1970-01-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-180, to amend the Criminal Code (phosphate compound in detergents).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to prevent further pollution of Canadian lakes, rivers and other waterways by banning the manufacture, distribution and sale of detergents containing phosphate compounds, this legislation to take effect from January 1, 1972.


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


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-181, to amend the Divorce Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, the bill sets forth two amendments to the Divorce Act. The first amendment is so technical that I shall not trespass upon the time of the House. It cannot be explained briefly but the explanatory note with the bill puts the argument totally and fairly.
The second amendment would allow courts in provinces to which a successful party has moved to examine orders. If a person has obtained in Newfoundland an order for corollary relief and has moved to British Columbia, instead of putting those concerned to the expense of going back to the court in
Newfoundland the order could be reviewed in the courts of British Columbia.


[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 should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance relating to the policy of restraint and arising from the decision by the Quebec Transportation Board authorizing substantial increases in Quebec-Ontario trucking rates. Is it government policy that the increases in rates made under this order of the Quebec Transportation Board might well violate the government's restraint program or is it the policy that such increases would not violate any such program because they are authorized by a duly constituted authority?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minisier of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in these cases, and there was another case yesterday, I believe, with respect to telephone rates, the regulatory body itself generally only authorizes increases in rates that are based on increases in costs. With respect to the instance to which my hon. friend refers, I have asked for additional information about the increases, what they are based on and so on, and officials are trying to obtain this information for me.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the Minister of Transport or any representative of the government of Canada make any representations to the Quebec Transportation Board seeking a postponement of any authorized increases in view of the efforts the government of Canada is making with regard to restraint?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the increases did not come to my attention until they were announced. As I said to my hon. friend, I have asked that further information be requested from the Quebec Transportation

January 23, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry Board in order that we may know whether the increases are based purely on increases of costs involved.


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncion):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. During the talks that the Minister of Transport and the president of the CTC had with the various provincial transport authorities, did the Quebec Transportation Board indicate that this increase was going to be requested? If so, what did the chairman of the CTC say, and what was the minister's position with respect to that request?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, no reference was made at all to any prospective or likely increase during those meetings.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Finance actively considering a program of attempting to persuade the trucking companies which have been authorized to charge these increased rates to defer any such increases at least until after the meeting next month proposed by the Prices and Incomes Commission?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, that decision has not been made, pending the receipt of information as to the basis on which such increases were authorized.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister about the decision of the United States government to have five ships transfer nerve gas from Okinawa to Bangore, there to be transferred to 700 boxcars for transport to Hermiston army base. Since these five ships will pass through Juan de Fuca Strait and be unloaded only 60 miles south of Vancouver Island, may I ask whether the United States government has advised the Canadian government of this transfer and whether any representation has been made by the Canadian government with respect to this matter?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that any request has been made, but I shall make inquiries.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as Governor McCall of Oregon and Senator Hatfield have both appealed to the President of the United States to have this nerve gas, which has already injured some 24 people who were handling it in Okinawa, detoxicized before it is shipped, will the government of Canada consider making similar representations to the government of the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if any aspect of this matter falls within our jurisdiction, I will consider the suggestion.
fTranslation]



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence.
Would he tell the House whether his department is considering making important changes to Canada's radar system or closing certain radar stations?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the federal government actively assisting the Saskatchewan government in the convening of a meeting of potash producers of the world this summer in order to bring some order to this depressed industry?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have been asked, in this particular instance, to co-operate in the negotiations that Premier Thatcher is now conducting.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the most recent
January 23, 1970



reiteration of their position by Canada's top labour leaders that they have no intention of complying with the request and urgent suggestion of the department and the Prices and Incomes Commission to hold wage increases within agreed guide-lines, is the Prime Minister now giving serious consideration to meeting personally with these top labour leaders to try to convince them of the great necessity of agreeing to this action so that inflation control in Canada can have a chance of being realized?
Right Kon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minisier):
That is a very constructive suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I will take it into consideration if it becomes apparent that a meeting would be useful. However, at this stage I believe it wise to let the Prices and Incomes Commission continue its negotiations in that area as it has with the business area of the community.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Will the Minister of Transport say whether he intends accepting and acting, and if so, when, on the unanimous recommendation of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of December 11 for the establishment of a one-man inquiry to consider the claims of the Great Slave Lake contractors?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am prepared to accept the recommendation in principle that some inquiry should be held. Some doubts and problems have been raised about the nomination of a single person to do this job. I am looking for alternative ways of carrying out the same objective and recommendation of the committee.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In light of the widespread concern of hundreds of agents and other railway workers in western Canada because of the proposed lay-off of many personnel as a result of the master agency plan, can the minister say if this matter has been brought to his attention and will he review this serious situation with his colleague the Minister of Labour with a view to preventing these widespread lay-offs?
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minisier of Transport): I will be glad to do what I can, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. W. B. Nesbill (Oxford):: My question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister received any representations in the last day or so from the assembly of all the Indian chiefs of Alberta?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have received no letter or communication recently from the Indian Association of Alberta.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the position just taken by the assembly of all Indian chiefs of Alberta, will the minister immediately suspend any further implementation of the government's new Indian policy until genuine meetings and consultations take place with the leaders of the Indian people of Canada? Also, will the minister take immediate steps to arrange such consultations?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, since June I have had the opportunity of meeting almost all the Indian leaders in Canada to discuss our Indian policy, and I am always ready to meet them.
I had occasion to visit Alberta three or four times since June and I have always made myself available for discussions with the Indians. Unfortunately, the leader of the Indians of Alberta has not deemed flit to meet me.



RESEARCH


Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whiiby):: My question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Given the current concern of scientists in Canada about the direction of Canadian science policy, can the minister indicate to the House whether the United States government has requested the Canadian

January 23, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry government to participate in a $10 billion space research program? If so, what has been the response of the Canadian government?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I also read that newspaper article. I think the indication there is rather that it is speculated that the United States will invite Canada. It has not as yet and no such invitation has been received.


John Edward Broadbent: Will the minister assure the House that if such an invitation is extended the government will bring the issue before the House prior to reaching a decision?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member's supplementary is purely hypothetical.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. Is it the policy of the government to consider actively the advisability of Canada seeking a role to play in a joint space program with the United States?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, an interdepartmental committee has recently been formed to study this particular question.



NATURAL GAS


Mr. Sian Schumacher (Palliser):: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker, and it arises out of the prolonged hearings, now in their third month, being held by the National Energy Board concerning the future policy of the board governing the export of natural gas. With a view to shortening these hearings and resolving the present uncertainty in this important national industry, would the minister make a statement concerning the government's policy with respect to the regulation of the well-head price of natural gas?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The board, in holding these hearings, is acting in its quasi-judicial capacity and I do not think it would be proper for me to interfere with it in any way. Certainly the evidence coming out before the Board is extremely useful, and I am sure it will be taken into consideration by the government in the formulation of policy.
[Mr. Broadbent.l



NATIONAL PRESS CLUB


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as Leader of the House. In view of the fact that the National Press Club is to hold a meeting tomorrow for the purpose of discussing the constitutional question of the right of women to be known as persons, will the Leader of the House see whether arrangements can be made for the meeting to be held in this chamber? Will he also see whether arrangements can be made for Members of Parliament to take their places in the Press Gallery so this important meeting can be given full coverage by press, radio and television?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It sounds as though there has been an attack of nerve gas on the National Press Club. I will consider that suggestion and also the probability that there would be a much higher standard of reporting under those circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



TRANSPORT


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: have a question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to inform the House whether a decision has been made on the application by Canadian National Railways to include the French island port of St. Pierre as a port of call for the Argentia-North Sydney ferry?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No such application has been made, Mr. Speaker.



HARBOURS


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say
when the proposals for changes in administration of the national ports [DOT]will be ready? Will the minister assure hon. members affect-
January 23, 1970

ed that they will have an opportunity to see these proposals, preferably in the Transport Committee, before anything is finally done?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: As to the first part of the question, it will be within a month at the outside. As to the second part, definitely yes, and in addition to the members of the Transport Committee, any other groups that may have a related interest in the matter.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: My
question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has he made inquiries as to why the United States Army Corps of Engineers is hiring Canadian citizens in northern Ontario to record statistical data concerning stream flow rates, the thickness of ice on lakes and rivers, and so on?


John James Greene: I keep getting information from the hon. member about these elusive and mysterious engineers who are prowling around in the north. As I have told him before, the only study being done in the area is a joint study by Ontario and ourselves to co-ordinate information, and work together. My instructions are that at our end there is no Corps of Army Engineers. If the province of Ontario has retained any, I am not aware of the fact.


B. Keith Penner: Will the minister undertake to
investigate and report to the House as soon as possible as to the reasons for the activity of the Army Corps of Engineers in northern Ontario and under whose authority they are acting?


John James Greene: It may be I can put my colleague the Solicitor General and his minions to work in this regard.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Is
the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources aware of the fact that this type of investigation is being carried out by the American Corps of Engineers by letter and that the citizens of northerwestern Ontario who are taking these measurements are not engineers? Would the minister undertake to get in touch with his colleagues in the provincial department in Ontario to co-operate with them in finding out the purpose of this type of investigation?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John James Greene: I will be glad to do that. I am glad to hear it is being done by letter because I know that the information will be delivered promptly.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the minister's statement that 12 public hearings will be held on national parks plans, with details to be revealed in Halifax on January 27, can the minister indicate whether plans have yet been finalized for the construction of a coastal satellite park for Kejimkujik?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the question might be placed on the Order Paper. If the matter is one of urgency, it can be considered at the time of adjournment.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Does the minister propose to make a statement to the House on the plans for the location of a large new airport in the Toronto area, a matter which has greatly disturbed a number of people in that area?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had intended to do it some time ago but in the interest of getting as much involvement as possible at both the municipal and provincial level in Ontario there have been subsequent meetings among various groups. I am awaiting reports from them, and I hope that as a result of these meetings it will be possible for us to get agreement at all levels of government to obtain the maximum amount of disclosure, which is my desire in any event.



STE-SCHOLASTIQUE-DISCUSSION BETWEEN OTTAWA AND QUEBEC

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Transport whether he is in a position this morning to give the House a progress report on his discussions with the Quebec Department of Municipal Affairs with regard to the Sainte-Scholastique airport?

January 23, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Campbell Jamieson: There have been preliminary-meetings between myself and the Minister of Municipal Affairs of the province of Quebec. These have led to meetings of officials which have been going on during the past week, and I can report happily that they are going very well, amiably and most productively.


Georges-J. Valade: I have a supplementary question which I should like to put to the Minister of Transport. Is there any question of changing the site or will the site chosen stay as it is?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The site has been chosen and will stay precisely where it is.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It relates to a question I asked him on December 5 with regard to inadequate transportation facilities between the Lennox Island Indian reserve and Prince Edward Island. Unhappily, since that time there has been another death involving a young married mother as a result of poor transportation facilities. Since the minister promised to look into the matter at that time, can he inform us as to what immediate steps are being taken for this winter season when there is still a likelihood of further accidents and the dreaded possibility of drownings because of the very unsafe transportation link to the mainland?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the lack of communications between Prince Edward Island and the island where the Indians in question are living. I know that the means of transportation are inadequate, and officials of my department have begun discussions with representatives of the Prince Edward Island government in order to determine whether some improvement would not be possible through the construction of a small causeway or of a bridge, but to date no decision has been reached.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure

the minister has indicated the right action toward reaching a permanent solution to this problem and I am glad to hear him indicate it to the House. But in view of the fact that it will take at least one year or perhaps two to complete a solid link to the island-and I hope that the causeway will be more successful than the previous one-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon member kindly ask his supplementary question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I was getting to it. What steps are envisaged by the minister's department for this winter season, and will there be some kind of vehicle provided, which would be better than nothing, as the boat is not able to operate until there is full clearance of ice?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Evidently, Mr. Speaker, this is a very thorny problem and we are endeavouring to make available to the Indians the best means of transportation between that island and Prince Edward Island. However, navigation has always involved certain risks, but I deeply regret the recent drowning. The department officials are doing the best they can to provide the inhabitants of that island with the best possible means of transportation.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether his department has completed its investigation into gold mining operations and is now prepared to make a statement as to the intention of the government in relation to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act?


Mr. Speaker:: I would expect this kind of statement to be made on motions. Perhaps the minister might indicate whether such a statement will be made in due course.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the study is not complete and we are not yet prepared to make such a statement on motions.
January 23, 1970



HOUSING


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry whether, in connection with the international conference to be held on the west coast having to do with the use of wood products in house building, and because of the very special interest in some cases, it is his intention to invite provincial governments to contribute some members to the Canadian delegation or at least to have them attend as observers?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is definitely yes.



POLLUTION


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether in relation to the water bill now being considered the minister will soon announce the government's commitment for combating pollution, similar to the action taken by the President of the United States yesterday?


John James Greene: We do not have a presidential form of government here, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure the announcement will not be made in that way but in the normal parliamentary fashion.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in view of President Nixon's statement in his State of the Union message yesterday that he intends to put teeth into the U.S. anti-pollution drive by putting up $10 billion to finance it, does the government intend at the appropriate time, as the minister indicated it might do some time, to announce a comparable provision of money to put teeth into the Canadian bill?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think there are teeth in the bill.


An hon. Member:: False, though.


John James Greene: I think there are teeth in the government's anti-pollution and water management policy. I will be very pleased to send
Inquiries of the Ministry the hon. member my speech in closing the debate on second reading. I think he will then be assured-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the minister but I suggest he should not revive the debate which ended yesterday regarding legislation that is before the House at the present time.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Has the minister noticed that these teeth he talks about are nothing but gums and are not working very effectively?


John James Greene: I can assure my hon. friend they are not store teeth; they are real teeth.



UTILIZATION OF LAKEHEAD TERMINAL SPACE

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister or to the Minister of Transport. In view of the concern expressed by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool that the Lakehead terminals will not be filled by the opening of navigation and there may not be sufficient stocks of clean grain in a shippable position to take advantage of possible boat loadings, will shipping plans in respect of western grain be reviewed in order to ensure that this situation will not develop?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the premise in the first place. I recall the Minister without Portfolio saying exactly the opposite. I will nevertheless bring the question to his attention when he comes back from the west next week.



TRANSPORT


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he can indicate to the House what action he is taking with regard to the refusal of trucking firms, other than Day and Ross, to reduce their rates and pass them on to the users of such services in line with the Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In the first instance, Mr. Speaker, the subsidies were paid to the trucking firms because this was the fastest way to get the

January 23, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry project in operation. In answer to my hon. friend I would suggest that the trucking firms will get the message that if they do not take action which results in lower costs to users we will quickly find a technique to put the money directly in the hands of the shippers.



JURISDICTION OF PROVINCES IN RESPECT OF RAIL AND TRUCK RATES

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I failed before to ask the Minister of Transport whether he will take an opportunity now or later to clarify the constitutional uncertainty about the capacity of the provinces to act in respect of both trucking and rail rates, and to indicate whether the government intends as a result of meetings to move into these fields?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member is inviting the minister to make this kind of information available to the House by way of a statement. I assume that statement would not be made now.


Thomas Miller Bell: I appreciate your admonition, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister merely indicate that the government may be moving into these fields as a result of these meetings?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I expect that we will proclaim part III of the National Transportation Act within a matter of weeks.



POLLUTION


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether his officials have been able to determine the cause of the most recent pollution of Halifax harbour, particularly the eastern side? Have they determined the cause and have there been any penalties imposed on the guilty parties?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as a result of earlier representations by the hon. member I have asked departmental officials to send me a full report on the investigation. I have not received it yet, but as soon as I do 1 will be glad to pass it on to him.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Government House Leader, on behalf

of those of us who have a special interest, whether he would indicate the business of the House for today?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the business will be as announced last Thursday, namely, the four financial institution bills. While I am referring to this matter perhaps I should also indicate that on Monday and Tuesday of next week we will have the debate which has already been referred to on the motion to set up a joint parliamentary committee on the constitution of which notice will be given later today. On Wednesday of next week it is intended to call the three fisheries bills, the bill to repeal the Deep Sea Fisheries Act, the bill to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and also the Saltfish Corporation bill, for the purpose of dealing with them on second reading.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, if the House makes sufficient progress today on the financial bills and there is time, will the House leader bring in the fisheries bills, especially BUI C-175?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My colleague the Minister of Fisheries will be ready to bring on the package if we do make progress on the financial bills.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, do I gather from listening to the House Leader that the question of Arctic sovereignty has been permanently shelved and talked out by this government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker. We wiU be bringing forward the legislation referred to in speeches yesterday, and perhaps the question can then be discussed in
a more effective way.



