1970-04-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion I should like to table copies of the special area agreements between the government of Canada and the provinces of New Brunswick and Newfoundland.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43. The pressing and urgent necessity for such a motion as mentioned in the Standing Order is that there is a serious situation developing because of the announcement by the Canadian Pacific Railway that it intends to reduce by 10 per cent its expenditures on clerical services, which will result in the laying off of several hundred workers. In view of the seriousness of the situation and the dispute that is arising, it seems to me the House will agree that this matter ought to be considered by an appropriate committee. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg): That the action of the Canadian Pacific Railway in announcing a 10 per cent reduction in its clerical services, and the lay-off of several hundred workers that will result therefrom, be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration for consideration and report.


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, a motion under Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous
agreement. The motion posed by the hon. member cannot be put at this time.



RAILWAY ACT


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-207, to amend the Railway Act (Notice of Accidents).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill, an act to amend the Railway Act, notice of railway accidents, I wish to explain its purpose very briefly. The purpose is to make it mandatory that all accidents to equipment or roadbed where the damage exceeds $1,500 must be made public. All accidents reported to the Canadian Transport Commission and which are investigated by that commission will be made public. Nothing will be confidential. Up to this time the commission has not been obligated by law to make public those accidents it has investigated. I suggest that at this time an amendment of this type to the Railway Act is quite appropriate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member can only explain the purpose of the bill. He cannot argue his case.


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


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance whether it is still his target to have the government's proposed tax legislation effective for the year 1970. I ask

April 24, 1970'
Inquiries of the Ministry this question particularly in view of the increasing number of difficulties and complications that are being raised in connection with the white paper proposals.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend is speaking about 1971. I have said it is an objective. It is not necessarily binding. Whether we will be able to meet this objective will depend on the speed with which the white paper is handled by the committees of the House and the Senate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. Can the minister advise the House whether the drafting of this legislation has already commenced or can he assure the House that the drafting of the bill will not be commenced until the parliamentary committee has reported?


Edgar John Benson: To my knowledge the drafting of the bill is not under way.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the minister give the House the assurance that the drafting of the bill will not commence until after the committee has reported?


Edgar John Benson: Until the committees have reported it will be impossible to draft the precise bill because we are going to look at the recommendations of the committees and I suspect, take action of course, on some of those recommendations.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister when we may expect his proposals to overcome the difficulties which he has admitted his white paper proposals will create for small businesses, although when he recognized these difficulties he said he did not have any proposals but hoped somebody else would have. Has he discovered that somebody else has come up with proposals?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, a great many submissions have been received from individuals and organizations and these are presently being studied. As I indicated publicly, I have also asked my department to look into the financial problems of small businesses.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question 
to the Prime Minister. When Dr. Willard, the Deputy Minister of Welfare, made his statement a day or so ago to the Canadian Pension Conference to the effect that the guaranteed annual income was the best solution to our social problems, was he expressing government policy and, if so, may we expect action on a guaranteed annual income at this session of Parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the question cannot be asked in this form. My understanding of the rule is that it is possible to ask the Prime Minister whether a minister in making a statement outside the House was expressing government policy, but I wonder whether this extends to statements made by civil servants. I think the question might be asked directly and responded to in those terms.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether a guaranteed annual income is now government policy?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that all these questions, so far as the government is concerned, seem to hinge on the forthcoming white paper on social policy, will the Prime Minister do his best to expedite the publication of this white paper?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. In light of the expression of opinion that federal observers could have participated in the present Ontario provincial-municipal conference on the allocation of financial and tax resources, is it the intention of the government of Canada to actively encourage the municipalities of Canada, with the co-operation of the provincial governments, to send official representatives to testify before the special committee on the constitution as to the needs of the municipalities in respect of a reallocation of tax and financial resources commensurate with their responsibilities in the years to come?
April 24, 1970


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understand all the implications of the question, but if it is a suggestion that we intervene in municipal affairs I understand this is not the desire at least of the Prime Minister of Ontario. It seems to me the hon. member and the Leader of the Opposition are following a policy of confrontation on this matter.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Prime Minister misunderstood the whole question. My question is: Will there be active encouragement of the municipalities, through their representatives and with the consent of the provinces, to appear before the special committee of Parliament on the constitution in order to discuss the question of reallocation of tax and financial resources to the municipalities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the parliamentary committee on the constitution will be discussing the question of tax resources, at least not at the outset, and the desirability thereof. However, if the provincial governments wished to authorize their municipal people to appear before the parliamentary committee and if the parliamentary committee wanted them to appear, the government certainly would have no objection.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would it be the intention of the government, with the consent of the provinces, to invite the municipalities of Canada to send official representatives to further federal-provincial conferences on fiscal relations and the constitution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have stated before, Mr. Speaker, that at federal-provincial conferences the provinces compose their delegations in the way they want. If they want to include in their delegations municipal representatives they are perfectly able to do so and the federal government, of course, can do nothing else but accept the delegation as composed by the provincial government.



REPORTED STATEMENT ON CAPITAL GAINS TAX ON HOMES

Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister told the Liberal caucus that there will never be a capital gains tax on homes?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that the question as asked is not in order.


Donald Craig Stewart: May I rephrase my question? Was the hon. member for Pro-vencher announcing government policy when he made this statement publicly in Manitoba?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again the ruling made by the Chair a moment ago applies to the question asked by the hon. member. It is not in order in those terms.



POLLUTION


John Leroy Skoberg: My
question is directed to the righ hon. Prime Minister. In view of the number one priority the government of Canada has placed on the environmental problem, paticularly as it pertains to pollution control, and in view of the announcement that Environmental Day will be held in Canada probably some time in October, would the Prime Minister announce this day as a national holiday so that all the people of Canada can join in this wonderful demonstration?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I might tell the House that if I were to announce a national holiday for every important day which is brought to my attention by respected groups across the country we would not work on any day of the year.


Mr. Lewis:: What's wrong with that?


John Leroy Skoberg: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the right hon. Prime Minister recognize the importance of this day and recommend to this House that it be a national holiday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but what about Mothers' Day and Fathers' Day and all these other days?


An hon. Member:: They fall on a Sunday.



BANFF AND JASPER-PROVISION OF SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. When does the gov-

April 24, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry ernment plan to practice what it preaches in respect of pollution by providing Banff and Jasper with sewage treatment and disposal facilities?


Hon. Jean  Chre@: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I have answered that question on several occasions and that works have been undertaken at those two places, in order to correct that condition.



ORDER OF REFERENCE FOR SPECIAL COMMITTEE

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: My question is a related one and it is directed to the House Leader. Does the government intend to give some order of reference to the new pollution committee? Will a meeting of that committee be called, or is its establishment simply a political gesture?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



MONTREAL HARBOUR-THREAT CAUSED BY CYANIDE BARRELS IN WATER

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I have a supplementary question for the Acting Minister of Fisheries, or for the Prime Minister who has some interest in this matter. How serious is the threat of cyanide pollution in Montreal harbour as a consequence of the accident yesterday when several barrels of cyanide fell into the water?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry is today visiting certain areas in respect of mercury pollution. If he is in the area of Montreal I will ask him to look into the other matter.


Mr. Bell:: But it is dangerous for Montreal.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: In view of the fact that the Minister of Fisheries is now in Vancouver on a speaking engagement, could someone else be designated to perform that chore?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will try to put a Jetstar at his disposal.



FINANCE


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: I should like to direct this question to the President of the Privy Council, the House Leader. For six weeks my question No. 1,403 on page 102 has been on the Order Paper. I have requested a reply several times but it has not yet been answered. Now I find that the information concerning at least one province has been released in this morning's Montreal Gazette by the Liberal party caucus.
If it is possible to compile the information for one province, why is it not possible to compile the information for the rest? Obviously, therefore, the government had the information for which I asked in the public interest and refused it to me while releasing it to non-parliamentary persons for partisan purposes. I bring this matter to the attention of the House Leader again and ask that the members of this House be granted equal and proper treatment.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the bulletin to which the hon. member refers is not a government publication. I understand it is made up from information which is available to anyone on demand or which is in public documents. Therefore, if the hon. member wants to have the research people attached to his party compile the information they can do it quite easily from public documents.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister think that a provincial election campaign where separatism is one of the main issues is outside his jurisdiction, beyond his influence, or both?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would not think that a question asked in those terms is acceptable. The hon. member is asking an academic question, or is asking it in academic terms, and I would have some doubts whether it would be acceptable procedurally on that basis.



MANPOWER


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Government House
April 24, 1970

Leader. Would he request his colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, to make a statement on motions at the earliest opportunity next week as to the present state of availability of employment for students during the summer months? I ask this question, Mr. Speaker, because as all hon. members of the House know there is a great demand by students of all ages-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has asked a question. It is not necessary for him to explain why he is asking it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was yesterday that my colleague indicated in response to a question that he would not be in a position to determine the absolute level of employment this summer until the end of the summer was reached, but he did indicate he would be prepared to make available to the House in the near future the measures which the government proposes to undertake to assist student employment. I will bring the hon. member's question to his attention and remind him of the previous answer.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easi):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister now in a position to answer my question relating to the grain elevator at New Westminster, B.C., as to whether the elevator is to be torn down at an approximate cost of $250,000 or will it be repaired at the same approximate cost and thereby be available for grain storage and shipment?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minisier of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have taken
account of the previous question which the hon. member asked me and I provided him with some information. I regret I do not have the subsequent information on the question he asked this morning but I will undertake to get it as fast as I possibly can.



REPORTED REDUCTION OF AUTOMOBILE SAFETY FEATURES BY MANUFACTURER

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs a question relating to a 22218-49
Inquiries of the Ministry report that an automobile company was reducing or eliminating certain safety features in some automobiles in association with a reduction in price, and the minister undertook to bring it to the attention of the Minister of Transport. Can the Minister of Transport give the House any assurance that these reduced safety features will not in fact constitute an additional hazard on the highways, and can he tell the House whether he has investigated this matter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have conducted a preliminary investigation. The facts, as I know them at the moment, are that the so-called reductions are not within the guidelines or regulations which are now being adhered to voluntarily by the industry. As the Leader of the Opposition will know, we are now in the process, as a result of the passing of the highway safety bill a few weeks ago, of drafting new regulations. I can assure the House that in those regulations will be all the necessary safeguards, and if it should happen that some of these co-called withdrawals do not conform with the regulations we will see that the regulations are enforced.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's statement that some of these changes will reduce the safety factor below what the regulations will permit, can the minister give us a firm date on which these regulations will become effective?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I said they had gone below what the regulations permit because we are not sure at the moment whether they are below. In so far as the date for proclamation of the regulation is concerned, the technical details are complex but we have undertaken to have them out within the next two months and I would think the announcement will likely come within the next six weeks.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister had an opportunity to inquire whether the direction to reduce these safety features came from the head office in the United States? If so, is this a matter of concern to the minister and is any action to be taken in regard to it?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of where the so-called instructions originated. I should emphasize, however, that the major one that appears to be of concern in some models and in a limited number of

April 24, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry cars is the retractable seat belt rather than the one that simply lies across the seat. They have removed the device which caused the safety belt to retract. We are trying to determine whether this constitutes a reduction in its safety value.



