1970-02-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41 (2), I would like to table, in the two official languages, copies of a Review of federal government programs to encourage research, development and innovation in Canadian manufacturing industry.



FISHERIES AND FORESTRY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a motion under Standing Order 43, which provides that in a case of urgent and pressing necessity, previously explained by the mover, a motion be made by unanimous consent of the House without notice having been given under Standing Order 42. I shall state briefly the reason for this motion which I think is of urgent and pressing necessity.
On December 16 last the Public Service Commission recommended to all deputy ministers that in its opinion a review procedure should be established with respect to surplus employees being given notices of dismissal. It appears that this recommendation has not yet been acted on by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. Hence a good deal of concern is felt by the scientists in particular who are being laid off from their employment in that department. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), to move as follows:
That this House recommends to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry that a review procedure for surplus employees be established within his department, as recommended by the Public Service Corn-21701-36
mission on December 16, 1969, and that the dismissal of surplus employees by this department be suspended until the opportunity for review in all cases has been provided.
I may say that we would be quite prepared to forgo any debate on this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, under the terms of Standing Order 43 unanimous agreement on the part of hon. members is required before the motion can be put. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity. In the circumstances the hon. member's motion cannot be put at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he will give the House an assurance that the government will subject experimental voyages in our Arctic waters, particularly in the Northwest Passage, to strict regulations and will indeed prohibit any such voyage until the government is satisfied that the risk of oil pollution has been eliminated. I ask this question in view of the fact that the Manhattan was carrying on its first experimental voyage more oil for fuel purposes than the tanker Arrow, which is causing so much pollution off the coast of Nova Scotia, was carrying in its cargo.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: On the principle of the question, I would certainly give that assurance. As to the second part, which is a factual question concerning the quantity of oil carried and whether it would be carried in circumstances which could give rise to a serious menace, I will look into it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to understand from that answer that the Prime Minister did not know the amount of oil which the tanker Manhattan-
3888	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubt whether the question as asked in that form is in order. The Leader of the Opposition might wish to rephrase it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the
Prime Minister whether at the time of the voyage of the Manhattan he knew the amount of oil the tanker was carrying for use as its own fuel and as fuel for accompanying craft?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must say that this is a statistical matter. I do not have the answer.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One further question. Would the Prime Minister not agree that oil in a quantity in excess of that carried by the Arrow would constitute a grave threat to the ecology of the north in the event of a disaster, and that the amount of oil carried by the Manhattan is, therefore, information of the utmost importance which the government should know in connection with this voyage?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question sounds
argumentative, to me, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a matter of knowing not only how much oil is carried but the degree of threat presented in connection with the possibility of spillage.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May I ask the Prime Minister a question which is not hypothetical? In view of the evidence which was submitted to a committee of this House in public that during the voyage of the Manhattan the ship was severely holed where it had not been reinforced, can he say whether any other ships going through loaded will be reinforced to prevent any pollution of our Arctic?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question is said not to be hypothetical but as far as I am concerned I do not know whether on its second voyage the Manhattan will be further reinforced. As the House knows, it was only last week that the intention of the Manhattan to make this voyage was conveyed to us. We have sent a reply and we are looking into the circumstances of the voyage and the state of the ship.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Now that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has dipped his toes in the water and found it not too cold, will the Prime Minister indicate whether the claim of Arctic sovereignty

DEBATES	February 20, 1970
asserted by his colleague yesterday was a claim to the waters between the Arctic islands on the basis of their being internal waters or on the basis of their being territorial waters and, if it was the latter, does the government intend at the earliest date to promulgate regulations under international conventions governing the safety and security of the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know to what aspect of security the hon. member is referring. If he is thinking of pollution, the answer is that the Speech from the Throne stated that this session would see a statement from the government by way of legislation to prevent pollution of the Arctic.


Gerald William Baldwin: A further supplementary question. I appreciate the Prime Minister's answer, but would he answer the first part of my question. Is the claim that was asserted yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in regard to Canada's sovereignty over waters between the islands one of sovereignty on the basis of their being territorial waters or on the basis of their being internal waters?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I suggest it might be preferable if the House waited for an answer to the question until the legislation is tabled.



ARCTIC WATERS-CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of what appears to be a stronger position on this matter now taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and although members of the House are at a disadvantage in this regard in that they do not have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon.
member ask his question.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Perhaps I should put it as a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: If hon. members opposite would be quiet I would point out-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand that the hon. member has a point of order. I would be pleased to hear what the point of order is and to make a ruling on it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members realize there is a need to preface my
February 20, 1970

question since hon. members do not have yesterday's Hansard yet. Consequently, nobody, except perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs, knows exactly what the minister did say yesterday in the House. This is a matter of considerable importance because we are dealing with a delicate question of international law. For that reason-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that that is a legitimate point of order but, as the hon. member probably knows, in special circumstances yesterday the House sat for an extra hour. Most, if not practically all, of the discussion was in the French language yesterday and we were not quite prepared in our translation services to cope with the situation. This is why there is a bit of a delay this morning. I am assured that Hansard will be in the hands of all hon. members by twelve o'clock. The point of order having been made, perhaps the hon. member would ask his question.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, my question is this. In view of what we were led to believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs said yesterday, will the government now allow the House to concur in the unanimous first report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was half out of his seat and it looked as though he were going to reply to the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, since I was applauded before I started to speak I thought I should stop while I was ahead.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Early in January the minister announced that certain companies had agreed to defer proposed increases in prices and charges. I refer to the copper industry, the railroad companies with respect to freight rates, and Eaton's and Simpson's with respect to interest rates on instalment purchases. Has the minister now received any assurance from these companies that the deferment will be extended beyond March 1, or will the proposed increases go into effect at the end of this month?
21701-36J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the deferment was made on the basis that the proposals would be reviewed under the criteria determined at the general meeting held by the Prices and Incomes Commission, and this will be the case.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister if any assurance has been sought from these companies that there will be no increase in the prices and charges which they propose until the Prices and Incomes Commission has had an adequate opportunity to review these matters?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, in one particular case I have been asked-the Prices and Incomes Commission has been asked to take a look at the particular matter. I have to check with respect to this. It is presumed, a general consensus having been agreed upon, that the business community will now live within the criteria which were set out in their agreement with the Prices and Incomes Commission.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a related question, Mr. Speaker. Has the report which the minister was having prepared regarding the takeover of investment houses in Canada by foreign corporations been completed, and when may we expect to receive it?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, with respect to investment corporations as I indicated to my hon. friend we were awaiting, before releasing our report, the report which is being prepared for the stock exchanges and the Investment Dealers' Association. I understand there has been some slight delay due to the illness of the chairman, but I am hopeful that it will be forthcoming very shortly and at that time we will submit our report.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if the Prices and Incomes Commission will be reviewing the 118.8 per cent increase in the profit of Electrohome Limited in 1969?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, percentage figures do not mean very much unless one looks at the base, and I am not familiar with the particular situation raised by my hon. friend.



INFLATION-INCREASE IN PRICE OF MILK IN TORONTO

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): I have a supplementary question,
February 20, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker. A week or two ago I asked the Minister of Finance and also the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs about an announced increase in the price of milk in Toronto. I understood this was to be looked into to some extent. Has the minister any information he can give today?
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take the matter up with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as I was not here then.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You should not pass the buck like that.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.
As the Parliamentary Secretary recognized yesterday in the House that he himself had signed the petition submitted by 25,000 industrial milk farmers, which was to come to him, can he tell us whether he gave himself a phone call this morning to inform himself of what the dairy policy for 1970-71 will be, and what was the outcome of that telephone conversation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am under the impression that the hon. member wants to continue the very interesting debate that took place last night in the House. I do not believe the question, as worded, is in order.



FINANCE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance is directed for the purpose of obtaining information which is not procurable by Members of Parliament either from the Bank of Canada or from the Bureau of Statistics. Will the minister say whether since the end of December there has been a considerable outflow of capital from Canada? Has his attention also been directed to the question of whether bank deposits have gone down considerably? If these facts are correct, is this one of the consequences of the fears aroused among Canadians over the white paper on taxation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check the figures but I am not conscious of any serious net outflow of Canadian funds. As my hon. friend knows, the exchange reserves have gone up rather steadily in the last year.


John George Diefenbaker: I am speaking about bank deposits having been withdrawn.


Edgar John Benson: I presume my friend is talking about the exchange reserves and the over-all position of Canada vis-a-vis the rest of the world with respect to total inflow and outflow. I have not been informed of any serious decrease in our reserves. However, I shall look into the matter very quickly.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister be prepared to give the House a statement setting out the deposits in Canadian banks starting with last December? The latest figure I could get was for January 21 when there was a falling off of $420 million in deposits. Could the minister give the information from December up to as close to the present as possible? At the same time would he explain what is the reason for the large reduction in deposits in the banks?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if there is such a reduction it may be that my right hon. friend has drawn out his bank balance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You had better direct your attention to the Prime Minister.


Edgar John Benson: In light of the information or supposed information given to me by my right hon. friend, I would be pleased to look into the matter.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Does the government intend to continue denying responsibility for medical and hospital costs in respect of treaty Indians and Eskimos for tuberculosis and mental sickness in direct contravention of the minister's white paper on Indian affairs.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. 
February 20, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	3891
Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare made a statement in this connection a few days ago and said that his department intended to continue to make those payments. In my opinion, the question does not apply at the moment.


Mr, Thompson:: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement by the minister of Health for Alberta who says that the federal government refuses to pay any such costs and is thus directly abrogating its responsibility to the Indians and Eskimos, can the minister tell us whether he has had any discussion with officials of the Alberta government in recent months?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, Indian health services come under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I did not have any discussion in this connection with the ministers of the Alberta government, but I had the opportunity to meet a few of them about other aspects of our Indian policy.



HAY LAKES-ALLEGED MISUSE OF BAND FUNDS BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, is the minister now able to reply to the question I asked on several occasions last week and the beginning of this week about the allega'ions concerning irregulari ies in the use of band funds, which are supported by affidavits that have been in the hands of officials in the minister's department for almost two weeks?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this question was asked in the House last Friday. I have received a preliminary report and I have delegated an official of the Administration division to investigate. He is now in Alberta and I am waiting for his final report so as to know whether there have been any irregularities.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that one official of the minister's department has suggested this matter should be subject to a careful audit, is the minister not able to give the House some indication of his views at the present time?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: It seems the hon. member is simply reiterating the question asked originally.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The minister undoubtedly had worthwhile discussions in Quebec City on Wednesday morning. Could he tell the House whether a final agreement has been reached with the minister responsible for the Eastern Quebec Planning Bureau concerning the transfer of land for a national park in the Gaspe area?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I did meet certain ministers of the Quebec government about the park at Foril-lon, and I told them that we were anxious to have the land. They submitted a request for exploring within the park boundaries in order to find natural gas, but I explained that the government could not authorize this type of exploration because the land was reserved for conservation and recreation purposes.


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Does the minister agree that within the 85 square miles only oil development should be an issuable matter before the assignment of the land?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, an agreement was reached in May of last year. The terms were clear and there is nothing to change in this agreement. Of course, exploration for gas or other minerals cannot be allowed inside a national park.



ESTABLISHMENT OF PARK IN ST. MAURICE

Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister tell us if in the discussions he had yesterday with the representatives of the Quebec government the development of a national park in the St. Maurice Valley was mentioned?


Hon. Jean  Chre@: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was mentioned, but we have
February 20, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry not yet come to an understanding in the matter. While I have the floor, I would like to draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that he made a speech on the subject on Wednesday-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister on a question of privilege.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member mentioned the St. Maurice river. I would like to draw his attention to the fact that both sides of that river are located in his constituency and that it is rather surprising that he does not know the boundaries of his own constituency.


Mr. Speaker:: 

NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My
question is for the Minister of National Defence. Can he advise the House whether any studies have been conducted in his department or with Treasury Board officials regarding the deferment of service pensions or the applicability of service pensions at age 65 as a form of economy?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: I would prefer to check thoroughly before I give a definite answer to this question. I believe that in the consideration of the problem this was one of the options that was studied, but I am not aware that this has been made a recommendation as yet.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister ascertain whether copies of such a memorandum were circularized to other departments, including the Department of National Revenue?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Now that I have been asked the question I will check into all aspects of this matter and will do so gladly.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My question is addressed to the Min-

ister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has he received a protest from the Eskimos of northern Quebec regarding the fact that they are likely to be transferred to the jurisdiction of the provincial government without being consulted? Also, can the minister tell the House whether or not he has been able to assure the Eskimos of northern Quebec that they will be consulted before any transfer of jurisdiction takes place?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any complaint recently, but I had the pleasure last summer to visit several localities in New Quebec, and I may say to the hon. member that I gave that assurance to the Eskimos when I had the opportunity to talk with them.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question. The minister says he has not had any complaints lately from the Eskimos in Ungava regarding their transfer to provincial jurisdiction over certain phases of their lives. Is my understanding correct that he has not had any complaints lately because, if so, I want to follow that up?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any direct complaint recently. I have read some newspaper reports, as did the right hon. member himself, and I have replied to a few questions. But if I am asked whether I have received complaints from Eskimos at my office, I will reply that to my knowledge I did not get any.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I wish to ask the
minister whether he could tell the House how this duet that was sent up north to interview the Eskimos got along? Have the Eskimos consented to their conquest yet?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When the minister says that he is prepared to consult the Eskimos, am I to understand that he is assuring the House there will be no transfer of jurisdiction without the agreement and consent of the Eskimos themselves?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I abide by the basic agreement concluded in 1964 between
February 20, 1970	COMMONS
the federal government and the provincial government. We are now negotiating with the provincial government in order to determine whether we could purchase some services from that government for the New Quebec Eskimos, but there will be no transfer of jurisdiction without consultation with the Eskimos.


John George Diefenbaker: The question is whether it will be done without their consent.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, that is what we are doing at the present time, and when we have received a report from the officials now engaged in such consultations, we shall be in a position to inform the House on the situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that consultation merely means discussion, will the minister give the House the assurance that unless the Eskimos themselves consent to the transfer there will be no transfer?



POLLUTION


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has his department determined the source of the oil slick discovered off the south coast of Newfoundland, and if this oil slick poses a threat to the ecology of the area what steps are being taken to dissipate it?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: We cannot, of course positively identify the source of the oil slick at the moment but a preliminary investigation has revealed that the situation occurred because of a leak of some kind in an Irving oil barge being towed in that area.
On the question of what we are doing about it, I might advise the House that this morning I appointed Dr. P. D. McTaggart Cowan to be the Department of Transport project manager with regard to the whole problem in the Chedabucto Bay area, and I have instructed him to proceed to Newfoundland also to investigate the situation there. Along with him will be Dr. Sheffer, vicechairman of the Research Board, as well as Captain M. A. Martin of the Canadian Armed
DEBATES	3893
Inquiries of the Ministry Services. This group will be looking at both these problems and coming up with recommendations. I hope on Tuesday to be able to make a full statement in the House on their proposals.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the serious and growing threat of oil pollution on Canada's east and west coasts, is the minister prepared to step up inspection services conducted by the department of vessels operating in our waters, and also, what steps will the government take in the area of surveillance to provide surveillance of tankers on the east and west coasts?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: We will be stepping up the surveillance activities. I think the House will appreciate how difficult it is with so much coastline but, in addition, at the earliest possible time I am hoping we will be introducing legislation which will strengthen the Canada Shipping Act and give us more ability to deal with this kind of situation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Are we to take it from the minister's reply that the situation remains much the same with the Arrow and in fact no real progress has been made with regard to the oil that is still in the hull? May I also ask the minister why he has waited all this time to appoint a task force to take charge of the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure the second question is in order. Perhaps the minister might want to reply to the first of the two questions.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In so far as the first part of the question is concerned, the situation has stabilized in the area in the sense that there is virtually no oil leaking from the hull at present. There has been a consistent effort under way to clean up the beaches. Quite a bit has been done, and we have been in consultation with the government of Nova Scotia during the last week and a half. We are now in a position to get an organized effort under way to try to do the job as quickly as possible.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has any progress been made with regard to disposing in a safe way of the oil that is still in the submerged tanker?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, in terms of the various techniques available to us some progress has been made. This is why I appointed Dr. McTaggart Cowan, who is a renowned scientist, because I want to be certain before any
February 20, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry steps are taken that we have minimized the threat. The plan is to attempt to pump the oil out from the ship into barges alongside and to take it away from the scene entirely. But, I repeat, I wanted to be very sure that we had scientific advice on this before it was started.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Has the minister decided yet on whether there will be a public hearing into the Arrow disaster, and did the department obtain statements from the captain or crew as to the cause of accident before these people left Canada for Greece?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: As to the first part of the question, it is my intention to call for an inquiry under the Canada Shipping Act in the first instance and to consider as well the advisability subsequently of holding an even broader inquiry into all the events that have flowed from this particular difficulty.
As to whether we took statements from the captain and the crew, I believe that officials of the Department of Transport did obtain statements from them.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: I wonder if I might ask the minister whether or not in his statement on Tuesday he will fully advise the House as to the reasons why the Arrow was not burned during the 48-hour period when it could have been burned?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a suggestion that this be included in the minister's eventual statement.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is somewhat along the lines of the previous one. I wish to ask the minister whether, following his instant but undoubtedly expert survey at the scene of the Arrow disaster, his statement on Tuesday, which 1 gather is not only going to cover the pollution angle but the circumstances that led up to the accident, will detail what efforts the department made and what plans it had to remove the ship before it broke in two upon Cerberus rock?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it would be appropriate for me on Tuesday to go into all the possible causes of the accident. As I have said, these are the subject of an inquiry. I think the House should be aware- and I believe this has been said several times publicly-that the people who were on the scene, either from the Department of Trans-

port, Imperial Oil or the Armed Forces, did everything they possibly could under the circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the minister in order to remind hon. members that we have just about run out of time for the question period. Since we have had so many supplementaries on but two or three subjects, I invite the co-operation of hon. members in order that we may try to move on because since the beginning of the question period, I have seen perhaps 25 to 30 members rising in their places to ask questions.



