1970-05-14

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting myself as an individual member of the House and all hon. members. My question of privilege refers to the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities here, freely and without fear of reprisals and vengeful acts of those in power. My question of privilege involves the action of persons responsible to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I had the opportunity to discuss the matter very briefly with the minister last evening, at which time he assured me that he was personally unaware of the circumstances which I disclosed to him. I must, of course, and willingly do so, accept the word of the minister that he had no personal knowledge of the events I am about to record. The minister must, however, accept full responsibility for the conduct and the acts of the employees of his department. It seems to me that any minister of the Crown is under an obligation to ensure that members of this House are not harassed in the performance of their duties.
The grounds upon which the particular question of privilege is based are these: Last fall, I made an application to purchase certain lands over which the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has jurisdiction. In due course, after the application had been referred to the department here in Ottawa I was informed that my application to purchase these lands was being rejected because I was a member of the House of Commons. Specifically, the departmental ruling was that, since I was a member of the House of Commons, section 19, subsection 1, of the Senate and House of Commons Act was applicable and therefore I could not purchase the Crown lands in question. Subsection 1 of section 19 of the Senate and House of Commons Act reads as follows:
In every contract, agreement or commission to be made, entered into or accepted by any person with
the government of Canada, or any of the departments or officers of the government of Canada, there shall be inserted an express condition, that no member of the House of Commons shall be admitted to any share or part of such contract, agreement or commission, or to any benefit to arise therefrom.
I draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that no mention is made of any prohibition of a member of the House of Commons from giving the benefit to the Crown of the amount of the purchase price of lands sold to him. All the subsection does is to stipulate that a clause must be inserted in agreements by any person with the government, or departments or officers of the government, such clause stipulating that no member of the House of Commons is entitled to share in any part, commission or benefit to arise therefrom.
In my submission it is an excessive exercise of power and therefore an abuse of power for the minister or any of the employees of his department to purport to apply that subsection of the Senate and House of Commons Act so as to deny to a member of this House the right to purchase Crown lands in the same way as any other citizen of this country. Even if that submission is not accepted, surely it is wrong and an abuse of power for an employee of the department to act as prosecutor, judge and jury and executioner at one and the same time. Surely the forum to decide the matter of the interpretation of such provision of the Senate and House of Commons Act is this House itself, the other place or the courts, and not a civil servant purporting to act as a judge or even more.
How many members of this House, while they were members, have purchased Crown lands or have leased such lands? I daresay a good many. How many are purchasing homes which have been financed with moneys made available by this Parliament to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the provisions of the National Housing Act? Does section 19(1) mean that we cannot, as members of the House of Commons, purchase Canada Savings Bonds under a contractual arrangement whereby payroll deductions are made? After all, the interest on such bonds is surely a benefit to the member. Does the section prohibit me from renting from the government a parking space at Department of


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: -since I have held a lease of this land throughout those years. The hon.
IMr. Nielsen.]
member says "hear, hear". If he were to look in his own closet he might find something of a similar nature to complain about. It also follows that, should such an interpretation be correct, that I am here now unlawfully, then likewise, in my submission, so is every other member of this House who finds himself in circumstances similar to those in any of the examples which I have described.
A substantial investment has been incurred over the approximately 18 years during which I have been the lessee of the lands in question, the bulk of which has gone into the construction and improvement of a summer cottage. This will be entirely lost to me without any reimbursement whatsoever if my lease is not renewed and the minister is permitted to dispose of the land to any other person, which he would be free to do in the absence of the renewal of my lease. In my submission, Section 19(1) was never meant to have that kind of consequence, and the minister is invading the rights of the members of this House, and in particular of myself, should he or his officials persist in adhering to the interpretation which is being placed on Section 19(1).
Because of the fundamental importance and far-reaching effect on all members of the House of the matters which I have raised, I propose to ask the House to refer the same to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. What the minister's officials are inferentially asserting in their interpretation of Section 19(1) is that I have been sitting in this House unlawfully for 12 years. That is a matter which compels determination by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Should the standing committee take the same view as to the interpretation of Section 19(1) as the minister's officials have taken, of course I would have to seek advice and seriously consider whether I would be obliged to resign my seat. I would accordingly move, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member cannot move his motion now. For the benefit of the Chair and the House, perhaps he might indicate what motion he would propose to the House if there should be a ruling that there is a prima facie case of privilege. It would be helpful if we were to know the motion which the hon. member intends to propose to the House.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the Chair should rule that there is a prima facie case of
May 14, 1970

privilege, it would be my intention to move the following motion:
That the question of privilege this day raised by the honourable member for the Yukon as to the right of a member of the House of Commons to purchase or lease lands held in the name of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth in the right of Canada without offending the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections and, in particular, that there be referred to the said committee the circumstances raised by the honourable member for the Yukon surrounding the rejection of an application made by him to purchase such lands in the Yukon and the rejection of an application made by him for the renewal of lease number 1329, and that there be further referred to the said committee the question as to whether an employee and/or employees of the government of Canada in making and applying such decisions is acting within the scope of his responsibilities: and that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development make no disposition of the lands affected by the said lease number 1329 until the report and recommendations of the said standing committee have been made to this House.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the suggestion that there has been deliberate harassment of the hon. gentleman, I think it would be very desirable if the House were in a position to make this reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. The provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act have been quite difficult for a number of members in a number of contexts. I agree that on behalf of the hon. member for Yukon and on behalf of other hon. members who may be affected by the section that it would be very desirable to have some clarification of the questions of law involved and some indication of how this and similar types of situations can be handled in the future. I agree with the hon. gentleman that surely there could not have been any intention on the part of Parliament in passing this section that it should apply in this way.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, if there were unanimous consent to accept the motion, Your Honour would not have to decide whether there is a prima facie case of privilege and the matter could be disposed of in that way.


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose I would then have to rule that there is a prima facie case. In any event, it seems there is an analogy to the situation raised by the hon. member for York-Simcoe some months ago when by unanimous consent it was agreed by hon. members that the circumstances raised by the hon. member should be studied by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. It
Business of the House
seems that this situation is related very closely to the one considered previously by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. In view of the fact that there is unanimous agreement, the motion proposed by the hon. member is deemed to have been adopted. The matter will be referred to the committee.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Seventh and eighth reports of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, in English and in French-Mr. H.-Pit Lessard (LaSalle).
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe) moved: that the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, presented to the House on Wednesday, May 6, 1970, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been further discussions about the work of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I believe it will be found that there is general agreement that Bill C-193, to amend the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, which was referred by the House after second reading to the said committee, should be withdrawn from that committee and referred to a committee of the whole House. If I am right in my assumption that this would be generally acceptable, perhaps the following could be made an order of the House. I move:
That Bill C-193, to amend the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, be withdrawn from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and referred to a Committee of the Whole House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Textile Industry


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In a few moments, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a document on the policy concerning textiles. Copies of this document were given to the opposition parties immediately after it was approved by the cabinet this morning.
During the few minutes at my disposal, I will try to sum up this document by quoting parts of it.
Mr. Speaker, this new policy is the result of a review carried out by my department with the assistance of all other interested government departments and in consultation with industry management, the unions and the provincial governments directly concerned.
The reasons for this review were threefold: Firstly, major and fundamental changes in world technology, production and market demand.
Secondly, present policy designed to cope with the problem of "low-cost" imports have become increasingly difficult to administer.
Thirdly, the textile companies, the unions and the provinces have expressed concern about the adequacy of the present policy in terms of future investments and employment in the industry and the impact of these on regional development.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I give the list of all factors which had to be considered and which were taken into account in the establishment of the new policy: the contribution which the textile and clothing industries can make to the Canadian economy as a whole; the need for employment stability; the regional and local implications on economic development; the interest of the consumer; our important export trade; and our international responsibilities.
I then analyse very briefly the state of the textile and clothing industries in Canada. Among other things I say: Under existing policies, as applied over the last 10 years or so, the Canadian textile and clothing industries have made significant adjustments to changing conditions and a considerable degree of modernization and restructuring has taken place.
Contrary to opinions sometimes expressed, these industries are as efficient technologically

May 14, 1970
as those of any other country including the "low-cost" producers. They successfully compete in the Canadian market over the whole range of their output with imports from Western Europe and the U.S.A. However, despite their high levels of efficiency and productivity, they are not able to compete on most standard-type products with imports from "low-cost" or "low-price" suppliers- Japan, the developing countries and statetrading economies-because of the wage differentials or export pricing policies of these countries.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)

I turn, then, to some comments on the world textile situation. I underline the fact that textiles and clothing have been major exceptions to the post-war pattern of significant tariff reduction and trade liberalization under GATT. World tariffs have remained relatively high. Many industrialized countries, particularly in Europe, unilaterally impose restrictions against Japan, developing countries and state-trading economies in connection with cotton, synthetic and wool textiles. This results in a double penalty on the Canadian economy. In the first place, the restrictions by other industrialized countries lead to increased pressures from low-cost competition on the relatively open Canadian market.
Canadians can hardly be accused of not having done their best to accommodate low-cost suppliers; the record is there to demonstrate this assertion-and you seem to agree, Mr. Speaker.
In the second place, other countries have severely limited the access of Canadian textile and clothing exports, and the attainment of full competitive potential in Canada has been limited by the slow progress in the liberalization of world trade in textiles.
These are the facts of the matter, and I hope all hon. members will bear them in mind when they criticize me in one way or another.
There were three possible options open. The first was what I call the open door policy.
I shall describe what it would do and what it would mean. Among other things it would mean that Canada would have decided unilaterally to forgo the possibility of developing and effective and viable textile industry because of the restrictive policies followed by other countries. I suggest we cannot afford such a luxury.

May 14, 1970

I go on, now, to describe the second option, what I call the policy of global containment or comprehensive restraint applied to the entry of low-cost textiles. I reject this also because of what it would mean in terms of consumer interest, the allocation of resources, Canada's trade and international obligations.
I am sorry to be so long, Mr. Speaker, but this is a difficult subject. I begin by describing the new policy on textiles, and it seems to me that I should quote the key paragraphs which deal with the philosophy and intent of the policy. The policy is intended to provide a sense of direction, a framework and conditions within which the textile and clothing industries can plan, invest and develop with a greater degree of confidence.
The purpose of this policy is to create conditions in which the Canadian textile and clothing industries continue to move progressively toward viable lines of production on an increasingly competitive basis internationally. However, Canada cannot assume alone the responsibilities for an unliberalized textile world. Because of the small domestic market, it is recognized that full competitiveness in many products may be achievable only if there is liberalization in the presently highly restrictive environment for world textile trade. While prospects for such liberalization do not appear promising at the present time, Canada is prepared to join with other countries in efforts to seek progress in this direction, including reduction of textile tariffs. In the meantime, the industries will be improving their competitiveness, and will be in a position to take better advantage of export opportunities as they arise.
While no advance commitment about special protection can be provided, the government will be prepared, in cases of serious injury or threat of injury from low-cost imports, to accord special protection-unilaterally when necessary-in order to facilitate adjustment to or strengthening of the more viable lines of production. Plans for such restructuring or strengthening will be a condition of the protection. The continued appropriateness of such protection will be kept under review.
There is no question of such measures of protection being applied to encourage the maintenance of lines of production which have no prospect of becoming viable in the years ahead. Progressively, and as access to world markets improves, the Canadian industry will be expected to complete more and more without special protection other than
Textile Industry
the tariff. The industry should, therefore, be planning progressively to phase out of the least competitive lines and to move into those with the highest competitive potential for the future.
The rest of my text deals with the different means that I have put in motion to help the industry do that. I describe the principal elements of the new textile policy.

First there are commercial policy measures. Under the heading "Tariff" I say this: "The government will give consideration to the rationalization of the textile tariff. However, both with respect to the proposed rationalization of the tariff and with respect to tariff reductions additional to these that may be involved in this rationalization, Canada will wish to enter into negotiations with our trading partners with the objective of obtaining improved access for Canadian textile products to major export markets, or related compensation".
Further on, under the heading-

I used to get more attention, Mr. Speaker, when I was talking wheat. I meant, of course, from the other side of the House.


Mr. Maclnnis:: You are getting a lot of attention now.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Under the second heading: "Anti-Dumping and Countervail", I say this: We shall strengthen the anti-dumping or countervail legislation so that they may be used more effectively.
Under the heading: "Customs Act and Statistics Act", I say that "improved measures will be introduced enabling the Government to obtain more current information on imports and to supplement and support the policing of the restraint measures of the supplying countries."
Finally, under the heading "Low-Cost Import Policy", the following paragraph is very important: Measures of protection against "low-cost" imports would be considered only when the following two conditions have been met: (i) formal determination of serious injury or the threat of injury; (ii) submission of appropriate plans by the companies concerned to undertake restructuring, phasing-out, or upgrading of production."
And finally, "it is proposed that a Textile Review Board reporting to the Minister of

May 14, 1970
Textile Industry
Industry, Trade and Commerce be established." Then, I give a list of the various duties of this Board.
I believe I should read the following paragraph:
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)

Low-cost measures would, wherever possible, be applied as at present by means of voluntary restraint agreements. However, in cases of undue delay or when the problem does not lend itself to a negotiated solution, unilateral measures such as global import quotas might be applied. In order that adequate instruments in addition to the import surtax be available for such action, it is proposed that the Export and Import Permits Act be amended to permit unilateral imposition of import licensing quotas in cases of serious injury or the threat of injuries.

I then mention, Mr. Speaker, some financial support measures.
"We are also proposing to amend the existing General Adjustment Assistance Program that is, the GAAP, with a view to broadening its coverage with respect to the textile and Clothing industries."
As regards the labour sector, under this same title of financial support, I state: "Under certain conditions, where the existing programs of the Department of Manpower and Immigration cannot meet adequately adjustment needs of the affected workers, additional financial assistance will be provided under a program to be developed by the Department of Labour."
I go on to say under the heading of "Technical and Promotional Support": "The government will establish Development and Productivity Centres for the textile and for the clothing industries. A fashion/design assistance program has already been announced." I may add that it was very well received.
And my remarks are drawing to a close, as they should. Pending the development of new mechanisms, including the Textile Review Board, and pending the passage of the proposed legislative amendments, all existing restraint arrangements will remain in full force and effect, and the government will use all the currently available instruments to begin the implementation of the new textile policy.
In this connection, I wish to inform the House that the government is giving urgent

consideration to the critical situation that has developed with respect to imports of shirts from low-cost suppliers.
Mr. Speaker, I shall say to conclude that the success of this policy will depend in large measure on the enterprise and sustained efforts of the industry and on the continued co-operation of management, workers and government. I am certain that this will be forthcoming.
Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41 (2), I wish to table copies in both official languages of a document about the textile policy.


Mr. Stanfield:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I rise not to complain about the length of the minister's statement in view of the importance of the subject; I simply wish to note that he complained he could not hold the attention of all his followers while he made this lengthy statement.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South Western Nova.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps some hon. members are wondering why I am acting as spokesman for my party and not the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard), since he has studied in depth the problem of textiles. It is merely because he was not here at noon to have a look at the statement. I hope that in taking his place, I shall prove equal to the situation.
For the last two years, several hon. members have urged the minister to make such a statement, but he always smiled while replying: "Soon". At last, he has made that statement.
The minister almost apologized to the House for making a long statement. I am told that it took seven years to come up with this 18-page review. He says that the program and the measures which he has described will be elaborated on in more detail by the departments concerned as soon as possible. Again we will have to wait before there is action. He talks about legislation. I would have hoped that the legislation he proposes would be brought before the House today. There is no hope of such legislation being put through in the present session. We will have to wait another two or three years before the legislation he speaks of becomes effective.
May 14, 1970

What do the words "as soon as possible" mean? The problem exists today and not two or three years from now. He is setting up a textile review board. Well, what do we need to review? He has been reviewing for the past seven years. What else is there to review? We know what the problem is. I had expected that today the minister would bring forward the legislation.
He cites the problem of international competition. I say to him that while we want to help and accommodate the low-cost countries, surely our prime interest must be in protecting the Canadian industry. Surely, therefore, we must achieve a balance. I do not think it would be wise to limit the Canadian market to Canadian producers but I would think we should have a more equitable balance than exists today. We are faced with a present problem, not one which should be left to another review board or to pending legislation which will not be implemented for a couple of years.
At least a statement has been made, but it contains a very impressive array of measures which really do not, as I have pointed out, seem to add up to very much when one examines their substance. The minister proposes to amend this and that bit of legislation. He talks about developing new inspection methods so that they can tell when people are violating our laws. He plans to ask foreign competitors to be nice to us. He plans to use the whole array of manpower retraining and relocation programs which have already proven to be so useless in doing anything for our unemployed. He does not seem to be prepared to do anything that would really help anybody. First, says this highly legalistic government, some laws have to be changed. Of course we on this side of the House will be blamed if we do not speed up the process of giving even more arbitrary powers to the cabinet to abuse or misuse.
The government really has plenty of legislative power. It has all the power in the world to detect dumped goods. All it has to do is open its eyes. Perhaps it should hire a few more eyes to place at our customs ports because a decent, properly trained, properly paid and properly treated staff of customs officers can do far more than a lot of legislative changes. Today's uproar at Windsor demonstrates the kind of fundamental problems that affect this government's administration. The Windsor problem typifies the situation. Yet all the government talk about doing to help the 200,000 people in the Canadian
Textile Industry
textile industry is the passage of more laws and the setting up of boards like this textile review board which on first examination might appear to be useful. They also talk about spending more money on design, fashions and foreign exhibitions.
One might ask where the jobs are to come from under this program. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that after we have waited seven years for the government to announce its policy I should be permitted to spend a few more minutes on this subject. I predict there will not be any new jobs. I suggest there will not be one solitary new job for anyone. One might ask why I say this. I say it because the minister's own statement indicates that more unemployment is expected-not less but more unemployment. Somebody said that Liberal times are hard times. I might agree.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mind you, the minister is always fancy in his declarations. He has talked about "some dislocation because of the implementation of this policy." Mr. Speaker, more unemployment is what it really means. The government expects that its policies, which are supposed to help the people of the country, will result in fewer jobs for our people.
It might not be so bad if the increased unemployment were going to take place in areas where there are labour shortages. But just the reverse will happen. The increased unemployment will be borne by the province of Quebec, by the minister's own province, by the depressed areas of eastern Ontario, and even by my own little riding which has a textile mill in it.
Surely none of us would wish to disagree with measures that would help the Canadian textile industry to modernize its operations. We need far more automation of our plants and rationalization of the lines of production. Indeed, it has been said that if in 1967 we had made all of our own textile products and had not imported cheap shirts and materials from low-cost labour countries, we would have provided work for 20,000 more persons.
We must do everything to encourage the creation of new Canadian jobs. The government has all the rhetoric, all the powers and all the legislation needed. It has all the fancy packaging, all the trimmings, but these policies simply have not worked.

Textile Industry
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I despair for the government a little bit. I despair every time it attempts to intervene in the economy because inevitably that means more people out of work, more people trained for the wrong things, more people everywhere paying higher prices for everything, and no one any better off. The electronics industry is another example, but I will conclude my statement because I know hon. members opposite are getting nervous.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I do wish that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce had had something of real substance to bring us today. Instead all he has done is to plunge us and thousands of Canadians into gloom over the government's unusual ability to mismanage our economy. New legislation, not already entered on the order paper, will take another two years to come.
May 14, 1970
depressed areas to exist. It is one of the few industries that require relatively small amounts of capital and that can be adjusted very rapidly to the needs of people. I suggest it is an important, interstitial industry for the development of this country, and it is vital that a policy be developed to ensure that the industry survives.
At page 10 of his statement, when the minister says that there is no advance commitment about special protection that can be provided, and when he talks about cases of serious injury, or threat of injury, what does he really mean? What are the criteria? When the minister talks about industries which have the prospect of being viable in the years ahead, which industries is he talking about, and which products? What sort of guidelines is he going to lay out for the textile industry so that it can do some planning for the future? There is no indication of this in the statement.
1English!


