make sense that the head office should be located in the Winnipeg area; for example, it might even be located as far north as Selkirk. I wonder whether the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre could ask someone on his behalf, since he has spoken, to be a little more specific as to the meaning of the words "in the immediate vicinity". What is "immediate"; what is "vicinity"? I also ask the-


Edmund Boyd Osler: Are you suspicious?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. Anything that comes from that side makes me suspicious. I have been here a while.


An hon. Member:: That is a mutual feeling.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Friday is a good day, is it not, Mr. Speaker? Perhaps the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) can tell us what is in mind in this respect. I realize that the amendment has been moved by a private backbencher, but it looks as though it has government support. Perhaps the minister can explain what is meant by the wording. Where does the government intend that this board shall have its head office?


Mr. Orange:: Hay River.


Stanley Howard Knowles: thought "vicinity" was very wide.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in rising following the
Freshwater Fish Marketing Report suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I am pleased to venture into the realm of legal interpretation for him. I am happy to say that I support this amendment, that I see it as having a good degree of wisdom, according to my interpretation of it. The clause, as it stood originally, may have read rather restrictively as including not even all of Winnipeg as we generally knew it, since the words "the city of Winnipeg" may have had a technical meaning rather narrower than the general, geographic area of metropolitan Winnipeg.
It is with that interpretation that I am pleased to see this amendment which will give the board of the corporation the discretion to locate the office in that general area. I would like to assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that I see nothing in the amendment to indicate any distant move of the head office from the centre of Winnipeg.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, my comments on this amendment will be very brief. I listened with interest to the words of the mover of the amendment as well as those of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Just to show how reasonable we on this side of the house are, we have absolutely no objection to this amendment and it is our intention to support it, as we hope members on the government side will support the other two amendments that will be dealt with after lunch.


Gerald William Baldwin: Just one sentence, Mr. Speaker. I, too, will support the amendment, but I must say to the government that it really constitutes a most inadequate exchange for taking away the Air Canada facilities.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I also support the amendment in the same way as the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). This shows our reasonableness. Our reasonableness was indicated in the committee when some of my colleagues voted against an amendment which I moved. I would like this attitude of reasonableness to be regarded as a precedent by all hon. members. Also, I would accept in principle any move on the part of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) which will help offset the supercilious remarks made about the illiteracy of the fishermen.
February 7, 1969

Freshwater Fish Marketing Report Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion.
Amendment (Mr. Osier) agreed to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One
o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: That Clause 17 be amended by adding thereto new subclause (3) as follows:
"The accounts and financial transactions of the Corporation shall be audited annually by the Auditor General."
He said: Mr. Speaker, my comments this afternoon will be directed to Bill C-148, an act to establish the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, with special reference to the financial control of the corporation.
Clause 15 of the bill, for example, provides that the corporation is to be a corporation within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act. Clause 16 provides that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) may make grants to the corporation not exceeding in the aggregate $100,000 to enable the corporation to meet initial operating and establishment expenses, while under clause 17 the Governor in Council may authorize the Minister of Finance to guarantee and make loans to the corporation up to an amount which shall not exceed $5 million.
There is nothing in the bill, which I have read from cover to cover, about the books to be kept or who is responsible for the preparation of financial statements or who is responsible for auditing the accounts of the corporation. In the absence of any direction in the act, section 85 of the Financial Administration Act leaves the financial statements of the Crown corporation subject to such directions as to form as the Treasury Board may give, and states under section 77 (1) that where no provision has been made in any act for the appointment of an auditor the Governor in Council shall designate someone to serve as auditor.
I believe that the question therefore arises whether the Auditor General is to be appointed the sole auditor or a joint auditor in accordance with the recommendations made by the Public Accounts Committee in its

eighth report of 1964-65. I hope that the government will agree that it would be in the best interests of parliament in its control of public funds if the Auditor General were empowered to audit the accounts of all the Crown corporations, agencies and other public bodies which are owned or controlled by the Crown and report thereon to the house.
It is for this reason, therefore, that I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan), that the following amendment be incorporated into the act to regulate interprovincial and export trade in freshwater fish and to establish the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation:
That clause 17 be amended by adding thereto new subclause (3) as follows:
"The accounts and financial transactions of the Corporation shall be audited annually by the Auditor General."


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret that I rise to say that I am opposed to the amendment because I am certainly not opposed to the general sentiment and spirit of the mover of the amendment as recently expressed. Indeed, under the existing provisions of the bill, without this amendment it is a very likely possibility that the Auditor General will in fact be appointed to be the auditor of the corporation. In the absence of the amendment as now proposed, section 77 (1) of the Financial Administration Act applies and allows the Governor in Council to designate a person to audit the accounts and financial transactions of the corporation. The Auditor General is eligible to be the auditor or joint auditor. This means that the result desired by the amendment may-and I emphasize the word "may"-be accomplished under the existing bill without the amendment.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
The difficulty with the amendment lies really in a double proposition. First, the government would like to have the advice of the directors of the corporation and its managers before making a final decision in regard to this matter. The other part of the proposition, and the reason for the first part, is that it is very possible, in terms of present considerations in connection with the operations of the corporation, that various commercial accountants will have to be engaged by the corporation, especially in the early phases of its operation, to deal with many parts of its operations. It may well be most desirable at that time to use similar services in connection with auditing.
February 7. 1969	COMMONS
Therefore it is not because of any opposition to the general spirit of the remarks of the mover but because of the desirability of flexibility that I am opposed to the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this amendment. 1 support in principle what the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) is seeking, namely, that the auditing of the accounts and transactions of this board should be carried out by the Auditor General. I hope that the word that has now come from the minister will result in that choice being made.
If the government is opposed to the amendment there is not much chance of its being carried this afternoon, so I shall have to content myself with making the plea that the choice of the government for this particular job should be the Auditor General. I recognize that auditors are auditors, that they all do a good job. But I also know that there is a difference in the kind of report that we get from the Auditor General of Canada when he does an audit compared with the kind of report that we get from private auditing firms for some of the Crown corporations or bodies that are associated with government operations.
For example, when we get a report from one of these auditing firms, what does it say?
I do not have one in front of me, but I can tell hon. members fairly accurately what it says: "We have audited the accounts and we have checked all the records and are satisfied that everything is in order, sincerely yours", and then appears the name of the company. I cannot recall any report from a private firm of auditors going into the kind of detail into which the Auditor General enters when he does an audit. That is the reason I think it is better that any concern which is making use of public money in any way, even by way of a loan or on the basis of a government guarantee, should be subjected to that kind of audit.
I accept the minister's statement that he is not going to support this amendment, and therefore it is not going to carry. But I hope that when the time comes for the Governor in Council or the Treasury Board to make a decision as to who will be the auditor, the choice will be the Auditor General of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those in favour of the proposed amendment please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
DEBATES	5283
Freshwater Fish Marketing Report


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those opposed to the amendment please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Crouse) negatived.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: That clause 18 (1) be amended by striking out the word "may" in the first line thereof and substituting therefor the word "shall" and by adding after the word "Committee" in the last line thereof the following:
"and at least one-third of whom shall be actively engaged in the freshwater fishing industry as fishermen."
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving this amendment my simple purpose is to ensure that the Governor in Council will appoint an advisory committee to assist the president and directors in their deliberations and advise on policy. As I stated previously, I believe that the advisory board is not going to function in a satisfactory manner unless there is representation on the board from the primary producers. There is nothing in the bill to guarantee that fishermen will be represented on this board.
In our opinion this marketing board has been proposed at the provincial and federal government levels. To date there is very little evidence to indicate the attitude of the primary producers toward this proposal. However, in order to be effective I believe that the board must have the unqualified support of all the fishermen in the vast area that is covered by this program. And it is a vast area, encompassing northern Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories.
In my view there is no better way to encourage the fishermen to get behind the board than by guaranteeing them representation on the advisory committee. By moving to amend the advisory committee clause of the bill, which calls for not more than 15 members, we are stating our belief that at least one-third of the members of the advisory board should be fishermen. I hope that the government will give favourable consideration to this amendment.
We have heard it said that it may not be possible to secure qualified fishermen to serve in this capacity. This type of argument is
February 7, 1969