FISHERIES AND FORESTRY


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, who should be in attendance in the chamber today, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the lay-off of a large number of highly qualified scientists in the Forestry Department and their inability to find alternative employment, would the government consider, even at this late date, following the procedures suggested to all departments by the Public Service Commission respecting the establishment of adequate review procedures to protect the rights of employees?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries is not in attendance because he is on business in British Columbia. We in the department feel that we have established the most complete and competent review procedures. Employees have the right to appeal. Many of them have been evaluated over a period of months by senior personnel. We do not know what more could humanly be done, but we are willing to listen to reason.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the department consider postponing the date of the lay-offs of these highly trained personnel pending another serious attempt to relocate or reassign these people in the Public Service?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are doing everything humanly possible to aid these people.
February 20, 1970	COMMONS



INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Could the minister advise the House whether he has received complaints from the employees of his department at Frobisher Bay about not receiving pay cheques, and what his department has done about this matter?
[ Trans lation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have received a few complaints in that respect, and I can assure the hon. member that the cheques were forwarded yesterday. If there is no delay with the air transporta'ion or the delivery of the mail, the addressees should receive their cheques in a very short while.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Has the minister received a telegram from the committee which is now studying the situation in the tex ile industry, and if so, could he indicate whether he will release soon the new government policy, as he had promised to do last December?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a supplementary question.
I should like to ask the minister whether he has contacted the labour-management committee in order to give them the reasons why the government is so slow reaching decisions on this matter.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Many meetings have taken place, Mr. Speaker, with both the management and union representatives in the last few weeks and the gentlemen on both sides are well aware of the difficulties we are facing. I have the feeling that they understand quite well why we experience some delay in producing a new policy.
DEBATES	3895
Inquiries of the Ministry



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs. It has to do with the inconsistency of the government in urging price increase restraint. Could the minister explain why the Department of Veterans Affairs has increased the domiciliary care rate for war veterans in its hospitals from $120 to $300 a month, an increase of 150 per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize that this is an important question but at the same time it seems to me it is put in the form of an argument. It invites debate. In this way it is not in order. If there is urgency about the matter, perhaps it might be considered at the time of adjournment.



ACREAGE OF RAPESEED PLANTED

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for either the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The question concerns both departments. I would like to have them get their heads together; in fact, I would really like to bang their heads together. In view of the fact the Wheat Board states that the amount of rapeseed seeded last year was 1,650,000 acres, and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce indicates that the figure was some 2 million acres, which would have a reflection on world trade so far as free movement and pricing are concerned, would the two departments get together and find out exactly what the situation is?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley James Korchinski: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate that the hon. member may have a supplementary, but it seems to me he is making a representation.


Stanley James Korchinski: It is not a supplementary;
it is a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member suggesting he has not asked the question yet?
February 20, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley James Korchinski: No, no. I am asking for the truth to be told by the departments, and I am suggesting that the issuing of wrong figures somewhere may have a reflection on world trade so far as pricing of and demand for rapeseed are concerned. This is the purpose of my question. It is not a frivolous question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member has asked his question, but just a moment ago I brought to the attention of hon. members the fact that there are just a few minutes left in the question period. I would invite the co-operation of the hon. member. If he has a further question to ask, I invite him to ask it briefly.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I then ask the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan what are the exact figures for the planting of rapeseed?


Hon. Otio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to bring forward the exact two sets of figures which are available on the subject. The Wheat Board figures tend to report the total acreage in the permit books, and the departmental figures give an analysis of rapeseed planting from surveys conducted previously by it.


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


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask a supplementary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Skeena.



POLLUTION


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, of which I have given notice. Would the minister or the Parliamentary Secretary agree to the tabling of the results of testing for oxygen depletion, as well as other factors, of the waters adjacent to the Columbia Cellulose pulpmills at Watson Island near Prince Rupert?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this seems like a reasonable request to us and we thank the hon. member for giving us notice. The fact that the request seems reasonable might surprise some people. I can assure the hon. member that the minis-

ter will consider it sympathetically, and if there is a report or information that can be tabled it will be done.



HARBOURS


Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their applause. After rising 20 times I appreciate being recognized by the Chair. I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is it the minister's intention to replace the existing Toronto Harbour Commission with a new marine administration authority, under the reorganization of his department?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no such intention. There will be consultations with the Toronto Harbour Commission. If they wish to make certain modifications or changes in their role, I will certainly be glad to consider it, but there is no thought of abandoning that commission.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of housing. Has the minister completed his discussions with his provincial counterparts on the problem of guidelines for public housing? If so, when can we expect a statement from him?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: To answer the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, the discussions have not been completed and therefore, to answer the second part, I think it naturally follows that the statement will have to wait until they are completed.



POST OFFICE


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to a statement made the other day by the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications to the effect that his department had decided to buy the 315 trucks of G. Lapalme Inc. at the expiration of the contract. In the absence of
February 20. 1970

the Postmaster General, I address my question to the Minister of National Revenue. As it is the third similar transaction, can the minister tell us if his government will have to pay the provincial sales tax of 8 p. cent for the third time on the purchase of these trucks, if the department feels that this accumulated total surcharge of 24 p. cent is an indication of clever administration, and what is the total sum the government must pay for these trucks?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is asking the minister to give statistical information and I doubt that the question in this form is acceptable.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Lincoln Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. He has notice of it. It has to do wi'h alleged methods utilized by the RCMP with respect to massive and indiscriminate inves iga ions of members of black communities and their clubs throughout Canada. I know the mmister is having the matter invest iga'ed. When can we expect a report from him as to his investigation?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: On
Monday, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. Earlier this week I asked the Minister of Transport a question about the quantity of fuel oil carried by the Manhattan. The minister at that time very graciously and generously undertook to provide the House with the information later in the week. Perhaps he might have the opportunity to reply now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has asked a question. There are a number of other hon. members who have not had an opportunity to ask their questions. If they attempted to ask them by way of raising points of order after the question period has expired we might run into some procedural difficulty.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for an assurance regarding the securing of the consent of the
U.S. Army Deserters
Eskimo people before a transfer of jurisdiction is agreed to, the minister rose to explain the matter and Your Honour, understandably desiring to get on with the business of the House, cut him off. I wonder if the minister might have an opportunity to complete his answer?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the minister might have an opportunity to rise on another occasion. However, if there is unanimous agreement he might answer now. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister does not have unanimous agreement. Hon. members must realize that the question period expired three or four minutes ago. I have tried to assist hon. members by prolonging the agony for a few minutes but I think we now ought to go with the business of the House.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have permission of the House to revert to motions to make a short announcement which I believe will be of interest to the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Solicitor General the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions for the purpose of making a statement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, some days ago in answer to questions about the departure from Canada of three alleged United States deserters through a British Columbia port of entry, I indicated to the House that we were investigating the matter through the RCMP and that I would make a further report to the House as soon as that investigation was completed and would also deal then with the question of what subsequent action should be taken. That investigation has been completed and a report has been made to me. The government has decided to appoint a commissioner to inquire into the alleged irregular departure of these three persons from Canada. As soon as the
February 20, 1970
3898	COMMONS DEBATES
Agricultural Products Co-op Marketing Act name of the commissioner is known and the terms of reference settled the name and terms of reference will be given to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: 

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-183, to amend the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members will be aware, this bill makes a very small amendment to the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act but, in my opinion, it is a very important amendment for the wheat growers of eastern Canada, and particularly Ontario. I should advise Your Honour that we have reached an agreement through the usual channels to adjourn this debate at one o'clock and, if we finish the second reading stage before one o'clock, to ask the unanimous consent of the House to have the bill considered in committee of the whole instead of referring it to the standing committee, in order that we may deal with this small but important amendment.
This Act became law in 1939. The general objective of the act is to promote the orderly marketing of agricultural products. Under the legislation a group of producers wishing to market products collectively may enter into an agreement with the Minister of Agriculture. These agreements provide for a guarantee of bank loans covering initial payments, processing, carrying and selling costs.
Under the Act the initial payment to producers must not exceeed 80 per cent of the average price paid to producers according to grade and quality over the three year period preceding the year of production. It also provides that equal returns must be made to primary producers for agricultural products of like grade and quality. Further, it provides that final returns must be made to primary producers of the proceeds of the sale of the product after deducting processing, carrying and selling costs.
Many producer groups in different provinces have used or considered using this legis-
(Mr. Mcllraith.]
lation from time to time and, since 1939 when the Act came into force, a variety of agricultural products have been marketed under the act. Chief among these have been forage crop seeds, potatoes, ranch-bred fox pelts, fresh apples and apples for processing, maple syrup, tobacco, and beans. At the present time there are agreements under the provisions of the Act with respect to the marketing of processed apples in Quebec and beans in Ontario.
The purpose of this amendment is to include wheat, other than that grown in the designated area under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Currently wheat is excluded, because at the time this act became law all wheat was under the Canadian Wheat Board Act which provided, as hon. members know, for initial payments, pooling and things of that nature. Since World War II, Ontario has not been part of the designated area under the Canadian Wheat Board Act and, therefore, is excluded from the initial payments, pooling provisions and measures of that sort embodied in the Act. Ontario wheat producers have been giving serious consideration to marketing their wheat on a pool basis, with initial payments being paid to producers on delivery. As a result, the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board has requested this type of amendment. With this amendment the Ontario producers would have available to them the same legislation that is available to other agricultural producers.
As hon. members well know, Mr. Speaker, and as I said at the outset, this amendment is simply to change the definition of agricultural product to mean any kind of grain, other than wheat, that is grown in an area that is defined as a designated area by the Canadian Wheat Board Act. There are no other amendments here.
We believe that we should respond to the request of the Ontario Wheat Producer's Marketing Board so that if they decide to pool the wheat grown in any year in Ontario they could take advantage of the guarantees of credit that are available by the Department of Agriculture under this Act. If the producers received these payments, they could perhaps have larger volumes of credit available to them and perhaps even at a more favourable rate of interest.
If the House concludes second reading before one o'clock, I will be asking for consent to go into Committee of the Whole so that we can dispose of this small amendment to the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act.
February 20, 1970


Mr. H. W. Danforih (Keni-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for the courtesy he has shown the House by the fullness of his explanation regarding this amendment to the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act. The minister is correct in his assumption that this seems to be a minor amendment to an Act which is already part of the law of Canada. However, it is of particular significance to the producers of wheat in eastern Canada, particularly in the province that I have the honour to represent.
I am very pleased by the indication of the minister that he wishes this particular measure to go before the Committee of the Whole. Since it is of particular significance to one part of Canada, I think we can make much better progress that way than by referring it to the standing committee for consideration. In committee the Ontario members in particular will be asking many questions for clarification of what the government proposes, its powers and plans for this particular commodity.
I wish to give some background of the workings of the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board at the present time, and some of the problems they have been encountering. It is my understanding they have been negotiatmg with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to see whether a change in the statute might make it possible for them to act in a manner which would be of more benefit to the farmers they represent. I would like to point out that I am very much indebted to my colleague, the hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley) for many of the facts I wish to present today. With his very close association with the Wheat Board over the years, he has become very knowledgeable in this particular field. He has provided the real basic background for my remarks today.
The wheat growers in Ontario belong to a marketing board known as the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board. This board was formed under provincial legislation. It has been the aim and object of this particular board, in representing the farmers to produce wheat in Ontario, to sell this commodity at the very best possible price and to negotiate each year a floor price below which no grower is forced to sell. A request was made after World War II, that this particular commodity be removed from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board because this type of wheat is not the same as that which is normally grown in the west. It has a different growing period, and is not the same in pro-
DEBATES	3899
Agricultural Products Co-op Marketing Act tein content or composition. It is used for blending and many other purposes for which western wheat is not normally used.
As is its custom, the board last year again negotiated a floor price for the wheat offered for sale by the Ontario farmers. In order to make the floor price stable, the board agreed to buy any wheat for which a ready market could not be found at the established price. During the period July 1, 1968 to June 30, 1969, which is the end of their year, the board carried forward 374,000 bushels of the 1966 wheat crop which had not been sold. They also carried forward 3,536,000 bushels of the
1967	wheat crop. They purchased 3,700,000 bushels of the 1968 wheat crop, making a total of 7,610,000 bushels from these three crops. I am happy to announce that by the end of September last, the board had sold the 1966 crop carry-over and a rebate of 6.11 cents was issued to 22,000 producers who had contributed to the 1966 crop.
There is a deduction from the selling price of the current crop which the Board uses to finance its operations and to cover the necessary expenditures when buying the surplus wheat. By the end of November last, the board had sold the 1967 crop carryover and had accrued a loss which was taken out of the reserve fund. Two major contracts accounted for the bulk of sales. Only minor quantities moved in the domestic feed market.
This brings me to one of the problems which this board faces. At times the board needed, for specific purposes, large quantities of wheat. The only possible way to meet this situation would be to have the wheat in the hands of the Wheat Board. If it is stored on the farms, with a small portion at the mills, when a large order is received it is very difficult to assemble the wheat from the various points.
Although the board has been very successful in the selling of wheat, the members of the board realize they are entering very precarious times indeed. They are faced with a market where the demand for this wheat seems to be falling as well as the price. An indication of this is that the average selling price of the board's 1967 stocks was 20 cents per bushel below the 1966 price. Although the
1968	stocks are not yet all sold, the indications are there will be a further decline in price, which may be in the area of six cents per bushel.
It has been the custom of the board to deduct from the farmer 17 cents a bushel
3900	COMMONS
Agricultural Products Co-op Marketing Act when he offers his grain for sale. This money is used to operate the board and to take care of the financing of surplus wheat in order that the floor price may be maintained. However, the board now finds that they are being very hard pressed to finance in this particular fashion. That is why they are investigating the possibility of coming under this Act which would make it possible for them to request government financing on these purchases.
The wheat that is used in the domestic market is used by the flour milling industry and cereal manufacturers. They take approximately 8.5 million bushels of our wheat annually. In order to keep in touch with developments in this market, the board meets with the farmers or their representatives in a general session at least once a year. The market for finished products is not expanding very rapidly and the export market is declining as a result of severe competition from other countries. When large export flour orders for foreign aid require our wheat, the board is frequently requested to offer its stocks to the mills since they are the only owners of large blocks of wheat at any given time.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
This is why we need large stocks from time to time in order to comply with these large orders. It frequently becomes obvious to the board that it is to the advantage of producers that it should own these large supplies in order to meet the special demands of foreign orders, whether they be for flour or wheat. This is an area in which we have encountered another problem in connection with the operation of the board. I refer to storage. It has always been difficult to obtain sufficient storage whether in local or terminal elevators, particularly since at the time the crop is being taken off there are usually large stocks of feed grain and United States imports in the same elevators.
The 1969 crop produced further difficulties for the board as a result of heavy rain and warm, damp weather over large parts of the production area, especially in Essex and Kent counties in southern Ontario. The wheat sprouted in the heads before it was ever harvested-a condition rarely seen-and as a result a large quantity had to be downgraded to No. 4 and No. 5 and had to be sold as feed.
In these circumstances, the board moved in, maintaining a floor price to growers of $1.35 a bushel on these grades. It took more than 2,624,000 bushels and as of November 1, last
[Mr. Danforth.l
DEBATES	February 20, 1970
fall, it had sold 1,752,000 bushels. The latest figures as to total stocks owned by the board as of November 1 are: milling grade, 634,286 bushels; sample grade, 1,872,179 bushels. Due to the fall in the price of wheat on the world market some changes will have to be made in the board's stabilization policy before the 1970 crop comes on to the market. These changes are being considered in detail, which is why they are negotiating and asking questions of the minister.
Speaking as a producer of this type of wheat, there are many serious questions I should like to present to the minister before we allow this legislation to proceed. We are under the impression that, in connection with this board, the minister will have complete authority to establish additional payments for wheat. Payment may be based on a three-year average or otherwise as prescribed by the minister. We understand, too, that if the bill is passed the minister will have the power to designate the regions to which the legislation shall apply and, in addition, the power to designate the channels through which the wheat will flow.
It is questionable whether the growers are willing to accept the regimentation of such regulations in exchange for the financial stability which they may feel is provided to them by the Act.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We can put that in the contract.