PRODUCTS DISPLAYED AT FLOATING FAIR ABOARD &quot;SUNRIVER&quot;

John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, since the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is sponsoring a seagoing food fair in the Caribbean, which is called a floating fair in the department's press release, on board a ship named the Sunriver, and in view of the fact it contains many samples of Canadian foods and also wines, liquors and tobacco but has apparently very little emphasis on cereal grain products, wUl he undertake to review the list of products in order to ensure that all possibilities for developing markets for cereal grains will be explored?
January 23, 1970



INCOME TAX


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance a question.
Will he give favourable consideration to the suggestion of the chairman of the Executive Committee of Montreal, Mr. Saulnier, about granting taxpayers a federal tax rebate in proportion to the municipal taxes they pay, to help them as well as the municipalities?


Edgar John Benson: No,
Mr. Speaker, not at the present time. Any changes in taxation proposed by the government would be brought forth during the budget in the normal way.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, my question was whether the minister was going to consider a possible rebate in his future budget?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, in preparing a budget one considers a great many possibilities.


Georges-J. Valade: But not this one.



PENSIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he can tell us that we may expect fairly soon the introduction of the legislation forecast in his welcome announcement of December 19?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the House Leader will shortly be discussing with his counterparts the legislative program for the balance of the session.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on January 14 I directed a question to the Minister of Transport regarding approval by the Canadian Transport Commission of the takeover of Canadian Coachways Limited by Greyhound Corporation of Chicago. The minister said he would
Inquiries of the Ministry he prepared to read the transcript and decide whether or not the government should exercise the authority it has under legislation to stop the takeover. Has the minister had an opportunity to look into the matter and has any decision been reached?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Not so far as a decision is concerned. Yesterday I obtained a copy of the judgment from the CTC and I will undertake to read it quickly and give an answer probably next week.



MOVEMENT BY RAILWAYS

['I did look into the matter and I discussed it with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is my impression he commented on it in the House since the last time it was raised. If not, I will check to see whether something can be done.']
Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Would the minister also pass on to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board the information that many western farmers have no confidence in the ability or willingness of the railroads to move the required amounts of grain in the balance of this crop year?



John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Shortly before the Christmas recess I asked the Prime Minister if the government would look into reports by an impartial committee in Europe which indicated there has been systematic torture of political prisoners in Greek prisons, and if this were found to be the case would he consider issuing a protest from the government of Canada. At that time he said he would look into the matter. I wonder whether he has done so.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did look into the matter and I discussed it with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is my impression he commented on it in the House since the last time it was raised. If not, I will check to see whether something can be done.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport when the statement he prom-

January 23, 1970
Trust Companies Act
ised on December 5 he would make on the matter of waste and oil pollution caused by freighters in the Great Lakes will be given in the House?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not recall having made such a promise. I believe I was speaking of the Brussels conference. I referred to such a statement yesterday. I will make a copy available to the hon. member. He can study it and then if there is some further information he requires he can ask me.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, would the minister be agreeable, with unanimous consent, to table the statement to which he referred yesterday?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would be agreeable.


Mr. Speaker:: A suggestion has been made that a document referred to by the hon. member for St. John's East mentioned yesterday by the Minister of Transport should be tabled. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if the minister will look at Hansard for December 5 he will find that he gave such a commitment to a member from Ontario.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, December 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill S-8, to amend the Trust Companies Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, four such bills have been taken off the list of private members' bills and have been transferred to government orders with the result that these companies will be brought under the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Insurance. This raises a number of points which should be seriously considered by hon. members of the House. Most hon. members did not seriously consider the implications of many bills passed during private members' hour, but I believe there is a

considerable role to be played by our financial institutions other than banks or nearbanks. I believe the trust companies, small loan companies and insurance companies fall into that category because a large amount of money is held in trust by these various agencies which operate for the Canadian public.
A great deal of this money is never returned to the people whom we feel should obtain the benefits of it. These are mainly the people who have to issue debentures for municipal, provincial or large social capital expenditures. This money in the main has not been available. For this reason we believe the proliferation of trust companies, insurance companies and small loan companies really cuts into the role which I think all Canadians believe should be played by the banking institutions. The role of these companies has not been supervised to the degree certain other financial institutions have been. These companies have had difficulty in getting their bills passed and the government has taken the easy way out and has now provided for their incorporation by letters patent. Therefore the Superintendent of Insurance will have a great deal more responsibility than he had before.
These trust companies have operated under a certain set of regulations. They have been supervised in the past, but when we establish such new companies by letters patent I believe we should give some consideration to the operations of the existing companies and consider whether or not new companies are needed. Nowhere in this bill do I see any power given to the Superintendent of Insurance that would allow him to make such a decision. It is a fact that a small, private trust company is set up it will come back to the Superintendent of Insurance in a year or two asking for an increase in its capitalization. In two or three years it might even be able to afford a $5 million capitalization.
These trust companies have grown at an alarming rate over the years. So whether or not we should incorporate other trust companies becomes very important, considering the role they play in the financial structure of Canada, the role they play in relation to lending institutions and the role they should play in respect of lending money for long-term social capital purposes such as the building of private homes, hospitals and schools. This role has been limited so far as the trust companies are concerned. It is obviously limited as far as the interest return rate is concerned. But there are many fields in which the trust
January 23, 1970

companies have jurisdiction over administration, such as with respect to estates, bankruptcies and business operations run by a third party, where they would be able to invest the large sums of money they have in stable investments.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
I am very pleased to note that under the terms of the new legislation we will allow the trust companies to invest in such things as the Industrial Development Bank. We are allowing them to make loans under the terms of the small loans legislation. We are allowing them to make loans to farmers under farm credit legislation. In general we are allowing them to make loans in those fields in which the government assumes some responsibility for the repayment of loans. In this way we are broadening the role of the trust companies.
I am sure there are many Members of Parliament who do not really care one way or another what a particular trust company does. Many of us are not too interested either in what a particular insurance company does. But, Mr. Speaker, we should be concerned about what these companies do in the aggregate. As Members of Parliament we have not been pleased about some things that have happened in individual trust companies and insurance companies. For instance, in my experience Allstate is about as close to being crooked as it could be. People who submit claims to Allstate sometimes find they have to wait four or five years to have their claims settled. This is not generally true of insurance companies. While I am interested in this particular insurance company for that reason, I am more interested in the broad spectrum of insurance companies. The same is true with respect to a trust company which may have mismanaged a bankruptcy. It attracts our attention.
Insurance companies, trust companies and loan companies are playing an increasing role in our society. They affect many people who are not at all involved with estates, the administration of estates, bankruptcies, and the administration of bankruptcies. The difficulty the individual has is in arriving at a reasonable personal role in his relationship with these institutions.
I have mentioned one particular insurance company. I do not think the House should be concerned with the actual methods that insurance companies use, but when a complaint about one company comes to the attention of
Trust Companies Act
a Member of Parliament he must wonder if this situation applies to all insurance companies and whether it is not the tip of an iceberg, the tip of one huge problem about which something should be done. I would like to see Members of Parliament become much more interested in the over-all operations of trust companies and in the role they play in the daily life of our communities.
It seems to me that the House is being asked to pass these four bills in order to end a problem that I helped to create. I make no apology for that, Mr. Speaker, even though on a number of occasions we used incorporation bills, and in some cases may have abused them, for a definite purpose. I think our purpose has been accomplished. However, I would not like to see this bill pass without saying that we had no intention of chasing all the financial institutions into the department of the Superintendent of Insurance.
Over the past ten years we have had close relations with the Superintendent of Insurance. I have known very well both of the gentlemen who in recent years have occupied that position and have found them to be very capable people. However, I am well aware of their limitations with respect to staff and organization which may prevent that department from carrying on the type of supervision that, hopefully, people thought would be done when incorporation bills were being examined by Parliament. I know that most members of the House never looked at incorporation bills. In fact the Senate did a heck of a lot more work than the House in supervising incorporations, even though in many cases it did so for the wrong reason, because Senators were to be on the boards of directors of the companies seeking incorporation. Anyway, at least the Senate took a look at incorporation bills, but most members of the House did not stay in the chamber when such bills were being discussed.
I am scared that we are giving the Superintendent of Insurance a responsibility which I think he cannot exercise, a responsibility which I think he does not want, and a responsibility which I do not think we should make him exercise. He will now have to look at these bills in the light of the public good. That is a loose form of wording. We used to have it in most union constitutions. At the end of our meetings when there was nothing else to discuss we wound up discussing the good of the union, found out who were the sick people in hospital, sent them flowers and arranged for somebody to visit them. Maybe

January 23, 1970
Trust Companies Act
we should do that now in terms oi some of the financial institutions that will be incorporated through letters patent.
We may quite easily find that another 100 or 200 trust companies will be incorporated. If this happens we will find 100 new offices on Sparks Street. Such companies always seem to have a great deal of money for elaborate offices. You see them giving away little cars or silverware in order to attract new depositors who agree to leave their money on deposit over a long period of time. Each time this happens it means that that much money is not available in the form of normal savings subject to the control of the Bank of Canada.
That money will be spread out over many companies, as is the case now with insurance companies, so that in the end it will be difficult to consider it as savings of the public. It will not be a viable resource which one can spend or borrow against, as can be done in the banks. I wonder who will look after that. In its wisdom both Houses of Parliament used to scrutinize proposed incorporations bills on their merits. Now we are turning them over to the Superintendent of Insurance and giving up our responsibility, and I do not see that this bill provides any protection through powers given to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) or to other ministers who are concerned with financial institutions.
[DOT] (12 noon)
If we say to the Superintendent of Insurance, "It is now your job, you have to supervise this," I think he will be hard pressed to do so, and I think he will be very unhappy trying to do it, although I am sure he will do the best job he can. I think the government should be prepared to write in some protection for the public and provide guidelines for the Superintendent of Insurance by which he can make the decisions that we will now be asking him to make. I have read the bill and I know there are a number of worth-while changes in it. However, I think the philosophic problems of our financial institutions should not become a pawn in my objections to some of the bills submitted in Private Members' hour. I suggest that the minister may find us very sympathetic if he is willing to provide the type of protection that we had hoped for, and were working towards in the Private Members' hour, for trust companies and the public from abuses apparent in the past and that in the future will be multiplied tenfold.


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I understand the previous speaker, the hon.

member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) was speaking primarily to item No. 44 on the order paper, resuming debate on Bill S-8. My comments, which will be very brief will be dealing with items 42, 43, 44 and 45, the four financial bills concerning insurance companies, trust companies and loan companies.
In making a general statement which will be applicable to all four items, I might say that these bills are significant and important pieces of legislation. The role of the insurance companies, trust companies and loan companies in the financial and commercial life of Canada is such as to affect every Canadian in his lifetime and is a most important part of the private sector of the Canadian economy. In another sense, however, they are housekeeping bills. The changes that have occurred in the corporate structure, in the organization and in the function of the various kinds of financial houses in recent years, require that we review, revise and up-date our legislation on such companies in the light of these changes and in the light of the relationships between these companies and the citizens.
Basically, therefore, the only principle at issue here is the need for modernization of the laws defining these corporations. The same principle that was applicable to our loan companies and chartered banks is applicable to our general laws on corporations.
All these bills can best be considered in committee where the highly technical changes can be examined with the help of public service officials and private citizens. Generally, these changes can be said to broaden the power of these companies and also the power of government to control the affairs of the companies. It is in this area that we intend to scrutinize these bills thoroughly in committee to ensure that in granting such powers to private industry and government, and in balancing these powers one against the other, the over-all balance is struck in the public interest.
I have one other observation to make, Mr. Speaker, which is irrelevant in the immediate sense I admit, but very relevant to the business of the House. All these bills went through the other place in the last session and at least two of them then appeared on the Order Paper in this House. All of them died before being passed at the close of the last session and this session they had to be reintroduced. It seems to me that some thought might be given to changing our rules to provide that within the life of a Parliament a bill
January 23, 1970

might go over from one session to another, maintaining the place on the order paper in the new session that it had on the prorogation of the previous session.
That is all I have to say at this moment, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio) moved: that Bill S-9, to amend the Loan Companies Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make clear that I did not make use of my right of reply at the end of debate on second reading of the previous matter, and with the accord of the members of the House with respect to the second reading of this bill and the two that follow, I propose to forgo my forthcoming right of reply in order to expedite the business of the House. However, I wish it to be understood that it is my intention to deal with points raised by hon. members when these bills are before the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for study. At this time, I wish to put on record an outline of the amendments to the Loan Companies Act intended by the bill now before us.
The Loan Companies Act is an act that applies to companies that might be more accurately described as mortgage loan companies. Their essential characteristic is the making of mortgage loans on real estate or the investment in such mortgage loans. The funds for this purpose are raised by the sale of debentures to the public or by the acceptance of deposits. At the present time, there are 12 such companies active in Canada having total assets of about $1.5 billion and liabilities to the public of about $1.3 billion. The extent of their involvement in real estate mortgages is illustrated by the fact that more than 80 per cent of their assets are of this type.
The principal amendments contemplated by this bill fall into four categories. Firstly, the amendments would effect certain changes in
Loan Companies Act
the investment powers of loan companies generally in the direction of expanding such powers and bringing them closely into line with powers of life insurance companies. One of the most significance perhaps would be an amendment to enable companies to make investments and loans within their own discretion up to a maximum limit of 7 per cent of the total assets of the company. This corresponds to the so-called basket provision that has been in effect for life insurance companies for some years. There has been a basket provision provided in the legislation for mortgage loan companies but this was limited to 15 per cent of the company's capital and surplus.
Companies would be empowered to invest in real estate for the production of income, not only where the real estate is leased to a company whose stocks are eligible investments, but also real estate that qualifies on an earnings test. Also, the size of individual parcels of real estate that might be purchased would be increased from 1 per cent to 2 per cent of a company's assets. These changes would bring the powers of loan companies into line with those for insurance companies with respect to investments in real estate for the production of income.
The requirement for a minimum statutory margin with respect to collateral loans would be removed and companies could determine their own margin, subject, however, to their having sufficient collateral to cover the amount of the loan on a market value basis.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Companies may now make mortgages subject to the limitation that the amount of the mortgage is not to exceed 75 per cent of the value of the real estate. They may lend in excess of this amount, however, where the excess is guaranteed or insured by a governmental agency. An amendment is proposed that would permit excess mortgages to be made if the excess is insured under a policy of mortgage insurance issued by a registered insurance company.
The power to make investments and loans in corporate securities would be expanded to enable a company to invest in such securities outside Canada in any country in which the company is doing business. A company would be required however to maintain assets in Canada at all times at least equal to its liabilities in Canada. The power of companies to own subsidiaries would be expanded to enable a loan company to operate a loan com-

January 23. 1970
Loan Companies Act
pany subsidiary in a foreign jurisdiction and to incorporate a subsidiary investment company for the purpose of selling mutual fund shares. It would also be able to own subsidiary companies for the purpose of carrying on any business reasonably ancillary to that of a loan company. The power to own subsidiaries would be subject to terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council.
The existing prohibition against loan companies making loans on the security of promissory notes would be repealed, thus enabling companies to make consumer loans within the limitation prescribed by the basket provision should they so desire. There has been some interest in this possibility by some loan companies, particularly those in the business of accepting deposits from customers, many of whom have been asking if this kind of loan could be made to them.
The second principal amendment, somewhat related to investment powers, is one that would expand the existing prohibition against loans to directors or officers to prohibit loans to or investments in any major shareholder. Also, loans to or investments in other corporations would be prohibited if a director, officer or major shareholder had a significant interest in that other corporation. These amendments are for the purpose of expanding the existing prohibitions against investment transactions that may involve a conflict of interest on the part of persons who are in a position to control or direct the investment decisions of the loan company.
The third main category relates to changes in the system of supervision and control, particularly with respects to companies that may find themselves in financial difficulties. At present, the minister has power to insert conditions or limitations in a company's licence when it is renewed, from year to year, and he may also withdraw the licence if the superintendent reports that, in his opinion, the assets of the company are insufficient to enable it to continue in business. There is, however, no intermediate step between inserting conditions in the licence and withdrawing it.
The amendments propose that the superintendent be required to report to the minister in any case where he thinks that a company is getting into financial difficulties or where it has exceeded its borrowing limits. The minister would then be empowered to take one or more of three steps. He could impose conditions in the company's licence; he could prescribe a time within which the company

would be required to remedy the defect or he could direct the superintendent to take control of the company's assets.
In any case where the superintendent has control of the assets of a company, the minister could request the Attorney General to apply to a court to direct the superintendent to take control of the company for the purpose of its rehabilitation or he could request the Attorney General to apply to a court for an order winding up the company under the Winding-up Act.
Where the superintendent has control of a company for rehabilitation or has control of the assets of a company he would be empowered to assess expenses incurred by him in this connection against other loan companies.
The superintendent would be empowered to take control of a company's assets temporarily in any case where he found there had been an improper accounting of the assets. This could be maintained only for a period of seven days at the discretion of the superintendent. Any longer period would require ministerial authorization.
These changes are proposed with a view to providing a more flexible system of supervision and control in cases where companies are in financial difficulties and where action requires to be taken to protect the interests of depositors and debenture holders.
The fourth category of amendments deals with changes in the system of incorporating companies and amending existing charters. At present, mortgage loan companies may be incorporated federally only by special act of Parliament. Amendments to existing charters may also be made only by special act. The proposed amendments would adopt a letters patent system for incorporating new companies and for amending existing charters. It is also proposed to enable provincial companies to change to the status of federally incorporated companies by a letters patent procedure subject to concurrence of the home province. As in the case of the proposed amendments to the Insurance Companies Act and the Trust Companies Act, the letters patent would be issued by the Corporations Branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, subject however to the concurrence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). Investigation would be made by the Superintendent of Insurance in the manner now followed in respect of private bills and public notice would be required in the Canada Gazette for application for incorporation.
January 23, 1970

