1970-06-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture-Mr. Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean).
fEnglish]

[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-Mr. Wahn.
[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization-Mr. Blair.
[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts, in both official languages- Mr. Lefebvre.
Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the seventh and eighth reports of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development and with the consent of the House, I intend to move later today that they be concurred in.


Mr. H.-Pit Lessard (LaSalle):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the thirteenth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, in both official languages.
Mr. Speaker, with the agreement of the House, I intend to move today that the said report be concurred in.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean or of the leader of the House whether consent will be sought to proceed today with the report stage and third reading of Bill C-196 which was reported from the Standing Committee a few moments ago by the hon. member?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: I understand there may be at least some measure of consent to take all the remaining stages of Bill C-196 today without debate so that it may pass this House and make further progress. I hope this can be done by general consent either now or at the appropriate time so that it may be put through the House and transferred to the other place.


Mr. Baldwin:: I do not think these bright and shining words are as realistic as they might appear to be. We have no objection to this bill being put through today or next week, for that matter, but we do not intend to relinquish our duty as the opposition to make sure that all the amendments introduced by the government or by others receive full and proper treatment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could there be discussion through the usual channels this morning to ascertain whether we could get along with this bill?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: All three items down for consideration today are on an equally urgent basis. Moreover, the business has to be interrupted at four o'clock this afternoon for an emergency debate. If it is possible to have Bill C-196 included also on an emergency basis I would be glad to see this done, but if it is suggested that there is to be a prolonged debate on it the discussion will have to be deferred, or else we must defer the emergency debate.


Gerald William Baldwin: I suppose it is a question of assessing priorities. There are so many emergencies arising under the government that we have to consider which should take priority.
June 26, 1970

Indian Affairs Committee Report HOUSE OF COMMONS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That, when the House adjourns for its summer recess, it shall stand adjourned until October 5, 1970, provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Her Majesty's Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for the purpose of reconvening the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent I would move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented this day, be concurred in.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent I would move that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented this day, be concurred in.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We are prepared to recommend concurrence in this report, Mr. Speaker, but I should like it to go on record that concurrence is subject to consultation with representatives of all the parties, if and when a detailed timetable and itinerary are proposed, so that it can be generally accepted that what is proposed is reasonable. Subject to this caveat, I am glad to give consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the annual report of Panarctic Oils Company Limited, for the year 1969.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43 of urgent and pressing necessity asking the House to discuss a matter of national importance. I refer to the recent disorders and disturbances that have occurred on the Six Nations Indian reserve in my constituency. I have in my hand a copy of the Brantford Expositor of June 24 which carries the headline: "Indian group seizes council house". The elected council, which holds office under and by virtue of an Act of this Parliament, has been locked out of the council chamber and a seizure has been effected of the property occupied until two days ago by the Mohawk Institute, one of the largest Indian educational institutions in Canada.
I raised this matter, Mr. Speaker, in the House on March 10, of this year, when I asked a question of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. An answer was given by his Parliamentary Secretary assuring me that this institution was closed after full and complete consultation with the Indian council. Every member of this House has received a letter from the Six Nations council advising them that at no time did they grant their consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon.
member kindly indicate what motion he is proposing?


James Elisha Brown: I will gladly do so, Mr. Speaker, especially in view of the long and rather sordid story of our relations with the Indian people over the years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Elisha Brown: I am the only representative that the Six Nations Indians have in Parliament, and I could tell a story that would shock all hon. members.
June 26, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to give unanimous consent to this story being told.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly move his proposed motion.


James Elisha Brown: Without further words I will gladly move the following motion:
That the recent disorders on the Six Nations Indian reserve be referred for study to the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Brant. The motion requires the unanimous agreement of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be unanimity in the House so I will put the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 

FISHERIES AND FORESTRY


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among representatives of the parties and I gather there would be some disposition to enable the fisheries committee to travel to Eastern Canada during the course of the parliamentary recess. If there is agreement, I wonder whether the following could be made an order of the House, that the report of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1969, tabled in the House June 12, 1970, be referred to the
Questions
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry; and that the committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada during its consideration of the said report.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the statement by the President of the Privy Council. I must say to him that there has been no consultation with me as the chairman of the fisheries committee of the official opposition on this matter; hence there has been no agreement reached on the proposal he is now placing before the House.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I was advised that there had been consultation. If there was not I apologize to the hon. gentleman, and on that basis I would withdraw the motion.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H.-Pit Lessard (LaSalle) moves that the thirteenth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented today, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
[English],
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I indicated that we would probably be in a position to respond to some written questions and some Notices of Motions for Production of Papers today. We are now in a position to do so. I wonder whether the House would agree to a special order to permit those items to be called at this point so that my Parliamentary Secretary might call certain questions and motions for disposition.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Comeau: 1.	In 1968-69 and 1969-70, what were the estimated sums spent on research in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and what was the purpose of each research project?

June 26, 1970
Questions
2.	How much money was actually expended according to Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows:	1. See attached
schedule.
2.	The Dominion Bureau of Statistics does not have "actual" expenditures on research for 1968-69 and 1969-70. A survey requesting information on actual expenditures for 1968-69 and estimates for 1969-70 on research in the natural and engineering sciences is in process.
RESEARCH CONTRACTS Department of Regional Economic Expansion
Name
Contract	Amount
Amount	Paid
Giles Beaudet Benjamin Higgins Lalonde Valois Lamarre Valois Associates
F.	Martin
J. C. Wicket A. Raynaud
G.	Bourassa
M. Ray
Study of Parent radar station conversion Study of socio-economic problems in Quebec
Transportation study of Gaspe region Study of socio-economic problems Quebec Study of nutritional levels in selected population areas Study of socio-economic problems in Quebec Study of consultative process at the regional level and its impact on regional planning
Study of areas of diminishing population
Total
$ 4,000	$ 4,000
4,100	4,050
225,000	225,000
4,000	4,000
5,000	5,000
4,000	4,000
17,250	13,000
1,000	500
$264,350	$259,550


INCENTIVE GRANT TO BRIQUES CITADELLE, QUEBEC
Mr. Burion: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to "Briques Citadeile, Quebec" and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of the project for which the grant was provided and what is the nature of the project and its location?
3.	Who are the directors and chief executive officers of "Briques Citadeile, Quebec" and what is the address of each?
4.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
5.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1. and 2. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
3.	The directors and chief executive officers of Brique Citadeile Ltee, as of December 31, 1969 were: Cajeton Cote, President, Director,
[Mr. Comeau.l
Quebec, Quebec; Fernand Demers, Vice President, Director, Sillery, Quebec; C. H. Gagnon, Secretary-Treasurer, Director, Villeneuve, Quebec; L. O. Morency, Director, Quebec, Quebec; Frangois Nolin, Director, Charles-bourg, Quebec; Stuart Wright, Director, Quebec, Quebec; Amedee Demers, Director, Quebec, Quebec.
4.	Non-residents had no interest in the voting shares of the company either directly or through other holdings.
5.	None.


MANAGEMENT CONTRACT, NEW MONTREAL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Burton: 1.	Were tenders or bids called for the management contract for physical aspects of the development of the new Montreal International Airport and, if so, who was awarded the contract?
2.	(a) Who submitted tenders or bids for this contract (b) what was the amount or terms of the tender or bid?
3.	Were tenders or bids called for the architectural work for the first terminal building?
4.	What tenders or bids were submitted and what was the amount or terms of each?
5.	Who was awarded the contract?
June 26, 1970


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Tenders were not called.
2.	(a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable.
3.	No.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Papineau, Gerin-Lajoie, Leblanc and Edwards.


NEWFOUNDLAND-REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION ESTIMATES
Mr. Marshall: 1.	What amount is allocated for the Province ol Newfoundland in the Regional Economic Expansion estimates, Vote L25, Loans in accordance with agreements entered into or to be entered into with the provinces for development of industrial infrastructure of the $39,147,000 proposed for 1970-71?
2.	What is the breakdown of advances to each Atlantic Province in the Department's Vote L15, of $33,657.00?
3.	What is the breakdown, by province, in the Department's estimates under Grants to Universities and Regional Development Associations to promote Regional Development in an amount of $25,000?
4.	What is the breakdown of allocated amounts, by province, in the Department's estimates under contribution in the amount of $1,764,200 for projects and programs under ARDA including Canada Land Inventory-Planning and Administration?
5.	What is the breakdown, by province, of the proposed 1970-71 estimates of $124,828,100.00 under contributions, payments to provinces economic expansion and social adjustment?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. $9,075,000.
2.	Newfoundland, $22,474,000; Nova Scotia, $9,225,000; New Brunswick, $1,958,000.
3.	This $25,000 will be used as appropriate projects are submitted and there is no advance allocation by provinces.
4.	Of the total $808,899 is allocated by province, and these allocations are: Newfoundland, $33,900; New Brunswick, $28,000; Quebec, $90,500; Ontario, $46,000; Manitoba, $224,333; Saskatchewan, $129,833; Alberta, $137,833; British Columbia, $118,500.
5.	Newfoundland, $38,104,000; Prince Edward Island, $13,023,000; Nova Scotia, $32,879,000; New Brunswick, $40,677,000; Unallocated, $145,100.


IMPROVEMENTS TO CHARLOTTETOWN AIRPORT
Mr. MacLean: 1.	What amount is provided in the 1970-71 estimates for improvements to the Charlottetown Airport?
2.	What are the improvements planned?
Questions


Gérard Loiselle: 1. An amount of $33,500 has been provided in the 1970-71 Estimates for improvements to the Charlottetown Airport.
2.	It is planned to instal a permanent nondirectional navigation beacon this year at Charlottetown Airport.


NEW MONTREAL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Beaudoin: Does the federal government intend to cancel the expropriation orders or assign the properties to the Government of Quebec in the case of lands expropriated for the Sainte-Scholastique Airport and which will not be used for that project?


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, the federal government received a request by the previous provincial government to either abandon expropriation procedures on land adjacent to the Ste. Scholastique Airport property, or to transfer title of such land to the government of Quebec. A decision on this matter has not been reached.


PRAIRIE PROVINCES-FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING BOARD SALES
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	What percentage of fish handled by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board in each of the Prairie Provinces, is sold locally and what percentage is exported to other parts of Canada or to the United States?
2.	What was the price paid to the fishermen for the various types of freshwater fish caught in the Prairie Provinces in the past three years and what is the average price now being paid to them by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1. It is
not possible statistically to distinguish between that part of each Province's production which is sold in other parts of Canada or sold in the United States. Statistics on the Corporation's sales within Alberta from December 1, 1969, to April 30, 1970, represented 12 per cent of production to a total value of $68,929.
2.	Following is a comparison of initial prices paid to fishermen in the summer season since the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation came into production. The figures given for

June 26, 1970
Questions
the 1968 summer season are indicative of
averages of fluctuating 1970	prices. 1969 (cents per lb.)	1968Jumbo Whites	414	41	42Large Whites	334	31	27Medium Whites	234	18	17Headless Pickerel Headless	464	27	24Northern Pike	84	6	2Perch	9	7	9
In addition to the initial prices indicated for 1969 there was a final payment of $0.0137 per lb. on all whitefish and $0.0793 per lb. on all pickerel.


DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION RESEARCH STUDIES
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What research studies have been carried out by, or on behalf of, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion during each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
2.	What research studies are presently being carried on and/or are contemplated during the next five years?
3.	What was the cost of each of the research studies completed in each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
4.	What is the estimated cost of each of the studies presently in being or contemplated during the next five years?


Abram Ernest Epp: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion since its formation on April 1, 1969, is as follows: 1. Studies carried out by the Department are part of its continuing operations and are not identifiable. Studies carried out on behalf of the Department are listed on the schedule following.
2.	See schedule following. Estimates covering the next five years are not available.
3.	See schedule following.
4.	See following schedule for continuing studies. Estimated costs for the next five years are not available.
RESEARCH CONTRACTS Department of Regional Economic Expansion
Amount Spent
Contract	Amount Completed Continuing
Amount Paid	Contracts Contracts
Giles Beaudet Benjamin Higgins Lalonde Valois Lamarre Valois Associates
F.	Martin
J. C. Wicket
A. Raynaud
G.	Bourassa
M. Ray Total
Study of Parent radar station conversion Study of socio-economic problems in Quebec
Transportation study of Gaspe region Study of socio-economic problems Quebec Study of nutritional levels in selected population areas
Study of socio-economic Quebec Study of consultative process at the regional level and its impact on regional planning Study of areas of diminishing population
$ 4,000 4,100	$ 4,000 4,050	$ 4,000 4,050	$225,000 4,000	225,000 4,000	225,000 4,000	5.000 4.000	5.000 4.000	5.000 4.000	17,250 1,000	13,000 500	4,250 500$254,350	$259,550	$246,050	$ 4,750


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-SALARIES OF COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Thompson: 1.	What is the salary of the Chief Commissioner, the Assistant Chief Commissioner and the three other Commissioners of the Canadian Wheat Board?
2.	What are the dates of their appointments and terms of appointment?


Hon. Otio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: 1. Chief Commissioner, $37,000; Assistant Chief Commissioner, $34,000; Other Commissioners, $32,000.
Subsection (3) of Section 3 of Part I of the Canadian Wheat Board Act provides that: each commissioner holds office during good behaviour but may be removed for cause at any time by the Governor in Council, but no
June 26. 1970

commissioner shall hold office beyond the age of seventy years.
2.	Present Commissioners were appointed as follows: W. C. McNamara, Commissioner- September 15, 1945; Assistant Chief Commissioner-February 1, 1947; Chief Commissioner -January 31, 1961. G. N. Vogel, Commissioner-September 1, 1964; Assistant Chief Commissioner-July 1, 1969. D. H. Treleaven, Commissioner-October 1, 1965. Dr. R. L. Kristjanson, Commissioner-October 1, 1965.
C.	W. Gibbings, Commissioner-July 1, 1969.


EMPLOYMENT OF INDIANS AND LEASES ON CAUGHNAWAGA RESERVE
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Has the Canadian Government recently employed an Indian at a salary of $20,000 or over?
2.	On the Caughnawaga Indian Reserve for the past three years, has the Canadian Government
(a)	renewed leases and, if so, for each of these leases in (i) what year was it signed and by whom (ii) what was the initial rental cost (iii) what was the last rental cost (iv) what was the initial duration (v) what is the duration of the last renewal
(b)	approved leases and, if so, for each of these leases (i) on what date was it signed and by whom (ii) what was the rental cost (iii) what is the duration?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows:
1.	No.
2.	The contents of a lease agreement constitutes a confidential landlord-tenant relationship. It would represent a breach of confidence to provide a reply to this question.


SINKING OF LIBERIAN TANKER ARROW
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What has been the cost to the Canadian government of the grounding and subsequent sinking of the Liberian registered tanker Arrow in Cheda-bucto Bay, Nova Scotia on February 4, 1970?
2.	What further cost is estimated?
3.	What is the estimated cost of the formal investigation taking place?
4.	Will the federal government consider charging the total cost to the owners of the Arrow?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the National Research Council of
Questions
Canada and the Department of Transport as follows:
National Research Council of Canada
1.	$39,836.
2.	$12,425. (Estimated)
Department of Transport $1,802,000. $1,200,000.
3.	Not possible to determine, as the investigation has not been completed.
4.	This is under investigation.


OTTAWA-COST OF CONVERSION OF UNION STATION TO CONFERENCE CENTRE
Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the total cost to the government of Canada to convert the Old Union Station into a Conference Centre?
2.	What use is made of the Conference Centre?
3.	Is the public barred from viewing these facilities and, if so, for what reason?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices and the Department of Public Works as follows: 1. Acquisition of furniture and furnishings amounted to $45,753. Cost of construction, $681,845.32.
2.	The Conference Centre is for the use of federal-provincial conferences and meetings, other federal government meetings and interprovincial meetings.
3.	The usual rules which apply to government buildings in Ottawa are also applicable to the Government Conference Centre. No public tours have been planned.


CBC-TV APPEARANCE OF CHAIRMAN OF MONARCHIST LEAGUE OF CANADA
Mr. McIntosh: 1.	How many telephone calls were received by CBC regarding the appearance of John Aimers, Chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada, on Hourglass, April 2, 1970?
2. Of this number, how many expressed (a) favourable (b) unfavourable comments about Mr. Aimers' views?
3. Of this number, how many expressed (a) favourable (b) unfavourable comments about Mr. Desbarats' attitude, or the way in which he conducted the interview?
4.	How many letters were received by CBC in relation to the same interview?
5.	Of the letters received, how many expressed
(a)	favourable (b) unfavourable comments about Mr. Aimers' views?
6.	How many letters expressed (a) favourable
(b)	unfavourable comments about Mr. Desbarats' attitude, or the manner in which he conducted the interview?

June 26, 1970
Questions
7.	Was the news story of the formation of the Monarchist League of Canada treated on CBC National News in the same manner as it was on CTV National News and, if not, for what reason?
8.	Is it the intention of CBC to provide further opportunities for Mr. Aimers and supporters of the Crown to state their case, in opposition to the many who attack the Crown?
9.	How many interviews, news stories, or such similar material, by or about those opposed to the continued presence of the Canadian Monarchy were carried by CBC in (a) 1964 (b) 1965 (c) 1966 (d) 1967 (e) 1968 (f) 1969 (g) 1970, to date?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Twenty three telephone calls.
2	and 3. Fifteen of the calls expressed general approval of the interview without being specifically favourable to either Mr. Aimers' views or Mr. Desbarats' attitude and the way the interview was conducted. The remaining eight calls were unfavourable to Mr. Desbarats' interviewing style.
4.	Three letters, addressed to Peter Desbarats as host of the program.
5 and 6. Two of the three letters were favourable and one was non-committal, with respect to Mr. Aimers' views. All three were unfavourable to Mr. Desbarats' attitude or the manner in which the interview was conducted.
7.	The CBC has no record of having carried such a news story and has no details as to the time or nature of CTV coverage although it is believed that CTV carried it as a brief item. If the story had been among the many news items received by CBC news, its news value would have been considered in relation to other news stories of the day and the broadcast time available.
8.	The Corporation attempts to cover people and events in the news on the basis of their interest or significance to the public.
9.	This information is not available since CBC records are not maintained in such detail.


POLLUTION-BRITISH COLUMBIA PULP MILL EFFLUENT
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Does the government have any data concerning the contents of pulp mill effluent from any pulp and/or paper mills in British Columbia and, if so, with respect to each such mill, by name, what is the daily quantity of each chemical, by name, that is contained within the effluent from each such mill?

2.	Into what body of water, or other area, does each such mill pour its effluent?
3.	What evaluation exists of the toxicity to (a) fish (b) other animal life (c) plants (d) humans of each such chemical referred to in Part 1?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Yes. Data is not available in terms of chemicals contained within the effluents, or the daily quantity of each chemical. Further detail is being obtained in a current survey.
2.	Powell River Mill-Malaspina Strait; Crofton Mill-Stuart Channel; Harmac Mill (Nanaimo)-Northumberland Channel; Al-pulp Mill (Port Alberni)-Alberni Inlet; Gold River Mill-Muchalat Inlet; Elk Falls Mill (Campbell River)-Discovery Passage; Port Alice-Neroutsos Inlet; Woodfibre Mill- Howe Sound; Port Mellon Mill-Howe Sound; Ocean Falls Mill-Cousins Inlet; Columbia Cellulose and Skeena Kraft Mill-Chatham Sound and Wainwright Basin; Kamloops Pulp and Paper Mill-South Thompson River; Northwood Pulp Mill (Prince George)- Fraser River; Prince George Pulp and Paper -Fraser River; Intercontinental Pulp (Prince George)-Fraser River; Celgar Mill (Castle-gar)-Columbia River.
3.	(a) Evaluation of the toxicity of kraft pulp mill effluents from all of the inland kraft mills on salmon streams is conducted through regular bioassays of samples of mill effluent, (b) Not known, (c) Not known, (d) Not known.


FEDERAL GRANT TO FRONTIER COLLEGE
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,835-Mr. Nyslrom: (Supplementary)
1.	Is it the intention of the government to provide Frontier College with an operating grant of $50,000 for their 1970 program?
2.	Has the government made a decision as to the amount of financial assistance Frontier College might expect in future years?
Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Departments of Manpower and Immigration and Labour as follows:
1.	No. The federal government decided to double its grant to Frontier College from $5,000 in 1969-70 to $10,000 in 1970-71. The Department of Labour has provision in its 1970-71 Estimates for a grant of $5,000 to the College.
2.	No. However, beginning with 1971-72, the Department of Manpower and Immigration will assume sole responsibility within
June 26, 1970



the federal jurisdiction for federal grants to Frontier College. Some financial support of an indirect nature can also be given in the form of purchases, by the Department, of training and research services under the Adult Occupational Training Act. In this connection, the Department has had many discussions with the provinces and with Frontier College in an attempt to increase such purchases, which under the law require provincial concurrence. Purchases have been relatively small, mainly for the reason that provinces consider that they can supply the training required through provincially operated institutions.


LABOUR GAZETTE ARTICLE BY PROFESSOR E. P. NEUFELD
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Was Professor E. P. Neufeld paid for the article "Inflation and Tight Money: Where Are They Taking Us?" which appeared in the May, 1070 issue of the Labour Gazette and, if so, how much?
2.	Was this article written especially for publication in the Labour Gazette or is it in fact in whole or in the main a reprint of the speech given by Professor Neufeld to the Canadian Club in Toronto on December 3, 1969?
3.	Is it the intention to provide equivalent space in the Labour Gazette for articles of opposite views to those of Professor Neufeld?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: 1.	Yes. $150.
2.	The article was commissioned for the Labour Gazette but was based on material used in the speech of December 3, 1969.
3.	At least one article on the same general subject, by a different author, is planned.


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-USE OF CONSULTANTS
Mr. Robinson: How many consultants have been engaged by the Department of Justice during each year 1950 to 1970 inclusive (a) what was the cost of the consultants (b) how were the consultants utilized (c) for what reasons were the consultants necessary?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: This question cannot be answered in its present form unless some definition can be attached to the term consultant. For example, are legal agents retained in specific cases considered to be in this category? Does the term consultant cover the Royal Commission on the Criminal Law Relating to Criminal Sexual Psychopaths, the Special Committee on 22478-55}
Questions
Hate Propaganda in Canada and the Department of Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency? In addition, following enactment of the Government Organization Act 1966, numerous agencies that previously had been responsible to the Minister of Justice became the responsibility of other ministries and the bulk of their records were transferred to the department concerned.


CANADA COUNCIL DOCTORAL FELLOWSHIPS
Mr. Caouelte: 1.	What is the success rate of those applying for Canada Council Doctoral Fellowships?
2.	(a) How many Canada Council Doctoral Fellowships were awarded this year (b) how many applications were refused?
3.	Of those awarded, how many were to (a) Canadian citizens (b) landed immigrants?
4.	Of those refused, how many were (a) Canadian citizens (b) landed immigrants?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. For fellowships awarded in 196970 and tenable in 1970-71, the success rate was 97.8% in the case of renewal applications, 38.6% in the case of first awards, and 56.1% for both combined.
2.	(a) 1,203 renewals and 1,138 first awards, or a total of 2,341. (b) 27 renewal applications and 1,810 applications for first awards, or a total of 1,837.
3. (a) 1,789; (b) 552.
4. (a) 1,323; (b) 514.


DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND FORESTRY-DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Fisheries and Forestry have data processing equipment (automatic) and, if so, for how long?
2.	What was the initial cost of the equipment?
3.	What yearly costs are anticipated for data processing in the Department?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Yes, since 1969.
2.	$53,200.
3.	The anticipated cost for data processing computing services for the current fiscal year is $263,500, exclusive of salaries of Departmental staff.

June 26, 1970
Questions


AIR TRANSPORT-AIR SERVICE FOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND VIP'S
Mr. Comeau: 1.	Do the Departments of Transport and National Defence operate similar air services for government officials and VTP's and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Is there a difference in operating costs in these services?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Transport and National Defence as follows: 1. The Ministry of Transport is responsible for the provision of short to medium range airlifts of Ministers of the Crown, foreign dignitaries visiting Canada and, from time to time, high-ranking federal officials on government business. These flight operations are confined principally to the North American continent. The Department of National Defence operates an air service for the transportation of personnel of the Department. However, on occasion, Air Transport Command are called upon to provide special flights for other government departments. This occurs when the demand for such airlifts exceeds the Department of Transport's capacity, or when a transoceanic airlift is required since DOT'S airlift is primarily limited to domestic operations.
2. The operating costs of the Ministry of Transport aircraft are determined according
Pacesetter Presentations Limited, 135 Railside Road,
Don Mills, Ontario.
Hopkins, Hedlin Limited,
95 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto 7, Ontario.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-OUTSIDE ADVERTISING EXPENDITURES
Mr. Sulaiycky: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion retained or employed from time-to-time, from outside its own permanent employees, and public relations firm or person, or any advertising firm or person for any purpose in the past five years and, if so, for what purpose?
2.	What are the names of such firms or persons so employed in the past two years?
3.	What was the total expenditure made for the service of such persons or firms in each of the past five years?
Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic
IMr. Whelan.]
to aircraft type by means of a well established cost accounting procedure and are prorated over the expected life cycle of each aircraft type. The direct operating costs are commensurate with those of commercial operators using similar or same type aircraft. When Air Transport Command provide airlift services for other government departments, costs are staffed through Canadian Forces Headquarters. It is not known how such costs would compare to that for a similar DOT operation.


ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES- ADVERTISING EXPENDITURES
Mr. Sulaiycky: 1.	Has the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources retained or employed from time-to-time, from outside its own permanent employees, any public relations firm or person, or any advertising firm or person for any purpose in the past five years and, if so, for what purpose?
2.	What are the names of such firms or persons so employed in the past two years?
3.	What was the total expenditure made for the service of such persons or firms in each of the past five years?


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secreiary io Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1.	Yes. To prepare articles and audio-visual productions on water pollution research.
2 and 3.
1965-1968 -	-
1968-1969 - $	1,750
1969-1970 - $	2,750
1965-1968 -		
1968-1969 - $	12,689
1969-1970 -	-
Expansion): 1. Yes. (a) for the production and placement of advertisements; (b) for the production of films for display to the public.
2.	Inter Canada Advertising Agency Ltd.; Foster Advertising Limited; Cherrz Film Production Ltd.; Film House Limited.
3.	1969-70, $15,582.


CANDU-TYPE ATOMIC ENERGY PLANTS
Mr. Thomson: 1.	Has the government through Atomic Energy of Canada Limited offered firm bids to build Candu-type atomic energy plants in (a) Roumania (b) Mexico (c) Australia (d) other countries?
June 26, 1970

2.	Have offers been made to build heavy water plants in any of these countries?
3.	In any such offers, have firm commitments regarding building time, repair parts or servicing been made?
4.	Are offers for sale of any such plants subject to the normal export credit conditions or have special credit arrangements been suggested?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: 1.	(a) and (b) yes; (c) about to bid; (d) no.
2.	No.
3.	Warranties on construction and plant performance have been offered.
4.	Yes.


DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND FORESTRY-USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Fisheries and Forestry have the use of a computer in its operations and, if so, to what extent is it utilized?
2.	Is the computer programmed 24 hours per day, and, if not for what reason?
3.	What is the number of hours planned for utilization of the computer?
4.	What has been the annual cost of computer services for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
5.	How many programmes are in preparation for the computer at the present time and how will each affect the efficiency of the Department?


Eugene Whelan: 1. The
Department of Fisheries and Forestry has the use of two small electronic computers; one at Petawawa Forest Experiment Station presently utilized eight to 10 hours per day, the other at British Columbia Regional Office, Victoria, B.C., presently utilized an average of seven hours per day.
2.	No. At present there is neither the workload to require full-time operation nor the staff available to operate the equipment on a full-time basis.
3.	Petawawa eight to 10 hours per day; Victoria seven to eight hours per day.
4.	1960-1961, nil; 1961-1962, $7,500; 19621963, $20,000; 1963-1964, $20,000; 1964-1965, $44,000; 1965-1966, $55,300; 1966-1967, $61,800; 1967-1968, $100,800; 1968-1969, $182,400; 19691970, $249,500.
Note: Amounts prior to 1968-69 cover the Canadian Forestry Service only; figures for the Fisheries Service are not available.
5.	Petawawa-20; Victoria-19. All but one are intended for summarization and analysis of data required in the research program of the Canadian Forestry Service. The other is
Questions
being written for local accounting at Victoria and is expected to reduce the staff requirement in the Accounts Section by two clerks.


AIR CANADA REORGANIZATION
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	(a) How many Vice-Presidents of Air Canada have been compulsorily retired since January 1, 1970 (b) what are the names and ages of each of the said Vice-Presidents?
2.	Were any of the Vice-Presidents retained and, if so, what are their names and ages?
3.	(a) How many employees have been dismissed or removed at all levels in Air Canada since January 1 (b) how many years had each of said employees served (c) how long had each of them to serve until age 65?
4.	How many officials and employees still in the service of Air Canada as of this date will, under the project plan, be removed, dismissed or retired between now and January 1, 1971?


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, the Management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1, 2, 3, and 4. It has not been the policy or practice of the Management to disclose information from personal files of officers and employees. However, in the process of the current re-organization resulting from consolidation of positions across the System, there will be a limited number of redundancies at various management and support levels although the exact number cannot be determined at this state. Implementation will be phased over a period of months and will involve some normal retirements, some special retirements, some re-assignments and some separations. The Corporation will deal with each situation in a reasonable and equitable manner.