Harold Warren Danforth: The minister says we can put that in the contract, and it may well be so. Nevertheless, in the committee stage I hope to learn more details about this important aspect. The experience of some marketing schemes in the area I have the honour to represent has not always been a bappy one. Many producers have expressed dissatisfaction at the way in which marketing schemes have been established. Since we are dealing, today, with just another marketing scheme, or the development or evolution of a marketing scheme already in being, we shall have many pertinent questions to ask.
In conclusion, I may say on behalf of the producers that we are glad this matter has been brought to a head. It was inevitable that the present step would have to be taken. During the committee hearings we shall have an opportunity to obtain much more pertinent information and I know producers will wish to express concern about the amount of power the department and the minister possess under the terms of this particular legislation. There is, of course, one redeeming fea-
February 20, 1970

ture-its terms cannot be imposed upon primary producers until those producers have had an opportunity to express, through a vote, their wishes in this regard.
We are very grateful that the minister has brought this issue to a head; we shall have an opportunity to deliberate further upon this proposal long before harvest time. Board members and producers will have an opportunity to examine this new approach in detail and decide whether this measure will provide the solution they are seeking for the vexing problems they have been experiencing.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: intend to be very brief, Mr. Speaker. The fact that it is proposed to deal with this bill in the committee of the whole will permit the closer examination of this measure which needs to be undertaken at this time.
There are only one or two points which occur to me. Under this legislation the initial payment to the primary producer is a percentage not to exceed 80 per cent of the previous three years average price. Under the terms of the stabilization act, a higher level of support than this could be made available to producers. I wonder why this particular avenue was chosen in view of the fact that these particular producers are in a difficult position at the moment. Hopefully, of course, this situation will change and improve. So the question is: are we being asked to do the most effective thing that can be done at the moment? Undoubtedly, we can get the answer to this question when we are in committee.
I am informed that the Farmers Union wished to have the proposed bill amended so as to include oats and barley within the designated area.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: They are in it now.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Thank you, that is another question I should like to hear discussed in committee of the whole. With these reservations, which are not serious reservations, I think we are ready for the measure to proceed to the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as it is only about 20 minutes after 12, I should like unanimous consent of the House to go into committee of the whole to deal with the one amendment to the bill.
Agricultural Products Co-op Marketing Act


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Stratford Burton: Before we move beyond second reading, Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me reasonable to have an answer to the problem posed by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar (Mr. Gleave). I wonder whether the minister would do that in closing second reading?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar correctly, he suggested that I give him the reply to his question when we went into committee of the whole.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: This bill stands referred to the committee of the whole.
House in the committee of the whole on Bill C-183, to amend the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act-Mr. Olson-Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
On clause 1-"Agricultural product".


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, the officials from the department will be in the committee in one or two minutes to give some more precise answers to the questions raised on second reading stage, but I should like to answer the question put by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. He pointed out that a request had been made to include coarse grains within the terms of the Act.
I should like to point out to the hon. member that coarse grains have not been excluded from the Act in the past. If he would look at the interpretation section of the act, he would discover that at the present time these products are not excluded from the legislation. He will realize that the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act do, in fact, supersede some of the provisions of this Act, and certain matters are under the management or control, for marketing purposes, of the Canadian Wheat Board at the present time.
He will also realize that the Canadian Wheat Board does now make initial payments on oats and barley and other feed grains such
3902	COMMONS DEBATES	February 20, 1970
Agricultural Products Co-op Marketing Act as feed wheat. If a pool has a surplus, then a final payment is made. This is exactly what will happen with wheat that is marketed through the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board if the amendment is made to the Act. In that event, the Minister of Agriculture, under the authority of the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act, can guarantee the initial payments that will be made by the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board under a contractual arrangement between the minister and the board.
As I say, coarse grains are not excluded from the Act at the present time, nor have they been in the past. As a matter of fact, the terms of the amendment have already been implemented with regard to the inclusion of coarse grains within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.


Mr. Howe:: Mr. Chairman, we in Ontario have listened intently to the arguments and discussions that have taken place in this House, not only today but for years, with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, legislation respecting the Board of Grain Commissions, matters affecting elevator operators, and other legislation having to do with the marketing of western wheat.
With regard to this bill, I hope its passage will be of some advantage to the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board. However, farmers are getting a little disturbed at the extent of the influence and power of grain boards. We have all heard of the situation that has developed as a result of the wheat surplus in the west. Farmers who want to move their wheat and make some money are being charged with bootlegging wheat. They get into trouble if they take their wheat across provincial borders. A lot of problems are arising.
We had an example of this yesterday. A few farmers who had a tremendous surplus of wheat wanted to have the wheat milled and given to some starving Metis in northern Saskatchewan. However, the regulations made under the Canadian Wheat Board and grain marketing legislation prohibited this. As I say, I feel we have in some ways given away the authority both of the House and of the individual to the Governor in Council as a result of certain measures passed in the last few years.
I sometimes wonder whether in these simple little legislative measures that come before us something takes place that we do not understand. This would seem to be the case when it comes to movement of Ontario wheat across the border into the province of

Quebec or into some other part of Canada by a farmer who might want to use his own product, that he has grown on his own land, in the way he thinks best. Regulations of this type may appear to be simple, but when they are put into effect and are applied by order of the Governor in Council they become almost monstrous. They restrict the individual to such an extent that he no longer has the power to govern his own affairs.
I hope the minister will be able to explain whether we are here infringing on any provincial law, and just how far the power of the Governor in Council will go as a result of the passage of this amendment before the committee.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, in reply to that question may I inform the hon. member that the kind of power to which he refers is not dealt with in this Act, nor indeed in this amendment. To be more specific, the authority given the Governor in Council by the House is spelt out. The reason it is spelt out is to enable us to enter into an agreement, or a contract, if you like, with any co-operative marketing board. In this case, we are directing our attention specifically to the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board since we are amending the Act simply to include wheat within its provisions.
My hon. friend referred to movement of grain, and so on. This is a matter that comes under the provincial statute. The Ontario wheat marketing act is a provincial law and Ontario has devised its own rules and regulations. All that this amendment to the federal act does is to include a provision to allow the Minister of Agriculture to enter into a contract with the Ontario Wheat Board to guarantee the funds that they would need to make an initial payment of up to 80 per cent of the average price for the last three years to producers on delivery. Later on, when the pool is sold a final payment can be made.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: May I thank the minister for answering my question about the inclusion of oats and barley. I was referring in particular to a wire sent by the National Farmers Union, of which I have a copy, which recommends amending section 1 of the act so as to add the words "oats and barley" to the words "grown in the area that is defined as a designated area by the Canadian Wheat Board."
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I certainly accept the minister's statements at their face value but at the same time I
February 20, 1970

think I have to accept the concern of the organization for direction in that particular area of marketing operations. I hope that the minister would give it consideration. This 1939 act is now being brought into operation in a very important area. It has served in some areas of marketing, shall I say sporadically, and in others continuously, during previous years. I think it is a specific amendment, a specific proposal which might very well be considered.
The other question which I directed to the minister, and to which the committee has not received an answer, was why it is proposed to move under this particular bill which puts a definite limit on the support which may be given to these farmers rather than the Agricultural Stabilization Act which sets a definite minimum which may be given. Under this act, the maximum is 80 per cent of the price structure in the previous three years. In the other act the minimum that can be supported is 80 per cent of the previous ten years.
If the government considered it advisable, it could set a higher level of support than this. This is now done in the sale of consumer products. Was this choice made to conform with the wishes of the producers or at the wish of the government?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Perhaps I could answer both questions now. We did receive representations from the National Farmers' Union, and perhaps it would clear up the matter if I were to read my reply. It is addressed to the president of the National Farmers' Union, is dated February 18, and reads:
I understand from my department that you have raised some concerns with respect to Bill C-183, an Act to amend the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act. I understand that you have a copy of the Act and of the proposed amendment at hand.
As you know, the definition of an agricultural product under the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act excludes wheat totally, and therefore wheat produced anywhere in Canada cannot be brought under the Act. The Canadian Wheat Board Act, of course, provides for a pooling system, initial payment, etc., for wheat in the area designated under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The Ontario Wheat Marketing Board is now interested in making some provisions for pooling and making an initial payment pricing on wheat produced in that province. It seemed quite unreasonable that wheat grown in eastern Canada should be excluded from the benefits of the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act, and it is for this reason that we have proposed this amendment.
I understand that your concern relates to coarse grains. I did not see any reason to deal with this
Agricultural Products Co-op Marketing Act subject since coarse grains produced anywhere in Canada could in the past, and can at the present time, be included in the definition of an agricultural product under the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act.
I trust that this letter may be helpful in clarifying the reason for this amendment.
In dealing with the other point, I should like to draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that this is not a support program, as is usually undertaken under the Stabilization Act. We do not always make an advance payment up to 80 per cent, though we are allowed to go up to 80 per cent but only as an initial payment, and whatever additional amounts are available as a result of the final sale will be remitted to the farmers. It can be more than 20 per cent, depending on what is available. I would not like to have any confusion in the minds of hon. members with respect to the purposes of this amendment and what is usually done when the Stabilization Act is brought into play, which is to make up the difference, to raise the price. What is envisaged under this Act, and what it has always been used for, is to make guarantees to the banks, for co-operative marketing boards or associations or whatever other arrangement they have, who make an initial payment to the primary producer for the goods on delivery.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I think I would be remiss if I did not say something about this amendment that the minister is proposing. As one of the first members of the Ontario Winter Wheat Producers Board, as a director of that board in Ontario for several years before coming to this House and still being a wheat producer in my own area, I can say this has probably been one of the most successful marketing boards in Canada. It has not cost the provincial or federal treasuries any money. This amendment will probably make it an even better board.
I remember the difficulties we were placed in when we negotiated the price of wheat for the board. The board did not have all the authority that will be given to them under this amendment. We have heard a great deal about a two-price system, and this board has operated under a two-price system very successfully. This is probably one of the reasons that wheat is one of the most stable crops that can be grown in Ontario.
As I understand the purpose of the amendment, as I think was just stated to the hon. member from Saskatchewan, it is to put the board in a better position to borrow money
February 20, 1970
3904	COMMONS DEBATES
Agricultural Products Co-op Marketing Act from the banks. This used to be our most difficult problem because we needed a lot of short term money at harvest time. This amendment would put the board in a better position to borrow because the government would actually be guaranteeing the handling of funds.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is right.


Eugene Whelan: I would say let us get on with it, let us pass it. If the producers want this help, it will be up to them to say so by a vote. As I understand it, the producers must express the opinion that they want this type of legislation but we can put it on the statute books for their use.


Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: My
remarks will be brief, Mr. Chairman, because like the hon. member for Essex, I think we should get this bill passed. It is something which will be useful to the wheat producers of Ontario. The assistance which can be made available under this measure will be most welcome to the Ontario Wheat Producers' Board because, as the hon. member for Essex said, that is one of the few boards which has been able to finance its own operation through deductions and provide for a two-price system.
After having run into some difficulties with surpluses over the past few years, this amendment will provide a welcome relief. I congratulate the minister for acceding to the request that this amendment be put before us so that we can deal with it. The only reservation I have, and the minister gave me an explanation privately but I wonder if he might want to put it on the record, is whether this amendment would put the director of the Ontario Wheat Board directly under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board. Perhaps, the minister will clarify that in his reply.
One question which came to my mind is, how much control of the production will the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board lose if they accept the guarantee from the federal government in its ultimate form? Will the Wheat Board still have the final decision as to when the sale is made, for how much and so on. How much authority will they have to surrender to the federal government if they accept the legislation?
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
A year or two ago the Ontario corn growers, as we know, ran into particular difficulty concerning a surplus. I wonder now whether

com is included under coarse grains mentioned here. If not, it would appear to me there is reason to include corn in the specific commodities listed under this amendment. The other question I have concerns the 80 per cent advance on wheat. Where will this wheat be held? Will it be held by farmers in storage facilities as at present across Ontario or will there be a central elevator where it will be in position to be moved quickly? Will extra facilities be required in order to make this plan operate with the greatest degree of efficiency? I had intended to say something in respect of the handling of tobacco, but since we are dealing with wheat I shall leave that for another occasion. These are the questions on which I should like to hear the minister's comments. All in all, I believe this will be a useful amendment.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In answer to the first question, may I say that section 4 of the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act spells out the authority the minister, and indeed the Governor in Council, have from Parliament in arriving at an agreement or contract. While these amendments, if applied in their extreme, are pretty stringent, that is not the way it is done. We enter into an agreement with any marketing board concerning how the payments are to be made and in respect of many other things. We have this in the contract for the purpose of protecting the very large investment we make in the total of the initial payments from time to time. All this is negotiated with whatever board we are dealing with. As I pointed out on second reading, we have an agreement with one group in Quebec in respect of processing apples at the present time and with another group in Ontario concerning the initial payment on beans. Other schemes have been in effect from time to time, but at the present time there are no others in effect.
This amendment does not take away from producers their right to manage their own affairs. This right is set out in the contract and indeed in the negotiations. In advancing this sum of money, Parliament has instructed us to include the necessary precautions set out in section 4 of the Act.
In answer to the second question, corn is included because the definition of agricultural products means any kind of grain. Then, the exception is made in respect of wheat that is grown in the area defined by the Canadian Wheat Board Act. So, any kind of grain, including wheat, will be covered if this amendment is accepted, with the exception of
February 20, 1970

wheat that is now bought and sold under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Under item 10 in the definition, there is reference to "any other product of agriculture designated by the Governor in Council". So, any grain is specifically included, other than wheat as defined, and any other product. Therefore, corn is included. What the corn producers would have to do is form some type of co-operative or marketing agency so that there would be a pool which would be administered by the farmers in respect of an initial payment and final payment. That could be agreed to.
So far as the place of assembly and so on is concerned, this could be written into the contract, but we would want the grain assembled where it would be in the most advantageous position to the producers in selling it.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to return to the point raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar regarding the matter of oats and barley grown within the designated area as defined in the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The minister pointed out that under the present Act the definition of agricultural product includes any kind of grain, other than wheat. This, of course, as he pointed out excluded wheat in totality wherever grown in Canada. This proposed amendment would exclude only that wheat grown in the designated area as defined under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It seems to me we must consider the implications of this proposed change as it applies to oats and barley. In order to do this, it would seem that we must go to the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
Under the definition in the Canadian Wheat Board Act grain includes wheat, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed and later rapeseed. Parts III and IV of the Canadian Wheat Board Act apply specifically to the marketing of wheat. Part V provides that the Governor in Council may, by regulation, extend the application of Part III and IV to oats or to barley or to both oats and barley. This, of course, gives the Governor in Council discretionary power to apply the Canadian Wheat Board Act to the marketing of oats and barley within the designated area in western Canada.
I would point out, however, that the proposed change in section 1 would define agricultural products to include any kind of grain, other than wheat grown in the area defined as the designated area by the Canadian Wheat Board Act. A specific reference is made to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It
DEBATES	3905
Agricultural Products Co-op Marketing Act seems to me this leads to some confusion concerning the marketing of oats and barley in western Canada in the future.
I do not quarrel with the statements of the minister or question them as such in terms of his motivation. I do not suggest that there is any desire to interfere with the present marketing arrangements with regard to oats and barley under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, but it seems to me this does open the door. It would appear that we should consider the implications involved. I admit quite freely that if a provision were included to just exclude oats and barley as well as wheat in the section before us, then if the present system for marketing oats and barley under the Canadian Wheat Board were ever withdrawn of course it would not be possible to provide for any plans under the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act to deal with oats and barley in western Canada as well. It seems to me, since the Canadian Wheat Board Act does provide specifically for the marketing of wheat in the designated area and also provides for the marketing of oats and barley where that is provided for by order in council, that we should give consideration to whether there should be a reference to oats and barley in this section as well.
This could possibly be provided in terms that would include a reference to the passage of an order in council or the order in council now in effect with regard to oats and barley. But it would seem to me this raises a question regarding this particular section especially since the exclusion provided by this proposed section refers only to wheat, whereas the Canadian Wheat Board Act deals with wheat, oats and barley. I believe this should be taken into account by the minister. I should like to hear his comments on my remarks.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I say very briefly that I think the explanation I gave some time ago that this amendment does not open, or indeed close, any door to the use of this legislation for oats and barley applies in this case. It opens a door for wheat grown in Canada, other than in the designated area. That is all it does. I think the hon. member answered his own question when he drew to the attention of the committee that if we were to put oats and barley in here, even within the designated area, we would in fact be making this legislation more restrictive than it needs to be. We would then close the door on the use of the provisions of this Act for that kind of
February 20, 1970
3906	COMMONS DEBATES
Agricultural Products Co-op Marketing Act grain any time in the future when the producers may want to use them. I do not think there is an indication of this desire at present, or in the future, but it does not seem to me there would be any value in amending this Act to make it more restrictive than it is now. That is all the comment I have.