The letters patent would be in standard form as provided in the bill, but enough flexibility would be permitted to enable the letters patent to be adjusted to meet special circumstances. In particular, if the persons proposing the incorporation so desired, letters patent could contain restrictions on voting rights or on share ownership. Similar restrictions could be put in the charters of existing companies if the application were approved at a special general meeting of the company and if the Minister of Finance concurs.
The amendments would provide that before a new company can be authorized to transact business it must have a minimum capital of at least $500,000. At present, the minimum initial capital is set in each private bill and thus considered on a case-by-case basis by Parliament.
Apart from the four main categories just described, there are a number of other amendments of significance. I shall touch upon the principal points.
A proposed amendment would require notice to the superintendent in case of a major transfer of shares. This proposes that no transfer of a block of stock in excess of 10 per cent would be permitted until after 30 days' notice to the superintendent including information as to beneficial ownership. Such notice would also be required in cases of transfer of lesser blocks where the result was change of control. This would not grant a veto power to the superintendent or the government but would ensure that supervisory authorities have adequate notice of significant changes in share ownership.
The Governor in Council would be authorized to adopt regulations dealing with the safekeeping of securities and the bonding of directors, officers and employees. It would be intended under this provision to establish procedures designed to improve the care and custody of assets of companies.
At present, companies are limited in the amount of money they can accept on deposit and borrow on the issuance of debentures to a maximum of 15 times their capital and surplus. The amendments would raise this limit to 20 times subject to approval by the Minister of Finance on specific application by the company.
To use words similar to those I used in opening debate on the amendments to the Trust Companies Act, this amendment would make it possible for these companies to make more money available for mortgage lending. An important part of the lending business, as
Loan Companies Act
I said with respect to the Trust Companies Act, is in the field of lending for housing purposes. As I indicated with respect to the trust companies, the minister responsible for housing has told me that companies of this type have been contacting him and stressing the importance of approval of these amendments if their mortgage lending is not to be curtailed and if they are to be able to respond to the minister's requests that they allocate more funds for lending for housing.
The present liquidity test would be revised to require companies to maintain a reserve of at least 20 per cent of their demand deposits and debentures falling due within 100 days in the form of federal or provincial securities or cash.
Quarterly reports would be required from companies showing their assets and liabilities in order to enable the supervisory authorities to keep a close check on liquidity and semiannual reports would be required showing the changes in investments and loans.
It is proposed to insert an age limit of 75 on eligibility to be elected as a director. This would take effect from January 1, 1972 and is similar to a change made in the Bank Act a few years ago.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
A number of changes are proposed in the auditing requirements, principally for the purpose of specifying the qualification of auditors. This is made the same as in the Bank Act. The act presently contains a provision permitting companies to issue share warrants, that is warrants enabling the holder to convert the warrant into a registered share if he so wishes. These are not the same as share purchase warrants, since the warrant concept here is one that enables the bearer to have the share delivered to him on presentation of this warrant. This is not used by any company at the present time and would create certain difficulties with respect to the control of transfer of shares to non-residents. It is proposed, therefore, that this be deleted from the act.
Certain changes are proposed in the provisions restricting non-resident ownership with a view to clarifying the wording and providing for the preservation of voting rights of non-residents where these rights were acquired while a company was exempt from the restrictions. The requirements for issuance of preferred stock would be somewhat simplified as would the requirements having to do with the adoption of by-laws. At least three-quarters of the directors would be

January 23, 1970
Loan Companies Act
required to be Canadian citizens resident in Canada rather than only 50 per cent as at present. This change would follow a similar change for the Bank Act and one proposed for the Trust Companies Act.
A number of other amendments are proposed for the purpose of modifying wording and correcting a few administrative procedures. A number of changes would be made transferring certain other discretionary authority from the Treasury Board to the minister as a consequence of some of the reorganization changes within government departments.
Part II of the Loan Companies Act refers to the licensing of British loan companies to transact business in Canada. There are in fact no such companies and this part has not been used for a great many years. It is proposed, therefore, to repeal the part.
I will be pleased to attempt to respond to more detailed questions when the bill is before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. It is considered that approval of this bill, like approval of the bill to amend the Trust Companies Act, will assist in widening the supply of funds available for mortgage lending and will widen the ability of federally incorporated loan companies to provide services to the public as well as widening the degree of protection available to depositors and others who lend money to these companies under federal incorporation and supervision. I ask for the support of the House at this second reading stage of the debate on this bill.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister? How does he come to the conclusion, as he did in the last remark he made, that this bill will increase the capitalization available and the rate of expansion?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The law provides that companies can seek deposits from the public only up to a certain proportion of their net assets and the volume of loans they make are linked with the deposits they are able to attract. They are loans by way of mortgage. Obviously, when they are as at present approaching or at the ceiling on borrowing from the public, the power that they have to make loans to the public by way of mortgages is thereby limited. If the authority they have under the act to seek deposits is increased, then to the extent they attract deposits, it will follow that their opportunity to make loans to the public by way of mortgage, which is their principal business, will be increased.


Mr. Salisman:: I have a couple of questions I want to ask the minister. Is it not equally true that they could increase the amount of money they attract by increasing their capitalization, even under the present legislation? Second, if they are going to attract this extra money to put into mortgages, where is it anticipated this money will come from? Will it be new money that is being created or money drawn from sources now in use?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think that detailed questions of this type might be better discussed when the bill is before the Finance Committee. I will attempt to respond to them by saying it would appear preferable to follow the pattern that has been used in the past, that is to use the formula whereby the amount of money that they can seek in deposits is linked to a certain number of times their net capital and certain other assets. This provides a greater measure of control by the Minister of Finance because the formula provides a minimum ceiling that can be increased at the discretion and authorization of the Minister of Finance. It is proposed the ceiling be increased from the present discretionary limit of some 15 times up to 20 times.
With respect to attracting funds, these institutions are basically competing with other financial institutions which may not be directing or investing their funds toward quite the same mix of investments. I think if they are better able to compete with other institutions and generally better able to attract savings from the public because of the present pattern of lending by these institutions, it would follow that the funds likely would be put into investments by way of mortgage loans following the presently existing pattern.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, we do not wish to prolong this debate because, as the minister has pointed out, there will be an opportunity of raising some of these questions in committee. The purpose of our questions and interventions has been to point out that there are some very great difficulties involved in this whole matter. To the present, there have not been any satisfactory answers from the government side.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has placed a great deal of stress on the need for priorities in carrying on public affairs and in the programs that it presents to Parliament. It has attempted to make a considerable show of its own sense of priorities and to create the
January 23, 1970

image which portrays this sense of priorities. It has also tried to impress upon the public, and other members when they try to get their own way in Parliament, the necessity of making sound rational choices when dealing with public business and public affairs. That is all very fine. Of course, it is like motherhood.
Let us put these particular assertions to the test. Where is the government's sense of priorities in relation to the amending of the Loan Companies Act which is now before us? I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the government has placed this bill ahead of many other far more urgent measures on the Order Paper or which have been announced by the government for introduction at this session. Originally this bill was placed ahead of the Canada water bill for consideration, but that was changed after some opposition interventions in the debate on the four finance company bills. Therefore, the Canada water bill has now passed second reading.
The government has placed this bill ahead of measures to bring about a measure of economic stabilization and in order to ensure that we would not have a considerable unemployment problem this winter. It has placed it ahead of measures to help pensioners, to help veterans and to help distressed groups throughout Canada. I refer to western agriculture, problems of the Maritimes, problems of the cities, unemployment which I already mentioned, and the problems of the Indians and Metis. There are other problems I could also mention.
The government placed this bill ahead of the Canada Development Corporation bill which, of course, is a measure that could be used very effectively, if the government so chose, to deal with some of the problems involved in the large degree of foreign ownership of the Canadian economy. This bill is being placed ahead of the Combines Investigation Act revision which has been announced; the motor vehicle safety bill; the labour code amendments which were supposed to come before us, and other labour legislation. It has been placed ahead of the marketing agencies bill which is important to the agricultural industry as a whole; it has been placed ahead of the revisions to the Canada Grain Act, so badly needed to improve our basic marketing situation, one which has caused a great deal of frustration to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) during the past year. The hon. gentleman seems to be experiencing a 21611-35
Loan Companies Act
sense of frustration at this very moment during my recital of all these items which have been placed lower on the list of priorities-
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not at all, Mr. Speaker.


John Stratford Burton: This bill has been placed ahead of the co-operatives bill which has been promised by the federal government for years. None of these things has been dealt with during this session so far, but the government has insisted that this bill be dealt with. The loan and trust companies legislation had to go forward. The government felt obliged to satisfy the needs of its friends first; it had to make certain that the financial institutions, who already possess a great deal of power in the economy, obtain even more power and privileges.
There are some curious contradictions in government policy at the moment. On one hand, the government is making a great show of its anti-inflation drive and the need to curb unnecessary spending. It is attempting to set a good example-without any great success, I might say-by following a program of restraint. In the process it is restraining some worth-while and necessary programs. On the other hand, through this legislation, it is increasing the power of loan companies to accumulate funds for further investment; it is giving this extra power to the loan companies whose decisions will be based on considerations of commercial profitability and the corporate well-being of the firms concerned rather than the public good. There is no need to tell members of this House that these two things do not necessarily coincide; it is obvious that the direction of private investment decisions does, in many instances, ignore the public interest in addition to ignoring the government's pleas for restraint. This does not deter the government from proceeding blindly with a bill which will further increase the economic power of these financial institutions. It will certainly have an inflationary effect in present circumstances; it will certainly contribute to the inflationary psychology which government spokesmen have referred to so often as being a major obstacle to be overcome.
These trust and loan companies play an important role in the development of Canada within the framework of our present economy. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics noted recently that in the second quarter of 1969 trust companies increased their investment in

January 23, 1970
Loan Companies Act
mortgages by $125 million to bring their total investments in mortgages at mid-1969 to $2.9 billion. Mortgage companies invested an additional $75 million in mortgages during the same period to bring total mortgage holdings at mid-year to $2.3 billion. It is reported that deposits in credit unions, which are also involved on the total picture of the financial institutions, increased in the second quarter of 1969 by a modest amount. Sales finance companies increased their sales finance paper by $172 million during the quarter bringing total holdings of sales finance paper to $4.7 billion. Mutual funds showed sales of shares to investors amounting to $64 million during the quarter.
As the minister indicated when introducing the bill before us, there are some 12 companies operating under the provisions of this legislation at the present time, and, of course, the Superintendent of Insurance has to report on the activities and financial position of these companies in his annual report. I was interested to learn from the Annual Report of the Superintendent of Insurance for the year 1968 that, as the minister pointed out in his remarks, the total admitted assets at book value of the loan companies in Canada incorporated under federal legislation was slightly more than $1.5 billion in 1968, an increase over 1967 amounting to almost exactly 10 per cent, which is certainly an appreciable one. I was interested to learn also that the two largest corporations which make up the bulk of the total figure are the Canada Permanent Mortgage Corporation, with total assets of some $629 million, and the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation, with total assets of some $536 million. There are only two other companies whose assets amount to more than $100 million; the others are relatively small in size, the smallest having assets of only $392,000.
What interested me particularly, looking at the operation of the loan companies, was a table in which an attempt was made to classify mortgage lending on real estate on the basis of provincial distribution. Of a total outstanding at the end of 1968 amounting to some $1,235,000,000, more than $588 million- almost half-was invested in the Province of Ontario. This should be noted in the light of the Prime Minister's criticism of the government of Ontario for failing to take adequate steps to deal with inflation. Perhaps some of that criticism was justified. At the same time, here are these loan companies carrying on their operations in a completely unrestricted

way and, of course, we cannot fail to see that there is an extremely high concentration of their mortgage lending in Ontario, the province in which it has been suggested by the federal government that there is the greatest degree of inflationary pressure.
These companies, as we have seen, are able to carry on their operations completely free from the need to pay any regard to considerations of the public interest when making decisions concerning capital investment and spending across Canada. We know very well that much of Ontario has developed into what might be called the industrial heartland of Canada, and, of course, there is a tendency, when there is no restriction on private investment, for an increasingly large proportion of capital investment, particularly private capital investment, to become concentrated within such an area.
Then again, an extremely complex structure develops in time among these corporations and the financial institutions with which they are related. There are many links between these corporations and companies. Looking at the lists of directors of the two largest corporations to which I referred a few moments ago I find that many of these people are businessmen, well-known Canadian industrialists and financial leaders, who have close interests in many other corporations and areas of economic activity centred in Ontario.
s (12:40 p.m.)
There are regulations, now concerning the investments of loan companies. Loan companies may lend money on certain types of security, such as their assets, up to a total of 20 per cent of the value of securities issued by the company. The borrowing powers of the company are also subject to certain regulations. Up to the present time, the company could obtain money for lending purposes by issuing bonds and debentures and certain other securities or by receiving deposits up to an aggregate of the capital stock of the company and the cash on hand.
I was very interested to take note of some of the remarks of the minister who introduced this bill with respect to the expanded investment powers to be granted to loan companies. Again, it seems to me that the unrestricted expansion of these investment powers comes into direct conflict with some of the other enunciated objectives of the federal government in dealing with our present economic situation. The loan companies are to be given the power to invest in real estate. Their
January 23. 1970

borrowing powers are to be extended, and, in addition, amendments are proposed that would facilitate the amalgamation and purchase of similar companies. This of course can lead to a further concentration of economic power in Canada. We also note that the capacity of the company to borrow or to accept guaranteed trust funds is to be expanded from 15 times the excess of assets over liabilities to 20 times that amount. Again, it seems to me that the unrestricted expansion of these powers comes into direct conflict with the federal government's policies and objectives at the present time.
One other item of which careful note should be taken is the matter of interest rates. This matter of course has been the subject of extensive study by the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee of the House. It is likely that they will be bringing their report before the House in the near future. But it seems to me that this legislation should also be considered in the light of interest rates as they affect the Canadian economy. The fact is that there are many businesses throughout Canada which are finding it difficult to finance with the present rate of interest rates, and those people who are in a weaker economic position find the present situation most trying and difficult. The fact is that large corporations, when they find it necessary to go beyond their own internal sources of funds, when they find that the funds that they can generate internally are now inadequate for their purposes and they have to go to the market in order to borrow money, have a very much easier time in many respects in dealing with their problems and in carrying out the necessary financing than people who do not have a large degree of economic power.
The minister gave an outline of some of the changes that are to be made in the legislation, and one of the items to which he made reference was the change to be made in the incorporation of loan companies. This item has already been commented upon in the debate on the trust companies bill, but I think the point should be emphasized again in dealing with loan companies. I think it is inconceivable that we should have, on the one hand, legislation that gives these companies even more powers than they have at the present time while, on the other hand, we take away from Parliament the power to examine their operations and to examine the proposed corporate structures before giving them the authority to carry on their operations within 21611-351
Loan Companies Act
the Canadian economy. As a matter of fact, before letters patent are granted, if I understand the sections of the bill correctly, there is no requirement to disclose who is involved in establishing a new loan company with the exception of listing the five provisional directors. No doubt other information will be elicited when the company attempts to apply for incorporation, but it seems to me that we need to have a great deal more information, we need to have many more checks and controls, before this power of incorporation is taken away from Parliament.
We also find that there are to be changes with respect to the election of directors. We find now that directors can be elected at the annual meeting rather than by ballot of shareholders. This, of course, will further enable certain people and shareholders with large blocks of shares to obtain even greater power within the scope of these companies' operations. One of the provisions that the government will no doubt try to underline in some discussions is that three quarters of the directors must be Canadian residents and citizens. I think this is certainly a very feeble attempt to deal with the storm of protest that is arising concerning the problem of the foreign ownership of many sectors of the Canadian economy. Certainly, it will not deal with the problem adequately.
If I understand the provisions of the bill correctly, the powers of these companies are to be extended with respect to their ability to make investments in foreign loan companies. It seems to me that this is a point of some concern, because in dealing with the problem of foreign ownership in the Canadian economy one of the problems with which we have had to contend has been the considerable leakage of Canadian capital into other countries and away from Canada. Of course, this increases our need to resort to foreign sources of capital in order to bring about an acceptable level of economic development in Canada. Here we are giving these companies more powers to spend Canadian money and Canadian savings abroad than they possessed previously.
Other restrictions are also being removed. I already noted that the lending ratio is to be increased from 15 to 20 based on the excess of assets over liabilities.
There are a few other technical changes which are also proposed in the bill, but it seems to me that this bill, as it is presented by the government, is totally inadequate-within the framework of the situation facing