ENFORCEMENT OF NEW AUTOMOBILE SAFETY REGULATIONS

John Leroy Skoberg: I have a question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister give some assurance to the House that the 30 regulations he indicated to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications will be enforced when he proclaims them?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Just to amplify what I said, as I am sure the hon. member knows the technical standards, which are very complex, are now being drawn. I have said the very outside figure is two months but I think they will be ready in six weeks. We will be publishing them as fast as we can and proclaiming the act simultaneously.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Since the new dairy policy will compel some milk producers to sell their herd, is the minister in a position to tell us whether he will soon introduce a subsidy policy for each milch-cow sold for slaughtering purposes?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker. We do not have any such policy under consideration at the present time.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Rod Thomson (Bafileford-Kindersley):: I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker, who recently appointed a commission to investigate suicides in Canada's penitentiaries. When may we expect the report of this commission?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General did not IMr. Jamieson.]
appoint any such commission. I take it the hon. member has not read the answer to the question which was given a few days ago and which explains the situation rather fully.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darfmoulh-Halifax East):: I have a question arising from one asked by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East two weeks ago today, Mr. Speaker, concerning the operation of unlicensed flying training schools. At that time the minister indicated that he would propose new regulations. Could he indicate to the House when they will be ready? Also, can the minister state whether subsequent investigations have revealed any cause for concern about safety in the air around our major airports as a result of unlicensed flying operations?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: On the second part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there is any untoward or special danger. I have met with some groups, including the Air Transport Association. Without going into detail, which I am sure you would not permit, Mr. Speaker, it is quite a complicated job to ensure that the so-called bootlegging over licensed routes can be restrained. We are trying to find a simple formula, and I can only say that I hope to have it within a matter of weeks. I have been talking to the CTC about this matter as well.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Assiniboia has a supplementary to a previous question.



TRANSPORT


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question to one previously asked of the Minister of Transport. Since it appears that the railways are falling far short of the agreed target of moving nearly 1,300 carloads of grain daily to Thunder Bay, is the minister now prepared to appoint a boxcar controller for western Canada?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: We asked for that a year ago.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated on many previous occasions in the House, my
April 24, 1970

responsibility in this matter is to convey these representations to the railways, which I do on each occasion they are brought to my attention. Perhaps the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board might have a more complete answer.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-AVAILABILITY OF REGULATIONS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskafoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the planting season is rapidly approaching and that farmers will be seeding within the next week or so, can the minister inform the House when the regulations for operation LIFT will be in the hands of the farmers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Very soon, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On April 8 I asked if he would indicate his department's position with regard to the establishment of a national park in view of the white paper produced by the province of Newfoundland and he said he would give me an answer as soon as he had studied it. Would the minister now be prepared to give his views?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we have considered that problem and our position in the matter is always the same, it has not changed for two or three years. We are waiting for Newfoundland to decide which area it can make available to the federal government for the development of a second national park in that province.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Solicitor General if the government is now giving consideration to overtime pay for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
Inquiries of the Ministry


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, that question was raised by way of a suggestion in the standing committee of the House of Commons which was examining the estimates.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, as the member who raised the question there I am asking the Solicitor General for a direct answer. Is the government giving consideration to overtime pay for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, when the committee completes its work and reports back to the House the government will consider all the matters that have come before it.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the government considering the appointment of a western representative to the Canadian Dairy Commission to replace Mr. L. A. Atkinson, the western representative who retired recently?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there are no vacancies on the Canadian Dairy Commission at the present time.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the growing concentration of the dairy industry in Ontario and Quebec, is it the government's policy to eliminate dairy farms on the prairies?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the major lay-offs of employees at the Dunlop Tire plant and the Canadian General Electric plant, their allegation that foreign imports caused these shutdowns and also their refusal to participate in a feasibility study, would the minister consider legislation covering companies under federal jurisdiction that would set up machinery whereby companies would have to go through the process of a feasibility study and also would have to give adequate notice before shutting down?

April 24, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce): This would certainly not be my immediate responsibility, Mr. Speaker, but the subject is very much in the minds of many people at all levels of government at this time.



FINANCE


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Now that the so-called budget has passed the House almost unnoticed, can the minister state whether he has had meetings with representatives from the credit industry as intimated in the budget, and can he state if he will definitely be keeping to his timetable of new legislation in six or eight weeks?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, consultations with people in the credit business have been going on since the budget was announced in the House and the legislation is presently under preparation. I cannot give the exact date when it will be introduced in the House.



ASSURANCE TO SMALL BUSINESSMEN RESPECTING METHOD OF TAXATION

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, while I would not expect the Minister of Finance to give a general outline of those portions of the white paper on tax reform which from time to time he advises are going to be diminished, altered, or abrogated in whole or in part, I would ask him that in view of the serious blows suffered by small businessmen in Canada, would he give them the assurance that there will be no reduction in the amount now in effect in respect of profits on which the lowest rate of tax applies? If he would do that he would do a great deal for small business across Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Anything else?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the white paper is presently before a parliamentary committee. In due course I hope we will receive recommendations from that committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister why he is so diffident about this matter that affects the bulk of business across Canada when from time to time he utters ex 
parte statements as to alterations are going to be made. Why does the minister not come clean?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Why does the minister not come clean?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Come on there, Hoot
Gibson.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that his officials are still discussing, I believe, with the city of Toronto, Metro Toronto, and other groups the proposed jet airport in the southern part of the city of Toronto, would he give an undertaking that no project of this sort will be proceeded with without the approval of the elected municipal representatives?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think there is some misunderstanding with regard to the report which was published, today, I believe. I reiterate my statement of some months ago that there is no intention whatever of establishing a large so-called international airport on the lakefront in Toronto. What is being examined is the possibility of what is known as an intercity type of airport, and this would involve the kinds of runways which were dealt with in the story. I want to assure the hon. member, through you, Mr. Speaker, that in so far as the Department of Transport is concerned we are perfectly willing to make full disclosure of our plans with regard to this project and to consult with all levels of government to the extent that we can obtain their co-operation to do so.



RESEARCH


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, may I answer a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition last week. With respect to the use of surface effect vehicles in the north, which it has been announced the United States now intends to investigate, I
April 24, 1970

may say that Canada has for some time been carrying out research on the use of these vehicles in the north. Because of the possibility of general applicability we would naturally welcome any development work the United States authorities may carry out along these lines in their territory.
I should also like to say a word about the broader subject of Arctic research. The responsible departments have, of course, been engaged in a considerable amount of such activities for many years. There has been no direct consultation with representatives of the U.S. government concerning the proposed U.S. program of research in the fields of Arctic environment and resources. However it may be of interest that this coming weekend an inter-disciplinary group of United States research scientists will visit Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the minister realizes he cannot make this kind of statement without reverting to motions. Is it agreed that we revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no such agreement and the minister cannot reply to the question in that way.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I had almost finished, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must be a mind reader because I was about to rise to try to catch your attention, Mr. Speaker, and ask the Prime Minister if he could now answer the question I asked last week relating to the announced intention of the United States to carry out certain projects of a research or experimental nature in the Arctic and whether there have been communications from the United States or discussions as to the area in the north in which these United States activities would take place. Can the Prime Minister say whether there have been any such discussions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything to what the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had just begun to state in the House. He may wish to add something.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Chretien: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that there will be a conference this weekend with United States scientists. We will always welcome exchanges with United States officials, but there are no official discussions taking place with the U.S. government about this matter at this time.



POLLUTION


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister would be prepared to agree to what I am about to request in view of the obvious desire of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to make a full statement on this matter that is of concern to him. I ask the Prime Minister whether he or some other minister who may be considered more appropriate would on an early occasion make a full statement as to the measures the government of Canada proposes to take with regard to the enforcement of the anti-pollution provisions incorporated in Bill C-202?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister to consider this.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, with all respect, may I suggest to the Prime Minister that it is the responsibility of the government as a whole to make this statement, since it seems to involve the operations of several departments of government.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister indicate the impact made upon our defence program as a result of cracks which have been found in the foils of our experimental hydrofoil ship? Also, when does he contemplate that this prototype will be operational?


Mr. Fairweather:: In 1984.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there is an element of that question which is highly speculative. I cannot say what impact it would have on the

April 24, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry stature of our national defence but I can say so far as the experiments are concerned, and my information may not be quite up to date, that I think this erosion problem has been solved. We are to complete the experiments in heavy seas. After that, of course, the fundamental decision will be, where do we go from there?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the cost of this project, which was originally $9 million, has now risen to some $52 million, can the minister indicate what will be the estimated cost of these additional repairs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps that supplementary might be placed on the Order Paper or, if there is urgency, it can be considered at the time of adjournment.



TRANSPORT


Mr. John Burlon (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has a decision been reached on representations by the city of Regina and the province of Saskatchewan for federal assistance on a rail line relocation plan for the city of Regina?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, a number of negotiations are under way simultaneously with regard to the relationship between the city of Regina and my department. We have turned back to the city a considerable amount of land near the airport. We have also agreed-if the hon. member will allow me to finish I will give him the answer to his question-to mutual arbitration with regard to the value of additional land. With regard to relocation, this is also part of the over-all negotiating package, and when all three matters are resolved, I hope the answer will be satisfactory to the city of Regina.


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government considering legislative changes that would enable or facilitate the federal government to make a more adequate contribution to rail line relocation projects such as those proposed by the city of Regina and, I believe, by the city of Winnipeg as well?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: And by about 25 other cities, Mr. Speaker.
(Mr. Cadieux (Labelle) .1


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: We are trying to find a formula that will cover them all.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforih (Keni-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. The importance of the matter arises from the season of the year. Can the minister indicate if any progress at all is being made in his negotiations to reduce the Canadian farm machinery prices of major companies now operating in Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I could not give details of that progress on this occasion. I have made statements outside the House, where I had a little more time, and indicated what steps have been taken.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate whether he feels that sufficient progress is being made to bring about some final conclusion of the matter within the next week or two?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question as asked is in order. The hon. member is simply asking the minister to express an opinion. That is not an acceptable question.



URANIUM


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether the regulations covering the policy with regard to ownership of uranium products and uranium companies are yet ready. If not, when may we expect them?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minisier of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, they are not yet ready but we are working on them as quickly as possible. I hope we will have the regulations very shortly.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister what purpose there is in the meetings which are reportedly being held between him and Mr. Roman, the president of Denison Mines, at this time? What role are these meetings playing?
April 24, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	6255
Inquiries of the Ministry


John James Greene: I do not have any meetings Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury
scheduled with Mr. Roman at this time, Mr. Board): As yet we have not completed the Speaker.	fleshing out of the plan in respect of the
drivers or mechanical equipment.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. What action is his department taking to assist servicemen who must now support an added burden amounting to about $4.5 million in extra rent charges? Is he aware, too, that civilian landlords are alleged to be charging servicemen greatly increased rents following the increase in rents for permanent married quarters?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I cannot talk about that allegation, but as far as servicemen's rents are concerned this question has been under study for some time. We are now proceeding as easily as we can; we have delayed implementation of the recommendation from Treasury Board by about a year. We are going by what we call a weighted national average in determining these rents, but we have made sure that in no instance will a serviceman have to pay a rent which would amount to more than a quarter of his earnings. I believe the phasing-in of this plan is not unfair; it relates to economic realities.