BILINGUAL DISTRICTS ADVISORY BOARD
Mr. Coates: 1.	Have any meetings of the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board been held to date and, if so, how many meetings and at what location?
2.	What are the names of the persons on the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board, what are their addresses and what salary does each receive?
3.	Does the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board have a staff and, if so, how many members are there on the staff, what are their names and what is the salary of each?
4.	(a) What has been the cost to date of this Board (b) what expenses has it incurred and what expenses have each of the members of the Board incurred?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Bilingual Districts Ad-

June 26, 1970
Questions
visory Board as follows: 1. Yes. Two general meetings of the Board took place in Ottawa in March and May 1970. Fourteen informal meetings were held in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario. There were also special meetings with provincial authorities in Fredericton and Toronto.
2. Mr. Roger Duhamel, Chairman, 383 Maple Lane, Rockcliffe Park, Ont., $200 for each day of service to the Board; Mr. M. G. Ballantyne, 355 St. James Street East, Montreal 126, Que., $150 for each day of service to the Board; Mr. P. Fox, 54 Turner Road, Toronto, Ont., $150 for each day of service to the Board; Dr. W. H. Hickman, 3011 Foul Bay Road, Victoria, B.C., $150 for each day of service to the Board; Miss M. Joubert, 690 Dunlop Avenue, Montreal 154, Que., $150 for each day of service to the Board; Dr. L. McEwen, Crescent Towers, Apt. 506, Saskatoon, Sask., $150 for
each day of service to the Board; Honorable Judge A. M. Monnin, 608 Aulneau Street, Saint Boniface 6, Man. (No Honoraria; only expenses incurred.); Mr. R. Saint-Denis, 50 Riverdale Avenue, Ottawa 1, Ont., $150 for each day of service to the Board; Mr. A. Savoie, 375 Grand Pre, Dieppe, Moncton, N.B., $150 for each day of service to the Board; Dr. H. D. Smith, 25 Whitan Court, Truro, N.S., $150 for each day of service to the Board.
3.	Yes. A staff of nine, on contract, includes: Mr. Neil M. Morrison, $19,166.67 (yearly rate); Mr. R. Morency, $12,000 (yearly rate); Mrs. L. Lemieux, 9,430 (yearly rate); Mrs. G. Char-trand, $4,123 (6 months); Miss G. Charette, $5,200 (yearly rate); Miss M. Carriere, $5,632 (yearly rate); Mr. P. Munroe, $972,68 (3| months); Mr. M. Simoneau, $2,994 (6 months); Miss S. Villeneuve, $3,698 (yearly rate).
4.	(a) $84,943.30.
Expenditures by Standard Object
1969-70	April, May	Total to$	1970	May 31,1970Professional and	32,409.92	$	$Special Services	30,415.71	62,825.63Travel	1,287.43	Freight & Express	27.35	3,538.43	4,825.86Telephone & Telegraph Materials & Supplies Equipment	880.42 13,078.35 2,104.05	354.92 335.49	27.35 1,235.34 13,413.84 2,104.05 426.23Rental of Equipment	426.23	Hospitality	-	85.00	85.0050,213.75	34,729.55	84,943.30Expenses of Board Members	as at May 31, 1970	April, May	Total to1969-70	1970	May 31,1970$	$	$Mr. Roger Duhamel	54.15	611.65	665.80Mr. M. G. Ballantyne	83.41	83.41Mr. P. Fox	-	220.53	220.53Dr. H. W. Hickman	324.10	324.10Miss M. Joubert	70.65	75.45	146.10Dr. L. McEwen Honorable Judge	-	240.00	240.00A. M. Monnin	195.70	195.70Mr. R. Saint Denis	-	325. W	325.17Mr. A. Savoie	-	436.84	436.84Dr. D. H. Smith	198.70	109.36	308.061,276.71	2,546.51	2,823.22

June 26, 1970


DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS-USE OF COMPUTER
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Communications have the use of a computer in its operations and, if so, to what extent is it utilized?
2.	Is the computer programmed 24 hours per day and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What is the number of hours planned for utilization of the computer?
4.	What has been the annual cost of computer services for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
5.	How many programmes are in preparation for the computer at the present time and how will each affect the efficiency of the Department?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: 1. The Department of Communications utilizes a number of computers in its operations including 11, of varying capacity, in use at the Communication Research Centre as well as the equipment of the Computer Services Bureau and the Department of Transport which are utilized for administrative and operational programs.
2.	Ten of the eleven computers in use at the Communications Research Centre are integral parts of defined research programs. They are operated on an average of 10 hours a day with times varying depending on the research program. The other computer used by CRC is operated on a two shift sixteen hours a day basis to accommodate existing programs. It is programmed and available through remote terminals 24 hours a day.
3.	Twenty-four hours of utilization are planned per day for the large time sharing system recently installed at CRC.
4.	The annual cost for purchase and rental
of computer equipment and facilities since 1969 when the Department of Communications was formed is as follows:	1969-70,
$460,000; 1970-71 (planned), $515,000.
5.	The computers in operation at CRC are being used as research tools. Programs for utilizing the computers are being revised, modified, added and deleted to the system daily. On inter-active systems each person has the opportunity to program computers for his own research needs. With respect to the administrative and regulatory responsibilities of DOC computer programs are now being developed for applications in information retrieval, financial management and personnel administration.
Questions


MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION-USE OF DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Manpower and Immigration have data processing equipment (automatic) and, if so, for how long?
2.	What was the initial cost of the equipment?
3.	What yearly costs are anticipated for data processing in the Department?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Yes. Since the establishment of the Department in January 1966.
2.	All equipment utilized is on a rental basis.
3.	Anticipated costs for fiscal year 1970-71 are $700,000. Other data processing applications are under development with respect to the operations of Canada Manpower Centres. The successful implementation of this process will substantially increase data processing costs in fiscal year 1971-72.


MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION-USE OF COMPUTER
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Manpower and Immigration have the use of a computer in its operations and, if so, to what extent is it utilized?
2.	Is the computer programmed 24 hours per day and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What is the number of hours planned for utilization of the computer?
4.	What has been the annual cost of computer services for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
5.	How many programmes are in preparation for the computer at the present time and how will each affect the efficiency of the Department?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. The Department of Manpower and Immigration utilizes the services of various commercial and government computer service bureaus. Approximately 1,400 hours of computer service time was used during the fiscal year 1969-70.
2.	Not the responsibility of this Department.
3.	1,700 hours for the fiscal year 1970-71.
4.	Costs incurred since the Department of Manpower and Immigration was established in January 1966: 1966-67, $39,456; 1967-68, $41,661; 1968-69, $310,926; 1969-70, $250,218.
5.	Sixty-seven programs are in preparation. These programs are designed to provide information for the evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department's major programs. It is expected that the information derived from the systems will facilitate the management decision-making processes and through improved knowledge of the many

June 26, 1970
Questions
facets of our programs make a significant contribution to more efficient use of resources allocated to the Department.


FEDERAL SUBSIDIES ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Crouse: What was the amount of federal subsidy paid by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and
the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce on all fishing vessels constructed from June 25, 1968 to May 14, 1970 in the Provinces of (a) Quebec (b) New Brunswick (c) Prince Edward Island (d) Nova Scotia (e) Newfoundland?


Yves Forest: In so far
as the Department of Fisheries and Forestry is concerned:
April 1,1968-	April 1,1969-	April 1, 1970-March 31, 1969	March 31, 1970	May 14, 1970(a) Quebec	$ 353,924	$ 49,040	Nil(b) New Brunswick	468,399	127,599	Nil(c) Prince Edward Island	8,327	1,616	Nil(d) Nova Scotia	377,772	Nil	Nil(e) Newfoundland	431,578	396,745	Nil$ 1,750,000	$ 565,000
In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: Ship construction subsidy on fishing vessels during the period June 25, 1968 to May 14, 1970 is as follows:
(a)	Quebec
(b)	New Brunswick
(c)	Prince Edward Island
(d)	Nova Scotia
(e)	Newfoundland
Nil
$	576,616.50
915,000.00 469,420.00 Nil


$ 1,961,036.50 REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-USE OF COMPUTER
[Stage Direction]
3.	An average of $40,000 per month for computer and peripheral equipment time is planned for 1970-71. The number of hours cannot be precisely estimated.
4.	1969-70, $417,590.
5.	Approximately 100 programmes which will improve the efficiency of the Department by providing data records, etc. required for its work.

Mr. Forrestall: As it concerns section 529 of the Air Regulations, under what circumstances will the Minister of Transport consider authorizing aircraft to land and take-off from unlicenced aerodromes?

Question No. 1,996-Mr. Robinson:
1.	Does the Department of Regional Economic Expansion have the use of a computer in its operations and, if so, to what extent is it utilized?
2.	Is the computer programmed 24 hours per day and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What is the number of hours planned for utilization of the computer?
4.	What has been the amount cost of computer services for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
5.	How many programmes are in preparation for the computer at the present time and how will each affect the efficiency of the Department?


Gérard Loiselle: For occasional and special purposes such as at air shows, exhibitions or in emergencies; and then only for very limited periods in time and with special precautions for public safety. Emergency includes medical flights into hospital grounds, mercy flights to carry serum, plasma, etc., evacuation of accident victims, fire fighting.


Abram Ernest Epp: 1 and 2. Computer and peripheral equipment time is rented at a cost which averages $35,000 per month.


CB C-&quot;ENCOUNTER''
Mr. Rose: 1. Who were guests on CBC program "Encounter" since its first show this season up to and including Sunday, April 26?
June 26, 1970

2.	How many were of the federal government?
3.	How many were employees of the federal government or of government agencies?
4.	How many were of opposition parties?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Jan. 3, 1970, Hon. Charles M. Drury, President of the Treasury Board; Jan. 10, 1970, Pierre Juneau, Chairman, Canadian Radio-Television Commission; Jan. 17, 1970, Philip Givens, M.P. (Lib. York West); Jan. 24, 1970, Donald MacDonald, President, Canadian Labour Congress; Jan. 31, 1970, John H. Young, Chairman, Prices and Incomes Commission; Feb. 7, 1970, Hon. Robert Andras, Minister without Portfolio; Feb. 14, 1970; Hon. Robert Stanbury, Minister without Portfolio; Feb. 21, 1970, Hon. Robert Stanfield, Leader of the Opposition; Feb. 28, 1970, U.S. Senator Frank Moss, Democrat from Utah; Mar. 7, 1970, Hon. Don Jamieson, Minister of Transport; Mar. 14, 1970, Hon. Mitchell Sharp, Secretary of State for External Affairs; Mar. 21, 1970, T. C. Douglas, M.P., Leader of the New Democratic Party; Mar. 28, 1970, Hon. George Hees, M.P. (P.C.-Prince Edward-Hastings); Apr. 4, 1970, Panel Discussion with Ed Broadbent, M.P. (NDP- Oshawa-Whitby); Wilfred List, labour reporter for the Globe and Mail and John Gray, parliamentary correspondent for the Montreal Star; Apr. 11, 1970, Hon. Charles M. Drury, President of the Treasury Board; Apr. 18, 1970, Hon. Jean Chretien, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; Apr. 25, 1970, Pierre Juneau, Chairman, Canadian Radio-Television Commission.
2.	Seven.
3.	Two (Commission chairmen).
4.	Four.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Robinson: 1.	What research studies have been carried out by, or on behalf of, the Department of National Health and Welfare during each of the years 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
2.	What research studies are presently being carried on and/or are contemplated during the next five years?
Orders for Returns
3.	What was the cost of each of the research studies completed in each of the years 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
4.	What is the estimated cost of each of the studies presently in being or contemplated during the next five years?
Return tabled.


LEASE ARRANGEMENTS ENTERED INTO BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Coales: How many leasing arrangements have been entered into by the federal government since January 1, 1970, with private firms or individuals and, in each instance (a) what was the name of the firm or individual involved in the leasing arrangement (b) what was the term of the lease (c) what was the annual cost (d) what was the amount of space leased (e) for what period of time?
Return tabled.


SEAL FISHERY
Mr. Lundrigan: 1.	How many ships prosecuted the Seal Fishery during 1970 (a) in the Gulf (b) at the Front?
2.	What were the names of these ships?
3.	What was the nationality of each ship?
4.	How many men manned each ship?
5.	How many seals were taken by each ship?
6.	What is the statistical breakdown of the seals taken by age and classification?
7.	What was the average earning of the sealers (a) in the Gulf (b) at the Front (c) on each ship?
8.	How many seals were taken by landsmen in Atlantic Canada?
9.	What was the average earning of the landsmen and the number of landsmen from (a) Newfoundland (b) Magdalen Islands (c) Prince Edward Island?
10.	How many aviation hours were used in seal spotting?
11.	What was the estimated seal population (a) in the Gulf (b) at the Front?
12. What will be the Sealing Regulations governing the hunt in 1971 (a) in the Gulf (b) at the Front?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL AID TO MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. Mather: What, in dollars, has been the total approximate amount of federal aid to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland in the form of loans, grants or other contributions, including capital cost expenditures, but excluding federal welfare, pension, medicare and other available aids during the period 1965-1970?
Return tabled.

June 26, 1970
Orders for Returns



DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-ENGAGEMENT OF CONSULTANTS

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,747

Mi. Robinson:
How many consultants have been engaged by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion since its establishment (a) what was the cost of the consultants (b) how were the consultants utilized (c) for what reasons were the consultants necessary?
Return tabled.

Mr. Robinson: How many consultants have been engaged by the Department of the Solicitor General during each year 1950 to 1970 inclusive (a) what was the cost of the consultants (b) how were the consultants utilized (c) for what reasons were the consultants necessary?
Return tabled.



CANADA COUNCIL GRANTS

Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	During 1967, 1968 and 1969, what grants were awarded to various organizations or individuals by the Canada Council (a) for all of Canada (b) by province?
2.	What persons or groups in the Province of Quebec were awarded grants and what were the amounts?
Return tabled.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard to question No. 163 I gather that the very extensive information in response to that question will be available later this day. I wonder if the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby would be agreeable that it be made an order for return and the information be tabled later this day.


Mr. Broadbeni:: I will be only too pleased to co-operate.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I gather the same would apply to question No. 770.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



DESIGNATED AREA INCENTIVES-GRANTS TO FIRMS

Mr. Broadbeni: 1. For the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1963 and 1969 (a) how many and which non-resident owned or con-
trolled firms have been awarded financial grants under the designated area incentive program, formerly administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce but now administered by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
2. For the same years (a) which and how many Canadian owned or controlled firms have been awarded financial grants under the designated area incentive program, and (b) in each case, what was the total financial grant or incentive allotted?
Return tabled.



EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF CROWN CORPORATIONS

Mr. Orlikow: For each Crown corporation and agency since their establishment (a) who are the chief executive officers and the Board of Directors (b) when were each of the officers and directors first appointed and for what length of time (c) which officers and directors were reappointed and for what length of time (d) what annual salary or remuneration was given to each executive officer and director (e) what criteria was used in the appointment of the chief executive officers and the Board of Directors?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to refer to starred question No. 1907 which has some urgency to it. It seeks from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development the name of each Indian band with whom the minister discussed the question of the age of electors pursuant to the Indian Act. An interim reply might assist if the minister would tell us whether he has discussed this matter with any bands.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not having answered this question earlier. I had prepared a reply which was to be read in the House. There must have been a misunderstanding about this matter, but I can tell the hon. member that I had a few meetings with certain Indian chiefs, and officials of my department had discussions with others. Unfortunately, I do not have the information readily available. We had meetings with five or six chiefs, and I have decided to submit this question to the national Indian advisory board. Officials of my department have met with representatives of the board this week in this connection.
June 26, 1970


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege and extend through you my apology to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for having raised the matter about starred question 1907. It had not come to my attention because I did not receive a typed copy of the question, which is usual, but the question was answered on Monday, a fact which was brought to my attention by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi. I therefore apologize to the minister for the inconvenience.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, the answer that was given to starred question No. 1,959 by the representative of the government is one which constitutes an affront to the House and in refusing to give information represents a course of action that can only lead to the setting up of supreme groups above the law of this country. The question had to do with vice-presidents of Air Canada compulsorily retired. What possible reason can there be for not furnishing this information? A host of them who were experienced were let out. I asked whether any of the vice-presidents were retained and, if so, what are their names and ages? I understand that in the wholesale removal of vice-presidents only one of some 20 survived. Yet we cannot obtain this information. Then I asked how many employees have been dismissed or removed at all levels in Air Canada since January 1, how many years each of said employees had served and how long each of them had to serve until age 65.
If we are to be denied this kind of information, which in no way constitutes an invasion of the rights of Crown corporations and cannot be beneficial to competitors then the House might as well close down and the motion that was made by an hon. member the other day that there should be representation by Members of Parliament on the boards of various Crown corporations would have further justification. Finally, I asked how many officials and employees still in the service of Air Canada as of this date will, under the project plan, be removed, dismissed or retired between now and January 1? These employees stand in continued jeopardy. They ask Parliament to preserve their rights. They are being let out with cavalier disregard of service.
22478-56}
Motions for Papers
I summarize by saying that the attempt at an answer of a moment ago is contrary to the rights of Members of Parliament and the people of this country to have information, however disagreeable it may be for the government to furnish it.


Mr. Orlikow:: On January 28 of this year, five months ago, I placed on the Order Paper question No. 1002 in which I asked for information with regard to the consultants hired by the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's office, what they were doing and what remuneration they received since July 1, 1968. It may be that the amounts they received are so large that it will embarrass the government in view of its 6 per cent guideline policy, but I do think that five months is long enough to prepare an answer and I hope that when the House meets on October 5 I will not have to wait longer.


Gerald William Baldwin: Maybe you will get a white paper on it.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On November 19 I placed question No. 513 on the Order Paper. It deals with a simple procedure concerning government actions. It asks for the official status of one Harold Huskilscn of Lockeport and Shelburne, Nova Scotia, who seems to be empowered with the right to announce federal government contracts in that province. I ask about his official status and the reasons for the government's action. Apparently from November 19 to the present date it has not been possible for the government to give a reason for the method it is following in announcing federal government contracts. Through you, sir, I ask the President of the Privy Council when I may expect an answer to question Nc. 513 placed on the Order Paper on November 19.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I regret it but I do not think we will have the information during the course of the day.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you please call notices of motions Nos. 213, 253, 311, 468, 476, 480, 482, 484, 485, 486, 488, 489, 490 and 491?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.
Motions for Papers

June 26, 1970



FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE ARTS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 213-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study on the federal government and the arts undertaken in the fiscal year 1966-67 for the Secretary of State as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Yves Forest: The study on the federal government and the arts was a confidential report to the Secretary of State and as such is considered to be a privileged document. I therefore ask that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Mr. Skoberg:: I do not think it should be a privileged document and I therefore call for the question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COMMUNICATION SATELLITE BIDS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 253-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the contractor bids on the communication satellite by RCA Victor Limited and Northern Electric Co. Limited.
Yves Forest: On behalf of the Minister of Communications I wish to report as follows: RCA Victor Limited and Northern Electric did not submit contractor bids on the communications satellite to the government. Contract studies were undertaken by them in connection with preliminary work on the domestic satellite system.
The study reports contain commercial information of a proprietary nature which was provided on the understanding that it would remain confidential. I therefore hope that the hon. member will consent to withdraw this motion.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO DEUTERIUM OF CANADA LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 311-Mr. Burton:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and the Gov-

ernment of Nova Scotia regarding financial assistance for the Deuterium of Canada Limited heavy water plant at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia.
Yves Forest: The documents related to the subject matter of this motion which are in the possession of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources are considered by him to be privileged documents. Therefore it would not be in the public interest to disclose this correspondence, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Burton:: Question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



ABT STUDY OF EVALUATION OF N.B. FRED PLAN

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 468-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by ABT Associates undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the evaluation of N.B. FRED Plan as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Abram Ernest Epp: This study was requested in notice of motion No. 380 which was accepted by the government with the provision that the consent of the province concerned be obtained. I would therefore ask that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


John Stratford Burton: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



ERNST AND ERNST CONSULTANT REVIEW OF PLANNING STUDY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 476-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Ernst and Ernst undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding planning study as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Abram Ernest Epp: This is a continuing study and there is as yet no final report. Before I ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion may I indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, that four
June 26, 1970

subsequent motions of the hon. member will receive substantially the same answer if they are dealt with separately. They are Nos. 480, 486, 488 and 491. They are all continuing studies and there is no suitable report available for tabling. May I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw those five motions?


John Stratford Burton: I ask that they stand until October in the hope that some of them might be finished at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion stands.
Motion stands.
LALONDE VALOIS REVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION STUDY OF GASPE! REGION
Motion No. 480-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Lalonde Valois undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the transportation study of the Gaspe region as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Motion stands.



EASTERN DESIGNERS LIMITED REVIEW OF SAINT JOHN WATER SUPPLY STUDY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 486-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Eastern Designers Limited undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the Saint John Water Supply Study as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Motion stands.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 488-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by J. Parikhal undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the regional migration study as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Motion stands.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 491-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Shawinigan Engineering Ltd. undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the Saint John Water Supply Study as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Motion stands.
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 482-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study M. W. Mackenzie undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the federal provincial committee for Saint John industrial complex as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Abram Ernest Epp: This contract is for services performed by Mr. Mackenzie as chairman of the Canada-New Brunswick Growth Centre Committee. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Stratford Burton: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


LA SOCIETY SOTAR REVIEW OF CANTONS DE L'EST TOURISM STUDY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 484-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by La Societe Sotar undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the Cantons de l'Est tourism study as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Abram Ernest Epp: This was a service contract to these consultants for briefing senior management. As there is no report which could be tabled, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Stratford Burton: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


J. C. WICKET REVIEW OF STUDY OF NUTRITIONAL LEVELS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 485-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by J. C. Wickett undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the study of nutritional levels in selected population areas as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Abram Ernest Epp: This study was commissioned for

June 26, 1970
Motions for Papers
the use of a number of interdepartmental officials in planning future action. Until the result of the study has been evaluated, it is considered to be a privileged document, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Stratford Burton: Question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


McGILL COMPUTING SCIENCES STUDY OF SYSTEM FOR GENERATING TARGET POPULATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 489-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by McGill Computing Science Centre undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding a system for generating target populations as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Abram Ernest Epp: This contract was awarded for computer programming. As there is no report which could be tabled, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion. 1 would like to include in the same answer the next motion, No. 490 because the answer is the same.


John Stratford Burton: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


ALPHATEX SYSTEMS LIMITED STUDY OF COMPUTER ADDRESSING SYSTEM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 490-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Alphatex Systems Limited undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the computer addressing system as mentioned in answer to Question Number 897 and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5163.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, with regard to notices of motions Nos. 218, 282 and 322, could there be some indication why they have not been answered, particularly motion No. 218 regarding the consultant report on data on subsidiaries in Canada. Since this motion was filed in November of last year, surely the information must be available by now. The .other two motions have to do with transpor-

tation questions. It appears to me that all three motions could have been answered, particularly in view of the importance of transportation in this country.


Mr. Andre Foriin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on notice of motion for production of papers No. 263 which reads as follows:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, reports, briefs and other documents submitted to the Government af Canada regarding the construction and equipping of a federal building in Victoriaville, Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, this notice of motion has been on the order paper since November 25, 1969 and since then, my fellow-citizens have been clamouring for the construction of that federal building.
On many occasions, I wrote to the minister, but I never received a reply. This notice of motion is still on the order paper and the federal building promised since 1957 has not yet been constructed.
I strongly urge that this notice of motion be dealt with, in order to give satisfaction to the citizens of the Lotbiniere constituency, especially those of Victoriaville.


Mr. Thomson:: Mr. Speaker, I notice that No. 60 is the only original notice of motion standing from October 23, and 1 wonder whether I have not shown a fairly considerable amount of patience in waiting this long. It would be nice to have some indication of what will happen to it.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVILEGE


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It has to do with July 1 which is still Dominion Day under the laws and statutes of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Last evening on the CBC, between the national news and the local news, there was a reference to a celebration on July 1, called to take place at the National
June 26, 1970

Arts Centre, under the name of Bon Jour, and in it July 1 was referred to as Canada Day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The widespread applause from the Liberal party indicates that while they did not have the backbone to go ahead with the bill that was introduced in this Chamber and which was withdrawn because they were afraid to face the consequences-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It wasn't
withdrawn.


John George Diefenbaker: -they now applaud
action that is a denial of Parliament and its rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: This is another indication of the way in which those supporting the government undermine the law, remove our rights, our heritage, not by statute of Parliament but by action outside Parliament.
The CBC was communicated with, and the head of the news department advised that the reason this was done was that specific orders were received from the Secretary of State's Department-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: -to call July 1 Canada Day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would not have thought that members of the House of Commons, almost wholly in the Liberal party, would approve of the fact that the Secretary of State placed himself above the CBC and their directions. First, I object that this is an indication of a course of action on the part of the government of undermining and diminishing our heritage. Second, it indicates that the Secretary of State has become a kind of self-glorified Caesar who interferes with the CBC an independent body. Now, applaud!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Finance what his forecast is of the level of unemployment in Canada for the autumn, say October and November, seasonally adjusted?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have such a forecast.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it is almost incredible that the Minister of Finance does not have such a forecast.


Mr. Forrestall:: It is typical.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a supplementary question I ask the Minister of Finance whether he will undertake to publish a forecast of the anticipated rate of unemployment for October and November immediately, because it is inconceivable, Mr. Speaker, that his department would not have made such a forecast and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should ask the question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I asked the question, Mr. Speaker. I asked the minister whether he will publish this figure. I particularly ask the question because when I pressed him in the past on the necessity of establishing some institution for publishing short-term forecasts the minister told me that he has such an arrangement in his own department. Therefore I say to the minister, let him publish this information.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition is really asking is that we publish our guesses so that he can compare them with his own guesses. I do not see the purpose in this.


Mr. Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council on a point of order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we could revert to motions so that a statement could be made with respect to the 25th anniversary of the United Nations. During the course of this morning's business we apparently got beyond that point.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I will agree to that on the assumption that I can come back with one more supplementary when we return to the question period.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 26. 1970
United Nations Charter


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might allow the Leader of the Opposition his supplementary question and then revert to motions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the answer given to me yesterday by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, will the Prime Minister see to it that a conference is called promptly to discuss with the appropriate provincial authorities the extent, to which additional student aid will be necessary in the autumn and the methods by which this can be accomplished, in view of the small percentage of students being employed this summer and consequently the alarming number of prospective drop-outs that there will be in the fall?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the answer given by the minister yesterday was to the effect that he was not contemplating such a conference.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is precisely why I am asking the Prime Minister whether he will see to it that the matter is not only considered but that measures are taken to do something about this impending crisis?
And the House having reverted to Motions:



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, today is the 25th anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Charter at a historic meeting in San Francisco. Canada, represented by a delegation led by Prime Minister Mackenzie King, was an active participant at that meeting.

Not all the promises of 1945 have been realized. The world continues to experience conflict of every intensity short of global war. But if those who gathered in San Francisco in 1945 were full of hope, they were also realists. They clearly accepted that no multinational organization could keep the peace if major powers were wilful enough to resort to force. Although the United Nations has not succeeded in preventing such occurrences? Its 
facilities for patient negotiations have often helped to hold the line against chaos.
While political crises clamour for our attention, we tend to lose sight of the fact that over 80 per cent of the resources at the disposal of the UN family support a multinational co-operative effort to relieve hunger, care for children, foster economic and social development and assist the developing countries to participate more fully in international trade. These are among the most encouraging developments since 1945 and are a reminder to us of another remarkable achievement- the rapid attainment of independence by the millions of peoples whose new nations have swelled UN membership to 126 countries from an original 51 members.
In recent years, a new dimension has been added to UN preoccupations. The world is at last hurrying to preserve for peaceful purposes not only the new frontier of space but also the newly appreciated last frontiers of earth-the seabed and the ocean floor. It is becoming more evident every day that international co-operation is vital if science and technology are to be made to serve the interests of all mankind and contribute to the preservation of the common environment.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)

I have been using the words "the United Nations" and "the Organization", but we must always remember that the UN is an association of independent states and membership in it is based on the principle of sovereign equality. As such, the sum of UN potential will not likely be greater than the political will of its individual parts. Although incorporated to attain ends desired by all peoples, including Canadians, the UN can employ only the means agreed upon by the member governments.
Canada has consistently sought, within the measure of her resources and influence, to strengthen the UN institutions in the service of peace and the improvement of quality of life for all. On this 25th anniversary, it is timely to pledge this government and the people of Canada to continuing support for the UN as the best hope we have that the grave challenges facing Canada and the world can be met.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to pay tribute to the United Nations on the 25th anniversary of its birth. We all know it was
June 26, 1970

born as a consequence of a horrible war. It was born with high hopes, all of which have not been realized. Yet the United Nations has many accomplishments to its credit. Indeed, sir, I suppose it is something for the United Nations to have survived for 25 years, a longer period than its predecessor, the League of Nations, survived.
We have no right to assume that the United Nations will continue to survive and continue to be an effective instrument in the search for international peace and international understanding. Indeed, sir, we have received many warnings about the prospects of the United Nations and about the need for reform and rejuvenation. This is certainly not easy because the United Nations is not, on the one hand, fully representative of the nations of the world while, on the other hand, it has been hamstrung in a number of respects which include the use of the veto. Nevertheless, I think we can all agree that we must make a determined effort to rejuvenate the United Nations and to do all we can to ensure that it will play an effective part in our future.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, that there is a tendency-it is not new and it continues-for those involved in international diplomacy and affairs to appear to be busier in developing arguments as to why something cannot be done than in developing solutions to problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Those of us who were growing up prior to the second world war had the universal feeling that everybody was busy putting forward reasons why nothing could be done; the consequences in part was that the world slipped into that terrible catastrophe. I say that we must be determined to overcome our difficulties. I hope, sir, that the government of Canada is more determined to play a vigorous and constructive part in the rejuvenation and reform of the United Nations than it would appear to be from the white paper presented yesterday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this party I should like to join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in expressing our pleasure that we have the United Nations and our earnest hope that it will yet play an even greater part in maintaining the peace of the world.
United Nations Charter
In rising to say these few words I should like not only to speak on behalf of our party but also to associate with us at this time the name of our honorary president, Hon. M. J. Coldwell, who is perhaps the only surviving member of the official Canadian delegation which was at San Francisco in 1945. As everyone knows, over the years Mr. Coldwell has been a strong advocate of the policies of the United Nations and a strong advocate of the rule of law as the only way in which we can cope with our world problems.
I might be pardoned for adding that I, personally, had the privilege of being a member of the Canadian delegation at the first session of the United Nations General Assembly which met in London, England, over the year end of 1945-46. I witnessed then some of the pitfalls that were in front of us. I witnessed a number of the difficulties. I saw some of the frustrations as we were unable to achieve all of the things that had been hoped for in the founding of the United Nations. Many of them are still to be achieved.
I believe that the position that some of us took in these years and have taken across the years still stands: if we are to hold our world together and be able to count on decades and centuries of peace ahead of us, the United Nations must become a body that has world authority. We must move on to the concept of world government or world sovereignty even as we have moved from the concept of local authority to national sovereignty.
I also support the position taken by the Prime Minister, namely, that there are problems today we did not even think about 25 years ago, problems such as our total environment. We must cope with these if we are to save the peace of the world and avoid conflict. But, Mr. Speaker, I should like to underline what the Leader of the Opposition has just said: if we are going to pay this kind of tribute we must make the United Nations a much more central feature of this country's foreign policy than seems to be the case in light of the documents that were tabled yesterday. However, this is a time to be grateful for the 25 years of such success as the United Nations has had. We earnestly hope that its future will be bright, but this depends on nations such as Canada giving it full and active support.


