1970-06-10

STATEMENT BY MR. SPEAKER ON DELAY IN PUBLICATION OF COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Speaker:: On Thursday, May 28, 1970, as recorded at pages 7423-24 of Hansard a question was raised concerning the delay in the publication of proceedings of the standing and other committees of the House. Since then I have looked into the detailed operation of the printing and publication of committee proceedings. Speaking in a general way, I have to state that even in the face of the most difficult circumstances this work is being discharged quite efficiently by the responsible officials of the House of Commons. Of course, there are some shortcomings, as was pointed out by the hon. members who raised the question by way of a point of order. I can give them the assurance that efforts will be made to improve the system and give the best possible service to the committees and to all hon. members.
May I briefly state to the House some of the many and varied problems involved. Initially, it must be said that the translation and printing of the daily Hansard, the Order Paper, Votes and Proceedings and bills, including reprinting of bills as amended by committees, for the use of both Houses must be given priority over our other work. That in itself is a problem of some magnitude, but if reference is made to the translation and printing of blue books such as the estimates, the Auditor General's report and other publications, it will be seen that the problem of co-ordinating the work of the House with the efforts of the translation and printing bureaux is not entirely within our direct administrative authority.
Neither should it be overlooked that a fundamental change in the committee system was effected in January, 1969, halfway through the last session. The full impact of those changes, from an administrative standpoint, has been felt most seriously during the last few weeks. At the end of the last session it was recognized that adequate accommodation and additional staff must be provided. Until that space became available, recruitment and training of staff could not be implemented in the manner thought desirable. That space became available in April of this year when our committee branch and supporting staffs were moved into the Vanguard Building. The actual moving of the staff set the whole pattern of our work back several weeks.
May I now briefly refer to what is entailed in the preparation, translation and printing of committee proceedings. For example, on Tuesday, May 26, 1970-that is, shortly before the matter was raised in the House-no fewer than nine committees were scheduled to meet. Four of those committees scheduled morning, afternoon and evening meetings; the other four scheduled one meeting each on that day. Assuming that no additional meetings were booked, there would be a total of 18 meetings listed for that day. On Thursday, May 28, 1970, ten committees were scheduled to hold 16 meetings, a program comparable with that of Tuesday, May 26, 1970. As a further example, 10 committees and two subcommittees met yesterday and held a total of 22 meetings. When consideration is given to briefs, exhibits and other documents which form part of a committee's printed record, it is reasonable to say that the preparation, translation and printing of committee reports on each of those days was the equivalent of nine daily Hansards in both languages.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
It must also be emphasized that it has been the practice to give priority to the proceedings of committees dealing with bills that must be reported back to the House. As of May 28 last, all outstanding copy for the Standing Committee on Agriculture was either in the hands of the translators or the printers. Here again, an effort is being made to provide a priority for the Agriculture Committee's proceedings in respect of Bill C-196, the Canada Grain Act bill.
There is also the question of committees meeting outside the city of Ottawa. Such committees need supporting staff and it will be apparent that the translation and printing processes of publication in regard to such sit-
7942	COMMONS
Publication of Committee Proceedings tings are necessarily slowed down. I need not dwell on the question of subcommittees other than to say that each subcommittee must be staffed and supported in the same manner as a main committee and that the proceedings of the subcommittees which have to be reported, translated and printed are often as extensive as the proceedings of the committees themselves. By way of example I would mention the Finance and External Affairs Committees, which have each set up two subcommittees. Effectively, our staff is thus required to process the proceedings of six committees rather than just two. In those circumstances hon. members will appreciate that some delay in the preparation of reports of proceedings is only normal.
In conclusion I might outline in a few words our plans or objectives in regard to committee work. As training and efficiency progress, and this must also flow into the translation and printing services, it would be our objective, as of next session, to provide a 36-hour service in the publication of committee proceedings on bills and other questions allotted priorities. With regard to the proceedings with respect to the consideration of estimates and other general references, it would be proposed that such material be made available within a week; that is to say, committee proceedings on a Tuesday in relation to a general reference will be published not later than the following Tuesday.
In order to further those objectives, may I also refer the House to the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization presented to the House as recently as Thursday, May 28, 1970. In that report the committee recommends the standardization of the size and format of all our publications. We believe that standardization will contribute to shortening the time required for production of our printed records.
As a final comment I might mention to hon. members that a limited number of copies of typewritten transcripts of a committee's proceedings, including the interpretation thereof, are ordinarily available through the committee clerk the day following a meeting.
Again I think I express the feelings of all hon. members when I express the appreciation of the House for the efficiency and devotion of all employees of the committee branch. These officials have the full confidence of the House. We know that we count on their continued co-operation and on their devotion to the service of the House to over-

DEBATES	June 10. 1970
come the difficulties with which they are confronted from time to time.
I thank the hon. members who raised this question. Their intervention has given us an opportunity to review the situation and to engage in even more determined action to provide the hon. members the service to which they are entitled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions about today's business. In particular there have been expressions of interest during the past week in having government order No. 84, Bill C-197, completed with respect to the second reading stage and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I believe there would be general agreement in the House for an order along the following lines: That after a further two hours' debate on the second reading stage, including any amendments on that bill, all questions would be put in order that a decision of the House might be taken and, in particular, in order that it might be referred to committee.
I might indicate that on behalf of the government I would give this undertaking: First, the government will not oppose any motion in committee to hear representatives who may wish to appear before the committee, as indeed had been the intention. Second, the government will undertake, at least in so far as it can give an undertaking, not to oppose in committee on technical grounds any amendments, other than those involving financial considerations, that may be brought before the committee.
On that basis, and assuming this order is acceptable to the House, the order of business for today will be changed. Instead of dealing with the Canada Elections Act, we will have a two-hour debate on the second reading of Bill C-197. This will be followed by government order No. 100, the amendment to the Aeronautics Act. This in turn will be followed by government order No. 68, the shipping conference amendment to the Combines Investigation Act. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if it
June 10, X970

could be determined whether there is general agreement to limit the debate on second reading of Bill C-197 to two additional hours, after which all necessary questions would be disposed of.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: As far as
we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the hon. gentleman continues to show that spirit of flexibility which marked his appearance in the House yesterday. We highly approve of it. We are prepared to accept an order of the House which will limit debate on Bill C-197 to two hours in the terms mentioned, provided an undertaking is given by the minister along the lines which I asked for some time ago in the House. I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) publicly and privately that the government not oppose the moving of motions in committee and allow groups or organizations to make representations in person or by brief with suggestions as to change in substance. I asked that the government not raise technical objections to amendments dealing with matters of substance which might be proposed following such representations. I say, in a spirit of complete benevolence, that in the past we have been lured and seduced into committees-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: -and there have found the government trying to place the most narrow and rigid interpretation upon the rules. They have refused to allow witnesses to attend to make their views known. I am referring to witnesses and organizations who were supremely and vitally interested in the matter before the committee. In addition, valid amendments offered by this party have not been accepted. It was said they were contrary to the principle of the bill which had been approved on second reading.
I hope this action represents a change in view on the part of the government. If so, I welcome it. I recognize that the government cannot bind itself or anyone with respect to questions involving financial changes. However, if during the course of representations to the committee proposals are made by groups or by opposition parties which involve a variation of the financial recommendation, I hope the Minister of Agriculture, with that same degree of flexibility which marked his presence on this side of the House a number of years ago, will attempt to persuade his colleagues to accept it. I hope that all vitally interested groups will be allowed to be pres-
Business of the House
ent and that the bill will be changed so as to be more in accordance with the views of the people of this country.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly prepared to agree to an order for a two-hour debate in the House so that Bill C-197 can then proceed to committee. We have received representations from organizations which wish to appear when the bill is in committee, and we are very pleased with the attitude of the government in this regard. We are glad to know that those who wish to appear as representatives of the farm organizations and of agricultural business generally can attend and make their views known. There will be an opportunity for fruitful debate in the committee and we can put forward some of the proposals we have made in the House.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Our position is clear. We think this bill is important, that it is essential to the welfare of a great many farmers, and for this reason the government can certainly count on our full co-operation to expedite this marketing measure.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, we are in complete agreement with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) who would like us to deal as soon as possible with Bill C-197, and we are ready to co-operate entirely with him.
This, Mr. Speaker, does not mean that we intend to approve the principle of the bill which seeks no more and no less than the socialization of Canadian agriculture and we have in fact so reminded the House on several occasions.
However, we want to give the members of the committee an opportunity to hear representatives of the different agricultural organizations of Canada and to question them. We feel that by proceeding in this fashion we might be able to change the principle of the bill, since the Ralliement creditiste does not agree with the government's policy to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I sent a note to the Government House Leader a few moments ago asking him whether the government intended to move concurrence in the

June 10, 1970
Business of the House
fifth report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, but he slipped it under his papers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have not yet concluded the business on the point raised by the President of the Privy Council. I assumed the hon. member intended to refer to the same matter.
The terms of the order have been proposed by the minister, and conditions have been suggested by representatives of the parties in opposition. In any event, hon. members have heard the terms of the proposed order suggested by the President of the Privy Council and I have to ask the House whether it is so ordered.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


Erik Nielsen: May I ask
whether the Government House Leader intends to present a motion for concurrence in the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections? I would just as soon it came from the government side, but if it does not I can ask unanimous consent to move it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think it should come from the chairman of the committee and I will ask him to give notice of it in order to place it on the Order Paper and in that way bring it before the House.


Erik Nielsen: I do not wish to sound impatient, but concurrence could be moved now by unanimous consent. This is a normal procedure and the committee was unanimous in its report.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am certainly agreeable to that if the House will waive the requirement of two days' notice.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the proposal that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be concurred in. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have also been discussions between representatives of the parties with respect to referring the question of election expenses to a special committee to be constituted for the purpose. If there were found to be general agreement I should like to suggest that the following be made an order of the House:
That a special committee, constituted of 12 members to be named at a later date, be appointed to consider the question of the limitation and control of election expenses in Canada and to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon;
That the committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records; to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House; to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee; and to delegate to subcommittees any of its powers, except the power to report directly to the House.
As I say, if there is found to be general agreement among hon. members this might be made an order of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Mr. Bell-That the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented to the House on Wednesday, May 13, 1970, be concurred in.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the unanimous agreement within the Public Accounts Committee that concurrence in this motion not be moved-there was a discussion of this subject on Monday last-I wonder whether the hon. member might not be agreeable to withdrawing his motion.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In view of the apology the minister made yesterday we shall cooperate in the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster have the unanimous
June 10, 1970

agreement of the House to withdraw the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

TABLING OF LeDAIN COMMISSION REPORT-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 which permits a motion to be moved by unanimous agreement in cases of urgent and pressing necessity after an explanation has been given by the mover, I seek consent to move such a motion preceded by an explanation as to the urgency and the necessity for taking action quickly.
As every day goes by the misuse and abuse of drugs in this country becomes wider and wider, with the problem multiplying in intensity particularly among our younger people. Inasmuch as the public paid for the LeDain commission to conduct an inquiry into the subject matter of the non-medical use of drugs, inasmuch as the interim report of the commission has been before the minister for some two or three weeks, as well as before the cabinet, inasmuch as we are not asking for a decision on what the government intends to do with respect to the recommendations in the interim report but are simply asking the government to make available to the public a report which they paid for, in view of the growing abuse of the use of drugs I ask unanimous consent to move the following motion:
This House expresses the opinion that the government should forthwith table the interim report of the commission of inquiry into the non-medical use of drugs.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. Members Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and therefore the hon. member's motion cannot be put.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I point out that there is not unanimity within the cabinet committee that is studying this question either.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Questions



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-187, an act respecting inland water resources in the Yukon territory and Northwest Territories, with an amendment, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



SHIPPING


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minisler of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I am pleased to table the proposed regulations relating to the manning of steamships. In order to meet my commitment to hon. members to lay them on the table today, I am tabling two copies in English, with the translation to follow, I hope, later today.



NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-221, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, may I say by way of explanation of the purpose of this bill that, in my view, many activities of the governments of Canada and the provinces and their agents now affect navigable waters in ways similar to non-governmental activities. It is therefore proper and necessary that the Act clearly require that governmental activities are subject to the same conditions and approvals.


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

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

['1. No.\n2 and 3. Not applicable.']
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. (a) Two, the towed barges L.A. Learmonth and Johnny Norberg. (b) August 22 and August 24, 1969, respectively, (c) In Viscount Melville Sound, S.E. of Byam Island, (d) Ice damage, (e) The L.A. Learmonth loaded with mining equipment and steel pipes, the Johnny Norberg with light diesel oil and aviation fuel (J.P. 4). (f) Both barges were owned by Panarctic Oils Limited, Calgary.
2.	(a) Department of Transport, (b) September 10, 11 and 29, 1969. (c) Officials of the Marine Regulations Branch, Department of Transport, (d) No. (e) A summary report of the investigation is available.
3.	(a) 2000 short tons light diesel oil and aviation fuel in the Johnny Norberg. (b) None.
(c)	(i) and (ii). No, as far as is known, (d) Work is in progress on the establishment of new safety standards to be applicable in these waters, to be made compulsory under the new Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act (Bill C-202).



Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the federal government have a policy of control of the Northwest Passage and, if so, does the policy include the co-operation of any other government?
2.	To what extent does the federal government intend to police the Northwest Passage?
3 Will the Canadian Forces be involved in the security of Canada's north and in asserting sovereignty in the north and, if so, to what extent?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The Government intends to open the Northwest Passage as a waterway for passage by ships of all states, subject to necessary conditions required for preservation of the Arctic environment. That policy is reflected in the Arctic Waters Pollution Pre-

vention Bill and the Bill to Amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act. The Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill would provide for co-operation with other countries by empowering the Government to exempt from the application of Canadian anti-pollution regulations the public and naval vessels of other states which substantially comply with Canadian standards; the Government has also indicated its intention to consult with other countries regarding the safety regulations to be adopted under the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Bill.
2.	The Government intends to police Canada's coastal waters, including the Northwest Passage, in a manner which will achieve the purposes of existing and proposed legislation with respect to those waters.
3.	The Canadian Armed Forces will be involved, along with other agencies of the Government of Canada, in protecting the security of Canada's North and in promoting Canada's sovereign interests in the area.