John Angus MacLean: Would the minister seek assistance from his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, if necessary, to make sure that civilian landlords are not taking undue advantage of servicemen where sufficient permanent married quarters are not available on bases?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I am grateful for that recommendation to my colleague and I hope he has noted it.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: My
question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. Can the hon. gentleman advise us whether sufficient trucks and drivers have been secured for the delivery of mail in Montreal? Further, can we be told when the government expects mail delivery to return to normal in that city?


An hon. Member:: Flushing out?


Mr. Drury:: I hope progress in an orderly way is being made. I would hesitate to attempt to forecast a date when there will be a complete return to normal conditions.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I thought at the beginning it was rather thin. Could the minister now tell the House how many drivers are employed? Can he give us an interim report?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think the number of new men is approximately 200 but I would want to check that figure and correct it if necessary.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Bearing in mind that this week, across the United States, an extremely useful traffic safety measure is being undertaken by the observance of National School Bus Safety Week, would the minister consider encouraging public support of a similar effort in our country?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to give all the support I could to a National School Bus Safety Week.


An hon. Member:: A holiday?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would not make it a holiday because of the added pollution as they threw more beer cans in the sides of the lakes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: School children?


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Who knows? I should like to say that early in May, since all members like to stay in Ottawa on Saturdays, I am inviting all the school safety patrols in Ottawa to attend a special safety parade on Parliament Hill. I hope you will all stay around and help us celebrate.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Order. Is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development rising on a point of order?
625S
Canada Shipping Act [Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I would ask for the forbearance of the House so that I may reply briefly to an important question put to me last week by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). It is a short answer, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister does not have unanimous consent to reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North. Perhaps the minister might reply next week.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They do not want information.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-10, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Louis-Roland Comeau: That Bill C-10, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, be amended by deleting the words "designated by the minister" at lines 21 and 22, page 1 thereof.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have already spoken on second reading of this bill and I made representations to the committee while the committee was studying this question. The amendment is very simple and it will not take long to explain once more. The situation is this. At present, the Canada Shipping Act provides that a sick mariner can only be treated by a designated medical practitioner. I have argued that the words "designated medical practitioner" must surely be out of date by now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Roland Comeau: These appointments were, surely, made several years ago; they were probably political appointments. This might have been the reason for improving wording of the kind we find in the bill, but at this point I suggest that any medical practitioner should be allowed to treat sick mariners coming off their ships.

April 24, 1970
There is one example I can give-I will repeat it, because I have cited it before. I have in mind the case of a sick mariner who lives maybe 50 miles from port. He goes ashore sick and he is treated by a doctor. We should remember that when he lands at the port he can be treated only by a designated medical doctor. When he reaches his home, 50 miles away, he is unable to receive further treatment under the Canada Shipping Act because the port practitioner is obviously reluctant to travel 50 miles to treat him. I say that any doctor should be allowed to treat these sick mariners wherever they live and that the phrase, "designated by the minister" should be eliminated.
[DOT] (12 noon)
I know what the Parliamentary Secretary will say in his reply. He will tell us that the bill is to be erased from the statute books within a few months. That is right. The government is proposing that when the medicare legislation comes into effect in all the provinces, this provision under the Canada Shipping Act will not apply. The mariners will be treated under the medicare plans of the various provinces. But this is not the point. The federal government is reneging on its responsibility in this connection. This is a responsibility which the government has accepted, historically. Now, it is simply passing on 50 per cent of the cost to the provinces. The federal government is saying that it will cover only 50 per cent of the cost of the service through its 50 per cent share in medicare. By making only a 50 per cent contribution they are reneging on their responsibility, since at present they pay 100 per cent of the cost of treatment.
This amendment is straightforward and simple. I contend that sick mariners should be treated by any doctor, regardless of port. I will have some things to say on the other amendments.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member who has just introduced this amendment is concerned about what is apparently an administrative practice in that part of the country he represents. If the situation there, as he has outlined it, is indeed the fact, then I am in full sympathy with his attempt to eliminate the practice. But I suggest that it is an administrative practice and, therefore it is not necessary to alter the law.
With regard to how this particular part of the law operates in the part of the country

April 24, 1970

from which I come-and I have done a little checking into this since the matter was raised by the hon. member in committee-the idea of designating a physician is simply, as I understand it, to ensure that a physician is prepared to act to treat sick mariners in emergency cases. This does not in any way limit the right of the sick mariner to enjoy the services of the physician of his choice.
In one of the ports in my constituency where I checked into this matter it was made quite clear to me that the customs officer is free, if the particular physician who has been designated is not available at the time, to call upon another physician to attend the emergency. There is an arrangement made to have some physician there, at least on a standby basis, to treat sick mariners as required.
While I have every sympathy with the desire of the hon. member to eliminate any form of patronage appointments as far as the provision of medical services is concerned, it is for this reason that I do not feel I can support his amendment, which I think is really unnecessary. I think it is really a question of this member and other members, from that part of the country whom I noticed applauding him conducting a bit of a campaign to straighten out what may be an unfortunate administrative hangover from the past.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments in support of this amendment. It has long been a principle in this country that people should be entitled to treatment by any physician they choose.


Mr. Pepin:: Especially since 1963.


Paul Yewchuk: This amendment simply reiterates this principle of free choice of physician. It is a good principle and I think it should be supported.
I suppose the government's objection to it may well be an economic one. Perhaps the government thinks it will cost less if a designated physician at the port provides what could be determined as initial treatment or an emergency service. If the citizen of another country is ill while the ship is in port and urgently requires medical treatment there should be a physician near the port to render such treatment. If the situation were such that the citizen lived some distance away from the physician and might require continued treatment of his illness for a month or so, he would no longer receive the coverage 22218-50
Canada Shipping Act
he received for the physician who looked after him at the port. There is much to be said against changing doctors in the middle of the treatment of an illness. As it stands now, the bill almost automatically requires that one physician commence treatment and another physician continue treatment for the duration of the illness.
The suggestion contained in the amendment is an extremely reasonable one and is in keeping with the democratic principle of freedom of choice, in this case of physician. Certainly it would be in keeping with our interpretation of a just society. I know this has now become an undesirable term for the government to use, and over the past few weeks government members have declined to use it. Nevertheless, we must keep it at the back of our minds because a lot of people supported the concept at one time.


Louis-Roland Comeau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the parliamentary secretary no1 going to respond and explain whether or not the amendment is acceptable to the government?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank all hon. members of the House and of the standing committee who have shown interest in Bill C-10. The government has tried to be as sympathetic as it can to all of their suggestions.
May I again state in this House that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) did instruct me to bring at the committee hearings on this bill an amendment along the line the committee members requested. It relates to clause 4 of Bill C-10, allowing mariners insured under the bill to obtain drugs at the cost of the insurer.
As far as the first amendment submitted by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) in connection with designated physicians is concerned, may I say in answer that treatment by a designated physician, or in large ports at a government operated clinic located on the waterfront, is provided for by the internal regulations and has been found to be satisfactory. Since the purpose of Bill C-10 is to phase out the provisions in Part V of the Canada Shipping Act as they become redundant for residents of Canadian provinces that introduced medical care insurance plans, there is no intention of increasing benefits in the last few months to the service that is being provided already. The depart-

April 24, 1970
Canada Shipping Act
ment designates physicians who become agents of the government and, therefore, responsible to it for carrying out the intent of the act, and also become responsible to the government as far as financial requirements and other procedures are concerned.
Without designation there would, in the view of the department, be no such responsibility to the federal government. Therefore, a totally new set of regulations would be necessary in order to establish procedures and standards to implement the act. Completely different arrangements would be necessary, and there is no intention of altering the existing arrangements to provide a completely different type of service during this phase-out exercise.
In most instances foreign sailors in large ports would not have sufficient knowledge of local physicians, for example, to make a logical choice of doctor. In the small ports where the majority of people treated are local residents, it has been customary to designate several port physicians, provided the physicians signify a willingness to do the work which is required by the government regulations.
[DOT] (12.10 p.m.)


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Comeau) negatived.


Louis-Roland Comeau: That Bill C-10, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, be amended by striking out lines 26 to 30, both inclusive at page 1, and lines 1 to 4,

both inclusive at page 2 thereof, and substituting therefor the following: "(c) 'port' means any port in Canada."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is also a very simple and straightforward amendment. I have already made my argument. Hon. members can read the evidence of the committee or my speech made on second reading. Port, as it is now designated in Bill C-10 means:
-any port in
(i)	the Province of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia or Newfoundland,
(ii)	the Province of Manitoba on Hudson Bay, and
(iii)	the Province of Ontario on Hudson Bay or James Bay.
In my opinion that definition is almost ridiculous. I realize that the government does not want to increase these benefits because they want to phase out part V of the Canada Shipping Act. I will argue this later.
The point I wish to make is that the definition of "port", as contained in Bill C-10, has not been changed from what it was in the old regulations under part V of the Canada Shipping Act. For example, it does not take note of recent developments in the Arctic where we will soon have ports. There is nothing in this bill to cover the situation of a ship docking in an Arctic port. The same applies to the Great Lakes. Also, I do not think the Yukon is covered.
My amendment is very simple and straightforward. It simply says "any port". If my other amendment had been agreed to, it would have covered any doctor. This change would have been very simple and logical. If someone became sick, he would simply have to forward the medical bill to the government agency. There would be no complications. I repeat, this amendment is very straightforward. I hope the government will accept it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had framed the amendment to cover the prospect of the development of seacoast ports on our Arctic shores, I would have been quite prepared to support him. I agreed with him when he raised this question in committee. I think this is something the government should certainly have in mind.
The act, as presently drafted, is designed to cover the seacoast ports of Canada and the operation of agreements covering sick mariners. As far as I can see, such agreements are unnecessary except in the seacoast ports of
April 24, 1970

Canada. I wish to point out that there are a good many other ports in Canada. For example, there is a port in the city of Winnipeg on the Bed River. An agreement covering sick mariners would not be applicable to such a port. As matters stand, the port of Churchill in Manitoba is covered. In addition, any Ontario ports on salt water are covered.
As the hon. member has drafted his amendment, I do not feel it would be an entirely practical arrangement. While I appreciate the hon. member's motives in proposing this amendment, I regretfully do not feel I can support it as it stands.