January 23, 1970
Loan Companies Act
the economy at present. I suggest that there are five areas of amendments that apply to this bill, and which I think should he considered by the government, before we can consider this legislation to be acceptable and to be anywhere near adequate to deal with our present problems.
The first requirement is that all financial institutions must be brought under the jurisdiction of the Bank of Canada. Second, we also need to give the Bank of Canada authority to alter the lending ratio of companies. Third, we need to ensure that the public interest is considered adequately by having a government appointee on each board of directors of these companies. Fourth, we should ensure that a certain percentage-possibly 15 per cent, which is one figure to which reference has been made-of the lending and investment funds of these companies be under public policy direction. Fifth, the Bank of Canada should have the power to regulate the rate of return and interest rates.
With respect to the rate of return, I was interested to note in the report of the Superintendent of Insurance that while the paid up capital stock of the loan companies at the end of 1968 amounted to slightly under $45 million, their gross profit during the year- that is before income taxes-amounted to $16,856,000, and that the dividends declared for the year amounted to $7,149,000.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
It certainly seems to me that this is a handsome rate of return on the investments shareholders have made in these companies. It seems to me that we need to consider this legislation within the over-all framework of the needs and the problems faced by the Canadian economy at the present time. I have already taken note of the curious set of priorities exhibited by the Liberal government in introducing this piece of legislation ahead of many other items. It seems to me there are certainly some very serious contradictions involved. This represents a great change from the image the Liberal government tried to portray at one time.
Just recently a correspondent in my constituency sent me an advertisement that had been placed in the Country Guide in June of 1944. This advertisement was placed in the Country Guide by the government of Canada. It is entitled in very large letters, "I Had a Nightmare". The text of it reads:
I dreamed that I paid $5.00 for a haircut and $50.00 for a pair of cardboard shoes. I dreamed that we had no wartime controls on prices, profits or

wages, and that we hadn't had the sense to organize the distribution of supplies ail the way down, the line-[DOT]
I dreamed that because everyone was making more money and spending it, prices were skyrocketing.
-all the stores looked like "fire" sales-with people scrambling to buy before prices went still higher-[DOT]
-panicky people were buying things they didn't need, and hoarding everything they could get their hands on-
I dreamed that everybody had to fight to get more money-and that in this mad race, wages and salaries were falling behind.
I dreamed the hand of everyone was against his neighbour, with each of us blaming the other fellow for his troubles.
-with everybody for himself-no matter what it cost in the long run-and no matter how it hurt the war effort.
Of course, each one of these statements was accompanied by a very suitable and appropriate cartoon. Then, in large letters again', his advertisement read, "Then-thank goodness-I woke up!" The text went on:
-to realize with relief that I live in a country where things are sane and stable-where the cost of living has been kept within bounds.
-to realize that prices and wages-production costs and selling prices-are inseparably linked together.
-to realize that without the safeguards that have headed off inflation, my nightmare might have become a reality!
-to remind myself that the danger is still pressing and that we must continue to hold firm-and that means everybody must play fair and do his part by not trying to get some temporary, fancied advantage at the expense of his fellow Canadians.
That is the conclusion of the text. Then, at the bottom we find this:
This advertisement is one of a series being issued by the Government of Canada to emphasize the importance of preventing further increases in the cost of living now and deflation later.
The Liberal government has come a long way since that time. I do not think, in many respects, that this has been to the advantage of people in Canada, but that is the type of image the government tried to portray at that time. I am sure some of the ministers opposite must blush now when remembering this type of ad that their own government inserted in newspapers and publications across Canada.
I could go on to discuss some of the very serious problems that face Canada in respect of foreign ownership. Just recently Professor Abraham Rotstein of the University of Toronto, Department of Political Economy, appeared before a committee of this House.
January 23, 1970

Let me quote from the Globe and Mail of January 21, 1970 as follows:
Prof. Rotstein noted in testimony before the Commons Committee on External Affairs and National Defence that by 1968, U.S.-based, multi-national corporations had amassed $40-billion in long-term investment in the Canadian economy-80 per cent of the over-all foreign investment.
He went on to state:
"The volume of U.S. investment is growing at a rapid rate and we can no longer allow the issue to be decided by default on our side."
He goes on to give an even fuller outline of some of the problems faced by Canada in dealing with the problem of foreign ownership and the fact that such a large proportion of Canada's industry, Canada's economy and Canadian resources are owned and controlled not by Canadian people, either publicly or privately, but by foreign interests.
Of course, there is no necessary criticism of foreigners, whether they be from the United States or some other country, for having come into Canada to invest their money, if we allow them to do so and place no restrictions or conditions on their entry to this country or on the manner in which they carry on their operations. We are the ones who are at fault. We are the ones who made the mistake. And we are the ones now who are going to have to correct some of the errors of the past.
It is quite evident in the legislation before us that the government is not prepared to take even the first small step necessary to regain control of our economy. It has been stated by many people from time to time that in the long run Canada will only be an outpost of the United States economic empire if this trend continues. This is a matter that should give us serious cause for concern within the structure and framework of the operations of the United States industrial empire. We will be somewhat comparable to some sections of the United States mid-west or far west. We will be in a situation comparable to some of the New England States where in fact they are falling behind the over-all rate of U.S. economic development.
Of course, if we allow this trend to continue, we will simply be one of the smaller hinterlands; one of the small outposts bound within the framework of this vast industrial structure. Thus, we do have to give serious consideration to this problem. We do have to reverse the trend. I suggest the only way to reverse this trend is through public action and through government action and intervention. The fact is that today it is necessary to take stronger action to deal with this problem and
Loan Companies Act
to bring it under control than would have been necessary during the past decade.
I have a few more comments I should like to make on this particular matter. Therefore, I should like to call it one o'clock.


James Aloysius McGrath: Take all the time you want.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, prior to the
adjournment at one o'clock I had spent some time discussing some of the provisions in the bill. I am in accord with the remarks of the minister when he stated that some of the details could be discussed at the committee stage. Of course, there are a number of housekeeping provisions in the bill which can be considered quite adequately at that time. Basically, these are provisions in respect of which we have no objection. Our basic objection to this bill is in respect of the context and framework within which it was introduced. This is the reason I want to place before Parliament our point of view. I am the only member of the New Democratic Party who will take part in this debate on this bill at this time. I believe it is necessary that we place our stand on the record. However, I have no wish to prolong the debate. I understand there is a desire in some quarters of the House to proceed with the debate on the proposed Salt Water Fish Corporation. This, of course, is a measure with which the members of our party are in full accord.
This is one example of orderly planning of our economy and our economic activities. It is very much parallel to the type of thing I have been talking about in respect of this bill; that is, the need for a basic change in the direction of our economy. This is the way we must move. When representatives of the various financial institutions appeared before the committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, I found it interesting that they were unanimous in saying they do not want any controls or any further controls. Why not? From their point of view and the point of view of the profitability of their operations I can understand their saying this, but when they urge this course of action upon the

January 23, 1970
Business of the House House and the public I become suspicious. It is up to us to decide whether the people of Canada and members of Parliament are to be suckers and follow the line they advocate. I suggest the government is blind to the implication of the policies it is following and which are implied in the legislation before us. No attempt is made to exert any brakes on the growing corporate control of our economy and the growing foreign control of our economy which will affect Canada's future existence. In general, the economy of Canada cannot survive if we do not change our direction.
The economy in the world today is different from the past. A market economy approach is inadequate. The question now is who will manage and control the economy, and is there an alternative to the private corporate control. Is there to be a large measure of foreign control or will influence and control be exerted through government and a variety of other institutions? It is already pretty late in the day. The Barber commission report noted a number of implications in respect of farm implement costs and the control exercised over the farm machinery market. A relentless pressure results from advancing technology which makes it even more easy for larger corporations to obtain an even greater stranglehold on the economy. The government has the power to influence the situation if it has the guts. This bill leads members of this party to the conclusion that the government has no guts when it comes to safeguarding Canada's future welfare. The government is abdicating its responsibilities and the people of Canada will hold it to account for failing to live up to the responsibilities with which it has been entrusted.
Motion agreed, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, before the next item of government business is called I wonder if there might be a general disposition on the part of the House to bring on government order No. 56, which is Bill C-175, an act to establish the Canadian Saltfish Corporation?
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that there was a disposition to bring 
on this item after the four bills dealing with the amendment of legislation governing trust and loan companies, as well as insurance companies under federal supervision, have received second reading. I thought the idea was that the measure the hon. member referred to would come forward once this group of four bills had been dealt with by the House.
Perhaps I am in error, but in any event I do not see the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) in his seat as yet. If it is the disposition of the House to proceed with second reading of the bill to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act and the companion bill to amend the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, and hon. members are interested in continuing to restrain their desire to debate to the extent that they have already, I am sure we will this afternoon get to the item in which the hon. member is interested.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Herb Gray (for ihe Minisier of
Finance) moved that Bill S-6, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act and other statutory provisions related to the subject-matter of certain of those amendments, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to put on the records of the House an outline of the amendments to the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, which are intended to be considered through this bill, with a view to providing material which can be the basis for discussions in the Finance Committee. Again, let me say the fact that I am not responding in detail to points raised by hon. members in the course of second reading of this and the preceding bills should not be interpreted in any way as implying that there are not things I have to say to deal with these particular points.
The Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act governs the activities of federally incorporated Canadian insurance companies and of British insurance companies transacting business in Canada. The main part of the
January 23, 1970
[Stage Direction]
act applies to Canadian companies, and most of the amendments in the bill before you relate to such companies. Where appropriate these amendments are also made applicable to British companies subject to the act.
At the end of 1968 there were 129 Canadian insurance companies subject to this act and 68 British insurance companies. In addition, the act applied to 14 fraternal benefit societies. The Canadian companies had assets amounting to about $14 billion at the end of the year, and the British companies had assets amounting to $1.4 billion in trust in Canada to cover their Canadian liabilities.
This bill deals with three principle matters, namely, a change in the system of incorporating new companies and amending existing charters, the establishment of a better and more flexible system of controlling companies that are in financial difficulty, and the expanding and broadening of existing prohibitions against investments and loans where there may be a conflict of interests.
Dealing with the first matter, it may be noted that at the present time insurance companies may be incorporated federally only by special act of Parliament, and as a consequence any change in existing charters must be made by amending the special act. It is noted that because of pressure on parliamentary time in recent years, this requirement has resulted in delays from time to time in the making of decisions with respect to applications for new charters and the amendment of existing charters.
The bill proposes the adoption of a letters patent system of incorporating companies and also a letters patent system for amending charters whether the charters are granted by letters patent or special act. The letters patent would be issued by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) under his seal and office, thereby making use of the existing machinery for this purpose. However, before this could be done, the concurrence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) would be required. This will enable the application to be investigated by the Superintendent of Insurance in the same manner as is followed now where a private bill for this purpose is presented to Parliament.
Companies so incorporated would be incorporated pursuant to the authority granted in this amendment, and would be subject to the Canadian and British insurance Companies Act. This means that although the letters patent would be issued by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs there would
Insurance Companies Act be no change in the existing position whereby insurance companies find all their governing legislation under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act rather than under the Corporations Act.
It is also proposed to establish a letters patent procedure whereby a provincially incorporated company can be continued as a federally incorporated company subject to the concurrence of the home province.
Generally letters patent will be in a standard form as described in the bill, but it is proposed to permit enough flexibility to enable the applicants for a charter to provide restrictions on voting rights and maximum limits on share ownership if they so desire.
At present, initial capital requirements for insurance companies are specified in their own acts of incorporation and thus are considered by parliament on a case by case basis. With the proposed letters patent system of incorporation it is also proposed that a minimum capital and surplus requirement be included in the act. The requirement for a new life insurance company would be $2 million, and for a new fire and casualty insurance company would be $1.5 million.
The second main amendments would establish a more extensive and more flexible system to control companies that are in financial difficulties. The present provisions permit conditions to be inserted by the minister in a certificate of registry on renewal, and also provide for withdrawal of a certificate in certain extreme circumstances. The proposed amendments would be more flexible in that they would permit the minister to impose conditions in defined circumstances without waiting for the expiration of an existing certificate. It is also proposed that the Superintendent be required to report to the minister in any case where he considers that a company is in financial difficulties or where its condition is rapidly deteriorating.
The minister, if he concurs in the Superintendent's report after giving the company a chance to be heard, would be able to take one or more of three steps. He could insert conditions in the company's certificate; he could grant the company a period of time to remedy the defect, or he could instruct the Superintendent to take control of the company's assets.
In any case where the Superintendent has control of the assets of a company the minister would be empowered to request the Attorney General to seek a court order requiring
2756	COMMONS
Insurance Companies Act the Superintendent to take control of the company for rehabilitation for winding up. In the event of control of the assets or control of a company by the Superintendent, the expenses incurred by him would be assessed against companies registered for classes of business similar to those transacted by the company in question.
In addition, the Superintendent would be empowered to take temporary control of a company's assets in any case where assets are missing or are not properly accounted for.
The third main amendment would bar investments and loans where there might be a conflict of interest on the part of those who are in a position to influence the decision of a company with respect to its investments. This amendment would prohibit investment in or loans to major shareholders in addition to existing prohibitions against loans to officers, directors, and their immediate families. Furthermore, investments in or loans to any corporation would be prohibited if an officer, director or a major shareholder has a significant interest in that other corporation.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
This amendment is sought in order to give more protection to policyholders against the possibility of investment decisions being influenced by other interests of persons in control.
Another important amendment would expand the power of life insurance companies to own subsidiaries for the purpose of enabling them to establish mutual investment funds and corporations that might carry on business ancillary to that of the insurance business. This will enable the life insurance companies to expand their services and to establish a reasonable competitive position with certain other financial institutions.
The power of life insurance companies to operate segregated funds would be somewhat expanded to increase the flexibility of this power.
Other important amendments would provide for a modified market value method for valuing securities of fire and casualty companies and would grant authority to Governor in Council to pass regulations dealing with the safekeeping of securities. Provisions would be included requiring a formal audit by auditors having similar qualifications to those under the Bank Act. This has not previously been in the legislation but in practice all companies have followed audit procedures.