FOREIGN OWNERSHIP
Mr. Broadbenl: 1.	For the years 1967, 1968 and 1969, what are the Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures regarding the degree of foreign ownership and control of Canadian industry (a) manufacturing (b) petroleum and natural gas (c) mining and smelting?
2.	If the above figures are not available, on what date is it anticipated that the Dominion Bureau of Statistics will publish such figures?
3.	What are the reasons regarding the delay on publishing the foreign ownership and control figures for the above years?
4.	Is the section in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics responsible for the publication of such figures now suffering from inadequate staff and, if so, will this situation be immediately corrected?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1.	(a) Assets of
corporations principally engaged in manufacturing and in which the majority of voting shares are owned by non-residents amounted to $22.4 billions or 56.7 per cent of the total reported by all manufacturing corporations which filed 1967 Canadian income tax returns, (b) Assets of corporations principally engaged in the oil and gas wells industry and in which the majority of the voting shares are owned by non-residents amounted to $3.7 billions or 82.6 per cent of the total reported by such corporations filing 1967 Canadian income tax returns. For petroleum refining, assets reported by concerns in which non-residents owned the majority of the voting shares amounted to $4.1 billions or 99.9 per cent of the total
June 10, 1970

reported by such corporations filing 1967 Canadian income tax returns, (c) Assets of corporations principally engaged in the metal mining industries and in which the majority of the voting shares are owned by nonresidents amounted to $1.8 billions or 42.0 per cent of the total reported by all metal mining corporations which filed 1967 Canadian income tax returns. Total assets of mining corporations which were at least 50 per cent owned by non-residents amounted to $6.6 billions or 60.6 per cent of the total reported which includes metals, non-metals and other mining. Assets of corporations in the primary metals group of the manufacturing division in which at least half of the shares were owned by non-residents amounted to $3.0 billions or 55.6 per cent of the total. The smelling and refining component of this group included corporations in which the majority of shares were owned by nonresidents which reported assets of $2.4 billions or 84.9 per cent of the total. It should be noted that the measurement of the degree of foreign ownership given above is based on the value of assets. Data for 1968 and 1969 are not yet available.
2.	It is anticipated that the Report for 1968, Part I, Corporations, Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act will be published by November 30, 1970. The 1969 Report is expected to be published approximately one year later.
3.	The figures above are based on returns under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and corporation income tax returns. Substantially all returns for any given year must be on hand to establish the intercorporate relationships required to estimate non-resident ownership. It is approximately one year after the close of the calendar year before all tax returns become available (the Income Tax Act allows six months after the end of a corporation's tax year for filing a return). The complete processing of many thousands of complex financial statements, although automated, requires a further period of twelve months. A close to two-year lapse of time between the end of the calendar year and the publication of statistics is the result of the above factors.
4.	The Section of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics responsible for the publication of such figures is not now suffering from inadequate staff. While improvements in automation procedures are expected during the next year, the timeliness of reports is sub-
Questions
stantially affected by matters referred to in Part 3 above.


AIR REGULATIONS AND NOTICES TO PILOTS
Mr. Hales: 1.	Under what section of the Air Regulations does the Minister of Transport or those to whom he may delegate this authority derive such authority to order the owner of an unlicensed aerodrome to cease to allow private aircraft operations to take place from this aerodrome?
2.	What regulatory type of notice to pilots has been adopted by the Department of Transport as normal standard procedure to advise pilots that they are prohibited from landing at certain aerodromes?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. Notwithstanding Section 4 (1) (c) of the Aeronautics Act, no Air Regulation presently authorizes the Minister of Transport to order the owner of an unlicensed aerodrome to cease to allow private aircraft operations therefrom.
2. An Air Navigation Order published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, prohibiting navigation of aircraft over the specified area, supplemented by a Notice to Airmen distributed to all licensed pilots advising of the prohibition.


ARDA-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN QUEBEC AND ONTARIO 1968-70
Mr. Lambert (Belle-chasse): What amount of money was paid by the federal government during the fiscal years 1968-69 and 1969-70 under ARDA in Quebec and Ontario?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Ontario	Quebec

1968- 69	5,629,000	6,302,0001969- 70	9,560,000	5,232,000


CANADIAN FLOUR MILLS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many flour mills do business in Canada and what are (a) their names (b) their locations?
2.	For each of the past five years, how much wheat was used by each of these companies in the milling process (a) what was the price per bushel (b) is this grain purchased through the Wheat Board?
3.	Is wheat for milling available from sources other than the Wheat Board and, if so (a) from what sources (b) in what quantities (c) at what prices?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. The Dominion


ACREAGE OF CELERY
Mr. Foriin: 1.	For each of the past ten years, what was the acreage of celery under cultivation for commercial use?
2.	How much celery has Canada imported over each of the past three years and from what countries was it imported?
3.	What was the customs duty on this product for each of the past three years?
4.	What was Canada's total celery production for each of the past three years?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: 1. For each of the past ten years the acreage of celery under cultivation for commercial use was as follows:
Year	Acreage
1968	1,168
1967	1,103
1966	974
1965	1,050
1964	1,110
1963	1,200
1962	1,170
1961	1,290
1960	1,220
1959	1,380
2 and 3. Imports of celery with duty collected thereon for each of the past three years are shown on the following table:
Victoria.
2. Information not available for individual firms. The following table shows total wheat used by flour milling industry.
Crop Year Ending
Wheat Milled
Year Country
1967	U.S.A.
1968	U.S.A.
1969	U.S.A.
Quantity (lbs.)
122,399,543 119,817,532 123,653,664	8,210,813
Value	Duty
($) ($) 6,598,032	171,427
6,657,070 214,985 258,834
July 31 1965 1966 1967	(Million Bushels) 87.2 97.9 90.1	4. Canada's total celery production for each	
		of the past three years is shown in the table below:	
1968	84.8	Year	Production (lbs.)1969	85.0	1968	43,716,000six months 1969	44.0	1967	36,618,000six months 1970 	46.2	1966	38,790,000
June 10, 1970


APPLICATIONS FOR INCENTIVE GRANTS
Mr. Serre: Since the inception of the Regional Development Grants Act (a) how many applications for grants were received from Ontario (b) what projects have been approved to date (c) what is the location and amount allotted to each project?


Abram Ernest Epp: (a) Fifty-five.
(b) and (c) This information is contained in the reports which are tabled in Parliament each month.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-SPECIAL AREAS
Mr. Burton: What criteria was used by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to select special areas as announced by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in Parliament on March 11, 1970, for the Provinces of (a) Newfoundland (b) Nova Scotia (c) New Brunswick (d) Quebec (e) Ontario (f) Manitoba (g) Saskatchewan (h) Alberta?


Abram Ernest Epp: That priority measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment in the areas would be especially beneficial in improving opportunities for productive employment of the people of the regions of which the areas are parts.


OMISSION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND P.E.I. FROM SPECIAL DESIGNATED AREAS
Mr. Burton: Were the Provinces of British Columbia and Prince Edward Island omitted from the announcement by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in Parliament on March 11, 1970, concerning special areas designated by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and, if so, for what reasons?


Abram Ernest Epp: Yes. In the case of British Columbia, needs for economic expansion and social adjustment were not so exceptional that, within the resources available for
1970-72, priority could be given to special measures. In the case of Prince Edward Island, there is already a comprehensive development plan under the FRED legislation.
Questions


NEWFOUNDLAND-CBC COVERAGE OF PROCEEDINGS REGARDING COME-BY-CHANCE OIL REFINERY
Mr. Marshall: 1.	How much time was given by CBC to televise proceedings in the House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland on April 21-23 to question Mr. John Shaheen with regard to the Come-by-Chance oil refinery?
2.	What national and regional programs were pre-empted due to such coverage?
3.	What revenue was lost to CBC in advertising by national or regional subscribers?
4.	What was the cost to CBC to produce the proceedings?
5.	Who authorized the televising of these proceedings and on whose request?


Hon. Gerard Pellefier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:	1. Total television
broadcast time of the April 21 and 22 hearings was 12 hours and 18 minutes.
2.	Programs pre-empted on April 21 were: As the World Turns (Network); Canadian Outdoors (Network); The Edge of Night (Network); The Galloping Gourmet (Network); A Place of Our Own (Network); Belle Sebastian and the Horses (Network); Beverley Hillbillies (Network); All around the Circle (Regional); Hollywood and the Stars (CBNT-local); Love American Style (CBYT-local); Press Conference of the Apollo Astronauts (Network).
Programs pre-empted April 22 were: As the World Turns (Network); Take Thirty (Network); The Edge of Night (Network); The Galloping Gourmet (Network); Banana Splits (Network); H. R. Pufnstuf (Network); Debbie Reynolds Show (Network); David Frost Show (CBNT-local); Gunsmoke (CBYT-local); Montreal Expos Baseball Game (Network- This program was joined in progress at approximately 11:04 p.m.).
3.	All local spot commercials and national selective sales spot commercials plus the one fully-sponsored regional program, All Around the Circle, were made good at later dates, therefore no local loss of revenue was incurred. National revenue lost amounted to $792.
4.	Total cost to the CBC for producing the hearings was $5,336.
5.	The televising of proceedings in the House of Assembly on April 21 and 22 was authorized by a vote of the members of the House of Assembly as the result of a request

June 10, 1970
Questions
from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation through the Speaker of the House.


LEVIS, QUEBEC-CANDIDATES FOR POSITION OF POSTMASTER
Mr. Lambert (Belle-chasse): What are the names of the candidates who took part in the last competition for the position of postmaster in I.evis?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: Section 25 of the Public Service Employment Regulations provides that the name of a person who is a candidate for a position, unless his name is on an eligible list for that position, shall not be disclosed, without the consent of the candidate, to any person who is not directly involved in the process of selection for appointment to the position. Six applications were received in the last competition for Postmaster at Levis and two of the candidates were found to be qualified. Their names were placed on an eligible list in the following order: 1. Maurice Bourgeois; 2. Jean-Marie Poirier. There were no appeals, and Mr. Bourgeois was appointed to the position.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY-AMOUNT OF DEBT AND INTEREST
Mr. Laprise: 1.	(a) What was the amount of debt of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority at the time of its inauguration (b) what is the amount at present?
2.	What was the amount owing in interest, each year, since the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway, and what amount was paid each year?


Gérard Loiselle: The St.
Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: 1. (a) At March 31, 1959, the debt of the St. Lawrence Seaway amounted to $285.6 million, consisting of capital loans of $270.0 million and deferred interest (during construction) of $15.6 million, (b) At December 31, 1969, debt amounted to $546.4 million, consisting of capital loans of $474.5 million, deferred interest diming construction of the Welland By-Pass of $5.4 million and deferred operating interest of $66.5 million. 
2. Interest charges to operating and payments against these have been as follows:
Interest Charged	Paid	Balance Owing$	$	$1959	8.1	(millions)	8.11960	12.7	-	20.81961	14.2	1.3	33.71962	15.6	-	49.31963	16.8	-	66.11964	18.1	5.3	78.91965	15.8	49.6	45.11966	16.3	13.7	47.71967	16.6	10.9	53.41968	17.9	13.2	58.11969	19.1	10.7	66.5
Of interest charged to operations during 1959-1969, a total of $11.6 million was in respect of borrowings for the improvement of the Welland Canal. This entire amount was paid out of parliamentary appropriations voted to cover the Welland Canal operating deficit for the period.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO SWIFT CANADIAN CO. LTD.
Mr. Burfon: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant to Swift Canadian Co. Ltd., Etobicoke, Ontario and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of Swift Canadian Co. Ltd., and what is the address of each?
3.	To what extent is the company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
2. The officers and directors of Swift Canadian Co. Ltd., as at October 26, 1968 were: P. L. Ayers, 1137 Royal York Road, N.. Islington, Ontario; W. P. Christian, 287 Mark-land Dr., Etobicoke, Ontario; E. D. Fletchall, 919 Country Club Dr., LaGrange, Illinois 60525, U.S.A.; J. E. Harris, 1113 Algonquin Drive, Port Credit, Ontario; M. E. Morgan, 930 Eyremount Dr., West Vancouver, B.C.; C. F. Patterson, R.R. No. 2, Norval, Ontario;
June 10, 1970

R. W. Reneker, 10158 S. Leavitt St., Chicago, Illinois 60643, U.S.A.; L. V. Spalding, 11 Orrell Ave., Islington, Ontario; P. M. Stein-brink, 9757 S. Bell Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60653, U.S.A.; J. C. Walmsley, 31 Appledale Road, Islington, Ontario; W. A. Mill, 403 Valleyfield Dr., Mississauga, Ontario.
3.	Non-residents own 100 per cent of the voting shares of the company.
4.	Swift and Company of Chicago own 119,989 of the total 120,000 shares outstanding.


VETERANS IN CANADA RECEIVING PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES
Mr. Caouelte: How many veterans are there in Canada who served in the army of our allied countries during (a) World War I (b) World War II (c) the Korean War and, of this number, how many receive (i) a federal pension (ii) a veteran's allowance (iii) a pension for disability attributable to service (iv) medical and hospital care?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Veterans Affairs and National Health and Welfare as follows: (a), (b), (c) Information not available, (i) All records of the Income Security Branch, of the Department of National Health and Welfare, are kept in such a way as to make it impossible to produce this information, (ii) World War I, 5,257; World War II, 985; Korean War, Information not available; Dual Service (WW I and WW II), 31. (iii) World War I, 423; World War II, 1,034; Korean War, none, (iv) Information not available.


NUMBER OF CANADIAN VETERANS IN WORLD
Mr. Caouefle: 1.	Among World War I veterans, how many (a) were living in Canada prior to enrolment (b) served in the Canadian Army?
2.	Among World War II veterans, how many (a) were living in Canada prior to enrolment (b) served in the Canadian Army?
3.	Among Korean War veterans, how many (a) were living in Canada prior to enrolment (b) served in the Canadian Army?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Veterans Affairs and National Defence as follows: 1. (a) Information not available, (b) 619,636 (including 59,544 fatal casualties).
2. (a) Information is available only with respect to the Canadian Army. Out of a total enrolment of 1,086,343 in all three services,
Questions
the records indicate that 723,143 army veterans were previously living in Canada, (b) 730,159 (including 22,917 fatal casualties).
3. (a) and (b) The Department of National Defence does not hold records which would provide this information.