J. Michael Forrestall: I wish to make one further observation, Mr. Speaker. I think distinguishing between ports, as to whether they are fresh water or salt water ports, is highly irrelevant in terms of the matter now before us. I urge the government to give some consideration to this amendment because the question of a sick mariner is indeed important, particularly to the poor mariner who is the one most directly affected. If a sick man happens to be on a ship, it does not matter very much whether that ship is tied up at a fresh water port or a salt water port. The fact of the matter is that, invariably, he will be away from his home and family physician. Usually, he will not have community contacts so will not know the specialists in the area. All these circumstances would tend to create difficulties.
I suggest there will be administrative difficulties within the departments concerned, both federal and provincial. The acceptance of this simple amendment would go far to remove that type of difficulty. I urge the government to accept the amendment. As the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) pointed out, it is a very simple one.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and views expressed by hon. members with regard to this particular amendment. However, as I stated in this House during the debate on second reading of this bill, the entire Canada Shipping Act is being thoroughly studied. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) has said that many amendments will be proposed to the Canada Shipping Act which may have to do with some of the points raised by hon. members. In view of this, it is the opinion of the department that we should keep the designated ports intact as at present.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
22218-50J
Canada Shipping Act


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Comeau) negatived.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that Bill C-10, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Carr Munro: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I again rise. I am sorry to take the time of the House. I like these Fridays, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I am the only one who is really interested in this bill because I do represent salt water fishermen and the bill was presented by a minister from a fresh water area. What struck me quite funny was the fact that I had an amendment similar to the amendment brought in by the department. In fact, I submitted my amendment to the Clerk yesterday and was advised that because it was exactly the same as the departmental amendment it should be retracted. I did, therefore, retract it. I must say I take a little credit for the amendment which is now on the books. My amendment was stolen, Mr. Speaker.
The point which was made on second reading and also twice today is that Part V of the Canada Shipping Act is to be phased out. It has been, and still is, my argument that in this case the government is simply reneging on some of its responsibilities because, as I say, the government has had a long-standing and historic responsibility to provide medical assistance to sick mariners. Now, the government wishes to eliminate the provision in respect of free drugs. The bill fails to provide for the care of foreign fishermen. This is something which historically we have always done. Several provinces in which medicare is

April 24, 1970
Canada Shipping Act
not yet in force will be particularly affected by this bill. We hear that New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Quebec will enter the plan, but at present only the province of Nova Scotia in the Atlantic area is in the medicare plan.
Provinces which have medicare plans, because of the discontinuance of Part V of the Canada Shipping Act, are being forced to assume almost half the medical costs of a group of people in respect of whom the federal government formerly paid 100 per cent of the cost of assistance. Now, under this bill, the services are to be provided to fishermen under the medical care plans of the various provinces and the provinces will have to pay 50 per cent of the cost of such services, which traditionally were a federal responsibility. It would seem to me that the provinces probably will have enough difficulty trying to provide hospital facilities under this increased responsibility. This is another example of the federal government simply passing on the responsibility to the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Roland Comeau: This is true. If the minister wishes to argue this point, I shall be glad to hear him. As I pointed out in respect of Canadian fishing vessels, practically all the fishermen have taken advantage of the services provided. Because of the high crew per ton ratio on fishing boats there has probably been an abuse of the services provided in respect of this inexpensive medical care, free drugs and so on. In some instances, fishermen probably place their entire families on the crew list in order that they may qualify for medical care. I agree that something should be done to correct that situation.
The amendments in Bill C-10 provide that service to sick mariners will not include any service to which any fisherman is entitled under a medical care plan. The department's main contention is that this service to sick mariners will be redundant if medicare is also available in the province. Under Bill C-10 there will be one major change. Whereas previously fishermen received free drugs under this program, this no longer is to be the situation other than those drugs administered directly to the sick mariner by a designated medical practitioner. This again is something about which I suppose I cannot do anything at this late date, although I have tried. It seems to me we are decreasing a service which traditionally has been provided to these people. The Canadian crews of coast-
al vessels have received this service in the past although I understand it has constituted only a small part of the program. The result of the amendments in Bill C-10 is to eliminate the service to sick mariners as medicare is implemented by the provinces.
However, there are many provinces which still have not signed an agreement under the medical care act. These include British Columbia as well as the Atlantic provinces to which I referred a moment ago. The result of this bill, therefore, will be that the service to sick mariners will be completely phased out. Departmental officials expect that existing clinics in certain ports will be phased out over the next year or so. But to my mind they are bound by international agreement to maintain a service for sick mariners in cases involving such things as venereal disease. I hope this service will be continued.
In the case of foreign vessels, the department argues that even though this aspect of the service makes money it is no longer required for modern shipping. This probably is a valid argument. However, although most shipping lines take adequate care of their crews and maintain adequate insurance policies, there is no guarantee that all ships will do this. It is still possible that the owner of a small shipping line or of an unaffiliated tramp steamer would prefer to abandon a sick crew member rather than care for him. I realize such occurrences have been few during the past century and that probably there is a valid point in saying that the service is not needed. However, there is no assurance that such situations will not occur again. In such cases the municipal or provincial authorities would be responsible for the sick man's expenses. There would be no way to collect from the ship owner. Therefore, because this possibility exists, and because federal involvement in this area over a century implies an historic obligation, I submit a case can still be made for a residual guarantee of federal responsibility.
One might accept a federal withdrawal from this service so long as the federal treasury would underwrite the cost of an indigent seaman abandoned in illness. However, I do not see such a provision in this bill. The actual medical services might be administered through normal community facilities, but the provincial government could claim the actual costs from the federal government. Perhaps this should be the situation. I have raised my objections to this bill and thank the House for giving me the opportunity to do so.
April 24, 1970

[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, we reach the third reading stage of this bill conscious of the fact that it has come back to us from the committee in an amended form. I think it is important perhaps to clarify just what the change made by the committee signifies, and that has already been mentioned in the discussion this morning. In some respects this bill proposes a phasing out of the arrangement for sick mariners which have operated over a long period of years in Canada. There are two aspects to the proposed changes: one is to shift the financial responsibility directly to the owners of non-Canadian ships for the provision of medical, surgical and hospital care for the crews of those vessels. If I understand the proposal correctly, it places this liability but does not necessarily mean that the Canadian authorities operating under the terms of the Shipping Act will withdraw from any responsibility for a sick mariner if, in fact, he is left stranded in a Canadian port. In view of the explanations that were given to us about the growing trends around the world toward the adoption of various forms of medical insurance plans to which ship owners directly or indirectly contribute in their own countries, I for one am content that this particular amendment is appropriate at this time.
The other aspect of the bill has to do with the situation in respect of Canadian ships, and in particular with the effect of this bill upon Canadian seamen who are engaged in fishing. As I indicated at the committee stage of the bill, a good deal of concern was expressed by fishermen on the Pacific Coast of Canada that, as a result of the passage of this bill, they would lose their rights to benefits which they had enjoyed. There was an impression that they might lose some benefits which they had enjoyed if they become ill and require medical attention or hospitalization in U.S. ports. Following the introduction of the bill, the committee held its first meeting on the bill on February 10. This matter was examined and discussed by those concerned with the welfare of fishermen on the British Columbia coast, and it appears to me now that the effect of the bill will not be to deprive Canadian fishermen of benefits which they might have enjoyed in U.S. ports had it not been introduced. Therefore, the objections which I initially raised would appear to have been met by an investigation of the facts.
As I understand it, there is out-of-country coverage provided for hospitalization under
Canada Shipping Act
our national hospitalization plan. In addition, if a province, in this case the province of British Columbia, is in the medicare plan, there is provision of medical services under the terms of that plan. As I understand it, the British Columbia medical plan, in line with the national provisions, provides coverage for costs incurred up to the level of the costs which would be paid for under the plan in British Columbia. This, I suppose, is about as far as one can rightfully expect Canadian authorities to go. There may be cases where costs are higher in a foreign port where some liability would rest upon the fishermen. This is what I understand the situation to be.
The other aspect of the matter is directly related to the amendment which was made to the bill in committee. I refer to the coverage of fishermen for medical expenses which are not covered by the medicare plan. I am happy with the fact that the committee, in its amendment, met the principal point which was argued by the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and myself at the committee stage when we met on February 10. The original bill specifically exempted, under the proposed Section 318A, any coverage of drugs if a medical plan was in effect, other than drugs administered directly to that sick mariner by a designated medical practitioner. As we all know, under the national medicare plan drug coverage is not provided and I am therefore glad that the way is left open for the optional arrangement to be made by a fisherman to cover himself for drug costs under the sick mariner provisions of this act, and under the scale of fees which would normally be payable. This may well be an insurance coverage which a great many fishermen will desire to obtain and continue.
So, in considering this bill at the third reading stage, I would like to say I am pleased that the department, on considering the discussion that took place in the committee, has agreed to this particular amendment for which we argued. For that reason, I am happy to support the third reading of the bill as it stands now.


Robert Jardine McCleave: This is one of those occasions when a member interested in a bill is thoroughly aroused by good, thoughtful speeches in the House of Commons. I think my colleague, the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) has certainly aroused my interest to the point of participation with the two amendments that he tried to get through earlier. I think

April 24, 1970
Canada Shipping Act
the one relating to the designation by the minister of a doctor is worth examining again. I would like to examine it from two viewpoints. The first one is the relationship between doctor and patient. I suggest, since that is a professional relationship it is based, particularly from the standpoint of the patient, upon confidence in the man or woman who is looking after his medical problems. 1 suggest that for the ill seaman to have to go to the customs officer or to whoever's duty it is to point out which doctor is on the designated list, would have a very natural result. The poor, sick person thinks that the curing of his ills is in the hands of some government functionary. I suggest that this does raise a barrier, not in all cases but certainly in some cases, that is unfortunate and does not have to be there at all.
There is no good reason for adopting this course and I think there are several bad reasons why it is being adopted. I do not know why, even at this point, the minister does not reflect on what he is asking us to do in this legislation which otherwise, I suppose, merits support. It would be a shame if it had to be left to the institution of sober second thought down the hall to make a change which is, I think, very necessary. My point about the confidential relationship that has to exist between the person seeking professional advice and the person giving it is that there should be a freedom of choice by the person who needs professional advice. I say that that freedom of choice is at the very heart of the problem of the sick mariner.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
The second point I want to make is that you are dealing with the international community when you are dealing with shipping, particularly when it is shipping over salt water. I realize that this bill is presented to us by a minister from a fresh water community, and is seconded by a minister who is also from a fresh water community. But these landlubber-minded gentlemen should not allow their vision to be restricted, in comparison with we who are fortunate enough to live by the salt water and who have the nobler and wider vision.
Many shipping crews now come from Taiwan or Hong Kong. Many of them come from Spain, and of course the other marine countries that are well known such as Norway, the United Kingdom and places like that. Liberia gets into the act too, but one does not call that a marine power; one calls

that a marine loophole. Panama is also in that category. The point I am making is that your ill seaman is not necessarily going to be speaking one of the two official languages of Canada. He may be speaking any one of 30 or 40 foreign languages.
He is ill, and he is taken to hospital in Halifax. There, somebody trots out the list of designated doctors for his treatment but in the yellow pages of the telephone directory he finds a doctor who is familiar with his language and to whom he can explain his bellyache, his appendix problem or whatever it is. Sometimes, sir, it is very difficult to make a speech in view of the suggestions that come from one's own colleagues which never quite reach Hansard but which have a sort of paralyzing effect.
The sick mariner conceivably could have treatment from a doctor in the community where he is ill, who understands his language, yet he is forced to go to a designated doctor who may not understand his language. Therefore the whole probe of the illness, the symptoms and the like, has to be dealt with through an interpreter. I imagine that is the way it happens. Again, we have the ridiculous situation where you cannot have the proper professional-patient relationship for a man who needs help. Again, I plead with the minister to broaden his vision on this question. He is a professional man himself. In addition, he should bring a little bit of international thinking into this thing and see to it that the correction is made in this bill which otherwise, I gather, merits the support of the House.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have about four points to make on this bill, and I hope they are not too disjointed. The first one is a general observation that it is bad legislation. It is the type of legislation that causes the watchers of Parliament to ask us questions, "Why did you do that, and why did you not do this? Didn't anybody think about this, or didn't anybody think about that?" Twice in the space of the last eight or ten months we have had the supreme courts of our country question certain laws, and I suggest they questioned them because the legislation was not properly thought out and indeed was bad legislation. In fact, this legislation is bad because nowhere in it is there provision for our mariners who may happen to be in a foreign port. We have taken a unilateral step. What are the bilateral implications of that? What are the multilateral implications of that?
April 24, 1970