Freshwater Fish Marketing Report facetious, for our fishermen have been cooperating with the packers and shippers for many years. They have assisted them in handling the catch. I think it would be a distinct loss to the president and the directors of this new marketing corporation if the skill and expertise of these men were lost to the board. After all, these are the people who will be primarily affected if the marketing corporation is not as successful as we hope it will be. Surely it is not asking too much that they be given some say in the control and management of their own affairs.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, in regard to this amendment I think a more logical case could be made for representation of the fishermen on the committee than in the case of the last amendment, with regard to which the government could argue that, after all, there had to be some expertise, some commercial know-how, people with degrees, to do a proper job. Surely it can be legitimately said that those who are actually engaged in the industry should be allowed to have their say on the advisory committee. If the government picks the membership of the board, the board could well turn down any advice given to it by those involved in the fishing industry itself.
The attitude taken by government speakers in relation to the last amendment tempts me to believe that they think that the government knows best, even in fishing matters. I have the feeling that big brother is watching them, that big brother is telling them what to do, and this is why they are treating the fishermen in this fashion. We all know that our farmers have suffered somewhat from the misadventures of government boards, and I cannot help but feel that those boards would have avoided making many of their mistakes had they listened to the farmers' advice. If we had sought advice from the farmers we would not now face the present mess in Vancouver in respect of grain sales.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
In the field we are now considering advice ought to be sought from those who have practical experience. You can have all the degrees you want, you can know a great deal about many subjects, but it is better for you to be qualified in some practical aspect of the fishing industry-notice, Mr. Speaker, that I said "qualified"-before being appointed to the board. The minister and the government ought to give active fishermen the right to be on the board. Those fishermen ought to be

able to express the desires, feelings and wishes of fishermen in general about the sale of their products, which will be the concern of this government marketing board.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate and the minister's replies to the remarks of hon. members who have proposed various amendments. I find it difficult to understand why the government is reticent to accept this amendment. The minister said it is very likely that there will be fishermen on the board and it is very likely that the Auditor General will audit the books of the board. That means nothing; that is a general statement of the minister. I should prefer to see enshrined in this legislation the right of fishermen to be members of the board.
I return once more to a thought I expressed when this measure was first introduced. Is this just another welfare state social measure or is the government setting up a true marketing board? If it is to be a true marketing board, why are people with practical experience not to be included on it? How many other marketing boards dealing with other commodities exclude from their membership those who have had practical experience? If this is to be a straight, out and out social welfare scheme, then let us follow up our thinking by appointing to the board academics with no practical knowledge of fishing. If it is to be a true marketing board, then I wish to see enshrined in the legislation the right of those with practical fishing experience to be on it.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate why the hon. member moved the amendment and I wish to congratulate him for taking considerable interest in the fishing industry. I think that the remarks of hon. members, both before and after lunch, indicate that we need in the legislation specific provision for fishermen or representatives of fishermen actually engaged in the catching of fish to be on the advisory committee. This morning I spoke of the need for members of the board itself to be experts in marketing; my remarks now pertain to the advisory committee, which is not quite the same as the main board.
I am glad to see that the hon. member who moved the amendment has returned to the house. Would he accept a subamendment? My subamendment would insert after the word "be" in the clause "shall be actively engaged in the fresh-water fishing industry as fishermen" the words "persons or representatives
February 7, 1969	COMMONS
of persons." I think we agree that fishermen should have full representation on both the advisory board and the full board. The minister made this clear many times. If the hon. member who moved the amendment genuinely feels that there may be insufficient representation of fishermen's interests on this board, I hope he will accept my amendment to his amendment and make it possible to appoint people who, while not necessarily actively engaged in fishing, could be representative of those who are so engaged.
I do not think it is necessary to restrict appointments only to those who are actively engaged in fishing. A man may have been a successful fisherman for a number of years and then gone into some other phase of the fishing industry such as marketing. He could make an important contribution on the advisory board. I feel that by permitting the words "persons or representatives of persons" to be inserted after the words "and shall be", the aspirations of the hon. member who moved the amendment would be satisfied and the problem would be met adequately. As the wording of the amendment now stands a man who was an expert fisherman but is no longer engaged in fishing would be excluded from the advisory board. Such a man could not be appointed to the board. If a vacancy had to be filled we should have to go back to the fishing fleet and find another fisherman. I think my subamendment might meet the difficulty. I wonder whether the hon. member who moved the amendment would accept my subamendment.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker,-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for South Shore has already spoken and will need unanimous consent to take part in the debate again.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. Inasmuch as under the new rules there is a requirement that any amendment to be moved must be tabled 24 hours before the bill is dealt with by the house, I wonder whether the subamendment is in order. Aside from that, I should like to see a copy of the subamendment so that I can compare it with the original amendment and understand what we are discussing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I must refer the hon. member for 29180-335
DEBATES	5285
Freshwater Fish Marketing Report South Shore and other hon. members to Standing Order 75(8) which reads as follows:
When the order of the day for the consideration of a report stage is called, any amendment of which notice has been given in accordance with section (5) of this order shall be open to debate and amendment.
Consequently the subamendment suggested by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich is in order and may be moved at this time.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to all hon. members for not circulating a copy of the subamendment. If hon. members will turn to the second last page of the order paper they will see at the top of the page the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Shore. That amendment reads:
-and shall be actively engaged in the freshwater fishing industry as fishermen.
My suggestion is that certain words be added after the word "be". I am sorry, but I shall have to ask Your Honour to read the subamendment. I have given you my only copy.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The amendment will now read as follows:
-and at least one-third of whom shall be persons or representatives of persons actively engaged in the freshwater fishing industry as fishermen.


John Howard Lundrigan: It comes as a great surprise and welcome relief, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) in consultation with the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) has finally consented to accept our proposed subamendment. It means that five hours deliberation in committee and a tremendous amount of prior work have not been wasted. This is the sort of thing for which we have been pressing.
As the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) indicated earlier this afternoon, the reasons for this amendment are more evident now than when first presented. It sometimes takes a little longer for people who are not exposed to the fishing industry to realize the importance of these things. I am happy to support the amendment. It will now be easier for fishing organizations or unions and their representatives to become involved. The fact the minister has changed his mind is an indication there may be more constructive deliberations on matters pertaining to the welfare of people in various parts of Canada. On page
February 7, 1969

Freshwater Fish Marketing Report 213 of report No. 11 of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry the minister said:
To designate certain persons as representing a certain interest is apt to produce the wrong atmosphere and attitude on the board.
In his commentary the minister stated he was in favour of having fishermen on the board.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Will the hon. member permit a question? The hon. member has referred to the minister's statement. Would he indicate whether he was talking about the board as such referred to in clause 7 of Bill C-148 or whether he was referring to the advisory board?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I have to get this in order. The subamendment should be put first. It is moved by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe, that the amendment be amended by inserting therein, after the word "be", the following words:
"persons or representatives of persons".


John Howard Lundrigan: I am prepared to refrain from commenting until we vote on the subamendment. It is my understanding that we can debate the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
motion as amended.


John Howard Lundrigan: The minister posed a question, Mr. Speaker. The minister asked to which board I was referring, the advisory board or the corporate body. I will clarify this for him. The comments I have been making are in relation to the minister's statement on the advisory board. It is my understanding this is what the amendment is about. We would like the minister to write into the proposed legislation that fishermen will be represented on the board. This would give a guarantee to the fishermen of Canada that they are worthy of political involvement in this great participatory democracy at this point in time. The minister said, "You have my word this will be done." Later I felt the minister did not really mean that. I quote again from the minister's remarks at page 213 of report No. 11:
To designate certain persons as representing a certain interest is apt to produce the wrong atmosphere and attitude on the board. I would not really want to see six people coming there and saying: "I am the fishermen's representative and those guys are for someone else." I think that is the wrong approach. The men who are on the board are to advise the industry as a whole,
(Mr. Lundrigan.]
not to be representative of a particular interest, but to have a background that makes some good representatives on the advisory committee. I think that is a matter of general issue.
At one time the minister indicated these people should be on the board and at another time that it would be wrong. I am happy that the minister and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich have realized these people are necessary on the board, that they do have expertise in their own right, are aware of problems involved in the fishing industry and are capable of advising the academics who make political decisions which are now costing $13.6 million as shown in the estimates.
I think there will be more confidence in the corporation which may have an effect on prices in the fishing industry. I feel greater benefits will accrue to the people doing the greatest amount of work to produce the primary product. I am certain hon. members will support this amendment, which was defeated in committee and about which some hon. members were annoyed. Apparently the same amendment is now being accepted by these hon. members. Those who made disparaging remarks about the fishermen of Canada should now go on record and say they misunderstood. I am not going to speak any longer. I would just like to say I am happy hon. members have seen the light.