John Stratford Burton: I just wanted to say to the minister that it is not my suggestion to in any way make this Act more restrictive, but should consideration not be given to making its provisions consistent with the total picture as set out under the Canadian Wheat Board Act?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Both acts have been operating side by side since 1939, and when the Parliament of Canada and Canadian producers decided they wanted to include oats, barley and other grains, to have them added from time to time to the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, that was done. There has been no conflict between this Act and the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Therefore, I see no reason to make it more restrictive, and I am glad the hon. member agrees with me.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, there are several aspects of this matter about which I am concerned, and I shall be asking the minister a number of questions for clarification. The wheat growers in our area are not all that satisfied with the action of the marketing board. I think that is chiefly because of the circumstances under which they are compelled to offer their crop for sale and the conditions under which they are in competition with many of the measures of our own government and our own grain marketing system in Canada. One of the things about which I am particularly concerned is the fact that under this new Act the Governor in Council or the minister, or both, in conjunction with negotiators from the board if one is set up, have the power to establish the ini'ial price. The minister did not say that it had to be 80 per cent; he said that it could be 80 per cent. But it could in fact be 70 per cent, 60 per cent, or even 40 per cent in extreme cases. This decision would be left to the discretion of the negotiators on behalf of the producers and the government through the Minister of Agriculture.
This is just one more bit of regimentation so far as farmers are concerned because, under the terms of this Act, a marketing scheme would have to be evolved in the area where this wheat is grown. If it were ascertained by a vote that the majority of the

growers wished such a scheme, there would be a requirement for all producers, under penalty, to sell their wheat through this particular channel, unless they were selling to a neighbour or under some other regulations. All the producers would have to take as an initial payment the negotiated price, which might be 40 per cent, 60 per cent or 80 per cent of the three previous years average. I am very concerned that this be clearly established and that there be no doubt in the minds of any of the producers when the marketing scheme is brought before them. We have had too many votes against marketing schemes in our particular area, perhaps because of a lack of a clear understanding by all the producers of what was involved. Perhaps there was not a clear understanding of all the advantages that there might be under a particular marketing scheme. On the other hand, there has been dissatisfaction with the operations of some of the marketing boards. I think the reason for this may also be a lack of clear understanding of the provisions that could be enforced before a particular marketing scheme is accepted.
Therefore, I wish to ask the minister whether, the next time the committee sits, he will define for us clearly, in a short form, the areas of responsibility of the provincial government and its marketing legislation, under which such a scheme would have to come into force, as against the jurisdiction of the federal government. I note the minister has indicated that some things could be written into a contract, but I would like to see this jurisdictional angle put in clear terms so that we might understand exactly the implications to the primary producers.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In the hope we will get the bill through by one o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I would like to give my explanation now. We do not impose any conditions on the Ontario Wheat Board unless they want us to guarantee the money. What they then do is to spell out in the contract the provisions that are required under section 4, so that that money is secure; they tell us in advance how it will come back. There is no regimentation on our part at all under this Act or under the amendment to the Act. The board comes before us and lays down their program for the guarantee of the money. Quite often they do not ask for 80 per cent. Under the apple processing agreement, during the last six or seven years, we have been asked for 35 per cent of the value of the finished product. I
February 20, 1970

want to make it clear that there is no regimentation or interference with the affairs of these people at all.
The other question that was asked was whether I could give an interpretation of the provincial legislation. I am sure the hon. member would not want me to even attempt to do that.


Harold Warren Danforth: I am not asking the minister to interpret provincial legislation. All I want is to have him draw a clear distinction between the two fields of responsibility. I am sorry to disappoint the minister but many of our members who are unable to be present in the House now have indicated their wish to ask the minister questions on this bill, and I, myself, have further questions.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I ask the committee to rise and report progress, Mr. Chairman?


The Chairman:: Shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, may I move the adjournment of this debate?


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: We agreed to resume at the next sitting of the House. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: that Bill C-12, to establish the International Development Research Centre of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mitchell William Sharp: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
DEBATES	3907
International Development Research Centre


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, at this stage in the progress of Bill C-12, which would establish the International Development Research Centre of Canada, having had a profitable session in committee, it is a privilege for me to make some remarks with regard to this forward looking and very essential legislation which I think can open, if it is developed and used properly, a new era for Canada in its international role.
I was a bit disturbed yesterday to read that the OECD, in their recent report, published the fact that Canada's position as it relates to the development assistance committee of the OECD was the last of 17 nations who make up that committee. These figures of course were not for 1969. They were for the year 1968 and therefore they do not represent the latest statistics concerning what Canada has been able to do in development assistance in the world. But nevertheless they are significant, in that, of the net flow of Canadian official and private resources to developing countries in 1968, was, the lowest in terms of percentage of national income of all the member countries of that committee.
I will not go into the various supplementary aspects of that because I do not want to take up the time of the House, but it points up the fact that we really are not yet doing what we should be doing so far as international development is concerned. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is my intention in commenting on this bill today to deal with the over-all aspects of the responsibility of Canada to the world so far as the less developed nations are concerned.
It seems to me that Canada, as a nation, has had great difficulty in searching for and finding a national image, at least in the conventional sense of national identity and sovereignty. In some respects this search for a national image has been a hopeless search, and there are several reasons why this has been true. First, the enormous size of the country and its own regional diversities have prevented a homogeneous national culture from developing. Second the English and the French and the multi-ethnic groups have tended to emphasize their differences rather than developing a unified front. In times of emergency, such as World War II and World War I, there has been an exception to this. I think it is correct to say that we really have not been able to acquire a sense of national identity or present a uniform national front in this nation as some other nations have.
3908	COMMONS DEBATES	February 20, 1970
International Development Research Centre
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Third, and I think this is of very real importance to us, the sense of nationalism has become stronger in the world and the influence of our neighbour, the world's strongest, most affluent and dynamic nation, has infiltrated every aspect of Canadian life and thinking. As a result, we have failed to develop a sense of national autonomy and purpose. Perhaps we, ourselves, are least able to see this. Having travelled around the world a good bit, I have seen how others look at us. Their picture of Canada is clearer than our own, and clearer, particularly, than the image of those Canadians who examine themselves. Paradoxically, it is not so difficult for outsiders to examine our raison d'etre and our particular characteristics or identity. Yet in this rather unorthodox situation a new strength was developing even before we were aware of it.
Hand in hand with this has come a new world concept of togetherness as communications and improved travel have brought the peoples of the world closer together. Barbara Ward has described the world as a global village. With this, nationalism, as it has been understood for centuries and up to Hitler's day, has become far too costly a luxury for the modern world. The only hope for mankind is to define new mechanisms less politically divisive in nature. I think that Canada, as a result of its experience in dealing with its own problems and the experience of people within it in living harmoniously together, is uniquely equipped to be a model for such a political instrumentality.
We are an ex-colony and, as most ex-colonies would like to be, are better equipped than the British, better equipped than the French and better equipped even than the United States to experiment and create more flexible forms of government which might bridge the differences between separate communities of peoples of widely divergent backgrounds and outlook. Likewise, it has become apparent that we might be able to lead the way in assisting with these global differences long before others have even comprehended the problems in devising new arrangements and organizations which will enhance the benefits of international integration. In reality, this adds up to Canada having a chance to become the world's first international nation and to move to the front of an emerging global order in the next century, instead of continuing to worry about our own failures to realize the more nationalistic goals of the last century.

I am convinced that the most practical means of accomplishing the goal I have referred to, at the beginning at least, will be in the area of development assistance or international development, if one wishes to call it that. May I clarify that statement? There are at least three aspects of foreign aid which could more properly be termed "international development". On the subject may I say this: first, the idea that international development is a form of charity must be rejected. There are definite reasons for this. So far as Canada is concerned, 60 per cent of all aid funds are spent in Canada; in the United States the figure is almost 90 per cent. Thus "aid" as such is a substantial subsidy to the domestic economy, giving jobs to Canadians and providing other benefits. Home benefits, therefore, automatically eliminate the word "foreign" from development assistance programs. Why do I say that, Mr. Speaker? I say it because the aid is mutual. Likewise, such programs are not "aid" either but represent investments in people and prosperity, and in peace and freedom.
There was a day when international relief could be called charity but such terminology has long outlived the true nature of development assistance because the emphasis has shifted from relief to recovery and to development. International development in its basic concept goes even farther; it becomes a partnership in an international joint venture to relieve human degradation and misery and to expand the world economy. Second, international development relates directly to trade. We cannot sell to an impoverished country simply because such a nation cannot buy or sell. A developing nation is a nation with a developing market and, together, the developing countries form a vast, potential market. They represent the new economic frontier of the future.
Then, too, the flow of capital to the developing areas of the world must be greatly increased. It is estimated that 85 per cent of the developing world's development effort is self-generated. The extra 15 per cent which is needed represents the crucial portion which must come from outside. Successful economic progress for these countries depends on outside capital. Without it they fail, and this has been true of Canada in the past and may be true of Canada at this time. The tragedy of the situation in which the rich nations become richer and the developing nations poorer is that, instead of development and growth, in these latter countries there is a retardation of economic growth and viability.
February 20, 1970	COMMONS
In recent years, the developed nations of the world have been growing richer by about $60 billion per year. The United States alone adds some $50 billion a year to its wealth, which is more than the total gross national product of all African countries put together. The flow of capital aid has in the last seven years increased from $6 billion to about $8 billion, but more than half of this comes back to the developed nations in the form of loan repayments and interest charges. Thus, the flow of capital aid is actually decreasing, because the rich are becoming richer and the poor poorer. It is, therefore, possible for the developed countries to increase their development assistance from their own growth rates without in any way endangering their present living standards and affluence. It is this concept which I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, must be more clearly understood; it is in this area that the International Development Research Centre of Canada can perform tremendous service.
At the past session of the United Nations, Canada moved a resolution which would provide for the total mobiliza'ion of public opinion on the subject of international development. This resolution, which received the assent of the United Nations General Assembly, is indicative of the need for a much greater effort than has been exerted in the past in our understanding of international development. We are not yet keeping up, in the giving of aid, with the expansion of our own economies.
Having said these things, Mr. Speaker, I state without equivocation that this is a good bill. I believe it will move us forward in the right direction and will meet a need in the area of international development to which I have referred. It will enable this country to assume a more effective leadership role in world development. Bill C-12 calls for the establishment of an institution which will be named the International Development Research Centre of Canada. It will be an independent, non-profit organization with an international character. The planned purpose of the centre will be to ini'iate, encourage, support, and undertake research into the problems involved in the development of the economically underdeveloped regions of the world. It will focus its attention particularly on the adaptation and application of scientific and technological knowledge to the needs of the peoples of those regions for social and economic development. It will also endeavour
DEBATES	3909
International Development Research Centre to assist these people to develop their own capabilities to solve the problems of economic underdevelopment which confront them.
[DOT] (2:20 p.ra.)
It is expected that the centre will enlist, as the bill states, the talents of natural and social scientists and technologists, not only from Canada but from all over the world. As expressed in committee and in this debate, these activities will be directed to the identification of specific development problems and the use of multi-disciplinary techniques in devising practical solutions for them. I say, Mr. Speaker, this is the idealistic potential of this organization. Whether the organization moves in to accomplish those objectives will depend entirely upon the men who are given the responsibility, the president and the board, to give direction to the development centre. They can flub the ball and the centre will not make any great contribution, or they can take hold of it and use it as a vehicle to make Canada a real leader in this area of international development.
In spite of the fact our contribution may have gone down in 1968, was not nearly what it should have been in 1969 and it does not appear it will be what we would like it to be in 1970, this bill puts us in front of many other nations because of the vehicle that it will establish, provided that vehicle can be used. As I understand the bill, and as I see its potential, the Development Research Centre could become strictly a vehicle for research for our own academics and for the academics who may share in the operation and work of this research centre. If this is all it accomplishes, it will have gained only a very small portion of its potential. I believe the research conducted at this centre will have to be directed at the practical side of international development.
If some of the things I outlined in these three points are brought about, it will have to become much more than a research centre. It will have to give guidelines and direction to the over-all picture of international development, not only as it relates to the development that comes from this country, but also to the development which is planned by other countries. It is an interesting fact that a number of the middle power nations are paving the way. I believe they will give the greatest support to this research centre. I speak of the Scandinavian countries, Holland, West Germany and some other countries. As a middle power we have a very unique role,
3S10	COMMONS
International Development Research Centre to play to bring about the satisfactory integration that must be brought about in the economic development of the world.
I believe that this bill brings into being an institution that will keep its sights on the over-all perspective and will concentrate on the various areas of research that must have attention. At the same time, it must have as its basic goal the direction of that research and the outcome of that research into the fundamental and basic international development that the world today needs, not just the developed world but also the emerging world. When viable economies are developed in these countries, true international development will make them what we want them to be. I am very pleased to say that we give our support to the principle and over-all objective of this bill.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: about trying to bridge the gap between the developed and the developing countries they will stop window-dressing and do what my party recommended at its national convention, that is, increase their expenditures on the war against poverty to two per cent of the gross national product. We must set new priorities. We in the western world are misspending our resources. We cannot have a framework within which our plans for peace and security will mature unless we do something effective in this generation, in this decade, to bridge this growing gap between the rich and the poor. We are not doing this job.
The bill we are now discussing is an excellent step. There must be a whole series of good individual steps. Let us not think that because we have taken this one step we have lived up to the responsibilities which rest on all the people of the western world to do infinitely more than has been done in this field in the past. With these few words, I repeat, we in this party welcome and endorse this bill and we wish the best of luck to those who will form the management and to those who will work under this international agency. We hope it will be a forerunner of many other similar imaginative schemes to deal with what we think is one of the major problems facing the world today.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to repeat at this stage of our consideration of this legislation the general arguments I developed on second reading, nor is it necessary for me to do so. It is clear from what has been said here today and from the discussions which took place in the standing committee to which the bill was referred, that the establishment of the centre is enthusiastically supported on all sides of the House.
I should like to thank the members who have taken part in the debate at the various stages for their support and to echo the words which have just been uttered by the hon. member who spoke on behalf of the New Democratic party-that this is only one step which must be taken if we are to discharge our responsibilities for the development of the less developed parts of the world.
My remarks on this occasion will relate particularly to the amendments proposed by the standing committee. Several clauses of the bill have been significantly altered. The international responsibilities of the Research Centre have been recognized by omitting ref-21701-37
International Development Research Centre erence to its location from the title. The outmoded term of the 'sixties, "economically underdeveloped" has been revised to read "developing", anticipating the thrust of the 'seventies.
The objects of the Centre have been expanded to allow for the very necessary role of co-ordination of international development research conducted both in Canada and elsewhere. The composition of the Board of Governors of the Research Centre has been altered in such a way as to ensure maximum representation from other countries, especially developing countries, without sacrificing Canadian control over policy and expenditures.
I have no quarrel with these amendments; indeed, I believe they are most valuable and that is why I was pleased to support them. I do, however, Mr. Speaker, wish to express my reservations with respect to clause 10(3). This subclause reads:
One of the governors who is a Canadian citizen other than the Chairman and the Vice-chairman may be a Member of Parliament; he shall not be paid remuneration, but shall be eligible for expenses and shall not, by reason of his being the holder of the office or place in respect of which such expenses are payable, be rendered incapable of being elected, or of sitting or voting as a member of the House of Commons.
Now this is an innovation.


Mr. Fairweather:: A progressive one.