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard today the introduction of Jean-Luc's law, which is that the length of the statement is in inverse proportion to its contents. I think the minister would have liked to say something today but he really has not said anything. All he has done is draw together bits and pieces of what have been government policies of one type or of another and put them together into what he would like to term a bold new program for the future. But on the contrary, rather than offering some hope for the industry through this statement, there are some serious questions that arise from it.
First of all, whatever protection did exist in terms of understood quotas or tariffs apparently is going to be dropped in return for arbitrary decisions on the part of the minister and the government.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Oh, rot!


Max Saltsman: To begin with, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I sincerely hope the minister's program will work. I do not want to start off by saying it is not going to work. I hope it will, and to some extent it can work if the minister is determined to maintain the textile industry as an important industry in Canada.
I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the textile industry has a very special significance to this country. It is one of the few industries that enable small towns to continue on an economic base and that enable some of the

One might have forgiven the minister's lack of detail had the statement been drawn up over the weekend, or had the problem only come to his attention within the last few weeks, but this has been an on-going, serious problem in this country for many years. The minister has had six or seven years in which to prepare a policy, but there is nothing in his statement to offer us any encouragement to believe that there is some future for the textile industry under the kind of program that the government is introducing.
If we are going to negotiate a new energy policy one other thing which the statement points up, Mr. Speaker, is the need to negotiate an entire package of trade policies. The United States is quite willing to take our natural gas but not willing to take our textiles. I would suggest that serious consideration be given to not entering into negotiations on the export of raw materials, or the export of energy materials, until an entire package is worked out, until we see whether or not the United States market is going to continue to exclude our textiles.
As the minister has pointed out, the secondary textile industry of Canada is pretty efficient in the manufacturing of quality goods. I believe there are viable and very good opportunities for it provided the government is determined to ensure the survival of the textile industry. However, there has been no indication of this in the past. In effect, the government's past policy has been to have textile firms go broke and to do so quietly.
Those of us speaking today who are interested in this industry will be looking at gov-
May 14. 1970

ernment policies in the days ahead, because that is how we will really find out for certain whether the government is determined and is interested in the survival of the industry. We hope it will take its responsibilities seriously and will ensure that there is a good future for the textile industry of Canada.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, when reading the document the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) tabled in the House today, we could have thought, from the number of its pages, 19 exactly, that it contained all the solutions to the problems of the Canadian textile industry.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
This would have been a great opportunity for the minister, whose riding is in the Eastern Townships, one of the most important textile centres, to show not only our region and our province, but also the textile industry, that today he was presenting to the House the real solution to the problems that industry is facing.
I have been in the House for at least eight years and every week hon. members have reminded the minister or his predecessors of this problem. But on reading this document today, we must say that the solutions announced by the minister are very disappointing. The only thing new in it, with respect to the textile industry, is that a new Board is to be set up to review the problems in the textile industry whereas we have been waiting for eight years for a solution to the difficulties encountered by spinning mills which must close down in an increasing number and which can no longer compete with low-cost imports.
Mr. Speaker, the only solution the minister is going to offer today is the reorganization of the textile industry. But he knows only too well that in his very constituency such reorganization has taken place without doing away with the problem.
A big industry in Drummondville expanded itself and improved the operation of its board of directors, in Montreal, mainly an export firm. In spite of that, they are having now the same problems they had ten years ago.
The minister also proposes to create a Textile Review Board. Now, in this industry, development has been going on for 10 years. It has been able to adapt itself to the new fashions we have seen each year. The industry also succeeded in meeting technical progress. But a problem is still plaguing this
Fishing Vessels
industry, that of prices. The problem does not reside in new fashions nor in technique nor in the products themselves but in prices in relation to exports and imports.
Whatever the minister says, he who has always laughed at solutions advocated by the Creditistes, there is only one solution to the textile problem. A compensated discount should be granted to the Canadians producers so as to enable them to sell their production at the same price as imported goods. There is no other solution but to grant a tax exemption to the Canadian industries. I submit that we should give the Canadian consumers a compensated discount so they can buy textile products at the same price as imported products.
If we do not adopt that solution, the minister will in five or eight years from now set up a new commission to inquire into problems that will still be the same, as they were ten years ago.
This is a problem of imports and, as the government bleeds the textile industries not only through taxes but also through its import policy, these industries are cought in the cost-price squeeze, and the Creditiste solution is the only way out, and that solution is to give the textile industries the compensated discount in order to enable consumers to buy the Canadian production at the same price as imported goods.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



FISHERIES


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief statement this afternoon about financial assistance for the construction of new fishing vessels in this country. This program applies to all new vessels of more than 45 feet in length. It applies to fishing vessels built in Canadian yards and it will be of benefit to Canadian fishermen and Canadian boat builders alike.
This program, which has been developed in close co-operation with my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, replaces two existing programs. It replaces the so-called "wooden fishing vessel" program previously administered by the Department of Fisheries. It also replaces the "large steel trawler" program which, up until now, has

May 14, 1970
Fishing Vessels
been administered exclusively by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
From now on the Fisheries Development Service in the Department of Fisheries and Forestry will screen each application. Our officials in this department will have a voice in whether construction is to go ahead or not. Their knowledge as to modern fishing vessel designs and the development of the latest fishing techniques will be brought to bear in this way.
As hon. members know, we have licence limitation plans in effect in Canadian fisheries waters. The catching capacity is being tailored to fit the size of the resource on the one hand and that of raising the income of our individual fishermen on the other. Where there are too many boats already, applications for assistance will be turned down. Where new species are being developed or where new fishing techniques can really pay off, they have a good chance of being approved.
Old-fashioned terms such as "wooden fishing vessels" and "steel fishing vessels" will disappear from our regulations. No distinction will be made, from now on, as to materials used in construction. Fibreglass, aluminium and ferro-cement will be included along with wood and steel. Each new vessel will receive the same degree of financial assistance rather than different rates, depending mainly on size, as in the past.
The new rate of assistance will be 35 per cent. It will be 35 per cent for vessels in the 45 to 75-foot category. It will also be 35 per cent for larger vessels of more than 75 feet in length. In the smaller category the payment will be made directly to the vessel owners. In the larger, or 75-foot plus category, the payments will go directly to the shipyards.
Hon. members wishing to address questions to the government about the fisheries aspects of this program should continue to direct them to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. On the other hand, if they are concerned about shipyards they should address their inquiry to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
I expect that this integrated and tightly managed program of assistance for new fishing vessel construction will cost the federal treasury about $5 million this year. In a full year the total outlay by our two departments for all fishing vessels more than 45 feet in length may be in the order of $10 million.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, I am talking about a federal contribution to commercial fishing vessel construction of $10 million a

year. Together with loans from provincial fisheries loan boards and investments by private individuals and corporations, the total outlay may reach $30 million a year. Some 3,000 Canadians will be put to work in our shipyards. Many more will find work on these new vessels and in the fish processing plants in the 1970's.
In summary, we have a new program of assistance for fish boat construction. It will help to provide us with an up-to-date fleet, new capacity being added where the fish are known to be numerous and where new catching techniques can be employed with a view to increasing the income of the average fisherman. There will be greater stability in the boatbuilding end of the business and we will have a better and more productive fishery as well.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome this announcement by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, indicating a program of financial assistance for the construction of new fishing vessels in this country. This announcement has been a long time in coming, but it is better late than never.
We concur with the proposal that, as of today, any application for assistance in the construction of new ships over 45 feet in length must be made to the Fisheries Development Service which will screen each application. While this places considerable power in the hands of one minister, it does eliminate some of the confusion which has existed in the shipbuilding industry through the fragmentation of authority over shipbuilding between the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
We are also pleased to note that the discrimination which has been in effect for many years under the Liberal government against the builders of wooden fishing vessels has been lifted. This discrimination was unfair, this discrimination was unjust, and over the years has caused a considerable loss of wooden shipbuilding skills. We only hope this assistance has not been announced too late. The men engaged in wooden shipbuilding of necessity had to seek other employment. Like any other skill, unless it is exercised it is soon lost. We only hope that at this late date the government, realizing its policy was wrong, is not bringing in this form of assistance too late.
May 14. 1970

The rate of assistance will be 35 per cent for vessels in the 45 to 75-foot category and also 35 per cent for larger vessels of more than 75 feet, and in the smaller category I note that the payment will be made directly to the vessel owners, while in the larger category the payments will go directly to the shipyards.
It should be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that irrespective of the manner in which payment is made, that is, either to the vessel owners or the shipyards, this is not a subsidy to the owners; this is a subsidy to Canadian labour. At present, Canadian costs have escalated to such an extent that building costs in Canada are far out of line when compared with building costs in other parts of the world.
I think the House should be informed at a later date by the minister of the manner in which the 35 per cent assistance plan was established. It may well be that a 50 per cent assistance plan at this time, to equalize the costs in Canada vis-a-vis those in other countries, would be more in keeping with the actual costs to the new shipbuilder.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
The minister speaks about the cost of this plan to the government. Mr. Speaker, this expenditure will not represent a cost to the government but an investment. I point out that ships catch fish and fish are sold in foreign markets. Actually, 70 per cent of all the fish we catch in Canada is sold in the United States. This type of assistance to encourage new shipbuilding will assist our balance of payments and provide much needed employment. A ship is like a little city. It requires heat, light, water and everything that 20-odd men living together for two weeks need. This type of program, as we well know, stimulates the entire economy.
The minister states this is a new program. I take issue with that statement because it is not a new program. In fact, the government is adopting a program introduced by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) when he was Prime Minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It is a program that the Liberals, who came into office in 1963, allowed to wither on the vine. Many of our shipbuilding firms and shipping companies on the east coast were beginning to wonder whether they Would ever be in a position to modernize
Fishing Vessels
fishing fleets and remain competitive with the fleets of foreign countries.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that while this program will not be a cure for all our ills in the shipbuilding industry, it is a welcome step in the right direction. This plan should assist in the orderly replacement and modernization of our fleets and put new life into our shipyards. At least, this was the result when the program was implemented by the Progressive Conservative government when it was in office. I hope for a similar development under this particular program.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, to the extent that this announcement by the minister will improve the competitive position of Canadian fishermen and thereby enhance our competitive position in the markets of the world, it is welcome. I believe we should analyse the minister's statement from this point of view. I said once that I felt it made sense to meld the various programs of this kind which have been carried on in separate departments. It always seemed rather strange to me that a program of fishing vessel construction was being carried on without any direct authority on the part of the Department of Fisheries to control its development. Therefore I think that this is a move we can welcome.
One of the points the minister did not mention in his statement, and we would welcome some assurances on it, is whether the new program will be administered and developed in such a way as to ensure that vessels constructed under it will remain under Canadian ownership and continue to be engaged in Canadian fishing enterprises. We have had some rather sorry examples to the contrary in the past and want no repetition of them.
Having listened to the minister's statement, it appears to me that the immediate impact of the program on the Pacific Coast is not likely to be very great unless markets can be developed for species of fish we have not been engaged in catching in our offshore waters. If I understood the statement correctly, it will mean that under existing arrangements with respect to the licensing of salmon fishing vessels in British Columbia, no salmon fisherman will have any entitlement under it. This may be an unfair situation so far as the holders of class A licences are concerned, especially when they reauire renewal or improvement of the vessels they are now operating.
Another glaring omission in the whole picture so far as fishermen and their vessels are concerned, and which is not rectified by any-

May 14, 1970
Fishing Vessels
thing contained in the statement, is that no provision is made for bringing to an end a situation existing on the Pacific Coast under which fishermen have sales contracts which tie them to the fishing companies. I had hoped that the minister would have taken that aspect into consideration and developed this program in such a way as to permit fishermen who have been tied to fishing companies for a long time to become independent. At the moment the policies of the government permit the fishermen there no alternative methods of obtaining capital for their enterprises.
In closing, I should like to suggest to the minister that there ought to be developed a very tight set of rules and regulations for submitting applications so fishermen will know in advance exactly what their entitlement is under the program and so these matters will not be left entirely in the hands of some local administrator, without their having recourse to written documents which will enable fishermen to determine whether they are or are not entitled to the assistance this program is designed to provide.
Those are the principal comments I wish to make. Having listened to the minister's announcement today I repeat that, to the extent it improves the ability of Canadian fishermen to fish well, it is a welcome change of policy.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome any measure designed to help the fishing industry. In my opinion, all members unanimously agree to any improvement in the field of fisheries.
The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) said a moment ago-

Where there are too many boats already, applications for assistance will be turned down. Where new species are being developed or where new fishing techniques can really pay off, they have a good chance of being approved.

And the minister ended his statement by saying:

There will be greater stability in the boat building end of the business and we will have a better and more productive fishery as well.

Even if the department is about to provide assistance at the rate of 35 per cent for the building of a few fishing vessels, I do not

believe this will facilitate the sale of one more sardine in Canada.
Fishermen are having trouble selling their production. It is not by doubling the number of boats or by making their boats bigger that we will help them sell their products. The minister is perfectly aware that already in some regions there are too many fishing boats. The fishermen's problem is not one of boats but of marketing.
Canadian fishermen are asking for a national policy to promote a better productivity and especially a better distribution of their production. Even if the productivity is improved and the number of boats is doubled, their income will not increase if the production is not sold.
Although this bill is supposed to help fishermen, the problem of marketing in Canada must be considered. When the products are sold, the minister could then suggest ways to increase the Canadian production and to enable the fishermen to compete on the international market while controlling the domestic market. If the fishermen were sure to sell their production, the minister would not have to deal with the problem of boats, because the fishermen would look after that.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



AGRICULTURE


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as indicated in previous discussions in the House, I now wish to announce the following restrictions, effective today, on the registration and sale of 2-4-5T weed killers. Registrations for 2-4-5T weed killers sold for use around homes, on lawns and recreational areas are cancelled as of today. This means that such products may no longer be sold to the public.
Registrants have also been notified to discontinue the distribution of 2-4-5T for use on cereal crops where it has been used on a limited acreage for the control of specific weeds that are resistant to 2-4D. This was the only registered use involving food crops. The use of 2-4-5T for vegetation and brush control on rights-of-way, rangeland and other similar areas is not regarded as presenting a significant hazard. Registrations are being continued for these purposes.
This action follows a study of recently completed experiments which showed that
May 14, 1970

2-4-5T formulations contain traces of a highly active chemical which produce abnormalities in the young of treated laboratory rats and mice. The Food and Drug Directorate, Department of National Health and Welfare, which advises the Department of Agriculture on health aspects of pesticides regulated under the Pest Control Products Act, has concluded that the use of 2-4-5T around the home, in recreational areas, and around water and food crops could constitute a significant hazard to health.
There is no evidence suggesting that the regular use of 2-4-5T since 1948, when the weed killer was introduced, has caused adverse effects in man or animals. Also, no effects have been revealed by calving records for herds from ranges treated with 2-4-5T. However, in view of the potential seriousness of the effects demonstrated in laboratory animals, and the availability of alternative materials, it is considered prudent to minimize possible exposure of women in the childbearing years by withdrawing 2-4-5T formulations from use around homes, aquatic and recreational areas, as well as on food crops.
The members of the general public possessing 2-4-5T formulations could dispose of them with their regular garbage. 2-4-5T degrades in moist conditions and in the soil quite readily, and should not cause any problems when incorporated into municipal garbage dumps. Labels of all pesticides list the active ingredients and these will show 2-4-5T if present.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Baffle River):: Mr. Speaker, all members of this House welcome any move by the government which will lessen the degree of pollution which constitutes one of the major hazards to civilization today. However, a word of caution must be voiced because, in view of the current publicity that pollution is receiving, we could well be stampeded into withdrawing agricultural chemicals from the market which, while doing a small amount of harm, do a great amount of good.
I believe anyone who is familiar with the agricultural industry can easily understand that if agricultural chemicals were withdrawn entirely from the market, Canadian food production could be cut by half or one-third. The results would be equally as disastrous as the small degree of pollution that these chemicals create. It is clearly a fine line to tread. However, with these reservations, I commend the minister on his statement.
Herbicide Restrictions


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), is not in the House today because he raised this matter on April 21 and 27, and on May 12. I say on his behalf, and on behalf of my colleagues, that we welcome the statement of the minister concerning the additional restrictions that have been applied to this chemical.
There are some contradictions in the statement. This is a further example of a government that continues to lock the barn door not only after the horses have gone but also the cows, pigs and chickens. The announcement points out a number of areas in which we are deficient in development, use and handling of pesticides and herbicides. In addition to these restrictions, the minister, his department and other departments concerned must prevent manufacturers from marketing such substances until after the most thorough research on the effect of these substances, no matter how long it takes.
The pesticide and herbicide industry is allowed to continue developing new products. For all we know, another product could be announced tomorrow which would be marketed after only limited research. This research is conducted to the degree that it benefits the manufacturer. The public interest is thought of last. For far too long, developers have been allowed to market products after a minimum amount of research. We still do not know enough about the long-term effects of this substance and many others. It is incumbent upon the departments of government concerned to carry out this research and to require manufacturers to do similar research before a product is marketed.
As I have already said, there are contradictions in the statement. One contradiction is that the minister stated this weed killer caused no adverse effects in man or animals, but in the next paragraph he stated there were adverse effects on the mice tested in laboratories. I thought that mice were animals. According to the Department of Agriculture, they are not.
One point in the minister's statement which causes a great deal of concern is that members of the public possessing 2-4-5T can dispose of it in their regular garbage. When the government banned the further use of DDT, the government was trying to peddle its stocks to the public by calling for tenders until persuaded to withdraw them. The public is now being told they can throw this stuff out in their garbage. This is a most sloppy,

May 14, 1970
Herbicide Restrictions
haphazard and potentially dangerous way of disposing of a product which the minister says could be hazardous. If it were not a hazardous product, the minister would not be announcing restrictions.
I suggest that this, and other similar products, should be collected by the government and returned to the manufacturer. The manufacturer should be responsible for breaking down and disposing of that material in a harmless manner. Failing that, the government should be responsible for the disposal of such materials on which restrictions have been placed. High pressure, high temperature furnaces have been developed which could burn such substances. The residue is not toxic and has no harmful effects. The Department of Agriculture and other departments should acquire these facilities. The department should gather up any restricted, hazardous products, break them down and dispose of them in a manner that is not dangerous. The minister suggests they can be thrown in garbage dumps, but the public, particularly children, are prone to frequent these places at times. I suggest this constitutes an additional possible hazard.
What long term or even short term effects does this product have upon watersheds and tables? There are no restrictions on the use of this material on pastures and rights-of-way. We do not know what effect this substance has on water. It seems that there has been insufficient research and investigation in this area. Even though it is a fast dissipating herbicide, our knowledge of its effects is very insufficient. What effect will it have on our bird life? After use, the smell of this material lingers for hours. We do not know what effect it will have on bird life. I ask the minister to urge the officials in his and other departments to continue their investigations. It may well be that the product should be completely restricted and prohibited from manufacture.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I do not often praise the minister and I hope he does not hold it against me. In any event, 1 feel he must be commended, at least by me, for the statement he just made in the House. In fact, although the restrictions announced today are likely to annoy the farmers who thought that 2,4,5-T was an excellent weed killer, nevertheless 1 have faith in the scientists who conducted the experiments with a view to showing that in the long run this product may prove harmful to the population.