Mr. Real Caoueite (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to endorse the Prime Minister's remarks on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the United Nations.

June 26, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
He mentioned that the objectives proposed by this organization had not all been attained. One only has to look at the situation which prevails in the world now and has prevailed over the past 25 years to realize that the Organization has failed in many fields, for instance, in the case of Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Vietnam, Cambodia, and at the time of the Russian interventions in Czechoslovakia and in Hungary a few years ago.
Mr. Speaker, we have a right to question whether this organization has really achieved the purpose for which it was created, which is to bring peace to the world.
Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to bring peace to the world if we do not start by establishing law and order, which would make for a just and lasting peace instead of what we have experienced up to now. I think this is the main objective to be pursued by the United Nations.
I noticed, like everybody else in fact, that thanks to its objectivity, Canada has played a very important role in the United Nations through our willingness to co-operate in order to settle the conflicts opposing certain nations. I think that our country is to be commended by other nations of the world, since, as was said earlier, 126 nations make up the United Nations.
Mr. Speaker, some of the more powerful among the member states of the Organization seek to dominate the others. For instance, certain nations have a veto right and use it in a haphazard way. They are not concerned with smaller countries who wish to live in peace.
On behalf of my colleagues and in my own name, I express the hope that the United Nations will become an efficient and living body which will ensure the promotion of law and order so that the just and lasting peace we all long for may prevail in the world.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)


Mr. Speaker:: We will now revert to oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


David Orlikow: have a question for the Minister of Finance. [Mr. Caouette.l
On Monday of this week the hon. member for York South directed the following question to the Prime Minister:
In view of the report of a telegram sent by the provincial treasurer of Ontario to the Civil Service Association of that province that the government of Ontario does not intend to apply the 6 per cent guideline to negotiations with provincial civil servants. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if it is still the government's intention to insist on such guidelines for the federal public service?
The Prime Minister stated that the Minister of Finance would answer the question.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we accepted the guideline at the Winnipeg conference. The Minister of Finance of the province of Ontario indicated at that conference that the commission's proposals should receive careful consideration not only by all governments but by all the Canadian people. While he could not commit his government, he indicated he would lend his support. If such a telegram was issued, obviously he has changed his mind.


David Orlikow: In view of the statement yesterday by Premier Robarts that he felt that because of the problem of inflation the federal government should introduce legislation making wage and price guidelines mandatory and that the province of Ontario would cooperate, and in view of the statement of the Minister of Finance of Manitoba at the conference which the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly come to the question? It seems to be a little too long.


David Orlikow: In view of the fact the government of Manitoba expressed reservations at that conference, is the government giving consideration to relaxing the guideline policy?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.



INFLATION-ADHERENCE TO SIX PER CENT WAGE INCREASE GUIDELINE BY PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS ARBITRATORS

['Mr. Speaker, I believe the decision taken recently to accept a six-month extension of the mandate clearly indicates that the situation would not warrant as yet the withdrawal of Canadian forces.']
David Orlikow: 1
wish to direct a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. In light of his correspondence with the Professional Institute in the last few days, is it the intention of the federal government to instruct arbitrators who act under the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act that they must abide by the 6 per cent guideline announced unilaterally by the government?
June 26, 1970	COMMONS


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: I think the hon. member is aware that it does not lie within the power of the government to instruct arbitrators as to the decisions they will render.



Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker,
I wanted to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence, I should like to put it to the Minister of National Defence.
Can he tell us if there is any easing of the tension in the conflict opposing Greeks and Turks in Cyprus, and also if Canada intends to withdraw its forces there in the near future?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the decision taken recently to accept a six-month extension of the mandate clearly indicates that the situation would not warrant as yet the withdrawal of Canadian forces.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-lings):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the negative result achieved at the meeting ten days ago between the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission and the leaders of organized labour, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to hold a private meeting with the leaders of organized labour well in advance of the general meeting which has been called for next fall in order to discuss with these labour leaders the part that the government is asking them to play in the fight against inflation, so that the general meeting will have some chance of success?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I generally agree with the estimation of the hon. member that it would be fruitless to have a general meeting if we did not think it had much chance of success. I am engaged now in ways of ensuring that this general meeting, if it is to be held, will have a chance of success. One way of doing this is by appraising the position of the important labour leaders in this country.
DEBATES	8643
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: As it has become clear that this meeting has very little chance of success unless a preliminary meeting is held, I ask the Prime Minister if he will give consideration to putting his duty to his country ahead of his fear of a rebuff and give the country some leadership for a change?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it the intention of the government to announce a decision during the parliamentary recess with regard to the type and number of aircraft to be procured by the government as eventual successors to the Argus aircraft used in Maritime Command?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, this is a very involved question, more involved than would appear at first sight. We have conducted an evaluation of prototypes of new aircraft that could eventually replace the Argus aircraft, if the government so authorizes the Department of National Defence. However, there are a lot of comparisons and studies to be made within the department. National Defence Council meetings have to be held. It will be later than October when these studies are completed. The simplest way to answer the question is to say that an announcement will not be made during the recess.


John Angus MacLean: I assume from the minister's reply that due to the long lead time required to procure new aircraft study, and all other preliminary work, is proceeding as actively as possible with a view to being able to make an announcement as early as possible?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There are many considerations involved. The fundamental decision is as to whether we will make a replacement at this time. As is to be expected, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is involved as well as the Department of Supply and Services. There are many consultations going on at present. As far as the evaluation itself is concerned, we have already done our part.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Before the minister makes a decision with regard to the Argus, will he give the House a commitment to examine the

June 26, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry recommendations of the report of the External Affairs Committee on Maritime Command which was tabled in the House today?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: This decision will not be a decision of the Minister of National Defence; it will be a decision by the government, and no doubt all the relevant factors pertaining to it will be considered.



METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

J. Michael Forrestall: Can the minister indicate, on a related matter, whether or not the government and the department have made a decision regarding the disposition of fighter aircraft used by the Canadian Armed Forces? Once the retirement program has started, will they be sold, scrapped or placed in storage?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: As a general rule, I believe negotiations are carried on between governments in connection with the disposal of aircraft of this type and the disposition of such aircraft is subject to many restrictions, as the hon. member knows. We have not yet decided which way to proceed. No doubt this question will arise some time in the fall.


J. Michael Forrestall: Can the minister tell us whether, in its contingency planning, the government has given consideration to selling these aircraft to foreign countries?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: There are no contingency plans. I believe there are precedents for disposal of aircraft of this type. As far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, we would turn them over to Crown Assets; then again, there is an agency within the Department of Trade and Commerce which specializes in these matters. But the fundamental requirement for security will be observed.



DEVELOPMENT OF CANADIAN AIRCRAFT TO REPLACE ARGUS

Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: In his study of a possible replacement for the Argus maritime patrol aircraft, is the minister giving consideration to the possible development of such an aircraft in Canada, as well as to the purchase of off-the-shelf aircraft such as the Nimrod or the Orion?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. AUmand.l



REPLACEMENT OF ALBATROSS SEARCH AND RESCUE AIRCRAFT

Mr. David Anderson (Esquimall-Saanich):: Can the minister inform the House whether a decision has been made concerning the replacement of the search and rescue aircraft, the Albatross, and, if so, can he assure the House that the replacement aircraft will have amphibious capability?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: This is a matter upon which no decision has been made yet. There are a few considerations to be entertained before we can do so. It would be premature at this time for me to indicate what they are.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-NUMBER OF ACRES SEEDED

John George Diefenbaker: I would direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt. Some weeks ago I asked him to give us an estimate of the number of acres by which land under production would be reduced as a result of the Lift program. We are now near the end of June. Seeding is over, and the government has this information. Can he advise us approximately, within 500,000 acres one way or the other, what has been the amount of reduction?


Otto Emil Lang: It has not been possible to obtain as yet a full assessment of the acreage seeded. However, we have been able to carry out some analysis of the first returns under the Lift program. It is difficult to project the first 10,000 returns into the total situation, and it may therefore be misleading to attempt to use those figures.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister not furnish the House with them? Or does he need to hold another champagne party before he can give information?


Otto Emil Lang: If it is any consolation to the House, I am content to give the analysis based on the sampling of the first 10,000 returns. It shows a wheat acreage reduction of two-thirds.



INCLUSION OF U.S.S.R. IN NEW INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT-PRODUCTION CONTROL

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: My
question is also directed to the Minister with-
June 26, 1970

out Portfolio. In view of reports that preparatory talks are under way to establish a new wheat pact, this time under the auspices of the United Nations, is it the intention of the Canadian government to make every attempt to have the U.S.S.R. brought in as a full participant in any pact which might be arranged?


Otto Emil Lang: We believe this would be an extremely useful move. Those engaged in the discussions which are now taking place between the participating nations have the point very much in mind.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be allowed a supplementary but we have to get on to other questions.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I should like to ask the minister whether in connection with such a pact an attempt will be made to devise a system of acreage control or to agree on a production control program? Will this be the intention of the Canadian government?


Otto Emil Lang: I do not believe it would be very useful for me to set out in any detail the total position the Canadian government is taking, but this issue will certainly be discussed by the representatives of the nations meeting to consider the price and supply situation.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the words of support for the principles of the United Nations forthcoming from representatives of all parties in the House today, would the government consider expressing this support by joining with 55 other nations in adopting the universal declaration of human rights?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not aware that Canada has not indicated its support for this universal declaration. The hon. member knows that before being in a position to ratify or implement it we need, for constitutional reasons, the consent of the provinces. The hon. member also knows that more than two years ago we asked the provinces to go along with this by agreeing to the
Inquiries of the Ministry introduction into the constitution of a declaration on this subject which would bind all the governments, federal and provincial. The federal government has, therefore, done as much as it can at this stage; it cannot bind the provinces without their consent.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the Prime Minister consider asking the provinces specifically, rather than adopting the full charter of human rights to which he has referred, whether they would not approve of the government of Canada formally adopting the universal charter of human rights? Would he put that specific question to them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe that is a rhetorical question. To ask them to accept this position without giving the federal government the power to implement it would be purely a sham. I do not know whether this is what the hon. member is suggesting.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
To begin with, I wish to tell him that I deeply appreciate his having reserved rooms in terminal buildings for the use of members of Parliament and having provided us with
passes-


Mr. Speaker:: Could the hon. member please formulate his question?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask the minister if it would be possible to have such passes printed in both languages?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it took me three years to get them out in one language. I hope it will take me a little less to get them out bilingually. I will look into it.



INITIAL PRICES FOR WHEAT, OATS AND BARLEY, 1970-71

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio
864S

June 26, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry responsible for the Wheat Board. Has a decision been reached in connection with the initial Wheat Board prices for wheat, oats and barley for 1970-71? If so, what are those prices?


Otto Emil Lang: No decision has been taken as yet, although the matter is under active consideration.


Albert B. Douglas: Can the minister assure the House that he will endeavour to keep these initial prices at a level no lower than the present rate?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer is silence.



THE MINISTRY


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is for the Prime Minister. In the interest of the House and of the country, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to change any members of the ministry between now and the reconvening of Parliament, and, if so, when does he expect to announce such changes?


Mr. Bell:: Don't change them, fire them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not given the matter any consideration, but I will take the representation of the hon. member into account.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the ambiguity of the reply provided by the Minister of Communications with regard to the bidding on the Telesat satellite, I hope I will get a better answer from the President of the Treasury Board. May I ask the minister whether the cabinet is considering the bids at the present time and, if so, whether the bid from Hughes Aircraft Company of the United States is being given more consideration than the bid from the Canadian company, RCA Limited of Montreal?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is aware that the minister having administrative responsibility for this matter is the Minister of Communications. However, in

answer to the hon. member's question may I say that all bids will receive fair and equal consideration.


Robert Muir: thank the minister for his reply and I understand he is also very interested. May I ask the minister whether the president of the Telesat Corporation recommended that the government accept the Hughes bid, and is he aware that hundreds of jobs in the Canadian aerospace industry would be placed in jeopardy if the Telesat contract were awarded to a United States firm?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to ask the Minister of Communications for this information.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronienac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Solicitor General or his Parliamentary Secretary and arises from the all too frequent failure of our system to govern and also from an account in the Montreal Gazette this morning of a bank robbery that was foiled by the police yesterday in Montreal. One of the bandits who participated in the robbery had been released from prison on June 1, after serving a minor part of a sentence for a series of armed holds-ups. He was released on parole-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should ask his question.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: My question is: Will the Solicitor General investigate the reasons for this man's early parole, and at the same time lodge a strong protest with the parole board pointing out the utter folly of their decision?



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question that I wanted to ask the Minister of Justice, but in his absence I direct it to the attention of the Prime Minister. Having in mind the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada this morning upholding the breathalyzer legislation, and also the fact that every day this law is not in effect adds to the death
June 26, 1970	COMMONS
toll on our highways, can we look lor encouragement from the government lor the early reimplementation ol the breathalyzer provisions ol the Criminal Code?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would suspect that this is what the Minister ol Justice is planning now, but I will discuss the matter with him.



PUBLIC SERVICE


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my question is lor the President ol the Treasury Board. In light ol the lact that, lor almost two years now, large numbers of employees ol the government have been without the benefit ol a contract, I wonder whether the minister would indicate when current negotiations are going to be completed so that these employees can be brought up to date with their fellow workers?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as I think the hon. gentleman knows, it is not the government that determines the date at which an agreement will be reached.



BROADCASTING


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to address my question to the Secretary of State, but since I was not able to put it yesterday when he was in the House may I now address it to the Prime Minister. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has announced its intention to make a charge for all direct costs of national educational broadcasts that it might make in the future. In light of the fact that the provinces ol Quebec, Ontario and Alberta have announced they are not interested in national educational broadcasts, this leaves the other provinces in the position where they cannot afford to buy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to bring to the attention ol the hon. member who now has the floor, and to all hon. members, that questions should be asked more succinctly. The hon. member cannot make a speech. This applies particularly to the question now being
DEBATES	8647
Inquiries of the Ministry asked, and other questions have tended in the same direction. The hon. member should ask a question.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is this: Would the federal government consider taking steps to make available educational broadcasts of national importance that would not otherwise be purchased by the poorer provinces lor their educational programs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will bring these representations to the attention ol the Secretary ol State.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge ol housing. In view of the fact that the minister recently indicated his agreement with regard to an urban council, can we now assume that the minister is in receipt of the report on urban affairs which we are all anxiously waiting to read?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to which specific report the hon. member is referring, but I am in receipt of a great deal of advice resulting from a deep analysis of urban problems in Canada, and I have been communicating some of the findings through comments I have been making in this House and across the country.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am sorry my question was so vague but I thought the minister was aware of the report I am particularly interested in by Lithwick-I think that is the name. It is a report on urban development and the role that the federal government should play. Since the minister recently made that announcement, is he now in receipt of this report and is he going to recommend to cabinet that a white paper be prepared and referred to a standing committee on urban affairs for study? I am referring specifically to the Lithwick report, if I have the correct name.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have received that report but the subsequent use or release of it in those terms has not yet been decided.

June 26, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry FILMS



CANADIAN POLICY-PRESENTATION OF WHITE PAPER

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Secretary of State. Has the government considered the Secretary of State's policy paper on a film policy for Canada, and will there be an announcement over the summer recess or will the policy be tabled in the form of a white paper in the fall?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the Secretary of State's policy on films. I will ask him to report to me on this.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Following the report in today's press of the takeover of another potash firm in Nova Scotia-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I mean, in Saskatchewan- by an American concern and also-


An hon. Member:: Are you sure about that?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the House to order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member would assist the Chair in maintaining order if his question were a little briefer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I am only following Liberal precedent. My question concerns the number of takeovers, and figures released by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs indicate that the number in 1969 was the highest in Canadian history. My question to the Minister of Finance is: Will the minister be announcing scon in the House when the government policy on foreign ownership will be ready?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the study with respect to foreign ownership is presently continuing and we hope to have information to announce about the policy perhaps this fall, though I would not like to set a specific time.
[Mr. Andras.l



BRIDGES


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, this probably being the last day of the session. In view of word from City Hall in Ottawa that there has been no agreement by civic officials to the proposed bridge, could the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that the government of Canada will not go ahead with the project without adequate consultation? Obviously the decision of the federal government to go ahead in the matter would affect expenditures that would be made by the city, and presumably affect the whole concept of civic planning. Can the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that there will be meaningful consultation between federal and civic authorities in regard to this bridge?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I heard the minister say in the House the other day that there had been consultation but perhaps not enough. I will discuss with him the possibility of making it enough.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Prime Minister received representations from the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General in regard to this important matter, in view of their responsibilities in the Ottawa area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received some representations from ministers in the Ottawa area as well as from the Members of Parliament in the Ottawa area in the Liberal caucus.



TRANSPORT


Mr. James A. McGraih (Si. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and draw to his attention a question that was directed to his Parliamentary Secretary yesterday regarding a dispute in respect of the chartering of a British vessel for the CN ferry service operating between Newfoundland and Nova
June 26, 1970

Scotia. Is he now (prepared to answer the question and assure the House there will be no disruption of this very essential service? Can he indicate whether he is preparing plans to apply new technology to this service next year to avert the backlog of traffic which we face every summer?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that would be the ideal. It was with the hope of improving the service this year that the steps taken by the CNR in fact were taken. I understand that talks are going on with the unions concerned to explain the situation. Briefly, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, they are these. The only way to get a ship into service immediately for the summer is to charter one with a crew. This has been, however, confined to a three-month charter. The unions are being advised that a more permanent replacement, which cannot come until October, will be on what is known as a bare-boat basis and will be manned by Canadian crews. This is strictly a limited three-months operation designed expressly to ensure that there is no back-up of passenger traffic on the gulf services.



BRITISH COLUMBIA CENTENNIAL


Mr. Robert Borrie (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In making a $10 million centennial grant to the province of British Columbia, has the government placed any restrictions on the manner in which it may be used?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There are no specific restrictions, Mr. Speaker. This $10 million is an amount which the government of Canada wants to grant to the people and the government of British Columbia. It is, of course, in a sense a gift of the people of Canada to the people of British Columbia. I have asked the Secretary of State, who is responsible for such matters as the celebration of centennials, to discuss the ways in which this allocation will be spent with his opposite number in the government of British Columbia. We have made no conditions but we do intend to make sure that the taxpayer of Canada, who is paying the bill, will get proper credit for it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister discuss with the Premier of British Columbia the
Inquiries of the Ministry possibility of using part of this money in respect of the Bennett Dam to allow more water through the Peace River?-



AIRPORTS


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the able and fair-minded Minister of Transport. In view of the growing opposition to the proposed establishment of a major airport at Mount Hope, Ontario, will the minister make no final decision until he has received the representations of all the opposed groups?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, I can give that undertaking, Mr. Speaker. In addition, I can add what I have said on previous occasions, that no final decision will be taken on any establishment, and the ultimate resolution of where the airport is going to be in Toronto, until various alternatives have been placed before the public and there has been ample time to comment.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In respect of the tender bids for the provision of equipment for the Canadian domestic satellite communications system, has he received representations from Canadian industries that the awarding of the contract to a United States firm could have a disastrous effect on Canadian telecommunications and aerospace industries and, if so, what action does the government intend to take in this respect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have had no representations made to me personally, Mr. Speaker. I do know that this matter is being looked at and I believe the President of the Treasury Board is informed along these lines.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will give assurance that the Telesat contract will not be awarded to a foreign firm and, if it is decided that the contract will be awarded outside the

June 26, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry country, that the House will be given an opportunity to debate the issue before the contract is let?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member would want me to give him that assurance without any reservation. It is obvious that the matter of the amount of differential in bidding, the consequences upon our economy, the technological and scientific consequences which might flow from a decision, will all have to be considered by the government. These are indeed being considered by the government and I cannot in advance say what decision will be taken. I cannot say, either, that it will not be taken before the House reconvenes again. There is provision in the law for an Order in Council to be made within a certain delay. I understand that the board of Telesat is indulgent, but I do not know that it would be indulgent to the point of permitting us to wait until next October.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It relates to a question I asked him on June 23 concerning the recommendations of the task force to help alleviate the serious economic situation which now faces the people of the Argentia area. At the time the minister said the report was being considered and that steps were going to be taken. Can he say what steps have been taken and when we can expect a full report as to what will be dene by the government to help alleviate this situation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give an actual date, but I would hope and expect that it will be within the next week at the outside.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, would the minister use his influence with his colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, to have the government accede to one of the requests of the task force, namely, that a trades school be built in that area?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is a representation and he must assume it has been noted.



PENSIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that we are just about at the end of the second session of the Parliament that was elected two years ago last night, without anything having been done to meet the plight of our old age pensioners, can he assure us that there will be legislation respecting an increase in old age pensions when we meet in the fall?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that assurance but I can assure the hon. member that the plight would not be as serious if we had the support of his party in combating inflation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not know that that is a reprehensible canard?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question following the answer given by the Prime Minister a moment ago regarding the degree of inflation and who is responsible for it. Will the Minister of Finance bear in mind that unemployment in Canada need not be nearly as high as it is were it not for the policies he insists on following?



AIRPORTS


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the excellent support he has given all phases of general aviation, both in private life and as Minister of Transport, throughout the years, can he clarify his position as outlined in a press report, which was to the effect that the Canadian government might have to banish general aviation aircraft from major Canadian airports?


Mr. Speaker:: The question as asked is not in order.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my question is supple-
June 28, 1970

mentary to the question of my colleague from British Columbia. Can the minister tell the House whether the department is giving any consideration to the banning of general aviation flights in and out of major international airports?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, not in the
specific sense that the question suggests. There are, of course, certain changes that may be necessary from time to time because, obviously, we have to reduce the hazards to an absolute minimum. There is no general policy in this regard. We are working with a number of general aviation groups to provide alternative services, but generally we do not impose these until they are acceptable to the parties concerned.


J. Michael Forrestall: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to insist, but I am sure the minister did not want to leave the impression that general aviation is a hazard to flying in Canada.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That certainly was not my intention. I can assure the House of that. It is simply that there is a bit of conflict, as the hon. member knows, between commercial aviation per se and the unscheduled operations of general aviation.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and has to do with that part of the student employment program which comes under his department. In view of the fact that applications for student militia training in some parts of Canada are already oversubscribed, would the minister investigate, consider and direct that quotas for those regions where unemployment is acute be increased?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: That is a good suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether it can be implemented this year because the program is well under way, but I will certainly take this into consideration.



HARBOURS


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry Transport when he plans to establish a port authority for the Vancouver harbour region as indicated in his public statement of February 17?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, two statements with regard to port policy should certainly be ready within the month of July. One statement will have to do with national policy, but there will certainly be one which will have express proposals with regard to the port of Vancouver which we will then discuss with the parties in that area, I hope during the summer.



POLLUTION


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As the Canada Water Act in all probability will receive Royal Assent today and as it gives the government the power it has requested to start on the worthwhile job of cleaning up the pollution existing in Canada, is it the intention of the Prime Minister, during the next three months when Parliament is not in session, to personally supervise the operation of this Act to see that a worth-while job is done on our waters and report to the House when we reconvene on October 5?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I personally supervise the work of all ministers, but I do not supervise the details. I might consider putting a canoe in the Ottawa River to supervise at close hand what is happening there.



LAKE HURON-PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION TO FISHERMEN

Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the serious financial hardship being faced by members of the South Lake Huron Fisherman's Association, has the federal government now decided to participate in compensation to be paid to these fishermen? Has a letter to this effect been sent to the Minister of Lands and Forests of the province of Ontario?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have written to the Hon. Rene Brunelle, Minister of Lands and Forests for Ontario, confirming that this is the case.

June 26, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



MEASURES TO ASSIST GRAIN INDUSTRY FOLLOWING FREEING OF DOLLAR EXCHANGE RATE

John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the minister indicated in answer to a question from myself on June 2 that the grains industry is an example of an industry adversely affected by the move to a floating exchange rate, could the minister inform the House if any policy decision has been taken on offsetting measures or whether any steps have been taken to deal with this matter?


Edgar John Benson: No, not to this point, Mr. Speaker.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, could the minister inform the House whether he intends to take any steps to deal with this matter and establish any ways and means whereby those interested in this matter could make representations to the government?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, people who have been interested have been making representations, mainly to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know the question period has dragged on for a long time but because we are perhaps at the end of this part of the session I should like to ask a question of the House Leader in view of the fact that the election bill passed yesterday and a certain problem is involved.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is there agreement that the hon. member may ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the election bill which was passed by this House will probably receive Royal Assent today, I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council whether it is the intention of the government to give any specific instructions to all those residents of Canada, between 230,000 and

940,000, who were disenfranchised by an amendment to the bill when it was in Committee of the Whole? Will the government advise them that they should take steps to become Canadian citizens within the five-year period?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's understanding of the bill is wrong. No one is disenfranchised.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of Bill S-23, An Act to postpone the expiration of certain provisions of An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.-The Minister of Transport.
Gerald William Baldwin: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this bill probably will go through without too much discussion, I wonder whether the government would consider having it dealt with in Committee of the Whole. This is just a suggestion because if the bill were referred to the standing committee the purpose sought by trying to get it through and receive royal assent today would be defeated.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes Mr. Speaker, it was our intention to make such a request. Perhaps the House would be prepared to accept an amendment that on second reading the bill would be referred to the Committee of the Whole rather than to the standing committee.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is all right, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to cooperate in this suggestion. We hope there will be similar co-operation in respect of Bill C-196.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to co-operate but we express the wish that the committee to which this bill will be referred may be able at the same time to study carefully the conclusions of
June 26, 1970

the inquiry report on pilotage so that we do not make a giant step in one direction and lose ground in another.
We would like the whole problem of shipping to be studied by this committee.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: that Bill S-23, to postpone the expiration of certain provisions of an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, be read the second time and be referred to the Committee of the Whole.


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill S-23 is to provide that section 7 of the act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, chapter 53 of the 1969 statutes, which would otherwise expire at the end of this month shall continue in force. Section 7 was included in the 1969 Act in order to remove doubt about the validity of certain pilotage by-laws and licences issued under the Canada Shipping Act. The royal commission on pilotage had suggested that some of the by-laws were ultra vires, and the licences issued under them invalid.
The minister had hoped to bring in a new pilotage bill at this session, but this has not been possible. Early this year officers of the ministry consulted with pilots and the users of the pilotage service concerning the possibility of a new approach to the pilotage problem. They were asked to consider a system under which the government would regulate only in respect of such safety matters as the qualifications of pilots and the areas where pilotage would be compulsory. Other matters, such as the fees to be paid for the service, the arrangements for pilots to be available, the provision of pilot boats and so on would be left to be worked out by the pilots and the users of their services. This was put forward, not as a firm proposal, but simply as a possible solution concerning which we wished to have their reaction. We had hoped to receive their views in time for policy decisions to be taken before now but some of the replies were received only during the past few weeks.
As a result, the legislation arising out of the report of the royal commission on pilotage will not be ready for submission to Parliament until later in 1970 or early in 1971 and therefore, unless the provisions of section 7 of chapter 53 are permitted to continue in force after June 30, the administration of the pilotage provisions of the Canada Shipping Act
Canada Shipping Act
will no longer be possible. Bill S-23 provides that the said provisions of chapter 53 will continue in force until the end of this year or by proclamation for a further six months to June 30, 1971.
This is just a matter of postponing the time of the expiration of section 7 in order to give an opportunity to the royal commission on pilotage to report to the minister so that the minister can bring in a new bill on pilotage. This would take care of the suggestion of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) that the whole problem in respect of pilotage be brought to the attention of the Committee on Transport. When the bill on pilotage is presented, it will be referred to the Committee on Transport of the House of Commons so that all the problems and suggestions may be discussed. We are now just asking that the date be postponed for six months in order to give the department an opportunity to bring in the new legislation.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we will not take very long with this bill, but certainly I do not think the government can be left off the hook as easily as the Parliamentary Secretary would like. This bill, which is before us today for consideration, clearly illustrates the sloppy way in which the government has mishandled this whole situation. The first volume of the Pilotage Commission report was brought in two years ago. At that time a question was asked in the House by the Leader of the Opposition of the then minister of transport with regard to the intentions of the government. The answer was as follows:
[DOT] (12:50 p.ra.)
The government has not yet made a decision on whether to implement recommendation 39 of the report of the Royal Commission on Pilotage. It is anticipated that revised legislation to replace the present provisions of part VI of the Canada Shipping Act will be introduced late in 1969 or early in 1970.
But the government did not stop there. At that time the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), freshly minted, and with all kinds of ideas as to what was going to be done in the new, brisk, just society, issued the following statement in July, 1968. He was a brand new Prime Minister, not the battered and worn Prime Minister we see today. Here is what he had to say in his statement:
A small task force-

June 26, 1970
Canada Shipping Act
Famous words-task force! How many task forces has this unfortunate government inflicted upon the country since then? -under the direction of the Department of Transport will be set up to launch an early review of the report-
He is speaking of the report of the Royal Commission on Pilotage.
-with a view to expediting implementation and recommendation. The government intends to proceed quickly with the preparation of appropriate legislation, and the majority of the recommendations of the Commission appear acceptable in broad terms.
Two years have passed and we are right back where we were at that time. It is rather odd that this is the same department-and I am not attaching any blame to the minister because he was not the minister then-which a short time ago was compelled to come to this House hat in hand to ask for remedial legislation to legalize invalid regulations passed under the Aeronautics Act. These regulations had been in operation for a number of years and had been declared by the Supreme Court to be invalid. Here is the same department of the same government coming to us with exactly the same facts. The Royal Commission on Pilotage said very definitely that the by-laws passed by the pilotage authority under the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act were invalide. Two years have gone by and the same situation is prevailing.
The government came to us last year and legislation was enacted to deal with the situation. In spite of the fact that the government has in this session given us the most pedestrian kind of legislation-they have not tackled any of the real problems of this country such as inflation, unemployment, the divisions in the country and constitutional problems-the government comes in on the last day of the session and says: "please, we want to continue the system for one more year". Of course, we have to give them that right, but I think it is a sad illustration of the manner in which the government conducts itself, particularly when we consider this government's attempts to commit an indecent assault on the parliamentary system.
I think this time I will limit myself to simply calling it an indecent assault. The government has attempted to take away all the rights which the parliamentary process has made available over the generations to the House of Commons, and in their place in every bill which is brought before us they seek more and more authoritarian power.