Mitchell William Sharp: It may be progressive; I would not argue that for a moment. But it is an innovation, and it is therefore of some considerable importance that we should be approving an appointment to the board of an agency of government, of a Member of Parliament. I am not certain myself whether in fact this could not have been done in the absence of an amendment. But the amendment has made it clear that if a Member of Parliament is appointed to a board of the Centre, he does not thereby lose his seat in the House of Commons by accepting expenses from the Crown. I understand that those who support this addition to the bill have expressed the belief that a Member of Parliament could serve as a means of liaison between the Centre and Parliament.
I welcome this expression of interest in the working of the Centre and I share this desire to see that Parliament is kept informed of the important work to be carried out by the new institution. However, I do feel the proposal raises some major questions which can neither be ignored nor entirely settled here
3912	COMMONS
International Development Research Centre today. I consider it my responsibility as a member of the government to raise certain fundamental questions and to express a view concerning the nature of the real relationship between Parliament and a government agency created by and, ultimately, answerable to Parliament. This question raises the subject of the responsibility and role of the minister and of the Member of Parliament. It is of such importance that it cannot be resolved by making an insertion to any one clause of a particular bill. If Parliament wants to adopt this practice it should examine its implications in detail and provide legislation and criteria which would be broadly applicable to all the relevant Crown-created institutions.
The role of the Member of Parliament on the Board of .Governors is by no means clear and this uncertainty poses real difficulties for the M.P. himself, the Centre and the Government. It has been suggested that the Member of Parliament will be a channel of communication between the Centre and the Government and between the Centre and Parliament. Does this mean that the M.P. is, in fact, a full participant in the deliberations of the Board, sharing fully in its responsibilities while at the same time being the representative of Parliament responsible for informing Parliament on these activities? Is it to be left to his own judgment to decide what is confidential and what is not confidential?
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
If he has a right or perhaps even an implied obligation to report on all matters considered by the board, this will significantly impair his own relationship with other members of the board and have a profound effect on the content and quality of the discussions carried on at the board level. What would be his position if, on a particular question, he had registered his dissent at a board meeting? Would he feel obliged to indicate this in reporting on the matter to Parliament? If so, would the other members of the board be then obliged to justify publicly their positions on the matter? If he fails to disclose some matter to Parliament because he views it either as confidential or as unimportant, what will be his position with his parliamentary colleagues if the matter later comes to the attention of Parliament under controversial circumstances?
What is his relationship to the responsible minister and to what extent does he relate and report to him in respect of the centre's activities? Will the M.P.'s views expressed at

DEBATES	February 20. 1970
meetings of the board be regarded as the views of the government, the views of Parliament, the views of his party, his own views or a mixture of all these? Will he be expected to carry back to the board the views or guidance of Parliament on particular questions in which they may become interested from time to time? To what extent would the M.P.'s role in this respect negate or conflict with the normal and very useful practice of having the president or chairman of the institution appear before a parliamentary committee when its estimates are being considered, or at such other times as the committee is taking a special interest in its affairs? Would the president or the chairman have the right to appear if they wished to question or elaborate on any of the information being provided to parliament by the M.P.?


Francis Andrew Brewin: It sounds like a questionnaire.


Mitchell William Sharp: An hon. member says it is just like a questionnaire. It is the sort of questionnaire that ought to have been put before the members of the committee before the committee took a decision which seems to have such broad implications for the role of members of parliament.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: There was plenty of notice of this amendment.


Mitchell William Sharp: There is no suggestion that these questions cannot be resolved satisfactorily, but they do raise issues which require a more extensive consideration and elaboration of the role of the Member of Parliament on the board than would be feasible to deal with in this particular bill without a great deal more consideration. Such consideration, as mentioned, could more properly be given to the question as a whole rather than to its unique application to this legislation.
Despite these reservations, Mr. Speaker, I decided not to oppose this amendment. Hon. members will recognize that the amendment in question is permissive; that the Governor in Council has the option of appointing or not appointing a Member of Parliament to the centre's board of directors. As the amendment would not, therefore, bind the hands of the goverment, I was prepared to accept it. I did, however, wish to take this occasion to outline my reservations on the general question of the role of a Member of Parliament appointed to the board of directors of a Crown corporation or agency. Then, if the government were to appoint a Member of Parliament, it would
February 20, 1970

be clearly on the record that his functions would have to be defined much more carefully than they are in this bill.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say once again that I believe this bill will create one of the most valuable institutions in Canada. I am confident this centre will make a very significant contribution to international development. It is another manifestation of this government's desire and determination to have Canada accept its full responsibilities as a member of the international community. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the International Development Research Centre represents this government's faith in the future, in the future of international development and the success which will flow from the sharing of ideas between the developed and developing members of the international development community.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, it is extraordinary how ministers of the crown are frightened by Members of Parliament. Today we learned we had powers that I think most of us never realized we had.
First of all, I wish to say something about the amendment I proposed and which, I may say, had wide support from those sitting behind the minister who take a progressive view of the qualifications of parliamentarians and who play their full part in parliamentary activities, such as this centre and other institutions in which Members of Parliament and the state may engage. This amendment was given lots of notice. As a matter of fact, I was so anxious to get the principle accepted that I said I would be prepared to let any member on the government side take credit for it, if that is the term. I am grateful to those members who, in the non-partisan atmosphere in which this committee worked, wanted to go to the principle of the issue and accepted the amendment as a progressive, sensible move. We will hear a good deal more said about this, I hope, when other commissions are established.
I fail to see why a Member of Parliament should have to detach himself from the board because of membership in this House. He suddenly becomes persona non grata on the board. With great respect to the minister- and I have a good deal of respect for him-I thought his argument was laboured. If I may say so, I did not think it was wholly his own. He has been in this House a good length of time, and he knows that among the member-21701-37i
DEBATES	3913
International Development Research Centre ship of the House there are people who might surprise him, who might be able to perform a fairly useful service.
In any event, this proposition is not such a daring proposal. There was an excellent precedent set in the United Kingdom with the Commissioners of Charity legislation. Heaven forbid that there be any other connection between the objects of this centre and the policy of the Commissioners of Charity, but this principle was adopted by these commiss ioner s.
I think the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) has a private bill on the Order Paper that bears upon this matter. If the government were so excited about the latent dangers, then it might have arranged for that bill to go to committee so that we could have considered the entire issue. However, since I saw the bill was not moving anywhere, I felt that this would be an opportunity to establish a principle.
As I say, the amendment had wide support. The clerk of the committee told me the vote was 13 to 6. I feel rather badly that the minister makes his disclaimer of any merit in the proposal by accepting it because its terms are not mandatory, and anyway he had pretty well announced that he would not appoint a Member of Parliament.


Mitchell William Sharp: I did not say that.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Did the minister say that he did not say that?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify the position, I was making it quite clear that I did not think that if a Member of Parliament were appointed one should have him reporting to Parliament-one of the reasons for the amendment-without some further definition of his responsibilities and his rights. That is the point I made,, and I am sure that the hon. member agrees with that.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I am glad that the minister has clarified his position. I think we are labouring a little over the word "report". I did not mean report in the parliamentary sense and never did mean that. Any member of the committee would have recognized that.
One of the distinguished commissioners on the Pearson commission, believe it or not, was a Conservative Member of Parliament, Sir Edward Boyle. As a matter of fact, he had a great deal to do with the impetus that was put into the setting up of the Pearson commission by the World Bank. Mind you, that
3914	COMMONS
International Development Research Centre was a commission of short duration, but I presume it was not such a dangerous thing in the parliamentary sense to have Sir Edward Boyle, both in a formal and informal way, being able to articulate some of the objectives, some of the issues and thinking that went into the final report. That is all I meant. I would like to parachute some of the very highly qualified Members of Parliament into the scene where very important actions are going to take place in the years ahead. We M.P's might surprise you, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: Good training for the cabinet.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee which studied this subject matter I had wanted to say a few words about the bill on second reading but was unable to do so. When this committee, or a sub-committee, was in New York at the United Nations we spoke to many experts and non-experts, to representatives of donor countries and recipient countries. Although this proposal was not on the Order Paper at that time we knew it was coming, so we put it to them and there was unanimous agreement that this kind of centre would be a useful and positive contribution. They pointed to the fact that there are too few research centres of this nature. There is the Rockefeller Foundation and some of the other foundations which have research centres on particular problems of international development, but there is a need for centres of this type to find means of using modern technology to help developing countries solve their problems. I think the minister has said that our foreign policy should reflect our internal policy and 1 think this is what we are trying to do in the formation of this centre.
In the Speech from the Throne and in the estimates tabled last week, we can see that this government is placing a great deal of emphasis on the war against poverty and underdevelopment, both at home and abroad. In this year of austerity very few of the budgets have gone up but it is notable that the budget for external aid has been increased by $15 million and that the budget for regional expansion, which is a similar type operation within Canada, has been increased by $75 million. In the same vein the budget for Indian and Eskimo affairs has been increased by $34 million. This is the thrust of the government to give priority to the problems of poverty both within Canada-

DEBATES	February 20. 1970


Gerald William Baldwin: Like the Indians in Saskatchewan.


William Warren Allmand: Yes, I am sure that it will apply not only to Saskatchewan but to other parts of the country. Mr. Speaker, it might help if some of the members opposite would take this subject seriously. I am trying to be serious about the matter. I said the government is increasing its budget to fight poverty at home and abroad. I did not intend to get into some kind of partisan debate this afternoon, but rather to put forward some positive points on this matter.
What is unfortunate in this situation, Mr. Speaker, is that even though budgets are being increased for development both at home and abroad, they are still not being increased enough. We are currently discussing a white paper on taxation in this country, and it is a bit sad that so many people are disturbed because they may have to pay $200 or $300 a year more when there is so much suffering and poverty throughout the world.
I should like to quote a few figures from a small Montreal newspaper called "Up to the Neck" which is the newspaper of a citizens' committee. It points out how we in Canada spend so much on what can be called fringe things. For example, it points out that Canadians spend approximately $200 million a year on dog and cat food; $400 million a year at race tracks; $1 billion per year on alcohol; $500 million per year on travel abroad. It does not have figures for the amounts we might spend on cigarettes which I think would come in the millions of dollars. Nor does it have figures for the second car or the second home. We spend in this way when so many people in many parts of the world hardly get one meal a day. So, Mr. Speaker, I fully support and encourage the government in the direction they are going and for increasing their budget on items such as external aid and internal development as well as this type of institution which they are setting up.
I might say that when the committee spoke to the experts in this field they pointed out that if we are really serious about helping developing countries, in the long run we will have to be prepared to trade with them. It is all very well to build the educational institutions, build the superstructure, help build their agricultural and industrial output, but having done that there comes a time when we have to be ready to trade with these countries. One of the greatest disappointments was the results of the UNCTAD conference and
February 20, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	3915
the other conference dealing with international trade. Many of the countries who had stated they were interested in international development, and had already done a lot in that field, had not followed through when it came to trade aspects.
With respect to this bill, I want to emphasize one of the recommendations in the committee report, namely, that the first set of governors appointed to the institution must be first class. I am sure the minister will give that recommendation his very close attention. If this international development centre is to be a success we must assure that those people directing it have the purposes and the goals clearly in mind, and that they dedicate all their efforts to those problems. I should also like to support some of the suggestions made by members opposite that competent people from other countries should be appointed to serve on the board and to work with Canadians at the centre.
With respect to the recommendation that Members of Parliament be permitted to serve on the board, I support that as well. I think the minister supports it, too, but in his remarks I got the impression he was saying we must clearly establish what the responsibilities will be, and we certainly must do that. Not only do I feel that Members of Parliament should serve on boards such as this but I think they should be permitted to serve on boards, commissions, and Crown corporations. If we are to do our job well, we must be in close touch with the institutions and agencies that we have established. I feel there is a great need for us to be on these boards in some way or other.
Now, there are objectives and probably terms of reference to be worked out. I think the minister was saying, "Fine, let's do this but let's look at the whole problem and look at the terms of reference." I agree, but I do not want it to stop there. I hope we will go forward and that a Member of Parliament will be appointed to this particular agency. I hope we Will work out terms of reference so that members can be appointed to other agencies.


Mr, Baldwin:: It is nice that the minister has an interpreter.


William Warren Allmand: There are some very good nembers opposite who would probably do very well on that particular board. In this country whenever we take steps to increase our international development effort there are always people who say that charity should
International Development Research Centre begin at home, and that we should not think of international development until we have solved the problems at home. Surely, we must work on both problems at the same time: we must work on development at home and poverty at home. But we must not stop there. We must do a lot of work abroad because if we do not, peace will not be with us much longer.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
There cannot be stability in the world as long as there are vast differences between the rich and the poor as there are now. This situation is growing worse all the time. When I referred to the figures in this year's estimates, I pointed out that we are increasing the external aid budget by $15 million, the regional economic development budget by $75 million and the budget in respect of the Eskimo and Indian people by $34 million. We are putting a much greater effort into internal development than we are into external development. I think we are trying to bring along both together. I emphasize that the only way to achieve peace and stability is by the cooperation of all men throughout the world so that we can all develop together.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson).


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, if hon. gentlemen on the other side would interrupt less we might get on. I am probably the only member in this House who has ever administered a Canadian aid program abroad, and would like to say a few words.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Anderson: I am delighted that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) as well as his colleagues see the value of my saying a word or two. In any event, I am rising only briefly to commend this bill to the House and to point out that research, in my opinion, is almost more fundamental at this point of time than aid itself. I think the reason should be clear to all members. Any economic assistance Canada can provide is necessary. However, we must also realize that the Canadian public forgo many things such as regional development, transportation services, etc., which should be taken care of in Canada, when we spend money on external aid. As
3916	COMMONS
International Development Research Centre politicians we know that aid abroad is not always popular, although this does not mean it is not good. But aid is sometimes misused.
I have seen instances where a certain form of aid has been given in areas which cannot use that particular type of economic assistance. If we are to continue to have public funds devoted to a Canada aid program, it is important that we make sure the programs we undertake are of the type which will produce results. I think we must discard the idea that if sufficient money is expended abroad, this will somehow take care of development, despite adverse social or other conditions. Research, Mr. Speaker, is vital in this area. Economic development is not a simple thing.
Turning from that point, I should like to say a few words on the amendment of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal which I supported in the committee and support in the House. There is no doubt that the minister put his finger on many potential problems; but as the hon. member for Fundy-Royal mentioned, it is important that Members of Parliament no longer be considered as second-class citizens but, rather, as being eligible for positions on boards and commissions such as this despite being Members of Parliament. I find it most gratifying that he has adopted a forward-looking approach to the role of Members of Parliament and, indeed, the role of Parliament itself.
This is in contrast with the view of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) and other members of the opposition who in my opinion have a negative view in respect of the role of Parliament and of Members of Parliament. I therefore believe this amendment is a good one and I am delighted that there are in that party progressive as well as "Conservative" members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the word "Liberal" in respect of members on that side?


David Anderson: 1 congratulate the hon.
member for Fundy-Royal for being among the former and not the latter category which I mentioned. My final point is that there was provision in the original bill that the headquarters of this research centre be in Ottawa. I think the decision of the committee to strike out this provision was a very wise one. There is an unhealthy concentration of head offices in Ottawa, simply because of convenience to other civil servants and also, let us be fair, convenience to Members of Parliament. It

DEBATES	February 20, 1970
may be that this research centre should have its headquarters in Ottawa, but the committee, in striking out that provision in the bill, made it clear that it should be established where it would be best, rather than simply being established in Ottawa because it would be convenient to civil servants and ourselves. I hope I have not tried the patience of hon. members too much. I shall resume my seat at this point.
,[Translation]


Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafontaine: Mr. Speaker, even if I did not want to be brief, I would have to be because the hon. members who preceded me dealt with precisely what I intended to discuss.
I was a member of the committee when this bill was studied and I approved it. I also approved very willingly the amendment of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather), but after hearing the speech of the minister I should like to make a suggestion.
The hon. member asked countless questions, doubtless to make up for the lack of opportunity to ask questions in the House. I feel, however, that it would be indicated for the rights and duties of hon. members to be defined, and for the government to bring in a motion in the near future referring the matter to the Committee on Procedure and Organization, that a report might be made on the matter. I am sure that as soon as that report is received, the government will see to it that an hon. member sits on this board, as well as on any other body on which it would be well for hon. members to be represented, especially at the international level. To my mind, this bill cannot lead to any political conflict.
I feel that it is with such organizations that hon. members have a chance to prove themselves. I am not saying that a member should be appointed just because he is a member, but only if he can work efficiently.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) participated in foreign aid programs in the past. Doubtless he would be much more qualified than I, who have never participated in that type of program, to be a member of that board.
That is what I intended to say. I am happy to see this bill will soon receive royal assent.

Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
February 20, 1970	COMMONS



BROADCASTING OF DEBATES BY RADIO AND TELEVISION

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, in consultation with Mr. Speaker, be directed to study the question of radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its Committees, including the legal, procedural, and technical aspects thereof, and the question of arrangements made for reporters for the electronic media in the Parliament buildings.
Mr. Paul SI. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the House has really been filled with great sweetness and light. I am sorry I cannot contribute further to that atmosphere; some of the things I will have to say today may be a little unpleasant. I shall say them, however, because like other members of the House I am very concerned about any changes we might make in this regard.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I do not want this motion to pass without registering some of my very grave reservations about it. Naturally, I support the move to send this motion to committee for study. I support the study without reservation, but I hope that the members of the committee will think very long and hard. I hope they will examine very carefully what the results of experiments such as is suggested in the motion have been in other countries.
In fact, if I were moving an amendment to this motion-which I am not-it might be something in the nature of the instructions of the city state of Hamburg when they sent their troops to join Bliicher in the battle of Waterloo. They were very reluctant to engage, and the orders to the Hamburg troops were to march to join Bliicher but to do so very slowly. I think that we should move very slowly in any move to bring television into this chamber. I fear that it could do irreparable harm to the House of Commons.
The purpose of the motion to bring television into the House is laudable and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has expressed it very well. It seeks to increase the citizens' understanding of their government. But I say to members of this House that the result could be the opposite: instead of making the operations of the Canadian government more clear to the citizens, we could be directing the citizens to see this chamber through a glass darkly.
DEBATES	3917
Broadcasting of House of Commons Debates


An hon. Member:: It is happening now.