I agree that it is advisable to take the necessary steps to prevent an even greater danger. The Food and Drug Directorate of the Department of National Health and Social Welfare has certainly given wise counsel to the minister in recommending restrictions on the sale of 2,4,5-T.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



COMMUNICATIONS


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Posimaster General and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, on behalf of the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Communications, in the two official languages the third Canada-Sweden working paper on direct broadcast satellites which was prepared for the United Nations committee on the peaceful use of outer space.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minister of National Health and Welfare, I would like to table copies in French and English of the interim report of the special advisory committee on oral contraceptives.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Haslings):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43. I base my argument in favour of unanimous consent on the following facts.
During April, unemployment in Canada increased from 5.1 per cent to 5.6 per cent of the work force, seasonally adjusted. I am using the figures which the government has steadfastly maintained during the past few months to be the only figures which give a true picture of the employment situation in Canada. This 10 per cent worsening of the
May 14, 1970	COMMONS
employment situation during the month clearly shows the disastrous effects on economic activity and employment in Canada of the government's tight money policy-a policy which hon. gentlemen opposite are pursuing with complete disregard for the despair, misery and privation it is bringing to over half a million unemployed Canadians and their families.
Accordingly, I ask leave to move the following motion under the terms of Standing Order 43:
That this House, comprising the elected representatives of all the people of Canada, consider the need to discontinue the government's policy of trying to combat inflation by deliberately increasing unemployment, the result of which has been to permit inflation to increase at an annual rate of 7.2 per cent a year during April, and to replace it with a policy designed to stimulate economic activity and thereby restore employment to a satisfactory level.


Some hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: I would further point out-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that under the terms of Standing Order 43 he cannot engage in debate. He is limited to explaining briefly, for the guidance of the Chair and presumably for the guidance of the House, why there is urgency attaching to the proposed motion. In the circumstances, perhaps I should inquire at this time whether there is unanimous agreement under the terms of the Standing Order.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear yeas and nays. Therefore, the motion cannot be put.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the government has collected every announcement of policy which could be collected over the past few weeks to try to snow under these important facts, but they cry out too loudly to be hidden.


Some hon. Members:: Order.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 LABOUR CONDITIONS UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in the hope that Your
DEBATES	6963
Inquiries of the Ministry Honour will prove more receptive than the government, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for York South, (Mr. Lewis) to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the release this morning by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics showing 544,000 Canadians unemployed in mid-April-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -and reports from all parts of Canada indicating that a large majority of the approximately 650,000 students seeking summer jobs this year will not find employment, which means that about one million Canadians are or will soon be out of work.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has served the required notice of his intention to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26. As hon. members know, similar motions have been proposed from time to time in relation to the monthly reports of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Indeed, on Thursday April 16 last the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands himself proposed a similar motion also based on DBS reports released on that day.
I indicated on that occasion that, in my opinion, Standing Order 26 could not be invoked in such circumstances. The reasons outlined by the Chair in support of that ruling would apply to the present case. Insofar as the reference to the problem of student employment during the summer months is concerned, it is hardly necessary for me to remind hon. members that a debate on this very subject took place on Friday last, when a supply motion was presented to the House by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.
I must, therefore, come to the conclusion that the hon. member's motion cannot be put to the House under the provisions of Standing Order 26.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Acting
May 14, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister whether he can announce any specific adjustments in the economic policies of the government designed to offset the very serious unemployment figures which were announced today. I put this question to him now, especially in the light of the very large numbers of young Canadians who are entering the work force at the present time.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as you would be the first to recognize, it is extremely difficult for a minister, during the question period, to make the sort of statement for which the Leader of the Opposition is asking. I say this particularly in the light of the fact that tomorrow the hon. gentleman's party has asked for a debate on this subject, at which time the ministers concerned can deal at length and in sufficient detail with this question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think it is important that the minister answer a question related to government policy, Mr. Speaker. He is not entitled to assume what the subject of the opposition day tomorrow will be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister specifically whether it is the policy of the government that this cruel level of unemployment is essential to an effective fight against inflation.


Mitchell William Sharp: I did not make my assumption without having reason to believe that the motion had been laid on the table in connection with the subject to be debated tomorrow. I think that would be a good time at which to have a full discussion of the subject, one which I believe to be worthy of full consideration in this House. I think it ought to be dealt with at that time and not by way of questions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No doubt it is very good of the Acting Prime Minister to tell us how we should conduct ourselves in the opposition, and what questions we should ask. I would ask the hon. gentleman specifically-and I hope I shall get an answer this time-whether in view of these unemployment figures, and in view of the deteriorating business outlook, and in view of the disappointing number of housing starts in the first four months of the year, it is the opinion of the government that unemployment must be increased still further. Specifically, I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government still proposes to introduce the consumer credit regulations for this purpose.
[Mr. Stanfield.!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to these questions because I expect that if, as I believe, the hon. gentleman's party proceeds with this motion tomorrow, he will reply. I believe that these are important questions. I am not in any way saying that the subject of unemployment is not a serious one; but I do feel quite seriously that it could not be dealt with adequately at question time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the figures just released indicate that in mid-April this year there were 112,000 more unemployed than at mid-April last year, and in view of the fact that this increase is particularly predominant among young people, and that the number of persons unemployed for a length of time over three months, even over six months, has increased dramatically, can the Acting Prime Minister indicate to the House whether the government intends to follow the example of the federal reserve board of the United States, which since mid-March has been moderately increasing the money supply so as to give some stimulus to the economy and provide a greater measure of employment?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there have been some changes, as was indicated in the House the other day, in monetary policy. There has been some slight easing. It is also noteworthy that the Bank of Canada and the government had to take measures to offset the very great increase in liquidity which arose from the increase in reserves. This is an indication of the very great confidence that the world has in economic conditions in Canada and in the future of this country.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that on the domestic scene retail sales have gone down by $2 billion in the month of March, and that housing starts are down from 250,000 to 168,000, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government is giving any thought to creating employment and stimulating economic growth by means of removing the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, and having the Minister of Finance meet with the banks and lending institutions to see whether interest rates on mortgages can be lowered?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think one of the interesting developments in the housing situa-
May 14, 1970

tion which will, I am sure, appeal to the hon. gentleman is that there has been a very substantial increase in the number of low-income family houses. There has been a 25 per cent increase in this field. The measures that were taken recently by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have not worked their way through the system, but I reaffirm what I said yesterday, that we are confident we will reach our objectives.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister, if the indication is correct that he has persuaded us to place a motion on the Order Paper for tomorrow, whether he would be prepared to be present tomorrow to give his view concerning a projection in respect of housing starts for 1970 which he refused to give my friend the Leader of the Opposition?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to taking part in the debate tomorrow. If I have an opportunity I may do so. I would remind hon. members that the government did set an objective of one million houses over a five-year period. In the first year, 219,000 were built. I would guess that by the end of the second year we will be right on target and will probably build more than one million houses in the five year period. I think this is an excellent accomplishment and far better than was ever done when the party of my hon. friend was in office.
[Translation}



UNEMPLOYMENT-APPLICATION OF MEASURES PROPOSED BY QUEBEC PRIME MINISTER

Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Since 40 per cent of Canadian unemployed are found in the province of Quebec, could the Secretary of State of External Affairs consult the new Quebec premier, in order to implement throughout the country the measures suggested by the latter to create 100,000 new jobs in Quebec, and thus reduce the number of unemployed?
[English}


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that we will be very happy to meet with the new Prime Minister of Quebec, and to assist him in achieving his objectives, too.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he really believes that the inflow of money into Canada, whether speculative or for any other reason, is of any comfort to the people of this country who are out of work?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REPRESENTATIONS BY P.E.I. WELFARE DEPARTMENT ON EFFECT OF ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMS

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is
addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. Will the government give serious consideration to the brief made public yesterday from the welfare department of Prince Edward Island asking the government to review its antiinflation programs on the ground that the group they hit hardest is the poor?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker; the government gives the most serious consideration to representations of this kind, including those from the opposition. I would not want to create any impression that the government does not take this problem very seriously. As my colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has said, we are doing everything we possibly can to relieve the situation but we also have a responsibility to see that we do not once again start the sort of inflationary pressure that can produce greater unemployment than we are now suffering.



SUMMER EMPLOYMENT FOR STUDENTS

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I have been in western Canada visiting universities and campuses and I find that only 12 per cent of the student body who need jobs this summer have any immediate hope, which has given rise to a feeling of deep fear and frustration on their part. I know that the minister is doing everything he can, but can he give some hope to these students that jobs for them will be made available? In particular, since jobs are not available in the farming areas of western Canada, I wonder whether provision could be made for transportation of students to other provinces where jobs can be made available?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I

Inquiries of the Ministry appreciate the concern of the right hon. gentleman and his interest in bringing this matter to the attention of the House again. We have launched a summer employment program for students, and these students are just coming on to the labour market in large numbers. The federal government has undertaken to employ about 11,500 students for this summer. That is about 5 or 6 per cent of the federal government total labour force.
At the same time, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, through its "Operation Placement" is attempting to encourage all employers throughout Canada to employ students to the extent of 5 per cent of their labour forces. So if the target of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the provincial governments and the federal government is reached, it will be a reasonably successful season.
At the moment, I think the most urgent matter is to encourage employers throughout Canada to respond to the appeal of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to take on summer students for temporary employment. There is no doubt that the situation will be tougher this summer than it was last year, when we succeeded in taking on about 90 per cent of those who sought work.
I do not share the view expressed by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands that the majority of the students will be unsuccessful in finding work this summer.
I think we will be more successful than that.
I am sure that more than 12 per cent, more than half, will be successful; and I hope that with the co-operation of the private sector we can do as well as we did last year. But as I say, the job is going to be a lot tougher.


John George Diefenbaker: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned 12 per cent, and it is interesting that the minister said that 5 per cent will be employed by the government of Canada and that he hopes an additional 5 per cent will be employed by private interests. This figure of 12 per cent is well based. I wish the minister would look into this matter again, because the situation is serious. Young men and women are graduating from university today or are ending their terms, and the promise that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce will do something is scarcely anything but an abdication of government responsibility.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the right hon. gentleman, I am sure

DEBATES	May 14, 1970
unintentionally, misunderstood my use of the expression "5 per cent". It is not 5 per cent of the total number of students seeking employment, but 5 per cent of the total federal employment service, or the total number employed by the federal service. This year we are employing 11,365 students. This represents an increase of 27 per cent in student employment over the last two years. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is asking its members to employ a number of students equivalent to 5 per cent of their normal work force. If this is done, very few students will be without work this summer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister having earned the applause of those sitting around him, may I ask him, on the basis of what has been projected for this summer, how many students will get jobs? He must have some projection or some realization of what private industry will take.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to make this projection at the moment. The universities are just closing. The students are just coming on to the labour market. I do believe, however, it is irresponsible to suggest that only 12 per cent of those seeking work will obtain it and it is equally irresponsible to say that a majority of students seeking work will not obtain jobs. That is a pretty bleak pronouncement to be coming from the House of Commons when the private sector and government are attempting to create a favourable market for students.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman seeks the floor for a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to be very clear. I said that at the present time, in respect of the western universities, only 12 per cent of the students now have any prospect of employment according to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Now that we understand the right hon. gentleman and the minister, we might go on to another supplementary.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
May 14, 1970	COMMONS
Does he intend to replace the old winter works program with a summer works program under which university graduates would be given the job of pruning the trees growing along Canada's highways?



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, this will be a complete reversal. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether, in the interest of national unity and government co-operation at all levels as well as in the light of the proven inability of the man to administer and his disgraceful remarks of last evening, the government will take immediate action to rid the National Capital Commission of its chairman, Mr. Fullerton.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as a result of some references to the remarks made by Mr. Fullerton, I spoke to a number of members who were present when these remarks were made. They said the report of the remarks made by Mr. Fullerton completely misrepresented his position. He is very strongly in favour of national unity. I say that of those who were there and who heard the speech, most of them were favourably impressed and did not believe he did any damage to national unity.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Acting Prime Minister if the chairman of the National Capital Commission is employed on a full time or a part time basis.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No one knows.


Malcolm MacInnis: Apparently the Acting Prime Minister is not paying attention.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has asked his question. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Malcolm MacInnis: I will use a point of order to put my question again. I will ask the Acting Prime Minister again-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member wishes to ask a supplementary, he must ask for the floor for that purpose.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I will follow on with the point of order and indicate to the Acting Prime Minister, to the House and to you, sir, that the man who is today in charge
DEBATES	6967
Inquiries of the Ministry of the National Capital Commission has already proven himself incapable and incompetent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Malcolm MacInnis: -and should be fired if he is employed on a part-time basis.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because of the shout from the government side which indicated that my reference to Mr. Fullerton was shameful. I have evidence to back me up when I say that they appointed this man chairman of another board and he was a complete failure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question of privilege.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Vancouver-Kingsway.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Now that the long delayed report on oral contraceptives has been made available to Parliament, the press, the public, physicians and pregnant women, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government has yet achieved a policy for birth control and family planning in Canada and abroad through the United Nations.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is inviting a member of the government to make a statement of a very general nature, it would seem to me. I would think this should be done on motions rather than at this time.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, if it is impossible to have a yes or no answer, as I had hoped, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister if he would be willing next week to make a
May 14, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry statement on motions concerning government Mr. Speaker: It seems to me this question policy in respect of family planning at home was asked yesterday of the Acting Prime and abroad?	Minister.


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


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the Acting Prime Minister was a little overwhelmed. He was rising to answer and I think, with all due deference, that you acted a little hastily in preventing him answering.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AGRICULTURE


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
According to reports from New Zealand, the Prime Minister would have said in that country that he intended to cancel the subsidies granted to Canadian dairy producers so that New Zealand might export to Canada its butter, cheese and dairy surplus. Is this the new government policy? Is the Minister of Agriculture ready to deny or to confirm this piece of news?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, I would question the interpretation of what the Prime Minister said in New Zealand.



BROADCASTING


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was enunciating government policy in Colorado the other day when he said the following words:
We see a manifestation of our determination for our own identity in our insistence, in a growing degree, on Canadian content in our radio and television programming.
We have not gone to the extent of jamming the airwaves along the border but who knows, even this might come.


An hon. Member:: This question was asked yesterday.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have checked Hansard and the question was not asked in those specific terms. The reason I am asking it this afternoon is that a similar question was asked in the Broadcasting Committee last week and the members were subjected to abuse because it was said to be a preposterous notion. This is why I want confirmation from the government at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously, the hon. member knows he cannot ask the minister responsible for a department whether a statement made outside the House represents government policy. The question can be asked only of the Acting Prime Minister or of the Prime Minister. It was my impression that this question was asked before. The hon. gentleman tells me it was not. I accept his word. It is in this way that the question could be asked of the Acting Prime Minister, but certainly not of the Secretary of State.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Perhaps I could rephrase the question with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and ask whether the Acting Prime Minister, or the minister responsible-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon
member cannot do that. He has asked the question. It can only be accepted by the Acting Prime Minister. It cannot also be directed to the minister. I have made a ruling on this and the hon. member has to accept it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Then, I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know exactly what it is that the hon. member wants to know. I did answer a question yesterday and I said that since the minister who made the speech said "who knows," then obviously it could not be government policy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why?


George Harris Hees: That proves it is government policy.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister, and in doing so
May 14, 1970	COMMONS
may I congratulate the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on the very forthright and courageous speech that he made at Denver-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has the floor for the purpose of asking a question, not for the purpose of distributing bouquets.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Therefore, 1 want to ask the Acting Prime Minister if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was stating government policy when he outlined his views respecting the ownership and development of Canadian resources?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the question should be a little more specific than that. To ask whether the government, whether the Prime Minister had-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No.


Mitchell William Sharp: If he is asking me whether the Prime Minister or I read the minister's speech before he made it, the answer is no. If there is some specific point in the speech, some reference he would like to make, I will try to answer the question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, if I remember correctly there were about 35 or 40 pages in the speech. May I ask whether the policy which the minister outlined, suggesting that there should be Canadian ownership and development of Canadian resources, was a statement of government policy? I am asking the Acting Prime Minister.


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, you can see the difficulty in which I am placed. The hon. member is paraphrasing the minister. If he could just quote-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are
obviously-


Mr. Greene:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as my speech has been referred to by the hon. member, I might indicate what I did say in the speech. I said that we were anxious to have a continuing and growing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the situation would be helped very much by the minister making a statement. I am not sure he can do this on a question of privilege.
DEBATES	6969
Inquiries of the Ministry


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the minister resume his seat?


John James Greene: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the minister kindly resume his seat? I have made my ruling on the first question of privilege. The minister may have a second one, to which I will listen.


John James Greene: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that inasmuch as the hon. member did advert to the alleged content of my speech, in a very few words I should have the opportunity to clarify that very point-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is the very point I was trying to make. If the minister would refer to the precedents and the numerous citations, he can only come to the conclusion that this cannot be raised as a question of privilege. There could be a lengthy argument, between hon. members and ministers about what was said and what was not said, whether it was government policy or not. I suggest that we give other hon. members, who are anxiously awaiting an opportunity to participate in the question period which is quickly drawing to a close, an opportunity to ask their questions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a short supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a short supplementary, we will have a short question of privilege and a short point of order and the question period will be over. I suggest that we try to get on to another subject.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House make it very clear that the Acting Prime Minister can be asked whether the statement of the minister is government policy. Now, if the Acting Prime Minister is saying that he has not read the speech and therefore is not prepared to answer, then I will be perfectly satisfied. But for the Acting Prime Minister to evade the question by saying we have to be specific in referring to a speech that covered 35 or 40 pages is a complete equivocation. I submit that the Acting Prime Minister should either
May 14, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry say he is prepared to give an answer to the House, or the minister himself will make a statement on motions.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member-and again we do not appear to be making much headway-that according to the rules the minister does not have to answer the question at all. Perhaps that is not a very good policy to follow, but it is not a point of order to say the question has not been answered, or has not been answered to the satisfaction of the member who asked it.



1976 SUMMER OLYMPICS-FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE


Mr. Roch LaSalle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Since some hon. members have showing some concern about the federal government share in the expenditures involved in the Summer Olympic Games that will be held in Montreal in 1976 and since it has been alleged that the Prime Minister has informed the city of Montreal authorities that no subsidy would be granted, would the Acting Prime Minister say when the government has sent to the city of Montreal confirmation of this decision and to whom precisely it has been directed?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wrote to the Mayor of Montreal on May 21, 1969, informing him of the Canadian government's position.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the brief the city of Montreal presented to the International Olympic Association, which led to the awarding of the games to Montreal, stated there would be $120 million of federal money available to the city from CMHC to build housing for officials and athletes, would the acting minister responsible for housing indicate whether this money indeed has been requested by the city of Montreal, and whether indeed there have been any negotiations with the city on this particular sum of money?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my recollection

is that several weeks ago the minister responsible for housing answered in the negative to both of those questions. I will make an inquiry to see if there is a change in that situation.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Could he inform the House about the correspondence that has been exchanged between the federal government and the city of Montreal on this subject?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in principle I would be prepared to do that. I would think it would be courteous to ask the Mayor of Montreal for his consent, but in principle I think we would be able to get his consent and would be prepared to table it.



WESTERN CANADA TRAINING CAMPS FOR 1976 OLYMPIC TRIALS

Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if the government would consider setting up summer training camps for promising Olympic calibre athletes in western Canada, and holding the 1976 Olympic trials in Vancouver?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Olympic trials and similar activities are carried on by the sports organizations themselves, sometimes supported by the federal government. However, I will see that this suggestion is brought to the attention of the responsible minister to see if it could be incorporated in any arrangements in the coming years.