DEBATES	January 23, 1970
An amendment is proposed that would require notice to the Superintendent of Insurance of the transfer of ownership of any block of stock of an insurance company in excess of 10 per cent of any transfer of stock that would effect a change in control. This requirement would not confer a veto power on the transfer but would require 30 days prior notice together with full details concerning beneficial ownership.
Mortgage loans with respect to those paid by insurance companies are now limited in any particular case to a maximum of 75 per cent of the value of the property on which the loan is made. This limit may be exceeded at present if the excess is insured through a government agency. An amendment is proposed to permit the limit to be exceeded if the excess is insured through a policy of mortgage insurance issued by an insurance company registered under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act or the Foreign Insurance Companies Act.
Another amendment would effect a transfer from Treasury Board to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) of certain discretionary authority and also from the Minister of Finance to the Receiver General of responsibility for the custody of securities on deposit.
Another amendment would establish an age limit of 75 years on eligibility to become a director of an insurance company. This parallels a similar amendment inserted in the Bank Act a few years ago. An amendment is proposed concerning the restriction on nonresident ownership of shares which would preserve the voting rights of a non-resident if those rights were acquired while a company was exempt from the restrictions. An amendment would change the definition of actuary for purposes of the act to require fellowship in the Canadian Institute of Actuaries. A number of other amendments are proposed to effect changes in wording and changes in a number of administrative procedures.
With respect to British companies, such of the foregoing amendments as are appropriate in the case of non-resident companies doing business in Canada would also be made applicable. In addition, there is a special amendment applicable to British companies in connection with investments of the assets of segregated funds. Segregated funds are established by some companies in connection with the issuance of variable contracts, that is, contracts that provide for a variation in benefits in accordance with the value of the assets in a segregated fund. A proposed amendment
January 23, 1970
[Stage Direction]
would give British companies broader investment powers than at present with respect to the investment of assets in such segregated funds in order to put them in an equal competitive position with Canadian companies. Specifically, they would be able to invest in foreign corporate securities as well as Canadian corporate securities.
In general, the proposed amendments will improve the system of control and supervision of insurance companies for the protection of policyholders. They will also give some expansion in the powers of insurance companies to enable them to better serve their customers in their particular fields. The amendment concerning incorporation of companies and changes in charters will hopefully save parliamentary time and provide a simpler and quicker system for dealing with these matters but one which will continue to require the investigation and recommendation of the Superintendent of Insurance.
The bill also proposes amendments to three other acts. These are, in some respects, consequential upon some amendments that had been proposed to the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. The first deals with the Canada Student Loans Act. It is proposed in the bill to enable insurance companies to make loans that are guaranteed by the government pursuant to the Canada Student Loans Act, the Farm Improvement Loans Act, and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. Amendments were introduced at the current session to the last two of these acts to enable insurance companies, trust companies and loan companies to be designated as organizations that could make such guaranteed loans. It had been proposed to effect a similar amendment to the Canada Student Loans Act through this bill. However, the House will recall that an amendment for this purpose is also contained in the bill to amend the Canada Student Loans Act which was considered before Christmas, and which is now awaiting further consideration here after the committee hearings on it. This bill covers the same area, so when the Finance committee considers it the Committee may wish to make an appropriate change to avoid overlapping.
Amendments are also proposed that would affect the powers of banks subject to the Bank Act and Quebec savings banks subject to the Quebec Savings Banks Act. At present, both chartered and Quebec savings banks may make mortgage loans, but mortgages are limited to a maximum of 75 per cent of the
Insurance Companies Act value of the real estate where the mortgages are other than the National Housing Act mortgages. An amendment is proposed in this bill that would enable chartered banks and Quebec savings banks to make mortgage loans in excess of the 75 per cent maximum where the excess is insured under a policy of mortgage insurance by a registered insurance company.
I, therefore, ask the support of this House for this Bill at this second reading stage.
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us in the form of Bill, S-6, concerns amendments to an act governing the British Insurance Companies Act. The amendments are both technical and detailed. It is my feeling that we can hardly deal with the details of this proposal without first taking a look at them.
I note that this bill has, among its many parts, reference to insurance against accident and death and it also deals with other than life insurance. But, Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak for a few moments today on a phase of insurance which presents the greatest problem and frustration to Canadians.
Car insurance has been well described elsewhere as a service with 120 million dissatisfied customers. Indeed, this very week in the House there have been proposals from members on this side that the government should investigate the continual increase in car insurance rates. A few days ago the hon. Leader of my party, the New Democratic Party, raised a question with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford) as to what consideration was being given to intervention in the car insurance field with the idea of setting up car insurance as a federally operated business.
I should like to put a few points on record now that we have this insurance legislation before us. In my opinion, car insurance is an integral part of the over-all national picture with regard to traffic safety. I say this because we have 150,000 traffic casualties a year in Canada, including no less than 5,000 fatalities. This means 100 Canadians are slain every week. The economic toll of highway traffic injuries and repairs amounts to about $1 billion every 12 months. Of this $1 billion, car insurance costs about $600 million. That is the amount Canadians spend every 12 months to protect themselves from the war on the highways.
Regarding car insurance premiums, of every dollar spent Canadians recover only
2758	COMMONS
Insurance Companies Act about 67 cents. I think that one of the first matters which the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should investigate in the field of insurance is car insurance rates. In my mind there is no doubt at all that the importance of car insurance goes far beyond the realm of private profit and that it should, as are car licence and traffic regulations, be handled by the public for the benefit of drivers and pedestrians.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I quote briefly from a recent Canadian press story that deals with the insurance business in Saskatchewan. It says that the Saskatchewan government's insurance plan has never lost money since its inception in 1946. The plan was passed in the Saskatchewan Legislature by the CCF, predecessor of the NDP. In 1968 the surplus for that year was over $150,000. At any rate, a great surplus has been accumulated since the plan began in 1946. The present Minister of Highways in the Liberal government of Saskatchewan, Dave Boldt, is no supporter of the NDP, I am sure; but he stated recently that the insurance office pays its own taxes and grants and that private insurance firms in Saskatchewan have been asked but have never tried to submit a better plan. Before resuming my seat, I urge the government to examine all matters pertaining to car insurance rates and to see whether there is a possibility of operating the car insurance business under some sort of federally established agency.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, some comments I made on an earlier bill also apply to insurance companies. I was most interested in the changes the minister outlined, and I agree that most of those changes are worth while. But he has not touched on the major problem of ensuring that moneys accumulated by Canadian citizens in the form of insurance, and held by insurance companies, shall be used for the advantage and benefit of Canadian citizens. Insurance companies hold vast sums of money which has been contributed by Canadian citizens, and unless this money is used for the benefit of, and to the advantage of, Canadians we cannot really say that insurance companies in this country are acting as agents of the Canadian people or in their best interests.
There are incorporated in this country under federal or provincial charters probably between 1,000 and 3,000 insurance companies, many of them operating in exactly the same

DEBATES	January 23, 1970
fields as other companies. I think the minister will agree when I say that there seems to be little competition in this field. Many different companies provide the same type of insurance. It seems that every time a new company is incorporated you see less rather than more competition in the insurance field. Why do I say that, Mr. Speaker? Let me explain.
If there were two insurance companies in the country, both offering the same kind of insurance, you could go to Company A or Company B, and their rates would be competitive. But when you see a proliferation of companies, all involved in the same basic field, it seems that those companies join together and set rates. There is nothing the insurance buyer can do about it. Their rates appear to be exactly the same. When I go to my insurance agent and want to buy fire insurance, he opens the drawer in which he keeps the files of 50-odd companies. He appears to have some kind of unwritten agreement with those companies under which he will work through his files from front to back and, when he has reached the back of the drawer, return to the file in front. Some buyers of insurance will be interested in what happens to their insurance premiums although most will not, being only interested in buying an insurance policy. Frankly, it does not matter to me with which company the agent may place my insurance because the rates are all the same, as are the benefits.
Insurance companies in this country do not insure us against all risks. By that I mean if you want to buy insurance to cover a unique risk, you will have to go to Lloyds of London. If you plan on holding a large outdoor bar-beque and want to insure against the possibility of rain, you will have to go to Lloyds of London because no Canadian company will accept the risk. Our insurance companies may say that they are willing to provide coverage against all sorts of new risks that arise, but they do not do that.
The government also has the obligation of informing the Canadian public what insurance is really essential. It must to some extent help to change the public's attitude towards insurance. With the advent of social benefit programs, the Canada Pension Plan and other pension plans, certain types of insurance have become less and less valuable. The government must tell our people just what is the role of the insurance industry, and what the role of the private entrepreneur in this field is. I say that because in this country we seem to be working at cross purposes. Let me cite an example, Mr. Speaker.
January 23, 1970

A few years ago a man working in a northern mine died and left a widow who was either 46 or 47 years old and two children aged 13 and 14. He left her an insurance policy worth $5,000. What happened? She could not obtain mother's allowance because she had too much money; also, because she had too much in the bank she was not eligible for certain social security benefits. She was told to use up her $5,000. That is what she did; as a matter of fact, her money will run out this month. In the meantime, her kids have grown up. They are beyond the age at which she will be eligible for mother's allowance. That $5,000 did her no good. If she had not had it she would have been eligible to receive benefits under provincial and federal schemes; she would have received additional allowances for her children and, after her children were grown up, no doubt would have been eligible to receive further benefits under welfare schemes.
As things now stand, she will have to apply for municipal welfare. Clearly, that $5,000 has been subtracted from that family's standard of living. By that I mean, Mr. Speaker, that if the husband had not left this $5,000 insurance policy his wife and family would not have had to forgo forms of social assistance which would have been available to them. The wife therefore lost both ways; she lost while the husband was saving to pay the premiums on the policy, and she lost after he died because the $5,000 precluded her receiving the benefits I have mentioned. Clearly, the needs of our people in a changing society are different and I should think that any insurance agent who tries to sell endownment policies is not being quite fair.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
While there is still a great need for term and other insurance, the government, having gone into this matter, has an obligation to relate what they do in that field to the whole field of insurance. The minister is very interested in protecting shareholders. He is also interested in protecting loans and in having them secured. If you have money that you can invest in an insurance company you do not have to worry because having stock in an insurance company is the same as being able to print money.
What about the people who have to be protected? My colleague mentioned the matter of automobile insurance. Is it not time this government looked into the field of automobile insurance, at least to the extent of 21611-36*

Insurance Companies Act taking a look at third party liability automobile insurance? If two cars are involved in an accident and a pedestrian is struck, it cannot be said that the pedestrian had anything to do with the accident. He was merely a third party. The government should make it mandatory for everyone to carry this third party liability insurance. They may not be interested in protecting the vehicles involved, but innocent third parties should be protected.
In many fields we have not given any consideration to these people, but have left this up to the insurance companies. Some automobile companies have been autocratic. I wish to refer to one. When I mentioned the name of Allstate Insurance this morning I was asked if I was being fair. I wish to refer to two letters and let members judge whether I am being fair. They raise a problem not dealt with by the minister in this bill. This is the problem. If an insurance decides it does not want to pay, it says to the customer, here is your money back; you are no longer insured with us and you were not insured at the time of the accident. However, there is legislation to the effect that the company has a partial liability if it cancels a policy.


Mr. Osier:: Will the hon. member permit a question? I am not quite sure to what the hon. member is alluding, but is it not a fact that insurance companies have to give so many days statutory notice by registered letter before cancellation?


William Arnold Peters: That is not correct, Mr. Speaker. I will read the letter because I think it explains the situation better than I can. If you have carried insurance with a company for a period of time it is true they must give you 30 days' notice of cancellation. It can be cancelled for many reasons. It can be cancelled on moral grounds.
Some hon. members will recall the famous cow case which was discussed at great length for a number of years. The government had a problem with a certain farmer. This farmer fought back in many ways, including threatening the health of the then Minister of Justice. After reading some of these reports, the insurance company decided to immediately cancel the insurance on the farmer's barn. The usual 30 days' notice was not given because the policy was being cancelled on moral grounds. The policy was eventually reinstated because the company did not have the right to do this.
The argument of the insurance company was that the farmer was going off his rocker
2760	COMMONS
Insurance Companies Act and, as a result, might burn his barn. This could have been a possibility. However, the barn could also have been struck by lightning or children could have set it on fire. The risk was no greater then than it had been the day previous. The Superintendent of Insurance eventually forced the company to reinstate the policy.


Edmund Boyd Osler: May I be permitted to ask another question? Why was the Superintendent of Insurance permitted to do so? It seems to me the only grounds he would have for action would be the statutory conditions in the policy to which both the company and the man who held the policy subscribed at the time the policy was issued. It is a formal contract. Those statutory conditions will vary from province to province, but in the cases of which I have heard relating to automobile insurance, which is what the hon. member is talking about at this time, there is a condition that a registered letter must be sent so many days prior to cancellation. If not, I suggest any province that has been so lax in its duty should be checked up on that subject.


William Arnold Peters: This is probably true, Mr. Speaker.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I know it is true. I was in the business for 30 years.


William Arnold Peters: The member says he knows it is true because he was in the business for 30 years. I presume he represented somewhere between 1 to 50 companies. I am not referring to all insurance companies at this time because they do not all react in the same way. Most contracts are standard. The agent buys the form and goes into the insurance business, but they do not all act in the same way.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That is why you need a broker, not an agent.


William Arnold Peters: That may be true. Possibly we should get rid of the agents. I am only dealing with the problem as I know it. I do not even know the name of the company with whom I have my fire insurance. I pay a premium once every three years, and that is all I know about it.
I own an old building on the highway, a former school. It has become an eyesore. It does not have much value, but it would be expensive to tear it down. When I purchased this school from the school board I felt I should insure it because I was of the opinion that if you owned something of value it

DEBATES	January 23, 1970
should be insured. I spoke to my insurance agent about this. I suggested he decide the amount for which the building should be insured and the premium. He said he would not insure it because if it burned down, then people would say that I burned it down and there would be a lot of trouble. He advised me not to insure the building. I have had the building for ten years now and it still is not insured. Individual circumstances have a great deal to do with what happens.
I wish to quote from a letter written in 1969 to the Superintendent of Insurance in Toronto. I quote:
In August 1953 I was involved in a two car accident on Highway 11, just south of Trout Creek, Ontario. The other car was driven by a Mr. Archie Haggerty of Aitikokan, Ont., and he had as a passenger his sister-in-law, Mrs. Nellie Haggerty of Kirkland Lake, Ontario. Some time after this the plaintiffs wrote to me through their lawyer, Mr. G. Wallace of North Bay, asking for an out of court settlement of $35,000. Allstate Insurance with whom I carried a P.L. and P.D. policy for $100,000 sent a "very friendly" man around to see me and get me to sign statements. Soon after this I received a cheque from Allstate Insurance for the full amount of the premium that I had paid, with a statement to the effect that they were not covering me since I had made a false statement when I applied for the insurance.
I immediately contacted a lawyer, Mr. P. B. C. Pepper of 320 Bay St. Toronto. Mr. Pepper told me that I should have talked to him before talking to the adjuster. Mr. Pepper then told me that he would send the cheque back to Allstate and that as far as I was concerned there was no false statement. Also he said that the insurance company was bound by law to pay a basic $11,000, the amount that the Unsatisfied Judgment would otherwise have paid at that time, if I had carried no insurance.
I had bought insurance from Allstate when they first came to Canada, with Simpson Sears. There was a front page news article in the Toronto Star telling of Allstate selling insurance at large discount prices. People were lined up in Simpson's basement and the salesmen were filling out the forms as quickly as possible. When asked if I had been involved in any accidents I mentioned them, they were minor accidents. In the rush I forgot to mention a small accident for which I was not to blame, but for which we had settled 50-50 on the advice of the insurance company with whom I was insured at the time. Since the accident occurred in Sudbury it would have been more expensive to pursue the case than to fix the car.
Allstate then appointed a lawyer, Brendan O'Brien Q.C., 101 Richmond St. West, Toronto. They also had a Toronto doctor in Court in North Bay, where the action occurred in 1955, to testify that the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs would not leave any permanent disabilities. Before I took the stand in court Mr. O'Brien made a statement to the effect that I had no reason to conceal the truth in my evidence since I was fully insured with Allstate.
January 23, 1970
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Incidentally, he was Allstate's lawyer.
The judgment was for $19,400 against me. I was sure that Allstate would pay that amount. Mr. Pepper did not attend this court hearing. He told me that it would not be necessary since he was sure the lawyer for Allstate would work as hard as possible to keep the amount of judgment as low as possible.
I do not remember hearing anything more of this case until 1957. At that time the plaintiffs sought to have me examined as a judgment debtor. Mr. Pepper appeared in court and refused to have me examined on the grounds that I was insured and that the insurers had paid a sum of money into court and that the plaintiffs accepted that sum of money. I found out through my present lawyer, Mr. Dalton Dean, Q.C. of Haileybury, Ont. that the plaintiffs sued Allstate some time after the court judgment case, and according to Mr. Dean were given some $11,800 as partial payment.
The next time I heard from Mr. Pepper was by letter about the end of 1958. He said 'it is almost a year now since I last heard from the plaintiffs' and he believed in letting sleeping dogs lie. He enclosed his account at that time. Mr. Dean has that letter.
The letter continues:
I heard nothing more about the matter. Actually I had forgotten the whole thing. But last August the sheriff from the Haileybury court came here to serve me with a paper to appear at a special examiners court as a judgment debtor. I was attending a teachers' course in Toronto at the time. My wife called me there and I attempted to see Mr. Pepper.
The letter goes on to describe how he was served with papers to appear for examination and so on. It ends:
I feel I was not fully informed of all facts and was misled. I also think I should have been a party to the court action taken against Allstate, since the judgment was against me. Now Mrs. Haggarty's lawyer says that the amount of money paid into court was accepted as partial payment. But according to Mr. Pepper's letter of January 6, 1958 they accepted moneys paid into court by the insurers-no mention of partial payment.
A friend who is an insurance adjuster suggested I write to you for advice. He could not believe such a case could develop until I mentioned the word Allstate. I am enclosing some of the correspondence concerning the case.
A considerable amount of correspondence was enclosed. I raise this matter now because it is typical of three or four cases of a similar nature which are brought to my attention every year. The Superintendent of Insurance can become involved