Otto Emil Lang: I am not really surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) is not familiar with the attitude of the committee which discussed this bill clause by clause. Because of the atmosphere after the first couple of hours the hon. member walked out in high dudgeon.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
He referred to a general principle which I still think to be a good and general point of wisdom. However, it is perhaps not the most important one and indeed he might have noted it was the last point of several to be made in connection with the earlier debate. Several of the earlier points showed up as changes in the form of the amendment which was proposed to the house on the order paper. The difficulty with any amendment of this form frequently lies in choosing words which will not in fact create technical difficulties. I think the words which have now been proposed by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) are satisfactory in this regard and this, with the other changes which were made by the hon. member for South Shore before placing his amendment on
February 7, 1969	COMMONS
the order paper, produces a satisfactory result.
The main point in going forward with the inclusion of this provision in the bill is that whereas during the committee I had expected hon. members opposite would accept the commitment which had been made about representation of fishermen on the board- and I dare say most hon. members opposite would so accept it-it became clear that some hon. members were not in that mood. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the amendment to the amendment and then the amended amendment in turn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Shall the amendment to the amendment carry?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) has moved a subamendment to the amendment which I originally moved and, as I understand it, the amendment would now read:
-at least a third of whom shall be persons or representatives of persons actively engaged in the freshwater fishing industry as fishermen.
The subamendment would indicate that the government and its supporters have had a change of heart. It would indicate they have given this bill and the amendment which we proposed very serious consideration, and this is a welcome change. I very much appreciate the comments that were made by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) with regard to this matter. As I said earlier, this Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in the years ahead will make a great impact upon a large area of Canada. In some parts of this nation the freshwater fish industry is the only type of vocation in which some 7,000 people are engaged, and their economic future is basically tied up with the success that will be achieved by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. If it is not properly managed it can only bring heartbreak and financial distress to a great number of people in a large area of Canada.
It was for these reasons that we moved the amendment originally in the hope that people who are knowledgeable of the industry, knowledgeable of its problems, would have an opportunity to express their opinions in an advisory capacity to the president and the directors of this board. I wish to thank the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich for his subamendment. In my opinion it actually strengthens the amendment which we placed on the order paper and I hope it will receive
DEBATES	5297
Freshwater Fish Marketing Report general agreement throughout the entire house.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his kind words but I would like to make one minor correction. When he read out the subamendment he said "representatives of persons," and in actual fact it is in the singular "representative of persons." Does this in any way alter the hon. member's opinion or attitude toward it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, or a point of grammar, I think it should be "representatives."


Otto Emil Lang: It isn't.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: According to the wording which the Chair has it is actually "representatives", plural.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: That is what I have here.
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western
Nova): Mr. Speaker, I had a big speech written out but I am not going to deliver it since the government and its supporters have changed the amendment. Therefore I will take just a few minutes. I want to put on record the fact that in the standing committee we discussed this amendment and all types of amendments. We asked the government supporters if they would accept any type of amendment at all, but it was no go. We put on the record of the committee the fact that they were not prepared to accept any amendment from the opposition, and we have proven it again today. Therefore I say the committees are a farce.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, am I entitled to speak on the subamendment?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member has already spoken.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) during his brief remarks made reference to my storming out of the committee. For the benefit of hon. members I think it should be pointed out that our standing committee met for a total of five hours, and it was on this very principle of having the fishermen involved that I finally decided that if I could not get that through I was prepared on their behalf to leave the deliberations of the committee altogether. I think there has been a tremendous misrepresentation of my
February 7, 1969
5288	COMMONS DEBATES
Canadian Overseas Telecommunications motive, and I wish to state that I am pre- can only be one person who is a representa-pared at any time to walk out of a committee tive. If the words were "persons or persons on behalf of these people. If it has this kind representative" I think the point might be all of result perhaps I ought to walk out more right, but just to say "persons or representa-frequently.	tive" I think is not grammatically correct.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say I am happy to see the minister and the government give this recognition to the fishermen, and for this reason we are happy to support the subamendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Shall the amendment to the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, would you read it again? You stated that it was in the plural and the hon. member has stated that it was in the singular. To clear up any misunderstanding on this point you should read the subamendment as it is now written.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
amendment to the amendment reads as follows:
That the amendment be amended by inserting therein after the word "be" the following words: "persons or representatives of persons."


Otto Emil Lang: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that I was under the impression that it was the other form that was before the house when I was speaking. I wonder if there could be consultation with the table about the form which lay before the table at that point?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, while the deliberations are going on I would just like to say that if government members think this way about amendments one would think they could get them ready in the committee so that we would not have this last minute "kafuffling.".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
Mr. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Roberts, moves:
That the amendment be amended by inserting therein after the word "be" the following words: "persons or representative of persons."
Shall the amendment to the amendment carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that the words lack sense and clarity if the word representative is in the singular. That seems to suggest that there shall be persons engaged in the industry itself or a representative, and it

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


Otto Emil Lang: On that point, I think if you read the whole amendment as amended rather than simply the amendment it shows it is limited to simply one person:
At least one-third of whom shall be persons or representative of persons actively engaged in the freshwater fishing industry as fishermen.
Grammatically, that makes sense. I do not say that the suggestion of the hon. member would not be better but I think this makes sense.
Amendment (Mr. Anderson) to the amendment agreed to.
Amendment (Mr. Crouse) as amended agreed to.


Otto Emil Lang: That Bill C-148, to regulate interprovincial and export trade in freshwater fish and to establish the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.



CANADIAN OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, February 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Kierans for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of Bill S-5, to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation Act.
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised at being allowed to go into orbit so soon. I had not anticipated that the people interested in the fisheries question would-I was going to say
February 7, 1969	COMMONS
alight so soon but that would not be the proper word. I shall begin by saying I am generally in accord with the remarks which the Postmaster General made on the night of February 3 when he opened the discussion on this measure. I have the highest regard for the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation and not just because it is a profitable organization, although there is nothing wrong with even a Crown corporation showing a profit. We deal in this house with those that do make a profit and many that certainly do not.
I am looking at notes I have here. My typist, instead of typing "corporations do not have to lose money", wrote "corporations have to love money." But I do not think that is quite the point here! One can say, however, as the Postmaster General said the other night, that this organization has shown great competence in managerial and administrative ability through a good many years and deserves the commendation of the Canadian people for that.
With much of the bill it would indeed be impossible to take exception. I suppose the first two clauses are close to being textual or consequential changes resulting from developments in the cable connections with what used to be an overseas area, namely, the province of Newfoundland, a province which for nearly 20 years has been a welcome, valuable and great portion of the Dominion of Canada.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Yes.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the hon. gentleman tell the house at what point Newfoundland ceased to be an overseas province?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
April Fool's Day, 1949.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: My hon. friend would have to check with his esteemed and enduring prime minister in that province who has constantly told Canada it is a great mistake to call Newfoundland an island province because it has a very large mainland portion of which the premier is apparently very fond and determined to retain. So I could say to my hon. friend I come from the only island province in this dominion and the only province which, if it were not in a gulf, would be overseas.
DEBATES	5289
Canadian Overseas Telecommunications


James Aloysius McGrath: I would remind the hon. member that if this government has its way it will remain the only island province.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
the hon. member not trying to cease being an island?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: should be more fully explained to the Canadian people. In the long run, I think it is clear even to the most lay of the laymen that no Canadian domestic satellite will be put into orbit by Canadian efforts alone. Someone else will have to do the launching for us, and to that extent it will not be exclusively one of our own operations. I am inclined to believe there is justification for a Canadian built satellite, but I believe the people responsible should do a more sustained job of informing the Canadian people. I do not think they will find opposition from those who have been so advised.
Let me say in passing, if I may, how very much I appreciated the opportunity of being at Vandenburg air base a week ago in company with the minister who, I presume, is subbing for the Postmaster General at the moment, (Mr. Drury) and some other members of parliament and members of the scientific community involved in the creation of the Isis A satellite. I was pleased to note the success of the launch, and I was delighted with the obvious co-operation of the governments of the United States and Canada in the launching of a Canadian ionospheric satellite by the United States.