Barnett Jerome Danson: A supplementary question. Would the Acting Prime Minister give the same consideration to holding the winter Olympic trials at Banff, Lake Louise or Garibaldi?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if the Minister of Supply and
May 14, 1970	COMMONS
Services, when speaking in Lethbridge where he recommended that there be a union of the three prairie provinces under one administration, was announcing government policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that this question was asked before, although I may be wrong. Sometimes I feel that many questions have been asked already but from day to day it is very difficult to keep track of all of them in my memory. However, it is my impression that the question was asked.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Arnold Peiers (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in his normal capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the objections of the minister and the repugnance of the Canadian people to the two-month invasion of Cambodia by United States troops, has the minister been able to convey the same feeling to the Israeli foreign minister, who is now in Canada, with regard to his country's four-hour invasion of Lebanon?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have had one discussion this morning with the Foreign Minister of Israel, and I hope to have a further meeting tomorrow when I expect we will be discussing this situation.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan. In view of the many representations by farmers who cut down on their wheat acreage last year to have the $6 per acre apply to them, is the government giving consideration to including them so that they may be in a better position to reduce wheat acreage this year?


Hon. Otfo E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to previous answers to the effect that those farmers who adjusted their position last year were considered in the drafting of the program, and the allowances for quotas which 22375-23J
DEBATES	6971
Inquiries of the Ministry were put into the program in the first place. No further consideration is being given to assistance for them.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker; in view of the fact that it is virtually impossible to obtain employment in western Canada, and since many farmers suffered crop failure for several years, is the government giving any consideration to providing some special assistance for those people who find themselves in such a predicament?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we are giving very full consideration to many aspects of the agricultural program in the prairie region. The LIFT program was one example of our attempt to deal with a specific part of that problem. I have given many indications in the past few weeks and months on the other work going forward in specific areas.


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Wheat Board. In light of the continuing serious cash shortage facing western farmers, has the minister made a decision yet to pay a 20 cent per bushel deficiency payment to compensate those farmers who were forced to take a 20 cent per bushel decrease in initial payments under the government's deferred delivery quota program, and thus suffered discrimination?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, those farmers will, of course, be entitled to share in the current year's pool rather than in the previous year's pool. It will only be when that pool is closed that there will be any way of knowing whether they did suffer that loss through having to make deferred deliveries, but no other action is contemplated at this time. Of course, the $6,500,000 durum payment going out will be of assistance in some areas.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: My
question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Since 2-4-5T belongs to a group of chemicals known as chemical mutagens, I wonder if the minister could advise the House if his department or the Food and Drug Directorate people are stepping up their activities for the
May 14, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry licensing of these substances, and chemicals of this nature thus preventing them from entering into the food chain and becoming generally available to the public?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice and make some inquiries.



INDUSTRY


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether he was present and received a delegation from members of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers yesterday? If so, would he take the House into his confidence and tell us what assurance he gave them for future employment?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I understood that the meeting was for the purpose of enlightening both sides and I think this was done.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, in view of the estimated market available for electronic tubes for the next seven to ten years, and in view of the lay-off of Canadian electrical workers in the electronic tube manufacturing industry, would the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce indicate whether he is prepared to initiate a feasibility study into the market available to electronic tube manufacturers in Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my department is very knowledgeable on these matters. Yesterday, we explained at full length what the strategy was. In the case of receiving tubes, it is known that this is a declining market. Tubes are not being used in TV sets and radios to any extent now, and we are therefore putting our money into helping research and development into production of the third generation which is the micro-circuit weaponry, and great progress has been made in that direction. As a matter of fact-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the 
Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would the minister indicate to the House the number of draft dodgers and deserters who are now in the teaching profession in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has asked a similar question before. At that time, I indicated to him he was seeking detailed statistical information and the question should be placed on the Order Paper.



POST OFFICE


George Harris Hees: I should like to ask the Postmaster General if he could bring the House up to date on the progress being made in terminating the postal strike which is taking place in Ottawa today? Could the minister also advise what progress is being made in talks with postal employees in general across Canada with the idea in mind of averting a strike?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, those negotiations are being conducted by the employer, the President of the Treasury Board. It is my understanding that the unions have asked for a delay, I suppose in order to inform their members. With respect to the various dislocations across the country, I would interpret those particular strikes as really being against their own national executive rather than against those who are conducting the negotiations on behalf of the government. They are also, of course, strikes against the people of Canada.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the President of the Treasury Board take the minister into his confidence and tell him what is going on in these negotiations with his employees?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Moose Jaw.


John Leroy Skoberg: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the postal workers' concern over job security, and in view of the enlightened position of many employers in adopting a policy of allowing attrition to take care of long-term employees, would the minister state now whether he is receptive to job security for such long-term postal workers?
May 14, 1970


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, that is a subject presently being discussed by those who are negotiating both for the unions and for the government.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the honourable Minister of Manpower and Immigration, of which I have given him notice and which, although it may be of local interest only, is designed to reassure the population of my district.
I should like to ask the minister whether his department intends to make special arrangements for security and control at the different points of entry along the border in the county of Huntington, particularly at Franklin Centre, in view of the hippie conference, which is to take place at the end of May at Churubusco, N.Y., three miles from the Canadian border, where 200,000 to 300,000 North American hippies will be holding a live-in?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether this question is one that calls for an immediate reply. In view of the circumstances, perhaps the minister might answer.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the hon. member and his constituents that all steps required in the circumstances will be taken by the Department of Manpower and Immigration to ensure that the immigration law and policy are observed in that area.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. On April 20, I asked the minister what action his department was taking in respect of the recent Canadian Welfare Council report on transient youth. At that time he took the question as notice. I wonder if he can reply today?

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I only wish to point out to the hon. member that the matter of transient youth is under consideration. It is being reviewed by the task force on youth set up a few months ago by the Secretary of State. I had the opportunity to realize in the past few days that the task force is giving the matter very special attention.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring the attention of hon. members to the fact that the question period has expired. Perhaps with the unanimous agreement of the House, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville might be allowed his supplementary question and the hon. member for Sarnia might be given a chance to ask his question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question I was going to ask the Secretary of State whether he could inform the House when we might expect some legislation on the whole topic of transient youth?


Gérard Pelletier: Certainly not during this session, Mr. Speaker, and not before we receive the report of the task force.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Are representations being made or have they been made to the United States food and drug department to clear the sale of fresh, Great Lakes Cohoe salmon to the United States market?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Foresty):: Mr. Speaker, we have run tests on Cohoe salmon out of Lake Huron. The tests so far on a total of, I think, 40,000 pounds have shown little or no evidence of mercury or pesticides. We have been given clearance for these fish. I understand that United States authorities have given clearance on fresh Cohoe salmon entering U.S.A. as of May 10.

May 14, 1970
Excise Act



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to make my weekly statement of business for the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as announced last night, the first item for today will be the Excise Act, to be followed by the Yukon and Northwest Territory amendments. The third item would be the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Bill and the fourth item, the National Farm Products Marketing Council Bill. Tomorrow, Friday, as already indicated, will be an allotted day. Monday, as hon. members know, will be a holiday. On Tuesday, we will proceed first with the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Bill, which has been referred back to the Committee of the whole, to be followed by the National Farm Products Marketing Council Bill, if it has not been passed before that. On Wednesday and Thursday of next week, we will take the Canada Water Act, which I gather will be reported back to the House tomorrow.


Gerald William Baldwin: On what day will the government deal with unemployment?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is up to the opposition.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-136, an Act respecting the expropriation of land, with an amendment, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cotd that Bill C-209, to amend the Excise Act, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Is the House ready for the question?
[Mr. Whelan.)
Mr. Max  Bailsman@Waterloo: Mr. Speaker, I am about to make the best speech of my career. On behalf of my party, I say that we agree.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-212, to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Territorial Lands Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening before the House rose I was mentioning the effect the territorial government has had on the lives of the people of the north. I also said that I had been in the community of Tuktoyaktuk and participated in an important ceremony on that community which, as I said, is on the Beaufort Sea. Its population is predominantly Eskimo. As a result of the introduction of local government, the local people were able to petition their government for the establishment of an incorporated community, and on April 1 this community came into being as such. The members of the council are local people who are residents of the area; most of them were born there.
Several weeks ago, I received a petition in my office from the community of Eskimo Point. Eskimo Point is on the west coast of Hudson Bay. The petition had been circulated by the Eskimo women in the community and it requested that water be delivered on a consistent and constant basis to the new homes of the community. After taking this matter up with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, we were told that the function of water delivery had been transferred to the territorial government. For some years, the men and women of the community of Eskimo Point have been concerned about a constant water supply. Their petition reads as follows:
We have to get our own water with babies on our backs. We need water for cooking, cleaning, and washing also to help stop disease like skin
May 14, 1970	COMMONS
sicknesses. We have heard that the DIAND is supposed to deliver water. Officials have promised but nothing has been done. We are paying for water delivery in our rent each month.
The balance of the petition goes on in a similar vein. Having assumed responsibility on April 1 for many functions in the eastern and central Arctic, the territorial government moved quickly. May I quote from a translation of a letter I have received from the community which shows how quickly the territorial government was able to move to meet the requirements and wishes of the residents of Eskimo Point effectively.
Translation of enclosed letter about the petition from the women's groups for water delivery to each home in Eskimo Point.
We would like to let you know what has hapt-pened about the petition. Both Mr. Miller, the clerk and Mr. Sigurdson, the mechanic discussed the petition with Mrs. Caskey who informed us of the decision. They agreed to try and get water to each home when possible. A letter was received from Bud Orange also stating he was bringing the matter up to the department. Then a letter arrived from Mr. McGill who said he was arriving soon to talk about our problem. On April 16 a group of women, Mr. Miller and Mr. McGill discussed the water problem at length. The ladies were very pleased to learn of N.W.T. governmentso (4:20 p.m.)
That being the abbreviation for the government of the Northwest Territories,
__new water policy. The solution to the problem
is that water cards will be given to each home, and when water is needed, the card is put in the window so the water delivery man can see it. The ladies were pleased that they could even choose the colour of card-which is red, with (water) on it. This problem has been with us for many years and after asking various officials about action, nothing seemed to happen-the women decided to join in a petition. We are so thankful for the action which has been taken and wish to thank Mr. McGill for his understanding and willingness to discuss the problem with us.
With the indulgence of the House, I have just read a letter showing that the transfer of responsibility from the federal government to the territorial government based at Yellowknife has brought with it effective action in the Northwest Territories. The commissioner and members of his government are to be congratulated for the way they have attacked problems and brought the government closer to the people living in the north, in that way enabling those people to participate in decisions that affect their lives.
This government is concerned about the north. Examples of this are to be found in the present minister's expeditious handling of the bill to amend the Northwest Territories and

Yukon and Territorial Lands Acts Yukon Acts to bring more responsibility to the councils of both territories. We have seen the declaration of sovereignty that was made by the government. There is the action of the Department of National Defence in setting up an Arctic headquarters. We have seen the action of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, which is to undertake massive hydrographic studies in the Beaufort Sea and the waters of the Arctic seas this summer.
To encourage better transportation in the North, we have spent millions of dollars for the provision of better and more efficient facilities on the Mackenzie River. Also, we have seen the action of the Department of Public Works in establishing a potential port at Herschel Island as well as the clearing of the rapids of Sans Sault, so that the river transportation system will become more functional. We have seen the action of the Department of National Health and Welfare which has expanded not only the number of personnel working in the north but the number of nursing stations. In the last four years we have seen $40 million expended for road development. The Indian and Eskimo housing program in the territories, to the best of my knowledge, includes in excess of 1,500 new homes for the people of the north. We have seen the action of this government with regard to resource development. As Canadians, we can be proud of what the government has done in respect of our north.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said that no major steps had been taken in the last number of years to deal with the problems of the north. He said there had been no major steps taken to implement the recommendations of the Car-rothers Commission Report. What about the resolution of the question of division of the Northwest Territories that appeared in the Carrothers Commission Report? This government has said, no division. What about the naming of a capital? What about the transfer of public servants, not only from Ottawa into the field but from the federal government to the territorial government? What about the action proposed in this bill with regard to allowing members of the council to set the qualifications for electors and to set their own salaries? What about the small business loans fund which is about to go into operation? What about the housing program which was contained in the Carrothers Commission Report?

Yukon and Territorial Lands Acts
I regret to say I am disappointed that the hon. member made these statements, because I believe he has a sincere interest in northern Canada. It may have been through a lack of understanding or possibly he has not been in the north as often as he was in earlier days. He may even have been partisan, although I would hate to accuse him of that.
Amendments have been suggested to this Bill C-212, particularly with respect to giving the councils of the two territories more power and authority. With respect to the Northwest Territories, I believe there is greater opportunity for participation on the part of the native people as elected councillors in the north. The increase in the number of members on the council will make it possible for wider participation in our democratic process. To this point, we have had the service of three native persons, Simone Michael from Frobisher Bay, Abe Okpik from many parts of the north and Chief John Tetlichi Charlie. Each in their own way have brought a particular point of view to these councils.
One of the great features of this particular bill is that we will see a greater participation on the part of the regional people of the north in the affairs of the council. However, as I mentioned yesterday, the minister should go one step further is relation to the number of Indian councillors to be elected. I would like to see four rather than the three proposed by the minister. However, this can be discussed and argued at the committee level. I hope by the time this bill reaches the committee the minister will have seen the wisdom of this particular action. I say this for a number of reasons. I believe it would better reflect the community interest in the proposed constituencies in the territories.
Another provision of this bill which I feel puts a real responsibility on the council is the one which gives council members the responsibility of determining their own indemnities. I refer also to the amount of expenses that they will be receiving through the Commissioner in Council in order to do their job. Travel in the north is costly and the expenses incurred while working on the territorial council as well as the loss of income will create problems. Unless the council is in a position to establish a reasonable level, I am afraid that the kind of representatives we want to see on the council might not be available. We are leaving this question to be decided by the territorial council.
In this particular bill, the Commissioner in Council is being given the power to prescribe 
DEBATES	May 14, 1970
the qualifications of persons as electors, such as age and so on. The north is a young man's country. The present population of the north is less than 40,000 people. There is a high percentage of young people. Since the majority of the people in the north are Indian, Eskimo and Metis, it would be to the advantage of the people of the country to give younger people the right to vote. I commend the government for the forward step in telling the council to decide who they want to vote, and also to decide how long a person must be resident in the territories before he is eligible to vote.
The north is on the threshold of major resource development. The Manhattan is making a second voyage through the Arctic waters. We know the action that has been taken by this government in respect of the conditions under which it will operate. I do not think any of us who know or who have seen those waters can help but be concerned about what will happen if this voyage is successful. I hope that we take time before we allow oil tankers and other major ships to move through our Arctic waters at any time of the year. I hope we have all the answers regarding pollution and the control of pollution in the event of a disaster. We should know much more about this whole area than we do now. I would like to see a moratorium placed on the movement of these ships through our waters until such time as Canadians are satisfied that we can control the situation.
Resource development in the north in this decade, the 1970's, will see the start, if not the completion, of pipelines down the Mackenzie Valley. In all probability there will be a natural gas pipeline to help get the gas in Prudhoe Bay to market. It may be that the Canadian gas discoveries in the Mackenzie can be hooked into this particular line. Those of us who have thought about the Prospects realize the impetus a pipeline can give to our north. The construction and operation of such a pipeline can mean a great deal to the growth and development of the people who live in the north and to Canada as a whole.
Canadians are excited about our north. In the last three or four years, Canadians have shown a great desire to learn about and to see that part of their country. Because of our north, Canadians have an opportunity to establish an identity which will make them different from any other nation in the world.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this
May 14, 1970	COMMONS
debate I want, first of all, to congratulate both the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). Like the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange), I am also pleased to see the apparent increased activity of the Minister of Justice in the two territories. I agree generally with the principle of the bill, but as a member of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I will have something more to say as we examine the bill in more detail.
The bill generally is a move to give the governments of the two territories a little more authority and autonomy. I welcome this. Perhaps the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development did not go as far as some would have liked, but he certainly did take very positive steps in the right direction.
I was particularly pleased to see the increase in the number of elected representatives in the Northwest Territories Council from seven to ten, and a decrease in the number of appointed members from five to four. I hope that it will not be too long before we see all of the members elected to this council.
When talking about the appointed members, I do not want to create the impression that these fellows did not do a good job. The contrary, I think, is true. The appointed people from various walks of life in southern Canada have contributed a great deal to the governing and general development of the Northwest Territories. I could mention a number of people who have made contributions, but I would like to limit my remarks today particularly to the contributions of the native peoples.
Abe Okpik, the first Eskimo appointed to the Northwest Territories Council, I think made an outstanding contribution on behalf of the Eskimo people. He brought to the Northwest Territories Council an insight into the language, culture and problems of the Eskimo people that had never been enunciated before in that council. This was a great thing. I believe that his work was really the forerunner to the election of Mr. Simone Michael, the first Eskimo elected to the council. As we have read and heard, Simone is making his mark. I think perhaps his mark is even greater because he was elected. He was elected by the people of the eastern Arctic.
Another gentleman I would like to mention briefly is John Tetlichi Charlie from Fort MacPherson, the first Indian appointed to the territorial council. Like Mr. Okpik, I believe 22375-24

Yukon and Territorial Lands Acts Mr. Charlie also made great contributions to the government of the territories. He brought the insight of the Indian people, their culture and language into the contributions that the native people have made to life in the Northwest Territories. However, Mr. Speaker, I hope that after the next election we will see the first Indian elected to the territorial council. There has been a lot of good political talk going on amongst the Indian people of the territories, and if this means action, as I know most of the Indian talk does, I am confident that we will see at least one Indian elected to the next territorial council.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I agree with some of the remarks which were made by the House leader of the Official Opposition. I recognize that this does not come within the ambit of the present bill but I should like to appeal to the Minister of Indian Affairs, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to take action to deal with the question of aboriginal claims by Indians and Eskimos. In this context, I would suggest that the terms of reference of the Commissioner who has been appointed to look into the various Indian claims should be broadened so as to enable him to make observations and recommendations pertinent not only to the northern territories but to the west of Canada as well, particularly to my province of British Columbia.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) made reference, also, to a number of statistics which are reported in Hansard at page 6944. He quoted some statistics with reference to the death rate and the life expectancy of native peoples. It is too bad the hon. member used figures dating back to 1966, because great strides have been made in recent years under the Department of Indian Affairs and the Department of National Health and Welfare.
To put the matter in a different perspective, I should like to quote some statistics from 1968 respecting Indian life expectancy- these figures relate to the whole of Canada which, of course, includes the Northwest Territories. Life expectancy for Indian men in 1968 was 61.31 years, whereas life expectancy for non-Indian men was 69.04 years. The life expectancy of Indian females was 65.86 years and the life expectancy of non-Indian females was 75.60 years. I know we still cannot be very happy about these statistics but they do show that a good deal of work has been done.
May 14, 1970

Yukon and Territorial Lands Acts If the hon. member would look up the statistics for the year I have mentioned, and subsequent years, he would find that great strides have been made in the field of the health of Indians and that the picture is much better today than it was some years ago.
The Minister of Indian Affairs, in his reference to conservation, maintained that as a result of the experience we have gained in southern Canada we shall be able to do a much better job in planning resource and land use in the northern territories. This is a noble sentiment and I trust his hopes will be realized. I was pleased to hear the words the minister used. He used the word "ecology" which is becoming a fashionable term nowadays-it means the relation of living things to their environment. He talked about eco-systems and ecological balance. These were not terms commonly used a few years ago. As one who has done research in connection with plant ecology in particular, I say he cannot go wrong in using the ecological method in connection with land use planning, and I commend him on taking such an approach. I think we can learn a lot from the mistakes which have been made in southern Canada, not only in connection with pollution measures and land use but in connection with our treatment of the native peoples. In the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories we have an opportunity to do things for the native people which have not been done before. The best way to proceed is to ensure that the native peoples are not separated-to ensure that they receive the same services from the same governments as do other people. I welcome what the minister is doing in turning over responsibility for a great many of these services to the Territorial Council and to the government of the Yukon.
T am very optimistic about the future of the native people. I take this optimistic view because there is evidence of greater participation by them in the over-all economic planning and political life of this country. If we do the right things in the Territories and in the Yukon, bringing the native people into the mainstream of Canadian affairs, it will be possible for them to have a much better life in the future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must point out that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take too much time

of the House but I should like to make a few comments in reply to some of the remarks made by hon. members. I do not want to repeat myself. We had a full debate on this issue in November, and I have also had occasion to make speeches to the people in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon about what the government is planning for those areas.
All the arguments advanced in the House by opposition members have been quite negative as far as the legislation is concerned and were not too well founded. What we are proposing to do here is to move forward by granting more autonomy to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I should like to make particular reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who was so critical. Since I have been minister I have been in the north many times, perhaps more often than the hon. member himself has been in Ottawa.