I am one of those people who, as mariners, have had to seek medical attention in foreign countries. I was always treated with courtesy by the country in which I sought it. There was never any question of the administrative processing of the cost, and no difficulty whatsoever. But now we have this government asking this chamber to approve the unilateral step in proposed new section 298a, which reads:
The owner of every ship that is not a Canadian ship is liable for the cost of all medical and surgical treatment and hospital care provided in Canada to a person employed by him on that ship.
The question may have come up in committee, and I apologize if it was dealt with there, but to the best of my knowledge nowhere has the question of reciprocal action by countries in which Canadian ships find themselves from time to time been mentioned. It is true that in 1970 we do not have the mercantile fleet that we had 10 or 15 years ago, but that does not mean that Canada could not have merchant shipping in the future or that in the future this would not be a widespread and serious problem.
The second point I wish to make is to express amazement that we have amendments of this nature in front of us, particularly when the government is going to withdraw from this area totally. Why do they come before us? Is it because the government has nothing better to bring before us? Is this a priority when there are Canadians starving to death, when there is continuing disparity, and continued unemployment? Why do we spend the time of the House dealing with this bill which, as I have said, is bad legislation, when the time of the House could more properly be directed to matters that have some priority for Canadians?
To indicate further the grounds upon which I feel this is a bad piece of legislation, I wish to make a personal observation. In my opinion this is another indication of the government's total lack of concern for individuals. I can only imagine that the government is more concerned with having a tidy piece of legislation that with the individual, and it is that essential thing which marks the difference between myself and the government. I was going to say this marks the difference between myself and the supporters of the government, but I know there are some hon. members opposite who are concerned for individuals. However, one would never gain that impression from reading legislation like this, especially considering it in the context of
Canada Shipping Act
the role which this House is supposed to fulfil in the lives of individuals.
It does not matter how small or large a group you collect, it is made up of individuals. When you have a piece of legislation that directly affects the well-being of an individual you have to be aroused, as my colleague from Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) said, and you have to participate in the discussion. On that ground along this is a second-rate piece of legislation. I wonder why this legislation is before us? I have asked, is it because the government has nothing better to do or because it has no other legislation ready to bring before us? I think that is a fairly serious charge. This is the principal point which brought me into the debate on third reading.
Now, I am afraid I must extend my remarks, Mr. Speaker. I come back and deal again with external relations. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will find an occasion to deal with the international implications of our taking a unilateral step in this way. I would like answers to questions which I am sure have not been dealt with up until now. Hon. members opposite can laugh if they want. I am concerned about whether or not there were international negotiations. If there were, what contribution has been made to the debate to satisfy government supporters that this is not a unilateral step taken without concern for reciprocal arrangements in other countries?
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
We have not heard from the minister and there has been no comment from the Department of External Affairs in connection with this question. It appears that we have put ourselves into a situation that may have serious effects on the individual. Before members in the House could, in conscience, vote approval of this measure they would have to satisfy themselves as to what would happen to men sailing ships under the Canadian flag when they arrive in foreign ports. Geographical location has no relationship to illness and these seamen could become ill in China or Australia just as easily and quickly as at home. I suggest this is bad legislation, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

April 24, 1970
Canada Shipping Act


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I call it one
o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.


Mr. Monteiih:: Mr. Speaker, if I might make a suggestion I think item No. 76 could be disposed of in live minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



RADIATION EMITTING DEVICES BILL


Jean-Luc Pepin: that Bill S-14, respecting the sale and importation of certain radiation emitting devices, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to clause 13 of the bill where, in the case of an offence, the onus is placed upon the accused. Clause 13 reads:
In any prosecution for an offence under this act, it is sufficient proof of the offence to establish that it was committed by an employee or agent of the accused whether or not the employee or agent is identified or has been prosecuted for the offence, unless the accused establishes that the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.
This places the onus upon the accused to prove his innocence, something which has never been considered justice in Canada except by the Department of National Revenue which has taken this view for some time.
I maintain that the onus should be on the prosecution to prove guilt and not upon the accused to prove innocence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Too much legislation is being brought before us in which the individual is losing his ordinary rights. In this particular case, the prosecution is given the opportunity to say "You are guilty". I cannot stress strongly enough the recent trend in legislation toward taking away the rights of the individual. I think this is completely wrong. Aside from that point, the legislation meets with my approval. When the matter was before the committee, unfortunately, either I was not a member of the committee or was out of Ottawa and I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could explain the amendment as reported by the committee.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, the amendment in committee actually pertains to section 2 of Bill S-14 and deals with the definition of a radiation emitting device. The amendment was that radiation emitting device means any device which emits radiation. This would meet the point of view of many members of the House who wanted to know whether a colour television set which emits a certain amount of radiation would be covered by this bill. As far as the other point raised by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) is concerned, it was discussed by the legal authorities of the department both when this bill was studied-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Bureaucracy is taking over.


Stanley Haidasz: -by the minister and also in committee, and we were assured that all of the provisions of this bill are in order. Such fears as those expressed by the hon. member for Perth really should not be entertained.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I entertain them all right.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: the second reading of
April 24, 1970	COMMONS
and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-12, to establish the International Development Research Centre.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bill that was approved by this House on February 20 and has since been amended in the other place in two respects, as appears in Votes and Proceedings for March 24. I should first like to address myself to the amendment to clause 19. In approving this change, I understand the hon. senators were anxious to avoid the connotation of the term "charitable organization" used in the legislation as approved by the House. The terms was included in the bill simply to indicate the legal status of the centre for income tax and estate tax purposes and not to imply in any way that its activities in relation to the developing countries will be in the nature of "charity". The clause, as now amended, makes this legal reference quite explicit by quoting the respective acts. The centre's taxation position is thereby defined and protected, without the unnecessary implications of the term "charity".
In moving that this House concur in this amendment, I would commend our colleagues in the other place for their alertness and sensitivity in recognizing the undesirable reference of the original wording. Certainly, the House will agree that if international development is to be equated with charity, it will undoubtedly fail. For charity is often conceived as a vertical activity with the giver on top and the taker below. Development, on the other hand, must be considered as a lateral activity for the benefit and improvement of all parties. The reciprocal exchange of ideas and data made possible by research is particularly consistent with this lateral activity of international development. I am grateful to the hon. senators for noting this important distinction and I have no hesitation in recommending that we endorse the amendment.
Let me now turn to clause 10 (3), which was first introduced by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) in the committee. It has now been amended. It is now proposed that two of the governors of the centre who are Canadian citizens may be members of the Senate or members of the House of Commons. As I understand it, there are several combinations which would be made possible by this proposal. There could be one member from either the House of Commons or the Senate, or there could be two, both from one chamber. Although the potential parliamentary representation on the
DEBATES	6265
International Development Research Centre International Development Research Centre Board is thereby doubled, I hasten to point out that the operative word in the amendment is "may" and not "shall". The proposal remains therefore permissive, not mandatory. This was recognized by the committee of the other place on Foreign Affairs from whose report I now quote:
The Governor in Council, under this amendment, does not have to appoint any member of parliament -It is permissive.
Nevertheless, the questions I raised on third reading here in the House are of even greater importance to us now. Though I do not wish to repeat my remarks, I believe those questions and my reservations which were expressed to be even more cogent in view of the present amendment.
Surely, we do not wish the International Development Research Centre to be viewed as an institution requiring special measures for surveillance by our legislative bodies. On the contrary, because of its international character and the need to establish clearly its integrity and objectivity as a research organization, it is imperative that the autonomy of this centre be protected. The respect felt for it in the international centres of the world could be seriously compromised if two members of our legislative bodies were to be appointed and regarded as representing a special form of supervision unique to the centre amongst Canadian governmental institutions. Hence their role should be clearly defined before any such appointments are made, and until there is clarification the government does not intend to make any such appointments.
The composition of the Board of Governors of the centre, then, has been of lengthy and considerable concern to both the House of Commons and to the Senate. I can only assume that this attention reflects a growing awareness among all Canadians of the vital importance of international development. At a time when investment in foreign aid is diminishing among many of the major donor countries, it is particularly encouraging to see Canadian leaders in all parties and in both houses represent with such responsible care, attentiveness, and thorough deliberation the international concerns of the Canadian people.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I share the minister's view that the Senate has performed a useful function in ensuring that there is no connotation of charity attached to this important proposal.
April 24, 1970
6266	COMMONS DEBATES
International Development Research Centre I hope, too, that in the course of carrying out international development research we shall also avoid attracting the word "paternalism"; there has been too much evidence of a latent paternalism, at any event, toward the developing countries.
As to clause 10, perhaps it would have been better had the government shown the courage of its convictions and voted my amendment down. Despite the fact that the committee supported by a substantial majority the view I held, the minister has declared that he does not intend to make the appointment. So be it. The arguments have been put forward in the committee, as they were at another stage of the proceedings here. If the government does not like this proposal there is open to it a perfectly valid and legitimate way of getting rid of it, that is, by using its majority in a perfectly democratic way to toss it out. It seems to me it is somewhat hypocritical to accept it and then to point out that the wording is permissive and say that the government will not make the appointment.
I have one other thing to say. It was never in my mind to suggest that the parliamentary representatives on such a board should exercise surveillance. I had the odd feeling that among the 264 members of this House and the 102 members of the Senate there just might be people whose competence in the field of international affairs is such that they could make a useful contribution, like the other 19 or 20 members of this board, to the on-going work of international development research. If the minister feels this is beyond the realm of possibility, that is up to him. I remain convinced that Members of Parliament and Senators can make a useful contribution to this work. If the minister does not like the proposal and will not make the appointments, why does he not have the bells rung and get rid of the proposal now so that it will not clutter up the record?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, two considerations prevent my hon. friend and myself from insisting that we follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), namely, that a vote should be called on the question whether this Senate amendment should be defeated. One of these considerations is the importance of getting this bill passed so that the centre can begin to function. Though he did not say so, I suspect the minister feels as we do on this point. I suspect the government has already been in touch with a number of people who