Mr. St. Pierre:: I quite agree that there is insufficient knowledge among the people generally of the operation of this House and the operation of the government-as well as a considerable lack of knowledge of the operation of bureaucracy, I might add. But if we are to seek new ways to present ourselves honestly, as we believe ourselves to be, to the Canadian people, let us be very leery of the instrument of television. A man may need glasses to read, as I do, but it does not help much to hand him a piece of a broken Coke bottle as a substitute.
I would like to assure hon. members through you, Mr. Speaker, that my mind is not closed on the matter and I would certainly hope that the minds of hon. members of this House are not closed on it. But I have reservations. I may say that I only speak about one aspect of the motion. I know it deals with many other considerations, such as the facilities for television and radio in the House and its committees, and other matters connected with that, but I am confining myself to the proposal that television be brought into the House of Commons. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) expressed many of my reservations in a recent speech in the House when he gave one of those mild, persuasive, whispering addresses of his! I agree with a great deal of what he said.
I might continue by discussing the more technical aspects of this proposal. I do not claim expertise, but I had an association of about 10 or 15 years with the television industry and I have been in the newspaper business all my working life. So perhaps I could give some fresh throughts to hon. members regarding television coverage. Of course, we know that the ideal is physically impossible. Perhaps the ideal is that a single, fixed camera be directed at this chamber from the moment it opens at 11 a.m., or 2 p.m. as the case may be, until it closes at 10.30 p.m. or whenever it may be. The camera would make no selection and our proceedings would be broadcast to every home in Canada for every minute that Parliament sits.
Not one member of this House considers this to be a practical possibility, financially or otherwise. Since it cannot be done, any reporting of this House by the medium of television must be subject to editing. All editing has bias-and I use that word advisedly. Some hon. members may think that I am speaking of political bias. Political bias exists, but I think it might be one of the least of our
3918	COMMONS
Broadcasting of House of Commons Debates fears in this case. The greater danger lies in the act of editing, of selecting a certain portion and saying it shall be used, and rejecting another portion and saying it shall not be used. Such selection demonstrates bias.
There are many ways in which bias might be exercised in reporting the proceedings of this chamber. One of the standard biases which has served most newspapers pretty well for generations is that of news interest. Mind you, the interpretation of what is news is difficult. The interpretation of what is news interest is debated among newspapermen now just as it was 25 years ago when I first began to report. But it is perhaps as good a bias as has been found, and the papers which adhere most closely to news interest are apt to be among the most fair.
However, let me remind hon. members through you, Mr. Speaker, that nothing would have quite as much news interest in this House as an hon. member coming into the chamber in clown costume, on a pogo stick, down the centre aisle. Some degree of this, if news interest be the bias by which selection is made as to which debates will be televised, will be impressed upon this House: there will be an impulse for hon. members, if not to jump on pogo sticks at least to be sometimes colourful at the expense of being sensible.
There are other biases which may exist. There is even a sort of negative bias which could be introduced. There could be a rigid division of the television time apportioned to each party according to membership or any other formula which might be devised. This in itself is artificial and will not serve our purpose, because the fact is that in a debate one member of any party in this House may contribute far more than all other speakers. Mr. Speaker, can you conceive of a group of politicians in this House becoming television news editors, meeting once a day to look at film clips and deciding, each from personal bias, his party's bias or a combination of the two, which portion of our proceedings shall be shown to the Canadian people? I suggest that this would be ludicrous. If we do not do this, who shall be the editor, who shall apply the bias? It must be the people in the television industry. Is the House prepared to give them this power?


Mr. Benjamin:: They have it now.


Paul St. Pierre: It may be said that they have it now. Are we prepared to increase it by bringing television cameras into this chamber? My mind is not closed on the

DEBATES	February 20. 1970
matter. This proposal may be wise, but I have no doubt in my mind that it would be extremely dangerous.
There is another point which I might bring to the attention of hon. members. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre brought this out in his remarks. He said that, after all, we have had the press in both Houses of Parliament for generations. We have learned to live with it passably well. I would admit, further, that when I speak of the bias necessary in any form of editing, any form of selectivity-bias with the best will in the world, but nevertheless bias-this applies also to writing and editing, to everything we do. Every work of art is also a creation of bias. But there is a considerable difference between the situation of the newspapers and that of television. Effectively, there are two television organizations in Canada. The people of the press gallery, as we know, number in scores and indeed hundreds.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to anticipate the studies that I hope this committee will make or go into technical details in the House, but I would like to draw just one or two matters to the attention of the House. Television-perhaps I should borrow the words of Marshall McLuhan-can be described as "the medium is the message." Television distorts of itself. The camera is a form of distortion. One of the simplest methods used-it is used frequently in drama productions, and if hon. members have not noticed it they might notice it the next time they are watching television-is the close-up. Creating a close-up attains drama. The person involved might not be doing anything more than lighting a cigarette or scratching your ear, but the physical enlargement of a face on the screen is a creation of drama and your adrenal glands react to it. This is technical editorial comment by the camera, the machine.
I will not take up any more time of the House in this respect because, as I say, I very much hope that the committee will study this question very thoroughly. I would like to leave the House with one thought. I would like hon. members to reflect on the career of Senator Joseph McCarthy of the United States, who terrorized the intellectual community of that nation in the fifties and left scars in the United States which have not healed to this day. In the opinion of many people, McCarthyism was a creation of the medium of television. I think we must keep our minds open on this subject, but I urge
February 20, 1970	COMMONS
hon. members to keep their minds very active. I thank hon. members for their courteous attention.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say, as is so often said in this House, that I had not planned to speak on this issue; but if I were going to say it, I would have to say that was in fact the truth of the matter. In regard to the previous speaker, who in some way, shape or form, has been connected with one aspect of the mass media over a long period, I think he has failed to understand the relationship of the mass media to the public. His last analogy with reference to McCarthyism in the fifties suggested that indeed the spectre of McCarthyism was created by television. But there is a very large body of thought that suggests-I think quite rightly-that indeed McCarthyism was effectively destroyed because of the Senator's exposure on the television screen.
One of the difficulties that has plagued this debate, not only that of recent days but the general debate that has gone on for the last few years with regard to broadcasting the proceedings of this House and its committees, has been a confusion of two issues. One is the essential issue of whether it is in the public interest to have television coverage of this House and its committees. The other is the question of editorial bias. If we are to have a useful discussion of this question, we must in the first instance separate these two issues.
It is rather strange for any member to get up in this House and talk about the acknowledged bias that will exist in the editorial decisions that will have to be made with regard to broadcasting the proceedings of this House and its committees, and at the same time accept what has been accepted ever since reporters were first allowed into the press gallery. I refer to the acknowledged bias that exists in that medium, not only from the standpoint of the individual perspective of the individual reporter but as between his report and its final production, whether that bias be in the pen wielded at the editor's desk or elsewhere.
As a matter of fact, a certain amount of mechanical bias may exist with regard to the amount of material and the specific material that is eventually used and produced. It is a bit of a bogeyman to talk about bias with respect to some aspects of the mass media and to brush aside the important bias that 21701-38
DEBATES	3919
Broadcasting of House of Commons Debates quite naturally exists throughout all the other mass media. I would not like to suggest that the bias that exists-


Paul St. Pierre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in the interests of accuracy the hon. member should not say that I brushed aside any bias as being unimportant.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not take himself too seriously. I was not referring only to his remarks and the general tenor of them, but to the general tenor of remarks made in the House when this question has been debated on a number of occasions.
I am not concerned so much about the bias because I think in many ways bias, as such, is very often eliminated because of counter-bias. What concerns me even more than bias, if I can call it such, is the general quality that exists with regard to reporting. I do not think it is fair to suggest that the quality of reporting is entirely the responsibility of those who are in effect the reporters, because in some measure people get the quality of reporting they in fact deserve, or that they seek. However, I do not think these questions are really relevant to the debate on this particular subject, which is the referral of this motion to a committee. I think we are faced with a fairly essential question. It is whether or not the largest amount of information possible will be given to the Canadian people about the issues of the day, affecting their lives, that are being discussed by their representatives whether in this House or in a committee of the House.
I find it passing strange that any Member of Parliament, realizing that he is here as a representative of individuals in his constituency and really as a national representative in this forum, should think it part of his duty to block in any way or limit the amount of useful information that the people of Canada will be able to receive, whether it is in print or is heard through radio transmission and television.
We seem to assume in this debate that somehow or other by deciding, whether in a committee or in the whole House, for or against the full coverage of this House and its committees, there will be no televising of what public figures and politicians are doing. Of course, this is just not true. The major issues reported on every national newscast concern very largely what government members and other Members of Parliament are doing on behalf of the people. But what is
3920	COMMONS
Broadcasting of House of Commons Debates creating serious difficulty today is that the people are getting this information on a second-hand and often on a third-hand basis.
We should be much more concerned about the fact that there is a kind of capricious coverage now of what public people are doing, because of the kind of ad hoc arrangements made for television and radio reporting whether it is in a room down the hallway, standing out in the foyer, or some such arrangement which is not nearly as useful and not nearly as accurate as the kind of direct exchange which is on the record and takes place in the forum-where people are responsible, or presumed to be so-and our committees.
I think it is shocking that Members of Parliament on all sides of the House are not calling at the earliest possible moment for the kind of access for television that is needed in this House and its committees. I know that Members of Parliament would be upset, to say the least, if it were seriously proposed that we should exclude the press from the gallery, because we know that the interaction of the reporting by the press from the gallery is a very important part of the political process and the decision-making that is taking place in this country.


An hon. Member:: But not necessarily
desirable.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: An hon. member suggests that it is not necessarily desirable, but I do not think democracy would last very long if the press were not allowed coverage of this House and its committees. There is a further issue that needs to be thoroughly explored. Anyone who has looked thoughtfully at the importance of the discussions that take place in this House, and their relevance to the issues as perceived by the people of this country, realizes that there has been a steady erosion of the usefulness and importance of discussions that take place in the House of Commons and in its committees.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
We in the opposition have been critical of the way Parliament has been bypassed more and more by the government or agencies of government which makes it appear that Parliament is nothing more than a weak echo or rubber stamp of government activity. I think one reason this has occurred so easily during the past few years is that the two major instruments which inform people day by day about happenings in this forum have not been able to report our proceedings adequately.

DEBATES	February 20, 1970
I believe that not until we extend the privilege now extended to those employed by the print media to those working for television and radio shall we see a decline in thinking which holds that what goes on in this forum is irrelevant. I think it behooves all Members of Parliament to remember that it is in the best interests of the parliamentary process to give this kind of access to radio and television at the earliest possible date.
There is no need to spend much time on the technical problems of special lighting, cameras and microphones. Many forums have been adequately and effectively covered by all the mass media and there has been no loss in usefulness of the discussions. I think the technical argument is merely another red herring drawn across our path, because I do not consider that question as being at all important.
There is another factor which is important to this discussion. In recent months the government has become concerned about the amount of information on governmental activity being conveyed to the people. Not too many days ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced the setting up of Information Canada which will attempt to co-ordinate in an effective way information relating to the government. One could argue, I suggest, that the totality of such information, which is one-sided, might make any decision difficult unless at the same time there is access on the part of the public to the parliamentary process. Unless we as parliamentarians are willing to tolerate radio and television coverage of the chamber and committees, we may discover to our sorrow that although the people may be better informed as to the position the government takes on various issues, a full discussion of any related issue might be disconnected, entirely lost or even suppressed.
There has been a further development in our parliamentary system which lends itself most usefully to coverage by radio and television media. During the past few years greater and greater demands have been made to develop the role of parliamentary committees as centres for more extensive and thoughtful discussion of major issues being considered. Although we may not expect to see either House or committee proceedings covered regularly by the media, there may be issues which present themselves from time to time which I believe can be covered effectively through the use of radio and television.
We have found by experience that this thinking has applied to the constitutional con-
February 20, 1970
COMMONS DEBATES	3921
ferences of the past two years. Those who have recently suggested that the constitutional conferences foundered because of their exposure on radio and television are, I think, looking at the wrong area for the reasons for any failures in recent conferences. It has not been the media that has hurt the conferences it has been those who have participated in them.
Parliamentary committees will deal with various issues, perhaps even with the constitutional issue, which will be excellent for coverage by radio and television. Such matters are covered by the media of other countries. Consider, for instance, the tremendous importance to the people of the United States of the kind of extended coverage they have received in recent years of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the United States Senate. If we have any faith in the future of the parliamentary system, in its relevance to the Canadian way of life and its effectiveness in dealing fairly, justly and adequately with issues confronting this nation, we will not object to giving all forms of mass media access to this forum.
I think we must move on this matter very quickly. I know there are Members of Parliament who for one reason or another have feelings of fear or anxiety about changes the media might bring about. I think they will bring about a change for the good. I hope the members of the committee empowered to deal with the question will decide very shortly that we at least ought to undertake an experiment-I mean a full experiment involving both the House and committees- and permit the broadcasting and televising of our proceedings so that the unnecessary fears which have been created in the minds of some hon. members may be set at rest.
Varying experiences will arise from our participation in this new contact with the Canadian people, some of which may not be too pleasant for us. After all, we have been used to operating in a certain way. I also believe that this is the way in which we must change, and in changing give the Canadian people a more effective parliamentary system. I think that is what we are here to do, and I believe that the wider exposure of this institution as a result of coverage by the media will help us to achieve that end.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the minimal kind of support one can give to the principle involved here is to say that it ought to be considered by the committee. Any reserva-21701-38J
Broadcasting of House of Commons Debates tions that are expressed ought not to be about the motion now before us, but about the principle of maximizing the opportunity for the Canadian public to observe our process of democratic decision-making. This really is the central principle we are discussing.
I, for one,, am unequivocally a supporter of the notion that we, as Members of Parliament, should do everything we can to give the population of Canada a chance of seeing, hearing and reading about our decision-making process. Of course, there are problems involving bias and human foolishness which must be considered. No institution involving human beings will be without problems of this sort.
One could talk for a long time about bias in reporting, misinterpretation in reporting and misreporting of proceedings. Perhaps the only way to resolve these problems is to decree that those reporting the news shall be approved by the government of the day. That, of course, is absurd and antithetic of our democratic process.
I submit that the people of the country should have a maximum opportunity to get some idea of what is going on in this place, even on a Friday afternoon such as this. On balance, it seems to me that televising our proceedings will strengthen the opposition or, more correctly, increase the impact the opposition has on the Canadian public. That might be a better way of putting it. It will either do that or improve the quality of the government. Conceivably, it might do both. For example, after directing to the government a question that calls for an intelligent or reasonable response, we might obtain an answer instead of a shrug of the shoulders.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is asked what he is doing about our fine, noble, distinguished ally the government of Greece, and what that government is doing for freedom in that country, it may just be that a fine democrat like our Prime Minister will not get by with the answer, "Well, we are doing all we can, but really I refer the hon. member to the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs a few days ago." If you look up that answer, you find that the minister was referring to something else. The upshot is no answer at all, and the perpetual restriction of freedom for the people of Greece. If our proceedings were televised it would at least be brought home to the democrats of our country that the Prime Minister
February 20. 1970
3922	COMMONS
Broadcasting of House of Commons Debates takes this stand. Similarly, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mac-Eachen)-


Jean-Luc Pepin: May I ask what the hon. gentleman would do with respect to the government of Greece?


John Edward Broadbent: I am delighted to reply. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has asked what should be done about the government of Greece.


An hon. Member:: What would you do?


John Edward Broadbent: There is another interjection by a member on the government side. I think the answer is pretty clear. What should be done is what was done in the Council of Europe, if I may say so, at the initiative of the social democratic parties of Great Britain, Scandinavia and West Germany. Pressure was brought to bear on the Council of Europe to get the Greeks expelled. At the very last moment, because they were confronted with this pressure, the government of Greece withdrew from the Council of Europe. If NATO is to be a defender of democracy, which it is supposed to be, the same kind of pressure should be brought to bear on the government of Greece.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). I hope the question will not be on external affairs.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am just curious, Mr. Speaker. What was the effect of that move, on the situation of the Greek government?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I think we are getting a little far from the motion before the House.


John Edward Broadbent: I would have been delighted to carry on this exchange of views. I was about to shift ground from the Prime Minister and say that in addition to perhaps getting more meaningful and frank answers from him, we might get direct answers from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce when talking about the effects of change in the auto pact, for example. When the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is asked questions about Canadian sovereignty-this is just a suspicion, because it is hard to tell with that gentleman-he would probably be a little less ambiguous in his answers to the House if he knew that the television cameras were focused on him. I am not trying to be facetious.


I think this would be a good move, even with all the possibilities of distortions. I do not think they are very significant in terms of what the total effect will provide to the people of Canada. I refer to the greater opportunities for Canadians to see what is happening in the House of Commons. This is why television and radio should be introduced in this chamber. I support not only the idea of the committee studying this question, but I feel an affirmative decision should be reached by the committee after very careful consideration about the best and most equitable way of introducing these forms of news media into this House.