I agree he has some say-but these cases always raised problems after an accident had occurred. After an accident has occurred, a company will often say: We cancelled your insurance on moral grounds, or because of a false statement, or because of an omission to supply certain particulars; here is your money back; you are
Insurance Companies Act no longer insured. When this happens, of course, it is difficult, if not impossible, to be insured with anyone else.
I remember that when Allstate came to Canada I applied for insurance with them. They were inviting applications, but they sent them all back with the comment: We cannot accept your application for insurance because you live in northern Ontario. They were really saying that they did not intend to insure anyone in northern Ontario. The difficulty is that having received a letter of this kind from Allstate, it becomes much more difficult to get insurance from another company. We have been supervising this insurance field as well as we can, I suppose. It is, of course, essential that every driver should be insured. It is essential that everyone who drives a car should know that the other guy has satisfactory insurance. So, insurance will have to be compulsory. It may be that the federal government should enter the field of automobile insurance at least to the extent of reinsuring motorists. It might set up some agency which would make possible the balancing out of car insurance costs across the country. This is an essential service and members of Parliament should interest themselves in this idea in order that we might devise some sensible solution to a vexing problem.
The decision has been made to impose safety standards in connection with the manufacture of automobiles and it is my hope that this principle will be applied to snowmobiles as well. Since in so many cases the requirement to be adequately insured is mandatory, I believe arrangements should be made for insurance to be provided at a reasonable price to all.
It is my opinion that the committee should take a close look at some of the difficulties which have arisen in the insurance field, bearing in mind certain of the judgments which have been handed down. No doubt the difficulties to which I have drawn attention are capable of solution. Some companies do not create these difficulties. Others do, yet all these companies are covered by the same legislation. Changes could be made to eliminate the unfairness against the individual which is sometimes shown. I hope the minister will discuss with the Superintendent of Insurance some of the steps which could be taken to make the provision of insurance much more equitable. As I say, insurance is, in most cases, mandatory. Most of us cannot dispense with it. We should therefore be able

January 23, 1970

Foreign Insurance Companies Act to carry satisfactory insurance at the lowest possible cost and with the least possibility of abuse.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that Bill S-7, to amend the Foreign Insurance Companies Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: This bill might be considered as a companion to Bill S-35. It is applicable to foreign insurance companies transacting business in Canada on a branch basis.
The effect of the act is to apply the same requirements to foreign companies as are made applicable to British companies pursuant to Part VIII of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. The amendments proposed in Bill S-7 are in every respect parallel to those made applicable to British companies pursuant to Bill S-6. They represent, therefore, appropriate adaptations of the amendments proposed in connection with Canadian companies, supplemented by an expansion of investment powers in connection with the operation of segregated funds in order to give foreign companies the same powers in this respect as Canadian companies.
The important amendments are those which expand the power to operate segregated funds and give greater and more flexible control to the Superintendent in the case of companies which are in financial difficulty. These would enable the Superintendent to take control of the company's assets in Canada on direction by the minister and would enable application to be made to a court for authority by the Superintendent to take control of the company's business in Canada for the purpose of its rehabilitation or winding up.
Changes in the investment powers of Canadian companies would be paralleled in this act by changes in the types of assets which may be held in Canada to cover Canadian liabilities.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now proceed to government order No. 17, second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry of Bill C-133, an act to repeal the Deep Sea Fisheries Act.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the House agree to proceed with government order No. 56, second reading of Bill C-175, an act to establish the Canadian Saltfish Corporation? I will tell you the reason for making this request, Mr. Speaker, before the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray) jumps to his feet.
There is urgency in getting this bill on its legislative way, because it is now January 23 and the industry is almost in a state of suspended animation pending the consequences that would flow from this legislation. I can assure hon. members that there is urgencj attached to getting this bill out of the way and I ask that the House consent to dealing with it now. Hon. members might also be willing to give unanimous consent to forgoing private members' hour, thus allowing us two full hours for debate of the bill.


Mr. Anderson:: I oppose that suggestion, Mr. Speaker. There are three bills coming forward in a certain order. We certainly have time available this afternoon, and I hope it will be possible to pass all three before five o'clock. The other bills are of equal importance to some hon. members, and I object to changing their order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Where is the minister?



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that Bill C-133, to repeal the Deep Sea Fisheries Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
January 23, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now proceed to item No. 18 on the order paper, second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry of Bill C-134, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but you moved so fast on Bill C-133 that I did not have time to make some comments on it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I think it is only logical that we should wait at least a moment or two until the minister gets here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not know whether I can do very much about what has happened, but I am certainly prepared to follow the wish of the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. A short time ago the minister was in the House until the luncheon adjournment at one o'clock. His parliamentary secretary was also here for most of the sitting. Both hon. gentlemen are absent from the House, notwithstanding the fact that these three important bills are up for discussion. I think the minister should be here.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: The minister has just arrived. Bill C-134 has been called.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not yet had an explanation for bringing Bill C-133 before the House.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: I have followed the traditional procedure, long established in reading the title of the bill and calling for its approval or otherwise of this House. No hon. member rose at the time, and I am afraid the matter is disposed of.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I then ask that the matter be not disposed of at this time, because to some
11,000	fishermen on the east coast it is a very important matter. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) was not in the House at the time and no explanation was given for introducing the bill in this manner. I submit that the House is entitled to an opportunity to comment on the bill.
Business of the House


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order, please. There is, of course, an avenue open to the House at the moment. If all members of the House give unanimous consent, the House can revert to an earlier point in our proceedings. This matter is entirely up to the House. So far there has been nothing untoward with the procedure we have followed. On the suggestion of the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), I am prepared to put the question to the House to revert back to a previous item of business, but it would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry cannot move the motion; he was not in the House to give an explanation of this particular measure.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Perhaps I can clarify the matter. Bill C-134 has been called as the next order of government business. I am about to put that motion, which is the standard practice. I will put the motion unless there are points of order, which I am prepared to hear points of order on this question. If it is a question of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) commenting on the bill, perhaps that matter can be raised when the motion has been put. That seems to me to be the correct procedure.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would have thought the minister would have comments to make on Bill C-133.


An hon. Member:: It was passed by the House and has now gone to the committee.


Mr.   Barnell@: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, relating to the business of the House. Earlier today the government leader announced that three bills concerning fisheries matters were to be dealt with next Wednesday. Then, as I understood it, one of the members from Newfoundland raised the question that if the finance bills were dealt with today, we might proceed with Bill C-175.
I may have misunderstood him, but at that point agreement was indicated by the government House leader who said that if the finance bills were completed we could proceed with Bill C-175 today. No reference was made to dealing with the other fisheries bills. Perhaps this is the reason for the confusion which appears to have arisen. Apparently, just before I came into the House one of the three fisheries bills was dealt with and passed

January 23, 1970
Business of the House without debate. Some of us were not aware that these bills were going to be passed and were caught off balance on this account.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the point of order which has been raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). As I recall the sequence of events, this morning a request was made by members of the opposition to take up the fisheries bills, and it was stated by the House leader that if the House were to dispose of the financial bills we would be in a position this afternoon to move on to the fisheries bills standing as items Nos. 17, 18 and 56 on the Order Paper. The financial bills were disposed of, and item No. 17 on the order paper was called. That bill was passed without debate. It was called while the minister was in the House and it was passed without debate and sent to the committee.


William Arnold Peters: The minister was not in the House then.


Grant Deachman: The House then moved to order No. 18, in logical sequence, and that is the bill we are taking up now. With regard to the protest against the passage of Bill C-133 without debate, there is nothing in our rules that calls upon us to debate a bill if the House agrees to carry it, which is what the House did.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have dealt with that matter and I do not think we can do other than what I attempted or do on behalf of the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), namely, seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to where we were in respect of the business of the House. That request was rejected by the House, so there is no question of discussing Bill C-133 now. If there is any question about our order of business at this point, and there is discussion in which the House would like to engage, I am prepared to allow some latitude. But as hon. members know, the government has the prerogative of calling the order of business.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
From time to time the order of business is negotiated between the House Leaders. As I understand it, unless a member of the government is prepared to say something to the contrary, the government has called Bill C-134. It seems to me that the only course of action available to the Chair at this point is to put the motion, and if there is discussion arising out of it that would be the normal

procedure. I do not see that I am entitled to do anything other than put the motion. Does the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) wish to rise on a point of order?


James Aloysius McGrath: Just to set the record
straight, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) was substantially correct in the point of order he raised. I did specify in my request that the House deal with government order No. 56. I went on to state that government order No. 56 was in fact in reference to Bill C-175. There was general agreement by the government to that proposal. The government is now trying to pull a fast one on us. That is substantially what has happened.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think at this point I must put the motion that has been called by the government.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Yes, I am rising on the point of order that has been raised. The hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) in his earlier comments agreed that following the passage of the business for this afternoon we would deal with the Saltfish Corporation, Bill C-175.
I think if Your Honour will check the record he will find that this was the understanding given hon. members by the hon. member for Windsor West in reply to questions that we raised earlier in the day about the order of business.
The passing of Bill C-133 without debate was totally unexpected. I submit that Your Honour moved in a manner that did not give us an opportunity to comment on that bill.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on the point of order. The minister of Fisheries was not in the House at the time; neither was his parliamentary secretary. There are
11,000	fishermen in Atlantic Canada who would like to know why this fishing bounty is being removed without just cause. Those of us who represent these fishermen would like to express on the floor of this House our views regarding the arbitrary manner in which this measure has been brought forward.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.
January 23, 1970


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: There has been no explanation by the minister and no chance tor us to debate the proposal.


An hon. Member:: You got up too late.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: You were not listening.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: We were listening to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray) who agreed to deal with Bill C-175.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray) rising on the same point of order?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Newfoundland-


James Aloysius McGrath: For St. John's East, and it is pronounced "Newfoundland." It rhymes with "understand."


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am glad the hon. member has said that because I feel he will now be able to follow the point I am trying to make in what I hope is a conciliatory fashion. When I responded to the first point I was not aware that there was a series of three bills on the Order Paper, one after the other, dealing with fisheries matters. I was not aware of the exact sequence.
It was not my intention to suggest to the House that it necessarily proceed with order No. 56, a measure to establish the Canadian Saltfish Corporation, before the other two. I regret that I may have given that impression, but it was not based on a complete recollection or understanding of the state of the Order Paper. Perhaps this is why there is some difficulty or misunderstanding. If I contributed to that misunderstanding, I certainly apologize.
With respect to these bills, I appreciate the desire of hon. members to say something about these two measures which precede the one on the Canadian Saltfish Corporation. On this, however, I can only refer hon. members to the consideration by my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis), and other hon. members of the House as well as the considerations raised by the Chair in respect of the rules.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, every time we try to save time, we waste time. I wonder whether the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) would have any objection to
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act our dealing with Bill C-175. Perhaps we could dispose of it this afternoon with co-operation from this side of the House. Perhaps we could waive private members' hour and deal with Bill C-134 next week, or this afternoon if: there is time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is in a rather difficult position. All I can do is proceed with the item that has been called. That, is the limit of my responsibility, and that is as far as I am prepared to go. If the government wants to change the order of business, that is its prerogative under the Standing Orders. Unless I am advised to the contrary or am given evidence to the contrary, I shall put the motion that has been called.


John (Jack) Davis: Perhaps I should say a word, Mr. Speaker. My understanding all along was that the bills would proceed in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper, namely, Bill C-133, Bill C-134 and Bill C-175. I see no reason for changing that order now. These matters will be going to a committee of the House of Commons, on which hon. members of all parties will be represented. The bills will then return to the House. If hon. members have any questions or want any further elaboration or modification of the bills in any way, they will have ample opportunity to express their views.


James Aloysius McGrath: Do without the House of Commons altogether; that is what you are asking.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Are we on Bill C-134?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am about to put the
motion called by the Table, Bill C-134.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I wish to speak on Bill C-134.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When I put the motion I will recognize the hon. member.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: This is what happened in respect of Bill C-133; we did not get a chance to speak on it.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John (Jack) Davis: that Bill C-134, to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, be read the
January 23, 1970

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, like the preceding bill this measure involves a very minor change in our fisheries legislation. This act will include in the definition of fisheries vessels, supply vessels. The main concern here is to ensure that fisheries supply vessels, for example those supplying large Russian, Japanese or East German fishing fleets, will come under the same scrutiny as other fishing vessels when they come into our Canadian fishing ports.
I know there is real concern, in a number of our east coast ports, notably St. John's, Newfoundland and Halifax, Nova Scotia, that this amendment to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act will limit the access that foreign fishing fleets have to our ports and cut off, therefore, that business in respect of supplying foreign fishing vessels on our east coast. This is not the case.
There is no intention, nor has there ever been, of cutting back on this important source of livelihood of many people, particularly those at our east coast fishing ports. We do have a problem, and the reason for this legislation relates to that problem on Canada's west coast. It is possible for supply vessels to come into the port of Vancouver, for example, and leave again without in any way coming under the provisions of our Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
If we have the authority to exclude such vessels, and we may or may not exclude them, we will then have a bargaining lever we can use with Russia and other countries which operate large fishing fleets, much as the United States now has. The bargaining lever is this, "If we allow you to use our ports to obtain fresh water, fuel and food, we want you to stay off certain fishing banks which you have already overfished," and so on. We do not have this lever on the west coast at the moment, but we would like to have it.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I repeat that the bill is not designed to in any way reduce the service functions provided by many of our east coast communities, but is designed to give us some leverage in bargaining with foreign fishing fleets on the west coast. Were we to endeavour to limit our supply function on the east coast, we would be exposed to the danger of foreign fishing fleets moving on, for example, to St. Pierre and Miquelon. We would be vulnerable in that respect. We think the best thing is to leave our east ports open to perform this

supply function. I hope hon. gentlemen on both sides will realize this is a relatively minor issue. We are proposing an amendment, a minor amendment to an important act which governs the action of large foreign fishing fleets off our west coast.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the explanation given by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) in outlining the reasons for the introduction of Bill C-134, to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. Although the wording of the bill is very brief, its application will have a considerable effect on a large number of people and at the same time will establish a new concept in international relations.
In my view this action to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act is nothing more than a government move without any principle. This is simply another piece of windowdressing, a piece of paper which is designed to confuse and delude the public into the belief that the government is doing something and is taking swift and stern action to protect the fisheries resources on both coasts. Nothing could be further from the truth.
This type of action is not new to this government. We heard the same thing away back in 1964 when the then Secretary of State for External Affairs was speaking on a bill to establish Canada's Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act. Upon the passage of that legislation the government promised the immediate establishment of geographical co-ordinates along our coasts and the drawing of base lines protecting our shores and sealing off the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Bay of Fundy as conservation areas for the development of our fishery resources.
No one could make promises in more convincing tones than the Hon. Paul Martin, then Secretary of State for External Affairs. On May 20, 1964, as reported at page 3409 of Hansard, he said:
First, the bill establishes the fishing zones of Canada at 12 miles from the coast line. When it is passed by parliament and proclaimed, Canada will have a fishing zone in the 3 to 12 mile area off our coast line. This, in the view of the government, is a fundamental achievement of the bill. It is not enabling legislation in this respect. On proclamation, the 12 mile fishing zone will be established. I must emphasize there is no doubt, and there can be no doubt, about this point.
There may not have been any doubt in the minister's mind when he made that statement, and now that he is resting comfortably in the other place we know that all his doubts
January 23, 1970	COMMONS
and fears have vanished and he could not care less about our depleted fishery resources. But I would point out to you, sir, that we are now in the year 1970 and the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Bay of Fundy on the east coast, and Dixon entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound on the west coast are not yet closed to foreign fishing fleets.
In all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that our fishermen look with mistrust and suspicion at any proposals put forward for their benefit by this Liberal administration? The record of broken promises, hopes raised and destroyed, fishing resources depleted as a result of Liberal procrastination is there for everyone to see. The record of the Liberal administration since 1963 in relation to our fishermen and their problems is abominable.
What did the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) say as recently as November 2 when speaking in the Throne Speech debate? He warned this House, as recorded at page 414 of Hansard, that the North Atlantic fisheries resources of Canada are in grave danger of "overfishing" by foreign fishing fleets. He said:
The total fishing effort, the international fishing effort in the North Atlantic, has more than doubled over the past decade.
He also told us that just beyond the 12-mile limit off the west coast of Vancouver Island he saw during the past summer a Russian fleet of 40 giant trawlers, every one of which was bigger than a British Columbia ferry. The minister painted a graphic wordpicture of the danger that the east and west coast fisheries resources might soon be completely destroyed by foreign fishing fleets.
This is a serious economic problem covering vast sections of our nation on both the east and west coasts; it is a problem which affects the livelihood of large numbers of our people, who by reason of their location and education are unable to move or qualify for any employment other than fishing. Faced with this serious situation, what does the government plan to do? It proposes to enact Bill C-134.
Let us look carefully at this proposal. Under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act as it now stands, no foreign fishing vessel may enter Canadian fisheries waters unless authorized to do so by regulation under the act, by any other law of Canada, or by treaty. No person from a foreign fishing vessel may buy supplies in Canada unless similarly authorized.
DEBATES	2767
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
In essence, the act has two methods of protecting Canadian fishing grounds. The first, or chief method is by preventing foreign fishing vessels from entering Canadian fishing grounds, or, alternatively, permitting them to enter but making them subject to Canadian fisheries laws or otherwise restricting their methods of operation. The second method is incidental to the main method, which is forbidding the foreign fishing vessels from coming into Canadian ports for the purpose of selling their catch or buying provisions or water.
In my view, the proposed amendment is an insipid and questionable attempt to strengthen the means of control. No one will deny that it is highly desirable to have the fishing operations of foreign fleets curtailed on both coasts. But there is a right way and a wrong way to do it, and in my opinion the method proposed will do nothing to alleviate the present situation and may well, in fact, compound the problem.
The government apparently interprets the wording of the act as meaning that a supply ship of a foreign fishing fleet is not and cannot be classed as a fishing vessel, and therefore it has the right, under maritime law, to come into a Canadian port and take on supplies for a foreign fishing fleet that is despoiling Canadian fishing grounds, without the necessity of getting a permit or being subject to being refused a permit.
The government now asks this House to amend the meaning of "fishing vessel" as defined in the act to include a supply ship of a foreign fishing fleet. By this action the government hopes to prevent or control the complete destruction of our fisheries resources by refusing to provision supply ships of foreign fishing vessels, or perhaps get them to agree to observe our conservation laws in return for provisioning them.
This measure can only be classified as a childish solution of what is in effect a mansized problem. The proposed legislation reminds me of the actions of a disgruntled little boy who takes his bat and ball and walks out of the ball game when he does not get his own way. This type of action never has worked, and it will not work now because the ball game will still go on.
In my opinion, the government is using this amendment as an excuse for its inaction in establishing over-all base lines around our coast and as an excuse for its inaction in dealing with international fishing problems
2768	COMMONS DEBATES	January 23, 1970
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act which have a considerable bearing on the well-being of Canadian fishermen.
I believe the present wording of the act which defines "fishing vessel" is sufficiently wide to class a supply ship of a fishing fleet as also a fishing vessel. After all, the present definition is not exclusive or exhaustive. It says that a fishing vessel "includes"-not "is" or "means"-"any ship or boat or other description of vessel used in or equipped for fishing or processing or transporting fish or marine plants."
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Surely, a supply ship of a fishing fleet is a vessel that is necessary and incidental to a number of fishing vessels, and can therefore be classed as a fishing vessel. After all, a supply vessel has merely more water-tanks and more storerooms than an ordinary fishing vessel.
The corresponding conclusion that could be drawn from the government's interpretation is that fishing vessels that are watered and provisioned by a supply ship are not really fishing vessels because they do not carry adequate water and provision facilities with which to complete their voyage. What nonsense, Mr. Speaker!
On its face, the amendment would mean that the present restriction as to the granting or the refusing of permits will apply to all supply and auxiliary vessels sailing with foreign fishing vessels off Canada's east and west coasts. But, Mr. Speaker, there has been a long tradition in east coast ports of supplying visiting fleets. Trade with these fleets is estimated to run as high as $10 million or $12 million in St. John's Newfoundland, and some $3 million in Halifax and Sydney, Nova Scotia.
This tradition is based on two facts. One historic fact is that the North Atlantic fisheries were fished for at least three centuries before confederation, by fishing vessels sailing out of Europe, and during this period eight nations have established recognized fishing rights in the North Atlantic fisheries. In fact, these eight nations are granted greater fishing rights than Canadian fishermen on our own shores. The fishermen of Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom and the United States have the right to fish up to three miles from our coastline, while Canadian fishermen must pursue their fishing operations 12 miles from shore.
This was one of the promises made by the former Secretary of State for External