COST OF COAST GUARD ICEBREAKERS ACCOMPANYING ''MANHATTAN&quot;
Mr. Burton: 1.	What was the total cost to the Canadian Government involved in having the icebreaker Sir John A. Macdonald accompany the supertanker Manhattan on its Arctic voyage in 1969?
2.	What is the estimated total cost to the Canadian Government involved in having the icebreaker Louis S. St. Laurent accompany the supertanker Manhattan on its voyage in Arctic waters in 1970?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. Costs that are clearly identifiable as related to the Manhattan operation amounted to approximately $23,700. These comprise consultants' fees, salaries, travelling expenses, rental of equipment and expenses concerned with press representation.
The CCGS John A. Macdonald would have been employed in Arctic waters for approximately the same time even if she had not accompanied the Manhattan and there is no realistic way of determining what extra costs were incurred in the Manhattan operation. If any, they were offset by a certain amount of fuel supplied at no cost by the Manhattan.
An increased program of aerial observation of ice conditions was carried out over that normally undertaken. The Manhattan benefitted considerably from this but it was also of very great value in increasing our own knowledge of Arctic ice conditions and this was largely due to the loan of specialized electronic sensing devices not possessed by the Department at no cost by the Humble Oil Company. Here too there is no way of finding a realistic apportionment of cost.
2. A spring voyage by the CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent into northern waters to test the capabilities of this new vessel had been scheduled before the request for Canadian icebreaker support to the Manhattan was received. The two are therefore being combined. What additional cost, if any, will be incurred through the Louis S. St. Laurent accompanying the Manhattan cannot be estimated until it is known how long the voyage lasts.

June 10, 1970
Questions


VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Goode: What Is the capacity of the Vancouver International Airport sewer system in gallons per minute and how much of this capacity is being used?


Gérard Loiselle: The maximum capacity of the forcemain from the airport to the treatment plant is 1,400 gallons per minute. The agreement with the Iona treatment plant limits the discharge to 1,000 gallons per minute with a maximum daily total of 350,000 gallons per day. The airport is presently discharging approximately 240,000 gallons per day to the treatment plant and it is expected that with plans to connect the old terminal area to the system and growth of the present terminal area, the discharge will soon reach the allowed rate of 350,000 gallons per day.


AVERAGE CONSUMER INTEREST RATE 1960 TO 1970
Mr. Robinson: What was the average consumer interest rate for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?


Yves Forest: There is a great variety of interest rates charged to consumers depending upon the nature of the transaction. It would not be possible to calculate an average consumer interest rate. Consequently, the question cannot be answered in its present form.


REDUCTION OP INTEREST CHARGE ON CREDIT BUYING
Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider ways and means of reducing the interest charge on credit buying?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: The Bank of Canada on May 31 reduced its Bank Rate from 7i per cent to 7 per cent. This was the second reduction in May. In addition, the government is reviewing its economic and financial policies in view of the recent changes in circumstances.


PERCENTAGE OF GNP SPENT BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What is the percentage of the gross national product spent by the federal government for each year 1940 to 1960 inclusive?

2.	What is the estimated percentage of the gross national product proposed to be spent by the federal government for the year 1970?


Edgar John Benson: 1. On a national accounts basis, the percentage of the gross national product spent directly by the federal government for each year 1940 to 1969 was:
Year Per Cent	Year	Per Cent	Year	Per Cent1940	14	1950	12	1960	161941	18	1951	13	1961	161942	35	1952	17	1962	161943	38	1953	17	1963	151944	43	1954	17	1964	141945	35	1955	16	1965	131946	23	1956	15	1966	141947	14	1957	15	1967	141948	12	1958	16	1968	141949	12	1959	16	1969	14
2. On the same basis, it is estimated that these proposed expenditures by the federal government in 1970 would account for 14 per cent of the gross national product.


FINANCING OF CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Has the Department of Finance created a new position with regard to the financing of Crown corporations and, if so, what will be the duties of the incumbent?
2.	What are the requirements for this position?
3.	Is there a specific policy on the financing of Crown corporations?


Edgar John Benson: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Yes. The policy is that Crown Corporations obtain their financing from the Government of Canada, usually by way of loans but equity capital is supplied when required. Sums so provided are to finance the capital expenditures of Crown Corporations included in their capital budgets approved by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the appropriate Minister, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance as required by the Financial Administration Act. From time to time, some Crown Corporations have borrowed in their own name, for example, the CNR has issued bonds guaranteed by the Government of Canada, CMHC has sold mortgages insured under the National Housing Act. However, these issues were exceptions to the general policy of financing Crown Corporations by loans or subscriptions to equity capital from
June 10, 1970

the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The sums raised by these direct sales of securities to the public were also applied to financing capital expenditures approved in the manner just described.


PRIME MINISTER'S FAR EASTERN TRIP
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many people accompanied the Prime Minister on his recent trip to the Far East?
2.	What are their names and respective positions, including members of the Press Corps?
3.	What were their duties while abroad?
4.	Were additional personnel employed abroad, for the purpose of speech-writing, etc., and, if so, what are their names, and what were they paid?
5.	Were any charges made to any person to recover air travel expenses and, if so, to whom and in what amount?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1, 2 and 3. See answer to question No. 1,858 answered this date.
4.	No.
5.	Air transportation charges of $1,300 for the round trip, and pro-rated for portions thereof, were recovered from members of the press party.


USE OF DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT IN PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Privy Council Office 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?


James Edgar Walker: 1. No.
2 and 3. Not applicable.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Comeau: 1.	In 1968-69 and 1969-70, what were the estimated sums spent on research in the Department of Labour and what was the purpose of each research project?
2.	How much money was actually expended according to Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures?
Return tabled.
Orders for Returns GRANTS TO STUDENTS FROM UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES AT CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES

Question No. 1,533-Mr. MacLean:
1.	How many scholarships or other grants have been made to students from underdeveloped countries at Canadian universities for each year since the inception of such scholarships and/or grants?
2.	What is the minimum and maximum of assistance given to individual students?
3.	How many students who have received benefits have already graduated from Canadian universities?
4.	(a) Have any of these students applied for landed immigrant status in Canada (b) how many of such applications have been granted?
5.	When students from underdeveloped countries apply for these grants, are they required to undertake to return to their own countries on the completion of their education?
Return tabled.



CONSULTANTS ENGAGED, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,800
Mr. Robinson:: How many consultants have been engaged by the Department of Agriculture 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.



PEOPLE WITH PRIME MINISTER ON FAR EASTERN TRIP

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many people accompanied the Prime Minister on his trip to the Far East?
2.	Who are these people and what was the purpose of each person accompanying the Prime Minister?
3.	What are the qualifications of each of the public servants who accompanied the Prime Minister?
4.	Of those accompanying the Prime Minister who are not government employees, how many were representatives of newspapers, radio, television and other news media?
5.	Will the representatives of the news media have their expenses paid by their employers and (a) if so, what will be the cost to each (b) if not, will the cost be paid by the government?
6.	Were the representatives of the news media who accompanied the Prime Minister chosen by (a) the Press Gallery (b) by the media (c) by the>
government?
7.	Were any of the people accompanying the Prime Minister either not government employees or representatives of the news media?
Return tabled.

June 10, 1970
Motions for Papers


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct the attention of the President of the Privy Council to the fact that the first eight questions on the Order Paper were all filed in October and here we are in the second week of June and they have not been answered. It seems to me inexcusable that these questions should remain on the Order Paper from the beginning of the session until almost the end of the session. If the government does not wish to answer these questions it should say so. Members cannot conduct the business of the House if they must wait months for answers to questions and then find that the House is about to close without these answers being given. May I ask whether these and many other questions which have been on the Order Paper for several months will be cleaned up before we recess at the end of the month?


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, we are pressing for answers to all the remaining questions on the Order Paper. May I point out that up to date more than 85 per cent of the record number of all questions on the Order Paper have been answered.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Speaker, to be specific, question No. 131 was asked on October 23. I believe an answer could be provided without much difficulty. Again, question No. 133, which has been on the Order Paper since October 23, is merely an inquiry concerning whether an Arctic transportation task force has been established. Surely this does not involve too much research. Then there is question No. 244 of October 23 concerning outside consultant studies for various departments. Surely we should be able to expect answers before the end of June to some of these questions.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I shall make inquiries, but we expect to file answers before the end of the session.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 465 is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual [Mr. Orlikow.i
reservations concerning confidential papers and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining Notices of Motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion No. 465 be deemed to have been adopted.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CLOSURE OF POST OFFICES, SERATH AND GREGHERD, SASIC.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 465-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do Issue for a copy of all corespondence, reports, memoranda and other documents relating to the closure of post offices at Serath and Gregherd, Saskatchewan and the proposed establishment of an alternative rural route mail service.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining Notices of Motions stand?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker will the Parliamentary Secretary give the same assurance and carry it through with regard to the remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers?


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member we are making representations to the proper departments. May I point out that we have dealt with about 80 per cent of the Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers already.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, some two weeks ago I asked about Notice of Motion No. 32 which has been on the Order Paper since October 23 and was given some indication it would be dealt with by the Minister of Transport. The same situation exists in respect of many other Notices of Motions which date back to October and November. Surely these motions can be brought forward and dealt with.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Speaker, on December 19 I asked the government for copies of all correspondence between the government of Canada and the government of Nova Scotia regarding financial assistance for the Deuterium of Canada Limited heavy water plant at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia. It seems to me the government should have been able to give
June 10, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry
some indication prior to now concerning


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh! whether or not this correspondence will be
made available.	Mr- Trudeau: Perhaps you do not want an
explanation.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining Notices of Motions stand?


Some hon- Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the serious drop in housing starts in the month of May to an annual rate of less than 130,000 units is a drop which is taking place according to plan as part of the government policy of restraint and whether it is consistent with the guidelines policy the government has adopted?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to see housing starts expand greatly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is it the policy of the government that the expansion of housing starts to a reasonable level would have an inflationary or anti-inflationary
effect?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I find that question concerning whether it would have an inflationary or anti-inflationary effect very difficult to answer. I do not think it would have an inflationary effect.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the serious decline in housing starts that has taken place not only causes great hardship to individuals but would seem quite obviously to be inflationary in the sense that it pushes up the cost of living and therefore an increase in the wages that persons expect, is the minister prepared to announce in the House, in light of these very alarming figures, measures that he proposes to take to have housing starts return to something like a satisfactory, sensible and normal figure?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I may be able to assist a little on this. I have a report from the minister responsible for housing. I do wish to indicate the government's concern about these low figures and to repeat-
22478-13J


An hon. Member:: You sound like Rawhide.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is much the same as that of the Leader of the Opposition. I would ask the Prime Minister to set forth the position of the government concerning ways and means to improve housing starts in Canada in view of the serious decline in the first five months of this year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It would seem to me that the question asked by the hon. member for Broadview is very wide in scope. He might wish to rephrase it. He is inviting a minister of the Crown to make a general statement. I do not think this should be done at this time.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister make a statement before Parliament adjourns with regard to measures the government intends to take to solve the serious decline in housing starts in view of the 50.1 per cent drop in urban starts in the first five months of this year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will pass this suggestion on to the minister.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he would stop playing games with a subject of great importance not only to this House but the country-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -and indicate to the House whether the government proposes to take any measures to meet this very serious situation and, very briefly, what these measures might be?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is difficult to know if members of the opposition really want all the facts or if they are interested in playing politics with the situation.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 39 members of the House are entitled to ask questions. Ministers do not have to answer but if they do the answers should not be frivolous, glib, evasive and non-responsive.
7956	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the
hon. member lor Hamilton West has a supplementary.



ESTABLISHMENT OF BUILDING SOCIETIES

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister ot Finance. In view of the fact that the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing, since his return from his European fact-finding tour, is now convinced of the usefulness and practicality of building societies, and in light of the fact that interest rates have increased to 10.3 per cent for home ownership, would the minister confer with his colleagues in order to review and re-assess the government's decision regarding building societies?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to stop the formation of building societies in Canada.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Can he tell the House when his mental age will catch up with his chronological age?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



LABOUR RELATIONS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour a question regarding the towboat strike which has been going on for some weeks in the province of British Columbia. I understand that an agreement has been worked out for submission to the membership of the Canadian Merchant Service Guild with the help of the conciliation officers of the federal Department of Labour. Can the minister tell the House what are the terms of the settlement which is being submitted to the towboat workers, both with respect to the wage settlement and the manning and safety provisions?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather pleased to announce that the very disruptive towboat strike on the west coast was settled about five o'clock this morning, Vancouver time. I think that the hon. gentleman will appreciate the fact that I

DEBATES	June 10, 1970
cannot be specific as to the details of the settlement because these things are normally put before the membership when they are asked to ratify the proposed settlement, something which will occur on Friday.
I would like to say to the House that the main issue in dispute for some considerable time has been the safety factor, as pointed out by the hon. gentleman. This has been settled as the result of the improved manning regulation which the Minister of Transport tabled today, plus certain conditions which are included in the collective agreement.
So far as the wage factor is concerned, it is a three-year contract. It has been settled precisely on the lines recommended unanimously by the conciliation board. I think the settlements are 10 per cent, 10 per cent and 6 per cent.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the wage settlement which has been agreed upon by both parties and which is now being submitted to the membership, may I ask the Minister if this means that the Department of Labour has come to recognize that the 6 per cent wage guideline restraint is unrealistic unless it is accompanied by restraints on other forms of income?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Well, Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Labour I recognize the fact that there is a cost-push type of inflation, and I do not think anyone in the government should have ever left the impression, in fact I do not think anyone has left the impression, that the only cause of the cost-push inflation has been wages. I think that profits, dividends, rents, executive salaries, professional fees and wages have all contributed to the cost-push inflation, and I am hoping that labour will not be isolated as the only cause because this would be erroneous and unfair.



SETTLEMENT OF WEST COAST TOWBOAT STRIKE-USE OF SAME CONCILIATION OFFICERS IN POSTAL DISPUTE

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the excellent work which the conciliation officers of the federal Department of Labour did in the west coast towboat dispute, may I ask the minister if he would be prepared to make these conciliation officers available to the government in the postal dispute in the hope of bringing about an early settlement?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, much as it is tempting for the
June 10. 1970

Department of Labour to take the credit for this settlement, I think the head of the conciliation branch, Mr. Kelly, would be the first to say that the terms of settlement were arrived at independently of the Department of Labour. I think hon. members should realize that we were there only to assist the two parties to arrive at a settlement, and they arrived at a settlement, including wages, independently of the Department of Labour. I would like to take this opportunity, rather than on motions, to pay particular tribute to the B.C. Federation of Labour which proved to be a very positive force in arriving at the settlement.