An hon. Member:: And the Hollywood stars.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: We saw no Hollywood stars, in answer to my more youthful friend. I was impressed by the name "Isis A". While the Canadian scientists told us many things about this satellite, I did not hear from anyone a recollection of the mythological connection, which might indeed have been very appropriate.
Isis was one of the more, indeed for a long time, paramount goddesses of ancient Egypt. She was regarded as the daughter of the earth and sky. I thought this was a very appropriate name, although I know that Isis means something else. It is one of those initialled conglomerations which not only clutter the international jargon but the scientific jargon. I also recall, and this may not be estheti-cally very pleasing, that Isis was a horned goddess. The minister (Mr. Drury) will recall a certain anxiety about whether or not antennae would be projected from Isis A. They were projected and I assume everything is working fine, so we not only have the goddess Isis up there but it is appropriately a horned goddess. We are very proud of this operation, and I think Canadians can take pride in their scientific community.
February 7, 1969	COMMONS
I do not want to carry on too long on this quiet and friendly Friday afternoon because I know there will be other opportunities to discuss this matter when the bill setting up the Department of Communications, and the corporation are before us as well as committee discussions. However, there are as well as international obligations, domestic implications of a broad political nature which are of concern.
It has pained me that in recent weeks most of the discussions in the Canadian press about the whole question of satellites has dealt with argumentation and disagreement between governments representing the provinces and the dominion. The last thing I should like to do at this time or at any time is to say anything which might exacerbate differences within this country. I recognize, as any thoughtful resident of a federal state must recognize, that this is a very difficult question. There is no argument that the dominion responsibility in the field of the development and projection of satellites is clear. I agree with the white paper, the author of which is sitting opposite me, and the statement that the government is responsible for the international negotiations concerned with communications satellites, both domestic and international. I also agree with the statement that the government is the only body which can negotiate with other countries in this field and that the relationship between domestic communications satellites and the national interest is of vital and unique importance. This must be made unmistakably clear.
I think this is a propitious statement; indeed, perhaps an axion of international relations in this country which we can accept. Yet-this is the complexity of a federal state -that the content of satellite programs would in part be educational and cultural. They are not purely appraisors of weather data. Education and culture would be very important parts of the larger payload, to use another bit of jargon I have been picking up. That this is the concern, indeed the jurisdiction, if I may use that word, of provinces can hardly be denied. It is not surprising that some of the provinces are expressing an interest in this sophisticated, modern "razzle dazzle" vehicle of communications. The interest of one of the provinces has been expressed over a long period of time. Therefore, it should be no surprise that the province of Quebec has more than a passing interest in this particular question.
DEBATES	5291
Canadian Overseas Telecommunications
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
It was a long time ago that Premier Bertrand, speaking in Hull, said:
We want an integrated and complete system embracing not only education and culture, but also the transmission of data and exchanges among knowledge banks.
It is in this perspective that we have turned to communication satellites. Efficiency demands that we control this integrated system in its entirety, but this will not inhibit co-operation and exchanges with the other provinces and with the federal government, if such is to be.
This is a field in which Quebec must act if Quebeckers are to feel that their culture and their own particular genius can be put to use not only in the field of arts and letters, but also in that of science and technology.
This statement was made a long time ago, and there have been others. Therefore, we would have to observe that Quebec's interest is not something of recent vintage. Mr. Cardinal in his discussions with the officers, and indeed the officer, of the Republic of France a few days ago was not breaking new ground. One cannot, and certainly I do not, applaud all that Mr. Cardinal said or did in that particular context. I would suggest that consultation with the dominion government should have taken place before the initialling of agreements or the signing of letters of intent.
I think that a nation state must be the only vehicle for the expression of international personality. Yet as one who is concerned with all of Canada and its provinces, I cannot refrain from asking other questions. One asks what has happened to the old idea of co-operative federalism, as we used to call it. I am interested in the pattern of consultation which has been reported for some time. The Foreign Secretary of France and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), held discussions in Quebec. The Foreign Secretary of France and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) have had what are described as long and cordial discussions at the United Nations, with satellites as part of the agenda. Technicians of France are in Canada working in co-operation with our scientific people. There is an exchange of, and I note this, not educators but technicians between Quebec and France. But where in all of this pattern is the co-operation, or discussion between the other two members of the triangle? When do Quebec and Canada get together? When do Ottawa and Quebec city engage in a dialogue? This is, I submit, a very, very important question.
On November 26 before, I am sure, a large and enthusiastic television audience, the
February 7, 1969
5292	COMMONS
Canadian Overseas Telecommunications minister-designate of communications said that we were going to sit down and talk to Quebec about this problem of a province like Quebec getting involved with foreign governments in the creation of a satellite. I make that remark parenthetically. When he was asked when he was going to do this, his answer was, "Right away".
One asks, were these discussions held? What was the result? The cool, polite statements of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the cool and, I think, polite response of Mr. Cardinal lead me to ask when these chats took place and how effective they were. Surely, in Canada there should be no barrier of silence between federal and provincial people on this or any other matter. It would be a strange flaw in communications if this were the case. I feel very deeply that the advanced technology which makes communications satellites possible in this wonderfully advanced and, in some ways, highly enlightened age, should be a great agency for unity, for closer relations between the peoples not just of one country but indeed between countries. How dreadful it would be if this modern device and this modern expansion of man's capacity to communicate should in our own country become a vehicle, not for harmonious and strengthened communications, but of discord and disunity.
I am anxious to see this country go forward in its satellite program. I have immense confidence, and indeed pride, in the advances made by some of our scientific people. I note with the greatest approval the participation of the university field in this branch of the sciences. I have every confidence in the corporation which we are now discussing. I am sure that all of these people can do the technical job, but we must make sure that the broader political decisions are made thought-full and in time.
There is much more that I could say, and in weeks hence perhaps I shall have a chance to do so. When we get into committee we may submit, for the consideration of the committee and eventually the house, an improvement to clause 3 of the bill. I wonder whether a raising of the ceiling figures set out there, and thereby the assurance of getting parliamentary control where it should be, coupled with a vote of confidence in the corporation to discharge operations far in excess of the small amount set out at the present time, might not be a better way of dealing with the matter. I think this is something we would ask the committee to consider.

I want to end as I began, Mr. Speaker, by expressing great support for the work done by the C.O.T.C. and the hope that it will be a useful vehicle for greater activity. We will be interested to hear whether any plans have been made for its use in the domestic satellite program, despite the word "external" in the bill. We shall be urging, as we have in recent weeks, that the Canadian public be more fully informed on what is in store for this particular aspect of communications. It is costly; it is important; it is sensitive. There are involvements international and domestic which are most acute. I think there is no better way of guaranteeing public support and understanding than by full, ample and prompt communication.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), expressed the hope that he could set the tone for a particularly dispassionate debate this Friday afternoon on the propositions contained in Bill S-5. There is no doubt that the hon. member has succeeded in setting such a tone. Perhaps because the hon. member is a friendly sort of person-very analytical, too, I might add- he has succeeded in doing this. But I suspect there is a second reason, namely, that the bill before us is quite non-controversial. As I see it, there are two provisions contained in Bill S-5.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
One is to delete the special reference to Newfoundland in the operations of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation. Even though the hon. member for Hillsborough and the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) are in some disagreement as to whether or not Newfoundland is unique in Canada in being an overseas province, I will stay out of that argument. Neither do I know whether Prince Edward islanders really consider that province to be an island in the same sense as is Newfoundland.
I also read the comments made by the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) on February 3 when he spoke on this bill. I agree that perhaps it is time the spending authority of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation be revised. I am not sure, however, that the minister should be proposing to remove the limitations completely and to vest in the cabinet the limiting power by way of the Governor in Council.