Affairs speaking on May 20,	1964, on
Canada's Territorial S'ea and Fishing Zones Act, when he said that the fishing operations of the eight countries I have mentioned would be phased out. More than half a decade has passed since this promise was made. The Liberal government stands today indicted and condemned by our fishermen for its inaction on their problems, because fleets from these eight countries have still not been phased out and they still operate up to three miles from our coast. Yet on November 3 last the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) stood in his place in this House and said that those who are familiar with fisheries laws-I am paraphrasing his words-now know that we in Canada have an exclusive 12-mile limit. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, exclusive to whom? Certainly it is not exclusive to Canadians. It may be exclusive to the eight fishing nations I have mentioned- exclusive to the fleets of France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, the United States, Norway and Denmark, but it is not exclusive to Canadians. Let that be put on the record now, and let us hear no more of this double-talk until the government takes action on this really important problem.
Second, Mr. Speaker, if Canada refuses to provision the fleets which are destroying our fishery resources we will not achieve our objective because alternative sources are awaiting the opportunity to supply them. At the present time the common market countries are building a huge supply base on the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, and even without this gunboat policy the fleets of other countries will soon be getting the major portion of their supplies from St. Pierre.
This amendment, therefore, should not be applied to our east coast ports as a prohibition against the provisioning of foreign supply ships or fishing vessels, because it will only anger the countries concerned without limiting their fishing activity on our shores.
It is my understanding that on the west coast there are no such fishing traditions. However, if we refuse to supply the Russian and Japanese fleets with water, I do not believe we will seriously cripple their operations because they can readily turn to American ports to the south such as Seattle, Everett, Olympia and Bellingham. In fact, the Russian fleet must pass Bellingham in order to get to Vancouver. Alternatively, the Russian fleet could get water and supplies to the north of us at Ketchikan, Juneau in the American Panhandle, or at Petersburg and
January 23, 1970

Wrangell. Therefore, a prohibition on the supply of water, as stated in this amendment, for application to the west coast would have little meaning. According to my information, Russian ships take on only fresh water in Vancouver, but no provisions or fuel, and since fresh water is available elsewhere this amendment is pointless and futile.
As with the east coast situation, the west coast problem-toward which the minister said this amendment is administratively directed-will not be cured by small-boy scare tactics. Even more than the east coast, the west coast fisheries are in imminent danger. Unlike the east coast, the continental shelf on the west coast extends seaward only 11 to 46 miles, if the information is correct which was given to the Fisheries Committee when it met in that area. The fishing grounds, therefore, are tremendously concentrated and extremely susceptible to overfishing and destruction. Already there are fishing fleets there from Japan, Russia and South Korea, and there is no reason why they will not be joined soon by fleets from the Philippines and other nations of southeast Asia.
In my view, the tactic of striking at the supply ship is itself an admission that Canada agrees to the presence of these foreign fleets, that Canada intends to take no rational action to protect the fishing grounds off its shores but simply intends to harass these fleets-and by harassment anger the nations which send them.
This amendment is useless as a solution to the preservation of our fisheries resources. I say this because it attacks only the incidental problem, which actually is not a problem at all if the main problem is solved. In my opinion, this amendment will only annoy those nations that fish our resources on the east and west coasts and will in the final analysis prevent a proper approach to the problem. This approach must, and can only be made at the negotiating table. It must be made by Canadians talking common sense to their opposite numbers.
The common sense approach would be to point out to all concerned, at an international conference on the conservation of our fishing resources, that there are only so many fish on the fishing grounds of the North Atlantic and the west coast. These resources can be ruined for years or completely destroyed by overfishing or by the use of destructive fishing gear. It must be pointed out that these resources can be preserved for ourselves and for future generations only if we agree to

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act conserve them in our time-and our time is now. In my opinion, it is mandatory that this action be taken through international negotiation and agreement.
I cannot help but wonder why this bill has been brought in by the Minister of Fisheries. Here we have a problem which concerns many of our European allies in NATO, some of our European trading partners and the great fleets of Russia and Japan; but instead of getting our External Affairs Department to cope with it, we see the Fisheries Department trying to implement a childish, gunboat policy which it is incapable of enforcing on the nations concerned.
We cannot help but wonder what is happening in our External Affairs Department. Have we no friends left in the world? Have we sacrificed all our integrity on the altar of recognition of Red China, to the exclusion of all our former friends and allies? I am beginning to wonder who stands up for Canada. And when the going gets tough and rough at some future date, I wonder who will stand by us.
Could it be, since we have backtracked on our word to the free Chinese on Taiwan, that no one trusts us any longer, that we are looked upon as fickle and inconsistent in the role we play in international affairs? Surely the amendment before us will not reduce the strength of the fishing fleets on our east and west coasts by one ship or one lifeboat. It certainly will not win us any friends at any future international bargaining table where ultimately the problem of our diminishing fishing resources will have to be discussed. What frightens me, Mr. Speaker, is that on its record the government seems incapable of talking common sense to other nations, and to some nations it cannot talk at all. It has scored debating points, but it has never arrived at agreements.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In my opinion, Bill C-134 may win the battle of the supply ship but it will cost us international agreement on measures to preserve our fisheries resources. Having stated our concern over this measure, it is not our intention to move any amendments at this time because there may be a movement for a particular province to take advantage of the bill in its present form. We therefore look forward, Mr. Speaker, to a more detailed explanation of the specific impact of this bill in certain areas when it comes before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry for study.
2770	COMMONS
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act


Thomas Miller Bell: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order to help with our progress this afternoon, and in view of the fact that we will have to make a decision at four o'clock, I have spoken to some members on this side and some on the other side and hope this proposal may meet with Your Honour's approval.
There is a desire to get Bill C-175 through, and I appreciate there may be one or two more speeches on Bill C-134. However, if everybody shortened his speech we could pass Bill C-134 and get on to Bill C-175, and if there was agreement to dispense with private members' hour we could have half a dozen short speeches on Bill C-175 and agree to sit until it was finished which would probably be after five o'clock but certainly before six o'clock. The three bills would be through and everybody would be happy. However, if we give up private members' hour we would like the assurance that everyone will make an effort to co-operate.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would appreciate that very much indeed.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, as my private member's motion is likely to be forgone as a result of that suggestion, I agree it should be done provided we end discussion of this particular bill at four o'clock and decide at that time to carry on with Bill C-175. I think that would be agreeable to all sides of the House.


The Deputy Speaker:: This is a multi-faceted proposal before the Chair but there seems to be one common thread to all proposals, namely, to dispense with private members' hour. Unless there is disagreement on that point, perhaps the refinements or extensions of the proposal could be agreed upon informally among members and we could have a second proposal later. Is it agreed that we shorten speeches and, more specifically, that we dispense with private members' hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I did not rise on the point of order, but I appreciate the effort of the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) to bring some sort of order into our proceedings this afternoon. I rise in light of the fact that we have before us in Bill C-134 a proposed amendment to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. I wish this act included the protection of our coastal fisheries from the 
DEBATES	January 23. 1970
Liberal government, and in particular the Liberal House leader.
I was somewhat annoyed earlier today when the government House leader lightly dismissed the idea of dealing with fisheries matters by suggesting that we pass three bills next Wednesday afternoon. I shall not enter into the procedural hassle we had earlier, except to say it is very awkward when one is preparing, in good faith and on the strength of the word of the government House leader, to deal with a certain bill only to find that we have passed one other bill and that the next order of business is another bill entirely.
I once rather annoyed a former Minister of Fisheries by stating in the House that the government tended to treat the Department of Fisheries as the Cinderella of government departments. The events that have taken place today seem to indicate that this is the disposition of the present Liberal administration. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should proceed to make some comments on the substance of the amending bill that is before us.
In his few remarks the minister indicated that he did not consider this to be a bill which would end all the problems faced by our seacoast fisheries. I concur in his sentiments in this respect. This bill may be a step in the right direction, but I think it warrants further examination in committee because it is a little difficult to understand how it will act as a lever in regard to negotiations on operations of foreign fishing fleets off our coast.
I appreciate full well that the situation in regard to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the operation of foreign fishing fleets off our coasts is not identical on the west coast and on the Atlantic coast of Canada. The approach that one takes in respect of the need for this amendment may, therefore, be slightly different depending on the point of view of the member who represents a coastal constituency.
The question that immediately comes to my mind is that of the operation of a large fleet of Soviet vessels offshore on the west coast and, in this last season, offshore of my own constituency at Vancouver Island. I think I can see some relationship between what is proposed in this bill and the operation of that fleet, although I am not sure that I understand how this measure will provide any protection from it.
If the minister makes any remarks in closing the debate on second reading, he should
January 23, 1970

clarify this matter; if not, it should be clarified in committee as it relates to certain remarks of the member who preceded me and referred to Russian vessels calling at American ports to take on water.
My impression has always been that they were not permitted to do that, and that this amendment would have the effect of precluding Soviet supply vessels coming into Canadian ports to take on water or other supplies to assist in the maintenance of their offshore fleet. If this is correct, then as far as it goes I can understand the minister's logic, and in principle at least I find myself ready to support the position he takes.
The minister is as aware as I of the mood of the fishermen of the west coast at the present tune and in particular of the west coast trollers. Some of them may have remarked to him, as they have to me, that if they find Soviet vessels in their way in the future, as they have in the past, they will take potshots at the pilot-houses. I have suggested to them that this would not solve the problem and in fact, it might have the reverse effect.
If one relates this bill to the question which I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) a couple of days ago in regard to the plans of the government to provide protection against fleets such as the Soviet fleet of trawlers and, in particular, the government's views on a proposal placed on the Order Paper by a British Columbia member-that is, Bill C-91-one realizes that the bill is only calculated to deal in a very minor way with the problem faced by the fishermen of the west coast as a result of the activities of foreign fishing fleets.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I think the remarks made by the previous speaker concerning the traditional activities of foreign fishing fleets off our Atlantic coast, activities which pre-date the establishment of Canada as a nation, bear out what I put to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the form of a question. I hope the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is in the House, will clarify this point before the bill passes.
If the government is not of the view that Bill C-91 is a proposal which would solve this problem, I should like to know what the government has in mind as an alternative to Bill C-91 which would declare that we have jurisdiction over fishing resources to the edge of
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act the continental shelf. The statement of the Minister of Fisheries in this connection indicates that he believes we should be able to manage our fisheries up to the edge of the continental shelf, but he has not said we should bring these areas within our own fishing zones.
This area needs to be clarified. It is not dealt with in the bill, and the minister's remarks bear out the fact that the bill does not solve the kind of problems that are involved in the present and future depletion of our fishing resources on the Pacific coast. We must keep in mind that in the North Atlantic there is an international agreement or convention to which Canada is a party together with most of the nations which fish in that area. While I suppose one could agree that that does not provide complete protection of fishing stocks in the North Atlantic, one could say that the legislative machinery working with regard to the continental shelf area of the Atlantic Coast is completely absent on the Pacific coast.
I am quite willing to go along with the suggestion that we give this bill and Bill C-175 second reading this afternoon and refer them to committee. For that reason I shall not prolong my remarks on this bill. I sum up by saying that my impression of the bill at second reading stage is that it is a minor effort in the right direction, and so far as it goes I am willing to support it.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned, this bill is limited in scope. The remarks of the preceding speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), I think indicated that it is designed mainly to permit the Canadian government and the Department of Fisheries to deal more effectively with Soviet and other fleets operating off the west coast of Canada. It will not solve all the problems which were enumerated by the previous speaker and the minister.
It is, none the less, a desirable piece of legislation. It is a first step, small though it may be, which I hope will be followed shortly by an announcement on the completion of the base lines system off the west coast of British Columbia and then, in a third and final stage, by the enactment of legislation along the lines of Bill C-91, to which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni was kind enough to refer. That bill would have the effect of extending exclusive Canadian fishing zones to the edge of the continental shelf.
January 23, 1970

Canadian Saltfish Corporation
I think that the measure in Bill C-134, in conjunction with the completed base lines system and such measures as are proposed in Bill C-91, will probably be adequate to protect the resource which at present is being very seriously depleted.
It is not generally known that perhaps the largest community on the west coast between Victoria and Prince Rupert is the Russian fishing fleet, a floating town of about 5,000 men at the height of the season. This is an indication of the extent of the exploitation of halibut, ocean perch and herring which is now taking place. The incidental catch of salmon in the area is also said to be considerable.
Reference has been made to the Pacific Trollermen's Association which is, I would say, in the best position to know what the situation is in these waters. Time and time again the association has brought to the attention of hon. members who represent west coast ridings, as well as to the minister, the tremendous depletion of groundfish resources and the large incidental take of salmon which is going on at present. I commend the association for its efforts, and hope it will not cease until there is satisfactory protection of fish stocks in this area of the Pacific.
I think the minister is correct in starting off by attempting to plug one small hole in the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, but I hope that the present action will be followed up in the near future by legislation or Orders in Council which will assure that we complete the base lines system and extend the exclusive Canadian fishing zone well outside its present limits. Because I understand that the Saltfish Corporation bill is to be the final bill the House will deal with this afternoon, I shall conclude my remarks by asking hon. members from Newfoundland to be brief, as we expect a vote on that bill this afternoon.