EFFECT ON WAGE DEMANDS OF INCREASED RENTS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour whether it is the view and the experience of his department that the shortage of housing with the resultant increase in rents is a factor in the wage demands put forward?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance made it quite clear in his statement on Monday that he regards unfair rents, high rents, as a cause of inflation, and I understand Dr. Young did obtain from the provinces-I must remind the House that rents come under provincial jurisdiction-recognition of this. There is nothing to prevent the Premier of Ontario, for example, from imposing rent controls. This is one tangible way in which the provinces can show that they pay more than lip service to the fight against inflation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct one further supplementary to the Minister of Labour, a man who is sincerely interested in this whole issue. Would he use the influence that I am sure he has with the Prime Minister to persuade the Prime Minister to abandon his reticence and the rather arrogant way that he is treating the House and tell the House whether the government has a program to deal with this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Real Caoueile (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Inquiries of the Ministry
After the adoption of the floating exchange rate for the Canadian dollar, Canadian gold mines are losing revenues and a good many marginal mines which attract American funds to Canada and which provide employment for Canadians will undoubtedly have to close down. Does the minister have any measures in mind to help the gold mining industry and improve this situation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, a week or so ago, along with my colleague the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion I met with citizens of the gold mining areas concerning gold mining assistance, and I understand that this morning the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources met with gold producers to discuss this particular problem.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Ontario and Quebec made it very clear that they do not intend to enforce the 6 per cent wage increase guideline, and in view of the very strong and recent reiteration by the leaders of organized labour that they do not intend to pay any attention to the government's 6 per cent guideline, a position which, judged by the announcement which was just made by the Minister of Labour-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member should not make a statement; he should ask his question.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, sometimes I find it necessary to put the Prime Minister in the picture. In view of these facts, does the Prime Minister not consider that the time has now arrived for him to call together the leaders of organized labour to try to persuade them that they should give their co-operation in order to make anti-inflation policies workable in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I attempted such a meeting some months ago, with the success which is now judged by the hon. member, but perhaps he could invite the leaders of organized labour himself and convince them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Well, we will try. Somebody had better do something.

June 10. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, now that I have the Prime Minister's okay to call a meeting that he will attend at his house in Rockcliffe, I will be very glad to issue the invitations today. I take it that he will be there and will do his very best to persuade the labour leaders.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: No female company.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is it government policy, in reference to regional development, to advance money to Canadian companies in preference to American controlled companies?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister justify his position, in light of that of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, by explaining to the House and the country why he is advancing to Swift's in Lethbridge several hundred thousand dollars to go into operation against Canadian owned and controlled companies? Why is he advancing money to United States companies that are not here already?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, in our regulations concerning industrial loans or incentives, we do not take into account the origin of the company but only the place where materials for the construction of industries axe bought. There is no discrimination against businesses with regard to their origin.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With reference to the advancing of this money, is there any arrangement that the group that will be working in this plant will come from a certain section of Canada?
[Translation\


Jean Marchand: I believe the policy comes from the statement on materials
to be used for the construction of factories. Such restrictions exist but there are no others.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister did not understand my question, which was very simple and to the point. Is there any arrangement, because of the advancing of this money against the interest of Canadian companies, that the labour that will work in this new plant, which is not there now, will come from a certain section of the country?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I would need further details about the location or the area in Canada. If the hon. member would tell me to what area he is referring, I could give him a more specific answer.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question arises from one asked by the hon. member for Calgary North. Is it a principle of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to assist industry in certain areas of Canada in order to create greater employment in the area that the industry is going into?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is surely one of the objectives of the department to create a greater number of jobs where plants are set up.



QUEBEC-GRANT TO INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES

John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether, prior to making a grant to International Business Machines Corporation for a project in Quebec, he consulted with the Minister of Communications in view of the interest expressed by the Minister of Communications in developing a Canadian controlled-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not in order. The hon. member knows he cannot ask whether the minister has consulted with another minister before a decision has been taken.

June 10, 1970



APPEARANCE OF CANADIAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION BEFORE FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL COMMITTEE ON PRICES

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has the minister received a request from the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association to appear before the federal-provincial committee on drug prices and, if so, what reply has he given to that request?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the meeting being held in Ottawa today is a federal-provincial meeting of officials at both levels of government. It certainly is not the practice to have people from the private sector present at such meetings.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the high cost of drugs, would the minister arrange to meet with representatives of the association who are anxious to offer advice on how the cost of drugs can be lowered?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the association that following the conference there undoubtedly would be consultation.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Labour relating to or arising out of the response he gave to the first question asked about the towboat situation in British Columbia. Could the minister tell us whether part of the settlement involves any form of truce in the legal conflicts which have surrounded this dispute? If so, could he state whether this might lead to the release from jail of a member of the union who is at the moment, I understand, in jail?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: No, Mr. Speaker, I think such a conditional settlement would be an interference with the due process of the law. I am not a lawyer but I would presume that in the case of this particular official the matter would no doubt be reviewed by his lawyer and possibly there are appeal procedures. Certainly the settlement was not conditional on the release of any union member under sentence for contempt
Inquiries of the Ministry of court. One of the beneficial effects of the proposed settlement is I understand all secondary picketing will be removed immediately in British Columbia and this should do a lot to remove one source of irritation.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice arising out of a question asked on Monday in his absence concerning, whether he sees any role that he might be able to play in bringing about the release of this union member, particularly now-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is not acceptable.



TAXATION


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: have a question for the Minister of Finance which concerns the timing of the implementation of the white paper proposals on taxation. In light of the recommendations of the western conference of Liberals which are to go to the national conference of the Liberal Party in November, is it right to anticipate that the government will be able to implement those recommendations by January 1, according to the timetable?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question yesterday.



POLLUTION


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcolin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. What action is his department taking in relation to the 350,000 gallon oil spill near Ungava Bay in Quebec?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, we are sending
people there immediately, as are the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Quebec government. I understand that a large tank farm has been swept into an inlet near Ungava Bay and there is real concern about the living resources in the water there due to that unfortunate spill.



OIL PIPELINE SPILLAGE NEAR FORT MCMURRAY

Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder

June 10, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry whether the minister might be able to report on progress being made on pollution in the Athabasca River and Lake system as well?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that is not a supplementary but the question having been asked, perhaps the minister might like to reply.


John (Jack) Davis: I understand that officials from several departments are co-operating on this problem as well, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. In view of a possible impending postal crisis and in view of complaints that workers are being herded like cattle at the Moss Park Armouries in Toronto to receive their unemployment insurance benefits, will the minister give consideration to the use of the facilities at the Canada Manpower Centres in the Toronto area for the issuing of these benefits?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his customary courtesy in giving me notice earlier in the week that he intended to raise this question. The problem, of course, is that because of the rotating strikes we have endeavoured to continue our service to people who normally receive unemployment insurance payments by mail. The choice of the armouries, which may have been an unhappy one as far as conditions are concerned, was predicated upon location and size because of the admittedly large number of unemployed people in the Toronto area. I have taken into consideration the suggestion made by the hon. member that we use other government facilities, namely the Canada Manpower Centres. We have come to the conclusion that they are not large enough. However, as a result of the hon. member's suggestion we are searching in the general area for accommodations that are more suitable and through which the unemployed can receive their unemployment insurance with the dignity to which they are entitled.



HAMILTON-ALLEGED USE OF POSTAL CRISIS AS REASON FOR DELAY IN PROCESSING CLAIMS

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is

the minister in receipt of a telegram from the President of Local 2868, United Steelworkers, in Hamilton to the effect that untold hardship is being experienced by hundreds of employees of International Harvester in Hamilton as a result of the Unemployment Insurance Commission using the postal crisis to delay unemployment insurance claims due to intermittent mass lay-offs? Would the minister look at the Hamilton area in order to ascertain whether it is possible to find some means to get rid of these delays?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter, without accepting the interpretation of the hon. gentleman as to what the telegram contains.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-ACTION TO CLEAR UP BACKLOG OF CLAIMS

Paul St. Pierre: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister advise what action, if any, his department is taking to clear up the very serious backlog of unemployment insurance cases in British Columbia which has arisen from the strike?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we should not at this time attempt to deal with all the provinces and communities of Canada. That would perhaps lead to some difficulty because there are only 40 minutes at our disposal. Perhaps hon. members who have supplementaries along that line would get in touch directly with the minister so that we might make some progress during the question period. I know this is an important matter, but perhaps we should go on to other subjects.


Robert Muir: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I admit that Your Honour's point is well taken but surely, since this matter affects thousands of people, particularly in the metropolitan areas, it should be raised in the House of Commons. The minister has indicated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has asked a question which I realize is important and I believe he received an answer. The hon. member for Hamilton West did the same. We are now reaching British Columbia, and if we worked our way back to Newfoundland we would need more than the 40 minutes at our disposal. In fact, now we have much less time than that.
June 10, 1970


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, if a person is waiting for his cheque this matter becomes very important to him.


George Harris Hees: That is absolutely correct.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. I apologize for not giving him notice but I was unable to reach him by telephone. Since it has now been estimated that 1 milligram of mercury is toxic to the human brain, and since very grave doubts have recently been expressed on the reliability of urine tests to determine the level of mercury in humans who eat a steady diet of fish, will the minister consider resorting to blood tests which are much more accurate?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think this question should be directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. We are working closely with that department, of course. I believe it is dealing with the effects of mercury on human beings. We are confined to fish.


Philip Bernard Rynard: A supplementary question, Mr. speaker. I direct my previous question to the minister's attention and ask whether, since this matter comes within the responsibilities of his department, he will get in touch with that minister and bring an answer back to the House?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might say something further. The level of mercury in fish in Canada is a very small fraction of the level which was found, for example, in Japan where there was an effect on human beings. In other words, the levels in Canada are very safe levels indeed.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. I tried to give him notice of it. Has the minister investigated the incident at Montreal airport where it appears that his officials have seized or detained 140 letters written by American servicemen captured in North Viet Nam to their relatives, 22478-14
Inquiries of the Ministry and other material in the possession of visitors to Canada?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Can the minister give assurance that the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act relating to treasonable or seditious literature will not be employed as a means of censorship of material which expresses a critical view of the continuation of the war in Viet Nam?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary is in the form of an argument or submission. The hon. member will have to assume that it has been noted.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the recent earthquakes in Peru where over 50,000 people lost their lives, can the minister tell the House whether this unfortunate country has asked for Canadian help and whether the government has dispatched relief?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government has received requests and has responded, I think, in a very adequate and generous way. We are also considering further measures to help the people of that country who have suffered such a great disaster.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Fundy-Royal.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, my question has just been answered.


FINANCE
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is he aware of the exceptionally wide spread

June 10, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry between the price that the chartered banks of Canada are paying for United States dollars and the price they are charging when selling United States dollars? If so, what does he propose to do about the situation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the particular incidents to which the hon. member alludes. I will look into the matter.


SHARED-COST PROGRAMS-CONSULTATIONS WITH PROVINCES BY PRESIDENT OF TREASURY BOARD
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the concern expressed at the recent dominion-provincial conference of finance ministers about shared-cost programs, and in view of the answer of the minister on February 18 in the House that the President of the Treasury Board would be consulting the provinces on these matters, can the minister inform the House whether the President of the Treasury Board did consult the provinces; if so, could the minister at his earliest convenience make a statement on the result?
Hen. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):
Mr. Speaker, he has consulted. He again consulted the Ministers of Finance in Winnipeg and a communique was issued. I would be pleased to table it.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sf. Barbs):: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with the right part of Canada now. I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can he indicate whether in his negotiations with the province of Newfoundland to establish a national park in that province there has been any indication of action on the part of the provincial government to withdraw oil exploration rights held by John C. Doyle, which rights are holding up the handing over of the land necessary to establish the park?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware if Mr. Doyle or other people have the right to search for oil in this national park. Government policy is very clear in the matter: no oil exploration is to take place within the limits of national parks.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister not take the word of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe as to the reason for the hold-up? Will the minister use his good offices to try to remove the rights held by John C. Doyle so that our regional development program may get under way as quickly as possible?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has made a submission to the minister. He has to assume it will be taken into account.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the recent tragic and sordid deaths of two young girls, one in Hamilton and one in Montreal, as a result of illegal abortions at the hands of unqualified persons, will the minister reconsider his decision and introduce legislation to take abortion out of the Criminal Code, thus freeing qualified doctors to act in consultation with pregnant women?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I do not take second place to the hon. member in my sympathy for the tragic situations that may arise under the present law, but the position of the government has been stated by the Prime Minister and myself and that is it for the moment.


Erik Nielsen: Is the minister not aware of the position of the western Liberals?


AIRPORTS
Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleion):: department will change the rules governing this airport to prohibit commercial jet flying between midnight and 7 a.m., as is now the case at Dorval and Malton?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, this comes as a complete surprise to me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will make the answer very short by saying that we have not received any complaints. Three of the four runways at Ottawa airport do not extend over residential areas. The fourth will be restricted. We will take a look at the other three. If this situation is going to cause disturbance to my hon. colleague's constituents, we will try our very best to keep it to an absolute minimum.


John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister divert a little of that noise and jet activity to the international airport at Gander?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as long as the hon. member represents that constituency 1 do not think they will need to worry about noise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not aware that the residents of Gander-Twillin-gate, after 21 years, would welcome that kind of noise in Newfoundland?


AIR CANADA
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I wish to ask the Minister of Transport a serious question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: -arising out of his answer yesterday to my supplementary question. I asked the minister the following question:
-would he also see to it that Air Canada comes up with a few extra flights for Edmonton?
The minister replied:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, one each for myself and the hon. member.
I realize that the minister is having trouble with his diet control and may need a private aircraft for his duties, but as a private
22478-14i
Inquiries of the Ministry member who must travel by commercial aircraft and who has had his diet controlled-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: -I am concerned because Edmonton has had a few flights deleted from its schedule. Will the minister please check into the question of service and see what he can do?


FISHERIES
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Will the minister consider a special reference to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry of the matter of the offshore lobster fishery for the purpose of hearing the representations of the fishermen? I understand this matter could be dealt with in a day.