are now waiting for the bill to become law before taking up their duties. If we were to defeat this proposal the bill would, I suppose, go back to the Senate and there would be further delays. In these circumstances I am satisfied merely to state our position briefly for the record, rather than to insist on a vote.
The other consideration I have in mind is the minister's firm undertaking not to make any appointments under this clause, thus ensuring that nothing will happen of a sort which I believe would be undesirable. When the proposal of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal first came before the committee he expressed it in mandatory terms. The words were: "One member of parliament shall be a governor..." After some discussion which, if my memory serves me correctly, I initiated, it was agreed that the word used should, at least, be "may" rather than "shall". I had grave doubts about the suggestion, then, even though I gave it reluctant support in the committee. I have graver doubts now, since the Senate wants a piece of the action. This is partly because of the opposition of myself and my party to the Senate as part of Canada's Parliament and partly because, though there may be some reason for the presence of an elected Member of Parliament on a board of this sort, I see no reason whatever why Senators, most of whom are members of God knows how many boards directing God knows how many large corporations, should be represented on a board of governors concerned with aid to developing countries. One has to be very polite when speaking of the other place but I think it was an excess of gall rather than an excess of zeal which made them suggest an amendment such as they have produced. We are thoroughly opposed to it. It is about time members in the other place knew they were appointed by the government and that there are things they ought not to be pushing themselves into. This is one of them.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
I agree entirely with the uneasiness that the minister feels, and which my colleagues and I feel, about introducing this proposal in connection with an International Research Development Centre when a similar proposal has not been made with regard to any other Crown corporation. My information is that it is already the fact that some of the representatives of developing countries are wondering precisely whether this parliament is so anxious to have direct connection with the board of governors of the centre because it wants some direct political and Parliamentary
April 24, 1970

supervision of the centre. I think it would be an egregious error to make any appointments under this clause.
I was delighted to hear the minister say in a forthright way-may I interject that forthrightness is a rare thing in a Minister, and one is delighted with it not only in view of the subject but also because it is there-that he will not make any appointments. I hope that at the earliest opportunity we will be able to discuss the whole question of a parliamentary member being appointed to boards of crown corporations to see whether this makes any sense at all.
I look to this centre to make a really valuable contribution to the problem of development in the less developed countries of the world. It will be able to do that only if it is a genuinely international body, if its entire orientation is toward developing countries and not toward Canada or any other developed country. In my estimation it will do this only if the board of governors includes in high positions, as well as among the membership of the board, fair representation from the developing countries. It will do this only if the priorities that the centre sets for itself are priorities that are agreed upon by the developing countries.
Finally, I think it will do the job of being a real stimulus to development in our sister countries that are not as fortunate as we are if much of its work is done in those developing countries-obviously, not all of them- and done in collaboration with institutes of research and development in developing areas of the world. It is with that approach and with that orientation that we enthusiastically supported this idea and that the committee of the House accepted some other changes to the original draft that sought to underline the international character of the centre, some of which changes I brought to the attention of the committee. I hope that the entire approach of the centre will be along that line.
There have been reports that the government is asking a Dr. Hopper to become president of the centre. I am informed by people who know him that he is a very able and sensitive person. I hope that he will agree to serve and that the government will be able to persuade him to do so. I hope that in its choice of vice-president and members of the board, the government will be as careful in its selection as the suggestion that the government is seeking Dr. Hopper for the job of president indicates that it is being careful in filling that position.
International Development Research Centre I do not intend to support the amendment to clause 10 of the bill. Although I think it is an undesirable amendment, I do not intend to take the time of the House by suggesting a recorded vote. I will yell "On Division" loud enough for Your Honour to hear me; I do not want to hold up passage of the bill.
As to the other amendment, it is obviously a desirable one. It achieves the same purpose that the original clause 19 had in mind, and does so in language that contains nothing offensive. Therefore, I certainly support the amendment on behalf of my colleagues. I sit down now, saying that if the Senate keeps on pushing itself into legislation in this way, the time may come soon to start an anti-Senate campaign that will be even more vigorous than it has been for several years.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I also spoke earlier, before the bill was sent to the Senate, and I will try and restrain myself from repeating what I said at that time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Hear, hear.


David Anderson: The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) obviously heartily agrees with that approach.
The first amendment that the Senate has introduced is basically a tidying up amendment, and once more we can thank the Senators for taking the time and trouble to correct something that perhaps the committee of this House overlooked and should have picked up earlier. Indeed, this is the type of thing-a very small thing, I might add, but nevertheless precisely the sort of thing-that the Senate is meant to do. While I personally have doubts about the value of the Senate, it is nevertheless nice to know that, at least in this regard, Senators are doing their job.


David Lewis: They have nothing else to do.


David Anderson: 
Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Will the hon. member permit a question? Where will a Member of Parliament find time to serve on these boards?


David Anderson: The hon. member has asked where a Member of Parliament will find the time. If we were not serving on committees of the House, we would probably say that we do not have time for committees. Some hon.
April 24, 1970

members make speeches. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) speaks frequently throughout the country on a number of subjects. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and ministers of the crown do the same. Members of Parliament can make time to do such things. Some Members of Parliament manage to carry on a business or farming activity in addition to their service in the House. There is the possibility that some members could find enough time for service on one of these boards. The hon. member may disagree, but I have a different opinion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Some hor,. Members: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the representatives of the parties. It has been agreed that we should now proceed to private members' hour, proceed with private members' business for one hour and rise at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Where's the legislation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I might point out to hon. members that there are about 30 pieces of legislation now before the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-29 (Amended title: An Act respecting Confederation Day), as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. In the event that these amendments might come forward for a vote later this day, I might make the following suggestion, that motions numbered 1, 3, 5 and 7, which were first received in order of time, be given priority, grouped
Canada Day Act
for purposes of debate and disposed of in one division, if required. Since motions numbered 2, 4, 6 and 8 propose the same question as do motions numbered 1, 3, 5 and 7, those motions in effect will be disposed of at the same time. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will now put motion No. 1.


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilion-Wenfworih) moved:: That Bill C-29, respecting Confederation Day, be amended by substituting in Clause 1 the words "Canada Day" for the words "Confederation Day" at lines 4 and 5.


Thomas Miller Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The public bills hours has been moved ahead this afternoon and we would like to put a reservation of a procedural nature on the debate. We were preparing a procedural argument on this bill. What would happen to it should it take the full hour this afternoon? There seems to be a disagreement among the procedural experts of the House as to whether it would drop to the bottom of the list. We are quite agreeable to going ahead with it, but I would like to put a full reservation on this subject. I hope that we will be given an opportunity at some stage to argue that this bill should not drop in the regular way to the bottom of the list should it be talked out this afternoon.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that is a very legitimate concern on the part of the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell). If this stage of the proceedings has not been disposed of by the end of the hour this afternoon, I suggest the bill should retain its place on the Order Paper so that it may come up first at the next time public bills are called. Perhaps if the House is agreeable, that could be made an order, and hon. members could present their arguments at a later stage in the proceedings.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in moving the amendments to Bill C-29, moving that the name of our national holiday be Canada Day as originally proposed by a respected senior member of this House, the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Brown), one of the most popular and respected members of

April 24, 1970
Canada Day Act
this House both in seniority and experience. His idea was Canada Day. Let us preserve that idea. Let us crown this member's fine career to this stage at least by honouring his idea which is the result of many years of experience in the House of Commons.
My objection to the name Confederation Day is based on the fact that the word "Confederation" does not have any real definitive significance for Canadians. It does not reflect our history. In fact, to quote that noted constitutional authority, Maurice Ollivier:
Confederation applies to sovereign states which, without losing any degree of their sovereignty, unite for certain specific purposes, and at the same time, reserve the right to abandon this union, which is valuable only so long as it serves their purposes.
Dr. Ollivier gives as an example the Confederation of the Rhine, which existed in 1805 under the protection of Napoleon and was dissolved several years later. We also have the example of the Confederate States of the United States of America which have a different background from the colonies of Canada which became a Federation by Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom.
I wish to thank the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Gervais) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) who have both expressed themselves forcefully in support of this motion at the committee stage. As Members of Parliament from Quebec they have expressed the same view as I have, a member from Ontario, that no name compares in suitability to that of Canada Day.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
A recent poll conducted by the Ottawa Citizen revealed that a large majority of the people favoured the name Canada Day as opposed to Confederation Day. I recall an occasion in my area last July when 10,000 people, young and old, assembled at Stoney Creek for a Canada Day celebration. Although it was unofficial, it was official in their minds. With the co-operation, support, friendship and good will of this House of Commons this measure could be passed this afternoon. I hope we can take a new constitutional step forward by passing this amendment in respect of Canada Day. The spirit and soul of our nation demands response to a strong will on the part of the Canadian people to develop our significance as a united nation. One method of so doing is to unite behind this amendment today. We have the opportunity today. It is a rare opportunity and a wonderful chance for those of us who are present in this House today to lay

stress on unity by creating a change in Canada by unanimous consent. If any member should dissent, may I point out that the cause will be delayed. This bill will go to the bottom of a large pile of bills and never return here for months.
I appeal to all members of the Conservative party to unite with us in respect of this amendment. I understand there is a general disposition on all sides of the House to pass the amendment. If toward the end of the hour any member should continue talking so that a vote may not be taken on this bill, the unity which seems to exist in this House today would be destroyed. If toward the end of this hour this should happen we would be losing a real opportunity for co-operation. When I look across the way and see the hon. member for Halifax I think of the history of that part of Canada. When I see the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) I think of the tremendous historical significance of his part of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Colin David Gibson: I think of the great history that learned gentleman represents. When I think of these members, who are strong Canadian Members of Parliament, I cannot help but feel that there will be a disposition to pass this bill.


An hon. Member:: What about the hon. member from Edmonton?


Colin David Gibson: Edmonton, too. I think of the fine people from Edmonton to Victoria. It is with a real feeling of national pride that I stand here today.


Mr. Osier:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Does the hon. member recall that this is the one-hundredth anniversary of Canada becoming Canada, and that we became a three million square mile country instead of-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?


Colin David Gibson: Certainly.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I should like to ask the hon. member whether he would direct his honeyed words beyond Halifax to this corner of the House.


Colin David Gibson: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. As I look at the learned member for Greenwood, who is always eloquent during hours like this,
April 24, 1970

and as I look around this chamber at other hon. members, it occurs to me that I have never seen this House so united. It would seem that every member of this House wants Canada to move. If we go along with this amendment, we will be helping this country to develop constitutionally and we will be a part of the process of change in our Canadian history. Every one of us here today, in a small way, will play his part by simply wanting to pass this bill this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, through you, I wish to assure the hon. member that I, at least, warmly support this motion. The hon. member may have noticed that a similar motion appears in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Had I any doubt before about the propriety of this motion I would have lost it immediately upon learning that this motion, in effect, is co-sponsored by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
We are faced with a choice between the word "Confederation", which as has been well pointed out by the hon. member is inappropriate to our particular status, and the word "Canada". I hope my brand of nationalism is crossed with a sense of the importance of international developments. I am not by nature a chauvinistic person. It seems to me, however, when dealing with this historic day which represents the foundation of our country, particularly at a time like the present when we are rocked with a certain amount of difficulty and doubt, we should have no hesitation in choosing the term "Canada Day" rather than "Confederation Day".