Mr. Aiken:: Perhaps that makes him better qualified to speak for them.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: What was that?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I said, perhaps he is better qualified to speak for the territories.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think we are taking a very far reaching step in the Northwest Territories and Yukon. On the committee that I will order the commissioners to form, there will be two elected members who are part of the executive committee. It is true that this is not provided in the bill, but this is because we want more flexibility. The fact that no provision is made for this in the bill means nothing at all, since the commissioners always act on the direction of the minister.
I recall a few years ago when the Conservative party was in power, the government made a small gesture to the territories by forming a little committee, and in order to make it sound big they so provided in the act. Since that time we have formed many committees but have not incorporated the proposals in the act because they were not needed. The commissioners have the authority to form any committees they want, and these will be set up in the territories.
We are creating a framework within which there will be a better relationship between legislative and executive power. Although we are retaining control in Ottawa, we are not doing so merely for our own personal benefit;
May 14, 1970	COMMONS
let that situation be clear. We have to realize that most of the money that is spent in the north is provided by the Parliament of Canada. Since this money is voted by the members of the House, I think it is only right that we should retain control in Ottawa.
At the same time, the authority will be exercised mostly by local officials, and I was glad to hear the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) say that the administration in the territories is now much closer to the people and that he will be able to get faster action.
In closing, may I say I appreciate very much the various speeches that were made by members on both sides of the House. The reason the press devote so much publicity to the territories is that things are happening there. This is why I am so surprised that opposition members have been so negative in their speeches. We have done a lot of things in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, and we will do more. This is the new frontier. As I say, there has been much publicity about the north, and I think this is due to the fact that the government is spending more money in the north than ever before. We shall be investing even more money in the north in the future, because we realize this is in the best interests of all Canadians.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker, I have greatly appreciated the most relevant remarks of the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange), for he readily recognized the positive results that we have achieved. His position is in contrast with that of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), whose remarks were altogether negative.
I wish to refer to comment that I found particularly unpleasant, his charge of racism against the administration. Such a thoughtless charge from the hon. member for Yukon should not pass unchallenged.
In my remarks, I mentioned there were not enough elected Eskimo or Indian members on the territorial councils, because I want that situation corrected and many people share this opinion. A while ago, the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) also expressed that view. While almost half the population of the Northwest Territories is made up of Indians and Eskimos, there is only one Eskimo elected and one Indian appointed. With more seats now within the territorial council, I hope there will be more 22375-241
DEBATES	6979
Yukon and Territorial Lands Acts Indians and Eskimos elected. I was quite amazed to find that because I mentioned this gap and expressed that wish, the hon. member for Yukon accused the department of discrimination. There is absolutely no discrimination whatsoever in our attempt to correct obvious deficiencies.
I also want to answer a remark made about the situation in Inuvik. I have been there myself more often than the hon. member for Yukon. It is true that there is a problem there. However, I must give credit to the local people in general, who are trying to solve it with the help of the government, and to the mayor of the municipality who has shown in this regard a truly remarkable initiative.
It is true that sewage and water systems are not provided in every part of the town but steps have been taken a few months ago to improve the situation. It may not be quite satisfactory at the moment, due perhaps to the fact that in the Northwest Territories government, has been somewhat over aggressive or because the population of Inuvik has grown faster than expected. This situation is in the process of being corrected, thanks particularly to the local people. In my opinion, it is important to establish local governments.
Furthermore, I must mention the active and vigorous contribution of the hon. member for the Northwest Territories, who is always pioneering insofar as the situation which prevails in the Northwest Territories is concerned, in order to inform the department of the deficiencies which may exist. Indeed, week after week, he is always defending in the House of Commons and the department the interests of his constituents in a very positive and valuable manner. I thank him for his co-operation, even though I do not always agree with him. That is normal. However, he at least makes concrete suggestions rather than staying idle, like some hon. members of the opposition.
I also thank the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo for his very good remarks on the situation prevailing in the territories. I knew he was anxious for the Indians and the Eskimos to have a greater share in the social, economic and political life of the Northwest Territories. I am grateful to him. In my opinion, he has shown to the House of Commons how minorities can assert themselves. In the Northwest and Yukon Territories, we try to establish administrative and political structures designed to give each Indian and each Eskimo the possibility of developing them-
May 14, 1970

Yukon and Territorial Lands Acts selves, and at the same time to take advantage of the same benefits and the same services as the other citizens of that area.
When I have concluded my remarks, this bill will be referred to the committee, where it will be discussed. Contrary to what the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said yesterday, it is not a bill that has been formulated in a jiffy. We had informed the councillors and the people in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon, as early as November last, of our intentions in that regard. Moreover, we greated in Ottawa last December all the elected members of the Yukon Council, who came to meet me as well as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). We discussed the whole policy for several hours and made some changes in the executive committee, according to the requirements of the Yukon Council.
The bill was introduced with some delay because the Prime Minister and I wished to have a similar discussion with the elected members of the Northwest Territories Council. We had the opportunity to do so a few weeks ago, during a visit to the Northwest Territories for the Yellowknife Winter Games. It is only afterwards that we proceeded with the drafting of the bill. Had we drafted it before meeting the representatives of the territories, the members of the opposition would have been the first to criticize us for not having consulted enough the elected members of the Council.
Today, the bill will be sent to the committee where every member can comment on it as he wishes. Once the bill has been passed, we can then pave the way for elections in the Northwest Territories which must be held at the end of the term which falls in August, as well for the people in the territories of the Northwest as those in the Yukon.
I thank all the members for participating in this debate. I trust the bill will be studied thoroughly in committee and passed before summer to allow the councils of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon to pass the necessary legislations to reduce, if they so wish, the voting age and bring in other amendments which we have entrusted to the elected representatives of the Councils of the territories instead of incorporating them in legislation here, in Ottawa, as we did formerly. We want to grant more authority to the

councils of the territories, which objective this bill will certainly achieve.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, could we agree to call it five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 40 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg)- External Affairs-Method of making representations to other nations; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) -Labour Relations-West coast towboat strike

Implementation and enforcement of safety regulations; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Radio and television programs for senior citizens.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely Notices of Motions.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on this side we would be willing to suspend discussion of the first four motions on the Order Paper since the members concerned are not ready to proceed. We would suspend discussion and allow them to maintain their place. We would be ready to proceed with the next motion for the production of papers, No. 150 in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 14, 1970	COMMONS



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West) moved:: That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a map showing Arctic waters claimed by Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion which is now before the House requesting a copy of a map showing the Arctic waters claimed by Canada was first moved just about a year ago. At that time the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) indicated it was not in the interest of Canada to issue such a map, despite the fact that for many years we have had Canadian maps, particularly those in school atlases, showing that the Arctic areas did belong to our nation. It seems to me the time is long past when Canada and Canadians should know definitely that the Canadian government lays claim to that area in the Arctic archipelago lying between our Canadian mainland and the north pole.
I should like to say it is not only a handful of individuals in this House who have been requesting action along these lines. We find that the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in a very recent report to this House, made a unanimous recommendation that the government lay claim to sovereign ownership of the Arctic areas. Incidentally, this report from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development came to this House and received the endorsation of the members in the House. In view of some of the legislation the government has brought in, such as the bill to extend for 100 miles from the Arctic islands our control over the navigation in this area, it would seem to me the government is concerned about protecting our Arctic area from the possibility of oil pollution derived from shipping.
So far as Canadians are concerned, there is no doubt that this move was welcomed by everyone from the east coast to the west coast because they felt that at long last we were starting to assert our claim to sovereignty in this area. I feel the time has come for the government to take a firm and decisive stand on this matter. I feel there is nothing to be lost by doing that. That is why I have moved
DEBATES	S981
Request for Map of Canadian Arctic this motion asking for a copy of a map showing the Arctic waters claimed by our nation.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
It is not as though Canada had not previously staked out a claim to ownership in this vital area; an area which is becoming more interesting and more vital as time goes on. The discovery by the Americans of oil in the Prudhoe Bay area several months ago focussed the attention not only of Canada but of the other nations of the world on the vast potential oil wealth that exists in the north. This was all the more reason for Canada to claim what we have always considered to be Canadian territory. Canada can base its claim to the northern territory on three precedents, and three very sound precedents at that. This has been pointed out in the House by a number of hon. members, but it bears repetition. For example, we can lay claim to the area through what is known as the sector principle.
In 1946 the Right Hon. Lester Pearson, who was then Canadian Ambassador to Washington, reasserted the sector claim which Canada had made in 1908, and which included all land, water and ice up to the North Pole. The U.S.S.R. still maintains its extensive sector claim which it first propounded in 1926, and which it interprets as including not only lands within the sector but also the ice, water and air space. According to this precedent, Canada's claim to the area is an excellent one.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we have the baseline system. Here again, our Canadian claim to the territory can be established by precedent. Under the baseline system a nation draws straight baselines from headland to headland and claims all waters within these lines as being under its jurisdiction. The straight baseline system was first adopted by Norway, and it included within its baselines some waters which had previously been recognized as international waters. Norway's case was upheld by the International Court of Justice in the well known fisheries case decided in 1951, less than 20 years ago. The Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea approved this system and it has become part of international law. Thus, we have a second basis upon which Canada can justifiably lay claim to this area in the north.
The third basis is the continental shelf doctrine. The continental shelf doctrine was proclaimed by President Truman in 1945 as a method of laying claim to jurisdiction over the
6S82
May 14, 1970

Request for Map of Canadian Arctic continental shelves which lie off the shores of various nations. The American proclamation at that time indicated that the resources of the subsoil and the seabed of the continental shelf, adjacent to a country's shores, belonged to that nation. This principle was accepted and incorporated into an international convention at the U.N. Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1958, just 12 years ago.
This convention specifies that a coastal state has a sovereign right to exploit the resources of a continental shelf lying adjacent to its coast to a depth of 200 metres or less, and to a greater depth if exploration proves feasible. Here again, we find that this principle has become law in some parts of the world. It is recognized internationally. On the basis of these three precedents which I have outlined, I believe we have an excellent claim to the islands, and to the waters between the islands stretching from Canada's mainland right up to the North Pole.
It is not as though Canada were just getting into the northern picture now. Over the years we have set up a large number of outposts on the Arctic islands and around our Arctic coasts. Outposts were set up by the RCMP. Missionaries have gone into the area. The establishment of such outposts has often been recognized by international law as one method by which a country could lay claim to territories outside its mainland area. We have had Canadian geologists go into the north. We have had fur traders there. More important than all the rest, we have had a number of scattered groups of Canadian citizens living on the islands and on the mainland, and moving around all over the area in order to obtain a livelihood. What more do we need? We don't need to have people living there permanently in order to lay claim to the territory. We have staked our claim. I am convinced the mere fact that we have had Eskimo people living in these areas in the north, and that we have had a large number of geographical survey crews working in these areas, constitutes a clear indication that they are recognized Canadian territory.
Again, I wish to emphasize that in bringing this motion before the House it is my hope that the government will move quickly and, as a government, assert Canadian sovereignty over the area which I have generally outlined.
I firmly believe the Arctic is recognized as Canadian territory by the international community, and certainly by the citizens of Canada. I realize that there are several .other hon. members who would like to par-

ticipate in this debate. I am hopeful that the motion will be accepted by the House and that we will see this government not only officially lay claim to this area as being under Canadian jurisdiction, but that they will issue a map showing the world that we look upon the area from the Canadian mainland to the north pole as Canadian territory.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion before the House this afternoon. It is very much in line with statements that I have made and beliefs that I have held since the whole issue of Canadian sovereignty first arose. The real difficulty, Mr. Speaker, is that until recently there was never any question about the Canadian Arctic. We accepted the maps which were in general circulation, some of which go back many years to the time when the Canadian Arctic Archipelago was claimed in the name of Canada or even as far back as the claim in the name of Her Majesty the Queen. It seems unfortunate that we have had to assert our claims to sovereignty in such a fragmented way. The government has explained that in order to protect the Arctic waters from pollution, it wanted a pollution control bill and an accepted definition of the 100-mile limit in connection with that. This approach did not in any way help a difficult situation.
Since the very early days, we have had maps which must surely be in the possession of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. We have had hydrographic surveys, geographic and geological surveys of Canada, which have been accepted by everyone without question. If the purpose of the motion is that such map be produced, that is the early official maps or perhaps a series of them proving without any question Canada's claim to the Arctic, then I must support it.
In 1925, Mr. Speaker, the minister of the interior and the Parliament of the day passed regulations providing for any vessels, scientists or explorers passing through the Arctic to apply for and obtain a licence. This was based on the fact that the waters were considered Canadian territory. At that time there was no question about it. Licences were authorized and were issued. I think this is a tremendously good precedent which might have been followed. However, question has been thrown on the whole subject by the way in which the government has approached the whole question of Arctic sovereignty.
May 14, 1970

I believe that the Department ol Energy, Mines and Resources does have a map such as is requested in this notice of motion, indeed, it may have several showing exactly the area which Canada claims.
We have made one type of claim under the bill concerning the pollution of Arctic waters. We have made another kind of claim under the bill extending our territorial sea to 12 miles. We have never completely implemented the previous law concerning the establishment of baselines under the Fisheries Act amendments some years ago. We have passed the oil and gas conservation and production bill which purports to apply only to waters of a certain depth and a certain distance from the shore. Under that bill, regulations may be made in relation to the production of gas and oil. This is a subject which I believe we are to discuss again at eight o'clock tonight, so I do not propose to go into it now. I am merely pointing out that the series of laws the government has proposed to Parliament in this session, and I have mentioned three of them, have all approached our claim to the Arctic in a different way, one at 100 miles, one at 12 miles and one at sea depth. None of these statutes or proposals represents our total claim to the Arctic. We have not made one solid claim of sovereignty to the whole Arctic area.
I think the government has done a disservice by this type of approach. We certainly are not condemning the government for doing something about pollution or for extending the areas over which we are to exercise some regulation. But even the bill to control pollution does not define accurately the limits from which the 100 miles is to be measured. Our main concern, as is quite well known, is for the total claim of Canada to waters between the Arctic Islands.
I think that map is there, Mr. Speaker. I think it has been in the files of the department for many, many years. My friend, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) had a copy of it here when we were debating another bill, issued 75 years ago, I believe. We have also had other maps displayed from time to time. I think the motion which is being brought forward will force the government to come out and clarify the position it is taking concerning the Arctic Archipelago. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I support the motion.


An hon. Member:: Question.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Bailleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabour this
DEBATES	6983
Request for Map of Canadian Arctic subject. It sounds like a fairly simple proposal, certainly the issue is quite clear. We are not talking about the government producing a map of the waters of any other country, nor are we suggesting a world wide map. We are not suggesting the government publish a paper showing that section of the Arctic claimed by Russia. We are just speaking of our waters.
This, it seems to me, is a fairly elementary proposal and I cannot see why the government should take exception to it. I have been on the Indian Affairs and Northern Development Committee and have discussed the idea of Arctic sovereignty with other members. I realize that they too, are basically in agreement with the territory claimed by Canada. We voted unanimously in the House a short time ago in favour of a bill dealing with pollution in the Canadian Arctic. I suggest it seems reasonable that we should print a map showing the area we are talking about, especially if the government is really serious in its desire to define these waters. A map would clearly show other countries the waters in which we are vitally interested. It could guide them in their actions. I think I will leave it at that.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the government has already indicated that no maps have yet been issued delimiting the extent of Canada's Arctic waters. The government, however, has done more than that. It has introduced legislation making it clear that Canada will exercise the necessary control over the waters extending up to 100 miles from Canada's Arctic coasts in order to ensure that the Arctic environment is preserved from the ravages of pollution.
The government has done even more than this. It has also introduced legislation which will extend Canada's territorial sea from three to twelve miles. That legislation, as the government has pointed out, will have important implications for the Northwest passage. It is known, of course, that the United States regards the waters of the Northwest passage beyond three miles from shore as high seas. With the establishment of the 12-mile territorial sea by Canada, the effect on the Northwest passage is that, under any sensible view of the law, Barrow Strait, as well as Prince of Wales Strait, are subject to complete Canadian sovereignty. Whether or not anyone may wish to allege that other waters
May 14, 1970

Request for Map of Canadian Arctic
are not Canadian, they can no longer realistically argue concerning the status of the twt) bodies of water in question in light of the fact that the 12-mile territorial sea is well established in international law.
I am sure that the House will agree that these actions by the government are far more important than the issuance of a map of any kind. I would hope, in particular, that the hon. member who has introduced the motion before the House will agree with this view. He has asked for the production of a map showing the Arctic waters claimed by Canada. In reply I would refer him to the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) in this House on April 16, when he reaffirmed the position adopted by successive Canadian governments and stated that "Canada has always regarded the waters between the islands of the Arctic archipelago as being Canadian waters". As was also stated by the minister, the present government maintains that position. I do not believe that it is necessary to issue a map illustrating the waters referred to by the minister. A glance at any map will indicate to hon. members those waters which lie between the islands of Canada's archipelago.
I should like now to quote at length from another statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the House on April 17. The minister's remarks on that occasion are very pertinent to the question now under consideration. I quote:
It is quite clear that whether or not the Canadian government chooses to establish at this time its claim to the whole of the waters of the Arctic archipelago by drawing straight baselines from island to island so as to enclose the waters, the fact that this government does not draw such baselines, and that previous Canadian governments have not done so, does not thereby weaken our sovereignty claim.
Similarly the establishing of a 12-mile territorial sea and the establishment of pollution control zones in these waters cannot be construed as an abandonment of the Canadian position concerning the status of these waters-*
I have made clear, as has the Prime Minister, that we will not back down one inch from our basic position on sovereignty but there is no interest on the part of the Canadian government in the exercise of chauvinism.
country. The government has already taken Several most important steps with respect to the Arctic waters. These steps meet present needs and present purposes. So far as the future is concerned, the government has stated that it will not respond to mere chauvinistic pressures to draw lines of one kind or another on the map of Arctic Canada. Such lines would bind the government's hands with respect to action which might prove necessary in the future. They would deprive us of the flexibility we may require to protect various Canadian interests in the Arctic waters.
The production of a map showing the Arctic waters claimed by Canada would not alter the legal, historical, physical and geographical factors which are relevant to the status of those waters. The Canadian position with respect to the waters between the Arctic islands is well known. The production of a map illustrating that claim would not necessarily advance the claim but might, on the contrary, prejudice the Canadian position on other questions. No useful purpose can be served by the debate upon which we are engaged. I must re-emphasize, however, that this debate could do a real disservice to the country.
The government has proved, Mr. Speaker, with the assistance of this House that Canada is united as seldom before on an issue that transcends regional or political considerations. We have gone a long way in asserting our position and protecting our interest with respect to the Arctic waters. We have done this with a unanimity which is as rare as it is welcome in light of the issues involved. I trust that the House will show the same spirit with respect to the motion under consideration.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: How do you know?