John (Jack) Davis: I would be very glad to hear from
any of the fisheries interests affected. I doubt whether a special reference to the committee would be appropriate at this time.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Bearing in mind the long strike of Rent-a-Car employees at Vancouver International Airport, can the minister indicate what contact he has with this dispute which affects the international airport and tell us what is being done to get those involved in the dispute back to the bargaining table?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member appreciates that this strike is strictly and exclusively under provincial control. The party being struck against happens to be a U-Drive company which is a lessee of ours at Vancouver International Airport. In so far as the strike itself is concerned, we have no jurisdiction whatever. I did authorize limited picketing in the neighbourhood of the accommodation that is leased at the airport. That is the only involvement we have had. I can say that I am advised informally that one of the major U-Drive companies has now agreed to settle with its employees. Hopefully, this will lead to the rest doing the same.
79S4

June 10, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


INFLATION-ELUCIDATION OF SALARY AND WAGE GUIDELINE POLICY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he will, with a view to making a statement within the next day or so, confer with the Prices and Incomes Commission which reports to Parliament through him so that the minister can elucidate, on behalf of the Prices and Incomes Commission, the current guideline policy with regard to salaries and wages and what this policy consists of.
In view of the apparent effort of the government to maintain a 6 per cent guideline in respect of settlements, will the minister elucidate what the policy in fact is, and how the Prices and Incomes Commission proposes to influence the provinces to bring about settlements within a 6 per cent level when the federal government has just approved a settlement of 10 per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the minister should not reply to the question now. He might indicate whether he intends to make a statement to the House in due course.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have read the statement the Minister of Finance made in the House last Monday and the statements by the Prices and Incomes Commission. At the moment I do not see the need for a further statement. I will be happy to table the statements issued by the Prices and Incomes Commission. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition has already read them. I see no need for a further statement today.


MANITOBA CENTENNIAL
Mr. Craig Slewarf (Marquette):: My question to the Secretary of State arises out of the second Arctic and Northern Scout Jamboree being held in Churchill this July to commemorate the centennial of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, with over 500 Boy Scouts from southern Canada in attendance. When this jamboree was held in Yellowknife two years ago, the Secretary of State supplied a travel subsidy for scouts attending. Could the minister advise the House why his department has drastically reduced the travel grant for this year's jamboree, preventing many scouts attending?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the importance of the question asked by the hon. member. I suggest it is the kind of question that can be considered for debate at the time of adjournment.


Mr. Stewart (Marquelle):: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


POLLUTION
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of a press report this morning regarding uranium mines pollution in the Serpent River, can the minister say if tests of fish from that river basin have shown levels of contaminants harmful to people?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there are tests indicating harm to people. However, I have not yet had time to check with my officials on this matter.


MONITORING OF WATERS RECEIVING EFFLUENT DISCHARGES FROM PLANTS USING MERCURY
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Is the Fisheries Department monitoring all those waters in Canada which receive effluent discharges from industrial plants using mercury processes in their operations? If so, how many such monitoring operations are currently under way?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question could well be placed on the Order Paper. I realize it is important. It could perhaps be considered at the time of adjournment.


Randolph Harding: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


SHIPPING
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister been successful in obtaining a replacement for the CN ferry Patrick Morris which sank some time ago?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have received a further report from the team trying to find a vessel in Europe. They have boiled the search
June 10, 1970	COMMONS
down to one vessel. This vessel will require some modifications. Inquiries are now being made to ascertain whether the owners of the vessel are prepared to make those modifications. If they will, I think we will make an arrangement. We should know before the end of the week.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Olson that Bill C-197, to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Horner (p.6719).
Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment to this bill proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot, (Mr. Horner). If the amendment is accepted by the House, it will restore to this bill some semblance of control by our producer groups, primary producers and agriculture in general.
Bill C-197, which is called the omnibus bill on agriculture, is of tremendous importance to the entire agricultural industry. It will affect nearly every segment of agriculture, if the provisions of the bill in their present form are implemented. I am concerned that the minister and members of the government have indicated in this House and to various major commodity groups that the opposition is conducting a filibuster with regard to this bill; that we are preventing the bill going to committee where the amendments can be considered, and that it is our intent to talk out the bill so that it will not become legislation. This is unfortunate indeed. These things have been said only for personal political gain on the part of an individual member, or because of a gross lack of knowledge of parliamentary procedure.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I am not only disturbed but angered that such tactics should be employed in connection with a matter which affects the livelihood of thousands of families engaged in
DEBATES	7985
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill the agricultural business. These are nothing but cheap, contemptible parliamentary tactics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: Let me deal with this accusation of filibustering which hon. members opposite have made. This bill was introduced in the House on March 17. Today is June 10. The government has absolute authority when it comes to bringing business before the House. It can do so whenever it chooses. Responsibility for doing so rests with the government alone. During this time, the minister says, the measure was brought before the House on seven different occasions, on none of which could the government get the bill through second reading stage.
Let me deal with this allegation. On the first occasion the bill was introduced, no debate was permissible. On the second occasion, it was introduced about half an hour before the end of the sitting, so we discussed it for only half an hour. Subsequently, over a period of weeks the government allowed the bill to be discussed in fits and starts. At no time was the opposition allowed to discuss it for more than 3J hours. If my arithmetic is correct, in the period of almost three months during which the measure was brought before the House from time to time, opposition members have been allowed to contribute approximately 12 hours, in total, to the debate, compared with the days and days spent on the omnibus Criminal Code bill dealing with abortion and other matters in which the opposition contributed 17 hours over a nine-week period.
The government talks about a filibuster. On one occasion members of this government filibustered for 26 solid days on the estimates. Now they talk about 12 hours! During those 12 hours we were dealing with a measure which affects 10,000 farm organizations and commodity groups, and 120 marketing agencies. For 12 hours we were dealing with a bill which contains 30 clauses. This works out to something like three minutes a clause -and I would point out that the time I have mentioned was taken up by all three opposition parties. Members opposite call this a filibuster. It is the grossest misrepresentation they have ever tried to put across to these commodity groups.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: The government told them it intended to press forward with this legislation as quickly as possible, but that the opposition
796G	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill were holding it up. They were doing then-best, they said, but the opposition would not allow the bill to go to committee. Well, look at the record. This is the first day upon which the measure has been allowed to come before the House since May 19, almost four weeks ago. We have asked for it both privately and publicly, but the government has refused to bring it forward. Now they bring it in-


An hon. Member:: On a short day.


Harold Warren Danforth: They bring it in on the shortest day of the week and we can only debate it for about hours. There is something else. When they were telling the farm groups that the opposition were holding up this measure, members of the government were well aware that if the bill had been referred to committee on the day it was introduced, it would still not have been possible to act upon it since the committee already had a full program before it. The government had already placed the estimates of two major departments before the committee in addition to the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. They knew full well that consideration of these matters would take up all the time available to the committee in this part of the session.
If the bill goes to the committee this afternoon, the committee will still not be able to work on it; its members are seized with another piece of legislation. We who sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture, aware of the fact that one group alone has proposed 83 amendments to a bill containing 114 clauses, fully realize that it would be impossible for the measure before us to be dealt with immediately-and so would anyone else who was acquainted with parliamentary procedure. Yet the government has the cheek to say, across the nation, "Put the bill in committee and you will have ample opportunity to fix up this measure to suit yourselves." That is utter nonsense. This is why I call the government's action cheap and contemptible. I do so because there are no other adjectives which can describe it.
Members of the government have told the producers-and they have put it in writing- that if the opposition would let this bill go to committee, all their amendments would be favourably considered at the committee stage. They said this knowing full well that since treasury expenditures are involved, amendments which could be entertained in committee are extremely limited in nature. But they did not tell the industry this. They did not tell the industry that on second reading the

DEBATES	June 10, 1970
principle is determined, not at the committee stage. Mr. Speaker, we have had painful experience of the type of bills which come out of committees, particularly committees of this Parliament.
We in the opposition are not trying to tell the agricultural industry the type of legislation it should have, but we are trying to give the industry the opportunity to express itself, to exert some influence with regard to the legislation with which it is to be saddled by the government. We are trying to give agriculture a break. How can we help these people if this kind of misinformation goes out across the nation? Leaders of the commodity groups, who do not have the time to spend on studying parliamentary procedure, of investigating the fine print and the reasons behind the positions taken here, must accept the information given to them at its face value. The information circulated amounts to misrepresentation. I have little patience with Members of Parliament who stoop to shenanigans of this type in exchange for a little political gain.


Mr. Olson:: Then you must be mad at all your colleagues.


Harold Warren Danforth: There has been misrepresentation as to the amendment proposed by my hon. friend. The information given out was that the amendment meant there had to be a referendum among all producers from coast to coast before a marketing board could be set up under this bill. That is utter nonsense. The amendment deals with two principles only. The first is that primary producers should have representation on the boards of directors or on the councils and agencies to be appointed by the government under the terms of this legislation.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Secondly-and this is equally important- the amendment does not state as a principle that we must have a referendum throughout the nation before the bill can be effected. Yet this is the information disseminated by the government. I say it is misinformation, half truths, untruths. This amendment would mean-and every primary producer in the country supports this desire-that agencies would not be brought into being by this government by the stroke of a pen, by Order in Council, on the advice of a civil service bureaucrat appointed by the government. This is not what the producers want. They want a say in whether or not they have a marketing agency.
June 10, 1970	COMMONS
Under the terms of this amendment, which I would commend to all members of the House, no primary producer group could be brought under the control of a government agency unless a referendum were held among the producers of the commodity concerned and a majority of them indicated support. This is a fair procedure; it is democratic; it allows the primary producer, whose livelihood depends upon this measure, to make the decision. I submit there is nothing wrong with this approach.
Already at the provincial level we have marketing agencies which were set up in this very fashion. Under the terms of this amendment commodity groups would not be expected to hold another referendum. They have already made their wishes known, and this is good enough for the members of the opposition. They have indicated that they want an agency, and therefore they should have an agency. Our antipathy to this legislation results from the fact that from the beginning to the end of the measure it is the government agencies, the government appointees, that will make all the major decisions with or without consultation with and consent of the primary producers. We contend this principle is unjust.
These are the two principles behind the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot. I suggest these principles are reasonable and can be easily implemented. Further, they do justice to the primary producers who are asking for help in controlling their product. The amendment would not mean that the producers are told what to do; it would put a noose around the neck of government-appointed decision-makers.
The producers of this nation find it difficult enough to compete in the marketplace, to fight for domestic markets, to fight input costs, to fight rising labour costs and to fight to produce a better product both for the Canadian people and for international markets, without this type of legislation. They have enough battles as it is, without battling government bureaucracy, a government whose help they are asking for in order to combat the marketing trends they are experiencing today. The agricultural producers of this nation are asking the federal government to be their allies, not their enemies. They want to work with government and to have government work with them. They do not want to be directed and told what they can and cannot do. Primary producers in the agribusiness feel they are subjected to enough regimentation as it is. They are looking for a
DEBATES	7967
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill way to protect themselves and improve their lot; they do not want to surrender their right to make decisions. This is our primary objection to the bill. The government today gave an undertaking that it will not throw technical roadblocks in the way of amendments proposed at the committee stage.


Gerald William Baldwin: It took a lot to drag that out of them, too.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, we have been asking for this commitment for weeks. We have asked for it privately and publicly. It is on Hansard. Today the Government House Leader gave this commitment, and I think he gave it seriously.
I know that had the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) been asked to give the same commitment today, he would have given it. We have now had an indication by the government that it will accept amendments at committee stage of the bill and will hear any and all interested parties. If in past weeks the government had been correct in informing agribusiness across the country that the opposition were preventing the bill going to committee, that if the bill were in committee and would be well and amendments would be given serious consideration and the government would present the type of legislation the opposition wanted, is it not strange that the government should say today, "We give an undertaking that we will allow amendments and that we will allow witnesses to appear"?


Mr. Whelan:: We do it in other committees, too.


Gerald William Baldwin: We have seen what you do in your committees.


Mr. Ricard:: You do not accept the reports of committees.


Harold Warren Danforth: I am satisfied that the government is serious about the undertaking it gave Parliament today. I am also satisfied that interested commodity groups will be allowed to make representations. However, I am interested indeed in knowing how the various commodity groups across the nation will be invited to make representations. The task force report indicated-and I am sure this is correct-that there are nearly 10,000 commodity groups, agencies and committees as well as 120 marketing schemes directly affected by Bill C-197.
All members of this House who are engaged in agriculture have been aware for some time that this measure has not been
7968	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill promoted by 100 farm groups, by 50 farm groups or by 1,000 commodity groups. It has been actively promoted by two or three commodity groups and one major farm organization. I do not blame them for it; they face difficulties and we realize that. They have every right to promote such legislation and to seek government support for it. However, the Minister of Agriculture, on the basis of this sort of support for the bill, should not stand in the House and say that this measure is what agriculture has been seeking for years. Let him not tell us that agribusiness has been pressing for this sort of legislation. This, like many other statements we have heard, simply is not true.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
This bill controls all agribusiness such as chemical fertilizer sales, food processing, storage and whatever one buys and sells. All these things come under the terms of the bill. The entire agribusiness of this nation is involved. We are speaking perhaps of a $40 billion business when we take into account all the labour, all the capital investment and all the segments of the industry that are involved in this measure. We are speaking of a tremendous part of Canada's economy. We in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will not allow, if we can prevent it, agriculture to be put in such a confined, legal cage.


An hon. Member:: Straitjacket.