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, despite the very nice things which have been said by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson), I regret that I must stand up and say it does not seem to be necessary or desirable to make this change. We constantly see our historic past being chipped away, not deliberately, but more or less by natural erosion. I think the people who suggested the term "Dominion of Canada" at the London conference and at the Charlottetown and other conferences when the nation Canada was formed did not make a mistake. The word "dominion" is a quotation from the bible-"dominion from sea to sea". It has honourable origins. The statement has been made that somehow or other the word "dominion" implies not complete and full sovereignty. It does not necessarily have
Canada Day Act
that connotation except to those who deliberately read such an interpretation into it. This subject was discussed at length before the committee. I recommend to hon. members proceedings Nos. 14 and 17 of the committee, in particular the testimony of Mr. Eugene Forsey. The matter was discussed at length and it was pointed out quite clearly that, while some people had the impression that the word dominion somehow meant that the nation was not fully sovereign, this is an incorrect view.
Should we go along with the suggestion by some people that we should abolish Dominion Day and thus endorse this incorrect view? That is the question before the House. I do not think it is necessary or wise to go along with or endorse this incorrect view. I think we should state flatly that there is no need for this country to constantly search for new ways to demonstrate we sue united, or not united, or that we are a sovereign country or something else. We talk too much about something we should take more for granted. I think we should grow up and accept the fact that this particular term, which comes from our rich history, was brought in by no other people than by our excellent Fathers of Confederation whose faces stare grimly down at us from so many pictures in this House. I think we should recognize that this word, and this day, are connected with the historic event of Confederation when the first provinces joined together. It does not, to my mind, in any way imply that we are not united Canadians, as I gather others who have spoken before we believe.
The term "dominion from sea to sea" has a biblical connotation. The implication is that we are united right from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Although I quite agree that one should attempt at all times to encourage a healthy spirit of nationalism in Canada, I do not think in the expression "Dominion Day" there is anything that would take away from the spirit of unity. I think this has a rather attractive connection with the days of 1867 and indeed before 1867 when this question was discussed at length. I could of course carry on at much greater length on this point but I understand another member who represents an area where this particular decision was taken wishes to speak in this debate. I will shortly defer to him.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I simply wish to say that personally I do not approve of this change. I do not think that the substitution of the word "Confedera-

April 24, 1970
Canada Day Act
tion" or "Canada" for the word "Dominion" would do anything but change something which has served us well. As I said earlier, there are people who misunderstand this particular word. I think our job should be to go out and point out to them that they are wrong in their understanding. As I see it, our job should not be to endorse their view and to change this interesting semantic connection with the earliest days of our country. What we should get back to is the spirit of a century ago. I say this, thinking ahead to the Quebec election where, for the first time, an organized and fighting separatist party has emerged with a fair chance of getting a good number of votes and of seats. What we should do is get back to those days when people realized that this country would not be perfect and that it would have difficulties, yet nevertheless decided to unite and cast their lot in together.
I think that changes such as this one do not encourage us to look back to those days when this country was born. It is all too easy to say that Canada is not really a viable nation. This is wrong. We should look back to the tremendous strains which were put on this country over the last century, the tremendous obstacles and difficulties that were overcome in 1864 and 1867, and realize, by looking backward, that the present difficulties are perhaps minor compared with those faced by our people a century ago.
I regret that I cannot agree with this suggestion of my hon. friend from Hamilton whose enthusiasm I admire greatly, or the suggestion of the hardworking member for Brant (Mr. Brown). I do not believe that the day on which we celebrate Confederation, namely Dominion Day should have its name changed.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, for a while I thought we were getting into something like a love-feast. I was much flattered by the generous remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson), but I must say that while I was charmed and delighted by his compliments I was actually more impressed by the arguments of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson). For a moment I thought, when the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth was referring to me, that he was suggesting that in some way I have become a museum piece. It made me feel terribly important because I understand that yesterday when I was on my way back from my constituency and a few minutes late in 
arriving in the House, a minister noted that the country was momentarily bereft of my services. In this place, such things could go to the head of a normally modest person!
I have been interested in this matter for a long time. I think it is well that we look at these things because the mark of a civilized society is the interest of its members in intangibles. In fact, I remember a very learned anthropologist coming to the conclusion that the only difference between a civilized group of people and an uncivilized one was that the civilized people believed in symbols or baubles and that they found something beyond the purely intrinsic to which they gave social value. So it is fitting that we discuss our national birthday, its significance, and it is fitting that we discuss ways whereby we can improve and enrich the celebration of our national birthday.
The fact that I thoroughly agree with the hon. member who has just spoken does not mean that I think there is no value in our canvassing other suggestions, and I too have the highest regard for the person who in this session brought to our consideration and deliberation the question of a change of name for our natal day. Birthdays are important to individuals. It is the one day in families where birthdays are celebrated on which a little extra attention is given to the person who is recalling that important event, his day.
We have reasons for celebrating July 1, and they have been touched upon. Something was consummated on that day, something that is very unique and very important. I appreciate the reference that was made to the city of Charlottetown which I have the honour of representing and which proudly and properly calls itself the cradle of Confederation, because it was in that city in 1864 that men of goodwill from the various colonies of what was then called British North America came together, with reasonableness, common sense and a regard for the problems, interests and preferences one of another, and began the process of confederating those colonies.
As Sir John A. Madonald said more than once, practically everything that was finally agreed upon in a formal way had in fact been informally agreed upon at Charlottetown in 1864. That it took three years to give formality to this indicates, as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich pointed-out, that it was not by any means an easy process, indeed that it was an extremely difficult one. I think we have been remiss, as we Canadians so often
April 24. 1S7G

have been about our heritage, in not praising sufficiently the great men who accomplished a remarkable achievement in nation-building.
We talk about Cavour, about Bismarck and about other great men, but our founding fathers, in a uniquely Canadian way-perhaps a plodding, unexplosive and unrevolutionary way, but in a uniquely Canadian way-achieved the birth of a new country over great difficulties, a country which has survived through many difficulties and on which there have been stresses and strains since July 1 when it was created.
Today we are always looking for something unique, something that is ours. We are fretting about losing our cultural heritage and our distinctive identity. It seems to me we strengthen our present by recalling and glorifying-I do not hesitate to use the word-the past. Sometimes I am told that we must have a new name for our national day because if we use the word "dominion" we are going back to the past. How in heaven's name can you celebrate a birthday without going back to the date of birth? It has always struck me as preposterous.
The amendment today refers to the substitution of the name Canada Day for Confederation Day. I think that the use of Confederation Day was an interesting suggestion but it recalls the process of confederating, the getting together of the colonies or provinces. But the product of the process was dominion, a new nation brought into being, and I think it is more appropriate and fitting to recall the product which emerged, which has remained with us and which we all hope will continue as the heritage of our founding fathers.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I never believe that one is very thoughtful or productive if he digs in against every suggested change. The man who is eternally the champion of the status quo is not likely to do too much for his contemporary society. I remember reading a humorous report about an old, old man being interviewed by a newspaper reporter. On those occasions they always ask such an old man what is his secret of long life: if he is one kind of chap it is his quart a day, and if he is another kind of chap it is that he did not smoke and did not drink. The reporter said to this old man, "I suppose, sir, in all your long life you have seen many changes". "Yes," said the old man, "and I was agin every one of them." But this is not my attitude. If change is improvement, if change is progress, if change is betterment of course
Canada Day Act
you opt for change; but not for change for the sake of change, not constantly looking for something a little different just because it is different.
To alter this symbol and to change that name, to remove that title and put something else in its place is not of itself productive. There is meaning in the expression "dominion". The hon. member has referred to the biblical background. Since Maritimers are perhaps in the forefront of the righteous, it is not surprising it was a Maritimer who was reading the Good Book, and he came to Psalm 72.
We have it on our coat of arms; as we enter this building we can see engraved over the doorway, "The open sea is at her gates, Her gates both east and west." Recently I was reading a speech Sir Wilfrid Laurier made many years ago on a Dominion Day, and he closed his magnificently eloquent speech by simply quoting those lines. This surely symbolizes Canada. I think it is appropriate that I from the east, where it all began, should follow a member from the west; this is symbolic of all the great expansion across this country. This is what "dominion" means; it is the extension of a united government.
I have a feeling that many people are a bit hung-up on semantics and they think it is domination we are talking about. It is not that at all. We went through the same thing, not personally but historically, during the First World War. The propaganda of the Allies was that "Deutschland Uber alles" meant the Germans wanted to be the champions of the whole world. But what it meant in the national anthem in the more decent days of Bismark was that the fatherland was more important than its components. This is what the expression "dominion" involves. The new entity was more than the sum of its parts, and certainly more than any of its parts. I think this is the kind of thing we want to evoke in our own hearts and the hearts of our countrymen as we celebrate our national day.
They say that people from small communities are more emotionally attached to them than people are attached to big communities. We are indeed sentimental about small communities. Lord Tweedsmuir told us in Charlottetown long ago that there was something about small countries that drew their people to them. He said that perhaps because a country is small it is easier to carry it in your heart. I would always hope that my emotional attachment to Prince Edward Island-and as

April 24, 1970
Canada Day Act
a highland Scot we are filled with sentiment and emotion and are not as practical as we might well be in the marketplace-will never supersede my loyalty and attachment to the dominion. It seems to me that if that is not the case we are not going to hold together.
I am always impressed by the preamble to the British North America Act:
Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion-
Someone made reference to events that may come, that may cause us concern and researching of values. But it is the desire to be united that is very important. When that desire is gone there is no name, no title, no slogan that will be sufficient to encompass the reality. But in that preamble there is another reason why the name Canada Day is quite inappropriate for our national birthday, because the preamble says:
Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick-
There we are enumerating the parts which formed the new entity. Our ancestors in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia did not invite the Canadians to Charlottetown, did not come up to Quebec and did not go to Westminster with them to be submerged into or subsumed under one of the existing provinces, namely, Canada. I say this because the new title, the Dominion of Canada, signified and typified a new political entity. To call it Canada today would be stepping back and picking up the name of one of the constituent parts. I think it would be a very backward step, and here I am being helpful to the people who are supporting a government which is having a little trouble identifying with the east and the west, because the country is a great and broad country. It is not just that part which used to be called Canada East and Canada West. It is a new community and a great community.
I think, too, that those who are concerned about the idea that there is something antique and colonial about this should recall that it was under the title of "dominion" that this country not only achieved its own fully recognized independence but led-and not always is Canada able to lead on the international scene; not always is that position available to us. But in the days of Borden, Canada was in the forefront of asserting its own independence. If we had anything like a declaration of independence it would be the Statute of West-

minster, and there are plenty references to the word "dominion" in that particular declaration of our independence.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Certainly.


James Aloysius McGrath: I hesitate to interrupt the honourable and learned member, who is a noted Canadian historian, but is he not aware that in the same Statute of Westminster, Newfoundland was also declared a dominion?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I am actually aware of that, Mr. Speaker, but it does not force me to abandon either my thesis or my emotional conviction. There was a time when Newfoundland, as the ancient dominion, asserted great leadership, but I know of no historical document which would indicate that the leadership in constitutional development, from colony to independence, gave primacy to Newfoundland over Canada. But I am sure that Sir Robert Borden was well aware of Newfoundland. In fact had things gone a little better at the time, Newfoundland might have come in with the rest of our dominion at that time rather than prolonging their marriage, regrettably I think, for another 30 years.