February 7, 1969	COMMONS
I would have preferred an amendment whereby the ceilings would have been increased substantially from $50,000, which was the limit set in one case, and $5,000 which was the limit in another case. I think it would have been better to increase these limitations substantially but without removing them from the statute. I do not know how significant it will be to transfer the limiting power relative to this corporation from parliament into the hands of the Governor in Council. Inasmuch as members of the cabinet and the Governor in Council are responsible to parliament, it really works out to the same thing.
I would like to take the opportunity, as has the hon. member for Hillsborough, to make some reference to our domestic communication space satellite plans and program. I do not agree with the hon. member that we would be making a mistake if we engaged in the construction of a Canadian built communication space satellite. As I understand the remarks of the hon. member, he seemed to be of the opinion that if such a space communication system were to be developed by Canada, and if it were to cost us in excess of $70 or $80 million, this might well be too high a price to pay. He suggested that perhaps we should look to the United States to provide us with such a satellite at a reduced price.
I feel that because of the advantages which could accrue to our scientific community in the building of an even greater scientific expertise, it would be worth the price for us to build a communications space satellite capability in Canada, even if the cost does rise to the level estimated by the Postmaster General. As I understood him, he estimates the cost to be in the neighbourhood of $70 million to $100 million. It is often said that one of the advantages that a country derives from military conflict, and this is rather ironic and sad, is that at least at that time scientific expertise and technological competence surges forward and increases rapidly. I should like to think that in our time man can, through peaceful scientific programs of endeavour, increase his expertise and technological ability without having to resort to warfare in order to do so. So, I emphasize that I would consider it very sad if, for the purpose of saving a few million dollars, we decided to buy a communication space satellite from some other country. I am sure that in so doing we would be relegating our Canadian scientific community to the background and the repercussions from that would be felt for many years.
DEBATES	5293
Canadian Overseas Telecommunications
I say to the minister, let us by all means go full speed ahead with the plans for the construction and development of a Canadian space communication satellite capability.
I also want to bring to the minister's attention the fact that, as I read his comments when he introduced this bill, he gave us to understand that within a relatively short time from now Canada would be constructing a second ground receiving station in Nova Scotia in order to take advantage to a greater degree of the programs that are receivable from the Intelsat Atlantic satellites. I do not know exactly how many Intelsat satellites are in orbit over the Atlantic region in Canada and Europe, but I do know that in recent days Intelsat has launched a communications satellite in the Pacific region. To the best of my knowledge, Canada does not yet have a ground receiving station on the west coast. As I interpret the situation, this means that Canada cannot avail itself of any communication receivable through the Intelsat Pacific region satellite, and yet we are paying for it.
Canada is a member of Intelsat and pays 5 or 6 per cent of the cost of that organization. However, we are not able to make any use of whatever facilities Intelsat has in the Pacific region because we have not yet established a ground receiving station there. It seems to me the minister should explain at an early date why the policy is to go ahead with the building of a second ground receiving station on the east coast while at the same time we are not building the first one on the Pacific coast. I think that is a valid point which the minister might want to deal with at some future date.
The hon. member for Hillsborough, in his remarks relative to this bill, also made some mention of the fact that there was a consortium in Europe attempting to develop a launching capability to send up a Franco-German space satellite and that Quebec would be involved in this venture. About two months ago I asked the minister if he could indicate whether the province of Quebec was really serious about the building of a ground receiving station somewhere in the province which would be capable of receiving signals from the Franco-German satellite. Perhaps the minister was not in a position to reply at that time, but since then there have been some developments. Quebec seems to be determined to build such a ground receiving station with or without federal assistance. There is a rumour that direct assistance will be given to the province of Quebec by the government of France. I would not attempt to go
February 7, 1969
5294	COMMONS DEBATES
Canadian Overseas Telecommunications into the constitutional aspect of such an action, but I do say to the minister that the only possible justification for the construction of a second ground receiving station on the Atlantic coast would be that it might help to remove the necessity of Quebec building the ground receiving station. In that event, I suppose one could go along with that idea.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Although I did not have the pleasure of attending with other members of parliament about a week or ten days ago the launching of Isis at Vandenburg Air Force Base, I did have the opportunity about two months ago of attending the meetings of the Canada-France Parliamentary Association in France. While there we were invited to view the scientific space communications satellite development program, and we were taken on a tour of the Centre National des Etudes Spatiales just outside Paris. It becomes obvious to us that France is well on its way, and very determinedly, to developing a space communications satellite capability of its own. Judging from some of the comments that I heard at that time, there seems to be an equal determination somehow to bring the province of Quebec into that program. I wish the minister the best of luck in the days ahead in his attempts to cope with that thorny constitutional problem.
I conclude by saying that so far as the specific provisions of Bill S-5 are concerned, there is nothing at all to which to object. I merely wish to register a small caveat. Perhaps, instead of removing entirely the statutory limit on the spending power of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation and leaving it within the discretion of Treasury Board or the Governor in Council, it would have been better to have revised the amount upwards substantially, from $50,000 to, say, $1 million, or from $5,000 in the case of long term leases to an amount of four or five times that. With those comments, I feel that I have at least had my say so far as Canadian communications policy is concerned.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to discover that, according to this bill, Newfoundland is no longer considered to be an offshore area. I am glad that my two colleagues have straightened that out, and also the government's thinking. It does seem to me about time because, if my memory serves me correctly, 1949 was their year of confederation.
I should like to direct a few remarks to the minister about clause 3. According to the bill, [Mr. Schreyer.l
the purpose of this amendment is to remove from the act the requirement that transactions of the corporation involving amounts in excess of limits specified in the act be approved by the Governor in Council and to provide that the Governor in Council may, from time to time on the recommendation of the Treasury Board, prescribe the limits to transactions that may be entered into without approval.
Like the previous speaker, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Schreyer), I have no objection to a change in the ceiling; no doubt the figures should be updated. According to subsection (2) of the act, the corporation may not enter into any agreement that now involves an expenditure in excess of $50,000; neither may it enter into, for a period exceeding three years, any agreement or lease that involves an expenditure in any year of more than $5,000. Further, under paragraph (c) of subsection (2) the corporation shall not acquire any real or personal property, the cost of which exceeds $50,000. At today's inflated prices, these are not very large sums.
However, instead of leaving the matter to the parliament of Canada to decide, the decision is to be made by Treasury Board. This is the factor that I find somewhat objectionable. We are witnessing more and more delegated authority. The new rules in the House of Commons are designed to expedite the business of the house. However, this should not mean complete abandonment by the house of its scrutiny.
Further, I do not think authority should be delegated in such a general way. For example, when discussing the piece of legislation that was before the house earlier today the minister in charge made some general comments about provisions that some of us wished to see included in the legislation. He gave his assurance that he thought certain things we suggested would be done. This kind of generalization would be no good in a court of law. I think the house must be much more specific when directing legislation.
I conclude my remarks by saying that I hope the ceilings presently in the act are reviewed. Surely, we should not be expected to give Treasury Board carte blanche to set its own figures; I suggest this is a matter for parliament.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief; I do not want to hold up reference of this matter to the committee. I would be remiss if I did not rise to speak briefly on the bill before the house.
February 7. 1969	COMMONS
I should like to mention that I was fortunate to witness the launching of Isis A at Vandenburg base about a week ago. I assure the house, I am sure the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) will agree with me, that there was no greater feeling than witnessing the launching of Isis A, knowing that it was built and designed by Canadian scientists and technicians. The launching was done by United States authorities, and I believe that is as it should be because the cost of constructing launching facilities is tremendous. I believe that with co-operation internationally this particular facet can be looked after.
I am sure every member of the house agrees that we have the talent, the scientists and physicists in this country capable of constructing and developing communication satellites. We would not want to see control of these satellites taken away from us. I am sure that the over-all design of the corporation will be to develop in this country the co-operation that is required to efficiently take care of this capability of which we are so proud.
When the Postmaster General (Mr Kierans) introduced this bill on February 3, he said that the purpose of the bill is to establish, maintain and operate, in Canada and elsewhere, external communications services for the conduct of public communications.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I do not think that any province in this nation ought to have the right to put up a satellite over which it would have exclusive control. Such a province would then have entire control over a national communications system. This aspect will be discussed later when regulations are drawn to govern the new communications department. The subject has been mentioned in a report which indicates that it is necessary for the federal government to control Canadian communications satellites.
I have heard it said that officers and employees of the corporation have done a magnificent job in looking after the interests of the Canadian people in this field. Certainly, what we saw at Vandenburg substantiates such claims. We are proud of the contribution Canadians have made in the field of satellites. Without doubt, their work has put Canada in the forefront of nations developing satellites. Our people co-operated well with the United States NASA people, which augurs well for future Canada-U.S. co-operation in this field.
As the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Schreyer) emphasized, we should move quickly to establish a communications depart-
DEBATES	5295
Canadian Overseas Telecommunications ment. The year 1971 will be upon us all too quickly. We must not waste time that could be used to good purpose. Other countries of the world are developing communications satellites and if Canada is to remain a leader in this field we must move quickly and establish the new department.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I wish to remind hon. members that if the minister speaks now he will close debate.


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their constructive approach to this bill and for their co-operative attitude. I wish to reassure hon. members opposite that I share with them the desire that our future satellite should be developed in Canada and, as far as possible, manufactured in this country.
Several hon. members mentioned what is really one point. I suppose it could be taken up in committee but I thought I would explain the matter to them now. I agree that we should raise the rather unrealistic limits now imposed by the act on the directors of the corporation. Raising those limits to $200,000 say, or $500,000 would constitute an appreciable improvement. There is no question about that. But I emphasize that this would not eliminate the need for future amendments to be brought before the house if conditions were so to dictate. It must be remembered that in this country we have two pieces of legislation that must be considered, the government contracts regulations and our financial regulations. If we raised the limit as has been suggested, the C.O.T.C. would remain an exception to the financial control mechanism prescribed by the Financial Administration Act with respect to all other government departments and agencies. It might further be noted that the C.O.T.C. is listed in the schedule of government departments and agencies to which this act should apply. Thus, we would have an existing inconsistency in legislation, which would really be a misalignment.
Section 22 of government contracts regulations provides that the Governor in Council may, from time to time, on the recommendation of Treasury Board prescribe the limits to transactions that may be entered into without approval. Perhaps I ought to read that section, which is as follows:
22. Notwithstanding anything in these Regulations, the Treasury Board may, in respect of a particular contracting authority, upon notification to the contracting authority, increase or decrease any one or more of the amounts specified in Parts I, II, III and IV.
February 7. 1969
5296	COMMONS DEBATES
Canadian Overseas Telecommunications
Part I deals with construction contracts; Part II with purchase contracts; Part III with service contracts and Part IV with leases.
The proposed amendment will remove the existing limits which, as was explained on February 3 and again today, are considered unreasonable. Secondly, it brings C.O.T.C. under the financial control mechanism the federal government has instituted in respect of government departments and agencies as prescribed by the Financial Administration Act. Section 39 of that act reads as follows:
39. The Governor in Council may make regulations with respect to the conditions under which contracts may be entered into and, notwithstanding any other Act,
a)	may direct that no contract by the terms of which payments are required in excess of such amount or amounts as the Governor in Council may prescribe shall be entered into or have any force or effect unless entry into the contract has been approved by the Governor in Council or the Treasury Board, and
b)	may make regulations with respect to the security to be given to and in the name of Her Majesty to secure the due performance of contracts.
What we are really doing here is bringing the C.O.T.C. into the financial structure governing the activities of all other departments of government or agencies. In other words, the C.O.T.C. will not be an orphan. I think we have all the control we want through appropriate institutions which have been set up and through structures as outlined and detailed in legislation to which I just referred. I simply want to place that fact before hon. members.
Before concluding my remarks, may I move that the motion for second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act be amended by substituting for the words "Standing Committee on Transport and Communications" the words, "Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I direct the minister's attention to the fact that he is not allowed to amend his own motion. Perhaps by unanimous consent of the house we could substitute the names of the standing committees. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.