Never has any government in peace time sought for and obtained more authoritarian
and dictatorial rights. Here, we see an example of what happens when these rights are exercised by a government which is contemptuous of Parliament and of parliamentary traditions.
There are those people who say that the only kind of government which is effective and efficient is one which acts dictatorially and arrogantly, and without regard for the rights of the people. This is an example which proves that is not the case. Those people who languish in that belief have a lot to learn. Governments, merely because they are strong, powerful and have the authority which has been given to them by the House of Commons, are not necessarily efficient. No better proof of that can be found than in the fact that here, within a period of one month, this government has had to come to this House to ask the House to make good illegalities in respect of regulations and Orders in Council that were passed.
I am glad that after prodding, pushing and shoving by members of this party, the President of the Privy Council in particular was persuaded to bring down proposals implementing the suggestions of the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments to safeguard against this very thing. It shows how necessary it was. We sometimes wonder how we have survived this long without that safeguard, and I hope as I resume my seat that this will be a lesson to the government to bring forward those proposals immediately. Let us not be put in a position where we have to come back and validate illegal, improper and retroactive regulations which are ultra vires and have not the legal effect which they should have. I hope the government will recognize this. I hope it will be a lesson to them, and I hope we will not find the government coming back here next year saying: "Please pass this act again for another year."


Frank Howard: I will only speak for a moment or two, not nearly as long as my friend, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), although I do not mean to detract in any way from the force of what he said.
First, I want to extend congratulations to the Parliamentary Secretary for being able to present to the House word for word an identical speech to that which was presented to the Senate when the bill was dealt with over there. I want to say that there is some efficiency in the department in that respect in the
June 26, 1970

way they got the word across to both the Senator and the parliamentary secretary as to what to say in support of the bill.
The purport of the bill is to regularize by statute the by-laws which were made by the Department of Transport improperly and without legislative authority, as was the case with the Aeronautics Act, as pointed out by the hon. member for Peace River. With respect to the invalid regulations made under the Aeronautics Act, which extended back some years, and the by-laws relating to pilotage, which also extend back some years, I am really amazed that these things were not uncovered, corrected and changed when the brilliant Hon. George Hees was at the head of the Department of Transport.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, about the debate on second reading, I will reserve my remarks for our work in committee so as to allow the House to speed up its business.


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me two or three minutes to refer to some of the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). He said the bill was illegal and improper. That is not so. Indeed, I could remind him of the fact that Bill C-218, which we passed the other day, had to be redrafted because it was badly written or the words in the Order in Council were not correct. May I remind him that there were five or six such Orders in Council during the time the Conservative government was in office between 1958 and 1962. The reason in this case was bad drafting of those orders.
When the hon. member for Peace River says we are right back where we were two years ago, may I remind him that we are much closer to the formulation of a new bill on pilotage than we were two years ago. The minister said that before the end of this year or the beginning of 1971, a new bill will be brought in which will correct all the mistakes that might have been made.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Bechard in the chair.
Canada Shipping Act The Deputy Chairman: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
On Clause 1-Expiry.
Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask one question to which clause 1 of this bill opens the door. In view of the fact that on second reading the Parliamentary Secretary made reference to the fact that amendments to the Canada Shipping Act are pending, I ask the minister whether consideration is being given to the question of expanded pilotage arrangements for the Canadian Arctic. I ask the question particularly in view of the possibility of surface transportation using those waters, and the very interesting possibility outlined to one of the parliamentary committees a while ago of transportation underwater by submarine? Will the new act make provision for pilotage services to underwater commercial craft across the Arctic?
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be brief, although the point I wish to make involves a most serious underlying principle. I hope that members of the committee will consider it to be as serious as I consider it.
As the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated, we are considering a bill that is to guard against the lapsing of certain regulations so that the government may have an opportunity to bring in full amending regulations. It is to the point that I wish to address my brief remarks this afternoon. Let us be clear that we, on this side of the House, understand the objections of the industry to that portion of the report which is now before the people of Canada and the government. We do not need to elaborate arguments which may have been advanced in the other place in connection with this bill to make that clear.
I hope I am not inadequate to the task and that I do not misrepresent my thoughts and intentions. I intend this afternoon to leave a clear indication of the direction in which I, as an individual, should like the government to go, not only in connection with this bill but with other, related bills. I hope the House and the people of Canada will support me. I am talking of the area of the conflict of interest that arises when a regulatory authority, such

June 26, 1970
Canada Shipping Act
as the Department ol Transport, is also the repository of investigative power.
May I explain briefly what I am getting at? It is clear, I think, that for some time there has been in this country the conflict of interest to which I referred. In recent years, as a result of such unfortunate air accidents as the one at Wabush-and I regret that I have had to refer to it-the matter of conflict of interest in this area has become of prime importance. We saw the spectacle in 1970 of a regulatory body investigating this accident that occurred at Wabush. I must be careful, because I do not want to say that the accident occurred as a direct result of procedures flowing from the regulations, but the implication is clear, certainly. It seems to me that in the case of shipping accidents, whether or not pilots are on board, as in the case of accidents involving trains, aircrafts and all other public conveyances which in any way come under the jurisdiction of the dominion Parliament, the investigation should not be conducted by the body making the regulations.
I need not explain to hon. members the problems that arise when there are clear cases of conflict of interest. For example, one could ask the Prime Minister to describe the just society. We may not agree with the description. I am not necessarily saying that his argument is wrong; it is just that I happen to think it is wrong, as do many other Canadians. In other words, when there is a conflict of interest you remove totally and completely the ability of a body or person to arrive at an objective conclusion. In my brief experience, I have seen no exceptions to this rule.
May I tell the parliamentary secretary, through you, Mr. Chairman, that it is our wish on this side of the House, and particularly my wish that, prior to bringing in legislation to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the government should give consideration to taking from the Department of Transport any vestige of right to investigate accidents arising out of situations in which that department is involved as a regulatory body. May I cite the very wise example to be found in the country to our south, because they have taken away from their executive department level the responsibility for investigating accidents of the type to which I referred.
In Canada, we ought to appoint an independent investigative council which cannot be charged with conflict of interest. The people of Canada want the administrative arm of government to take an objective

view, not only of shipping accidents but also of air and rail accidents, and all those accidents which come under the authority of the federal departments.


Gerald William Baldwin: That includes cabinet
accidents.


J. Michael Forrestall: And cabinet accidents. I understand that there are to be many in the next few weeks. I wish all those fellows on the government side well, because this is probably the last time I shall speak prior to the summer recess.
The urgency of the matter I am raising has been highlighted during the past few weeks by the disastrous air accident at Wabush. It was clearly admitted that the department charged with administration as well as with investigating the circumstances and probable cause of the accident, had some responsibility in the matter. I would be greatly surprised if the government of Canada, in the right of the people of Canada, does not within the next year face one of the largest lawsuits ever brought as a direct result of this accident. I do not know whether such action is being contemplated, but I should be surprised if it is not, because I suggest that here was a prime and clear example of conflict of interest. This conflict of interest must be removed. I suggest that Bill S-23 is delaying legislation, and will give the government and the Department of Transport ample opportunity to consider the full ramifications of allowing a regulatory body to investigate accidents which have arisen directly or indirectly as a result of regulations it has passed to govern that particular segment of industry.
I will not say much more. I must give the Minister of Transport and the government a very clear warning that they must take the opportunity provided under this bill-and this is 1970, and not 1850-to protect not only departments of government but, as well, the people of Canada, by making sure that the people of Canada hear objective conclusions about accidents which involve shipping, aircraft or trains. I hope that all accidents involving public conveyances will not be investigated by the authority issuing the regulations.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
I am not suggesting for one moment that investigations carried out in the past by officers of the Department of Transport have not been honest or have not reflected their best professional judgment. What I am suggesting
June 26, 1970

is that it is damned hard for any of us to ask our wife whether she really wants to get her hair done today or whether she can let it go until next week. Of course she can let it go until next week, but does she really want to? We all appreciate the difficulty caused by a conflict of interest. I urge the government to do something about this situation by announcing its intention to remove from the Department of Transport responsibility in this area and to vest it in some such body as a national transportation council, using the services, the expertise and the professionalism of those who are presently employed in the corresponding division of the Department of Transport. Let it be made absolutely clear to all Canadians that from now on Parliament will not tolerate the situation which presently exists.


Gérard Loiselle: Before I turn to the substance of the observations which have been made by members opposite, I should like to point out that there is no direct relationship between some of the suggestions they have put forward and the contents of the bill which is before us.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni talked about pilotage arrangements in the Arc ic, both on the surface and under water. This is a subject which will be dealt with when new legislation is brought down this fall or early next year.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I simply asked whether the points I raised would be dealt with during the preparation of this legislation.


Gérard Loiselle: I am unable to give the hon. member a complete assurance about this, but he will have an excellent opportunity to bring this matter up, and, later on, I may be in a position to give him personally a reply with regard to it. As I was saying at one o'clock, a number of questions affecting pilotage, the responsibility of pilots and so on will be dealt with in the course of that bill. The measure will go before the Transport Committee and members of the committee will have the leisure in which to pursue any questions which they think are pertinent.
Considerable time has been spent in the preparation of that legislation and, as a result, it was not possible to bring it in earlier. Officers of the department have contacted those engaged in pilotage services, as well as the various interests which use those services. It is only within the last few weeks that we have received the final comments of some pilots and companies concerned.
Canada Shipping Act


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gérard Loiselle: Please, gentlemen. It is not often that I have a chance like this. Allow me to have the pleasure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gérard Loiselle: I shall not take too long. I want to go home, too.
The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East has put forward a good recommendation, and we should surely think about it.


J. Michael Forrestall: Better still, act upon it.


Gérard Loiselle: He suggested setting up an independent board to inquire into every accident, whether it involved rail, air, or navigation at sea. His point is well taken. I was glad to note at the end of his remarks he made it clear he was not inferring that the Department of Transport, in its investigations of these accidents in the past, had been biased or dishonest. The hon. member did not doubt the honesty of the department and I am glad he made this qualification at the end of his remarks. I agree it would be a relief for the department if, after an accident had occurred, some independent department or board were responsible for carrying out an investigation. Maybe we could respond, and further work could be carried out in the field of accident prevention.


J. Michael Forrestall: That is the responsibility of the department. In order that there may be no misunderstanding about what I was saying, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary is indicating that he will accept the principle that I was advancing? He implied that I had qualified my remarks. I in no way did so. Would he inform me whether it is his understanding that I want the department to give up its efforts in terms of the prevention of accidents? I was not saying this at all. I was attempting to make it clear that in my view investigative authority and responsibility should be removed from the department as swiftly as time will permit.


Gérard Loiselle: My mind is quite clear about that. I did not intend to imply that the hon. member had qualified his opinion about that. What I intended to say was this. Even if we made an effort to create a new board with responsibility for investigating accidents it seems to me we should react in some way by carrying out additional work in the field of accident prevention. I understood the hon. member very clearly and he may be sure that

June 26, 1970
Fisheries Act
his recommendations will be brought to the attention o1 the minister and considered when this new bill of which I spoke at one o'clock comes up in the fall.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, e (2:30 p.m.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Davis: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



FISHERIES ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-204, to amend the Fisheries Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova) moved:: That Bill C-204, an act to amend the Fisheries Act, be amended by deleting clause 2 thereof, line 14, page 1.
He said: Mr. Speaker, finally we are down to the Fisheries Act and I had to leave at three o'clock this morning to come here to speak to this amendment. The amendment calls for the deletion of a clause, which simply provides for the repeal of section 31 of the Act. It looks very simple, and in fact for quite a while no one paid too much attention to this clause. All of a sudden, the question flared up and we now find ourselves in quite a situation in the sense that the fishermen of Nova Scotia, particularly those in my riding, are about 95 per cent opposed to this provision. I also understand the fishermen in New Brunswick are opposed to the repeal of this section.
Although this clause is the shortest in the whole bill, to the lobster fishermen of the Atlantic provinces it means a lot. If the bill passes with this clause unamended, according to my understanding the minister will have the right to enact legislation to permit the harvesting of off-shore lobsters on a yearly
[Mr. Loiselle.l
basis, and the fishermen are concerned about this. The only information we have had on this subject since the bill was introduced last April was given by the deputy minister of fisheries under questioning in the standing committee. Information from the department has certainly been lacking, which perhaps is one reason the fishermen are upset about it. They do not understand what it means. They have had one interpretation, but they think they are right and that the minister will not go along with their views.
Only two weeks ago a report on the subject issued by the Fisheries Research Board was made available to me and to the fishermen. I questioned Dr. Martin on the subject in the committee last April and was told that the offshore lobster fishery was a separate resource from the inshore lobster fishery. Under further questioning, he told me there was no danger to the lobster inshore fishery markets even if offshore lobsters were harvested.
One wonders why this very simple provision to which I referred was included in the bill. According to a press report, not very long ago the department stated that no company or organization brought any pressure to bear in support of this proposal. The only reason given by the department was that this resource was being tapped by the vessels of two nations, the United States and Russia, which were fishing on the banks, and since they were engaging in this type of fishing, Canada should do the same.
As it happens, those two nations fish for lobsters only on the banks and do not come close to Canadian shores. However, I am wondering what would happen if Canadian lobster boats were permitted to fish offshore for lobsters, and how we would prevent these boats from getting close to the banks just outside the 12-mile limit. Why would these boats be permitted to trap or to drag-I understand that dragging is pretty well out of the question, but they could trap-just outside the 12-mile limit where our inshore fishermen are engaged in fishing?
Just because the Russians and the Americans do this sort of thing is no reason why we should do the same. Can Canada benefit only by grabbing all she can, like other nations? Is this what we mean by conservation of the fisheries? This is something the minister is quite concerned about, and is this what he means by conservation? The fishermen contend that this sort of activity will eventually destroy the inshore lobster fishery
June 26, 1970

of Nova Scotia which is closer to the banks. I want to make it quite clear that I have attended a couple of fishermen's meetings and they know what they are talking about. After all, they have been fishing for many years.
I realize that the Fisheries Research Board has done a tremendous amount of research, and I think we need even more research in other branches of the fishery which must be looked at more closely. For example, we need research into the harvesting of sea urchins. Although these have nothing to do with lobsters, sea urchins are considered a delicacy by Europeans while Canadian fishermen consider them a nuisance. I do not want to criticize the Fisheries Research Board; in fact, I would praise them for the fine work they have done. At the same time, some of their findings are open to challenge. Perhaps the evidence is not conclusive enough. At least, it is not conclusive enough to convince the fishermen.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
It is a different matter to experiment with bottles floating on the water or several inches under the surface. We are here dealing with lobster. These people know from experience what they are talking about. They have been fishing for many years, some for as long as 20 and 30 years. Let us suppose these fishermen are right. It is not enough for us to say that we must participate in this fishery. What happens if this fishery is depleted? Can we then say; oh well, it was good while it lasted? We took our share, but now it is all gone. Then, everybody would be out of work. This is the thing that bothers the fishermen and this is why they are concerned. They feel that present research is not conclusive.
Let us consider the herring industry. That industry is very often referred to as an example. The fishermen suggest that if the same research people involved in the herring fishery are making these recommendations they do not want any part of them. Last week the Bay of Fundy was closed to seiners and trawlers because there were not enough fish for everybody. This area lies between my riding and the New Brunswick shore. These fishermen continually ask me what will happen if the research people who are making these recommendations are the same ones who studied the herring fishery.
I was talking to a fellow yesterday who lost $20,000 on his boat recently. He had to let it go because of the lack of fish. One might say that we have been talking about the herring industry but that these boats could be used 22478-57t
Fisheries Act
for offshore lobstering. If we use these boats for offshore lobstering we might face the same situation in a few years that we faced in connection the Herring industry. We may deplete this fishery as the herring fishery has been depleted.
If the department is concerned that other nations are going to reap the benefits of our fisheries, then these problems have to be ironed out with the nations concerned. They must not be allowed to deplete our fisheries. The department must make sure that these nations do not fish close to our shores. The fishermen are willing to accept the idea that perhaps lobsters 200 miles away are not a part of their fishery, but they certainly cannot be sure that only those lobsters and not those on their shores will be taken.
The fishermen, through an impressive effort of their own and out of their own pockets, are responsible for a full-page open letter to the Minister of Fisheries which appeared in the leading newspapers of the province of Nova Scotia. In this open letter they have protested certain policies. The letter is addressed to the Hon. Jack Davis, Minister of Fisheries. I am sure no one has seen fishermen undertake such a project for many years, either in the province of Nova Scotia or anywhere else. They are so concerned they have taken the trouble to spend their own money in order to publish this open letter. Let me take a few moments to read part of it. It reads:
Dear Sir: On May 18th, 1970, 910 fishermen, and other interested persons, attended a meeting of the Lobster Bay Fishermen's Association, held at Barrington Passage, Nova Scotia.
The accompanying resolution was passed with no dissenting vote.
On June 1st, 1970, 450 fishermen, and other interested persons, attended a meeting in Wedgeport, Nova Scotia, under the auspices of the Wedgeport Fishermen's Association. The same resolution was adopted, unanimously.
We have never seen so many fishermen get together for a cause as in this particular case. That is why I am so concerned about this. The letter then reads:
Both resolutions were immediately forwarded to your office, at the close of each respective meeting. Since no direct reply from your office has ever been received, we therefore take this means of again calling your attention to a most serious situation resulting from an announcement from your office on May 11th, 1970, giving notice of intent to enact legislation to allow the harvest of lobsters on George's Bank, and other areas, after the closure of the season in District No. 4, on May 31st.
Would you not also agree, Sir, that fishermen everywhere have every right to be concerned, since

June 26. 1970
Fisheries Act
in their opinion, the net result of such legislation would mean complete disaster to the lobster industry?
Would you not also agree, Sir, that since you are an elected representative of the people, that you should represent, and hear, all of the people involved?
I will not read the rest of the letter. I have tried to get the fisheries committee to meet to discuss this problem. I have done everything I can under the rules, but I have been prevented because the committee will not go back to this bill unless it has a reference from the House of Commons.
I have an assurance in a letter from the minister that he will not do anything to change the regulations before he has heard from the fishermen. I hope the minister will meet with the fishermen as soon as possible. I hope the fishermen will be able to come before the committee next fall to air their views. The minister wrote a letter to me on June 17 in which he stated:
-we certainly do not intend to introduce any amendments to permit the new fishery.
Later on, in a letter he wrote on June 22, the minister said:
-I would propose that no action be taken by the Department of Fisheries, either to draw up regulations or consider licences for a possible far offshore lobster fishery until meetings are held with fishermen, either with myself in Ottawa or with senior members of the departmental staff in the fishing communities.
I know the minister is an honourable man, and I am sure he will not do anything until that has been done. The only difference between what the minister is saying, and what I am saying, is that right now there is a law which protects the fishermen. Perhaps the minister can correct me if I am wrong. The minister is suggesting now that he or his department will decide on regulations and Parliament will have no say in this whatsoever. He suggests the law will be changed because this is just a matter of passing new regulations. The fishermen are protected at this time by the law.
Perhaps the minister will say that there was another meeting held by the fishermen at which some of them disagreed. They did not disagree in respect of this particular problem. They did disagree about some of the regulations the department is putting out. They disagreed with the suggestion that the same lobster regulations should apply to one area of my riding as apply to the rest of Nova Scotia in district no. 4. This is a particular problem in respect of which I think they all
IMr. Comeau.]
agreed. I do not wish to go into the whole subject, but the fishing industry is the backbone of the Atlantic provinces, particularly the lobster industry. This is tremendously important to my part of the country. It involves millions of dollars. The government must be very careful when changing the regulations in the lobster fishery as many problems must be ironed out.
There is a limited number of boats now available to this industry. This is another problem that must be ironed out. It must be approached in the same way as the problem of boats for the salmon fishery on the west coast was approached. These things must be considered by the committee, and it is imperative that the government be careful in respect of these regulations. Every time someone mentions the word "fish" someone else hollers that it is a dirty, smelly word. It is time this industry was recognized as something other than a dirty, smelly industry in Canada. If people in the rest of Canada, other than the Atlantic provinces, were as concerned about fish as they are about other problems we might today have policies which would accomplish exactly what the fishermen want. We might then not have the people in Upper Canada referring to the fishermen in the Atlantic provinces as dirty, smelly people.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
This is the main thing. If we could get the people in the rest of Canada to accept the word "fish" this problem would be solved. This matter does not bother them. They say that a great deal of money is being poured into eastern Canada and then ask what the people are doing with it. The fishermen are trying to feed the rest of the country. They are not causing any harm. They provide food also for the people of other nations. This is an honourable profession, although it is one in which none of us would like to be involved. Many things involve the Canadian fisherman.
One example is the problem in connection with getting wharves built. Last week a wharf collapsed and a fellow fell through to the bottom of the harbour. Now, this wharf is sealed off and there is no activity there, although it is located in an export Port. These are the types of things the fishermen have trouble getting through to the rest of the people. If this could be done, then I believe the government would act. Perhaps it is because there are two ministers concerned about these problems, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister of Public
June 26, 1970

Works (Mr. Laing), both from the West Coast. They appear to be more concerned about the problems of the fisheries on the west coast. One of these ministers should be changed, and probably it should be the Minister of Public Works.
I have mentioned some of the problems we face. I hope the minister has seen the light in respect of these problems. There has been much correspondence. I know this minister is not as stubborn as some of the other ministers, particularly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene). I know that if he were aware of the situation, he would want to correct it. I hope he will accept my amendment.

I hope I have convinced hon. members that the fishing industry is a very important and viable one in my riding and must be supported by all Canadians.

I hope my amendment receives support, Mr. Speaker.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau), I do so because of the genuine fear which this government's action has created in the hearts and minds of the inshore lobster fishermen in Atlantic Canada, especially in the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, through amendments to the Fisheries Act as proposed in Bill C-204. This bill received first reading on April 10 and came up for second reading on April 20. At that time, when speaking on the bill, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) outlined his views at some depth on the pollution of Canadian waters and indicated it was the government's intention to try to control pollution through the Fisheries Act, the Canada Water Act, the Northern Inland Waters Act and the Canada Shipping Act. However, throughout this interesting speech he made no mention of the effect on the inshore lobster fishermen if one of the clauses of this bill should receive approval by the House. In fact, he never mentioned the inshore lobster fishery at any time.
The clause to which I refer is clause 2 which simply states that section 31 of the said Act is repealed. Section 31 reads as follows:
No one shall leave any port or place in Canada to fish outside the territorial waters of Canada for fish the catching of which is at such time prohibited in
Fisheries Act
the territorial waters of Canada opposite to or nearest the place where such person proposes to fish, and no one shall bring into Canada any fish caught outside the territorial waters of Canada when fishing for such fish is prohibited inside the territorial waters of Canada opposite or nearest to the place where such fish was caught, or shall bring into Canada any vessels, boats, nets, fishing gear, implements or appliances used in such fishing.
The bill states that the purposes originally served by section 31 are now served by section 76 of the Fisheries Act and the Coastal fisheries Protection Act. When we look at section 76 of the Fisheries Act we find the following words:
The provisions of this Act and the regulations that apply to any or all of the waters or territorial waters of Canada, without anything in the context of such provisions indicating that they apply to any specified area of the waters or territorial waters of Canada, shall, in relation to any fishing vessel on the High Seas that is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada, or any act or thing done or omitted to be done on, from or by means of any such fishing vessel, be deemed to extend and apply to the High Seas.
In other words, any vessel that comes under the jurisdiction of the Canadian government and Canadian laws, is subject to the controls exercised under the Fisheries Act whether they be vessels operating within our territorial waters or on the high seas. This is quite definite. It would appear to make section 31 redundant. However, I contend that section 31 of the Fisheries Act is more descriptive than section 76 for it states, without any reservations, that fish are not to be caught outside the territorial waters, which are now 12 miles from shore, when the catching of such fish is forbidden in our territorial waters.
The section states that no one shall bring into Canada any vessel, boats, nets, fishing gear, implements or appliances used in fishing on the high seas when the season for such fishing in our territorial waters is closed. It is this exact wording which provides the inshore lobster fisherman with the protection he feels he requires so that his inshore lobster resources will not be further depleted. Bill C-204 received second reading without an adequate explanation from the government concerning its reason for repealing section 31 of the Act. It was only when the bill came up before the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry on Thursday May 7 that the Deputy Minister of Fisheries, in reply to questions from the official opposition, gave an indication of the effect this innocuous-looking amendment would have on inshore lobster fishermen and their industry. By the repeal of section 31 of the Fisheries

June 26, 1970
Fisheries Act
Act, it will be possible for the minister to grant a licence for the catching of lobsters on the high seas by the use of regular lobster traps as spelled out in section 6 of the Lobster Fishery Regulations.
It was this information that brought consternation and fear into the hearts of our inshore lobster fishermen. Up and down the coast of Nova Scotia, meetings were held, some of which were attended by a provincial Liberal candidate who obviously is having second thoughts about the party he is pledged to support since he is reported in the press as stating he is opposed to the amendments in this bill. Members of all parties have received resolutions and telegrams from these worried fishermen. These resolutions and telegrams come from Sable River, West Shelburne County, the Barrington municipal council, Port Joli, Queen's County, and the Lobster Bay Fisherman's Association of Lower Woods Harbour. In fact, the Prince Edward Island legislature also approved unanimously a resolution asking that section 31 of the Fisheries Act be not repealed. I am informed that a copy of this resolution was forwarded to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry.
Listen to the plea of the fishermen in their resolution, as printed in an open letter to the Hon. Jack Davis, Minister of Fisheries, in the Halifax Chronicle Herald of Tuesday, June 23. The hon. member for South Western Nova has read some of the contents of the letter, so I shall not burden the House with it again.
I should like, however, to place on the record, so that all hon. members will know of this, the concern of the hundreds of inshore fishermen in Atlantic Canada. These are the views of these men as expressed in this advertisement, which is the first advertisement of this type I have seen in my 13 years in the House of Commons. I am referring to the resolution which appears alongside the open letter as printed from the Lobster Bay Fishermen's Association. It reads as follows:
Whereas lobster fishermen on the South Shore of Nova Scotia depend entirely on the harvest of lobsters by the use or traps, said system having proved over a period of 100 years or more the most efficient from the standpoint of total catch and enforcement of present regulations;
Whereas approximately 40 per cent of the lobster fishermen in this area now operate beyond the 12-mile limit during the present lobster season;
Whereas the lobsters placed on the market obtained by the use of drags would reduce the price of said product, therefore creating economic chaos in the affected areas;

Whereas it will be physically impossible to enforce the 12-mile limit due to weather conditions and the lack of patrol craft;
Whereas the adoption of a program such as this would on the surface seem very unfair to all fishermen and within a very short time result in the complete destruction of the industry as it presently applies to the small craft fishermen;
The Lobster Bay Fishermen's Association strongly oppose any change whatsoever in the present regulations;
Be it therefore resolved that the federal Minister of Fisheries, the Hon. Jack Davis, strongly oppose this bill.
This is to certify that the resolution of which the foregoing is a true copy was duly passed at a duly called meeting of the Lobster Bay Fishermen's Association duly held on the 18th day of May, A.D., 1970.
Given under the hands of the president and secretary of the said association this 19th day of May, A.D., 1970.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
This is a plea from the citizens of this country who are worried about their future, the future of their wives and children and the future of their industry. They know that any adverse economic effect as a result of the repeal of section 31 of the Fisheries Act would be very harmful to thousands of inshore lobster fishermen as well as to the economy of Atlantic Canada, especially Nova Scotia. The amazing thing about all this is that we have a government which promised on the election platform a just society, confrontation with the people and participatory democracy. Obviously, this government does not know the meaning of the words for they have proceeded with the repeal of section 31 of the Fisheries Act without any discussion, without any prior meetings with the people concerned, namely, the inshore lobster fishermen. This was done because the attitude of the present government seems to be that they know what is best for everyone whether it be fisheries, finance, forestry or farming. They say, "We make the laws. You had better accept them without complaint and without a murmur, because we know what we want to do with you". Well, the people of Canada are having second thoughts and they are getting some very firm ideas about what they would like to do with this government.