Yves Forest: If the hon. member will listen to the remainder of my remarks, he may be convinced. More important, however, is the fact that it will not serve the interests of the

++YEAS
Messrs:
Aiken
Alexander
Alkenbrack
Barnett
Bell
Benjamin B re win
Cadieu (Meadow Lake) Coates
Comeau
Crouse
Dionne
Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Downey
Flemming
Grills
May 14. 1970

Division
Harding	Monteith
Homer	Muir (Cape Breton-
Howard (Skeena)	The Sydneys)
Knowles (Winnipeg	Nielsen
North Centre)	Nowlan
Knowles (Norfolk-	Nystrom
Haldimand)	Paproski
Korchinski	Ricard
Lambert (Bellechasse)	Rodrigue
Laprise	Rondeau
La Salle	Rowland
Lewis	Skoberg
MacDonald (Egmont)	Southam
Maclnnis (Mrs.)	Stanfield
Macquarrie	Tetrault
MacRae	Thompson (Red Deer)
McCleave	Thomson (Battleford-
McIntosh	Kindersley)
Mather	Valade
Matte	Winch
Mazankowski	Woolliams-54.
 NAYS Messrs:
Allmand	Kierans
Anderson	Lachance
Badanai	Langlois
Bechard	Laniel
Beer	Lessard
Benson	(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Blair	Macdonald (Rosedale)
Borrie	McBride
Caceia	Major
Cadieux (Labelle)	Marceau
Chretien	Marchand (Kamloops-
Cobbe	Cariboo)
Comtois	Mongrain
Corbin	Olson
Cote (Richelieu)	Orange
Cote (Longueuil)	Osier
Cullen	Otto
Cyr	Ouellet
Davis	Pelletier
Douglas (Assiniboia)	Penner
Drury	Perrault
Duquet	Pilon
Emard	Portelance
Forest	Reid
Foster	Rochon
Gendron	Roy (Laval)
Gibson	Ryan
Givens	Sharp
Goode	Smerchanski
Gray	Smith (Saint-Jean)
Greene	Stafford
Guay	Stewart (Cochrane)
(St. Boniface)	St. Pierre
Guilbault	Thomas (Maisonneuve)
Hogarth	Turner (London East)
Honey	Watson
Hopkins	Weatherhead
Howard (Okanagan	Whelan
Boundary)	Whicher
Hymmen	Whiting-76.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that the Chair call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-5, to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
first motion on the Order Paper stands in the name of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, may I move the motion on behalf of the hon. member for Skeena, who unavoidably is absent at the moment?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
motion reads as follows:
That Bill S-5, an act to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended by adding thereto the following as clause 7:
"7. This act shall come into force following a settlement mutually acceptable to the Crown and the people commonly referred to as Indians and Eskimos indigenous to areas now referred to as the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories at the time European explorers or their descendants first visited the areas, and the said settlement relating to lands, resources and other tribal or community property rights of the said people."
As the hon. member for Skeena will recall, the same motion was proposed on his behalf by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) on June 5, 1969, when the House was considering Bill S-29, respecting the production and conservation of oil and gas in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. On that occasion I ruled that the proposed motion was out of order in that the amendment was in the nature of a substantive motion since it sought to introduce a new question into the bill.

May 14, 1970
Oil and Gas Act
The Chair is of the opinion that the decision reached on June 5 last should be reechoed on this occasion. The motion proposed by the hon. member would introduce into the bill the question of treaty rights of certain people in our northern areas and, as such, the subject matter of the proposed motion is beyond the scope of the present bill. In this regard may I refer the hon. member for Skeena to citation 406 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which in part reads as follows:
Amendments are out of order if they are
(a)	irrelevant to the bill, or beyond its scope, governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived;
(b)	inconsistent with or contradictory to the bill as agreed to by the committee.
For those reasons I must with regret declare that the motion to amend the bill may not be received.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That Bill S-5, An act to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended by adding thereto the following as clause 7:
"7. This act shall come into force on the 1st day of July, 1972."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be quite apparent to members of the House why 1 have moved this amendment, considering it has been placed within the immediate context of one Your Honour has seen fit to rule out of order. I shall not seek to quarrel with the ruling on it. The purpose of my amendment, in effect, is to give the government an adequate breathing spell in which to move forward in the area suggested by the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) which unfortunately is out of order in the present circumstances.
Nevertheless, I feel this amendment raises a very important matter. While this matter may not come directly within the scope of the bill, it is one which obviously requires the attention of the government of the day. You, Mr. Speaker, have already referred in your ruling to what happened on June 5, 1969, when a similar motion was ruled out of order. On that occasion the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) was in his place in the House and raised a question as to whether the amendment then proposed was in order. As recorded at page 9802 of Hansard, he said:
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I realize there are problems connected with treaties entered into with the Northwest Territories and it is our intention to take the necessary
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
steps to settle them. However, this matter is altogether outside the scope of this legislation-
My purpose in moving this amendment, which would delay the coming into force of the bill until July 1, 1972, is to give the government an opportunity to do between now and then what it obviously has not done since the original bill was dealt with last June. Despite the statement then made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that it was the intention of the government to take the necessary steps to settle this matter of Indian and other aboriginal rights in these areas, the government obviously has done nothing to fulfill that intention in the time that has elapsed since last June. Rather, I submit, it has moved in exactly the opposite direction, because since that time we have had placed before the House for consideration a statement of government policy with respect to the Indian people, and that statement very deliberately and specifically turns it back completely on any action leading to the settlement of the aboriginal rights of the Indian people in the territories and indeed in other parts of Canada,
That is why I am asking to have this amendment accepted by the House so that the government in the interval between now and July 1, 1972, may in fact do something to fulfil the stated intention of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as expressed in June of last year. I think this matter has in effect been made more pointed by certain events that have transpired in another country which has been visited by our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). If I might just briefly refer to a story which appears on the front page of today's Toronto Globe and Mail, I should like to quote in part what this story has to say about our Prime Minister and his activities in New Zealand. The story outlines a meeting he had with the Maori people of that commonwealth country. At one part it says the Prime Minister told the Maoris:
In seeking to build a harmonious society, white New Zealanders and Maoris had "succeeded more than we have, and this alone is enough to make my trip worth-while, for I will have learned from you the ways of brotherhood."
I hope indeed that the Prime Minister has learned something about the ways of brotherhood through his encounter with the Maoris or New Zealand. Mr. Speaker, in striking contrast to the reception which apparently was given the Prime Minister of Canada by the aboriginal inhabitants of New Zealand, we
May 14, 1970

find that in this country he has denied the basic approach which might lead to the development of a feeling of brotherhood between ourselves and the aboriginal inhabitants of what is now Canada.
Through the white paper on government policy he has denied the very essence of what is required for the development of brotherhood between those of us of European descent and the descendants of the people who were here before our forefathers arrived. I find it strange that the Prime Minister could have had that reception among these people, when at home our own aboriginal people are speaking in terms of a government policy which is moving toward genocide. I hope that the Prime Minister in fact meant what he said when he said he had learned something in New Zealand. This gives us all the more reason for delaying the coming into force of this bill, which I am proposing-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been listening to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). He is making a statement about aboriginal rights, but I note that just a few minutes ago Your Honour ruled out an identical motion dealing with aboriginal rights, an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I wonder if the hon. member for Comox-Alberni should not address himself to the bill, rather than to the question of aboriginal rights.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I thank the minister and I have to advise the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) to restrict his remarks to the bill or to the amendment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what I am doing. As usual, when the Government House Leader rises on a point of order he manages to put his foot in his mouth. I am stating reasons why the coming into force of this bill should be delayed until July 1, 1972. Despite the needless interjection of the Government House Leader, that is what I am talking about. I am not discussing the amendment which was ruled out of order. I am giving reasons why the coming into force of this bill should be delayed. That is the point to which I was addressing myself.
I was about to say that the incident in New Zealand to which I have referred lends all the more point to the desirability of our accepting this amendment because it would, in that interval, enable us to see whether the Prime Minister was prepared to act in good faith on
Oil and Gas Act
his return to this country and take action which would lead to that kind of brotherhood and put into practice some of what he said he learned in New Zealand. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to pursue this question at unnecessary length. I think I have made the principle point I have in mind, and I state quite bluntly that this is the one and only reason for my putting this amendment forward to bring about a postponement of the coming into force of this bill.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what the hon. member had to say about aboriginal rights. I would like to remind him and other hon. members that on June 27 last year we passed Bill S-29, the title of which was "An Act respecting the Production and Conservation of Oil and Gas in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories." The amendments before us today deal with the control of oil exploration and development off our shores in the seas of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, there is urgency about this legislation in that already off the east coast of Canada we have considerable activity. I am not certain what this amendment intends other than to delay effective government action in relation to management and control of oil exploration and development in the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean off Canada's coasts. I cannot understand the tenor of the hon. member's remarks. To my way of thinking they have absolutely nothing to do with the legislation before us. I fail to see where the amendment is meaningful. I do not really want to say this about a member of the NDP, but if this legislation is not passed the oil companies will be able to carry on activities which would not be in our national interest.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, the amendment has no meaning to this act. I think it is thrown in to create a red herring-or a pink herring-and it is not acceptable to the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those in favour will please say yea.
May 14, 1970
6988	COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.
Motion (Mr. Barnett) negatived.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill S-5, to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AGENCIES BILL


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Olson that Bill C-197, to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Horner (p.6719).
Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, during consideration of Bill C-197, an act to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products, many thoughtful and concerned speeches have been made by members of the opposition. In fact, had he been listening, enough arguments have been advanced, enough concern has been expressed about the effect the bill would have on agriculture in general and on individual farmers in particular to persuade the minister that he has
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
brought forward one of the most undemocratic pieces of legislation ever to be presented to this Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Robson Muir: In all the time I have spent in Parliament, I have never seen legislation proposed that would give the government such complete control over the lives and destinies of such a large section of the population as this will wield over the agricultural segment of this nation. Totalitarian in concept, it will destroy private enterprise in one of the most democratic-minded areas of our society, the farming communities. I know that this has been said before, but I make no apology for repeating it because it needs to be said over and over again until the minister either comes to his senses or the government is made to realize that our farmers will have no part of any legislation that places the yoke of an all-powerful government bureaucracy on their necks.
The minister, in his statement to the joint convention of the Farmers Union of Alberta and the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, on March 24, 1970, stated:
National marketing agencies will not be set until it is demonstrated that there is a wide producer consensus on the needs for them. It will not be the role of government alone to actively work for and organize that consensus. It will require the assistance of the producers themselves, through their organizations, such as this one.
What I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, is where in this bill is there any indication that this is going to happen? The minister not only misled the farmers but he also misled the House when in his speech introducing Bill C-197 he said, as reported at page 5871 of Hansard:
Many farm organizations in Canada have waited a long time for this kind of legislation.
This is not in accordance with the facts. In briefs and at the Canadian Agriculture Congress, farm organizations have been asking-


Mr. Gibson:: Withdraw "misleading".


George Robson Muir: Withdraw "misleading"? When I think of a stronger word, I will use it. Farm organizations have been asking for national marketing legislation of a kind which would establish agencies jointly initiated and administered by government and farmers. This bill develops a structure which is exclusively governmental and that policy was not given the support of either the government's task force or farm groups at the
May 14, 1970	COMMONS
last meeting of the Canadian Agricultural Congress. I should like to quote from page 6691 of Hansard when on May 7, 1970, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said:
I defy the minister to point to any clause of this bill which requires the council or anybody else to ascertain what the views of the farmers are.
On the same page the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) commented:
I ask him if he read clause 8(1) (a), which reads as follows:
"A public hearing shall be held by the council (a) in connection with an inquiry into the merits of establishing an agency"-
Is there anything in that statement that suggests the council needs to take cognizance of the views expressed at a public meeting? I think we should read the whole of clause 8 (1) (a), which provides as follows:
A public hearing shall be held by the council (a) in connection with an inquiry into the merits of establishing an agency or of broadening the authority of an existing agency to cover an additional farm product or farm products-
There is no reference to consultation with producers. All the council needs to do is hold public hearings to establish the merits of a new agency or give more authority to an agency to cover additional farm products. At the same time, at page 6691 of Hansard the Leader of the Opposition said:
It is difficult for me to believe that the Minister of Agriculture would seriously suggest to the House that that provision constitutes consultation with the farmers or requires in any meaningful way their approval of a scheme before it is adopted by the government.
Then the minister said:
There is more in clause 31.
So let us look at what it contains. It provides as follows:
With the approval of the Governor in Council, the minister may, on behalf of the government of Canada, enter into an agreement with any province providing for the performance by an agency on behalf of the province, of functions relating into intra-provincial trade in a regulated product or products in relation to which the agency may exercise its powers and for such other matters relating thereto as may be agreed upon by the minister and the government of the province.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The minister may try to tell the House he is trying to consult the farmers, but it is clear that clause 31 will restrict interprovincial trade and will give federal agencies all the power they need to say where a product may be produced and marketed. It is of little comfort that public hearings can be held prior to
DEBATES	6989
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill the establishment of marketing agencies and plans for those agencies. Public hearings are not an integral check on our political system and in fact, according to the bill, public hearings do not have to be held if the minister and the marketing council do not wish to hold them.
It seems to me that this bill is too important and too far-reaching for the government to proceed now before national farm organizations and other interested Canadians have had an opportunity to develop and present their views. Further, the government must guarantee adequate time in committee for exhaustive representation and analysis of the contents of the bill. The Canadian farm organizations are only now meeting to discuss this bill and must have more time to assess the importance of it for their memberships and the farm community at large.
The government has been less than frank about the immense power Bill C-197 hands to the federal cabinet and its bureaucracies. The consensus we all share, that there must be on occasion and for a specific farm product a national marketing institution, is being used by the government to quietly pass a blanket bill that goes far beyond that consensus into the realm of state monopoly of the farming industry. This bill is not a device for farmers and government to get together and decide to organize national marketing structures. Unlike most provincial marketing laws that have been specific as to products, detailed as to power and restrained by legislatures and plebiscites, Bill C-197 frees the government to choose by itself a commodity to regulate, and by regulation, monopoly, levy and licence to determine who shall grow the product, what quantity and quality of product can be produced and to whom, where, how and at what price a product can be sold.
By economic force and law, the latitude of this bill would allow the cabinet to take over the responsibilities of the provinces, the farm organizations and the federal Parliament relating to the agricultural economy of Canada. Objectively, Bill C-197 has the same power as wartime emergency legislation and could reduce the democratic process in rural Canada to a position of meekly accepting government directives. It would be an irresponsible and reckless act if the government were to push this bill through now. If the government proceeds on the basis of the present bill, it will be asking us to give it the power to unilaterally turn much of rural Canada into a quasi-public utility and to
6990	COMMONS DEBATES	May 14, 1970
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill assume that bureaucrats will develop plans that supposedly will be the most equitable and the most economically correct, simply because it does not have the confidence to debate adequately the specifics and philosophy of supply and market management in public.
The democratic and consultative sentiments expressed by the Minister of Agriculture are in profound conflict with the substance of Bill C-197. The substance of this bill provides the power to the government to construct, without a vote in Parliament or a plebiscite on the farm, an all-pervasive and statist, type of supply management, a concept which does not have the support of the minister's own task force on agriculture or the Canadian farm community. As the Manitoba Co-operator stated in an editorial of May 7-
Either the farmer is going to decide that as a, member of a vital producer industry he will ask the government to provide the legislative framework in which he can conduct his own affairs, or whether he wants the government to make him an employee of a regimented, state-owned food production organization.
If it is not the policy of the government that the industry should be producer controlled, then the government should redraft Bill C-197. Under this legislation the cabinet will be able to place any farm product under a national marketing agency without any reference to Parliament. Such an agency would have the power to "determine the quantity of which and the price, time and place at which the regulated product or any variety, class or grade thereof may be marketed in the interprovincial or export trade". The agency could require farmers to obtain a licence in order to grow or produce the regulated agricultural commodity or to market it in interprovincial or export trade. Marketing agencies would have the power to collect levies or charges to pay the costs of their operations, or to pool accounts through which farmers would get initial, interim and final payments. The farmer will be stuck with paying even for this huge bureaucratic machine.
The legislation provides for the appointment of inspectors who will have broad power to search for regulated commodities and examine books and documents of farmers. Any farmer who does not comply with a marketing agency order will be liable for up to two years in prison. Boy, oh boy! All our prisons will be filled with farmers. The cabinet will have the power to set up a National Farm Products Marketing Council that will supervise and review the operation of mar-

keting agencies and plans established under the proposed act. The responsibilities of the agencies would cover a farm commodity from production through to selling, pricing, packaging, transportation and storage.
The big question is this: Which is the force seeking such legislation, the farm groups speaking for farmers or government determination to shift agriculture from free enterprise to state control or, as they term it, farm supply management? If this legislation is enacted-and it will be if the government wishes to use its majority to push this bill through Parliament, as it did with the LIFT program-we need not worry about what Quebec wants or what the west wants. The Canadian people should start worrying about what the federal government wants.
It may be useful in this context to review some of the legislation introduced in this House by the government during the present session and to look at some of the proposals the government is considering, those being proposals on which it is basing further legislation. We now have the famous or, perhaps more aptly put, infamous white paper that proposes a confiscatory tax on small business and a capital gains tax, repeated every five years, that will simply kill any incentive for investment capital. And this, tied to an inheritance tax that makes it impossible for a family enterprise to carry on, should effectively eliminate the middle-income group within two generations.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Big brother knows best.