[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-4, respecting the marking of articles containing precious metals, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Hon. C. M. Drury (for Mr. Basford) moved:: That clause 8, subsection (4) be amended by striking out line 35 on page 5 thereof and substituting the following:
"(4) no person shall knowingly make a false or"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would someone like to make a statement?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to speak on behalf of the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) who is unable to be here this afternoon. The amendment proposed by the minister pursuant to Standing Order 75(5) arises out of the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. It was agreed at that time to pass the bill without amendment. Following questions raised in committee by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), however, the minister did agree to consult the Department of Justice with regard to the technical wording of clause 8(4).
The minister did so, with the result that in the proposed amendment before the house the section in question takes full account of the view expressed by the hon. member for Edmonton West to add the word "knowingly" to subsection (4) of clause 8. In view of this situation, Mr. Speaker, I feel hon. members will readily accept this amendment.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: May I say, Mr. Speaker, this bill has been carefully examined by the committee. As the parliamentary secretary has stated, one of our members did raise questions which have been answered and an amendment proposed in accordance therewith. This particular amendment having been adopted, we see no objection to the bill itself in its amended form. Fundamentally, the bill is concerned with housekeeping, cleaning up certain matters which have been outstanding for some time.
Subject to what I have just said we have no opposition to the motion.
February 7, 1969


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Basford) agreed to.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That Bill S-4, respecting the marking of articles containing precious metals, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on Thursday, January 30, 1969, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting. It is now four o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Peters:: Since it is almost four o'clock, perhaps the house would be agreeable to call it four o'clock so we may proceed to private members' hour.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Hogarth:: Could it be understood, Mr. Speaker, private members' hour will be one hour in time?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely private bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
have no objection, Mr. Speaker, to order No. 1 and order No. 2 standing. If this is being done as a courtesy to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), the mover of the bill, I hope the same courtesy will be extended to this side, if he is ready to proceed on a day when the mover of the amendment is not able to be here.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, December 19, the motion of Mr. Wahn for second reading of Bill S-ll, to incorporate Aetna Casualty Company of Canada.
John Gilbert: On December 19, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) sponsored Bill S-ll which
Private Bills
is an act to incorporate Aetna Casualty Company of Canada. After a very erudite exposition of this particular company he made the remark that he was ready to answer questions. I note with sadness that he is not in the house this afternoon because we in the New Democratic Party have many questions to be answered before this bill is finally passed.


William Arnold Peters: He is derelict in his duty.


John Gilbert: I notice other hon. members who have sponsored similar bills are here. I hope they will listen attentively and absorb some of the remarks I will make, then pass them along to the hon. member for St. Paul's.
Bill S-ll, Mr. Speaker, is an act to incorporate Aetna Casualty Company of Canada and sets forth in the incorporation the names of some very successful lawyers as well as an insurance agent.
The capital stock of the company shall be $5 million divided into shares of $50 each. The amount to be subscribed before the general meeting for the election of officers is called shall be $500,000. When this particular bill was before the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce on October 23, counsel for the company stated that the Aetna Life and Casualty Company is the parent company of Aetna Life Insurance Company of Hartford and the Aetna Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford. One would find that rather difficult to follow, Mr. Speaker, unless you have a full appreciation of the corporate conglomeration that prevails in our society.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The company has a wide, horizontal and vertical base not only in the United States of America but also in Canada. They have operated in Canada for approximately 49 years. This is an attempt to incorporate a company dealing in all classes of insurance other than that of life. You will notice in clause 6 of the bill an enumeration of the classes of insurance in which it hopes to participate. It goes from the letter "A" to the letter "Z" which would indicate there are 26 classes of insurance. I have heard it said that when it comes to a matter of security we should have security from the womb to the tomb. Here, we have insurance from "A" to a "Z" which is quite a remarkable expansion by this company.
Last week, Mr. Speaker, I happened to see the picture "2001 A.D.", which dealt with the problems of space. I looked in this bill to

February 7, 1969
Private Bills
see if there was any reference to outer space insurance and I noticed there was not. I would ask hon. members on the other side to bring this lack to the attention of the sponsor of the bill. In the near future young men will be flying to the moon, and I would like to think that some company would have outer space insurance.
It would be rather interesting to you, Mr. Speaker, to hear an enumeration of the particular types of insurance in which this company will engage. They are fire insurance, accident insurance, aircraft insurance, automobile insurance, boiler insurance, credit insurance, earthquake insurance, explosion insurance, falling aircraft insurance, forgery insurance, guarantee insurance, hail insurance, impact by vehicles insurance, inland transportation insurance, livestock insurance, machinery insurance, marine insurance, personal property insurance, plate glass insurance, real property insurance, sickness insurance, sprinkler leakage insurance, theft insurance, water damage insurance, weather insurance and windstorm insurance. The list is quite impressive.
This brings me to the main thrust of my remarks. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that just in the past week or two we had an application from a company called Excelsior Life Insurance, and I notice that this company has a 70 per cent interest in Excelsior Life Insurance.
We have an American owned company having a 70 per cent control of a Canadian insurance company called Excelsior Life, and now it wants to incorporate another company to cover all forms of insurance with the exception of life insurance. I would imagine it thinks it can use Excelsior Life Insurance Company to take care of its insurance holdings.
In his opening remarks, the sponsor of the bill pleaded with members of the house to consider that even though it was American capital that was setting up this company the employee content would be Canadian. In a rather tender plea, he suggested that the intention of the company is to have its profits remain in Canada for Canadian use. When I say that is a tender plea, it makes me realize that the profits of this particular company in Canada, with regard to this same type of business under a different name, amounted to $785,000 for the year 1967, a substantial amount.
In the Banking and Commerce Committee one of the able Senators asked how many

Canadian shareholders there were in this company. After a little examination and huddling together by those concerned, they suggested that there were 300 Canadian shareholders. In the Aetna Insurance Company, which is an American company, there are
25,000	shareholders, and here we have a Canadian content of 300 Canadian shareholders.
In days like these, when you have takeover bids by American companies for Canadian insurance companies, I would have thought the government would have brought an immediate halt to the incorporation of companies which are American owned until it made a full examination of this take-over problem. Remember, Mr. Speaker, during the last week one of our big Canadian insurance firms attempted to mutualize its company to avoid an American take-over. When I speak of mutualization, I refer directly to the ownership of that company being in the hands of Canadian shareholders. This is what mutualization means.
The bid for mutualization with regard to that particular company failed. Now, it has exposed itself to the strong winds of American companies with regard to the take-over of Canadian life and other insurance companies. If the sponsor of this bill and some of the hon. members on the other side of the house realized the impact and import of this attempt by American companies to take over and dominate the insurance field, I am sure they would rise to their feet and ask that the government take immediate steps to stop this intrusion into our economy.


William Arnold Peters: What action did the government take in this matter?


John Gilbert: The hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters) has brought forth a very salient point. He asks what action did the government take. I am sorry to say members of the government performed as usual. They just sat there and did nothing.
I recall that when I referred to the performance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at the Commonwealth Conference as being a zero performance there was a great howl on the other side of the house. When I referred to the performance of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) in the task force on housing and said he had scored a double zero with regard to that important matter, there was another great howl. Here again we have a
February 7, 1969

fundamental issue with regard to the economy of our country and the government once more sits idly by and does nothing.
This is a sad commentary on this government that attempted to gain power in Canada on the supposition that they would be men of action, avant-garde men. This great leader, whom they elected at the party's leadership convention, would lead Canada into a position of strength and stability. Unfortunately, this has not happened.
Most Canadians are worried about American ownership in Canada. When I reiterate that Aetna Insurance Company has a 70 per cent interest in the Excelsior Insurance Company and has a broad base of insurance right through Canada and the United States, it brings to mind the wisdom and the experience of Walter Gordon. You, Mr. Speaker, remember the contemptible attitude that was taken by some members on the other side with regard to this outstanding Canadian who had a remarkable record in the financial affairs of our country, and who came to Ottawa with the hope that he would be able to lead Canada through these troubled times. He wrote a book which was well received, underlining the problems of foreign ownership. Here, we have a government that not only rejected his ideas but rejected the man himself.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I happened to read the recent book by Peter Newman called "The Distemper of Our Times". He sets forth the position of which Mr. Gordon attempted to make the Canadian public aware. It is rather unfortunate that Mr. Newman's book should have come out late in December at a time when another book by another Canadian personality came out, because the second book by that great woman of Canada-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member for Broadview but I would request that he try as best he can, and I know he is able to do so, to restrict his remarks to the motion before us at this time.