Mr. Pilon:: Wrong!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Hon. members opposite disagree with that statement. All I ask them to do is read some of the briefs that have been submitted in respect of the white paper on taxation. The Minister of Fisheries and Fores-
June 26, 1970

Fisheries Act
try (Mr. Davis) has indicated that he does not plan to license any ships for deep sea lobster operations at the present time. He has indicated this in a letter to me. But he still maintains in that letter that the repeal of section 31 of the Fisheries Act would have no immediate effect on the lobster fisheries. I submit that his stated intentions are not good enough. I submit that the protection required and requested by the inshore lobster fishermen is embodied in section 31 of the Fisheries Act. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, for whom I have a high personal regard, looks quite healthy but he may well not survive the rigours of this Parliament and he may well be replaced by another Minister of Fisheries and Forestry with entirely different views.
For this reason, the protection that is required by our inshore lobster fishermen must be guaranteed by statute, by Canadian law. Quite frankly, I find it hard to understand the reasoning which prompted this action by the minister who seeks to repeal section 31. I say this because of the strong objections that have been raised by the lobster fishermen to his proposed action.
The inshore lobster fishermen have every reason to be concerned. Many of these fishermen, during the period when the inshore lobster season is open, fish or set their traps within Canadian territorial waters. However, others set their traps outside our territorial waters, outside the 12-mile limit, on shoals or ledges that may be five to twenty miles beyond our territorial waters and are therefore classed as high seas areas. Under section 31 they are prohibited from landing lobsters from these ledges and shoals outside our territorial waters when the season for catching lobsters in our territorial waters is closed. But they have always accepted this regulation in the hope that the closed period would help improve the quantity of lobsters on the ledges and shoals outside the 12-mile limit and thereby give them a fair living over the years.
Now, however, without any explanation from the government or from the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, this section of the Fisheries Act which protected their resource is to be repealed. Licensed deep sea lobster fishermen could fish on these ledges and shoals that are just beyond the 12-mile limit and while doing so they would be depleting lobster stocks which for years have been considered to be the resource of the inshore lobster fishermen. The Minister of Fisheries may
well say that this would not be done. I believe that in his heart he is convinced that it would not be done. He may well say that any deep sea lobster operation would have the area clearly spelled out in which the deep sea operator can set his traps, namely, George's Bank. But I ask him, "How is the inshore lobster fishermen supposed to know what the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry is thinking or, for that matter, whether there is any thinking-minister in the government these days?"
How would the minister know, if he licensed a deep sea lobster operation, whether the lobsters on the ship, when it landed its catch, all came from George's Bank or if some of them came from ledges and shoals 25 or 30 miles from shore? He has made no announcement about plans to improve the protection service, and the present staff is inadequate and ill equipped to carry out this type of patrol, control or law enforcement. Is it any wonder that the inshore lobster fishermen are worried? I submit that the minister would be worried also if he saw his livelihood threatened in this manner.
What effect will a licensed deep sea lobster operation have on the price paid for lobsters to the inshore lobster fishermen? What marketing studies did the minister carry out before he unilaterally decided, without any obvious discussion with the parties most interested, to encourage deep sea lobster fishing? These are questions that the fishermen want answered. Will the price of lobsters go down or will it go up when the lobster pounds are assured of a steady supply of offshore lobsters on a year-round basis, or will it remain at its present level due to new markets which the minister may have discovered in some other country? These are just some of the questions that are posed to me by disturbed fishermen.
In view of the many uncertainties brought about by the minister's unilateral action, I urge him and the members of his party to retain section 31 of the Fisheries Act at least until he has had an opportunity to study the matter more thoroughly and until he has had consultations with the people who really understand the lobster industry, namely, the inshore lobster fishermen. For all these reasons I hope that the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) will receive the support of the House.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that in my experience the bill before us, to amend

June 26, 1970
Fisheries Act
the Fisheries Act, has had as careful a scrutiny in the Standing Committee as any other bill. But I think it is also fair to say that the attention of the members of the committee was largely concentrated on some rather important new elements that by this bill are being introduced into the Fisheries Act. Certainly, at the initial stage of our proceedings on this bill the impression I received was that the other amendments in the bill were largely of a housekeeping nature. By and large I think that is true. The explanatory note with reference to section 31 states:
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The purposes originally served by section 31 are now served by section 76 of the Fisheries Act and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
That does not in any way indicate the area of concern that has been mentioned by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) and the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), and certainly this aspect of the matter did not receive much consideration in the Standing Committee. The implications of the bill, which these hon. members have outlined, were not carefully scrutinized by the Standing Committee before the bill was reported back to the House. There has been some discussion of the lobster fishery on the Atlantic coast. I understand that in many respects we are still in the exploratory research stage with respect to understanding the nature and extent of the lobster fishery, the reproduction habits of the lobster and the maintenance and management of lobster stocks.
Having regard to the obvious concern indicated by the fishermen involved, as reported by two hon. members from the province of Nova Scotia, I agree with the suggestion that action to repeal section 31 should be deferred until members of the House, particularly those who have shown an interest in the welfare and development of our fisheries, are more fully satisfied that the proposed repeal will not in any way adversely affect that particular fishery. For the time being, section 31 should remain in force. I cannot see how it will interfere with the exercise of the minister's functions as Minister of Fisheries. We know there are many areas with respect to the management of the fisheries which can only be properly dealt with through regulation, but in this instance we were left with the impression that the repeal of section 31 merely dealt with the question of Canadian jurisdiction over Canadian vessels moving out

of and into Canadian ports, to and from the high seas. Now it is obvious that there is much more involved, and I believe the amendment should receive the support of the House.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I believe that section 31 of the act must be repealed, and therefore that this amendment must be defeated. In essence, section 31 provides that if there is closure of an inshore fishery anywhere in Canada, there cannot be an offshore fishery with respect to the same species of fish. No long-distance fishing nation could possibly tolerate a provision of that character in its legislation. The amendment which we propose in the bill would allow a Canadian offshore operation to take place when there was an inshore closure somewhere in Canada.
Unfortunately, an example was given in the Standing Committee with respect to lobsters on the east coast. It was unfortunate in the sense. We have no intention of issuing regulations permitting an offshore lobster fishery. I have said this in a number of letters, not only to hon. members opposite but also to fishermen and their representatives in Nova Scotia. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of upsetting the inshore lobster fishery in the Maritimes. I guarantee it.
I have also said that we would welcome submissions by the industry and a full-scale debate by the House of Commons all-party committee on Fisheries and Forestry when the House reconvenes in the fall.
I contend that to prohibit any long-distance offshore fishery because of a closed inshore fishery is short-sighted. From time to time hon. members ask, "Why doesn't Canada have an effective long distance fishing fleet?" Section 31 provides:
No one shall leave any port or place in Canada to fish outside Canadian fisheries waters...and no one shall bring into Canada any fish caught outside Canadian fisheries waters when fishing for such fish is prohibited inside the Canadian fisheries waters-
Clearly, if section 31 were to continue in effect we could not have a long-distance fleet carrying on an offshore operation when an inshore operation was closed. It is an anomaly in the Fisheries Act. If we have any idea of creating a long-distance fishery we get rid of section 31.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, could the minister give an example of where the repeal of the section might have application other than
June 26, 1970

Fisheries Act
with respect to lobsters? Where else could the repeal of the section have any effect?


John (Jack) Davis: This course applies to any kind of fish, not just to lobsters. As I have said, an unfortunate example was given in the committee as result of which attention was focused on lobsters. Take the example of herring on the west coast where the inshore herring fishery is closed. If section 31 remained in force any herring operation based on Canada's west coast that went far afield, say to take herring off the coast of Alaska, could neither depart from nor return to British Columbia. It is unfortunate that we have a blanket provision to that effect in the Fisheries Act.
Section 31 was geared to meet a particular situation years ago when it was very difficult to police inshore closures. As a result, the authorities picked up everybody who came to land. If they said they had been fishing far off, that could be true or not. Hence the unfortunate consequences of section 31. We need much greater mobility and should be able to range far away from any closed area along our coast.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Comeau) negatived.


John (Jack) Davis: That Bill C-204, an act to amend the Fisheries Act, be amended by striking out lines 21 and 22 on page 1 and substituting the following:
"in waters frequented by fish or in any place under"
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Davis) agreed to.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West) moved:: That Bill C-204, an act to amend the Fisheries Act, be amended by deleting in line 10 on page 2 the following words:
"or any other".
[DOT] (3:20p.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important amendment. It will give the Fisheries Act control in those areas that are now exempted because of jurisdiction exercised under other legislation. To be specific, I am trying to prevent the fisheries regulations from not applying in the water quality management areas which will be set up under the new Canada Water Act. In my opinion the government is being extremely foolish in not allowing the fisheries regulations to apply to all Canadian waters.
It could be disastrous if some water quality management areas in Canada set standards that were so low that they affected adversely some portions of our water resources that are vital to the fisheries. There are several areas in Canada where such problems could arise, one being the Fraser River in my province of British Columbia. There are similar areas in eastern Canada. If a water quality management area were set up on the lower Fraser, it would make no sense if the fisheries regulations did net apply to that section of the river.
There is no guarantee that industry in any water quality management area will be able to meet the standards set out in this act or, indeed, that industry will be able to ensure a safe and healthy water environment for fish. The standards in these areas will vary from province to province because of the government's failure under the Canada Water Act to endorse national standards. This amendment, Mr. Speaker, would ensure that the Department of Fisheries has full jurisdiction in these vital areas. I urge the minister to accept it. I point out that we cannot take any chances in this respect. Industry-oriented boards in our water quality management areas may turn a deaf ear to the need to properly conserve our valuable fisheries resources. Too much has already been lost and another backward step in the field of conservation should not be condoned.
I urge the minister to accept what I consider to be a major amendment which will give to the Department of Fisheries regulatory control in those areas which should be under its control, including the water quality management areas which will be set up under the Canada Water Act.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer the hon. member in this way. We have in this session passed several pieces of

June 26, 1970
Fisheries Act
legislation dealing with water quality. One is the Canada Water Act. The others are the Northern Inland Waters Act and the one we are considering, amendments to the Fisheries Act. The citizen is faced with regulations which will be written under all of these acts. These regulations must be brought together at some point and made compatible. The citizen must not be permitted to do under one piece of federal legislation something for which he may be brought to court under another. Therefore, we have introduced the clause in the bill which provides that these regulations must be compatible with those made under other acts.
I understand the hon. member's concern. His concern is that the Fisheries Act regulations would stand down, so to speak, relative to those made under the Canada Water Act. Presumably, he is viewing situations wherein the Fisheries Act regulations might be more exacting or more stringent than those proposed under the Canada Water Act. We shall write into the Fisheries Act regulations that will apply to all the waters of Canada, so that we shall not have the situation where some waters will be subject to the regulations and others will be above them.
I cannot conceive of water quality management areas introducing new regulations which would be less stringent than the Fisheries Act regulations which would be already in effect in those waters. If regulations were drafted and put forward by the officials of a water quality management area, they would still have to be considered by the federal cabinet, and I would do my utmost, as Minister of Fisheries, to make sure that there would be no downgrading of our water quality standards.
Speaking about the Fraser River in British Columbia, we shall have within weeks, if we pass this legislation by four o'clock, regulations which will apply throughout the Fraser River system. I cannot conceive of any water quality management authority which was set up to deal with the lower Fraser, for example, venturing to put forward standards which are less stringent than those already in effect in with respect to fisheries. However, there is a final court of resolution in any conflict. At the moment it is the cabinet. It is up to the Minister of Fisheries to carry the battle there.
There has been talk about the protection of our fishermen. Protection of the fisherman is found in the act. It also protects any individual in Canada by making sure that he will not
[Mr. Davis.)
be brought to court under one piece of legislation when under another piece of legislation he is not guilty if he does the same thing.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Randolph Harding: On division.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Harding) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now consider Motion No. 4 in the name of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis).


John (Jack) Davis: That Bill C-204, an act to amend the Fisheries Act, be amended by striking out lines 4 to 10 on page 2 and substituting the following:
Application "(4) Subsection (2) does not apply of subsec- (a) to the deposit of waste of a type, tion (2) in a quantity and under conditions authorized by regulations made by the Governor in Council under any other act in any waters with respect to which those regulations are applicable, or in any place under any conditions where such waste or any other waste that results from the deposit of such waste may enter any such waters; or (b) to the deposit of a deleterious substance of a type, in a quantity and under conditions authorized by any regulations made by the Governor in Council under this act for the purposes of this subsection in any water with respect to which those regulations are applicable, or in any place under any conditions where such deleterious substances or any other deleterious substance that results from the deposit of such deleterious substance may enter any such water."
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Davis) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now consider Motion No. 5, in the name of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry.
Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry moved:
That Bill C-204, an act to amend the Fisheries Act, be amended by striking out lines 35 to 43 on page 3 and lines 1 to 35 on page 4 and substituting the following:
"Deleterious "(a) "deleterious substance" means substance" (i) any substance that, if added to any water, would degrade or alter
June 26. 1970

or form part of a process of degradation or alteration of the quality of that water so that it is rendered deleterious to fish or to the use by man of fish that frequent that water, or
(ii)	any water that contains a substance in such quantity or concentration or that has been so treated, processed or changed, by heat or other means, from a natural state that it would, if added to any other water, degrade or alter or form part of a process of degradation or alteration of the quality of that water so that it is rendered deleterious to fish or to the use by man of fish that frequent that water,
and without limiting the generality of the foregoing includes
(iii)	any substance or any substance that is part of a class of substances prescribed pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection (12),
(iv)	any water that contains any substance or any substance that is part of a class of substances in a quantity or concentration that is equal to or in excess of a quantity or concentration prescribed in respect of that substance or class of substances pursuant to paragraph
(b)	of subsection (12), and
(v)	any water that has been subjected to a treatment, process or change prescribed pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection (12); and
"Water	(b) "water frequented by fish" infrequented eludes all waters in the fishing zones by fish" of Canada."
Motion No. 5 (Mr. Davis) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now consider Motion No. 6, in the name of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry.


John (Jack) Davis: That Bill C-204, an act to amend the Fisheries Act, be amended by striking out lines 1 to 18 on page 6 and substituting the following;
Information " (3) Any person who operates any to be	undertaking the operation of which
provided	the minister has reasonable grounds to
to Minister believe may be resulting in the deposit of a deleterious substance of any kind in water frequented by fish or in any place under any conditions where such deleterious substance or any other deleterious substance that results from the deposit of such a substance may enter any water frequented by fish, shall, at the request of the minister, provide to him such information relating to the operation of the undertaking, including samples of any materials used in or resulting from the operation, as will enable the minister to cause an analysis to be made of the nature, quantity and quality of any effluent resulting from the operation." Motion No. 6 (Mr. Davis) agreed to.
22478-58)
Fisheries Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now consider Motion No. 7, in the name of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry.


John (Jack) Davis: That Bill C-204, an act to amend the Fisheries Act, be amended
(a)	by striking out line 24 on page 7 and substituting the following:
"section 33a,"
(b)	by striking out line 40 on page 7 and substituting the following:
"construction, alteration or extension, or
(c)	fails to provide the minister with any information and samples requested of him pursuant to subsection 3 of section 33a within a reasonable time after the making of the request,"
Motion No. 7 (Mr. Davis) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now consider Motion No. 8, in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Barnett).


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That Bill C-204, an act to amend the Fisheries Act, be amended by adding thereto on page 11, immediately after clause 8, the following:
"9. The said act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 77 thereof the following section:
'78. This act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province and any agent thereof' " and by renumbering the present clause 9 as clause 10.
Motion No. 8 (Mr. Barnett) agreed to.


John (Jack) Davis: that Bill C-204, to amend the Fisheries Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Gerald William Baldwin: By leave, now.


John (Jack) Davis: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak at great length on this bill or to delay it unduly. Hon. members have been asked today to consider a number of important changes to the Fisheries Act, and the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has moved amendments to the bill which have been accepted. I should like,

June 26, 1970
Fisheries Act
therefore, to make some general remarks on the Fisheries Act in the context of the amendments moved by the minister.
The Fisheries Act is almost as old as Confederation. It has served Canada and Canadians well in the century that has passed, since it has seldom required amendment. On the other hand, by reason of the amendments made in the 1960-61 session the Fisheries Act is unique among the laws on our statute books. Those amendments brought the act into conformity with the Canadian Bill of Rights by removing the provisions which violated human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Fisheries Act can be said to be the "Drybones" of the Revised Statutes of Canada. We have paid tribute to this distinction of the Fisheries Act in the several statutes since passed which incorporate, by reference, a certain section of the Fisheries Act relating to confiscations.
We in the official opposition had hoped-as I believe the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry did-by this amending bill to enact a modernized version of the Fisheries Act so it could play its rightful role. We had hoped to make the Fisheries Act the sovereign legislative speardhead against pollution of Canada's waters, including seacoast and inland, salt and fresh water. The Fisheries Act has everything going for it to carry out this role effectively. I say this because the constitutional power of this Parliament to control water pollution under the seacoast and inland fisheries provisions and the provisions of the British North America Act is exclusive and cannot be challenged.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
If we had the Fisheries Act alone, the power to control water pollution throughout Canada and in its territorial and fishing waters would be vested in one sovereign authority. I have said that the Fisheries Act has everything going for it. This is true, with one exception. That exception is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) and his lust for publicity. That minister has spawned a bill, the Canada Water Act, which has already been questioned in several of its constitutional aspects. That minister has spawned a bill that fragments and splits control of water pollution among several federal ministers, ten provinces, a multitude of provincial departments and a host of agencies.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources by doubtful and devious methods has persuaded the government to accept his
[Mr. Crouse.)
polluted abortion of an act in place of the Fisheries Act. Not content with producing this malformed conglomerate, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has so projected himself into the graces of the cabinet that he has managed to author about two-thirds of Bill C-204 and, by these amendments, to make the Fisheries Act subservient to the Canada Water Act with regard to pollution. For example, the prohibition in the Fisheries Act against contaminating Canadian waters by deleterious substances, which has existed for more than 100 years under the jurisdiction of ministers of fisheries, has been made subject to the licence to pollute that exists in the Canada Water Act under the administration of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
So much for two-thirds of the amendments to the Fisheries Act, amendments that were contained in the original Bill C-204 introduced by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis). The voice was the voice of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry but the hand was the hand of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In this shape, Bill C-204 went to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.


James Aloysius McGrath: What a mess that was.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: As my colleague the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has stated, what a mess that was. All members of the committee worked hard at many meetings in an effort to improve the bill. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry worked with the committee, and the committee worked diligently with the minister. The minister was instrumental in suggesting amendments which the committee approved. In fact, these amendments were extensive enough to require a reprint of the original bill. One of them restored the time-tested words "deleterious substance" in place of the word "waste" which is not a suitable word to be used in this type of bill. If anyone doubts that statement, I ask him to look up the meaning of the word "waste" in the dictionary. It is very interesting to follow that exercise of looking up the meaning of the word "waste".
Other amendments deleted the invidious and subject references to the Canada Water Act and the Northern Inland Waters Act. The committee was satisfied that if it did not have a whole loaf, at least it had a crumb or two. The committee was satisfied that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry had an improved weapon with which to conserve the fishery
June 26, 1970

resources of Canada against the wasting effects of pollution. However, the ubiquitous and malevolent Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has again reached out his tentacles. This time he has done so at a stage of the proceedings when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) have lectured this House that amendments, once proposed in committee, should not be proposed again.
We now have before the committee a series of amendments moved by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry which in effect completely alter the work of the committee. We did not oppose these amendments, Mr. Speaker, because we were endeavouring to co-operate with the government in speeding up the business of the House. The amendments put the word "waste" back into the bill in order to keep it in time with and subservient to the Canada Water Act. During the discussions in committee we pointed out that the word "waste" was inadequate. We suggested that the word "pollutant" be used because the government obviously did not like the words "deleterious substance" which were in the original bill. It was subsequently suggested by a government supporter that the words "injurious substance" would be better than the words "pollutant" or "waste."
We then went one step further. We went full circle in playing our game of ring-around-the-rosey; we went right back to the words "deleterious substance." In other words, we are back to the words used in the original bill, namely, "deleterious substance" words which have stood the test of time for over 100 years. We said in committee that these words should be retained, with one exception-the use of the word "waste" in some of the amendments that have been approved by the House this afternoon. We have been sailing around in circles on this bill and its amendments. I repeat my original claim that it is unfortunate that the government has so fragmented and divided its pollution control authority. It will be most difficult, if not impossible, to enforce proper pollution control in this country. These are not my views alone, Mr. Speaker. I could give many examples. I will quote just one from the June 29 edition of Time magazine which reads as follows:
Says zoologist Donald Chant, the mentor of Toronto's Pollution Probe: "The public is at last aware of the dangers of pollution. What I am afraid of now is that they will become so appalled by reading one story after another that, in selfprotection, they will turn themselves off."
Fisheries Act
Further on in the article we read these words:
Says Chant: "There was a very adequate bill passed in 1843 which prohibited putting anything in the waters of Canada that is harmful to fish. It would have done the job very well if we had chosen to make it effective."
That is the answer, Mr. Speaker. That bill was the Fisheries Act. We did not choose to enforce it; we did not choose to make it effective. As a result, our rivers and lakes have become polluted. We do not have to look too far to see this; all we have to do is look out of our window and see what has happened to the Ottawa River because we did not have the intestinal fortitude to enforce the Fisheries Act in its entirety.
I noted with interest the minister's stand as indicated in a letter to me about clause 2 of this bill and the repeal of section 31 of the act, which relates to the catching of fish outside Canadian fisheries' waters when the catching of such fish is prohibited inside our territorial seas. This matter has been resolved by the vote this afternoon as it relates to catching of offshore lobsters. What has not been spelled out is the effect of some of the amendments in the bill as they relate to other types of fishing. For example, on page 9, clause 6 of the bill, we note that subsection 2 of section 55 of the Fisheries Act is repealed, together with subsections 3 and 3a of section 55. The clause provides that the following be substituted therefor:
No such vessel shall carry on fishing operations from or to any Canadian port or ports, unless it restricts its fishing operations to waters that are at least 12 miles distant from the nearest shore on the Atlantic coast of Canada: the proof that such fishing operations are so restricted at all times lies on the captain of the vessel; but this subsection does not apply to small draggers operated by inshore fishermen if exempted from the provisions of this subsection by special permit, which the minister is hereby authorized to issue for that purpose.
We may ask, "What is wrong with that regulation?" Nothing would be wrong with it if we had a party in power which did not believe it was ordained by the Almighty to rule. Nothing would be wrong with it if we had a Minister of Fisheries and Forestry who consulted with the fishing industry before making major changes. Quite frankly, this section gives the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry almost dictatorial powers over the fishermen on the Atlantic coast-or perhaps I should say dictorial powers over our Canadian fishermen. Under these powers the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry can make uni-

June 26, 1970
Fisheries Act
lateral amendments, like the one he made on May 11, without consultation with and participation by the Canadian fishermen concerned, and they must obey his dictatorial edict. That is part of the announcement made by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry on May 11, 1970. The news communique states:
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
An Immediate freeze on the catching capacity of Canada's Atlantic herring fishing fleet was announced today by Fisheries and Forestry Minister Jack Davis.
The purpose of this freeze is to prevent any further increase in fishing capacity to occur before more is known about the size of our herring stocks and the fishing pressures which they can withstand.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is like locking the stable door after the horse has been stolen.


Mr. St. Pierre:: That is an original phrase!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The new release continues:
Canadian landings of herring off the east coast were valued at $12 million in 1969. Landings have increased five-fold over the past seven years. It is expected that more than 500,000 tons of herring will be caught in this area in 1970.
I could go on. I find no fault with the minister's announcement as it relates to the Bay of Fundy, but he makes no mention of controls in another large herring fishing area, namely, the Gulf of St. Lawrence. One would think that before making an announcement which affects the investment of so many companies and the livelihood of so many fishermen in Atlantic Canada, he would have discussed the situation with the fishermen and the processers, but such has not been the case. True to form, the Minister of Fisheries barged ahead making decisions and statements unilaterally without consulting anyone in the fishing industry.
Like his leader he is great at telling people what he intends to do, and it is always for their own good. But now that he and his friends are in power there is no need to consult with anyone. You can imagine the surprise felt by representatives of the fishing industry when they met on May 11 in St. John's, Newfoundland, and heard for the first time the minister's plan to freeze east coast herring licences, to place an upper limit on the tonnage of boats engaged in this industry through licence limitation. The minister certainly rocked the boat of the fishing industry on May 11. I would again refer hon. members to the statement in the second paragraph of the news release:
The purpose of this freeze is to prevent any further increase in fishing capacity to occur before

more is known about the size of our herring stocks and the fishing pressures which they can withstand.
How bombastic can the minister become in displaying his arrogant attitude toward Canadian fishermen? Under the Fisheries Act he can control our fishermen and dictate to them until there is no industry left but only a small group of people subservient to the minister. I ask him to tell this House now whether he has received any agreement from Russia, Poland, France, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom or the United States that these nations with their large fishing fleets on our Atlantic coast will refrain from catching herring. While these nations continue to plunder and pillage our fisheries resources, the minister complains in his announcement of May 11 that Canadian landings of herring have increased five-fold in the last seven years, so in his opinion the government must put a stop to this enterprise. His attitude is: We won't bother to consult with the industry before taking dictatorial action; we will go ahead and confine the catch arbitrarily to its present eve.
What bureaucratic nonsense is this? How does the minister propose to learn more about the size of the herring stocks? Will the nations which are raping our offshore stocks let him know the number of pounds they have landed; or will the figures come from Information Canada? Mr. Speaker, I fear for this country. I fear for the future of our fishing industry since it is obvious that the minister and the government have lost their powers of reason.
Obviously, the only way in which some control can be exercised over the size of our herring stocks or, in fact, in connection with the conservation of our entire fishery, is by way of international consultation and agreement. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) had spent as much time consulting his counterparts in the great fishing nations of the world on fisheries conservation as he has spent chasing after officials to get Red China to recognize Canada, we would, hopefully, have been able to announce an international fisheries consultation policy by now.
It is obvious to fishermen that the fishing industry is not one of paramount concern to the government and that it means nothing to the minister of external affairs, who cannot seem to reach agreement with France on our 12-mile limit legislation and who failed mis-
June 26, 1970	COMMONS
erably in his attempt to reach agreement with Denmark whereby that country would curtail its deep sea operations-operations which result in the annual taking of some 4.5 million pounds of partially grown Atlantic salmon off Greenland.
I urge the government to try to convene a third Law of the Sea Conference in order to discuss at the international level our territorial seas legislation, our fishing regulations, pollution control and the desirability of establishing sound international conservation practices. I warn members of this government. If they procrastinate, if they delay much longer, it may well be too late to do anything of importance on behalf of a group of patient and long-suffering people, our Atlantic coast fishermen.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure that the hon. members of the other place have adequate time in which to consider this piece of legislation, I shall confine my observations to saying "Amen" to the remarks which have been made by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse).


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to forego my remarks if the minister would take a few minutes to comment on the observations of my hon. friend from South Shore.


John (Jack) Davis: I will try to do so, Mr. Speaker. First, the hon. member accused me of failing to stand up to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene). Then later on he charged me with trampling on the rights of fishermen and fishing interests on both coasts. As to the amendments to the Fisheries Act, I should like to say I appreciate all the co-operation which I and my staff have received from both sides of the House. The act has been improved a great deal, especially in committee as a result of the amendments made there. I believe it is now a much more workable measure. Since it is a better federal instrument we shall be able to deal much more effectively and quickly with pollution than we could before. Also I will guarantee that as long as I am Minister of Fisheries and Forestry I shall do my utmost to make sure that the standards we set up under the Fisheries Act do not give way to standards set up under any other piece of legislation whether federal or provincial.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
DEBATES	8671
Standards Council of Canada


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



STANDARDS COUNCIL OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-163, to provide for the establishment of a Standards Council of Canada, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Douglas Charles Rowland: That Bill C-163, to provide for the establishment of a Standards Council of Canada, be amended by adding the following words to clause 3, subclause
(c)	thereof immediately following the word "members", in line 2 on page 2:
"no less than ten of whom shall be appointed by, or in consultation with, the Consumers Association of Canada."
He said: During the course of the discussion of this amendment in committee the minister indicated that he objected to it because it would impose a certain rigidity upon the ability of the Governor in Council to select persons for membership on the council. Upon reflection, that objection makes sense to me. I therefore ask the unanimous consent of the House to alter the wording of the amendment in order to broaden it by changing the words "The Consumers Association of Canada" to "bona fide Canadian consumers organizations". The purpose would be the same; it would simply allow more flexibility on the part of the Governor in Council.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the hon. member for Selkirk. The hon. member requires, of course, unanimous consent of the House to amend his amendment. Is there such unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The amendment would therefore read:
"no less than ten of whom shall be appointed by, or in consultation with, bona fide Canadian consumers organizations."


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. I am suggesting that the bill be amended to
June 26, 1970

Standards Council of Canada include this specific instruction in respect of the minimum number of members of the council representing consumers groups, for a number of reasons. Canada's consumers organizations are voluntary organizations whose memberships are devoted to furthering the cause of meeting the needs of consumers and of securing their protection. During the course of their existence-this is especially true of the Consumers Association of Canada-they have managed to accumulate a fair amount of expertise about desirable standards for consumer goods. They also carry out, in conjunction with other organizations, research into the effectiveness of consumer goods. Moreover, they have established relationships with similar groups in other parts of the world and have thereby gained access to considerable information about the performance of products and desirable standards.
When this bill was before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, I was impressed, during the course of the testimony of several witnesses, with the need to ensure that people appointed to the council for the purpose of representing the interests of consumers be conversant with the technical problems associated with the establishment of standards. It therefore appeared to me that established consumers organizations, such as the Consumers Association of Canada, with their access to information and expertise, would provide an excellent medium through which such qualified people could be obtained.
During the course of the committee's hearings it became apparent that the existing standards organizations, many of which will supply members to the new Standards Council of Canada, are very much business-oriented. I do not mean this as a criticism; there is no reason why they should not be. I am simply stating a fact. In view of this fact it appeared tc- me that the interests of the consumer might well be overlooked unless the bill stipulated that a set number of consumers' representatives be appointed to the council. The figure of 10 consumers' representatives will obviously leave 31 other members to be appointed from existing standards organizations and other interested groups.
During the course of the discussion of this amendment in the committee two points were raised in opposition to it. The first argument against the amendment was to the effect that each of us is a consumer; therefore, each person appointed to the council will, in a sense, be representing the interests of con-

sumers. In response to such argument I can only say that the real question is one of the primary interest of persons on the council and the major brief which they hold. An industrialist may be a consumer, but he is primarily an industrialist. Therefore, I suggest that there should be people on the council who are primarily concerned with representing consumers.
The second point raised in opposition to this amendment was that the cabinet, in whose hands the selection of the council members will be placed, will obviously see tc it that the consumer is adequately represented without specific instructions from Parliament. Whether or not one finds this argument to be convincing, I suppose, depends upon one's assessment of the reliability of the cabinet's judgment. Obviously, if I were convinced that the present government's judgment was always good, I would be sitting on the other side of the House. But beyond that, I do not think that it is good legislation to leave the nature and character to be assumed by such bodies as the proposed Standards Council of Canada vague and ill-defined when they have such considerable potential to affect key areas of Canadian life. It is to ensure that the proposed council always remembers the consumer that I urge acceptance of this amendment.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I will take only a moment to support the amendment that has just been moved. During our consideration of the Canada Water Act I had reason to make a somewhat similar suggestion to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene), namely, that consultations should take place between government departments, citizens groups and others interested in legislation and regulations, before they are passed. My amendment was very much along the lines of the one now proposed. The minister did not accept my amendment, on principle, saying that he did not feel he ought to be obliged to consult anybody on this question. I hope that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) will have better judgment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether there would be a disposition on the part of the House to adjust slightly the program. I believe that at four o'clock there is to be a motion under Standing Order 26. I also understand that we have to make a trip to the other place. Rather than interrupt an
June 26, 1970

important debate to make that little journey,
I wonder whether we could not postpone the Standing Order 26 debate until 4.30. This will give the House time to deal a little more fully with the bill now before us. I would also give the Senators time to finish the fisheries bill and allow for the House to go to the other place for Royal Assent. I suggest that rather than stop what we are doing at four o'clock, the debate on the Post Office be fixed for 4.30.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre tell me when he plans to take his trip, so that we would be able to plan accordingly?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
trip that I am talking about is a round trip-over to the Senate for Royal Assent, and back.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) is being very smart in recommending greater stringency in order to obtain greater flexibility! I believe, however, that my arguments against the original proposal are equally applicable to the amended motion.
According to the original motion, there were to be ten representatives of the consumers, whose appointment would have been suggested or recommended by the Consumers Association of Canada. To that, I would have answered: Why not also have ten suggested by the Canadian Standards Association, ten recommended by labour unions and ten proposed by other groups. Then, I would be faced with the impossible task of reconciling all those recommendations.
The hon. member now amends his proposal to state that the recommendations would come from the consumers generally. I say that the previous argument is still relevant, because if we agree to appoint ten representatives of the consumers to the Council, will producers generally not be entitled to ask for ten also, as well as the distributors and the labour unions? And then it is easy to visualize the problems that would arise. In fact, who would speak of behalf of the consumers, the producers, the distributors and the labour unions?
I feel therefore that the motion, the first as well as the second, would give rise to insuperable difficulties in the setting up of such a Council.