George Robson Muir: 
John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, in participating in this debate on Bill C-197 I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). In my opinion this is the crux of the whole situation. If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) was truly concerned about representation on the marketing board, he would accept this motion and the House could get on with other business. In the amendment of the hon. member for Crowfoot it is suggested that there be representation from those people actually involved in the production of the products spelled out in the bill.
Our party is and has always been in favour of a national marketing board to control and supervise the markets of the agricultural producers. We have always been in favour of the Canadian Wheat Board. Our party supports this board, even though I have reason to suspect that some ministers and members on the government side are trying to defame the Canadian Wheat Board and form other institutions to take its place. Our party is in favour of orderly marketing in all its phases,
DEBATES	6991
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill particularly the marketing of feed grains. In introducing the bill at this time the minister is suggesting to the members of the House that he is not in favour of this bill, if we use the analogy of feed grains. I have yet to hear the minister say in this House that he is in favour of the orderly marketing of feed grains as advocated by all farm groups. Many members and many Canadians generally are very concerned about the lack of implementation of those things which mean something to the Canadian people. I refer to the fact that produce other than that spelled out in this bill is not really regulated. The produce that is regulated is being sold at fire-sale prices without much concern by the minister.
As the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) said on April 28, the farmer will be little more than the hired man of the agency if farmers are not allowed to be council members and take part in decision-making. The amendment of the hon. member for Crowfoot spells out the exact position of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. If there was representation on a marketing board in the way there should be, there is no reason why our party would not support the bill now before us. If one looks at the facts they will know why we are suspicious of this bill. Clause 3(1) of the bill reads:
There shall be a council to be known as the National Farm Products Marketing Council consisting of not less than three and not more than nine members to be appointed by the Governor in Council to hold office during pleasure.
In his opening remarks on the subject of the national marketing agency on March 17, the minister referred to the creation of a National Farm Products Marketing Council. When referring to that council he suggested that the producers supported this policy all the way. Possibly three or four years ago most producers in this country would have supported a national farm marketing agency to control all areas of production, but I suggest to the minister that things have changed today. In the eyes of the producers today, the government is suspect. Canadian producers are suspicious about this government having complete control of their marketing. They have reason to be suspicious.
As I have said, this party supports the Canadian Wheat Board. When reading the minister's statements in various publications we wonder whether he is concerned about any type of marketing board. I realize that the Minister of Agriculture comes from a livestock-producing area and may not be concerned about the orderly marketing of feed
6992	COMMONS DEBATES	May 14, 1970
Farm, Products Marketing Agencies Bill grains. However, other people in this country are concerned: they wonder if this is the reason the minister is not concerned about feed grains. It is time the people of this nation knew where they stood on this issue. It is time the minister was questioned about his reasons for introducing this marketing system. Various agencies are being set up throughout this nation purporting to be involved in the marketing of various grains and other commodities.
I wish to refer to a letter received by all Members of Parliament from the Prairie region from the Pallister Wheat Growers Association. I use this as an analogy to the bill in so far as the setting up of this marketing agency is concerned. It is to be noted that the minister assisted in the establishment of the Palliser Wheat Growers Association. This is spelled out very clearly in the last paragraph of the letter:
There is no doubt we are on the way and the help you gave us at the outset helped get us started. We are grateful.
I have no reason to be either for or against the Palliser Wheat Growers Association. According to this letter dated April 20, 1970, they are involved and concerned about wheat only. What does concern me is a minister of the government deliberately assisting in the establishment of other organizations, as is clearly spelled out in this letter. I wonder whether the minister is really concerned about the orderly marketing of grain generally. If we fragmentize the producers of this nation, no matter what products they produce, we may never have orderly marketing. I hope when the minister replies, if he does, he will clarify his position in so far as the Palliser Wheat Growers Association is concerned. I believe it can be used as a clear analogy to the bill now before us. Possibly after the minister sets up organizations in various parts of Canada he will have this bill to support those organizations. This letter, addressed to the minister, reads in part:
You undoubtedly know that the Palliser Wheat Growers Association has been the ultimate result of the investigation we started early this year and about which we met with you. I was instructed by the board to inform you of our objectives and of our progress so far.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
As I say, I believe this organization could serve some useful purpose, but the people of Canada and those who actually produce farm commodities are wondering whether there is something sinister behind the bill. I repeat

that our party has always stood solidly behind the idea of a national marketing board for agricultural products. I, too, take this position. But we have our suspicions. Why should we be suspicious? I realize that grain is not one of the products covered by the bill before us, but such programs as operation LIFT make people suspicious. We know that this program will not be successful in the situation we face today. The other day during the question period I asked whether or not there were some 307 million bushels of grain bootlegged. I asked: Where did it go to? The minister doubted my figures and the Speaker ruled that the question was hypothetical. I quote from the Toronto Daily Star of April 25:
In November, 1969, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics estimated that by July 31 of this year there would be a surplus of 1,534,600,000 bushels of grain choking western elevators and farm storage. This week DBS revised its figure to read 1,227,600,000.
Question: So what happened to the other 307 million?
As the writer of this article asks, what happened to the extra 307 million bushels? The minister should attempt to clarify these figures when he has a chance to reply, and then tell me why we should not be suspicious of figures which we know to be inaccurate. To get back to the bill before us, we must ask ourselves whether the government envisages an orderly marketing scheme, one which will serve the interests of the producers, or one which serves some other purpose.
I see that the board is to be concerned with the marketing of a wide range of products including animals, meat, eggs, poultry, wool, maple products, honey and so on. Again, I have a feeling that hon. members have reason to feel suspicious; that they have reason to suggest that the amendment is a valid proposal which ought to be supported by members on both sides of the House. If the board is to mean anything, farmers must be represented on it. There is no way in which the people of Canada will accept a marketing board in the absence of such representation. I believe the minister himself would like words to this effect written into the bill to ensure that the Governor in Council shall not have sole power to establish this new body.
There is sometimes reason to wonder what is going on in connection with the Grains Council, whether or not its establishment was a move to get rid of the Wheat Board by taking away its powers and giving them to somebody else, producing a hodge-podge of
May 14, 1970

organizations all doing research and all going in different directions. I have here a bulletin from the National Farmers Union which reports that the council has voted to seat four new members, two from the grain trade, one from the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, a local government body, and one representing the Carman Business Group, a small group of farmers from Manitoba.
If the Grains Council can include representation from such a broad spectrum of those interested in the production of grain, why should the minister object to the amendment which has been put forward? I cannot understand why he should denounce the amendment so strongly. I have no way of knowing, of course, whether the people and the groups referred to in this bulletin have actually been admitted to the Grains Council; it is my understanding that the federal minister must ratify the action of the council in this regard. Whether he has done so in this case, I do not know. I could be wrong in my assumption that the minister has anything to do with the ratification of the acts of the council, but I should be surprised if he did not have his finger in the pie somewhere.
From a news publication put out by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool on May 4, I understand that a new international association of wheat producers has been proposed. We are told:
If a new association is formed it will attempt to stabilize wheat prices, suggest production control programs and arrange for long-term fixed price sales contracts, in an effort to stabilize world wheat markets.
Whether or not this is the proposal we have before us as far as the Palliser Wheat Growers Association is concerned, I do not know. But how many organizations and associations do we need to cover the same ground? Again, I say I am in favour of national marketing control if we can come up with an association which really represents all the people engaged in the production of the goods concerned. It is inconsistent with any of our principles in this country that those most directly involved should not be provided for in the legislation affecting them. I trust the minister will at some point explain to the House whether he is concerned about marketing boards or about some other aspect of this issue concerning which we must draw our own conclusions.
We know what is going on in the world as far as international brokerage firms are concerned. We know they are handling grain for
DEBATES	6993
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill the Wheat Board. We know the government has not provided the board with any tools to enable it to do its job while at the same time allowing the international brokerage firms to be the marketing agency for grain. I wonder whether these firms will also be placed in a position to act as our marketing agency in connection with the products mentioned in the bill before us. The minister might comment on this aspect of the matter.
The minister made what seemed to me to be a pathetic attempt to explain why Canada did not maintain permanent marketing missions abroad. If we eventually set up a marketing board, I wonder whether the minister will realize that we do in fact need a complete marketing system and that this involves foreign missions to handle the marketing of our crops, apart from wheat. To engage successfully in world markets we must benefit by the services of foreign missions as opposed to the hodge-podge of associations which exist at the present time.
As we read some of the articles which have been written on the subject of this bill, most of us will be inclined to give credit to those who wrote them and did the necessary research to bring to light some of the facts in this connection. This is the purpose of the press-to truthfully report these items in order that the people can evaluate plans and proposals which are presented to them.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The heading of an article in the Globe and Mail of March 18 last is: "Olson seeks wide cabinet powers in marketing of farm products." I am sure that many people across the country are beginning to wonder whether the wide marketing powers of the cabinet are in the best interests of those in the agricultural production business. The article goes on to say:
The legislation will give the cabinet the power to create national farm products marketing agencies for individual commodities. These agencies could have a wide range of responsibilities, ranging from selling and pricing to packing, transportation and storage.
It also provides for the creation of a national farm products marketing council that would supervise and review the operation of marketing agencies and plans established under the proposed act.
I can see nothing wrong with that, and if that is all that is meant I am sure we would all agree with that philosophy. However, the article goes on:
The legislation provides for the appointment of inspectors who will have broad powers to search for regulated commodities and examine books and
May 14, 1970
6994	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill documents of farmers. Any farmer who does not comply with a marketing agency order will be liable for up to two years in prison.
We know what happened recently with the LIFT program. The government used the big club and told farmers not to plant, that if they did plant the club would come down and they would have no quota. Using that as an analogy, I am sure that this is why some people are concerned at the provisions of Bill C-197 now before the House. Equally, I am sure it is why most members of the House will support the amendment of the hon. member for Crowfoot. If the amendment were accepted, there would be broad representation provisions in an new bill. This is our concern at the present time and I am sure it is the concern of many people in this nation.
The article goes on:
It also provides for the licensing of farmers to grow or produce the regulated agricultural commodity or market it in interprovincial or export trade.
Other bills similar to Bill C-197 have not included regulations. Hon. members of the House know how long it took the regulations published pursuant to the LIFT program to become public knowledge. How many questions were asked by members of this House about when the regulations would become public knowledge, so that the individual producers would know what to do? It took many weeks before any such knowledge was made available to members of the House and agricultural producers across the country. This is why I am always suspicious of any bill before the House that provides for regulations to be made pursuant thereto but the regulations are not part of the bill. This suspicion is reinforced when the minister does not stand in his place and tell the House what the regulations are.
I cannot understand the argument that Parliament must approve the mechanism of this bill before the regulations can be brought in. The agricultural producers of the nation will continue to be concerned about the bill until these regulations are brought forward. To date I have heard very little from the minister about the regulations pertaining to the National Farm Products Marketing Council. Before this debate is ended I ask the minister to stand up and give the House an indication of what these regulations will be. I think members of the House on both sides would do a disservice to the nation if they passed the bill without knowing what the regulations will involve. There is little point in our being


here if we have to go back to our constituents and tell them we voted for the bill in ignorance of the regulations. This is a meaningless procedure both to us and to the people we represent, particularly those who are engaged in the marketing of agricultural produce of the sort referred to in the bill.
I should like to make another brief reference to an article in the Globe and Mail of March 12, headed: "Farm groups' enthusiasm wanes for national marketing program". This article spells out why the farm groups' enthusiasm has waned as far as the national marketing program is concerned. One of the main causes of disenchantment with previous agricultural programs introduced by the government has been the lack of regulations telling the farmers affected what the program is all about. I am sure every hon. member in this House is weU aware of the letters they have received from individual producers and agricultural groups who do not know what is in store for them in the future. The bill before the House does not tell the agricultural producers what is in store for their future. Neither does it tell them what the regulations will involve, nor say whether the people engaged in the production of farm produce will be represented. That is, it does not tell them these things unless this amendment is passed.
If the minister would stand in his place and announce that he will permit representation on the National Farm Products Marketing Council from the groups to which I have referred, then the members of this party will have no hesitation in supporting the government and passing the bill, even though we do not know what the regulations will involve. Somewhere along the line the minister must accept responsibility and permit representation by other than Order in Council in the matter of appointments to the marketing council. In the short time that I have been here I have found that although people who serve on boards and commissions sometimes have the highest qualifications, at no time has the majority of these people had any practical knowledge. Those appointed to the marketing council should have some practical knowledge of the marketing of agricultural produce, and this cannot be learned from a textbook. This is true whether the product concerned is grain or livestock.
I realize the Minister of Agriculture is well educated in the subject of livestock, but I am not sure how well educated he is in other areas, having taken a look at some of the provisions in this bill. I am sure that in the
May 14, 1970	COMMONS
area of Medicine Hat there is not too much production of honey or maple syrup confections, though these products are referred to in the bill. Perhaps there is some egg and poultry production but I do not think there is much. If the minister is party to deciding who to appoint to the council, he will also have to decide whether the appointees have sufficient practical knowledge of the subject.
In conclusion, I ask the minister to rise in his place when I sit down and say that he will appoint people to the council in the way suggested in the amendment. I am not completely sold on the amendment, but I am sold on the argument that those who are engaged in the marketing of agricultural products should be represented on the council. If the minister will tell the House that these people will be represented, then I am sure that most of the members of my party-I cannot speak for them all-will support this bill.
As I said when I began my remarks, we are in favour of a National Farm Products Marketing Council, just as we are in favour of the Canadian Wheat Board. Both these bodies can serve their purpose if given the tools to do the job. This will require people with practical knowledge who are not unnecessarily hindered in setting up organizations and assuming their responsibilities. In my opinion, we do not need a dozen agencies or associations all doing the same job. What we need is an effective association to do an effective job. The only way to do an effective job is to make sure that the people who do the job are thoroughly familiar with the task at hand.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Mr, Rene Malle (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, in principle, I am in favour of this bill, the purpose of which is to promote sales of farm products both in Canada and abroad.
However, state control per se involves certain risks. There is every evidence that some clauses of the bill can do more harm than good to producers. That is the reason for our criticisms, which we would like to be constructive.
Mr. Speaker, the examples of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Dairy Commission, which are supposed to control production of wheat and dairy products, speak for themselves. These two agencies actually have not quite achieved the purpose for which they were established.
Needless to say that not only has the Dairy Commission not improved the situation of the
DEBATES	6995
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill dairy industry but that the situation has worsened because of the direction the department is giving to this agency that is determined to gradually kill off all producers in order to reduce production to such an extent that we shall be compelled to import dairy products.
If we were the only ones to say this, it could be alleged that this was part of the opposition's tactics. But the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself stated yesterday in New Zealand that by gradually reducing milk subsidies, Canada could, in the near or not so near future, buy more dairy products from New Zealand.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that surely lets the cat out of the bag! We understand why the government insisted so to penalize the Canadian milk producers who, through excellence, improved the production of their herds too much and, consequently, produced a bit more than the allowed quota.
I was a professor for 13 years before being elected a member of the House of Commons. When a pupil came first with better grades than usual, I would congratulate and reward him. However, today, we penalize those who work too well, we penalize the producers who become more and more efficient and whose lands and herds are highly productive. Never before have we ever seen anything like it. Surely, such inconsistency cannot be found in any other area.
Yet, it exists in the dairy industry, if we go by the attitude of the Canadian Dairy Commission headed by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). As I was saying a while ago, it is not just that the remarks of one of the members of the opposition are improper. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself has just confirmed that the government intends to decrease and, eventually, to do away with the subsidies to dairy producers so that, in due course, Canada can import more from New Zealand.
If dairy producers in Quebec were not to agree with that, someone would be sorry. And so, by adopting such a policy, we prove those parties right who, in Quebec, have a certain strength and are feared in the rest of Canada. If the Quebec producers continue to be ignored, they will understand, at some point or other, that they have to get organized in a completely autonomous way.
We must emphasize those things so that the same mistakes will not be made when the time comes to take measures as to the agencies that will have to legislate or settle the problems concerning other farm products. We
6996	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill are therefore capable of justifying the fears that result from the wide control exercised by the government in that field. We agree with the government but on one condition, namely that the producers themselves deal with their own problems.
Why should the government have to appoint the chairman, the vice-chairman or the other members of that national council? Why could the producers themselves not do it? As to the agencies that will be created, why should they be controlled by the state and not by the representatives elected by the producers' associations? In other words, the contents of this bill could remain the same but greater consideration should be given to free enterprise so as to allow for a greater respect for the producer himself.
I wonder why the Catholic Farmers Union, of which most Quebec producers are members does not organize all those things if it likes the bill and supports it? What prevents the CFU from doing it? Why did it not create those agencies and that council, even if it had to have such action approved by the government? We recognize the principle of government assistance.
We all agree on that, but state help should only complement private enterprise and individual freedom. This is the principle that we want to maintain while opposing the way the government sees the National Farm Products Marketing Council and its agencies.
Before approving this proposal, since it implies support and agreement from the provinces, should we, once more, not ask ourselves whether, we are not putting the cart before the horse? Would it not be advisable first to consult the provinces and let them decide themselves on the character and the role of these agencies?
The National Council will be made up of not less than three and not more than nine members. But will these members all come from Ontario, or else, from Quebec? Will they represent the whole of the Canadian producers?
No doubt we believe it. The government should see to it that the representation is fair. However, if each province decided for itself, we would be more certain that the Council is truly representative of the whole country.
Instead of doing nothing and complaining all these years, without ever settling anything, the producers and the CFU should long ago have forced the government to give its dairy policy a different orientation.

DEBATES	May 14, 1970
However, I believe that too often the CFU was acting in collusion with the government. The remark might appear somewhat callous, but I wonder what would happen if an organization as powerful as the producers' union finally decided to take action. I have the impression that it would be worse still than the Post Office strike or any other strike. If it becomes impossible to get food, the situation will be really dangerous.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
How is it that the producers' union has never succeeded in forcing the government to implement a more efficient farm policy particularly in connection with the Quebec producers? Indeed, a group of Creditistes members from Quebec had to be elected in order to compel the government to concern itself at last about the eastern producers, a fact on which we pride ourselves. We are happy to have contributed to waking up the government and the whole population so that they have become aware at last of the urgent problems facing the farming industry in Quebec.
That is why we would not want a piece of legislation good in itself and the purpose of which is justifiable, but which does not take sufficiently into account those directly concerned.
Would it be that the producer today is in such a state of stagnation that he is not even aware of his real situation but finding himself in a dilemma, he is willing to cling to a straw, whether it be a socialist or even a communist legislation.
At first sight, he considers this bill as relatively good. However, when the law has been in force for some time, he will realize that he might lose all freedom of action. Indeed, he will be sorry then, because he will have to recognize that the agencies will make regulations affecting all aspects of marketing: from production through packaging to the sale of the products.
Naturally, a product is made to be consumed. Therefore, it is necessary to see to it that it is sold. The Creditistes say that louder still than others. It is most ridiculous to claim that it is impossible to sell products because there are no buyers. It is not true that there are no buyers. There are quite a lot but they have no money. This is one of our current problems.
We wonder therefore whether the Minister of Agriculture should not seriously consider bringing significant changes to this bill in
May 14, 1970

order to give much more freedom to the producers, to decentralize this Council and to wait for the agreement of the provinces before taking any further steps.
If we provide these safeguards, it will considerably ease the problems so that on the whole very few producers would be dissatisfied.
In Quebec, many producers are still involved in an heterogeneous production, which leads us to wonder to what extent the changes following the passage of this bill will add to the worries of a large section of our Quebec producers.
That is why we hope to see this bill amended in order to have all the offices set up by the associations themselves. The latter would elect their own representatives and their operations would be co-ordinated by the provinces. Lastly, all the provinces should be requested to set up the National Council which seems to me quite relevant since we have every reason to anticipate that the takeover by the federal government of this particular field will lead to a failure comparable to the deplorable mess of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Dairy Commission.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to intervene only briefly in the debate to speak to the amendment. I have no intention of making the kind of speech that I would make when closing the debate on the main motion, in other words, of replying in some detail to the many observations made by those who have participated in the debate so far.
I wish to intervene briefly at this time on the amendment because in all the years that I have been in Parliament I do not believe I have ever heard a debate like this one wherein the content of a bill has been so badly misinterpreted. I have listened with a great deal of interest to hon. members opposite. If I had not been closely associated with the development of the bill I would conclude from their remarks that we are proposing a law which opens up a whole new area of public authority, which provides vast new power to the government in the area of marketing farm produce, power which does not already exist. This, of course, is absolutely wrong. I challenge hon. members opposite to find in Bill C-197 any power to control the actions of individuals which is not already to be found in the legislation of the provinces across Canada, which in some cases has been on
DEBATES	6997
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill their statute books for 30 years, in others for ten years and in still others for 15 years. It is ail there, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to give but one example, although I could give several. Hon. members opposite have zeroed in on the government with respect to the provision in the bill which gives the Governor in Council authority to appoint the members of the council and which says that they shall hold office at pleasure, as though this were something new, as though this were some terribly authoritarian type of legislation being presented to the farmers of Canada for the first time.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Mr. Thompson:: Two wrongs do not make a right.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to draw hon. members' attention to the Farm Products Marketing Act in the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1960, which has been revised a number of times since then. I have in my hand a consolidation for 1969. What the Ontario legislation refers to as a board in their interpretation is what we refer to as a council in this legislation. This is what it says in section 3 (2):
The board shall consist of one or more persons who shall be appointed by and hold office during the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
That is repeated many times in the provincial legislation. That is already in place in the statutes of the provincial government, and has been there for many many years. At the outset of this debate I attempted to indicate the intention of the government, that this is enabling legislation so that all the provincial marketing boards in existence and those that may come into existence under authority already provided in the statutes of the provinces can co-ordinate their efforts so that they are not working at cross purposes, one province vis-a-vis another or one region vis-a-vis another.
It amazes me, Mr. Speaker, that members opposite, particularly those in the Conservative Party whom I understand hold the same philosophy as the government of Ontario, can zero in on a provision in this bill which is written in exactly the same language as one written into the Ontario statutes about ten years ago.


Gerald William Baldwin: You are a much worse government than the Ontario government, that is why.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, that is not what is provided in the act. The act is written; the
May 14, 1970
6998	COMMONS DEBATES
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill words become the act. It is an amazing exercise, because I know that most, if not all, of the major national farm organizations across the country are involved in this kind of legislation.