John Gilbert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It so happens that the book by Mr. Newman struck me so forcibly that I just had to bring it to your attention. So many members have not read that book, although they have read the other book by that gallant lady who sat on the other side.
Private Bills
At page 222 of his book Mr. Newman set forth the problem of foreign ownership. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the main burden of my remarks is with regard to foreign ownership. I noticed that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) looked up. This is rather important because he was the man who sponsored the Canada-U.S. auto pact or at least piloted it through the house. He knows what I am talking about when I mention the problem of foreign ownership. But he, like so many members of the cabinet, pretends to be unaware of the remarkable penetration of our economy that has taken place by the United States. I hope he does not take that attitude, but rather agrees with me there should be a task force set up to study the situation in respect of insurance companies in Canada. A study should be made of their ownership, the types of insurance they sell, the need for insurance companies, the use of capital by the insurance companies and the necessity for the allocation of the capital funds of these particular companies. I am sure he would agree with that general principle.
I should like to return to the matter of Mr. Newman's book because he has a very succinct and persuasive manner in his writing. He sets forth this problem in respect of foreign ownership. He refers to the report that was published by the task force set up to study foreign ownership and control in Canada. We now call it the Watkins report. At page 222 we read:
The report stressed that foreign investment is not simply the movement of capital between two countries, but also a political phenomenon. "Foreign control," it concluded, "means the potential shift outside the country of the locus of some types of decision-making. To the extent decision-making is eroded, national independence-being, in a broad sense, the ability to make decisions in the national interest-is reduced." It also warned about the use by foreign governments of the parent-subsidiary relationship as an instrument of their foreign policy. "The Canadian-based subsidiary," the report noted, "is confronted with two peaks of sovereignty; it must choose and might be expected to defer to the higher peak. In the nature of the case, the higher peak will typically be the home country."
I mention that because of the remark made by the sponsor of the bill to the effect that the profits of this company would be retained in Canada. One always remembers the action of the United States government with regard to the equalization tax and the direction by the United States government that subsidiaries of United States companies operating in

February 7, 1969
Private Bills
Canada send back some of their profits to the United States to take care of the balance of payments problem. This appears to be a very serious problem in the United States, and we in Canada also have suffered in respect of the balance of payments problem. However persuasive the sponsor of this bill may have wanted to be with regard to the retention of profits in Canada, we are subject to the statement that a subsidiary of a United States company would have to act in accordance with United States law and the dictates of the parent company. This is an unfortunate happening. It is an unfortunate fact in the economic life of our country and throughout the world that any subsidiary branch plant operating in another company is subject to the direct control of the parent company.
This is the opening remark set forth in the statement by Mr. Newman. I shall read again this very interesting material of which all of us should be aware:
Gordon's complaints about the behaviour of foreign subsidiaries in Canada included such things as the absence of a minority Canadian interest in their equity stock distribution: little meaningful Canadian representation on these firms' boards of directors; the fact that export policies were set by parent organizations, often against the domestic Canadian interest; and the reluctance of most American firms to process their raw materials before shipping them to the United States-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


William Arnold Peters: Carry on.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there general
agreement that the hon. member should continue?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the remarks my friend was making at the time his 20 minutes expired. The argument he was developing was directed to the control of the Canadian economy by outside interests. A number of private bills such as this dealing with the insurance problem have been before us. Again, I shall ask a question which has been asked before. Just what is the government's position on this particular phase of our economy? Are we to take it for granted that it is government policy to allow the insurance field to be increasingly dominated by outside interests or are we to try to retain for Canada

a larger degree of control than we presently have?
It is interesting to read the reports of those in charge of the insurance department. They realize what is happening in the insurance field. This is really part of the financial structure of this country. Slowly but surely to a very large degree we have lost control of this particular sector of our economy. It is amazing that private members constantly bring these bills before the house. Sometimes I wonder whether they go back to their constituencies and tell the people who elected them that they are in favour of selling Canada lock, stock and barrel to foreign investors. That is exactly what is happening. Private bill after private bill is brought in by members who, in fact, are telling us and the Canadian public that they are in favour of taking another chunk of our Canadian economy and shipping it south of the border or to some other nation. They are in favour of shipping out of Canada the control of our economy.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
This is the story we are trying to get across. This is the story we are trying to leave with the Canadian nation. It is time the government laid down a policy. This policy should not be left to a handful of private members who bring in these bills. The government gets out from under by saying such bills do not represent government policy, but only policy negotiated by members who happen to be in the Liberal party.
If these bills go through, and hon. members are hoping they will, another chunk of our economy will be going down the drain. Let us have a look at this specific bill. It is designed to incorporate the Aetna Casualty Company of Canada. I am not going to go over the arguments which other hon. members have put before this house. The control of this company is completely held in the United States. Just last week, we had another bill before us which involved a subsidiary of this same company. That bill represented an attempt to kid the Canadian people that this company was the same old company with the same old name but not controlled by outside interests. It is not my intention to go over the memorandum again, but I suggest it shows what can be done and should be done. When any insurance bill goes through this house we should write in some safeguards. This should be the policy and intent of every member elected to the House of Commons, unless the
February 7, 1969

member is anxious to have Canada completely and thoroughly dominated by outside interests.
This memorandum is dated a couple of years ago. It refers to an insurance bill that was before this house. I think it is important for hon. members to know that bill was opposed by members of this house who argued that changes ought to be made. After a great deal of thought, we found that an agreement could be reached with this particular company. Canadians were going to have some control, and this control was written into the agreement. This is the type of thing we want. We want to write in safeguards when these bills come before parliament. There is absolutely no reason why safeguards cannot be written into these agreements. That is true of the particular bill before us.
The purpose of the incorporation sought by the earlier bill to which I have referred was the same as the purpose of incorporation in respect to the bill before us. The company was to be incorporated for the purpose of carrying on the business of life insurance in Canada. There is nothing wrong with that purpose. There are other parts of this agreement which I wish to leave with the members of this house for what I hope will be thoughtful consideration.
I am not going to read the entire context of this rather lengthy memorandum, but I will gladly provide a copy to anyone who wants it. It indicates that within two years of commencement of business, United Funds Management Ltd. would sell to officers, directors and employees of the company and, if necessary, others who are Canadian residents, 25 per cent of the capital stock of the insurance company for the original price. The memorandum goes on to suggest that within two years of the commencement of the business of this insurance company, it will offer Canadian residents a sufficient number of shares to bring its share ownership below 75 per cent. It says that within two years of the commencement of business the indirect ownership of Waddell and Reed will be reduced to a maximum of 56.25 per cent with practically all of the balance owned by residents of Canada.
Another paragraph of this memorandum indicates that United Funds Management Ltd. will undertake to sell to Canadian residents within ten years of the commencement of the business of the insurance company sufficient shares then owned by the insurance company
Private Bills
to bring the direct ownership of Waddell and Reed in the insurance company to below 50 per cent.
I am not going to go into the details, but this is supposed to provide an opportunity for Canadians to participate and eventually gain control of the company. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this idea and that is what members on this side of the house are very interested in assuring. We want to see moves made in this direction. As the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) just pointed out, we have to make up our minds fairly soon as to what we intend to do in this connection.
Bills of this type should not be passed by this house unless we attach limiting restrictions. This is the forum in which to debate these issues. I for one would be extremely happy to hear members on the government side of the house defend this continuing sellout of Canadian industry and control to outside sources. Stand up in your seats and defend your positions, if this is government policy. We have seen too many instances where outside control has been disadvantageous to the nation. Either we take a stand very soon or it will be too late.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
We have been warned. We have had the Watkins report on foreign ownership which went into all phases of economic control. It touches every facet of the Canadian economy.
We come back to the financial institutions. In this area we have had some control over ownership, and I think it has been good. But anyone who tries to divorce insurance companies, and the terrific power they wield by reason of the tremendous portfolios of investment which they hold, from the financial field is very foolish indeed. We have talked in this house about investment in Canadian industry. Here is a source of funds for investment in Canadian industry. I suggest that it is essential to have the insurance industry under Canadian control. This does not mean wiping out all foreign insurance companies. There is a host of them in Canada now, and they take dividends out of this country and control to a very great extent their extensive portfolios of investment. We are losing the battle for Canadian control of industry in this country by continuing the type of legislation that is before us this afternoon. Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I have one or two more things to say on this bill. I have said before, and say again-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

February 7. 1969
Private Bills


Randolph Harding: -that I do not think private members in this house should have the right to introduce this type of insurance bill. If it is government policy, the government should be in a position to advance this type of legislation. If the government favours the incorporation of these companies, it should say so; it should be part of the government's over-all program and policy. But the government does not do this. It tries to sneak in through the back door legislation of this type, hoping there will not be in the chamber enough members who wish to speak against this loss to the Canadian economy.
I believe several hon. members wish to speak on the bill. I would like, Mr. Speaker, to make my position very clear. As a Canadian, I am sick and tired of seeing the old line parties allowing the resources of this country to get out of the control of the Canadian people. We are paying for this policy. We see fabrication taking place in other nations, when the emphasis should be on fabrication taking place in our own country, thus giving jobs to Canadians in the Canadian setting. The people of this nation are gradually waking up and demanding that something be done in this respect. If the Liberal government does not do something to bring about the repatriation of some of the Canadian economy, it will be thrown out of power so quickly that it will make its head spin.
People hoped that a new direction would be taken by this government. I suggest that as far as industry is concerned the government should lay down a solid, sensible program of investment and control. Let us know where the government is going in this respect. I suggest it should start with very important industries, of which the insurance industry is one.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to state my views on this bill, in order to complete its consideration.
I think that Bill S-ll, as drawn up, is quite important. Like the previous speakers, I think that we are selling Canada piecemeal.
If we maintain that we must control our economy, those who are acquainted with the operations of the stock market and our economy will tell you that 69 per cent of our economy belongs to Americans and 31 per cent to Canadians.
This shows how healthy our administration has been, because we are selling Canada piecemeal.