Standards Council of Canada
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the said motion lost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Rowland) negatived.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That Bill C-163, An Act to provide for the establishment of a Standards Council of Canada, be amended
(a)	by striking out all that portion of clause 4 preceding paragraph (h) of subclause (2) thereof and substituting the following:
Objects	"4. (1) The objects of the Council
are to foster and promote voluntary standardization in fields relating to the construction, manufacture, production, quality, performance and safety of buildings, structures, manufactured articles and products and other goods, including components thereof, not expressly provided for by law, as a means of advancing the national economy, benefiting the health, safety and welfare of the public, assisting and protecting consumers, facilitating domestic and international trade and furthering international cooperation in the field of standards.
Powers	(2) The Council, in carrying out its
objects in the fields referred to in subsection (1), may
(a)	promote cooperation among organizations concerned with voluntary standardization in Canada in those fields to coordinate standardization activities and develop common standards and codes;
(b)	promote cooperation between organizations concerned with voluntary standardization in Canada in those fields and departments and agencies of government at all levels in Canada with a view to achieving compata-bility and maximum common usage of standards and codes in those fields;
(c)	recommend criteria and procedures relating to the preparation, approval acceptance and designation of voluntary standards in Canada in those fields;
June 26, 1970

Standards Council of Canada
(d)	accredit, in accordance with criteria and procedures adopted by the Council, organizations in Canada engaged in standards formulation, testing and certification in those fields, and maintain a register of such organizations and of their standards mark;
(e)	approve standards in those fields submitted by organizations accredited by the Council as national standards where appropriate, and maintain an index of approved standards;
(f)	provide for the identification and evaluation of the need for new standards, revisions to existing standards and additional testing and certification services in those fields, and arrange for that need to be satisfied
(i)	by obtaining the cooperation of organizations accredited by the Council to engage in standards formulation, testing and certification, and
(ii)	where that need cannot be satisfied in the manner described in subparagraph (i), by promoting the establishment or utilization of new or other organizations for that purpose;
(g)	establish and register under the Trade Marks Act its own standards marks in those fields and, subject to that Act and in accordance with any agreement or arrangement between the Council and any organization accredited by it respecting the use of such marks in relation to standards formulated by that organization, authorize and regulate their use;"
(b)	by adding thereto the following new subclause:
"(3) In carrying out its objects and exercising its powers under this section, the Council shall, to the greatest extent practicable, make use of the services and facilities of existing organizations in Canada engaged in standards formulation, testing and certification in the fields referred to in subsection



RECOMMENDATION

[Stage Direction]
His Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons that Bill C-163, An Act to provide for the establishment of a Standards Council of Canada, be amended as follows:
1. By striking out all that portion of clause 4 preceding paragraph (h) of subclause (2) thereof and substituting the following:
Objects	"4. (1) The objects of the Council
are to foster and promote voluntary standardization in fields relating to the construction, manufacture, production, quality, performance and safety of buildings, structures manufactured articles and products and other goods, including components thereof, not expressly provided for by law, as a means of advancing the national economy, benefiting the health, safety and welfare of the public, assisting and protecting consumers, facilitating do-

mestic and international trade and furthering international cooperation in the field of standards.
Powers	(2) The Council, in carrying out its
objects in the fields referred to in subsection (1), may
(a)	promote cooperation among organizations concerned with voluntary standardization in Canada in those fields to coordinate standardization activities and develop common standards and codes;
(b)	promote cooperation between organizations concerned with voluntary standardization in Canada in those fields and departments and agencies of government at all levels in Canada with a view to achieving compatibility and maximum common usage of standards and codes in those fields;
(c)	recommend criteria and procedures relating to the preparation, approval, acceptance and designation of voluntary standards in Canada in those fields;
(d)	accredit, in accordance with criteria and procedures adopted by the Council, organizations in Canada engaged in standards formulation, testing and certification in those fields, and maintain a register of such organizations and of their standards marks;
(e)	approve standards in those fields submitted by organizations accredited by the Council as national standards where appropriate, and maintain and index of approved standards;
(f)	provide for the identification and evaluation of the need for new standards, revisions to existing standards and additional testing and certification services in those fields, and arrange for that need to be satisfied
(i)	by obtaining the cooperation of organizations accredited by the Council to engage in standards formulation, testing and certification, and
(ii)	where that need cannot be satisfied in the manner described in subparagraph (i), by promoting the establishment or utilization of new or other organizations for that purpose;
(g)	establish and register under the Trade Marks Act its own standards marks in those fields and, subject to that Act and in accordance with any agreement or arrangement between the Council and any organization accredited by it respecting the use of such marks in relation to standards formulated by that organization, authorize and regulate their use;"
2. By adding thereto the following new sub-clause:
Idem	"(3) In carrying out its objects and
exercising its powers under this section, the Council shall, to the greatest
June 26, 1970
8G75
[Stage Direction]
extent practicable, make use of the services and facilities of existing organizations in Canada engaged in standards formulation, testing and certification in the fields referred to in subsection (1)."
Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Pepin) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the consideration of the motion in the name of the hon. member for Selkirk.


Douglas Charles Rowland: -That Bill C-163, An Act to provide for the establishment of a Standards Council of Canada, be amended by adding to Clause 4, subclause (2) thereof a new paragraph (n) as follows:
' ' (n) make recommendations to the Minister, such recommendations to be included in the annual report of the Council, in respect of standards which, in the opinion of the Council, should be made compulsory."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make any long argument in respect of this suggested amendment. During the course of its consideration in the committee, I believe the minister was substantially in agreement with it. The only thing that prevented it from being adopted at that time was a ruling by the chairman. I would be pleased to defer to the minister at this point to allow him to indicate whether or not he is in agreement, and if he is there is no point in my continuing.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could be my usual generous self on this occasion but I cannot. The whole bill is based on voluntary standards. This bill is for the establishment of standards voluntarily arrived at and voluntarily implemented. It would be giving a wrong indication to provide for the possibility of this council having a major influence in the making of mandatory standards. We would keep voluntary and mandatory standards cleanly divided.
My hon. friend knows, and I agree, that if the council decided to recommend to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) or to provincial or municipal authorities, mandatory standards it could do so. It does not have to ask for my permission. It might not be a good idea to put this in the bill, knowing full well that this can be done.
Standards Council of Canada


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, would the minister submit to a question? Would he not agree that it is always handy for legislators to be given a club, such as a recommendation in annual report of the Standards Council, in order to use it on a government that will not act?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is exactly what I am saying, putting a club in the bill is the wrong thing to do. This bill is about voluntary standards and having a club in a bill on voluntary standards would probably give a bad impression.


Douglas Charles Rowland: What about the recommendations the Standards Council is going to make in respect of the adoption of the metric system?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The metric system will not necessarily be adopted on a mandatory basis. As far as the Standards Council is concerned, what it will do with regard to the metric system is try to foster as great a voluntary consensus as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make one of my brief speeches. It seems to me that the answer of the minister is not really very satisfactory. May I point out to him that the amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland), does not seek to turn the legislation itself into something compulsory, but merely gives to the council the right and the opportunity, as a result of its studies, to recommend to the minister that there are areas in which there should be compulsory standards.
The minister, in what I thought was a case of arguing both ways, turned around a moment later and said that the council has the authority to make such recommendations if it wished to do so and, therefore, we do not need to clutter up the Act with these extra words. I point out to the minister that the clause which my hon. friend seeks to amend is the clause which gives the council its terms of reference. Unless those terms of reference include this right, I submit there will be people on the council and people over the council who will say they do not have that right.
Therefore, if I may use language that we sometimes get from the President of the Privy Council, let us exercise an abundance of caution. Let us see to it that we have, as part of the terms of reference of the council, the right which all of us feel it should have.
June 26, 1970

Standards Council of Canada namely, the right when it believes that certain standards should be made compulsory to recommend to that effect to the minister. That is why we think this amendment ought to be adopted.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure ol the House to adopt the said motion?
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Rowland) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved:: That Bill C-163, an act to provide for the establishment of a Standards Council of Canada, be amended by striking out clause 18 thereto.
She said: Mr. Speaker, clause 18 as it now stands reads:
The Council shall be deemed to be a charitable organization in Canada as described in paragraph (e) of subsection 35	(1) of section 62 of the
Income Tax Act for the purposes of that act.
It seemed to us on examination of that section of the Income Tax Act that it was stretching things rather far to call this council a charitable organization. We do not see how it could possibly fall within that category. There have been times when political organizations, of which I know something, have wished that they also might be classed as charitable organizations within the meaning of the Income Tax Act. I think it would be just as logical to have them in that category as to put this council in the category of a charitable organization.
Some of us in reading this section, and considering its implications were afraid that there might very well be a conflict of interest develop in such a council if it were to fall under the heading of a charitable organization. We were not able to get any satisfactory explanation as to why this should be classed as a charitable organization. It is net an educational or a welfare body. We could not for the life of us understand why this should be. Even those people ^peaking on behalf of the department were not really able to enlighten us in this regard.
For this reason we decided that, in view of these considerations, it did not seem to fall within that category and that there was a danger of possible conflict of interest in having such a section. We, therefore, have moved that the clause be struck from the bill and that clause 17 be followed by clause 19 renumbered as 18.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I disagree on that point. In other countries, national standards councils are assisted in this way by the general public. The work they do is truly of public interest and it is normal for the public to be called upon, or rather to be invited to participate financially in it and I also feel it is normal that the contributions of people who do so should be tax exempt.
The same situation exists in Canada, Mr. Speaker. Other Crown corporations, such as the Science Council of Canada, the Economic Council of Canada, are specifically exempt from taxes on outside grants. Other companies set up by the Canadian Parliament, other than Crown corporations, also enjoy this advantage under their incorporation act.
I am thinking in particular of the Company of Young Canadians, the Canada Council, the National Arts Centre, that enjoy the same advantage, that is, of allowing their backers to be exempt from taxes on their contributions to public organizations. Since the Standards Council of Canada is also an organization created in the public interest, the amendment does not seem justified.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? The question is on Motion No. 4 (Mrs. Maclnnis). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 4 (Mrs. Maclnnis) negatived.


Jean-Luc Pepin: that Bill C-163, to provide for the establishment of a Standards Council of Canada, as reported (without
June 26, 1970

amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jean-Luc Pepin: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to suggest there is just about time to put through Bill C-196. The minister from Saskatoon can take it on.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the discussion under Standing Order 26 of the matter raised by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis).


J. Michael Forrestall: He did not even show up to participate.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 POST OFFICE ACCELERATED DISRUPTION OF SERVICE-FAILURE TO NEGOTIATE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE

Mr. Speaker:: The matter to be debated under this Order is:
The new situation created by the acceleration and spread of the rotational strikes by postal employees, thus creating a new threat of a nationwide postal strike, the failure of the Treasury Board to negotiate a settlement to end the disruption of postal services, and the urgent need to debate the serious situation before the House adjourns for the summer recess.
The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie).


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough) moved:: That this House do now adjourn.
He said: Mr. Speaker, while I am naturally glad that this debate has been granted I may say, sir, I regret very much that we end this portion of our session dealing with such a matter on such a note. It is regrettable that the country is still faced with a communications crisis following much disruption in a very important part of the public service, namely the Post Office. The Canadian people expect certain things of their government. One of their basic expectations purely and simply is that the mail should go through.
Post Office
Canadians have a right to communicate one with another and their government should ensure that their communications are delivered. Today, the mail is at a standstill in this city and elsewhere in Canada. A war of nerves is being carried out. I read in today's evening paper that the chief negotiaters maintain that there seems to be no prospect of settlement. In a labour dispute, of course, there are two sides. Neither management nor labour is all right or all wrong in their point of view.
Today in this important debate I seek not to speak for labour and not to speak for the government. If I were Demosthenes himself, I would not undertake that case. Rather do I try to speak for the third party, the party which should also, through the government, be represented at the bargaining table but which, alas, I fear seems to have had no voice in these recent troubled times and tangled negotiations. When I speak of the third party, I refer to the people of Canada. Their rights, their legitimate demands, their proper expectations transcend all argument about guidelines, about conciliation reports or about points of negotiation. While the government, through the Treasury Board, is in a narrow sense in the role of the employer, it is in a much more basic and much broader sense the custodian of the general interest, the guarantor of the rights of the people of Canada. In that role and in that function, it has been, I submit, abysmally unsuccessful.
Indeed, in the more narrow function as employer the government has displayed a brittle, bungling brinkmanship which has been calculated to ensure the failure of negotiations. I cannot say that the government wanted the negotiations to fail-I do not know-but I can say that if they did want them to fail they could not have proceeded in any way better calculated to bring about that result. The Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans), widely castigated as the most anti-labour Postmaster General since Confederation, made his immortal contribution when he said in the House on May 19, as recorded at page 7062 of Hansard:
People who seek contractual obligations sometimes seek not the work but the pay without the work.
What a contribution to harmonious negotia-ation! What a contribution to eventual settlement! But the minister whose contributions to worker morale are now well known had help in this latest effort. No more unlikely agent of

June 26, 1970
Post Office
goodwill could be found than the hon. member for Westmount, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) of Bonaventure fame and other interesting records. He and his spokesmen seemed eager to miss no opportunity to inflame the situation and exacerbate the problem. On May 26 a Canadian Press item by a very able reporter, Ian Porter, states:
Drury comes within a breath of daring postal workers to strike...He said the government would be under less pressure than ever before to settle on union terms.
Four days later, on May 30, David Monk, director of communications for the Treasury Board told reporters that the 24-hour rotating mail strikes are a callous tactic that harasses the innocent public. This was on the very eve of the arrival of the government-chosen mediator, President Carrothers. What an environment for compromise they extended to him; what a scene they set!
After that gentleman withdrew in apparent despair, a spokesman again rushed into print to denounce the unions. Then, the irrepressible Postmaster General, envious perhaps of his colleague's temporary monopoly of ineptitude, held a press conference. This produced one of the most incredible utterances since the days of Baron Munchausen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: As reported on June 9, he said that the rotating strikes and the continued spread of a national strike and wildcat stoppages are alienating the Canadian public. He went on to say it might even be that the people would lose confidence in the Post Office if this continued! The suggestion was made that the striking workers were responsible for the diminution in the faith the people have in the institution over which he has presided with such great disarray for two years. In speaking of the people losing confidence, and in speaking of the declining use of the service, he knows the story of the declining use of the service by many people in Canada.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
If he does not know, I can let him have my files. The Prime Minister, (Mr. Trudeau), the captain of the team, joined the fray and quoted statistics which have been cryptically refuted and publicly denied by the leaders of the unions in the most outspoken terms that I have ever heard applied by public men to the leader of a government. So far as I know, these statements have as yet gone without
[Mr. Macquarrie.)
contradiction. These are contributions to a situation which now faces us. But what appears to be constant in all this is the determination to confine one part of the economy, one group of employees to whom the 6 per cent guidelines shall and will apply come hell or high water, postal strikes or no postal strikes. This, I fear, is part of the problem. Others may get 19 per cent, 10 per cent, and perhaps even 21.9 per cent, but these workers must settle for 6 per cent or else. Even Judge Lippe's suggestion of 6.3 per cent seems an extravagance which a brittle government will not accept even in the face of disruptions of the postal service.
Is this group of public servants to become the scapegoat of a faltering effort to establish a guideline which so few others in the country will respect? Are these workers to be the victims of a squeeze play in a government's last ditch effort to save face, if not the postal service? Is the government really determined to force upon some of its own workers a restriction which it can neither sell nor compel upon the rest of the public? Is this the issue? The government's handling of this whole matter has been a dismal, dreary record of insensitivity, stubbornness and lack of consideration of the public or of their own employees.
We have today a vital national service in suspension, Canadians inconvenienced, business and the economy suffering, and the average citizen denied a service for which he is paying at the highest rate since confederation. Must this go on and on? The minister laughs, but it is the highest rate since confederation. That is one of his great achievements. Must the months and months of inefficient, inferior mail service be followed by a galloping disruption of that service and a continuing deadlock in an effort to bring this to an end? After what the Postmaster General has done as the head of the department, I am not surprised that he can even laugh in the face of this situation. It may be unbecoming, but it is not surprising.
Do the proprietors of the once-designated just society believe that the Canadian public is possessed of endless patience and devoid of any determination to have its rights protected by the group to which it gave its mandate for a time, namely to the government of the day? I say with all seriousness and with great concern that there is grave danger that the wick of public patience is growing short. Let the government know this, and I say also, let the unions know this. My sympathies are, as is
June 26, 1970

well known, generally with the unions. I want to see their lot improved. I do not deny their desire for better pay because I happen to know that there are some in the country not paid so well. That is a foolish, nonsensical excuse. You do not improve the general lot by dragging down or keeping down some of those who are not at the very bottom.
I say that the unions have handled their case infinitely better than the government which has approached this matter with ineptitude and stubbornness. I recognize the unions' anxiety for job security, but I say to the union leaders: do not, even in the face of outrageous government ineptitude, push public patience too far. I say, with the greatest sympathy and friendship which is well known: do not exhaust the reservoir of goodwill and do not give this government, whose anti-labour bent seems more and more apparent, any justification to move in a manner calculated to hurt the cause of labour, both organized and unorganized, for many years to come.
I ask the unions not to penalize the Canadian public to such a degree that they will lose sympathy for the aims of the unions. These are delicate matters. I ask the union leaders not to spoil a generally good cause, and not to spoil a generally reasonable case, by continued methods of persuasion which are not good, which are not reasonable, and which the Canadian public will not long endure. Above all, I say to them, do not tempt the Canadian public to reconsider the right to strike in the public employee sector. I say to both sides: the public interest is paramount. This is the question here today. There has been enough brittle obstinacy at the negotiating table, enough name calling through the media, enough denunciatory press conferences, and enough rotating strikes.
I urge, I advise, indeed I presume to warn that a national strike must be averted. It can be averted and this continuing, hurtful confrontation must end. Flexibility and reason must take the place of obstinacy, stand pat-ism and a determination to prove a point, no matter how-ill chosen that point was both in time and in mathematics. If the government through any of its spokesmen,-and I fear the spokesman today might be the Postmaster General, not a felicitous choice-have any exceptionally useful measures to propose to bring this agony to an end, we will not be found wanting in our readiness, our willingness to act decisively, whether it be in midsummer, in the next hour, the next day or the
Post Office
next week. We are willing to do what we believe is necessary, not to prove a point for the unions nor, God help us, to prove a point for the incompetent government, but to approve, to sustain, to support and to protect the public interest which for far too long has been ignored.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Orlikow: My
colleague, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), yesterday asked leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the new situation created by the acceleration and spread of the rotational strikes by postal employees, thus creating a new threat of a nationwide postal strike, the failure of the Treasury Board to negotiate a settlement to end the disruption of postal services, and the urgent need to debate the serious situation before the House adjourns for the summer recess.
I do not think there can be any question that we are facing in this country a real crisis. Press reports in the last few days make it clear that in the last week we have had a third of the postal workers from one end of Canada to the other out of work at one time. That is likely to accelerate rather than to slow down, unless there is an early settlement of the dispute between the postal workers and the government. How much inconvenience, how much difficulty, how much trouble, have the differences between the government and the postal workers created for the ordinary citizens, whether they be old age pensioners, ordinary workers, or small or large businessmen.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
What has caused the difficulties, Mr. Speaker? I will come to the issue in a few moments. I think the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) spoke the truth when he said that the difficulties, in a large part, were caused by the intemperate statements made by the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans), by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), who cannot even bother to be here this afternoon, as well as by representatives of the negotiating committee for the government. I do not want to take the time to put on the record the irresponsible statements made time and time again by the Postmaster General, which could only have the effect of

June 26, 1970
Post Office
inviting the postal workers to go out on strike immediately. But, Mr. Speaker, his statements are no different from, nor worse than, the statements of the President of the Treasury Board.
What about the so called negotiators for the government? Mr. Harper held a press conference yesterday, at which he said a fair settlement for the postal workers would be less than the 6 per cent maximum increase which the government has indicated in its wage guidelines. How irresponsible can the government get?
According to the Globe and Mail of May 30 Mr. Monk, another great government negotiator, criticized the postal unions for launching what he called a campaign of callous harassment of the innocent public. I quote from the newspaper:
He combined the accusation with an angry denunciation ol the union's bargaining team, which he said had refused to negotiate with representatives of the Treasury Board and the Post Office-
Mr. Monk told reporters that the government negotiators had proposed that the wage negotiations begin with a discussion of the proposals of Keith Campbell, the government's nominee on the conciliation board.
-Mr. Monk conceded that the Treasury Board negotiators have not suggested that the wage negotiations centre around the proposals of Judge Rene Lippe, the chairman of the conciliation board, who proposed a 50 cent an hour increase over the life of a new agreement.
In other words, Mr. Monk, a supposedly competent negotiator, says that unless the postal workers are prepared to negotiate on the basis of what the government representative on the conciliation board recommended, they are not being responsible. If the Postmaster General wants to get this contract settled, I suggest he had better send Mr. Monk off to a different job because he knows nothing about negotiations. He knows even less about them than does the Postmaster General.
And as if that were not bad enough, we had the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) making statements, during his tour last weekend, about the wages of postal workers, statements which were factually incorrect. Let me quote from the letter sent to the Prime Minister by the President of the Letter Carriers Union of Canada and the President of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers on June 25. I will quote just a couple of sentences in which they object to the figures mentioned by the Prime Minister, and which they say are untrue.
We refer particularly to week end statements quoted widely in Monday's press. You are quoted as having said the average postal worker's wage is $3.30 an hour.
[Mr. Orlikow.l
I do not want to use unparliamentary language, even when I quote somebody else, and so I content myself with saying that the letter indicates the figures used by the Prime Minister are untrue. The letter goes on to say:
In fact, the range of wage rates is from $2.57 an hour to $3.24 an hour. Only approximately 2,000 of the 27,000 postal workers are eligible to earn the maximum rate of $3.24. The postman who delivers the mail to your door earns $2.99 an hour, provided he has been on this job for at least three years.
In the same statement you are quoted as placing the national average of industrial workers in Canada at $2.65 an hour. This is also not true. According to the latest figures of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics the national average is $3.11 an hour.
In other words, the Prime Minister exaggerated the wages paid to postal workers, and underestimated the average wages paid to industrial workers. Why is this being done? Why are we in these difficulties? I suggest there are two main issues.
The postal workers are worried by the extravagant claims which the Postmaster General made over a period of months about how automation of the Post Office would lead to much greater efficiency and to large savings. What does that mean to the ordinary worker? It means that there will be a reduction in the number of workers required. As a result, in the workers' negotiations with the government, they are asking for guarantees on job security. They would be less than human if they did not ask for this. In fact, they would be downright foolish.
Then, very late in the negotiations, the Postmaster General started saying that there would be so much mail the Post Office would need more workers, and he implied that there would not be lay-offs. If there will not be lay-offs, why doesn't the government offer a job security plan? I am not saying that the government necessarily has to grant the request of the unions, giving a guarantee that no employee will be laid off. Many private industries have job security plans. Why can't the government have such a plan?
The second problem concerns the wage increase which the employees want. It is obvious to me that the postal workers are being asked to be the "patsies" for the unilateral decision made by the government that workers should not get more than a 6 per cent increase in their wages. That guideline has been shattered by virtually all groups of workers in both the public and private sectors who have signed wage agreements in the last couple of months.
June 26, 1970

I do not have time to put on the record all the wage agreements which have been signed, and which provide for a great deal more than 6 per cent. But let me say that there has been a deliberate and concentrated effort by the government, in particular by the Prime Minister and by the President of the Treasury Board, and which has not been publicly rejected by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), a friend of labour, to put the blame for inflation on trade unions, particularly on those affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress and with the Confederation of National Trade Unions. There is no truth in the suggestions by the Prime Minister and the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission that only workers belonging to trade unions are getting pay increases of more than 6 per cent. Here are some cases with respect to increases won by groups not affiliated with the CLC, and not usually considered as workers who belong to trade unions, in the accepted definition of those words.
The professors at the University of Toronto got an increase of 10 per cent for the coming year. Professors at York University got an increase of 14 per cent a year. Toronto metropolitan separate school teachers signed an agreement, according to yesterday's Toronto newspapers, which over the next two years will give them an increase of 21.3 per cent, almost twice as much as the government suggests should be the guideline. Last week Toronto metropolitan secondary teachers rejected a one year offer of 11.2 per cent as not being sufficient. So, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from these examples, and I could give more to the House, that top civil servants, deputy ministers and those carrying on negotiations have received increases which are much greater than 6 per cent in recent years. I have talked about the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada. I ask the Postmaster General to tell us, if he speaks in today's debate, the increases given during the last three years to the deputy minister in his department or to Messrs. Harper and Monk, who are carrying on the negotiations. He will not do that, because he wants the public and our workers to know as little as possible. I submit he knows that his top advisers have been able to obtain much more than 6 per cent.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I say that the government has no right to demand of the postal workers, or other civil servants, that they shall be bound by a uni-
Post Office
laterally decided arbitrary figure of 6 per cent. I think I may be permitted to use in this House the language that the Prime Minister used over the week end while addressing a group of auto workers. He told them that through their supposed exorbitant wage demands they were "screwing" the ordinary citizens of Canada. Incidentally, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) did not hesistate to approve a wage increase for the tow boat operators in Vancouver of substantially more than 6 per cent. I submit that when the Prime Minister says to the postal workers, or the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) says to the executive director of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, as he did in a letter the other day, that workers must be content with a maximum increase of 6 percent, they are in fact "screwing" the Public Servants of this country.
I submit that the policy of the government has led inevitably, as the minister might have known and, as we on this side of the House warned it would, to the present situation, to the rotating strikes that inconvenience the public and to a possible strike of all postal employees. I hope I am wrong, although it seems to me on the basis of the facts, that the Postmaster General and the Prime Minister want a strike of all postal workers. That is the only logical conclusion that one can arrive at in trying to understand why we are in our present difficulties.
I join with the hon. member for Hillsborough in saying, as he said a few minutes ago, that the public does not want a strike and that postal workers do not want to strike. Nobody wants a strike. It is unnecessary and can be avoided. All that inconvenience to the public could be avoided if only the government would drop its arrogant, anti-labour attitude and the formula it has adopted, the guideline saying that wage increases shall not be more than 6 per cent. That guideline has been breached, as I have said today and on other occasions, by workers in the private sector of the economy as well as in the public sector. The provincial treasurer of Ontario, in a telegram to the Civil Service Association of Ontario made it clear that in bargaining with its civil servants the provincial government would not impose any guideline of 6 per cent.
During the conference held in Manitoba recently, the government of Manitoba made it clear that it would not agree to wage guidelines unless the federal government is pre-

June 26, 1970
Post Office
pared to adopt guidelines and restraints with respect to other forms of income, that is, on profits, interest rates, rents and professional fees. May I quote from an article in the Winnipeg Free Press of June 27, 1970. The headline is, "Man. Liberals Reject Separate Wage Guideline". The article reads in part:
Delegates to the Manitoba Liberal policy conference during the weekend rallied to the support of the Canadian Labor Congress in opposing a separate guideline of six per cent limit on wage increases advocated by the federal prices and incomes commission.
They adopted, instead, a resolution calling for guidelines on corporation profits, rents, professional fees and consumer products, as well as a "reasonable" wage guideline.
The resolution was moved by E. B. Osier, Liberal member of Parliament for Winnipeg South Centre.
I am glad that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) has adopted proposals which we, on this side of the House, have been putting forward for months. I say that our present difficilties could be settled easily if the government would get off its high horse and negotiate in good faith, which it has not done up to now.
May I make one last suggestion before sitting down? If the minister wants to stop the rotating strikes and the inconvenience to the public, let him ask himself what alternative have the postal workers to what they are doing? I suggest the government ought to instruct Messrs. Harper and Monk to come off their high horse, meet with the postal workers and say, "Let us discuss a settlement on the basis of proposals made by Judge Lippe." I submit that he is not pro-labour. He is not a member of the NDP. As Chairman of the Conciliation Board, he put forward proposals which, if accepted, would have ended the dispute. He recommended, Mr. Speaker, a wage increase of 50 cents an hour. If the government were to do that, I feel confident that the log jam which has been holding up the settlement of this dispute which has so inconvenienced the public would quickly disappear. I urge the government to get down to business immediately, so that the postal service will operate properly and the mails will move.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, about two years ago,-
tEnglish]