James Aloysius McGrath: Shame! I am surprised at the hon. member.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: regard for the proposer of the original bill and for the man who is trying to get us back to that original bill today. I notice that the committee did not leave much of the original bill intact, except the number.
I hope this House will not adopt the suggestion but will cleave to something that is significant and unique to Canada and continue to celebrate something that was done in 1867 with more hope, confidence and unity than ever before. That is, the creation of a dominion proud, free and independent, one which we hope will remain united and strong. Let us not be afraid to use that word "dominion" which marks our independence, recalls our birth and gives all of us in all parts of this House and from all parts of this country the opportunity to work together in a free and independent nation created by those who were in this place before us.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join briefly in the discussion of Bill C-29 and to express to the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) who moved this amendment, my appreciation of his concern and my awareness of the sincerity of his efforts to bring to the attention of the Canadian people the significance of the celebration of our birthday. The original bill is deserving of equal treatment and consideration because it voices concern, and as long as there is this concern the well-being of Canada is protected.
In all fairness I must join my colleagues, the hon. member from Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson), and indicate to the hon. member and to you, Mr. Speaker, that I think it is rather unnecessary that we are here this afternoon dealing with the name of the birthday of my country. I share the views and fears of some hon. members who have spoken this afternoon, as well as the views and fears indicated by some of my constituents in regard to the change of name.
In the last few weeks I have studied the meaning of the word "dominion". Not being a distinguished historian, I consulted the Concise Oxford Dictionary and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read the definition given there:
dominion, lordship, sovereignty, control; domains of feudal lord, territory of sovereign or government; Dominion of Canada, name given to Canadian colonies united 1867; Dominion of New Zealand, title given 1907; Dominion of Ceylon, 1948.
Canada Day Act
In law it means right of possession. The interpretation in law is that the possessor possesses what is in his possession. But this country is ours, mine, and nobody needs to remind me on July 1 that the name of the country whose birth I am celebrating is Canada. I do not need to be reminded by the amendments before us that on July 1 we are celebrating the anniversary of the confederation of the parts. I think we should recognize the danger of chipping away at those things which are meaningful to most of us.
The hon. member for Hillsborough is correct when he says that Canada is not any of its parts, but the Dominion of Canada is something more than the sum of all those parts. It is manifesting itself this week in the fear, rightly or wrongly, of whether we will have a country a week from today.


An hon. Member:: Not a dry eye in the
House!


J. Michael Forrestall: However, it is not in the context of what is happening in one of the provinces that I want to make my remarks this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, though it does point out the necessity of maintaining our identity as a nation. It seems to me rather important that we not turn our backs on the few tangible symbols that have withstood the pressures of 100 years.
Regretfully, I must indicate to my hon. friend that I think his amendment is redundant. I think it is a frustrated desire to do something worth while. I only wish he had directed his efforts to matters a little more productive of national unity rather than to a symbol which portrays the very essence of my right to possess what is mine. I wish I had my notes available so that I could tell the hon. member from whence the word "dominion" came.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed with the discourse of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). As I listened, I was reminded of the warm June days about exam time in school when I sat and dreamed of things that might have been and should have been, and wondered at the greatness of it all. However, Mr. Speaker, Canada did not develop quite as simply as that. I was impressed with our history, but surely we must go onward. Without the doubtful benefit of having had a revolution in Canada, we do not have a Bastille Day nor an Independence Day. We did not develop that way.
Canada Day Act

April 24, 1970
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I think most young people think of dominion as a special status in the British empire. I was surprised, unlike my hon. friend, to learn that Newfoundland was a dominion. I thought it was a colony, never dreaming it had reached the status of a dominion. For a long time Canada was proud of her status as a dominion within the British empire. Originally we were a colony, as has been mentioned, and then through a compromise on the part of Great Britain we became a dominion in the British empire, that status being somewhat greater than colonial status and somewhat less than the status achieved by revolution in the country to our south.
We have heard over the years, as we are hearing in the present election campaign in Quebec, that Canada is not a nation, that it is subject to the political will of others and that the influence of other nations is still at work in this country. I for one-and I believe most people share my feelings-think that "dominion" is a status we have grown out of. It is true that historically our nation was established by the action of a number of equal partners. But in my opinion what really made Canada a nation was not any act of Parliament but rather the role which Canada was able to play in two wars. During those wars when the apron strings of the mother country were loosened, we took on a national identity that otherwise might have been denied us.
I think most people agree that in these days our identity as a nation is established and that Canada Day ought to commemorate the day on which the dominion became a nation. History will not deny that we once enjoyed dominion status; it will not detract from the achievements that led to the colonization of this nation; it will not detract from the achievements of the people who originally came here. Certainly those who are yet to come will be aware of our history.
Also, I think it is more honest if we call this important national day Canada Day. Some people say we celebrate our birthday on that day, and this is a custom which has developed over a considerable period. There are conservatives-I spell that with a small "c"-who are unhappy when we give up anything of any significance at all in our history. To some extent we are all that way. These remarks may also apply to a young lady of illustrious name who is contemplating marriage. Having borne the illustrious name for 17 or 18 years, she does not wish to change it, but changes it in any event because 
the change will bring advantages. By taking another name she does not change the illustrious history of her former name. If we are to celebrate a day which is the anniversary of our establishment as a nation, I think we are in the position of that young lady. I think it is a step most Canadians wish to take, because we shall not be renouncing any of the illustrious parts of our history.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was not in the House this afternoon when debate began on the amendment of the hon. member for Hamil-ton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson). In my opening remarks I wanted to say that one of the supporters of the general proposition underlying the bill is my good friend from Brantford, the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Brown).
At the outset I should like to suggest to him and to others who are anxious, as demonstrated by this initiative, to change this particular aspect of Canadian history, that the initiative arises from a lack of appreciation of the true nature of that part of Canada which is beyond what those from western Canada refer to as central Canada or upper and lower Canada. I am sure that anybody who travels beyond the boundaries of the two central provinces acquires a sense of the broad sweep of Canada and a fresh appreciation of what is really involved in the term Dominion of Canada that is not possible until one has broken out of one's shell, as it were.
I am speaking briefly on this subject this afternoon because in Manitoba we are celebrating our centennial this year. Manitoba did not come into Canadian Confederation in 1867, simply because there was no province of Manitoba in the year of Confederation. We were carved out of the Northwest Territories, out of a wilderness that some pessimists in those days said would never be of any economic significance or any important part of this great Dominion of Canada. I suppose when we celebrate our birthday on July 15 of this year we will be marking the formal entrance of Manitoba as the first "in" province to use a phrase that has been chosen for the celebration, because we must note the fact that we are the first province outside the original group which joined Confederation. We will be very proud to refer to that day as Manitoba Day.
Speaking from the perspective of a Member of Parliament who represents a province that was not party to Confederation in 1867, I think hon. members will understand why we
April 24, 1970

are not sympathetic to the idea of changing Dominion of Canada Day to Confederation Day or even refining it further to Canada Day. It is not Confederation Day as far as Manitoba is concerned. It is Dominion of Canada Day and that, of course, is enshrined in the official motto inscribed in the stonework at the entrance to this building, A mari usque ad mare-"He shall have dominion from sea to sea." I think it would be most inappropriate in this year 1867-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I beg your pardon; I meant to say 1970. I see some of my hon. friends are amused.


An hon. Member:: Keep up to date.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We are living in 1970, unlike some of you fellows.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: My hon. friends on the opposite side of the House are seeing much hilarity in this matter. I was going to make the point that in the year 1970, when Manitoba is celebrating its entry into Confederation, we should stop juggling history in this respect and trying to rewrite it by substituting words that are fundamental in describing the historical process that has gradually seen this nation evolve from its beginning in 1867. Manitoba entered Confederation in 1870, and British Columbia in 1871. The two Prairie provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan entered in 1905. I am reminded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) that Prince Edward Island, which really sarted the whole process, came in in 1873. More recently, the dominion of Newfoundland came in 1949. This is a part of Canada which has been described as Britain's oldest colony-the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) will correct me if I am wrong-and it has been called Canada's newest dominion, I think that is the word used, or at least our newest province.
In 1967 we celebrated Canada's 100th birthday. In that year an attempt was made by Canadians in all the provinces to look back on our history and our origins. I believe it was Sir Edmund Burke, known as the father of philosophic conservatism, who said that a nation which had no regard for its history or its ancestry had very little hope of posterity.
In recognizing this principle of nationhood, we realize, as the hon. member for Temis-kaming (Mr. Peters) has pointed out, that we have no revolutionary tradition. If ours had been such a tradition, we would likely have
Canada Day Act
no nation today. Our traditions are evolutionary. We have developed a national consensus because we have moved forward on the basis of accumulated traditions. It is the revolutionary nation which suddenly leaps forward with new names and new ideas, dramatically repudiating their past. In the past week throughout the world there has been some observance of the glorious October Revolution of 1917 when a nation broke with its traditions. Talk about rewriting history! As I read the reports there have been attempts to elevate the conduct of that revolution, one Lenin, from sinner to saint. They are trying to place around the head of that individual the halo of saintliness.
Another revolutionary change was marked by the rise to power of the nazi movement in Germany. When Hitler was reminded that history would condemn him for his actions, he said history would never condemn him because he would rewrite it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: We do not want to rewrite history in those terms.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired and according to the order passed by the House this afternoon the time allotted for private members' business has also expired.
I think I owe it to hon. members to refer briefly to the procedural aspect of the bill and the amendments now before the House. The Chair has had serious doubts whether this amendment is in order, in the sense that what we have before us-as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-is not the bill which stood originally in the name of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Brown) but an entirely new bill. What we have been considering, substantially, is a bill standing in the name of the hon. member for	Hamilton-Wentworth	(Mr. Gibson). It might well be argued that under the terms of our standing orders, if the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth wanted this bill to be considered he should have introduced it in the same way as the hon. member for Brant introduced his own measure.
The question is whether a bill can be so amended in committee that it is not the same bill at all as when it came before the House. As the hon. member pointed out, the only thing left of the original bill is its number. I did not raise this point earlier, realizing that hon. members were anxious to discuss both aspects of this proposal. At the same time, I
6278	COMMONS
Canada-V.S. Fishing Agreement do not believe a precedent should be established for the consideration of an amendment of this kind. I am saying this ex post facto. I realize that if there had been real objection, and I had wanted to hear arguments for or against the bill from a procedural aspect, the matter should have been raised before. I do think the objections should be mentioned now, however, so that this form of amendment will not be used as a precedent should a similar situation arise later.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) would
DEBATES	April 24. 1970
like the unanimous consent of the House to return to Motions for the purpose of tabling a document. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the other day I promised I would table a copy of the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America on reciprocal fishing privileges in certain areas off the coasts of the two countries. This agreement was signed this afternoon, and since a public announcement is to be made I thought it would be only courteous to seek the first opportunity to table it in the House.
On motion of Mr. Cadieux (Labelle) the House adjourned at 3.40 p.m.

Monday, April 27, 1970