Mr. C. A. Gauihier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the motion now under study and which reads as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, in consultation with Mr. Speaker, be directed to study the question of radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House-
I have no objection against a study or that subject because, in itself, a study is always worthwhile. But I think this one will be very difficult because the Speaker will be saddled with the responsibility of recognizing those who will be entitled to take the floor and showing fairness towards all members. Should the decision be affirmative, I believe that all debates in the House should be televised in order to avoid discrimination. Cameramen should not have the discretion to decide who will appear on the T.V. screen. Under certain circumstances, the choice of pictures will be left to the cameraman.
Today, television newscasters present to the public only what they like and it is not always what the public would like to know. For instance, last night, I was watching the 11 o'clock news. Everybody knew that yesterday was an opposition day and that my colleague for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) had introduced the farmers' petition. But on the news broadcast, it was merely mentioned that he had introduced the petition. Immediately, after that, the cameraman showed members of the Liberal caucus, thus giving the impression that government members had done all the work.
I think that this should be avoided, if we ever decide to introduce permanent television in the House, because I think that information is one-sided.
The Company of Young Canadians established by the government has been altered
February 20, 1970

and given a new direction, in order that its members proclaim throughout Canada the benfits derived from the present government. Then, Information Canada was created and its 150 publicists will again be appointed by the government to glorify it throughout the country. If television is left without guidance, it will be the third step of that campaign among the people to make information one-sided.
I have taken the floor in order to show that even if we do not do it very often and do not criticize the government every day, this does not prevent us from seeing what goes on, and I am sure that the people are aware of it also.
If we sink additional millions to realize that project, after all the money spent already to support the government's propaganda agencies, and to allow the TV cameramen to point their lens on government members, while neglecting the other members, there will be discrimination.
So I submit that the study group should be made up of responsible people. I do not envy their task, for it will be difficult and thankless. However, in case this decision is made, may I ask, on behalf of the whole population, that care be taken to insure objective and equitable information in respect of all parties, so that people can witness actual differences in thinking and acting among the parties.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be too long. I simply wish to draw attention to the fact that we are in favour of the proposed study. And when I see the name of Mr. Speaker on the list of the members of the committee, I feel confident, and I am sure that the committee decisions will be wise, in the interest of the population and of Parliament, so that all parties and all members will be treated fairly in Parliament.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmoufh-Halifax
East): Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to take issue with either side in arriving at a premature decision as to whether proceedings in this chamber should be subjected to continuous or partial coverage by radio and television news media. Having said this, I think it will happen and I do not fear it. However, until the measure has been thoroughly looked into by the committee I share the view of the last speaker. I, too, would have confidence in any final recommendation made by this committee, having regard to the distinguished chairmanship which is proposed.
Broadcasting of House of Commons Debates
There are one or two observations I should like to make. The first is perhaps somewhat facetious. I have friends in the broadcasting industry and for those who are interested, Mr. Findlay Macdonald is dead! I saw him shot by Mr. Juneau a few days ago when he laid down Canadian content for our television screens. Any positive decision by the committee under the chairmanship of the Speaker may very well-


An hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker will not be
the chairman.


J. Michael Forrestall: Is it not Mr. Speaker who is to be chairman of this committee?


Stanley Howard Knowles: think the motion says the committee shall do this in consultation with him. Even that is good.


J. Michael Forrestall: I am sure it is, and I am
sure Mr. Speaker will continue to take an interest in this matter. My point is this: I am sure the Canadian television industry would find all the opportunity it needs to raise Canadian content to the required level. As for the long summer recess, there will be some of us around when Parliament is not sitting.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: They want quality, not
quantity.


J. Michael Forrestall: They can make a selection in the summer months and find sufficient quality among the 264 of us to maintain the quality. There is another feature which I think enters into the question of the entry of television and radio to the House of Commons. It is the tremendous benefit this would be to educational television. Already considerable thought is being given to this question by the universities of Canada.
If what they are after is the proper exposure of Canadian problems as they arise from time to time in this forum-no one suggests that television or radio would replace the printed word, the printed record or any of the other interpretive methods of covering the news-for the fullest awareness and understanding of all these issues there is nothing better than the opportunity to watch, on a continuous basis, the total process of dealing with the dilemmas which we face from time to time or, indeed, of the over-all and general conduct of the business of the nation.
I think that once they have taken an exhaustive look at the potential of this idea, the universities will endorse it. Already some spokesmen from the university complexes are
3924	COMMONS
Oil Drilling in West Coast Waters beginning to write in our educational journals suggesting to their colleagues the benefits which could accrue to students and academics from a continuous record of the procedures of this chamber. If I were to express a personal viewpoint, it would be to suggest that the way to the full televising and broadcasting of the affairs of this chamber would be through the committee stage. In recent years more and more of the detailed work of this House has been done in committee. If we find in committees a balance and a check against the intentions of the Prime Minister to change substantially the instrument which is our government and this institution, we must do everything to strengthen the committees system. I believe in its validity as a balance, as a force to check uncontrollable powers which perhaps because of the nature, size and complexity of business today seem to find themselves more and more in the hands of a single individual.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it four o'clock?



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: 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-14, respecting the Sale and Importation of Certain Radiation Emitting Devices, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
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, notices of motions, public bills and private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


David Anderson: That a special committee of the House of Commons composed of not more than 15 members, to be later designated by the House, be established to investigate generally the problem of pollution in the waters, soil and air of Canada, and the plans of the federal government in relation thereto, with powers to report from time to time its observations, opinion and recommendations thereon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Mr. Forrestall.l
DEBATES	February 20, 1970
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before you call the next motion may I say to hon. members opposite that we expect them to reciprocate when one of our motions comes before the House during private members' hour.



TOURISM


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take the initiative, in collaboration with the provinces, to improve and standardize procedures of compiling statistical data on tourism, with the purpose of establishing long-range objectives and sound policies for the travel industry in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider ways of preventing oil drilling in west coast Canadian waters where accidental oil leakage could create a major disaster in this busy industrial, recreational and residential area.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the swift progress that the members of the House of Commons seem to make on Friday afternoons, when ministers have gone and the House is left with the backbenchers to carry on business, has resulted in our reaching my resolution a good deal faster than I thought would be the case.


James Aloysius McGrath: Sit down and we will pass it.


Grant Deachman: Having done so well, and having so much time before us this afternoon to debate resolutions, I shall proceed without the benefit of papers since I hardly expected my motion would be reached today. I want to discuss for a few minutes the resolution that I have standing in my name. Then I hope, with perhaps brief comment by other members, we will continue the progress we have made this afternoon. I know we are now the envy of the ministry as it looks at Government Orders and wishes it could dispose of its business in as spritely a manner as that in which private members' motions have been disappearing this afternoon.
February 20, 1970	COMMONS
My resolution reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider ways of preventing oil drilling in west coast Canadian waters where accidental oil leakage could create a major disaster in this busy industrial, recreational and residential area.
Much has been said in the House of Commons about this subject in recent days and weeks, particularly in view of the tragic circumstances off the Atlantic coast involving the sinking of an oil tanker. This event has drawn to our attention even more forcibly the danger that can arise to our coastline as a result of oil drilling programs. This is especially so in areas where there is very considerable tourist and pleasure traffic; where marine life abounds; where we are doing our best to preserve and to protect marine life; where people use the beaches; where there are many marinas and pleasure boats in operation; where recreation is part of the business and life of the community along the shore, and where residences overlook waters or are located at beach areas. The purpose of the resolution is to protect areas such as the Gulf of Georgia and other waters off the west coast, for example the west coast of Vancouver Island, the area of Long Beach and other points that are now being developed for tourist and recreational purposes.
We have been watching the search of the oil companies for oil in the Gulf of Georgia with considerable alarm. Members of this House from the west coast have gone to see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Kesources (Mr. Greene) to urge upon him that licences for drilling in this area do not issue. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) has gone so far as to declare in a public address that he believes oil drilling in the Gulf of Georgia should never take place; further, that this area should be a national park to preserve for all time the waters in the Strait of Georgia as a national reserve, an area where oil drilling and oil spillage should be minimized so as to protect the recreational facilities in the vicinity for the benefit of people in the coastal region. It was a tragedy when oil leakages as a result of drilling occurred on the floor of the coast, destroying marine life, birds and wildlife for many miles along the coast.
We have been told that the nature of the wildlife and marine life along the coast has undergone a change; that indeed it may never be restored as a result of this tragic accident. Even more important is it to fear an accident in the Gulf of Georgia, waters that are confined between Vancouver Island and the
DEBATES	3925
Oil Drilling in West Coast Waters mainland. It is a stretch of water as narrow as a few miles and no wider at any part than 20 or 25 miles. It is an area where even a small spillage or accident, nothing like the tragedy that occurred on the floor of the west coast or the accidents with tankers, could cause untold damage not only to marine life but to beaches, marinas, pleasure boats and other facilities along the coast of Vancouver Island and the mainland, as well as the small islands that dot the gulf. It is because of this danger that I have moved and am speaking to my resolution this afternoon. There is another aspect of this question that I want to discuss.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.


Grant Deachman: I believe that hon. gentlemen opposite, especially those from Nova Scotia, understand the nature of the tragedy and I am sure they are in sympathy with what I have to say this afternoon.


An hon. Member:: We all agree with you.


Grant Deachman: Knowing that we have time to discuss it this afternoon, I hope they will give me an opportunity-


An hon. Member:: Everybody agrees with you. Why discuss it?


Grant Deachman: -to put on the record, as they have been doing day after day, the problem that we face. Therefore, I plead with them for the opportunity to speak and ask them not to talk me down while I make my statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Grant Deachman: One of the problems
involved is the question of the ownership of the water of the Gulf of Georgia. This question has been raised at federal-provincial conferences as to the right of the province of British Columbia to issue licences for oil drilling in this area. It is the understanding of western members that the government of British Columbia is eager to assume title to this land and to get into the business of issuing oil drilling licences. Federal Parliament members from the west coast do not want this to happen, and we hope that nothing will be done at federal-provincial conferences to prejudice the waters of this strait in such a way that the province can, against the wishes of the people nationally, issue oil drilling
3926	COMMONS
Oil Drilling in West Coast Waters licences. This could result in a tragedy of the type we have learned of on the California coast.
For these reasons I plead for a moment to speak on this subject this afternoon. I want the House to clearly understand the constitutional problem which exists and the troubles which could result from the federal government taking its hands off whatever powers and rights it has in the waters of the Strait of Georgia. My immediate plea is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) not to issue licences of any kind for oil drilling in waters of the strait and those adjacent to the west coast of Vancouver Island, until the whole matter of the safety of these waters has been carefully studied. Under no circumstances do we in British Columbia want to experience a tragedy such as occurred on the Florida coast.
Because of the resources being discovered today in the Arctic, Alaska and Alberta we know that oil abounds and is being discovered in larger and larger quantities. At this time there is no necessity to move hastily to drill for oil in the Strait of Georgia, which is a marginal area for oil discovery. We plead with those in power in the federal government and the government of British Columbia not to run the risk of destroying this very valuable area for years to come.


An hon. Member:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding).


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the previous speaker and I note the motion he was speaking to and which I endorse. It is rather amusing to have a motion of this type placed on the Order Paper, particularly by a government member. He is talking about the constitutional problem. As far as the west coast is concerned, the constitutional problem has been solved by the Supreme Court of Canada, which has indicated very clearly that the continental shelf falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government. If we are in trouble on the west coast of British Columbia, it is not so much the provincial authorities who are at fault-* although they have taken the bit in their teeth and are letting out oil and gas exploration permits and seismic surveys-but the weak, vacillating federal administration that allows this type of exploration to take place

DEBATES	February 20. 1970
when a Supreme Court ruling has already been made. I feel that the plea by the hon. member to the government is like-


An hon. Member:: Like a sound in a hollow jug.


Randolph Harding: Yes, it is like a sound in a hollow jug. Here they are, coming to the House of Commons and praying that something be done, when we already have the legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see members stand up on the other side of the House to protest the vacillating and weak departments which are handling the pollution problem in Canada. I hope more of them raise their voice to point out the government departments which are not doing their job. This is the only way we will get action on the grave pollution problems facing our nation.
A similar set of circumstances exists on the east coast and also in the Arctic where the Manhattan is planning another trip. We do not find government departments doing anything about this; they are just hoping that nothing will happen. No conversations are taking place with the Manhattan officials, the oil companies involved or the United States government as to who would pay the costs or be liable in the event of a major oil spill. They just hope nothing disastrous will happen. They are sending up a little prayer that everything will go well. The same situation exists on the west coast of British Columbia.
Once jurisdiction has been defined as federal, we are in the driver's seat and should determine when an oil lease or gas exploration permit is to be let out. You know what the situation is on the west coast, Mr. Speaker, but I am certain the people of Canada do not. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is collecting oil and gas treaties from companies, and the same companies are going to the provincial government which is also collecting fees from them in areas over which we are supposed to have jurisdiction. It seems to me that something is wrong here. I say that the power already lies within federal jurisdiction to clamp down as far as the west coast is concerned.
I suggest to government members that we stop pussyfooting around on this issue. I believe in federal-provincial co-operation when it comes to matters such as oil pollution.
February 20. 1970

I agree with the hon. member that there should be no oil drilling in the Georgia Strait. As the hon. member has told the House, it does not matter how large a pool of oil is discovered under the Strait of Georgia-one major spill would do more damage than all the economic benefit that would accrue to Canada from a vast pool of oil. The members from British Columbia realize this. This is why we are suggesting this area in particular be excluded. It is not the only area which should be excluded. There is the Great Lakes system: I do not think there should be drilling in that system, because one major oil spill there would completely destroy the aesthetic value of the greatest fresh water system in the world.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
What is the government doing? There are no adequate contingency measures in the event of oil spills. That was demonstrated when the Arrow went down off the coast of Nova Scotia. No plans had been laid down prior to the accident concerning what policies and programs should be followed in order to disperse the oil. As a consequence, there has been ecological damage on the east coast for which Canada will be paying for generations. The same thing could apply to the west coast.
I am well acquainted with the drilling which has been taking place off the west coast. I have been taken out by helicopter and have landed on the drilling rigs. I know what is going on. There is no protection: there are no regulations or contingencies in regard to these operations. The question of liability and who would pay for the damage caused by an oil spill has not been established either federally or provincially. The people of the nation are beginning to rise in indignation over the lack of any policy or program, not so much on the part of the provincial government but federally.
There is much legislation on the statute books of Canada concerning pollution, but how has the government been implementing it? Most departments have been doing absolutely nothing about it. We are upset because of lack of federal action. This is also the reason we are so pleased to see that some Liberal members at long last are standing up and going after the government, because the government is the cause of the inaction from one end of Canada to the other. We welcome the type of action proposed in the motion and hope we will see more and more of it.
Before I sit down there are one or two other points I should like to make. There is
Oil Drilling in West Coast Waters an excellent summary on oil pollution prepared by Dr. Warner. He makes several recommendations. I should like to read two or three of them because I intend to suggest to my friends opposite that they indicate what we should be doing in the field of research, planning against disasters and in an effort to make certain we do not have any more trouble from oil pollution. I shall not read all the recommendations, as they do not all apply to the motion. This is one: Instigation of a biologically and oceanographically oriented research program in the North Atlantic and the coastal regions of eastern Canada with special reference to seabirds and other important marine species. This applies to the west coast. There is another recommendation. He recommends the carrying out of a national survey to identify sites of special importance, leading to development of critical area protection programs. The Georgia Strait is one such site. Then he recommends the instigation of a research program into the biological effect of present and proposed refinery and petro-chemical plant operations. This is another absolute need. He recommends the development of a truly effective national system for locating, reporting and identifying the sources of oil pollution circumstances, and the development of a national contingency program. This is a very important item. Another recommendation concerns the development of national criteria for environmental protection, to be included in all oil leases, construction contracts and other agreements where the activity presents some probability of risk to the environment. The final recommendation is improvement of international co-ordination and communications.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member identify the document?


Randolph Harding: It is a brief prepared for the Canadian Wildlife Service by Richard E. Warner of Memorial University, Newfoundland.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is what I wanted the hon. member to say.