Edmund Boyd Osler: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Since I have been quoted freely, I wish to set the
[Mr. Orlikow.l
record straight. I am not raising a point in order to disagree with what has been said; I merely wish to emphasize something that is worth emphasizing. The resolution that I sponsored in Winnipeg urges the Canadian Labour Congress to make a serious effort to obtain specific commitments that would constitute reasonable and feasible compensation to its members for participating-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I think the hon. member is entering the debate. That is not a question of privilege.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, barely two years ago, the present Postmaster General and Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) told us emphatically that he was going to straighten out the Post Office Department. He told us he would apply new administrative concepts. It is probably because of his excellent concept that he had to leave the province of Quebec and its administration to come and make trouble in Ottawa. He made high-flown speeches saying he would completely transform the department into a profitable department, that would meet expenses and give an improved service to the Canadian people, and it, might even become the department of which the Canadian people would be the proudest.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to note as this session comes to an end that that department is precisely the one with which the people are least pleased. The climate of postal administration in Canada, pardon me the expression, is rotten, and the Canadian public, regardless of what the minister may say about it, is not responsible for it.
During the past two years, many bombs have exploded, trucks were demolished or simply overturned, windows were broken, employees were discharged, heads of families lost their income and security because order was restored in the department and because they claimed they were giving the Canadian people an adequate service and Canada-wide communications.
Not so long ago, the minister repeated in this House that he would allow for open negotiations, so as to find a solution to the postal conflict. Opposition members were hoping that the minister would at last assume his responsibilities, moderate his pretensions and find a solution. Today, press releases confirm that at the time Justice Rene Lippe's
June 26, 1970

report was tabled, the three negotiators and conciliators could not even agree with each other.
Today, a steady threat plagues the Canadian people: the outbreak of a general postal strike.
The Canadian public cannot be blamed for that either. What are therefore the causes of such a colossal farce, apparently entirely dreamed up by the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications, so as to convince us once and for all that he is a bad administrator?
First, the minister convinced us that there had to be an increase in postal rates, which have become prohibitive for many daily or weekly newspapers throughout Canada, especially in Quebec. Thus, he was undermining the confidence of the Canadian people in the mail service while increasing postal rates and forcing out of business several magazines, dailies and weeklies, due to increased shipping costs. That time, you will recall, he showed contempt for the rights of Parliament and he laughed at the members who were telling him that the rates had become intolerable. We must admit that once more the minister "boobed" when reorganizing the postal system in Canada to such an extent that today we are threatened with a general strike.
The minister who is responsible for streamlining his department, had promised to do so, but today we notice that he alone is responsible for the confusion prevailing in the Post Office Department and the dissatisfaction of 27,000 postal workers.
On several occasions, lately, I met some Post Office employees in Victoriaville, a municipality located in the riding of Lot-biniere. I visited their office and I discussed with them, neither politics nor pretty politics, but simply their working conditions so as to know better in what climate they work.
I have not found one single person in that office who was satisfied with the organization. In Victoriaville, the Post Office people work in a damp basement where they suffocate.
In Montreal-



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Royal Assent
Ottawa, June 26, 1970
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerald Fauteux, C.P., Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Friday, the 26th June, at 5 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Brigadier General Louis-Fremont Trudeau, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by the Deputy Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to establish a commission for the reform of the laws of Canada
An act to prevent pollution of areas of the arctic waters adjacent to the mainland and islands of the Canadian arctic
An act to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act
An act respecting inland water resources in the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories An act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources An act to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code
An act to amend the Excise Act An act to amend the National Energy Board Act An act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act An act to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Territorial Lands Act An act respecting civil liability for nuclear damage
An act respecting regulations made pursuant to section 4 of the Aeronautics Act An act respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members to the House of Commons An act to postpone the expiration of certain provisions of an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act
An act to amend the Fisheries Act
An act respecting Readjustment Act	the	Electoral	BoundariesAn act respecting Readjustment Act	the	Electoral	BoundariesAn act respecting Readjustment Act	the	Electoral	BoundariesAn act respecting Readjustment Act	the	Electoral	BoundariesAn act respecting Readjustment Act	the	Electoral	Boundaries
June 26, 1970
Post Office
An	act	respecting	the	Electoral	Boundaries
Readjustment Act
An	act	respecting	the	Electoral	Boundaries
Readjustment Act
An	act	respecting	the	Electoral	Boundaries
Readjustment Act
An	act	respecting	the	Electoral	Boundaries
Readjustment Act
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1971.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 POST OFFICE ACCELERATED DISRUPTION OF SERVICE- FAILURE TO NEGOTIATE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE

Mr. Speaker:: The House shall now resume proceedings under Standing Order 26. The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up the time of the House, but I would like to sum up my views in three points.
Before the interruption, I was saying that I wanted quite honestly to blame the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) for being mainly responsible for Canada's postal mess.
Despite his promises and his attempts to set the Department in order, not only with regard to finances but most of all with regard to the personnel, it looks as if it will probably be a financial success but a total failure as far as the personnel is concerned.
That was the second point I wanted to deal with, Mr. Speaker. I had talked about it in a previous debate on the postal issue affecting Lapalme employees.
As far as personnel relations are concerned, the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications is-I am sorry to say it so bluntly-incompetent. There is ample evidence of it. The incidents that would prove it would outnumber the fingers of both hands. The ability of the minister as administrator is surely not similar to his ability as director of personnel.
Since the present Postmaster General has been supervising his personnel, problems have been increasing and multiplying. Conflicts are worsening, relations are strained and no solution seems to be in view.
The people are losing hope, they were quite ready to pay for such an essential service, but it must be adequate.

It is high time that the government be changed or that the responsibility of managing the personnel be taken away from the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications.
Mr. Speaker, this step would represent at least 50 per cent of the solution of the postal problem.
Considering the climate prevailing among the manufacturing industry workers and the tensed relations between employees and employers, one can appreciate that there are wrongs on both sides.
The utterances of the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications for the last two years suggest that only the employees and their unions do wrong. I will honestly admit that union leaders too often serve their own interests instead of the organized worker's interests. In fact, they misuse their power, blackmail the public at large to draw attention to themselves, thus spreading disorder in the firms they represent.
I am not one of those who would grovel before union leaders. Contrary to expectations, many cases show that too often the human side of the situation, the basic respect for the human being are forgotten, as well as the fair working conditions. To summarize, the human side of a question should always be considered rather than one's own interests. The Postmaster General and Minister of Communications will admit that many union leaders thus become responsible for numerous conflicts.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I will point out to him that he is precisely one of those who have made matters worse, provoking the union leaders who, in turn, have spread anger among employees, so that today, utter disorder prevails in the Canadian postal service.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I have said in a speech on the subject: a key department such as the Post Office and Communications Department ought to set an exemple to other departments in excellent, lively and dynamic human relations between employers and employees.
As long as the present Postmaster General fails to realize it, as long as his personal ideas take precedence over the human element and as long as he continues to trample the rights of the workers in order to get the credit for having put things in order within his department, the Canadian population will no longer enjoy an adequate postal service and the department will be without employees.
June 26, 1970

8S85
It seems to me that the situation is extremely serious at the present time. In fact, previous speakers have said so in most eloquent fashion. They have explained the situation better than I can but it seems to me that it is my duty to insist the minister surround himself with advisers capable of maintaining intelligent human relations within his department. This is one thing he should leave to others, realizing that in this respect, he has not been the least bit successful so far.
That is why I repeat that he is the one who is primarily responsible for that situation. When there is provocation, a reaction inevitably follows.
Before concluding I would like,-and that is my third point,-to submit a proposal that has often been moved in the House. It seems to me that it is still important and advisable to do so today.
As a matter of fact, compulsory arbitration should have been established long ago, with regard to working conditions, and departments should take advantage of this.
With compulsory arbitration, strikes could be avoided in the Public Service and labour and management would be compelled to negotiate in order to find solutions to their disputes. Absolutely nothing is settled with guns or with threats, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tried to do recently with regard to employees, or even where union leaders are concerned because they themselves ar using the same weapons against the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications or against the government.
If like two neighbours who cannot agree on the type of fence to build between their properties, the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications and the union leaders do not stop trading insults as they have been doing for two years now, nothing will be solved and once more the people will suffer.
Should there be compulsory arbitration in Canada, the minister would have to stop being arrogant because he would no longer be able to insult everybody instead of solving problems. Like the union members, he would have to sit at the bargaining table. In Prince-ville last year a labour dispute lasted over six months. Employees were waiting for the employer who was conspicuous by his absence. Thus the strike lasted more than six months and it will now take the workers two, three or four years with the small wage increase they obtained to recover what they have lost during the strike.
Post Office
A postal strike in Canada is a luxury that we cannot afford. As members of this House, we should resort to every means at our disposal to prevent such a disaster because we have no right to allow a strike especially in the postal service which is most essential.
Compulsory arbitration is not a dictatorship, but it must not be characterized by arrogance, threats and blackmailing, as has been the case for the last two years in the Post Office Department. True arbitration means that sensible people meet together and discuss a problem and, if necessary, agree to a compromise.
In conclusion, I ask the minister to seriously consider entrusting someone else in his department with the care of ensuring a sound management of staff and more human relations, which would help settle a great many things.
The second solution would be to remove from all post offices in Canada the photograph of the Postmaster General and to resort to compulsory arbitration.
I see I am making you smile, Mr. Speaker, but I wanted to do so at the end of the session. Thank you for your kindness to me and I hope that in spite of the the present serious situation, the minister will seriously consider the possibility of compulsory arbitration in order to spare the Canadian people, who pay for the postal service, the inconvenience of being deprived of it.
Today, Canadians are paying much more for that service. It is up to the minister to see that they get it since it is his responsibility.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member for Lotbiniere. At least, he has spoken honestly and has made concrete recommendations. Even though I cannot accept his recommendation for compulsory arbitration, I congratulate him since he has made a suggestion instead of contenting himself with making at large comments as did the members of the other two parties.

Mr. Speaker, I think we can leave the musical maestro of the Conservative party to one side for the moment, because again he has conducted a rehearsal. Some day he will come to the performance and say something that will be a real recommendation instead of a resume of irrelevant facts which he constantly drags out of what must be a very volumi-

June 26, 1970
Post Office
nous dossier. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) must surely be aware of the expression or proverb in French "qui s'excuse s'accuse", although in his case when he accuses me of wanting to force the postal workers into a general strike he is probably thinking of the kind of political advantage this step might give him and his party.
There is nobody in the Post Office or in this government who wants to force the postal workers into a general strike. I will go further and say to the hon. member that there is nobody on this side of the House who, even though the postal workers go on strike, intends to make the kind of recommendation that he and his party made in June of 1966 when they introduced a bill to force the long shoremen back to work on the ground that this was in the public interest. The hon. member was here at that time. So he gives the postal workers the right to strike, and the moment it becomes inconvenient to him, he wants to take it away. Well, this government does not intend to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eric William Kierans: Let me quote an NDP press release of June 9, 1966. It states:
The time has therefore come when Parliament and the government cannot further postpone appropriate action to bring the strike to an end.
That is from your own press release. Then you explained why the NDP was submitting a draft bill to order the striking longshoremen in eastern Canadian ports to abandon their legal right to strike and return to work on terms that were fixed by your bill.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Eric William Kierans: When Mr. Howard presented this bill he said, as reported at page 7704 of Hansard for July 14, 1966:
I might say that even though the bill was in my name, I only acted in that respect as an agent for the party itself, because this was a matter of strong unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Eric William Kierans: So it is the NDP, I think, that would like the chaos of a general strike so they could propose a similar bill forcing the postal workers back to work. Well, that may be their policy but it is not ours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. Does the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) rise on a point of order, or to ask a question?


David Orlikow: I should like to ask the minister a question, Mr. Speaker, if I may.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I should like to finish what I have to say. I listened with a great deal of interest to what the hon. member had to say and I did not ask him any questions. I did not expect there was any information there that I could get. The people of Canada have given postal workers the right to strike. This government does not intend to take it away from them.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eric William Kierans: I should like to say, however, at the same time, that the people of Canada and this government at all times expect them to use that privilege with a sense of responsibility.


An hon. Member:: They can strike.


Eric William Kierans: Yes, they can strike. There will be no legislation introduced to bring them back.


An hon. Member:: Never?


Eric William Kierans: We will see. This is not our present intention. It is not my intention. They have that right, and I have no present intention to propose legislation to force them back. It is up to them to weigh the costs and the responsibilities. But I say that their present conduct may lead to greater problems for them in the long run than to go on strike because, just as one of the freedoms in this country is the right of people to go into business and to court the risk of bankruptcy, so lalso is it a freedom of a union to pursue policies that can eventually lead only to a reduction in the number of its own members and a reduction in the size of the union.
At the present time the series of slowdowns, rotating strikes or sitdowns is leading to a situation in which they are in effect crippling for a long time the postal service of Canada. If they do that, they are crippling themselves because if in the long run the people of Canada find they are dissatisfied with the service and turn to other means, they may not, when this series of disagreements is over, wish to come back to the Post Office. I will give one example of how this works. It is an example which relates to Ottawa and area, although similar examples
June 26. 1970

could be found right across this country. Ottawa's highway services arrive early in the morning.	On Wednesday	the Ottawa
employees went on strike at 5 a.m., so mail posted, say in Brockville, had to be diverted to another office, say Smiths Falls. The Ottawa workers went back to work on Thursday, but offices like Smiths Falls, which had been holding Ottawa mail, were on strike; therefore, the Ottawa-bound mail stayed there. On Friday the smaller offices returned to work but Ottawa went on strike, so the mail from offices such as Brockville, Smiths Falls and Hull could not be taken into the Ottawa office.
This brings us up to the weekend. If there are no further disruptions, mail from the offices tributary to Ottawa will arrive on Monday morning. Some of it will be delivered on Monday, much of it on Tuesday and the remainder, at least firstclass mail, on Wednesday if there are no further disruptions. I cannot stop this. If they want to do it, they can do it. The reaction, however, is not from me but the the Canadian people who become fed-up and seek to employ other means and will remain with those other means, a lot of them, long after this strike is over-over but not forgotten.
At the present time the volume of mail handled in the Post Office is at the 1966 level. There is still a Postmaster General and a Deputy Postmaster General. But I want to say this: in 1966 that volume of mail was handled by 4,100 fewer union employees than the 27,000 in the Council of Postal Unions. I am simply saying that if this situation remains, and if this long series of rotating strikes and impediment to the movement of mail continues so that the public does not come back, and if we have this continuing volume of 1966 or perhaps even less, then there will have to be lay-offs.
These lay-offs, however, will not be for reasons of mechanization or automation but for the quite simple reason that the Canadian people will no longer have the same demand for their services. If the volume of mail continues at the rate of 4 billion items per year instead of slightly more than 5 billion items, then even when the strike is over I do not think the people would expect me to keep hiring and paying salaries to the 4,100 people from whom the Canadian people will not be requiring services. I do not intend to hire people in the Post Office who are not needed. But I do intend to hire all the people who are needed. That need is expressed, not by me
Post Office
but by the confidence and appreciation the people of Canada have for the services offered by me and by all of my 45,000 colleagues. Nor do I intend to bring in legislation that would prevent any other private company carrying the second, third or fourth-class mail.
I simply say to my colleagues in the unions that if the postal workers, letter carriers and all people in the Post Office work together with management and co-operate, we do not care how many private companies spring up or how many of them may prosper during this regrettable period, because if we all work together we can drive them out of business overnight. But if we do, it will not be by legislation; it will be by the co-operation of all of us.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite have said we are using the Post Office, in the words of the hen. member for Winnipeg North, as a patsy for the guidelines. I want to say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North that these negotiations started 10 months ago, long before there was any talk about 4 per cent, 2 per cent, 10 per cent or 6 per cent guidelines. In that intervening period agreements have been concluded with the postmasters and subpostmasters within the Post Office for three years at 5J per cent, at 5 per cent and 5 per cent, long before there was any mention of guidelines. This is what we consider to be a fair and reasonable offer. This is what the unions should now be negotiating with the Treasury Board. But this is not being used as a lead-horse for a guidelines policy. This long antedates the oratory that is presently being spent on the guidelines policy.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Within the last several years the Post Office has changed considerably from the days when Judge Montpetit in 1965 and 1966 described basically what had gone on under the previous government. Since that time, of his 282 recommendations, 238 have been implemented in whole or in part. Never, to my knowledge, have so many recommendations of a royal commission, even the Glassco Commission, been accepted, adopted and implemented. Four have been rejected by the government, another four jointly by the department and the unions, and others are still up for negotiation. There are many that we ourselves can do nothing about.
Judge Montpetit, for example, recommended that there should be rotating shifts within the Post Office. While the Postmaster General might wish it as being fair to all employees
seac

June 26, 1970
Post Office
and as making the Post Office a more attractive place for new people, obviously he cannot impose it. That is a matter for the unions themselves. If they are unwilling to, or if they remember the days when it took 15 years of night work in a post office to qualify for day work, that is their problem. But approximately 50 of the 282 recommendations have not been implemented and, as I said, 238 have been implemented in whole or in part. Since that time the government and the Post Office have invested tremendous amounts of money, and I am willing to invest as much more as I possibly can, in the human capital that is in the Post Office that has been neglected for so long by Liberal and Tory governments of the past. There is now consultation, and there will be consultation before major moves are made in the Post Office.
The purpose of putting in mechanization is not to eliminate jobs, and I repeat here that it will not. If there are any lay-offs this year in the Post Office, they will be due to the decline in demand created by the present situation and by nothing else. Unfortunately, it means that those who have newly entered the Post Office, the last in, will be the first out, the first to be laid aside. But mechanization will not lead to any lack of job security. It is meant to meet problems, and the problems are those of performing the same tasks in exactly the same way as they were performed under the Tories or the way they were performed two generations ago. Mechanization is designed to make more complex work easier, to eliminate drudgery and routine, not to eliminate people. As I have said, people will not be eliminated for these reasons.
I have described what the future is with regard to mechanization-the introduction of new and easier methods. I have looked at the production. I appreciate the fact that an inside worker does not handle as many pieces as he did before. I can understand this because I am not anti-labour, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North would have the House believe. If nothing is changed in doing things in this age when everything else is changed in the world and a man is sorting and turning over letters in exactly the same way, it becomes more boring and tiring. This we can overcome by modernizing, by investing in training on the job, in making available courses at all levels so that people can move up more rapidly in the service than ever before.
With respect to the general position of job security about which so much has been said, I

would just like to say the following in French:
Les facteurs et les commis des Postes par la loi sur l'emploi-
The letter carriers and mail clerks of the Post office under the Employment Act-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired. The minister can pursue his remarks, with the consent of the House. Is this agreed?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we certainly would not prevent the minister from completing his remarks, but there are a number of hon. members who would like to speak and I would urge the minister, if he has considerably more to say, to give his notes to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) who might complete his speech for him.


Eric William Kierans: I am very grateful to my colleagues.
Job Security-The permanent letter carriers and mail clerks of the Post Office are protected under the Public Service Employment Act to the same extent as all other permanent employees of the Public Service of Canada. A check of the records of the last twenty-five years has not revealed a single case of a Post Office employee belonging to those bargaining units who had lost his job in the Public Service because of technical or operational changes.

Since my time is up, I simply want to make one plea. All of us in the Post Office have an obligation. We are facing a situation which carries in the long rim a great deal of risk for all of those who work inside the Post Office. If there is a lack of security in the Post Office then it seems to me, after listening to the various motions of non-confidence, that I am a member of the Post Office who probably has the least security of all.
But what we all have to do in the Post Office is work together to regain the confidence of the people of Canada and to put the service on its best footing so that people will believe in it and want to use it. If we do that, if there are just rewards for their work of the employees and returns for their productivity, and if we can accomplish this in such a way that we can be an example to all of what a department can do, then I think the Post Office will have not only increasing security for those who work in it but, even more important, an expanding growth curve which provides opportunities for self-advancement to everyone working in the Post Office. It will also provide them with an opportunity to
June 26. 1970

make a contribution, not only on their own behalf but on behalf of all the people of Canada.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this emergency debate with feelings of ambivalence and trepidation. We are going home for the summer recess perhaps a little later than we expected this evening. We are doing so in face of what I believe has come to be a very grave national situation. For the last 25 minutes we have listened to the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) address himself to that problem which Your Honour held serious enough to adjourn the normal proceedings of the House in order to permit it to be debated What have we heard? We have heard a minister publicly announce that he has withdrawn-as he is doing from the chamber now-I am glad to see him come back and sit down, because before he goes I want to say to him-


An hon. Member:: Say something sensible.


J. Michael Forrestall: I will say it behind his back, then, and he can read it in the record. He has lectured us like an associate professor lecturing first-year political science students, adopting as a model the difficulties of a particular department, with the lecturer describing the ineptitude, inadequacy and total rejection of acceptance of responsibility, outlining the dangers that can arise in such a situation as that which we are facing. Nobody objects to the Postmaster General modernizing and updating the Post Office-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: Let the rabbits over there be quiet. Nobody in Canada wants an outdated postal system, least of all we in the opposition. We want to see a modernized, updated, or to use the minister's term, mechanized department. That is not what we are here for today, Mr. Speaker. That is not what is bothering us now. We are here to discuss why we have a situation such as exists, what has caused it, and why we have a government that will not deal with the postal workers with some compassion, understanding and feeling. Why do we have this rigidity of view? Why do we have a Postmaster General who presumed to tell us that the Post Office needs modernizing? The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) told us that ten years ago. We do not need the Postmaster General to tell us it today.
Post Office
We are discussing this matter at five minutes to six o'clock on a Friday evening. The Postmaster General knows we will be out of here tomorrow, but I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that that would be a mistake. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in his academic arrogance, has seen fit to take the responsibility for the negotiating process out of the hands of the Postmaster General and place it in the hands of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). However, I am not sure that any minister who permitted the situation of the days of horses on the payroll, and continued to permit the situation with respect to the overhaul of the Bonaventure, is the man we want to hold negotiations with the postal workers. But I say it is better that he do it rather than the Postmaster General. It is time that the Postmaster General resigned.
How long is it since the Prime Minister went to the President of the Treasury Board and said, "Bail us out. For God's sake, bail us out of the difficulties we are in"?


Mr. Perrault:: Tell us what you would do.


J. Michael Forrestall: We would have settled it a little while ago.


An hon. Member:: On what basis?


J. Michael Forrestall: All you have done for the last six months is sit on your rear and make noises.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) has the floor. With all these interruptions it is difficult for the Chair to follow his speech.


An hon. Member:: What speech?


J. Michael Forrestall: I wish we could get rid of
the rabbits in this warren so that I could get on with my remarks. The matter which keeps us here this afternoon, and which should bring us back tomorrow, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday until this matter is resolved, is the rights of the postal workers, the rights of the people of Canada, and the obligation of the Postmaster General and the Prime Minister to arrive at an honourable settlement- and soon, not next month.
Does the price of stability in Canada have to be unemployment? The President of the Treasury Board has told us that. I hope he is more often aware of what he says than would

June 26, 1970
Post Office
appear to be the case. The Prime Minister saw fit to remove from the Postmaster General the responsibility for conducting the negotiations which lead to the current series of rotating shutdowns across the country.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Will the hon. member permit a question?


J. Michael Forrestall: I do not know whether the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) has anything to contribute at this time, but if he has a question I will entertain it.


Edmund Boyd Osler: If the hon. member is advocating parliamentary intervention in this labour dispute, would he suggest here and now a figure at which he would make a settlement?


J. Michael Forrestall: I indicated that if the hon. member had a question, I would entertain it. Of course, I shall not entertain that suggestion at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: We have more to do here this afternoon than listen to spurious comment. Of course the postal people have the right to strike. But the postal employees have bent over backwards to give an opportunity to the government to arrive at a reasonable formula for resolving the problem. Don't talk to me about the academic exercise of a 6 per cent guideline. I have had my fill of that and so has the rest of the country. We have had our fill of public apologies, of wishy-washy government statements. The last thing I expected to see in this House the day after the election in 1968 was another government of crisis to crisis, so preoccupied with its own ineptitudes that it could not find time to iron out day-to-day problems with the compassion and understanding that the people of Canada want. We still have not got a half decent government.


James Aloysius McGrath: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does not help when he uses wrong figures.


J. Michael Forrestall: The Prime Minister may not know the situation. He relied on the advice given him. I am not at all sure he is particularly interested in the factual details of the situation. I give him some credit for being aware that difficulties may evolve as time goes on if this question is not resolved. But the fact is that the Prime Minister is so vain that he does not want to see any more resignations from his government because it might reflect on his ability to choose men,

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that the Prime Minister and his colleagues from Montreal, excluding the hon. member for Westmount, run this country and do not permit very much to get out of their hands? We had a classic example this afternoon in the Postmaster General, who caused me to abandon the notes I had carefully prepared. We did not come here to hear the Postmaster General's observations. We came here to be told by the government what it is going to do about this problem and when it will bring a little compassion and understanding to the negotiations. When is that going to take place? Don't talk to me about mechanization. The problem centres around the inability of the ministry. The Prime Minister has to rely on members of his cabinet. No wonder he will change half the cabinet this summer.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Which half?


J. Michael Forrestall: I tell members on the back benches, including the rabbit from up the valley, that they could probably make a much greater contribution than the Postmaster General made this afternoon. We are discussing this matter in the House, where it ought to be discussed. We ought to see some evidence of some semblance of organization and reason on the part of the government. Its supporters should not be permitted to go home for the summer until the government has agreed to introduce a little compassion, not to mention honesty, logic, reason and reasonableness, into the negotiations with the postal workers of Canada.
This situation cannot continue, Mr. Speaker. I think the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) should get up this afternoon and fill that great vacuum which has been left by the remarks of the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans). His remarks this afternoon were totally irrelevant to the situation. The House should not adjourn for the summer until the situation is corrected. Perhaps the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) can display a little compassion and understanding. Perhaps he will inject himself into the debate. We should know whether the government intends to act honestly, reasonably and responsibly in this matter. The people of Canada are entitled to adequate and continuing postal service. Also, the people who provide this service are equally entitled to reasonable consideration from the minister and the government. After all, they work for the people of Canada.
June 26, 1970

We did not come here this afternoon to listen to an academic lecture on the mechanization of the Post Office. We came to hear what the Postmaster General might have to say about how he intends to resolve these problems. We did not hear that, and that is unpardonable. Not only is it unpardonable, but it is an affront to the chamber which anyone listening in the gallery who happens to be interested in these workers must find unforgivable. A little bit of compassion, coupled with an explanation lasting five minutes, and a reasonable approach to this problem by the Postmaster General would have yielded greater results this afternoon. I hope that the President of the Treasury Board will have the courage to defend his totally inadequate colleague from Montreal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully and intently to every word uttered this afternoon by the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans).


J. Michael Forrestall: What did he say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
went out of his way to contend that speakers on the opposition side of the House had indulged in irrelevancies; then, he proceeded to be as irrelevant on the issue that is before us as he possibly could be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am hearing some remarks from the little Chicago area. I would be very happy if one of those hon. members would stand up and tell us of any one point raised by the Postmaster General that dealt with the issue before us.


An hon. Member:: They are afraid to stand.


An hon. Member:: Tell us what he said about the NDP.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is that issue, Mr. Speaker? The issue before us is getting the strike settled.