Harold Warren Danforth: Yes, a straitjacket where government directive can control the entire industry. Mr. Speaker, we have seen what government directives can do. Many men seeking employment in the cities, and many families facing hardship such as they have never faced before, find themselves in this position because of directives of this government.
Before I resume my seat I would repeat that it is not the intention of the official opposition in this House to tell the agricultural industry of this nation what it may or may not do. It is our intention to prevent the government doing that. We feel that agricultural businesses combined are in a position, since the livelihood of all those employed in agriculture is involved, to make major decisions concerning the industry and should be left free and unhampered to do so. In this amendment, all we are seeking to do is making certain that those engaged in the production, distribution, sale and storage of agricultural products have an opportunity to decide whether they want a marketing

DEBATES	June 10, 1970
agency and whether they will allow their businesses to come under the farm council which would be set up under this bill. The decision should be theirs. We shall not throw roadblocks in the way of any commodity group having such an agency, provided that is its wish.
Before concluding I should like to point out that under the provisions of this measure, any production monopoly, be it in respect of broilers, eggs or anything else, would be in a nice, comfortable pew because the government by regulation could prevent any other industry starting up in competition and could prevent any young person starting in the business. This measure will be effected on a nation-wide basis. Under the bill the government could control quotas and production. The reason this measure cannot, and never will, give the producers what they want is-as the minister himself said-that we cannot control imports.
When the minister speaks on this bill I should like him to say yes to the following simple questions: First, under the terms of this bill will the government guarantee that the primary producers will receive more for their products? Second, under the terms of this bill will the government guarantee that the input costs of production will not increase? Third, under the terms of this bill will the government agree that imports will not be allowed to take a part of the domestic market which is allocated under a quota system? Fourth, under the terms of this bill will the consumers of Canada, who are tremendously important and are very interested in this measure, obtain the same quality at no greater price? If the minister can answer yes to all these questions, this bill is very different from that which appears to be.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, my contribution to the debate on Bill C-197 to establish a National Farm Products Marketing Council will be very brief. Despite the rather attractive wording of the amendment brought forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), the members of the New Democratic Party will oppose it. I believe, however, we can speak in favour of the general principles of the bill. The form in which the bill will appear when it emerges from the committee is another question. I believe that to be in favour of this amendment would be to be in favour of greater duplication. I have a telegram from the prov-
June 10, 1970

ince of British Columbia which reads in parts as follows:
We do hold plebiscites in this province for marketing boards and therefore see no need for a further plebiscite to see whether or not they are prepared to join a national marketing agency since the provincial authority allows them to contract or deal directly with a national agency.
That is one point of view from my province. Every member of our party who desired to speak on this bill before the amendment was moved has done so. Therefore, I need say only a few words. The important thing is that representatives of the farm organizations and commodity groups be given an opportunity to appear before the Agricultural Committee in order to make their representations. It has been emphasized by other members of our party that we should make certain that the various producer groups and farm organizations have adequate representation on the National Farm Products Marketing Council which is to be instituted. They do not want to be merely part of an advisory body. They want to be part of the decision-making process which affects their livelihood and businesses.
I was particularly interested in the questions asked by the previous speaker at the end of his speech. I think they could be applied equally to any marketing board. I believe these questions have been answered many times, perhaps years ago, because we have seen many marketing boards develop for the benefit not only of consumers but the marketing or commodity groups they represent. I am unhappy that this important bill which was introduced on March 17 and last debated on May 19 was not brought back to the House until June 10. Along with the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth), I think we can be a little suspicious of the priority the government places on the bill and the urgency of this matter. I will follow my own advice at this point and sit down, in the hope that the bill will be referred to committee.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) wishes to make some comments, I wish he would get to his feet.


Eugene Whelan: I have heard enough from other peoples' feet; I do not want to do the same.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: That is where the hon. member makes the best sounds.
DEBATES	7969
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Donald Campbell Jamieson: What makes you think he isn't standing up now?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: If the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) wants to get into the act, let him do so. Mr. Speaker, I expect to speak for only five minutes; I propose to inflict myself upon the House for only that time. I agree with the principle of establishing a marketing board, but I have reservations about the way this one is proposed. Clause 3 of the bill provides;
There shall be a council to be known as the National Farm Products Marketing Council-
The bill goes on to say that it is to be appointed by the Governor in Council and will hold office during pleasure. It also says that the members of an agency shall be appointed by the Governor in Council to hold office at pleasure. This is the provision to which I object most strongly. I object to this paternalistic, Big Brother approach-that so far as the farmers of Canada are concerned Big Brother knows best what is good for them. Big Brother knows who is in, through licensing. Big Brother also will know who is not in, through licensing. Big Brother will know what is in, through licensing, and Big Brother will also know what is out. I suggest there will be more people with briefcases looking after the affairs of our farmers than there will be primary producers.
I do not know why the government could not have agreed many, many days ago to having primary producers on the National Farm Products Marketing Council or on the agencies. Had this been done, it would have avoided all this so-called holdup.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: There is no reference whatever to primary producers in this context of the bill. I have known the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) for a long time and I hold him in high regard. I thought that so long as he held that portfolio there would be representation from primary producers. Why is the government afraid to include this provision as an amendment to the bill? I think the Minister of Agriculture would not object to it, because I have known him so long and I remember what he said on December 12, 1962-


Thomas Miller Bell: I remember that, too.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: -in the House of Commons when speaking during a supply debate
7970	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill in which a similar matter was raised. He said at that time:
For this reason I think any such scheme should be worked out amongst the farmers themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: How times change! I guess your view depends upon where you sit.
I support the amendment which has been brought in by the hon. member tor Crowfoot because it will prevent all the things the Minister of Agriculture was terribly concerned about a number of years ago. I remember something else the minister said. I do not have the quotation here, but he will remember that when there was a slight problem of patronage in the Post Office he became quite eloquent in his condemnation of it. I am not suggesting for one minute that there would be patronage in the appointment of these marketing board people, but there is the possibility that it might happen. Therefore, I think the amendment of the hon. member for Crowfoot is most appropriate. It reads in part:
"this House will not proceed upon a measure to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products where the establishment of such agencies is in the discretion of the government and the appointment of members to such agencies is in the gift and at the pleasure of the government-
Wow! Another matter which concerns me is that decisions will be made for farmers by people with no practical experience, period. They will probably have Ph.Ds. They will be economists, academics, and all the rest. The type of recommendation they will come up with is that which is found on page 8 of "Canadian Agriculture in the Seventies". This is a dandy heading. I hope that some day somebody will be able to explain to me what it means. I will just read this heading:
-Increasing planning and contractual arrangements resulting in backward, forward, horizontal integration.
These are the birds-I use that word advisedly-who will be making decisions for practical farmers, unless the minister gives us assurance that there will be practical people on the boards. I have heard it said that if we had a group of economists laid end to end from B.C. to Newfoundland, we still would not come up with an opinion. I think there is some truth in that.
The preceding speaker said this bill could be amended so far as virtually everything in it was concerned, if only it got to the committee. We know that is not the case, because the government is not bound to make any

DEBATES	June 10, 1970
changes so far as principle is concerned. I know that I speak for many farm organizations when I say we are pleased the minister has given us the assurance that the modifications and amendments which we desire will be included in the bill.
I have here a letter from an organization of Alberta farmers who were sucked in with the misinformation, or whatever it was, that was given out. I know they will now be happy because the mistake has been smoked-out, and witnesses can be called before the committee and, hopefully, the bill can be repaired to such an extent that it will be acceptable. Again I say to the Minister of Agriculture, "Please see to it that there are practical people on these boards so that we do not hear a lot of double-talk; so that, hopefully, this legislation will do a job for the agricultural community and for the consumers".
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty as well as my privilege to speak on Bill C-197, entitled "An Act to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products".
First of all, although I agree with the ideas expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Cote), who represents the Richelieu constituency, I do not appreciate the need for such a bill. In fact, this is what he had to say in the House, on June 4 last, as recorded at page 7761 of Hansard:
Then, as my hon. friend pointed out, the cows will be well looked after. They seem to be doing quite well indeed, because of the government's policy.
So the Parliamentary Secretary to the minister believes that "the cows are well looked after" by the government and that the Canadian agriculture is in good health. This is probably why, as he says himself so well, he felt prompted to sell his cows a few days after the election. I understand him perfectly well because, no doubt, it pays more to have one in Parliament than to have 25 of them in the barn, the way things are going nowadays.
This is perhaps what my hon. friend from Richelieu was referring to when he stated that the cows were well looked after. I do not want to dwell any longer upon the subject and I shall deal then with Bill C-197.
June 10. 1970	COMMONS
The agricultural situation is far from bright, especially in Quebec, whatever the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture thinks about it. And I shall quote a few figures showing that the situation is serious.
At page 11, volume 1349 of the news bulletin published by the Department of Agriculture, the following appears:
Although the general consumer price index shows an increase of 36 per cent between 1948-1952 and 1964-1968, the retail price of food has increased by only 33 per cent. Prices to the farmers have increased only by 9 per cent during that same period.
And further, we can read that in 1948, the average hourly wage which was 92 cents, enabled people to buy 18 large Grade A eggs. In 1968, the average hourly wage which was $2.58, enabled them to buy 59 eggs of the same grade. It is always the same people, i.e. the farmers, who suffer the consequences of an ailing, retrograde economy, with or without planning by the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, etc.
I am convinced that many believe the government helps farmers considerably. Nevertheless, what can make up for the present lack in product marketing? I should now like to quote part of page 2 of the aforementioned bulletin:
Canadian farmers do not receive many subsidies. A comparison with the OECD shows that federal expenditures on behalf of Canadian agriculture (including not only subsidies but all services such as research and inspection) come to an average of about $286 per person actively engaged in agriculture against $1,287 in the United States. The level of Canadian support of agriculture is one of the lowest in the Western world.
We can see from this, that it is senseless to say that the farmers are oversubsidized. Their incomes are no more encouraging as they follow a downward curve. One can read at page 191 of the report presented by the Canadian Agriculture Outlook Conference held in Ottawa on November 24 and 25 last, and I quote:
-the total cash received from the operation of farms in 1969 is supposed to be about $4,290 million, i.e. $100 million less than in 1968.
At page 195 of that same report, it is stated that in 1969, the net profit of farmers amounted to about $425 million, i.e. about 10 per cent less than for 1968. Now, the expenditures have increased by about $117 million. When one has a look at these figures one understands easily that Canadian cows are not so well looked after as the member for Richelieu seems to believe.
DEBATES	7971
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill
To cope with this we have Bill C-197. I approve the establishment of a National Farm Products Marketing Council so long as farmers are able to move freely within that agency.
As I read the bill carefully I found that many clauses could be improved.
Clause 2(d) says that marketing
-includes selling and offering for sale and buying, pricing, assembling, packing, processing, transporting, storing and any other act necessary to prepare the product in a form-
I feel that the government is firmly taking over the whole farm products trade.
Further, under clause 2(e)(iii), we realize that a marketing plan may, and I quote:
-determine the quantity in which and the price, time and place at which the regulated product or any variety, class or grade thereof may be marketed in interprovincial or export trade.
Under those provisions, the government would therefore determine the price, time and place, etc., at which the farm products may be marketed. The farmer would thus become simply a government employee with no freedom whatsoever as to his production.
In addition, only the farmers licensed by the government or the persons appointed by it would be able to go into production, as is provided for in clause 2(e)(v), which reads, in part, as follows:
-a system for the licensing of persons engaged in the growing or production of the regulated product-
Thus, the farmer will no longer be free since everything will be left to the discretion of the authorities appointed by the government.
The government will even be able to ask the farmer for "levies or charges", as stipulated in paragraph (vi) of subclause (e) of clause 2, and I quote:
-the imposition and collection by the appropriate agency of levies or charges from persons engaged in the growing or production of the regulated product-
As to the regulated product, subclause (g) of clause 2 provides the following, and I quote:
-any farm product to the extent that it is grown or produced-
And further on, we read this:
-in any region of Canada designated in the proclamation that authorizes an agency to exercise its powers-
In my opinion, the government is taking over all farm products through the people appointed by it.
June 10, 1970
7972	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill [DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
According to clause 3 of Bill C-197, the members of the National Farm Products Marketing Council are appointed by the governor in council, therefore by the cabinet.
Besides, clause 5 says that the members of the Council become public servants, and so are independent from the farmers to whom they will not have to report at all. Consequently farmers will have no control over the marketing of their products.
Clause 6 says that the object of the act is to maintain and promote an efficient and competitive agriculture industry, which means the complete disappearance of average size or small farms.
The Council is empowered to require persons engaged in production or marketing to register with the agency, to maintain books under the provisions of the three paragraphs of clause 7 (e).
In addition, an inspector of that Council may, under clause 34, enter any place when he reasonably believes that there is a regulated product intended to be marketed and may examine any books, records or other documents in such place.
Pursuant to clauses 36 and 37, every person who violates any provision of this act or fails to comply with a requirement of the Council is guilty of, and I quote:
(a)	an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(b)	an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Mr. Speaker, the bill in its present form will surely be amended in committee, and I propose to attend all its sittings, because I strongly object to its passage. If a vote is taken, I will vote against it, because it must be amended at all costs, otherwise it is a strait-jacket put on the farmers. In my opinion, we should make this bill more democratic.
Instead of the government appointing all those who will implement this act, it would be advisable to divide that Council into three sectors, as my colleague, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), mentioned in the House on April 27 last.
I suggest that there be first, a federal sector; second, a provincial sector, and third, a sector made up by the producers themselves. Each sector would appoint its own representatives and thus have some discretion insofar as the implementation of this bill is concerned. If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) finds it impossible to do that, I urge


him to delegate all his powers to the provinces, as I suggested it to him on June 4 last.
Primary producers groups want to appoint themselves their representatives, or have them appointed by their professional association, in order to ensure the control and the marketing of their products. They have their own set-up and they want their decisions to be carried out through the normal channels, that is, through their association. Every Canadian province has one or several farmers associations. That is why they want to have their own too, being more familiar than anyone with their individual or collective needs. They know better than anyone the cost of every consumer product they want to market. Now, in my opinion, they are better judges than anyone to advise the organization which is to govern them, under bill C-197, regarding the fixing of fair prices.
I feel that when an economic sector as important as agriculture is in a bad way, we should diagnose the trouble so as to remedy it as soon as possible.
I believe that up to now, the federal government has proved its inability to solve adequately the agricultural problem, whatever may think my friend from Richelieu, and I therefore ask the honourable minister once again to extend the scope of Bill C-197 with regard to the representation on the Council, or else to delegate his authority.
As far as I am concerned, the present situation could not be worse. The net subsidies to industrial milk and cream producers in Quebec have been as follows. The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) had addressed the following question to the Minister of Agriculture:
What were the amounts granted to Quebec industrial milk producers for the years 1967, 1968 and 1969?
The answer was as follows:
1.	Net subsidies to manufacturing milk and cream shippers in Quebec were as follows:
1967-	68	$41.2	million1968-	69	$44.4	million1969-	70	(incomplete)	$36.7	million
The second part of the question read as follows:
2.	What amounts were witheld, for marketing surpluses or penalizing for overproduction manufacturing milk producers in Quebec, in the years 1967, 1968 and 1969?
Here is the answer:
2. The following amounts were witheld from the subsidies to pay for the cost of exporting surpluses:
1967-	68	$4.5	million1968-	69	$7.2	million1969-	70	(incomplete)	$13.6	millionJune 10, 1970	COMMONS
There is an increase there. So, we give with one hand and take back with the other, while giving less money from year to year. For instance, in 1968, $36.7 million were paid Quebec producers and in 1970, only $23.1 million, which represents a $13.6 million decrease over a short period, while we tolerate the government in power.
Employees in certain regional offices feel that the farmers would be well advised to sacrifice some personal freedom to protect their interests. However, I do not agree with that. If one must give up one's liberty to live decently in as rich a country as Canada, our government must be sadly lacking.
Therefore, I shall vote against this bill if it is not amended properly with a view to respecting the freedom of the farmers. We are fed up with a regime in which one must be tied like a dog to survive. It is high time someone cut the rope used to tie up the farmers.