Randolph Harding: The hon. member from Newfoundland can be proud that this report originated from someone in his province. These recommendations are worthy of study by every member of this House. They should be taken to heart. I shall not say much more because several members wish to speak on this important resolution. I want to say, however, that I endorse 100 per cent the banning
3928	COMMONS
Oil Drilling in West Coast Waters of oil drilling in the Strait of Georgia. Action in this regard must come from the federal government.
I believe the provincial government should be notified immediately that we will not allow any other oil or gas exploration permits to be issued by the provincial authorities in this area. I believe this is a recommendation that must come from this House. Hon. members on the other side must see that such a message goes to the Premier of British Columbia. I agree that we should set up a maritime park in the Strait of Georgia. This is an excellent idea. Let us get on with such a project, in conjunction with banning oil drilling in the strait.
I am most happy that at long last members on all sides of the House are going after the people who have been responsible for the delay in setting up proper precautions against oil pollution in the waters of our nation.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) who has talked so much about the failure of provincial governments. In referring to pollution dangers from oil drilling, I am surprised that he did not refer to the NDP government of the province of Manitoba now headed by the man who formerly sat next to the hon. members in this House and whom he should know very well. The government of Manitoba has been asked to ban drilling on a certain lake. It has refused. I should like to quote briefly from the Winnipeg Free Press of Wednesday, February 18, in order to point out the type of thing the NDP government is doing and which this federal government should be preventing. I shall read from page 2:
The Turtle Mountain resource council has asked for a suspension of exploratory oil drilling at Whitewater Lake until an over-all development study of the area has been completed.
Whitewater Lake, about 10 miles west of this southwestern Manitoba town and 40 miles south of Brandon, is a major fall concentration ground for ducks and some geese.
A later story in the same paper refers to the provincial resources minister who like our own minister is called Green, but this time spelled without an "e". The story reads in part:
Resources Minister Sidney Green of Manitoba said Tuesday that on the basis of his department's studies, he is satisfied there is no danger of pollution from oil drilling at Whitewater Lake.
This is precisely the type of NDP attitude which is causing trouble so far as oil drilling

DEBATES	February 20, 1970
is concerned. If the hon. member for Kootenay West is serious about doing something about the problem of oil drilling in lakes, and so on, I suggest he should start by going to see the gentleman with whom he must be fairly close, the Premier of Manitoba, and point out to him-


An hon. Member:: Deal with the departments.


Randolph Harding: Let us have no double talk from you. Let us go after the departments.


David Anderson: The hon. member naturally wants me to talk about something else because he finds this embarrassing and difficult.


Randolph Harding: Talk about the resolution.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


David Anderson: I assure the hon. member it is embarrassing and difficult because, as I said, it is precisely this type of attitude by the provinces which causes problems in the fight against pollution. If the hon. member wishes us to act in British Columbia as he suggests, like a bull in a china shop, and have every issue on pollution go to the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds, that may be his idea of what we should do. I suggest we might do precisely the same in the case of Manitoba.
I suggest to him, further, that we will probably do a great deal more to solve the problem of pollution by dealing with the provincial premiers as reasonable men, and I am sure he would agree that Premier Schreyer and Premier Bennett are reasonable men. If he wishes to tackle pollution problems by confrontation with the provinces, I am glad his party is far from power. Let me add that this centralist NDP concept concerning the concentration of power in Ottawa is a traditional attitude of theirs, and is something about which they are not ashamed. They make it a perfectly open part of their platform. But let me point out to them that if they wish to go ahead with that type of approach, they will probably prevent any real solution of many of the problems of water pollution which involve both federal and provincial governments, even in the NDP governed province of Manitoba.
I wish to turn now to the specific question of oil drilling in British Columbia which, as I said, is not so very different from the case in Manitoba at Whitewater Lake. I should like to point out that the motion put forward by
February 20, 1970	COMMONS
the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) is precisely the type of motion which the House can go on record as approving. It is a resolution which might help to prevent damage which would be possible if drilling takes place in the Gulf of Georgia and in Manitoba, if the province of Manitoba does not change its mind about drilling there.
It is this careful, cautious approach to preserve the wildlife, to preserve the beauty and to preserve the heritage of Canada which I most heartily endorse. The same is true with respect to the north, if the hon. member for Kootenay West will allow me a few more words on some other area of Canada apart from the west coast. In the north, where again we do not know enough about the possible effects of drilling, we should also have this type of ban.
I should like to go on record as supporting most heartily the proposal of the Canadian Wildlife Federation which calls for a ban on drilling in the Arctic until such time as more is known about the potential damage to the ecology of the area as a result of such drilling. The same is true in British Columbia; we should do precisely the same thing in the Gulf of Georgia. Part of the Gulf of Georgia is in my riding and part is in the riding of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), who happens to be away this afternoon. It is an area of great beauty, a great potential tourist attraction; indeed, it already has a great tourist industry. It is an area which would be threatened very severely if drilling were permitted there.
It is perhaps not commonly known to members representing other parts of Canada that Vancouver Island and the west coast of Canada lie in the same general earthquake belt as Santa Barbara and San Francisco. This belt stretches to Alaska, and members will recall the disastrous earthquake which took place in Alaska not so long ago. What would happen if drilling took place in the Gulf of Georgia, even if precautions were taken, and an earthquake occurred and severed the wells? We would have the same problem as was experienced in Santa Barbara. Oil would seep up along the whole rift along the ocean floor, and there would be no possible way of stopping that seepage because the oil would be seeping, not from the well but from many different cracks in the surface of the ocean floor.
We would be faced with the same situation as in Santa Barbara where it was quite
DEBATES	3929
Oil Drilling in West Coast Waters impossible to properly clean up the oil. Mr. Speaker, at Santa Barbara seals were covered with oil. For a time they stayed alive and continued to swim, but slowly, one by one they died until finally in some areas they were wiped out entirely. The same was true of other wildlife, and indeed the same may be true of salmon and other fish. If it happened in Canada, in the Gulf of Georgia, instead of Canada's most beautiful recreational area, we would have a water desert and a water wasteland. The proposal of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra would prevent that type of disaster occurring. It is for this reason that I endorse it most heartily.
I also endorse most heartily the proposal that the whole area of the Gulf of Georgia become a national park. As hon. members have mentioned, there is no difficulty with the province over jurisdiction because this is a totally federal area. There is no question of adopting the bull in the china shop tactics proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West in this area, because the Gulf of Georgia is entirely a federal area. Therefore, the proposal that the entire sea bed, and the waters about the sea-bed right up to the high water mark of the Gulf of Georgia, become a national park and an area where we could have, for example, tourist submarines such as the Swiss have in Lake Geneva, where people can go down and see marine life in the water, is an excellent one. Perhaps if technology advances sufficiently every family will have its own little yellow submarine for this purpose.
This is the kind of area we must preserve for the future. We cannot allow this whole area, its present recreational value as well as its potential value, to be jeopardized by oil drilling. If, for example, we were told by geologists that the Gulf of Georgia was the richest and most profitable oil pool in the world, that it rivalled Kuwait or some of the Middle East kingdoms, we might be tempted to weigh the recreational value of the area against its value in oil. But every single piece of evidence we have indicates that it is not that type of situation at all, and that any oil that might be found in the Gulf of Georgia would be of marginal value and would not be great because evidently the geological formation is shallow. Thus, if we decided to drill we would be risking tremendous loss for a very hypothetical gain.
Mr. Speaker, this motion encompasses more than the Gulf of Georgia; it deals with the whole west coast of Canada. The proposal has
3930	COMMONS DEBATES	February 20, 1970
Oil Drilling in West Coast Waters great merit also in the area of Tofino and Long Beach, which was the scene of some drilling some two years ago by SEDCO and Shell. Fortunately, the wells turned out to be dry, if you can describe wells beneath the sea as being dry. In any event, there was no oil. They were capped, the capping was evidently satisfactory and thus they will not leak in the future.
Nevertheless, because that whole area is in an earthquake zone and, with the present technology, it is not possible to prevent similar disasters as that which occurred in the Santa Barbara channel from arising, I feel that the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra would be most applicable in that area as well. Recently we have stocked this area with the sea otter, which was the first reason for white men coming to the coast of British Columbia. My friend, the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Mar-chand), sitting behind me today, may doubt that the white man's arrival was a good thing, but that is not really relevant to this debate. At that time white men came to the coast for sea otter skins. They took them to China, sold them in Canton, and the result was the destruction of this animal on our coast.
We are fortunate that we have been able to restock the sea otter, which was done last year, and that this area is still wild and we can thus expect them to prosper. It is my hope that if we can prevent the careless exploitation, or even the most careful exploitation which involves a risk of destruction by oil leakage, we will preserve this area unspoiled for future generations who in turn will have some reason to give us thanks. Goodness knows, our generation has messed things up pretty badly in other areas.
I will turn now to the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra as well as the hon. member for Kootenay West regarding the responsibility of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. There is no doubt that outside the area which has been offered to the provincial government for their administration, he can completely ban offshore oil drilling. I might point out to hon. members opposite that it is precisely the efforts of members such as the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, and other members of the Liberal Party who are working hard on the minister in this regard, which is most likely to result in success.

[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Don't pollute the air.


David Anderson: Unfortunately the hon.
member from Kootenay West evidently has no influence with his former seatmate, the Premier of Manitoba. It is my view that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra will have more success with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I believe that events over the next few months and years will bear this out. In that area which is outside the jurisdiction of the province we will have no cause for concern, provided the minister heeds the advice of the Liberal backbenchers. We most sincerely and earnestly urge him to do this because we, the people who live on the west coast, do not regard oil drilling as anything equivalent in value to the way of life that we now enjoy on the west coast.
In the areas where the federal government his offered administrative control of drilling to the province, the province has the right to collect fees for oil drilling. But this does not permit it to say more than, "You can drill there, and another company can drill somewhere else." It allows the province to collect fees, but it is still in the hands of the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to decide whether or not drilling should take place and whether it is a safe and desirable thing from the geological and ecological points of view.
In certain areas the minister has total control, and in other areas he has control for pollution purposes. I hope he takes fully into account the views of those of us who live on the west coast. I repeat, we live there and we do not want to risk oil spillage and leakage that may result from drilling. I certainly hope he heeds our views.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I must say that the motion is very weak. It vacillates, it attempts to tread the middle of the road concerning one of the most serious problems facing Canada, namely, oil pollution of our waters. But it is topical because recently we had a disastrous accident in Nova Scotia where a tanker went aground and broke up.
I think the motion is wrong from a procedural point of view and a national point of view. The hon. member is asking the House to approve a motion the effect of which would be to ban oil drilling on the west coast, but apparently nothing is to be
February 20, 1970	COMMONS
done about drilling on the east coast or in Arctic waters. I am not at all in sympathy with that. Let me put it this way, Mr. Speaker: I agree with what the mover of the motion had to say, and there was some force in the speeches of those who supported his motion; but the fact of the matter is the motion is wishy-washy typical of somebody who wants to gently chide the government for its failure to institute some controls.
I go back to the Arrow incident. I suggest that we are no better prepared today than we were two weeks ago to cope with an incident such as this. Anyone who has seen the effects of this oil pollution cannot rest until some form of control is instituted, and arrangements set up to clean pollution caused by such accidents. There is no disagreement on that point.
The second thing which bothers me about the motion is that I detect in it something that is anti-commerce, anti-business. The suggestion is that big business does not care a damn about ecology. Acceptance of the motion by the House might be interpreted by people in business as an implication that they are not prepared themselves to take reasonable measures to combat pollution. As suggested by a previous speaker, the location referred to on the west coast is in close proximity to a major fault in the earth's crust. This fact may lend special concern to this motion, but it is wrong to suggest that major oil companies have not taken it into consideration.


Paul St. Pierre: Read about the Santa Barbara incident.


J. Michael Forrestall: We learned from the Santa Barbara incident. Surely the commercial interests on the west coast have taken this into consideration. If there is any danger, the fault does not lie with the industry concerned.
I agree with the motion that it is time controls were established. If danger exists because of the geological factor, it is up to the government to identify the critical areas of Canada and if necessary ban exploratory wells and indeed production wells.
For the reasons I have given, I cannot support this private member's notice of motion. On its face, the motion suggests that it is quite all right to drill wells anywhere else around the coast of Canada.


David Anderson: Can't you bring in your own motion for the east coast?
DEBATES	3931
Oil Drilling in West Coast Waters


J. Michael Forrestall: If the hon. member has something to say perhaps he can get on his feet another time. The point I am trying to make is that the west coast is the only part of Canada which needs protection.


David Anderson: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Those of us who have spoken in favour of this motion certainly did not suggest that there is no other area of Canada which may have similar difficulties. It is simply because we know this area better than any other that we spoke of the west coast. There is nothing to prevent the hon. member bringing in his own motion for the east coast.


An hon. Member:: Let the Liberals do it.


J. Michael Forrestall: Good God, you haven't done anything yet! Your delight, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), committed the most immoral act that has ever been perpetrated in this House when he permitted the tanker Arrow to break up in Chedabucto Bay and did not burn it. Don't talk to me about action and inaction. You don't care. You bring in a wishy-washy resolution and ask this House to approve it. God, it hasn't got the guts or the spine of a garter snake. I believe in its intent and purpose, but not in achieving these things in such a wishy-washy manner. Get on with the job and do something about it; then maybe you will get a little support from people who are concerned about what is going on in this country.


Mr. Osier:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he realize that if the people of Nova Scotia would buy good western oil, they could set it on fire, but they cannot burn the bunker oil that they bring in by ocean? It is quite impossible to set it on fire.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


J. Michael Forrestall: Why does the government not give us the right to buy Canadian oil? You people could recommend that; you support the government.


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


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take up much of the time of the House with some rather lugubrious comments, since I spoke at some length previously. I intend to speak briefly. The hon.
February 20, 1970

Oil Drilling in West Coast Waters member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deach-man) has told us about the situation in the Gulf of Georgia in a clear and accurate manner. I concur in what he said and I support the motion. I thank the House for its patience.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker-


James Aloysius McGrath: Here speaks a real expert on pollution.


Eugene Whelan: It may surprise the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) to know that I have visited the area. I wish to comment on something the previous speaker, the hon. member from Nova, said, namely, that the motion does not cover all parts of Canada and is not broad enough. In the area I come from, the government of Ontario-I need not remind hon. members of the political affiliation of that government-issues permits for oil drilling in the Great Lakes. Apparently it will continue issuing permits for oil drilling in Lake Erie.
Some of us are not too happy about this. One of the most amazing documents you could read is an IJC report concerning oil drilling operations in Lake Erie. About two years after I became a Member of Parliament I went to the township of Colchester bordering Lake Erie. There had been an oil leak, and all the beach fronting the lake had been fouled to such an extent that it could not be used by the people of the area.
I work with the Minister of Fisheries and Forestries (Mr. Davis) and I know how concerned he is about pollution. It is fair to say that all members of the House of Commons are concerned about pollution. Among other things the minister has said this, and I intend to put his remarks on record:
Think of an oil well in our shallow coastal waters just off the mouth of the Fraser River here in Vancouver. Think of an oil company striking an oil pool and then having its production get out of hand. Think of the damage to our local commercial and sports fisheries. Think of the damage to pleasure craft, beaches and recreation. Think of the downgrading of property values around the Gulf Islands and on Vancouver Island itself. Think even of the anguish of countless thousands of Canadians who might never see the oil scum but whose mental picture of the beauties of Georgia Strait would be shattered forever.

One of the earliest white settlers in my area was a French soldier whose diary before being translated into English was kept for many years in the museum at Fort Malden. In writing about the Detroit River he said there were so many fish there that he could walk across the river on the backs of fish of all species. He described the water-fowl of the area in glowing terms and said that the Detroit River and surrounding area was the most beautiful sight he had ever seen and was even more beautiful than the south coast of France.
We still have some water-fowl in the area, notwithstanding the pollution. Man has polluted the area, and man must clean it. We would not want the Georgia Strait to be polluted; no Member of Parliament would want that. I have been criticized in the past for not being more concerned about pollution. Pollution, it seems, is uppermost in the minds of Canadians no matter where they live. I can remember when I was reeve of my municipality trying to obtain a lagoon, a pollution control system for the region, only to be practically assassinated by innuendo. It was said the lagoon was not necessary.
That was ten years ago. Today, if you want to control pollution you are a hero; but it was not so ten years back, which is not so long ago. They did not think you were a saviour of mankind or of a country, as they do today, if you wanted to spend money on pollution control. Now they realize that pollution is terrible and is taking place in many parts of the country.
When we talk about oil drilling, whether it be on the west coast, the Arctic, the east coast or the Great Lakes, do hon. members realize how many square miles are involved? How big an area of our continental shelf are we talking about? In brief, our continental shelf covers a very large area of the east coast estimated to be approximately 430,000 square miles, extending seaward for 17 miles off Nova Scotia, 400 miles off Newfoundland and 75 miles near the eastern entrance to Hudson Strait. Off the west coast, the shelf is generally narrower but still extends seaward in places for 70 miles off the islet-fringed coast of British Columbia.
The area of the west coast shelf is estimated to be approximately 40,000 square miles. The submerged area in the Hudson Bay-Hud-son Strait region is estimated to be in the order of 400,000 square miles. The limits of
February 20, 1970	COMMONS
the shelf in the Arctic are not as well known as elsewhere, but the shelf has been estimated to be in the order of 500,000 square miles.


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.
DEBATES	3933
Oil Drilling in West Coast Waters The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order, please. The hour for the consideration of private members' business having expired, this House stands adjourned until Monday at two o'clock.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 23, 1970