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: There is no strike.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
issue is not whether anyone is anxious to turn these rotating strikes into a general strike. There is no issue about taking away the right to strike. Nobody is proposing that-although the remarks of the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Fortin) came pretty close to that. That is not the issue. The issue before us is
22478-59 f
Post Office
that there is a dispute which has expressed itself in a series of rotating strikes, and everybody wants that situation settled. By "everybody" I mean the members of the House of Commons, the general public and the postal workers themselves. I submit that what cabinet ministers and government supporters ought to be doing in this debate is addressing themselves to ways in which the present strike situation can be settled with the least possible delay.
I said that the Postmaster General raised some matters that are irrelevant. I will not take time to deal with them. I do not blame the Postmaster General for wanting to score debating points, but I insist that the issue is getting this dispute settled. Despite the arguing by assertion in which the Postmaster General indulged, I submit that what stands in the way of the settling of this dispute is that the government is using the postal workers as pawns in its guidelines game. The Postmaster General says that this is obviously not so, because these negotiations began long before these guidelines were proposed. It does not matter when they were begun, because the government now is making it very clear to the postal workers that these guidelines hold and that nothing will be done for the postal workers that does not come inside these guidelines.
The Postmaster General confirmed that this afternoon. He said he believes in collective bargaining, including the right to strike. He believes in people sitting down across a table and working out their problems. But he said that those people on the other side of the table, the postal workers, should be reasonable; they should accept the 5 per cent offer that has been proposed to them as reasonable. Mr. Speaker, that is not collective bargaining. That is not bargaining in good faith. That is not bargaining on the basis of the merits of the issue. Actually, I submit that what is going on today is thoroughly dishonest. That is why the strike situation is continuing and why the postal workers have no option but to carry on with these rotating strikes in an attempt to bring pressure on their employers to meet the situation.
I strongly suspect that the government is relying on something else. The postal service has deteriorated so much already that the government thinks the people do not mind the interruptions which come from these one-day strikes, and that even if we get two of them in the same week, the people will put up with them. It is relying on the notion that

June 26, 1970
Post Office
the people of Canada are worried about inflation and that therefore anybody who is accused of being responsible for it must be responsible. So the government, as I say, is relying on a certain amount of public feeling against the postal workers, and hoping that this will come to the point where the postal workers will feel that they must give in. In the meantime, the present situation, essentially, is that no honest bargaining is taking place and that meetings are held under the shadow of the guidelines. That is not collective bargaining; that is not bargaining in good faith.
We shall not see bargaining in good faith until the government says that the guidelines are not the final factor and that, "We are here to sit across the table from the postal workers to deal with the issues on their merits and come to a conclusion." My colleague for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has already said that the guidelines have been blown to bits by many agreements which have been made. I believe he quoted figures from government sources showing that hourly wages paid to postal workers are below the average hourly wages that workers involved in industry might expect. I believe the postal workers have a case. Instead of taking tune to go into that case this afternoon, I shall stay with this point: the bargaining that is taking place is not honest bargaining. It is not honest, good faith collective bargaining at all.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
One way this problem could be settled would be that the next time the government people meet with the Council of Postal Unions they could say, "All right, we are starting afresh. We have called each other names. We have had these rotational strikes. We have had this for a long time. We are now prepared to deal with this issue on its merits. Put your case before us. Give us the statistics. We will deal with the matter on its merits." If out of that some reasonable proposal can be made, I believe that the matter will be settled in a reasonable time.
I wish to say a few words regarding the matter of job security. After all, the issues that separate the parties are pretty well down to two, wages and job security. I have tried to listen to and to read all that has been said or written about it. I cannot understand why the government says, through the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans), that it is expected there will be more jobs in the Post Office in four or five years than at the present time and yet is unwilling to put a job security

clause into the contract. If it was the other way and the government was afraid it was going to have to reduce the number of jobs, we could understand the position. This position is completely beyond understanding. I think it is fair on the part of the workers to ask for job security. On the other side of the coin, there is no reason for the position the government has taken.
It is Friday afternoon. It is getting late. Many members want to speak. There is no reason why everyone must speak his full time. I am going to take my seat because I want my intervention in this debate to be one that zeroed in on one point. We do not need the kind of talk we have had from the Postmaster General, taking us all over the lot. What is needed is to face the important issue, getting the strike settled. The only way the strike can be settled is by an honest dose of collective bargaining. We will not get that as long as it is done under the shadow of the present guidelines policy, and I urge an immediate commencement of bargaining that is really in good faith.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member who has just spoken has indicated, there might be some merit in trying to put the facts, as well as some of the myths, regarding this particular situation into proper perspective. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has suggested that, as he sees it, there is a distinct lack of honesty in the process of collective bargaining which is now going on. I wish to address myself to that question. Perhaps the hon. member has been misled or does not understand the actual steps that have been taken and the offers which have been made. The suggestion that the collective bargaining process in this particular instance is being rendered nugatory as a consequence of guidelines proposed by Dr. Young, Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission and supported by the government, is really without foundation.
Perhaps it is important for hon. members to know that there is now, and has been since early June, an offer made by the employer, in this case the government, before the Council of Postal Unions that will raise the rate of pay for letter carriers from the current figure of $2.99 an hour to the equivalent of $3.19 per hour, retroactive to October 1, 1969 with a further raise to $3.25 an hour as of June 1, this month, and a further raise to $3.40 per hour as of April 1, 1971. That offer is now on the table.
June 26, 1970

This offer was made at the time of mediation, May 31 to June 2, and was referred to by the Council of Postal Unions or one of its spokesman as baloney. If this is baloney, I suggest it is quite a large package representing, as it does, an increase in pay and benefits of approximately $42 million over the 30-month period of the proposed contract. Further, the postal clerks would now be receiving $3.40 per hour and could look forward to a pay rate of $3.55 per hour as of April 1, 1971 if the Council were to accept the government offer.
In spite of what the hon. member who has just spoken alleges, the government has offered and continues to stand ready to write into any future contract comprehensive provisions for the protection of workers in the bargaining unit from the impact of technological change. I am told that this term of art is covered by the phrase "job security". As far as I can ascertain, what is being sought specifically under the heading of "job security" is not protection for the worker from the onslaught of technical change, but an unqualified guarantee that once on the payroll the man will not for any reason be put off the payroll. I think probably that is a little unique in Canadian employment practices. I think hon. members will understand if there is resistance to this kind of demand. I hope there will be an acceptance of the arithmetic of the current wage offers.
Having made a series of offers beginning last February and in spite of many attempts to get the Council to at least present some kind of counter-proposal substantiated with some supporting facts, the Council has stood rooted in the position set out in the minority report of its representative on the conciliation board. Hon. members will recall that the report of this board was made public on May 4, almost two months ago.
I mentioned on an earlier occasion a number of issues which still divide the position rigorously maintained by the Council from the views of the majority on the conciliation board. I will not attempt to repeat them here. I remind hon. members that with respect to employment in the public service there is a very wide range of fringe benefits which members of the public service, including those in the postal service, now enjoy. This range of benefits is far in excess of those available to employees in comparable occupations in the private sector.
There has recently been considerable publicity surrounding certain information on cur-
Post Office
rent rates of pay and earnings of postal employees compared with other elements in the private sector. I wish to say a few words about these alleged comparisons. For example, it has been mentioned that the average weekly earnings of employees in Canadian industry were $124.64 per week in February of this year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I repeat, the average weekly earnings of employees in Canadian industry are $124.60 a week as of last February. This figure includes overtime payments, shift premiums and other payments. The comparable average for postal employees, including the same premium payments, is now $132.69 as of last February. We should, then, be comparing $124 as an average for industrial employees in Canada with $132 for postal employees. These are the figures prior to, and not including, the pay increases which have been offered. These increases, if accepted, would raise the earnings of postal employees to $143.20 as of June 1 of this year.
Another set of figures relates to the average hourly earnings of employees in manufacturing industries which will be acknowledged, I think, as being one of the better paid sectors of industry in Canada. In February of 1970, their hourly wages, including overtime and other premium payments, were $2.93 an hour. The average hourly earnings of postal employees, including the same premium payments, were $3.32 an hour prior to the increases now being proposed and which would be applicable if the current government offer accepted. If the present offer were accepted, the average would rise to $3.58 per hour as of June 1 of this year.
Previous speakers have made reference to a letter addressed by the co-chairmen of the Council of Postal Unions to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) yesterday alleging a series of statements attributed to the Prime Minister and making a rather unfortunate attempt to refute an alleged statement by the right hon. gentleman. I shall not attempt to deal with this, except to say that this afternoon the Prime Minister sent to the co-chairmen a detailed answer to this letter refuting effectively the misstatement.


David Orlikow: It had better be more correct than his figures last week. They were wrong.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of mythology which makes this whole postal

June 26, 1970
Post Office
situation so confused. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken is in the happy position of not having heard the Prime Minister speak, of not having had a chance to see a transcript of what was said; he is relying upon the allegations of a group of people who likewise had no opportunity of hearing what was said or of knowing the context in which it was said, and who are merely making allegations without foundation. I hope he will not fall into this kind of error in the future.
What follows? I repeat, as I have throughout the course of this difficult negotiation, that we stand prepared to negotiate upon any reasonable basis. I suggest we cannot in good conscience make any progress while the Council of Postal Unions remains adamant and inflexible in its position and refuses to put forward any concrete proposals other than those put forward by the union according to the minority report of the conciliation board. The charge is made, of course, and I have heard it repeated in the House today, that the position of the government is rigid. I would suggest to the House that the record of this negotiation would, if examined, disclose that the employer was the first to make a proposal relating to pay. Some seven months after the conclusion of the agreement, without any specific union pay demand having been formulated, when it was obvious that no progress was being made, it was the employer who initiated the proposal that the matter should go before a conciliation board. Once the report of the board had been received, it was again the employer who took the initiative to keep negotiations going.
When it became clear that progress was still impossible it was the employer who suggested to the Council that the services of a mediator should be employed. The Council regretted that it could not join us in such a request. It was again the employer who made a new offer, a proposal which would have increased the cost of the earlier government offer by more than $300,000.
The Council, I regret to say, has failed to support any of its demands with statistical data or with any kind of substantive argument. Perhaps one clue as to the motivation which governs at least one side of the bargaining table has been given by one of the cochairmen, Mr. Roger Decarie, of the Council of Postal Unions. I quote a view expressed this month by Mr. Decarie:
If the employer is really hurt, then that is the time to sit down and bargain a settlement.

It is clear from utterances we have heard that the Council of Postal Unions does not feel that the present disrupting tactics it has carried on at the expense of the taxpayer and of the general public have hurt the government. Until they come to the conclusion that the government has been sufficiently hurt they are not ready to sit down and negotiate a settlement.
This is the real crux of the problem, not, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North suggested, lack of honesty in collective bargaining. The actual fact of the matter is that the Council takes the view that until somebody is hurt enough it is no use talking about a settlement, and it appears we have not yet reached this point.
Mr. Speaker, I think it would be quite difficult to hurt the government. It will not be hard to hurt the taxpayers of Canada, the unfortunate public of Canada, but it will be very hard indeed for this kind of operation to hurt the government.


David Orlikow: Insensitive.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I suggest to the interjector who has just made that observation-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask a question?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I have to deal with another Tory. It is not a question of insensitivity. What is involved is a rather more clear understanding of the facts, an understanding which seems to have escaped the inter jector. He is not too clear what this is all about. Now, if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) wishes to ask a question I will be glad to answer.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Just for clarification, would the minister indicate the percentages involved in the increases which have been proposed by the employer?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do not have the precise arithmetic, I regret to say.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.
[DOT] (6:30p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Might I assist the minister and ask him whether the percentages exceed the guidelines that the government has laid down?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in response to that question, may I say that none of the agreements which the employer, in this case the government, has negotiated with the public
June 26, 1970

service have exceeded the guidelines. As I recited some time ago, we have already achieved some eight agreements by negotiation, none of which exceeded the guidelines. I think that if this proves anything it is that, so far as the government is concerned, it is not that the guidelines are binding but that reason prevails; that the guidelines are appropriate for a reasonable series of settlements.


John Edward Broadbent: By definition.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: By definition; that is correct. By logic, not by emotion. According to the hon. gentleman's emotion, the guidelines are wrong. Logic, however, fails him.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board a question? He has told the members of this House that none of the agreements negotiated have given the employees more than the increase laid down in the guidelines. Could the President of the Treasury Board tell the House how much the salary of the position of secretary of the Treasury Board has increased during the last two years? Is it more than 5 or 6 per cent, or less?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: On a per annum basis?


David Orlikow: Yes.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The secretary of the Treasury Board has not yet held that office for two years.


David Orlikow: Not the person, the position.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The increases provided to that level of public servant, specifically secretary of the Treasury Board, have not exceeded 5 per cent per annum. This is, as the hon. gentleman knows, the size of the permissible range. The actual increases granted will only reach that figure if there is a certificate of meritorious performance. It may not be that high; it is not automatic.


Gerald William Baldwin: There is no hope for the cabinet, then.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. gentleman apparently does not know what cabinet ministers are paid. His ambition to become one might become less strong if he realized how hard he would have to work and how little he would be paid.


Gerald William Baldwin: I know how ineffective they are.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Throughout these negotiations with the council, as with our negotiations
Post Office
with the other 80 bargaining units in the public service, the employer has held to the belief that the only sound and reasonable way to reach equity is through comparisons of benefits, pay and otherwise, between the public servant and the comparable occupations in the private sector. Where direct comparisons are not possible, then those outside occupations with the greatest number of similar qualifications and type of work are used.
It is obvious that under such a system one cannot compare seriously the rewards earned by a highly qualified tradesman with an occupation with a relatively low skill requirement. The application of this system has resulted in the establishment and maintenance of a standard of employment conditions within the public service that in general-and I firmly believe this-are second to none in this country and in many respects superior to most.
I am confident that the process of collective bargaining which is going on in the public service with the bargaining units is being conducted in most instances on the basis of logic and reason and will continue to be so conducted; that the public servants, with perhaps some few exceptions, will show themselves to be reasonable; and that we will be successful in establishing the right and proper kind of industrial relations between employer and employee that are based on a fair, reasoned and agreed settlement of changes in conditions of pay and other conditions of work.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak this evening, and I shall not speak for long, but there are one or two things that need to be said following the speech of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury).
First of all, it is clear that there is no collective bargaining here in the ordinary sense. It is also very clear that the government has, as it has said, established a guideline beyond which it does not intend to go. The President of the Treasury Board is infinitely satisfied that this is a fair and reasonable upper limit to which the government should adhere. This may or may not be the case, but it is a purely subjective judgment on his and the government's part, except to the extent that both rely upon the guideline program of the Prices and Incomes Commission as the governing authority.
If the President of the Treasury Board takes the position that a guideline has been laid down for the whole country and that it is

June 26, 1970
Post Office
being followed, then there is some criterion upon which the government can rely. I must say that it seemed to me the President of the Treasury Board spoke with great confidence, if I may say so-I do not wish to be personal in this regard-about his wisdom and objectivity.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It is certainly justified.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He says that it is justified, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: He was laughing when he said that, too.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I want to make the point that all there is is his own personal judgment, and the judgment of those associated with him as to whether he is being reasonable. The vehemence with which he attacked, not his opponents, but the union, and the vehemence with which he attacked their motives makes his own objectivity a little suspect, as far as I am concerned, and I am putting it very mildly when I say that.
I do not want to take too much of the time of the House, but the position is this: The government is taking a fixed position which it has convinced itself is reasonable, and it refuses to go beyond that. It takes the position that anybody who suggests that it should go beyond that is being completely unreasonable. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there is surely no longer any collective bargaining in the ordinary sense of the term. If the government likes, it can blame the post office employees for being unreasonable. It can blame the post office employees for refusing to accept what the government is proposing. But the President of the Treasury Board is caught on the horns of a dilemma. He has had to concede, as he conceded in response to my question, that the government is not prepared to exceed the 6 per cent guideline. I simply say to the President of the Treasury Board, and to the other members of the government, that if this is to be the guideline for the whole country they should see that it is followed.
The minister produced nothing in the way of information this afternoon that was at all convincing with regard to objectivity. There may be stubbornness on both sides, but we have had a pretty good display of stubbornness and sanctimoniousness here this afternoon.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit a question?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The suggestion was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) that the government was wrong in insisting that the offer it made was reasonable and insisting on reasonableness. He apparently does not share the view that the offer made by the government is a reasonable one, and feels that by sticking to it and assuming it is reasonable, the government is behaving less than wisely. I am not sure that he wants us to be unreasonable and go beyond what we consider to be reasonable. I ask him then, if the government offer is not reasonable, what would be a reasonable offer? Given the fact that before the proposed increases the current wages of postal workers exceeded the average of hourly earnings and hourly rates in Canadian industry, what would be a reasonable offer if the offer made by the government is not reasonable? The hon. gentleman tells me that what I have described as reasonable is not so.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, let me say first of all that if the hon. minister wants me to settle a dispute, he better move out or move over. Let me say secondly, that the minister himself said a little earlier that one ought to be a little careful about making comparisons. He has given no indication at all this afternoon as to why it is reasonable to compare the wages being discussed with a Canadian average. There has been absolutely nothing said by the minister that would indicate this is a reasonable comparison. This is a comparison that the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have been flinging around. They themselves are always careful to say that one should always exercise some care with regard to what one is comparing. The minister simply said that the postal wages exceed the average wage, but what reason have I or has anyone else to believe that this is a reasonable comparison?


Mr. Olson:: You looked into it far enough to call it unreasonable.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What I said, quite simply was that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) is taking the position that he is infinitely reasonable and the other fellows are infinitely unreasonable. Don't bother shaking your head, I listened to the minister tell us how reasonable he is. I am simply saying that it is clear the government is adhering to the guideline policy and, therefore, there is not
June 26, 1970

collective bargaining in the ordinary sense of the term. I think those facts are completely undisputable.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Tell us what a reasonable offer is.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is not for me to decide what a reasonable offer is; I am not engaged in the negotiating process.


An hon. Member:: Oh, yes you are.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You are getting into it now. Tell us where we are wrong.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am telling you that you are taking an arbitrary position which the President of the Treasury Board says is reasonable, although he has given us no reason to believe that it is. He has taken a position which we see being pierced all over the place. This puts the minister in a position that he has not justified.


John Edward Broadbent: As the Leader of the Opposition has just pointed out, the President of the Treasury Board presented us with a typical Liberal view which defines reasonableness in terms of what the cabinet happens to believe at a given time. We need only wait for the President of the Treasury Board to make the equation between what the Liberal party believes, reasonableness and Godliness. I expect that in an age of prevailing agnosticism, we should forget the Godliness part.
The President of the Treasury Board claimed he was going to make a reasonable reply to emotion laden speeches from this side of the House. He claimed he was going to introduce some facts into an otherwise vacuous debate. I should like to deal very briefly with his purported facts which any reasonable man, according to him, should accept. I will deal with those and then sit down.
The President of the Treasury Board recognizes that there are two important questions involved here; the first concerns security and the second wages. Let me indicate why security is important to the postal workers. We have a man in charge of postal services in this country who has talked about the relevance and importance of introducing mechanistic and automatic devices into postal services. He talked very sensibly about these. The workers very sensibly, in turn, have also been quite concerned about the effects this might have on their jobs. Some of them quite properly have also referred to the Freedman report which this government has had before 22478-60
Post Office
it for five years or so, and which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) says he supports philosophically.
Let me draw attention to the fact that this report suggests that the workers of this country have a vested interest in their jobs, as do owners and the government. A very philosophical distinction was introduced by Mr. Justice Freedman. The workers are concerned with the issue of job security and have referred to a government commission which supports their view that the government, of all employers, should be trying to do something about this issue of workers' rights and protection in their jobs. The report suggests that this government institution should lead the way in the country in bringing in progressive measures which would provide real security, worker involvement and opportunity. This government has not come up with an improvement in this respect over any which have existed, even among the most reactionary kind of enterprise in this country.
Let me be specific and refer to what the minister said a few moments ago. He said it was not the case that the postal workers were not presented with a proposal concerning job security. He told the House that, in fact, the government negotiators agreed to talk about control over the effects of technological change. The facts are, as I have been informed recently, that this is not being done or at least is not being done in any meaningful way. What the workers have been told is, on the one hand, that postal officials will agree to talk about the effects of the introduction of technological change, or at best it has been suggested that they could have a contract which would involve 90 days notice to any worker who is about to be laid off. Many private firms in this country are now willing to give up to six months notice to a worker who is going to be laid off.
Here we have a government which the Minister of Labour claims is progressive. Here we have a President of the Treasury Board who thinks that you deal meaningfully with the question of technological change by making the offer that workers will be given 90 days notice before being dismissed. I suggest that this amount is no offer at all. Of course, this could mean that workers who have held their jobs for 20 years or more could be laid off with 90 days notice. Why is not some proposal presented to the negotiators for the unions which would involve them in a much more positive way in the working out of the effect of the technological changes;

June 26, 1970
Post Office
why is there not such a suggestion made to the workers? Of course, if some attempt is to be made to qualify the effect, why is it not suggested that workers with a minimum of two years or five years seniority be given the security they request. It seems to me this would be the type of positive proposal the government could make if it wanted to deal meaningfully with the matter of job security. No such offer, however, has been made, and I believe the postal workers are absolutely right when they suggest the government is not seriously negotiating on the question of job security.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Let us look at the other so-called reason brought forward by the President of the Treasury Board. He trotted out statistics. He charted a list of specific wage increases, claiming of course by implication that the list of figures he was giving the House represented a very substantial increase in wages for the workers involved. What he did not tell the House, of course, is that when one analyses the figures he presented they really amount to the 5-5-5 percentage formula that has already been suggested. In other words, it is not even up to the guideline proposal of 6 per cent. It is 1 per cent below it. It is not up to the proposal of Judge Lippe, but is 1.1 per cent below it. So, it is well within the guidelines and well below any acceptable standard I would suggest for workers in the postal service. In other words, the President of the Treasury Board in his wonderful contribution to this debate in the name of reason has really trotted cut the old arguments and has provided no new information. In fact, he is misleading the House about what actually has been happening.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


John Edward Broadbent: That is the case. You can get up and refute what I say with facts later if you like. I suggest he not only has misled the House with what he presented to us but has revealed the kind of attitude with which obviously the workers in the postal service had to deal. It is an attitude which assumes that some kind of a national guideline of 6 per cent has been established, and that any reasonable man in any part of the government service, or indeed in private enterprise, should accept it. But as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) pointed out the government has not at any time in this debate, or at any other time, attempted to

present a rational economic justification for the 6 per cent approach. I say to the President of the Treasury Board that there are women workers in my community who are receiving $1.30 an hour now. They are on strike and are being offered 2 per cent by their wonderful employer. I would suggest to him that 6 per cent would not be adequate for these workers and that something like at least 15 per cent might be justifiable.
If the government is to bring in any kind of guidelines, it makes no economic sense whatever, if any degree of equity is to be considered, to impose a uniform standard upon workers across this country. To conclude my remarks, I should like to return to the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It would seem to me to be quite clear now, especially following the observations of the President of the Treasury Board, that the government is using the postal workers as an example for all workers in Canada, public or private, and is imposing the 6 per cent standard on them. I say it is about time the government brought before the country, either in this House or in some other forum, serious economic reasons for its program in an effort to justify the 6 per cent guidelines. It should go beyond its rhetoric of reasonableness. I suggest beyond that, that if we are to have any kind of guidelines as such, they must take into consideration prices and profits. We in the New Democratic Party would participate in the development of such a program in this country. We would participate if the workers in this country were involved in such an effective policy which would include prices and profits and differentiate between levels of incomes among different workers and in different sectors of the economy.
I say that the postal workers are justified in their criticism of the government's general handling of the negotiations, and are justified in their specific demand in respect of job security and wage policy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair has already recognized the hon. member for Timiskaming.


Edmund Boyd Osler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the point that was brought forward by the previous speaker appears to me to be off the
June 26, 1970

mark because the commission has already set $3 or $3.50 an hour-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member knows that is not a point of order.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Winnipeg North or South or East wishes to make a speech, I will yield to him because I have always been very happy to take the last slot in any session. This year we have not been able to bargain for anything for ourselves, so perhaps we should put in a word for the postal workers. I listened to the comments of the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) and of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) today. As I listened to these gentlemen, I realized how the employees probably feel. The arguments these gentlemen used would seem to be directly limited to their personal experience in the political arena. Their ability to negotiate leaves a great deal to be desired. It would seem that when the government passed legislation that would allow certain civil servants to negotiate in the normal procedure, it really did not believe they should have this right. It would seem also that most of the people who supported that legislation were of the opinion that the civil servant should not have the right to go on strike, that this is a terrible thing and that such a right should be curtailed and kept within certain limits.
I suggest that if negotiations are to be conducted, they must be conducted outside this sphere. The government is not impartial in its negotiations with its employees. In this case they bring in a guideline and in another case it will be something else. In my opinion, the government does not negotiate in good faith. While speaking to one of my friends in the CLC, it came to my attention that if the proposals suggested for the Post Office workers were implemented, the Post Office workers would in fact receive very little. The example was used of a postal worker earning $6,718 a year. If he received 6 per cent, and not the 5 per cent the government is talking about, this would give him an increase of $403.08. Looking at the tax structure of last year, and applying it to his total salary, this would cost him an additional $114, so he would be left with $289.08.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
The cost of living over the last four or five years has averaged slightly less than 5 per cent. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics fig-22478-60i
Post Office
ures indicate it will be 4.9 per cent this year. When deducted from the increase, this would amount to $287.82. The hours of work have been cut from six days to five days, and the workload has not been decreased. We are offering these employees $1.26 spread over the next 52 weeks. If anybody thinks that is generous, I wonder who they are. I suggest that this government is not negotiating in good faith and that it never has negotiated in good faith. This government has no interest in organized labour.
Today we have tabled under your name, Mr. Speaker, a document showing the wage increases for a whole list of employees of the House of Commons. It was presented by the Commissioners of Internal Economy. It is called the "Revised list of pay for employees of the House of Commons whose positions are classified hereunder". They received 5 per cent, with no union and no bargaining at all. The government decided, out of the goodness of its heart, that the least it could do was pay them 5 per cent more or it would lose some of these people. Now we talk about negotiations. That is b.s., Mr. Speaker! These are not negotiations. The government is not offering to this union any more than it gave its employees, who are not organized. The government does not believe in negotiations.


An hon. Member:: But that is reasonable.


William Arnold Peters: Somebody says that is reasonable. I have seen company unions that were reasonable, and if you stayed long enough they even took your shirt. I would not blame this union for taking pretty strong action against the government. Some of the responsibility then becomes my responsibility because I am a representative of the people, as are the rest of my 263 colleagues.
I suggest that we should not accept the statement made by the President of the Treasury Board this afternoon that his offer to the union is reasonable. It is not reasonable. It is the kind of thing one gives to somebody without their even asking for it. I always thought it was a good thing to give my kids 25 cents. When they became a little older and started negotiating, it was not 25 cents or $1 for which they asked. It used to shock me, but they asked for $5. They said they needed it to take the girl friend to a show, to buy her a coke afterwards and to buy gas with which drive the car. They had to have the money to cover that. So it was not the 25 cents which I thought was reasona-

June 26. 1970
Post Office
ble; it was what they were able to show me was reasonable in terms of their needs. Any organization that negotiates on a poorer basis than that is not really negotiating.


John Cole: How much did you give your kids?


William Arnold Peters: I usually ended up giving them $5. I do not believe that in negotiations one should give more than is asked. The minister asked this afternoon how much we would give them. We would give them somewhere between 5 per cent and what they are asking for. I suggest that this is the only way in which negotiations can be conducted. If these workers are told day in and day out that they will lose their jobs because of automation, then you should give them greater security than they have today. I am not telling the minister what kind of security he should give them, but I am telling him to be reasonable, to be responsible and to negotiate a wage somewhere between their demands and what he thinks is fair and reasonable. He represents the country, and he represents me in these negotiations. We do not want to give more than the $5 the kid asks for, but surely we can go part way in giving these workers what they ask for, if they can show us that it is reasonable.
I suggest that if all the civil servants who do not have a bargaining agency receive the same as is being offered to this union, either the government is not being reasonable or these people had better get rid of their union. If the government think they are justified in forcing a strike situation which will be costly to everyone, they will eventually have to ask us to come back to Parliament to solve their problems for them. I suggest it may cost them more in the end. I suggest that if the Commissioners of Internal Economy could have given the civil servants under your jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, out of the goodness of their hearts, 5 per cent, the government should at least be as generous or more generous with the people who are negotiating with them and offer them a wage half way between what they think is reasonable, which is 5 per cent, and what the union is asking for. The negotiations can be brought to a conclusion very easily if both parties meet halfway.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few words to this debate. The hon. member for Timiskam-ing (Mr. Peters) said he would be the last to speak in this part of the session of Parliament. He may or may not be. However, it

seems to me that the whole debate this afternoon is focused on a very basic problem in the country. I do not really think that more talk in this chamber will help the workers, help the government or help anyone else. But I do think that the government has to accept its responsibility in this very basic problem of the postal service for Canadians.
To my mind this situation illustrates the malaise that is starting to affect the whole society. It is not a breakdown of law and order, but a breakdown in the credibility and responsibility of the government. It is a breakdown in our reliance on things which we used to take for granted. Perhaps the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) should go up in the air in a rocket to see Telesat, and from up there perhaps he could help solve the postal problem. Perhaps he could do that better than by giving gratuitous press conferences in the lobbies and corridors, which I think upsets the balance in the collective bargaining process.
I think the basic problem, which the President of the Treasury Board in his bland statement in the House today completely ignored, of the Canadian public who have always relied on a reliable Post Office service and who have always believed that the mail goes through regardless of sleet and snow-a belief which has now been upset-is that the mail service is disturbed or is not working, depending on what part of the country you are in when the rotational strike hits. Mr. Laniel from Beauharnois, or whoever he may be-


An hon. Member:: Don't be so comic.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member knows he cannot refer to his colleagues by name. He should refer to their constituency.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, but I have not seen the hon. member often enough to know him by his constituency. However, I realize that that is what I should have done. Be that as it may-and I will conclude in 30 seconds-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If I get such applause when I say I will close in 30 seconds, perhaps I should suggest that I will do so in two minutes and the applause will increase in ratio. I do not intend to hold anything up but I want to impress upon the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury)-I do not think
June 26, 1970

it has come through to him as yet-that the sickness in the whole system is the issue right now. I refer to the fact that Parliament will recess tonight and the postal service will continue to have its problems and will strike on a rotational basis where some places will get service and others will not.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
The fact is that the whole system is on trial here. It is not just the political career of the President of the Treasury Board that is at stake. He may negotiate a settlement, or he may not. The fact is that if the government lets this thing go it will be like a cancer spreading through the whole system.
The government came into office two years ago yesterday, on the basis of-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. member for Burna-by-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) and some others give halfhearted applause. I suggest the Canadian people would give only halfhearted applause, in view of the great expectations they had two years ago. A government that came into power on a platform of participatory democracy, a just society and all these beautiful sounding phrases which have been preached since Jesus Christ walked out of the Sea of .Galilee, is not discharging its duty by letting this sickness continue.
The President of the Treasury Board put a facetious question to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). He asked, "What would you offer"? The Leader of the Opposition, as the hon. member for Bumaby-Seymour knows only too well, is not involved in contract negotiations at the table.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If the young member from Matane wants to get off the repository for his brains, I will answer any question he wishes to ask.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) has the floor. If the hon. member for Matane wants to make a speech, he can do so afterwards.


Mr.   De Bane@: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The member for
Matane on a point of order.
Post Office


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite urged me to ask him a question which he would gladly answer. I shall do so immediately-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That was not my understanding. I understood the hon. member suggested that if the hon. member for Matane wanted to make a speech, he could make it. The hon. member is now asking whether the hon. member for Annapolis Valley will accept a question.

The hon. member for Matane may put his question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will try to answer it.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member rises every day to speak on any subject. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) asked him to make a constructive suggestion. Is he in a position to do so instead of making speeches?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have not been making too many daily speeches, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that I am as much an expert on postal services as the hon. member for Matane or the President of the Treasury Board, because my mail is arriving two days, two weeks, two months late. In that way I feel every bit as qualified as anyone else to comment on the postal service.
The point I am making is that Parliament is now going to rise. That is fine. Let us get away from here because conservation, dialogue and debate will not resolve the postal situation. With all due respect to the Minister of Communications, I do not think the postal disturbance will be resolved until he is moved out of that portfolio. I believe that the postal unions in effect would like to have his head on a platter. For what it is worth in a political sense, if that would solve the postal problem I suggest his head should be placed on a platter. The President of the Treasury Board should consider this suggestion. Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting this with any malice aforethought or afterthought.
This debate was called by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis)- who, incidentally, could not find the time to be here-to try and focus the attention of the government, not just on the administration of

June 26, 1970
Post Office
the postal department but upon the tact that as long as this situation continues the people of Canada will more and more wonder about the whole system. In that respect the postal problem is very important, and it is a situation that the President of the Treasury Board seems incapable of settling.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2603), I am satisfied that the debate is concluded and I therefore declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the special order adopted earlier this day, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock p.m. on Monday, October 5, 1970. Before I leave the chair I should like to invite hon. members to spend the next few minutes in room 16.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.17 p.m. until Monday, October 5 at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 5, 1970