Robert Norman Thompson: That is not what I hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I know, Mr. Speaker, that we could single out commodities. Let us take beef, for instance. At the present time there are no marketing boards involved in the marketing of beef-


Stanley James Korchinski: What about the apple growers of Saskatchewan?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -and there probably never will be as long as that industry is not in severe economic difficulty. If no province brings in that kind of legislation, then of course no part of Bill C-197 will ever be applied to the beef industry.


An hon. Member:: How can you assure us of that?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: But, Mr. Speaker, there are other commodities such as eggs, broilers, potatoes and so on where there is a disposition on the part of the overwhelming majority of producers in the regions of significant production to get together and find a way of doing this. Now there is nothing to stop them doing it. I could not agree more that there is probably no prohibition now against all these provincial marketing councils and boards, and also the agencies, getting together in agreement. But, Mr. Speaker, that indicates that members opposite know a lot more than the provincial ministers of agriculture about that problem, because they have been directly involved in it. I have had a series of meetings with them over the last two years, and as much as anyone in the country they are asking that we bring in legislation complementary to theirs so that the mechanics, the machinery and the physical effects necessary for co-ordination can be put in place.
Marketing boards are far from new in this country, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, something like $2 billion worth of production is being marketed through such agencies at the present time. On the basis of 1968 figures, this represents approximately 45 per cent of the value of farm products sold in Canada.


Robert Norman Thompson: Nobody is objecting to that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Marketing boards are not new to producers or governments and we should recognize this and not try to distort the facts.

This bill provides an opportunity for the agricultural industry, and particularly for the producers-I want to emphasize "the producers"-to work together when it is in their interest to co-ordinate their efforts more effectively on a national basis. I agree that there are complexities in the marketing structures today. With expanding production and a highly organized society it is important that we place our producers in a position to make whatever advances are possible in the marketing of their products.
Some members opposite have suggested that if this bill becomes an act it will give the government power to take over the agricultural industry. This, of course, is completely erroneous. If it were so, I wonder why provincial governments, with exactly the same kind of legislation on their books for years and having used it successfully in setting up marketing agencies, have not taken over the agricultural industry. There is no difference in their legislation and what is proposed in Bill C-197. This legislation only provides for control over interprovincial and export marketing, and gives the government no authority whatever to control marketing or production within a province. Besides, a government is presumably always responsible and responsive to the will of the people who elected it. When it is said that there is no response by this or any other action to Parliament, of course that is a denial of all the procedures we have to get men into this House and the procedures by which a government is selected from those men. That argument is not tenable.
It is our intention under this legislation to merely provide the opportunity for producers and industry to better co-ordinate their efforts across the country. I am sure this plan will make economic sense. Within that limitation it will let the industry exercise its own initiative in designing and considering marketing plans.


An hon. Member:: That is what the amendment says.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is not what the amendment says. If the kind of amendment we have before us was accepted, many other sections of the bill would have to be amended. In my opinion and in the opinion of provincial governments which have had experience with it, that kind of amendment is not applicable in practical terms. I have received a great deal of representation from people who have had many years experience in trying to administer marketing agencies.
May 14, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	6999
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, would the minis- Mr. Horner: Mr. Speaker, where does it say ter permit a question?	that in the bill? In what clause, and in what
. part of what clause?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, the minister will not permit
a question. There will be time later.	Mr. Olson: Mr. Speaker, no comprehensive
.	.	plan involving supply management, for exam-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not want to pick his argu- pj6j WOuld or could be considered except with ment apart, Mr. Speaker. That is not the the strong support of, if not on the initiative reason for my question.	of, the producers.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is not the reason at all. Mr. Horner: What clause says that?
The reason I wanted to intervene briefly was
to correct some of the erroneous points and Mr. Olson: The fundamental role of the misinterpretations that have been put forward, council-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let me ask my question then, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has had an opportunity to speak.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) on a point of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I think you and the House and the minister may have misunderstood my desire to ask a question. It was only in order to have a better understanding of the minister's words: that was my only purpose in wanting to ask a question. The minister is saying that he wants to explain things and set the record straight, and that is the only reason for my wanting to ask a question.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is just one of the foolish points of order that they raise to interrupt the speeches of other members. It has also been claimed, Mr. Speaker, that there is no requirement for meaningful consultation by the government with the farmers under this legislation. The whole of this legislation is based on the premise that it will only be used on the initiative of the producers and others directly involved in the agricultural industry.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Where does it say that in the bill?


Stanley James Korchinski: That is a pretty phony argument.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. Hon. members have had the opportunity of making their remarks. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) now has the floor.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I did not hear the minister say what clause says that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -as spelled out in the bill is to consult with people and with the provinces-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What clause says that?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -and to advise the government on proposed plans or those in operation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What clause says that?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps hon. members would read the bill. If they would send it to committee so that we could hear all the details, we should be very happy to give them all these explanations.


Robert Norman Thompson: But where does it say that in the bill?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member ought to read clause 8. Of course, if he has not the time to read it, that is not our fault.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But where does it say that in the bill?


Robert Norman Thompson: It does not in clause 8 say what the minister suggests. He should read it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Let me point out that comprehensive plans, including such things as supply management, could only be implemented under a delegation of provincial powers, and provinces generally require a plebiscite before such a scheme can be implemented.


Robert Norman Thompson: That is not in the bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We do not pass provincial legislation in this House, let me make that clear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Norman Thompson: But you sure override the provincial governments when you want to.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We do not. I know that there are variations in the details of provincial
May 14, 1970
7000	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill legislation for the setting up of specific marketing agencies. This applies, indeed, to the agricultural products marketing board or council. I could give some examples. For example, let me talk of the establishment of producer marketing boards. The commissions that we are talking about here would be established in Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario by Order in Council.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have clause 8 before me. The minister said that clause 8 provides that the producers can request that a marketing board be set up. Clause 8(1) says:
A public hearing shall be held by the council.
In other words, if the council decides to set up a marketing agency, it shall hold a public hearing. Subclause 2 says that public hearings may be held where the council is satisfied, etc. The two words used are "shall" and "may". The minister said that clause 8 gives the producers the right to request that no marketing agency shall be set up without its being requested by the producers. I submit that clause 8 says nothing of the kind. I have it before me. I ask the minister to tell me what part of that clause says that the producers or a majority of them must request an agency to be set up. Nowhere does clause 8 spell that out.


Robert Norman Thompson: That is why the minister cannot tell us where that provision is to be found.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, not only has the hon. member not read the bill, but even that part he read he did not read correctly.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let the minister read it correctly.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Clause 8 says that a public hearing shall-I underline "shall"-be held by the council as follows:
(a) in connection with an inquiry into the merits of establishing an agency or of broadening the authority of an existing agency to cover an additional farm product or farm products:
That is clear.


Stanley James Korchinski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-*


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, it is not clear at all.


Stanley James Korchinski: On a point of order-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker-


Robert Norman Thompson: The minister has not read it himself.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I do not think we are getting very far with these points of order. I recognize the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski).


Stanley James Korchinski: There seems to be an essential misinterpretation of the bill, Mr. Speaker. The proper interpretation of the clause referred to by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) seems to be the interpretation placed on it by the hon. member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member will have the opportunity to make a speech after the minister has made his speech. There will be opportunity afterwards.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am sorry if I exercised hon. gentlemen opposite. When I began speaking I intended to do the opposite, in the interests of the producers of this country, because we want to get this legislation through.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Tell us more about operation LIFT.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am sorry if I have failed in that intention. Whether this matter is finished tonight or not, and whether or not it is sent to committee for detailed examination, I think it is necessary to set the record straight. I point out that the great majority of producers must be in favour of a marketing plan before the government can implement this policy.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Where does it say that in the bill?


An hon. Member:: Read it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There are provisions in this bill indicating that there must be a co-ordinated effort on the part of provincial marketing agencies-


Robert Norman Thompson: Why does the minister not read the bill?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is in the bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In what clause?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: What hon. members do not realize is that the federal government has no jurisdiction to set up rules and regulations concerning supply management on the production side, and therefore-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-
May 14, 1970	COMMONS
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order, please. I remind hon. members that we are on second reading and not in committee, and if this type of questioning continues we shall not get very far. I ask all hon. members to co-operate with the Chair.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I assure Your Honour that it is my wholehearted desire to co-operate fully with the Chair. The minister has said that the bill states that the majority of producers must request the establishment of a marketing agency. I say that is not in the bill, and I say the minister is misleading the House if he says it is and if he cannot disclose to the House what part of what clause of the bill says that. If it is in the bill, let the minister disclose what clause it is in.


Robert Norman Thompson: The minister should read the bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If he cannot disclose it, he should withdraw those remarks which go to the root of this debate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am not misleading the House and I do not accept responsibility for the way the hon. member has interpreted my remarks.


Mr. Bigg:: But where does it say that in the bid?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have said that no national marketing agency can be established without the majority support of the producers.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But it does not say that in the bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, if hon. members will not listen to the rest of the argument they can never be informed about the bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am listening.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I want to explain to hon. members opposite that the federal government has not jurisdiction to set up, under a bill, a program of supply management on the production side. That is clear. That is within provincial jurisdiction and is provided for in existing provincial statutes. So far as I can determine, the provincial statutes provide that only after a majority vote-and in some cases the question must be carried by a great deal more than a bare majority-in a plebiscite on the part of producers can this program be set up. Of course, one follows the other. I have acknowledged that it has proven difficult over the years to make advances in 22375-25
DEBATES	7001
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill marketing legislation. The provincial governments acknowledge that. We have an opportunity now, with the support of most of the major farm organizations and indeed all of the provinces, to make a significant advance through the passage of this bill through the House.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I am prepared to work with the House and the committee to improve this bill. I wish to indicate now that some amendments which are being considered will help clarify some of the points raised by hon. members opposite. I hope all members of the House will be prepared to work positively and in the interests of the agricultural industry so that we can get this bill to committee, where there can be given detailed explanations of what is in provincial legislation, to satisfy the members of the committee that what is in Bill C-197 is complementary to that legislation and does not exceed the jurisdictional authority of the federal government. We also wish to satisfy the committee that the people who have had a great deal of experience in marketing legislation, namely, the provincial governments, find the wording and the provisions of this bill satisfactory.
I acknowledge that a number of provisions of this bill are perhaps severe if the most severe interpretation is put on them. There is no question about that in my mind. However, if it performs the function for which it was designed, it must be similar to legislation now on the provincial statute books, the same legislation that we intend this bill to co-ordinate. I hope all hon. members will co-operate with us. I can assure hon. members that thousands of farmers across the country are waiting for this kind of bill to be included in the federal statutes. This also applies to the provincial governments. We must, therefore, get on with the job of co-ordinating the efforts of the producers and the provincial governments.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister a question? In view of the fact that the minister has admitted that the bill is defective, by indicating that clarifying amendments will be introduced, why does the minister not withdraw the bill until he has the amendments, so that we will know what we are going to do?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As the hon. member knows, second reading is for the purpose of accepting or rejecting the principle of the bill. That is what we are discussing. The hon. member
May 14, 1970
7002	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill also knows that the purpose of referring a bill to a standing committee is so that the committee members may study it clause by clause. If hon. members point out that there are defects in the wording of the clauses, with the open-mindedness of the government they will be taken into consideration. One or two arguments during this debate have impressed me but they do not invalidate the principle of the bill, which is what we decide on second reading.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Will the minister permit
another question? The minister said that no marketing agency would be set up without the support of the majority of the producers. Can the minister inform the House whether the dairy council was set up after a plebiscite or vote was taken which showed that the majority of the dairy producers were in favour of it?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Of course the hon. member knows that the provisions of the Canadian Dairy Commission, if that is what he is referring to, do not find their support in a bill of this kind.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It was held up as an example.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, it was not. The Canadian Dairy Commission's function is setting quotas and that sort of thing. It is directly related to the subsidy only, for the very simple reason that the federal government cannot enact supply management legislation on the production side. This has been ruled ultra vires once or twice by the Supreme Court. It therefore has to be done by the province. This bill provides for the co-ordination of provincial efforts.


George Robson Muir: The minister speaks about the severities contained in the bill. Does he agree that there is too much power in the Governor in Council under the terms of the bill as it now stands?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not. There are many responsibilities that the government, the Governor in Council or the cabinet, whichever name you wish to put on it, must assume. As I said, I think it is wrong to put the most severe interpretation on the legal terminology which is required. There are many bills which have fairly severe legal wording in them. We believe these provisions will enable us effectively to do those things which the bill calls for.


[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Stanley James Korchinski: Since it now appears obvious that there is sustained opposition to the bill because of the fact that control is being vested in the minister, or in the Governor in Council, would he not consider it advisable, in order to speed up passage of the bill, to revise the particular clause to which objection is taken?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There may be some opposition to this bill from across the way, but this does not in my view constitute sustained opposition from the producers of this country, and it is in their interest that I am bringing this measure forward.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, on May 4, my hon. friend from Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) addressed the following question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) as reported in Ho,nsard at page 6518:
Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs inform the House whether or not the disapproval of the Canadian government of the recent action of the Americans in Cambodia has been directly conveyed to the United States authorities, and, if so, what response was there?
To which the minister answered:
I think all hon. members noticed that the debate which took place in the House on Friday was being followed very closely by the representatives of the United States government.
I presume he meant representatives in the gallery. A further question was directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) by myself on May 5. I asked whether or not this was the method the Canadian government used when making representations to other governments. The Speaker ruled that it was not a point which could be raised at that time and suggested I could obtain the information in various ways, one of which would be to put a question on the Order Paper. This I have
May 14, 1970	COMMONS
done, believing that the people of Canada are entitled to an answer to a question of this type.
It is, of course, most important that the government should be able to make its views known to the governments of other nations. Canada must be regarded as the oddest nation in the world if it uses the type of approach mentioned by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to convey information to other nations. I read in one of the dictionaries that an introverted government is one which is comparatively indifferent to its social relations and responsibilities. I say that on this basis the present government is the most introverted we have ever had.
Do ministers really believe that the best way of conveying Canada's position to other nations is by making a statement in the House and expecting representatives of governments sitting in the galleries to convey the information back to their own countries? In my opinion such a system represents a complete breakdown of communications between Canada and the rest of the world. Canada could be a leader among nations, but with the kind of approach being taken by hon. gentlemen opposite, how can we be a leader even of ourselves? When ministers make their announcements just before the question period, are we supposed to look up to the galleries and say, "There they sit, the representatives of other governments"?
If we want the people of this nation to believe we have a credible and democratic government, let us make our representations in a formal way, and when questions are asked in an attempt to find our whether representations have been made to one government or another, let us not be contemptuous or facetious in any answer which may be given. I am sure those who read Hansard anywhere from grade four onward are beginning to wonder what is going on in the House of Commons. It is impossible for us to retain any sanity in this world if this is the type of approach we are taking.
On May 5, the same day Mr. Speaker suggested there were other ways open to me of handling this inquiry, I put the following questions on the Order Paper:
1.	Does the government consider it has conveyed the government's official position to other governments of the world by a cabinet minister or the Prime Minister making a statement or answering a question in the House of Commons and, if not, what is the usual method of conveying Canada's position to other governments?
22375-25J
DEBATES	7003
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
2.	Has Canada directly expressed her disapproval to the United States government of the American invasion of Cambodia?
3.	Does Canada intend making her official views known to the United States and to the citizens of Canada?
All I ask at this time is whether the statement made in this House represents the official position of the government. Incidentally, I posted this question on May 5 and it has not yet been answered. If this is how we are treated by the government of the day, how can we expect the people to believe we have a democratic system? Surely, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) is in a position to answer those three questions this evening. Regardless of what our official position might be, he can tell us the means by which we convey that official position to the governments of other nations. Is it done through the United Nations? Is it done through our ambassadors? There must be an answer to this question. It should not have taken nine days to produce it. A reply to the questions I posed is now overdue.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), may I say that the immediate and most obvious answer to the hon. member is that there is a whole range of ways in which governments communicate with each other and make their views known. They range from formal diplomatic communications to informal exchanges between accredited representatives either at the United Nations or in the various states concerned.
Surely, though, there could be no more authoritative and public channel through which a government can express its views on any subject than through the Parliament of Canada. I am surprised that the hon. member should take exception to the government communicating its views on the particular matter in question to the people of the world, as it does in connection with other questions of domestic and foreign policy, through the Parliament of Canada. Surely, there could be no better channel. There is certainly no channel which this government is more prepared to respect than that of the House of Commons. The hon. member seems to take exception to this. I find it an extraordinary position for him to take, but perhaps it explains why his hon. friends have chosen not to appoint him to the External Affairs Committee.
May 14, 1970
7004	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion LABOUR RELATIONS-WEST COAST TOWBOAT


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley Wesl):: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in order to fully understand the towboat dispute it is useful to review its history. On August 20, 1969, at the request of he Canadian Merchant Service Guild, the minister appointed Mr. D. S. Tysoe as conciliation officer to deal with a contract dispute between the guild and the B.C. Towboat Owner's Association, Vancouver. The existing collective agreement was due to expire on September 30, 1969. On October 14, at the request of the minister, a joint committee comprising officers of the Department of Labour and the Department of Transport was established to examine safety and labour standards in the towboat industry. On October 28 the conciliation officer reported that despite many meetings over the preceding two months in the guild dispute he was unable to bring about a settlement. He recommended that a conciliation board be established.
On November 21, the minister appointed Mr. R. A. Gallagher, Q.C., of Winnipeg, as chairman of the conciliation board. The guild nominated Mr. Jack Moore of the IWA to the board and the association nominated Mr. Belair. On February 12 the minister received the unanimous report of the conciliation board which dealt with the guild dispute. Commencing on December 8, 1969, the board held some 17 formal hearings and made strenuous efforts to find common ground for a settlement. The board appended a draft collective agreement to the report. Recommendations were made on manning, accommodation and for a 10 per cent wage increase in each year of a two-year agreement. The report was immediately released to the parties.
DEBATES	7005
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion On February 27 the guild requested the minister to reconvene the conciliation board to clarify certain recommendations in the report. The board made a further report to the minister on March 26 clarifying some 14 recommendations contained in the earlier report. On may 2 the parties met for further negotiations and mediation services were provided by Mr. W. P. Kelly and Mr. D. S. Tysoe, industry specialits. Mediation continued until Sunday noon, when the guild called a strike and negotiations were terminated. The breakdown in negotiations centred on the issue of manning. The Department of Transport committee on manning and safety had a successful series of meetings and the results of these meetings are being reviewed.
The present situation on the west coast is disrupting large numbers of innocent people, but the minister points out that the government has done everything possible to avoid this strike and is convinced that the parties can resolve the dispute. The full facilities of the Department of Labour both on the west coast and in Ottawa are available to the parties, and as soon as both parties indicate their willingness to resume meaningful negotiations, mediation will be provided. In the meantime, officers of the department are following the situation with great care.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon as recorded at page 6915 of Hansard for May 13, I asked this question:
Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the representations made to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by the Ottawa Senior Citizens Council requesting at least one program on radio and television planned by and for senior citizens, will the minister ask the CBC for a report on the possibility of agreeing to this request?
May I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that when Your Honour suggested that my question should either be put on the Order Paper or posted for a "late show," my first reaction was the normal one that we all have when you give us that admonition, namely, that you were being unfair to me. I thought about some of the questions that had been asked and accepted, and I asked myself, "Why does Mr. Speaker do this to me?" But, Mr. Speaker, 30 seconds later I found myself grateful to you. I felt you had done me a special favour.
May 14, 1970


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), I can advise that word has indeed been received by the CBC on this question. I am advised by the CBC that the request for at least one program on radio and television, planned by and for senior citizens, has been received from the Ottawa Citizens Council and it will be considered by senior program officers later this month.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.23 p.m.

Friday, May 15, 1970