Mr. Florian Cote (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture on a point of order.


Florian Côté: Mr. Speaker, it may be that I did not understand clearly but the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) said about clause 2 that a marketing plan may ensure marketing, regulate sales.
As for me, I read:
(e) "marketing plan" means...
I do not know whether my interpretation is wrong or if I misunderstood what was read but if the hon. member really read that, the nature of the bill is completely altered. Could the hon. member repeat what he has in his notes? That would elucidate the matter for me, because it is very important.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, does this have to do with clause 1?


Florian Côté: Mr. Speaker, it is about clause 2(e).


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the parliamentary secretary that I said "may", but I think I should have read "means".


Florian Côté: Indeed, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I think it proper to remind hon. members that
DEBATES	7973
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill on second reading it is forbidden to consider a bill clause by clause and to refer to it as the hon. member for Richmond did in the course of his speech. Concerning this, I should like to quote part of citation 381 in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 4th edition:
On the motion for the second reading, it is out of order to discuss the clauses of the bill.
The appropriate stage for the discussion of a bill clause by clause is the committee stage and not second reading.
The hon. member for Joliette.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy-


Léonel Beaudoin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Léonel Beaudoin: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I thank you for having called me to order. However, I should like to say that I do not want to criticize application forms. Nevertheless it is a rewarding thing to trace something back to its origin, so as to know how to begin a discussion in committee.
* (4:20 p.m.)


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to take a few minutes of the time of the House to express a number of opinions on this undoubtedly questionable and questioned bill, and also on the amendment introduced by a member of our group.
Bill C-197, as all members are already aware, is a very important bill. There is no need for me to say that in principle, we are in favour of the establishment of a marketing agency for farm products. We are certainly in favour of changes likely to bring about improvements by increasing the income of all Canadian farmers. On the other hand, it seems to me that the type of representation provided for within this agency whose members will be appointed by the government is not clear enough.
Several members have emphasized the importance of having the producers represented. I agree with them that this is not only desirable but necessary in the case of an agency entrusted with such heavy responsibilities.
This bill, however, does not say who is going to be appointed. How can we be sure
7974	COMMONS
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill that the members of this agency will be qualified and will really represent every farming group in Canada?
As members of the House, I think it is our duty to require the minister and Parliament to amend this bill in order to ensure the full representation of the various farming associations.
Mr. Speaker, I do not question the good faith of the minister introducing the bill, but is it enough to rely on the good faith of the minister when he might very well happen some day to change his mind?
As for us, we want to be assured that a number of members of this agency, which will have great responsibilities as indicated by the clauses of the bill, will be chosen among the farmers.
I think that the farmers are entitled to that representation so as to ensure that the necessary talents can advise the agency. When the government will realize the significance of that representation, we may expect certain changes to be made during consideration of the bill in committee, so as to ensure the producers of an adequate representation.
It will be pointed out to me that the bill under consideration does not prevent such appointments. I realize the significance-as I said earlier-of the marketing of farm products and I would not want, at some time, to be accused of merely delaying the passage of this legislation.
I believe that it is our duty to require that representation if necessary. By simply relying on this bill, which lacks precision and guarantees, I think that we would be remiss in our duty.
We require these particulars in the best interests of the agricultural community.
My remarks are not intended to delay the passage of this measure. On the contrary, we recognize its merits and we agree with its basic principle.
In view of the importance of this bill, we must admit that the government is taking over complete jurisdiction over agriculture. Recognizing also the importance of agriculture in Canada as well as the difficulties it is facing, it is also obvious that such legislation has to be passed in order to improve the lot of the farmers.
This bill which contains provisions on the official recognition of the farmer, the selection of lands appropriate for certain types of crops and the control of the general production, constitutes the outline of a management

DEBATES	June 10, 1970
policy. I am not saying that it is not necessary today for the government to help in matters of production of these products. As several associations have requested it for a long time, we are asking for the establishment of a Commission or agency that will determine the kind of production most profitable to agriculture and to producers.
However, I wonder why the government would turn down the suggestion that the House give assurances that producers will be represented on the Council or the agency. Why should it refuse? I see no reason for the government continuing to refuse giving us the assurance of such a representation which I consider is necessary in order to maintain better control, at the same time depriving itself of the required information. I repeat that I do not believe these arguments are worthy of discussion in the House.
I prefer to credit hon. members with good faith and believe that the failure to recognize the value of farmer representatives within the council is perhaps an omission. Such participation would be a real enrichment.
The problems are many concerning milk, wheat, vegetables and imports in general, and at times they create great difficulties for our Canadian producers. The council will, I believe, have all the powers required for limitation of imports in certain cases. Thus, production of milk, wheat, or vegetables will become more regular and better directed to the advantage of the Canadian producers.
We all want agriculture to be prosperous. Because of the interest I have for the producers of my riding and for the Canadian producers in general and with the co-operation of all hon. members, I hope that the representatives of the various farm associations of Canada will be allowed to sit on this Council. The government will understand that these suggestions from the opposition are not against the principle of this bill and do not aim at questioning the goodwill of the minister responsible for this bill. On the contrary, we wanted to participate in the drawing up of the bill so that producers may be given the place they are entitled to since they are directly involved.
I imagine that an impartial government would not hesitate to recognize the value of such representation which cannot but help farming and which can also give our producers a sufficient income if it is well thought out.
I shall close my remarks by wishing that all hon. members will understand how important
June 10, 1970	COMMONS
this bill is and to what extent such representation is not only desirable, but also necessary.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: 
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I think it is in order to say once again that this bill is one of the two most important pieces of legislation affecting agriculture which have been presented to Parliament this session. The other bill, of course, was the one to change the grading of grain and deal with other aspects of the grain trade in both eastern and western Canada.
Reference has been made to the amount of time which has been taken to debate this piece of legislation. In my opinion the bill deserves a great deal of debate. After all, it will affect the methods of production and marketing employed in respect of a great many farm products. Also, of course, it will affect the livelihood of many thousands of farmers. So as far as we in this party are concerned, we are not worried about the amount of time which has been taken to discuss the bill. When it gets to the committee we intend to propose changes, the first objec-


tive being to ensure that farmers participate in the decision-making process; that they do not simply act on the direction of government administrators no matter how capable they may be.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
We have received representations from farm groups who wish to use this legislation. The turkey producers marketing board of Saskatchewan have been in touch with me and indicated they want this bill passed in a workable form because they want to use this type of legislation co-operatively with producers in other provinces. We have also received representations from other farm organizations. It is significant that in letters written to other members of this party as well as myself major farm organizations have mentioned repeatedly that the bill should provide for producer participation in decisionmaking. They suggest that the commissioners appointed under the bill be nominated, wherever possible, by farm organizations and producer groups.
One thing about this bill that has surprised me is that no specific provision was included in the original draft for the participation of producers in matters dealing with the operation of the bill, the kind of products it will control and the markets to which produce will be directed. We are moving into an era when this sort of legislation is becoming increasingly important, an era when patterns of production and marketing will progressively be controlled not by individual farmers but by organizations, in some cases not by government but by the industry itself.
I recall that a few years ago some of the big chain stores in Regina decided to buy their eggs from Manitoba instead of from the egg producers close to Regina. As a result, the Regina egg producers who had been supplying these chain stores found they had no retail outlets. Since eggs must be delivered to market quickly and must be fresh, this meant that some egg producers literally were put out of business on, if I remember rightly, two or three weeks' or one month's notice. As the saying goes, they were all dressed up but had nowhere to go.
This is the kind of marketing situation that we have to live with today, and it is the basic reason we want this bill to go to committee. There I hope the government will be prepared to take a hard look at some of the provisions in the bill to ensure that the producers are fully protected. It is not a question simply of
June 10, 1970	COMMONS
protecting the producers by this type of legislation; participation of producers is also involved. If the operations of agencies such as the Canadian Dairy Commission, the Canadian Wheat Board and the Board of Grain Commissioners are out of the reach of the farmer, and the farmer does not take part in the decision-making process, in the absence of two-way communication sooner or later he will regard them as one of his worst enemies even though he may now regard them as his friend.
This situation can only be avoided if individual producers have a working knowledge of the operations of such agencies and how they are trying to assist him. Through this understanding the farmer will be able to take the good with the bad. The nature of marketing activities is such that at times things get a bit rough. Unless there is twoway communication the farmers will run into trouble with the marketing agencies, whatever their stripe, be they government commissions or producers' agencies. Once there is a breakdown in communication and understanding between producer and marketing agency, you are in real trouble.
Those are the thoughts that I wish to express this afternoon. As the bill moves into committee I hope we will be able to work toward meeting our objectives. As I say, I should like those organizations who have written to members of the House saying they are either in favour or against the measure to appear before the committee, state what they like or do not like about the bill and give their reasons. In this way the members of the committee will be able to make a reasoned, value judgment of how we should change the legislation.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). It is a pleasure to follow the previous speaker because he has great experience in farming matters. Before becoming the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar he was president of the Saskatchewan Farm Union and, as I say, he speaks with great authority of farm matters. He has taken a very fair attitude in the debate which has taken a few days to bring it to this stage.
Had the minister wanted to rush this legislation through, it would have been quite simple for him to assure the House which specific amendments would be acceptable or even encouraged in committee. The subject of marketing boards is not new. The Saskatehe-
DEBATES	7977
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill wan Farm Union, the former farm union of Alberta, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and now Unifarm, a combination of these two, are unanimous in saying that uniformity and common sense should be brought to the orderly marketing of farm products.
No farm union-I repeat, no farm union- has ever recommended handing over responsibility for decision-making, consultation and the composition of such boards to a group other than itself. I do not know why any government or minister would suggest in legislation, in this House or in committee that such a program could be foisted on the Canadian people. I am not satisfied with a sort of blanket assurance that everything in committee will be well. We have found from sad experience that the proper time to change the principle of a bill is on second reading when its principle is under discussion. Once the bill is sent to committee, often the government feels that it has a free hand to do what it likes.
I have before me a letter from the president of Unifarm, which represents 30,000 farmers in Alberta, the great bulk of family farmers in that province. In paragraph 4 the letter states:
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Our main concerns are in regard to representation on both the proposed marketing council and the marketing agencies which could be established under it.
The following appears in the previous paragraph:
We understand that desirable changes could be introduced at that stage.
As the former speaker said, and I agree, it is our duty to see that more than pious promises are given. We want to see commitments in black and white. After all, the minister's promises are binding only on himself. We do not know what the vagaries of the summer may bring. We know that Bill C-196 is still before the committee and that Bill C-197 cannot be passed in the few days remaining in this session.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I hope it can.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: A pious hope cannot put it through. The committee is seized with Bill C-196. I understand that the marketing agencies have proposed 87 amendments.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: All members need do is get on with it.

June 10, 1970
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Bill


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: That is quite apart from amendments presented in the House. I cannot deny what the former speaker has said. He has been intimately connected with farm organizations and the problems in respect of grain. He knows that Bill C-196 in its present form is unworkable and it will be some time before it leaves the committee.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not necessarily.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The minister also is aware of this.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We will vote on the amendments as fast as we can.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: We will be happy to see the amendments that come forward, but it will take some time for all the farm organizations to be heard. We want to see orderly marketing established, fair prices instituted and the agricultural industry stabilized. We must be assured of these things. There must be consultation before the boards or agencies are established. There must be proper representation on those boards. There must be a sensible and reasonable appeal from the arbitrary decisions of such boards. The appointees must be independent, whether they are farmers or not, and not mere tools of the government.
There are these four main principles involved. I am sure the letter from the president of Unifarm would have been couched in different terms had he been assured by the minister that these things would be done. I hope that in a few months' time the minister will come back to this House and tell me I am wrong. However, at the moment I do not think the farmers of Canada have been given the assurance they require.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Balileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I do not agree with this amendment. As I understand it, under the BNA Act no provincial marketing agency can be forced to participate in this legislation unless it has the sanction of the provincial government concerned. This is a question we should discuss in the committee, along with other questions. I understand that provincial bodies have the right to vote on whether they will join the marketing agency or whether they will have an agency. If that hurdle were passed, I assume the power to operate under this bill could be delegated. If this is the case, I do not see any need for this amendment. I have very hastily checked this point in the BNA Act. I even spoke to a person who wrote a book about it. If he

knows what he is talking about, the situation is as I have explained it.
When this bill reaches the committee I should like to have some of these points clarified. I am somewhat concerned about how control by the respective boards of the council will apply in all cases. We are all aware that no legislation is better than the government which applies it. I believe that in respect of these boards there should be some control by the producers themselves. I should like to see an amendment to the bill which would ensure that this is the case. Further, I believe producers should have an opportunity to appear before the committee. I realize that the government would like early action to be taken on this bill. I can understand that, but I do not think it would be right to rush such a bill through the House when there are points to be brought forward by the people involved in this matter. I can think of no better example than the hearings just completed in respect of Bill C-196.
For the major part of my adult life I have been involved in the grain business as a farmer, as an interested politician and as a wheat pool delegate. I still learn much about legislation from these hearings. It would seem to me that some of the abstract lawyers who sit in Ottawa and draft bills relating to industry are not always aware of the effect of some of their clauses. For this reason I believe committee hearings are useful. They provide an opportunity for those involved in the industry to present their points of view.
In this connection I should like to refer to the Canadian Wheat Board. This agency seems to be a little unrelated to the marketing situation of the day. It would seem to be, in a sort of vacuum, apart from the situation which exists. The Canadian Wheat Board appears to be separated from the grain producers. I feel that producer representation would be useful on the boards contemplated in the bill in order to ensure that the operations of the boards are related to those who produce the product and to the market in general. I should like to make sure that the agencies to be set up under the National Farm Marketing Products Council will have a close relationship to the people who are to be served.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
June 10, 1970

Division


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
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Anderson	NAYS Messrs : Chretien
Badanai	Clermont
Barnett	Cobbe
Basford	C6te (Richelieu)
Bechard	Cote (Longueuil)
Beer	Crossman
Benjamin	Cullen
Benson	Cyr
Blair	Davis
Blouin	Deachman
Borrie	De Bane
B re win	Douglas
Brown	(Assiniboia)
Burton	Douglas (Nanaimo-
Caccia	Cowichan-The
Cafik	Islands)


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


Mr.   Paul-M. Gervais@Sherbrooke: Mr. Speaker, if the House agrees, I would like to revert to routine proceedings in order to pre-
7980	COMMONS
Aeronautics Act Regulations Bill sent the report of the committee on Bill C-192.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gervais:: Mr. Speaker, in the name of the chairman of the committee, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifteenth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-218, respecting regulations made pursuant to section 4 of the Aeronautics Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Donald Campbell Jamieson: Moved that Bill C-218, respecting regulations made pursuant to section 4 of the Aeronautics Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, be concurred in.