We are now dealing with a big American company which wants to compete with other American and Canadian general insurance companies already in operation.
If my information is correct, in Canada there are about 292 companies selling insurance other than life insurance. Those American companies collect money in Canada for the benefit of the parent company established in the United States.
Someone wishes a child to be born in Canada, more precisely in Toronto, to collect money to be sent to the mother who lives in the United States. As an example, I will mention the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, which, on the one hand, invested 4 per cent of its assets in Canada in 1967-68, and on the other hand, made about 16 per cent of its revenue here.
You can see how profitable it is, and what happens when competition exists. The provinces pass legislation on crop insurance. The federal government and some provinces want to establish medicare. And now, bills are introduced authorizing American companies to open subsidiaries in Canada, naturally for the benefit of the United States.
It is not that I bear American investors a grudge, but I think it is time to take our economy in hand. Government members should ask economists to "rack their brains" in order to create the $5 million in credit which would enable the company involved to set up an organization which, thanks to the productiveness of its premiums, could invest again in Canada and enable Canadians to profit by the "revolving" money which would be invested in our private and public institutions.
I did not want to delay too much the discussion, but I think those considerations are very important. As the previous speakers said, in the field of mines, trade, industry and natural resources, we have already "Americanized" enough. When we speak of investment, it is not a time to create a "dumping" of money in favour of Americans, but rather to keep the ownership on our economy, in order to be able to say one day that we are a strong people.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to prepare a speech on the bill before us.
I wish to welcome our new colleague the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin). Although he is not yet a member of the New
February 7, 1969

Democratic Party, maybe he will join our ranks before long.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)

I want to take a few minutes to say something about Bill S-ll, to incorporate the Aetna Casualty Company of Canada. I took the opportunity to refer back to the minutes of proceedings of the Committee on Banking and Commerce of last October 23, at which time the subject matter of this Bill S-ll was before hon. Senators in the other place. It would seem that what is involved here is an attempt on the part of the Aetna Casualty Company to change the mode of operation of its Canadian branch and to change the form of incorporation. Rather than operate in Canada in the future as a branch of a U.S. company, it seeks now to become incorporated as a Canadian company. But it is interesting to note that even though the company will be registered as a Canadian company, and operating under Canadian law, it will still be owned in very large part, if not exclusively, by the U.S. parent company which goes by the same name.
It is also interesting to note that, according to the Financial Times of last year, the United States parent company is now facing litigation in the United States on anti-trust charges. Of course, one might argue that this problem of litigation facing the parent firm has nothing to do with the bill that is before us, but I think there is some relationship. It is certainly a point which hon. members should take into account when considering the pros and cons of Bill S-ll, preliminary to deciding how they will actually vote on the bill.
Some hon. members might think that this is a very routine proceeding in which we are engaged, that some private member is simply sponsoring a bill to incorporate an insurance company or to change its charter. However, I suggest that it is not routine. There are many ramifications and implications for the whole Canadian economy. We know that insurance companies take their premium income and invest it in the economy, and that is fine. But we do not know specifically to what extent Canadian premium insurance dollars are being collected in Canada and invested abroad.
I suspect that the trend in the last four or five years has been a rather dramatic increase in the amount of Canadian insurance premium dollars collected from Canadians here and
Private Bills
invested outside the country. Certainly, in February and March of 1967 there was a dramatic increase in the outflow of Canadian insurance premium dollars which were invested in the United States by companies operating here. So dramatic was this increase in February, March and April of 1967 that even our financial journals, such as the Financial Post and Financial Times were moved to comment about it on more than one occasion. We are often told that one of the great problems in our country is the reluctance on the part of Canadians to invest in risk enterprises. Sometimes we are presented with such a bald statement. The fact of the matter is that there would be much more investment by Canadians if there was a greater availability of stocks for purchase, and if Canadian insurance premium dollars were directed to investment in Canada.
I believe it is fair to say that very often potential Canadian1 investors cannot find an adequate supply of public stock. I know this might sound a little hard to believe but I think it is being said with more and more frequency, that there is actually a scarcity of public stocks on the market relative to the availability of investment capital. This is completely contrary to the conventional belief of the past decade that there is an under supply of Canadian investment capital. The situation seems to be exactly the reverse of what we are so often told.
I took a couple of minutes to make that point because it relates to the operation of insurance companies here in Canada. I noticed news items in the Ottawa Journal issues of February 5 and 6. These articles stated that in the Canadian insurance industry there has been quite a bit of activity lately and that some insurance companies have been engaged in take-over bids of other insurance companies. Apparently this has resulted in a rapid increase in share trading on the stock exchange in insurance company stocks. One is curious as to why Canadian insurance companies should, all of a sudden, be engaged in such takeover bids and stock market shenanigans. Certainly, this is what appears to be the case. There must be something of immediate private interest to insurance companies to cause them to change their articles of incorporation and their form of organization and operation. There must be some advantage to them ini wishing to split their shares. All of these things make it a little easier for insurance companies to manipulate and manoeu-ver in subscribing for capital, and make it

February 7, 1969
Private Bills
easier for them to operate on the stock market. I do not know of what benefit this can be to the public interest or to the national economy as a whole. We do know that foreign investment in Canada has been a growing problem in the post-war decade. One or two Liberal cabinet ministers were brought to the point of stating it had become a matter of urgent national interest great enough to necessitate the appointment of a special commission to study it.
On reading the report of the Watkins commission and its recommendations, we find that indeed the problem of foreign ownership has increased drastically in our time. The prospects are that the problem will linger with us and get worse in the years ahead unless some concerted effort is made by the government to treat the problem of ever increasing foreign ownership of our natural riches and resources1. So far, we have not had an indication from the government as to what it intends to do with respect to this specific and concrete problem. The validity of the words1 spoken by my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) is fortified. He is suggesting to hon. members that it is not too late now for us to insist that the government have a policy and an attitude with respect to private bills which come before us week after week asking for the incorporation of new financial institutions and for a change in the mode of operation of insurance companies.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I do not think it is enough that bills of this kind should be introduced by private members and voted on by the small handful of members in the house at the time with the government adopting no attitude whatever toward them. I am sure that 30 or 40 years ago the government would have adopted a position of respectful neutrality toward private bills praying for the incorporation of financial houses or insurance companies. However, I do not think that sort of attitude is any longer valid, simply because the amount of capital accumulated by insurance companies in premium form has increased greatly in the past decade. It therefore follows that the amount of investment capital that insurance companies are able to marshal and invest in the way they so choose has a very direct and substantial effect on our entire national economic performance.
Let us look at the performance of insurance companies in Canada during the year 1967. In

that year insurance companies invested something like 40 per cent of their investment portfolios in mortgages on real estate and homes. There is nothing wrong with this; indeed one hopes they will make even more of their investment portfolios available for mortgages, and in that way help play their part in solving the rather grave problem created by the housing shortgage in this country.
At the same time, these insurance companies have been rather pleased with the way they have been able to escalate the interest rate on mortgages accepted by them on real estate and homes. For example, the interest rate charged by insurance companies on mortgages all through the 1950's was of the order of 4 per cent, 4.3 per cent, 4.5 per cent and 4.6 per cent. By the early 1960's it had reached the 5 per cent level. However, in the past two years interest rates on mortgages in Canada have increased so greatly and irrationally that one can only say that these rates have run amok since early 1967.
The fact that insurance companies do have a large volume of capital available for mortgage investment has not seemed to make any difference to these rates. Therefore, I conclude that insurance companies operating in Canada have not been motivated by any desire to do what they can to hold the line on interest rates in this country. They have been as anxious as the rest, if not more so, to see interest rates escalate. Since nearly half of their investment portfolio is in the form of mortgages, the higher the interest rate, the better they like it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I hear some hon. members calling it five o'clock. I understand there is general agreement to call it five o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. My understanding is that private members' hour started four minutes before four o'clock, on the understanding that the hour would expire after the normal allotted time. Therefore, I must bring to the attention of hon. members that the hour set aside for the consideration of private members' business has expired.
I understand the President of the Privy Council has an announcement to make.
February 7, 1969



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to confirm that on Monday we will be on script as indicated in my announcement yesterday, starting with third reading of the precious metals marking bill and then going on to third reading of the bill dealing with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. Following that measure, we will
Business of the House call second reading of the bill to amend the Export and Import Permits Act. Assuming passage of that measure, we would then deal successively with items 33 and 41, third reading of the bill to amend the Aeronautics Act and third reading of the bill to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.


[Stage Direction]
At five o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 10, 1969