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


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, so far this bill has had a pleasant, even passage. However, one or two things still remain to be said about it. I have a responsibility to take a few minutes of the time of the House to refer to the bill, and possibly to move an amendment.
At first blush the bill looks very simple. There is an amazing story behind this bill. As an amendment to the Aeronautics Act seeks to repair an omission of 16 years and tries to validate in a retroactive manner air regulations which have been passed from time to time since 1954. This is because of an error which has crept in where ministers, probably on the advice of their officials, have enacted these regulations by means of Order in Coun-

DEBATES	June 10. 1970
cil. In section 4 of the Aeronautics Act it is stated that subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, the minister may make regulations. Over this 16-year period a large number of regulations have been enacted by Order in Council, improperly and illegally. I am not here to challenge the necessity and virtue of the regulations; I am here to point out the dangers in adopting this procedure.
We are continually giving the government, at its request and demand, power to act by Order in Council, regulation, decree and ordinance. At the present time there is very little legislative power left in this House. We have seen this situation occur in the electronics media, in broadcasting, and in transportation. The government has supreme power in these two areas; it is omnipotent; it cannot be regulated or controlled. These actions have been the basis of motions in this House which have not had any real effect. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is attempting to take such action, on behalf of the government, with respect to agriculture. It is happening in respect of financial institutions, through the Corporations Act and the investments act.
We are heading into a very dangerous area where all-power will reside in the government. The situation would be bad enough with a good government, but when we have an incompetent, stupid, sawdust-Caesar government making use of this power it is time some of us stood up and called attention to the fact.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: This bill was brought about because in the recent past someone noticed the irregularity and challenged the validity of a regulation. When the matter came to court, a judge decided that the regulation in question was invalid because it had not been dealt with in the proper way. I wish the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) were here. In the face of most complete and meticulous requests by members of this side of the House, that minister saw fit to institute the breathalyzer provisions by amendment to the Criminal Code, without asking the proper precautions. I cannot go any further than that because the matter is now before the courts. These are two examples within recent weeks of the government's acting in a tyrannical and autocratic manner.
This government is out of step. Grave dangers face the people of this country because of the exercise of power such as this. In an attempt to validate all the regulations improperly enacted over the last 16 years, this
June 10, 1970	COMMONS
bill would purport to make them legal and effective retroactively. I understand this action is essential and must be done, because the regulations are there. I assume they are essential regulations and that grave consequences and ill effects will follow if they are not validated. The minister was questioned today about the regulations by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair). I was inclined to tell the hon. member that he did not have to worry, because at this time none of the regulations are valid. However, I thought of my responsibility to the country and decided not to do that. By this apparently simple bill the House is now being asked to make good the defects and deficiencies of past governments and to validate these regulations. I know of nothing that can better illustrate the dangers and evils of giving unrestricted rights to any government in the way of acting by Order in Council and by regulation.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Canada is one of the few Commonwealth countries where no authority resides in the House, where there is no means of examining, scrutinizing and vetting regulations. Machinery for doing so exists in England. I had the opportunity a year and a half ago to be present in Westminster and I was invited by the chairman of the scrutiny committee there, which was dealing with regulations, to be present. It was a revealing and fascinating experience. This committee, which examines regulations such as those now in question, is advised by Sir Robert Speed who is legal counsel to Mr. Speaker. He receives a list of the large numbers of Orders in Council and regulations and these, according to certain rules, must go before the committee. He examines them with regard to their legality and validity-whether or not they have any undue or unexpected effect not contemplated by the legislation. He then makes a report to the committee and the committee meets from time to time in camera to conduct a detailed examination.
On a great many occasions, as I could tell from my examination of the proceedings of the committee, government departments were told: This regulation is not in order. This regulation is retroactive in its effect. This regulation imposes a greater burden than was contemplated by the legislation. You must change them.
We have no such safeguard in this country. Together with other hon. members, I have been attempting for the last year to repair
DEBATES	7981
Aeronautics Act Regulations Bill this serious omission. Finally, last session, we persuaded the government to set up a committee known as the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments. It was a good committee, an all-party committee which toiled very hard examining this issue with the help of expert counsel. It heard a number of witnesses and, in the result, on September 22, 1969, the day before the session began, it brought in a most comprehensive report, one which was greated with loud hosannas by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and others opposite. They said it was the dawn of a new day as far as statutory instruments, regulations and Orders in Council were concerned.
What has happened? The report is gathering dust in some pigeonhole, and this is not because we on this side have not attempted from time to time to push the government into implementing at least part of the proposals. Here we are, a few days away from the termination of this part of the session, and not one thing has been done about it. This is shameful and disgraceful behaviour on the part of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Turn the rascals out.


Gerald William Baldwin: I hear my leader say, "Turn the rascals out". That is the song now being sung in all parts of western Canada whenever a member of the government appears there. The song is, "We'll be glad when you're gone, you rascals you."
I shall read a few extracts from this report to indicate what we had in mind. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), appears to be a reasonable man. I hope he will be prepared to bring pressure to bear on the rather immovable bodies of some of his colleagues. They may be prejudiced so far as I am concerned. I hope he will be the irresistible force.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am the immovable body.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: I would pit the minister against the President of the Privy Council any day. I will read one or two sentences from the preface of the report and from the end.
The report is based on the assumption that public knowledge of governmental activities is the basis of all control of delegated legislation. For parliamentary democracy is a system of government which requires that the executive be responsible to the legislature and that both be ac-
June 10, 1970

Aeronautics Act Regulations Bill
countable to the people, and there can be neither responsibility nor accountability where there is no knowledge of what has been done.
That should be written up on a placard and hung in the Prime Minister's office where he can see it every morning.
Your committee's contention is, therefore, that there should be, as a general rule, public knowledge of the processes of delegated legislation before, during and after the making of regulations, and that any derogation by government from this rule requires justification.
Your committee adopts this position for five reasons. First, the people cannot control their government without knowledge of its actions, nor can Parliament fulfil its role of responsibility with respect to legislation without being fully informed on the operation of those legislative powers which it has delegated to others. Second, the existence of secrecy is likely to lead to popular suspicion of wrongdoing by government-
How right that popular suspicion is, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this government.
-whether or not there is any genuine reason for suspicion. Third, we are living today in a period in which the validity of authority can no longer be taken for granted but must be constantly demonstrated. Governmental systems which do not take this new attitude seriously are apt to find public confidence in them diminishing rapidly. Obviously a continuing demonstration of the justice of the system necessitates an opening of the processes and products of delegated legislation to the light of publicity. Fourth, your committee has been able to find no reason, either theoretical or practical, except the force of tradition, why there should not be publicity in the making of regulations. Canadian governments appear to have remarkably little to hide-
If I had seen that sentence, I would have objected to it.
-and therefore nothing to lose, from openness except their psychological investment in existing practices. Indeed, publicity can have the positive value for administrators of helping them to improve weaknesses in their system. Fifth, since regulations have the force of laws, they should be made by processes which as far as possible approximate the openness of the general legislative process.
I reinforce those words because there is today in many parts of democratic society a feeling that governments must be strong, must be able to act without interference from the legislative branch. This is a myth which was exploded between 1939 and 1945. It is a myth which we in this House would do well to disregard. There can be no efficiency in a government which has freedom to act and regulate in the absence of the wholesome scrutiny which comes from the legislative branch. This is one of the reasons we find ourselves in the situation which causes us so much difficulty today. This is one of the reasons Bill C-218 is before the House.

I shall not discuss all the other recommendations made by the committee, but there can be no excuse for the government failing to implement at least some of the recommendations. One of them involves the selection and appointment of a House Committee on Regulations, together with terms of reference which were set out carefully and particularly. Nobody in this House can have any doubt about the usefulness of these recommendations. Nobody has challenged them. Yet here we are, late in the session, and nothing has been done. It is possible that implementation of some of the other regulations might take time, but I simply fail to understand why no action has been taken to establish this committee. I have discussed this question with some of my friends in the New Democratic Party and the Creditiste Party.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
If the President of the Privy Council had come forward with a motion couched along these lines, incorporating the terms of reference to establish a committee on the basis proposed by the third report of the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments, it would have received unanimous approval and been agreed to without debate. I can only suspect that the government and some of the bureaucrats who buoy them up stand fearful of what would happen if this committee were established.
It is for this reason that I intend to move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan), the following amendment:
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted:
"This House will not proceed upon a measure to validate retroactively Orders in Council of doubtful legality, without obtaining the safeguards and controls which will be brought about by the implementation of the third report of the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments tabled in this House on Wednesday, October 22, 1969."
Before I conclude, let me say that this amendment has been pretty well couched in terms that follow the amendment on which we just voted. Yesterday I had the opportunity of hearing Mr. Speaker commend Your Honour's interpretation of the rules in regard to the amendment which I was unfortunate enough to have ruled unacceptable. Since Your Honour was in the chair when the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) brought in the amendment to Bill C-197 on which we just voted, and since I followed it faithfully except to adapt it as required, I am sure that Your Honour, in light of the great commenda-
June 10, 1970	COMMONS
tion Mr. Speaker made respecting your capacity for understanding the rules, will find it difficult to suggest that this amendment is not in order.
Finally, we have heard a lot recently about the great measure of independence of hon. members opposite. We have heard of great winds blowing from Toronto and from western Canada. Over and over again we have heard the news story that the Liberal party, especially its western branch, will assert its independence; that there must be new changes to the rules of this House to permit members on the government side to express themselves freely and without hindrance. What better chance could they have to do that than this amendment? Certainly I hope the members from western Canada who served with me on the committee will take this opportunity. This is not a non-confidence motion; hon. members cannot hide behind that argument. If hon. members feel there is a case to be made for a greater measure of scrutiny and examination of government regulations and Orders in Council, here is an opportunity for them to back up, by their votes and actions, the talk that we have been hearing.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before Your Honour decides whether or not this amendment is in order I am sure you will want to take into account other factors. Firstly, we are at the report stage of the
bin.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Third reading.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On third reading, that is right; we passed the report stage a few minutes ago. What this amendment calls for is the rejection of the provisions of Bill C-218. I think it is a well-known practice and precedent in this House that a motion, the purpose of which could be achieved by negating the bill, is not in order. This, of course, is the situation here. The motion reads:
This House will not proceed upon a measure to validate-
And so on. The operative words are, "This House will not proceed". The words following differ in different cases. Sometimes the wording is "be not proceeded with for six months", and there are other variations in wording that my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is clever and adept at using. We have to be concerned with the fact that the amendment calls upon this House not to proceed with Bill C-218. As I pointed out at
DEBATES	7983
Aeronautics Act Regulations Bill the outset, if a negative vote on third reading would achieve the same thing as a positive vote on this amendment, the amendment is out of order. I suggest that that is the situation before the House.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I call to Your Honour the wording of the amendment that we have just voted upon, moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). It commenced:
-"this House will not proceed upon a measure to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies"-[DOT]
It then delineated certain principles which indicated why we felt that this should be the case. In other words, we were establishing, not our opposition to the principle of passing the bill but we were setting up a reason without the acceptance of which we would be reluctant to support the bill. It therefore came squarely within the interpretation of a reasoned amendment. In fact, Your Honour did not even ask for argument on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot because it was a valid amendment.
My amendment has simply been shaped and adapted to conform to the particular provisions of this bill, but its principle is precisely the same. Without needing to say anything further, I suggest that this amendment is a reasoned amendment of the type which by tradition and practice for many years has been accepted by the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) rising on a point of order?


Frank Howard: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not think there is a point of order; I just want to speak to the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must say that the hon. member is more convinced of that than I am. Perhaps he would like to enlighten the Chair. I must say I have reservations about the amendment. I would specifically draw the attention of hon. members to the provision to be found at page 572 of May's seventeenth edition, which I would read at this point:
As the debate on the third reading should be confined to the contents of the bill, reasoned amendments which raise matters not included in the provisions of the bill are not permissible.
It seems to me that the amendment not only attaches a condition, which probably by itself would be reason enough not to put it, but it goes beyond the contents of the bill. I am inclined not to put it, despite the very
June 10, 1970

Aeronautics Act Regulations Bill generous and persuasive comments of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). However, I am prepared to hear procedural argument. If there is none, I am prepared to rule definitively now.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would make this proposition. It is now six o'clock. It is not an unreasonable amendment at all. I would be perfectly prepared to withdraw it if I could get a commitment or undertaking. The Minister of Agriculture and the President of the Privy Council have been becoming a little more generous in giving undertakings. If I could receive an undertaking from the government that within a limited time it will implement the provisions of the third report of the Committee on Statutory Instruments, although I would have to consult my colleagues I would be inclined to give serious consideration to withdrawing the amendment. If that is not done, I would have to insist on
Your Honour making a ruling, because I would then have no more faith in the intentions of this government regarding the report of this committee.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, this is another of those instances where the hon. member for Peace River wants to attach conditions that are clearly out of order and which have nothing to do with-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six
o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. In view of the hour I will reserve judgment in case there are some last-minute appeals to sections of May or Beauchesne that I have not consulted. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 11, 1970