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


John (Jack) Davis: that Bill C-175, to establish the Canadian Saltfish Corporation and regulate interprovincial and export trade in salt-

fish, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill, secure in the knowledge that it will receive support from all corners of the House. I know there will be a few minor amendments proposed in committee. Some of them may be necessary to improve the act, but basically this is a sound piece of legislation-one which will be universally welcomed, particularly in the Atlantic provinces.
We have needed a Saltfish Corporation for more than a century. I am sure of this, because it has been recommended by numerous royal commissions and special committees set up over the years to look into the problems and prospects of the saltfish industry.
The saltfish industry, as everyone knows, was the first industry in Canada. It was the first industry on our shores and certainly the first industry the white man knew in North America. In some ways it is still an antiquated industry. Certainly it can stand a good deal of improvement.
The bill to establish the Canadian Saltfish Corporation in effect puts the credit of all the people of Canada behind the saltfish industry, which is now mainly concentrated in Newfoundland, along the north shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Quebec, and on the coast of Labrador. At one time it encompassed all the Atlantic region of Canada and much of the New England coast as well. It contracted in size as the fresh fish and frozen fish industries developed. It is now limited in great measure to small, remote communities along Canada's east coast.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
It is served by inshore fishermen, with limited means and small boats, who often do not go out beyond the sight of land. These people live in modest circumstances. They are enterprising, God-fearing, hardworking people prepared to take great risks, including risking their lives. One hundred thousand of these people have very limited opportunities in their own local areas. They live in communities which range in size from a few houses to several hundred. There are approximately 1,000 communities in this category which depend almost exclusively on the production of saltfish, primarily the catching and manufacturing of salt cod which can be shipped anywhere in the world and will retain its quality for months, even in the hottest climate. This industry is being carried
January 23, 1970

on in small, remote communities and around those communities there is little opportunity for other gainful employment.
One thing that impressed me very much is that the opportunity for employment in the forest industry, particularly in Newfoundland, is more limited today than it was ten years ago. Approximately half as many people work in the forests of Newfoundland as worked there in the mid-fifties. More men are in fact engaged in the inshore salt fish industry in Newfoundland because there are half as many jobs in the woods. This situation calls for dramatic action by the federal government to help these fishermen gain not only a larger share of world markets but a better price for their product.
I am convinced we can add considerably to the income of these fishermen merely by bringing into being a fish development marketing organization. But we will do more than market fish. Through rationalization I am sure we will be able to improve the facilities available to these fishermen in order that they may improve their product, upgrade it for the markets of the world, tailor the qualities and grades to market requirements in order to improve their sales prospects and in turn improve their income. This is the main objective of the development corporation.
The corporation will be a single-desk selling agency selling on a worldwide basis. It will be selling in the Caribbean and Mediterranean countries principally. It will be selling in a market for saltfish which has been surprisingly stable for several decades its volume has remained almost constant. What has gone wrong from our point of view is that Canada has been left with a smaller and smaller share of that relatively constant world market. If we put the accent on quality, meeting market requirements and upgrading the product so that it is more acceptable to foreign buyers we will be able to considerably improve this fishery.
We have a parallel piece of legislation. Members are familiar with the establishment of the Freshwater Fish Market Corporation last year. This corporation will operate in much the same way. In May of this year I hope to announce the schedule of prices for saltfish so that fishermen will know at the beginning of the season what their product is worth. They will be paid as they deliver their fish, rather than having to wait until the end of the year to receive any income whatsoever. They will know what they are going to

Canadian Saltfish Corporation receive in terms of income and will be able to plan with some confidence for the future.
At the end of the year the corporation will take whatever surplus it obtains as a result of this selling exercise, and pay it out to the fishermen in proportion to their catch and sales. This corporation will be the sole buyer of saltfish throughout the Atlantic region. It will have that power because all the provincial governments have indicated that they are interested in our national legislation. They will provide the necessary provincial power to make the corporation function effectively.
I think most hon. members opposite and many on this side of the House are familiar with the problems of the saltfish industry and the inshore fishermen. I can think of no single factor that can contribute more to his income and feeling of accomplishment than the passing of this bill which, at long last, will make the saltfish industry the fisherman's industry as well.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the minister's statement concerning an act to establish the Canadian Saltfish Corporation and regulate interprovincial and export trade in saltfish. I have a few comments to make on this legislation.
The marketing of saltfish and the regulating of interprovincial and export trade in this commodity is a problem that has for many years been troubling the industry in Atlantic Canada. We on this side therefore approve in principle the government's bill and will do everything within reason to expedite its progress through committee. However, there are some questions concerning the method of operation of the corporation which we would like answered. Hopefully, our doubts in this direction will be satisfied by the minister and his officials when they appear before the committee; if not, we have amendments which we are prepared to put forward in order to strengthen and improve the bill.
For almost 500 years fishermen of many countries have reaped the codfish harvest of our North Atlantic fisheries. In return, the North Atlantic has exacted its price in the lives of those fishermen, in the loneliness and widowhood of their wives and in the orphaning of their children. The history of the people of the Maritime provinces, Newfoundland and Quebec, is interwoven with the history of the fishing industry.
Treaties with foreign nations concerning the right of their nationals to land and dry
January 23, 1970

Canadian Saltfish Corporation codfish on the shores of these provinces are part and parcel of Canada's constitution and inheritance. In fact, the trade of these provinces in salt cod with the West Indies, South America, Spain, France, Portugal and Greece has established ties of friendship and trade with these countries which are older than Canada.
For some years past the salt cod industry has been relatively unimportant in terms of gross national product because the fishermen who live by that industry have, despite their efforts, been unable to earn sufficient income to make a contribution to income tax revenues.
It would appear that the salt cod industry is a special craft industry of individuals and families which should now be collectivized and organized in the hope that this action will bring about its continued survival. I sincerely hope this bill represents the answer to the Canadian saltfisherman's problems. However, in my opinion this collectivization or organization should not be so ruthless or so intent upon efficiency that it forgets to take into consideration the human factors involved.
The dislocation of the lives of these fishermen and their families where it occurs

and it will occur-must be softened by a spirit of compromise and adjustment on the part of the government as well as by the compromise and adjustment that will be demanded of the fishermen. With this thought in mind, I believe that the chairman and president, as well as the directors of the corporation and the members of the advisory committee should in the best interests of this corporation be from those provinces which participate in the administration of the act, a fact which is not spelled out too clearly in this bill.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
As I understand it, the purpose of this bill is to bring greater economic benefits to the primary saltfish producers in Atlantic Canada. This is a worthy objective, and in light of the low annual income recorded for this area it is a very necessary and worth while project. In fact, attempts to make the saltfish industry profitable have for many years occupied the attention of five provincial governments and the federal government.
Whatever remedies have been brought forward and tried, the salt-cure fishermen have, prior to this legislation, lacked a regional corporation with power to control the interprovincial and export trade in saltfish, a corpora-

tion with capital sufficient to acquire modern methods of assembling, curing, grading, processing, packaging, storing, selling and engaging in market promotion. The phasing-out of traditional but inefficient methods of curing, a reduction of duplication in costs which should bring increased returns to the fishermen, are ends which I hope will be realized under the proper management of the corporation proposed by this legislation.
The minister said the objective of the corporation at the outset is to increase the income and improve the living standards of producers. We hope that in pursuing this objective-and it is a proper one-the corporation will not lose sight of the fishermen of Labrador, of the Quebec Gulf and North Shore, of Prince Edward Island and of Nova Scotia who also are in vital need of assistance.
It is a regrettable but necessary provision of this bill that fishermen who fail to meet the terms and conditions imposed by the board will not be able to sell to the corporation. In effect, they will not be able to sell in the interprovincial or export markets. This will result in the unemployment of those unfitted by experience for any other employment. Processing plants which are dependent on the catches of these men will go out of business. However, it would appear this is the price which must be paid if the saltfish industry is to survive and if a proportion of the fishermen are to enjoy a reasonable standard of living.
In view of these facts, the corporation should not operate, in my opinion, strictly within the narrow confines of this bill. I believe the corporation has wider responsibilities. Once it is established it should alert, as early as possible, the various agencies of government, both federal and provincial, to these foreseeable disruptions. I say this in order that employment facilities, retaining facilities, pension and welfare facilities and financial aid by way of government loans to small businesses, be made known to unemployed fishermen, the employees of redundant fishing plants and to the small businessmen who operate these plants.
As I stated earlier, the five provincial governments of Atlantic Canada have in the past given much thought to the problems faced by the saltfish industry. In fact, on October 29, 1964, the Atlantic Salt Fish Commission, headed by Mr. Finn, tabled its report outlining a summary of its conclusions and recommendations after consultation with the pro-
January 23, 1970	COMMONS
ducers and processors in Atlantic Canada. This is a very interesting report, full of salty phrases and saltfish problems, and the commission's final conclusion was that the saltfish industry was not then ready for a saltfish marketing board.
According to the commission's report, the basic difficulty was the low productivity per unit of the fishermen involved. If that conclusion of the commission holds true today, the marketing corporation proposed in this bill may, in fact, do a good deal of damage. Indeed, the damage done might well offset the amount of aid provided unless the corporation proceeds with compassion, acting in close consultation with the rehabilitation and social agencies of the federal and provincial governments in the Maritimes, Newfoundland and Quebec. I say this knowing that the provinces I have mentioned already have the highest unemployment rates in Canada and the lowest standard of living. We must always be mindful of this situation and careful to do nothing by way of legislative action which would compound then- problems.
These fishermen need help, and hopefully the corporation to be set up under the bill before us can give it to them. However, the problems which this new corporation will face are likely to differ entirely from those faced by the management of the Fresh Fish Marketing Corporation. I would remind hon. members that the latter corporation has a virtual monopoly of fresh fish and can therefore control its quality, its rate of delivery and its price in our major market, the United States.
This is not the situation which will face the saltfish corporation. When it is set up, this corporation will be in a position to control the export trade in saltfish as it relates to production in Canada, but when it comes to selling saltfish abroad it will not benefit from a monopoly because it will have to compete in world markets with other great saltfish-pro-ducing nations such as Iceland, Norway, Spain, Portugal and Denmark.
This presents a challenge to our Atlantic coast fishermen inasmuch as the success or failure of the corporation to be set up by this bill will depend in great measure upon the quality of the saltfish products which it can offer in world markets. This means the corporation must be headed by men who are knowledgeable with regard to the saltfish industry and its markets, men who are willing to work in closer co-operation with the
DEBATES	2775
Canadian Saltfish Corporation fishermen, the primary producers, than has been the case in the past.
As I stated earlier, some salt codfish fishermen in Atlantic Canada may become unemployed as a result of the board's consolidation of effort. Although it may succeed in providing continuous employment and a higher standard of living to some, the board must always be conscious that it will have failed in its over-all objective if its operations raise over-all unemployment figures still higher, lowering further the present low standard of living.
In his speech of November 3, 1969, on fisheries matters, the Minister of Fisheries said many things with which I agree. He also expressed many anomalous views with which I disagree, though I shall not now debate them with the hon. gentleman. For example, he omitted to mention the tremendous buildup of the Canadian fishing fleet, with the resultant prosperity of our shipbuilding and processing plants brought about by the constructive programs initiated during the Conservative administration under my right hon. friend for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).
The minister went on to mention the plans for the fishermen proposed by his own government and, as reported at page 411 of Hansard, he listed the various bills to be considered. He then stated that the government also proposed to change the Unemployment Insurance Act, commenting that the question of unemployment insurance was of great interest to our fishermen.
This, of course, was the understatement of the year. Unemployment insurance is a subject of great interest to the entire industry, including the processors. There is nothing in this bill to indicate the stand which the government plans to take with regard to this important matter. As the minister is aware, fishermen are now classed as being selfemployed, as sharing in a joint venture. Will this classification still apply to fishermen landing fish for the Canadian Saltfish Corporation? If not, what changes is the government planning along the lines referred to in the minister's speech? The answer to this question would be very helpful. I hope the government gives an early indication of the changes it proposes to bring about in this important field.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
In conclusion, I express the hope that once this corporation is established it will achieve all its objectives so that our primary produc-
2776	COMMONS
Canadian Saltflsh Corporation ers, the men who must work in the saltflsh trade under great hardship, with only faith at times to sustain them, will secure under this legislation more of the fruits of their labour.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, in his opening remarks the minister said that "at long last" this bill would bring to an end the system which meant that the salt codfish producers of Newfoundland were prisoners of the merchants and the storekeepers. It was a timely phrase and it brought to my mind my visit to the province of Newfoundland in 1955, at which time many people were telling me that they would like to see legislation of this kind brought about.
I may say that I found myself to be a member of what was then the marine and fisheries committee of this House, shortly after my first arrival here. As a result of that, and because I had personal knowledge only of the fisheries of the Pacific coast, I embarked upon a trip to Newfoundland one fall and spent four weeks in that province. It was one of the most delightful and interesting experiences of my life.
I spent most of that time visiting the people in the small fishing villages, or outports of what was then considered to be quite a new province of Canada. I was regarded very largely as a curiosity from the mainland. The fact that I was a Canadian made me somewhat different in the eyes of many people.


Mr. Lundrigan:: That was an easy conclusion to draw.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I came back to this House, and as a result of communications which I received from many of the friends I made there I found myself occasionally getting up on the opposition side of the House and asking questions about Newfoundland matters. That was a great novelty in the House at the time because there were no members on the opposition side who represented a riding in that province. This situation does not prevail at the present time. As I recall it, the information that was given to me at the time I visited Newfoundland was that the average cash income of an inshore Newfoundland fisherman was about $600 a year.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is now $800.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I was going to refer to a publication which was issued by our Department of Fisheries and Forestry quite recently, Fisheries Reports No. 11, in which one of the footnotes points out that in a report made in

DEBATES	January 23, 1970
1964 a detailed study established the income of the fishermen at less than $1,000 per year, inclusive of transfer payments, which makes the interjected figure of $800 somewhere close to the mark.
I mention this to underline that when the minister said that this piece of legislation is being brought in "at long last," there is certainly no quarrel from this part of the House that the economic situation of most fishermen in Newfoundland leaves much to be desired. I noted that the minister emphasized this situation in his remarks on this bill, and for that reason there is perhaps relatively little controversy in the House in dealing with it.
If I understand it correctly, the genesis of this bill stems from the Federal-Provincial Fisheries Conference which was held in Ottawa in January of 1964. Certain events have flowed from that conference. The minister mentioned one of them, the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board, and suggested quite rightly that in some ways this is a companion piece of legislation dealing with another of Canada's fisheries.
I made some reference back to the presentations which were made to that conference in 1964 by the government of Newfoundland, in which they indicated that they were proposing something along the lines of the bill that we have before us. At page 32 of the presentation to the conference by the government of Newfoundland, dated January 20, 1964, the following statement appears:
The programs necessary for the strengthening of the Newfoundland fishing industry can be divided under three general headings:
1.	Marketing and price stabilization.
2.	Inspection and quality control.
3.	Rationalization and development measures.
The marketing of saltflsh in Newfoundland has a long history. If I recall correctly the picture which was painted to me at the time I was in that province, it indicated that while there was a form of co-ordinated fish marketing at that time, the real control still rested in the hands of what were often referred to as the great merchants of St. John's. One of the things about which we require assurances- an assurance which is not found in the bill- is that the enactment of this legislation will in fact represent a transfer of power from those financial interests in St. John's, which have traditionally controlled the fisheries and kept the fishermen at a subsistence level, to the fishermen themselves.
The idea of a marketing board is one that all of us in this House can easily support. The
January 23, 1970

brief of the province of Newfoundland refers back to the days when the Canadian Wheat Board was established, as the first piece of legislation providing for the orderly marketing of a product. But one of the things this bill does not clarify is whether in fact the fishery of Newfoundland will be under public control and under the control of the producers, or whether it will be left in the hands of what in the terms of the wheat farmers would be called the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. This question is not clarified in the bill.
This board is set up as a Crown Corporation. The officers and the directors are to be appointed by the Governor in Council with one appointee from each of the participating provinces. There is to be an advisory council which says that two thirds of the members shall be connected with saltfish production. But whether in fact this legislation will at long last bring about a transfer of control into the hands of the producers of Newfoundland depends entirely upon the approach which the government takes to the administration, the approach which the government takes to the appointment of the people who are going to form the board of directors of this corporation.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In committee we will require an explanation as to the emphasis to be placed on having the Crown corporation become an agency for the processing of fresh fish, and the emphasis to be placed on maintaining the existing structures for the processing of fish. I recognize there is a complex pattern throughout the industry and that the existing machinery for marketing cannot be done away with overnight. However, I think this is the kind of assurance those of us in this party want. We want assurances that in fact the operation of this measure will be such as to ensure to the fishermen the maximum return possible for their product.
We know that, even at best, the return to the fishermen for saltfish will not be anything magnificent, given the present situation with respect to world markets and the price levels that prevail. Those of us in this part of the House insist that this should be made clear as far as the people in the Atlantic fisheries are concerned.
I was glad to hear the minister say, if I heard him correctly, that all the provinces involved in the production of saltfish have indicated their desire to participate in this

Canadian Saltfish Corporation program. I was glad to note that one of the things to be achieved is the solution of a problem of concern to many people in Newfoundland, and I presume indirectly to fishermen in some of the other provinces; that is, this body will operate as an interprovincial corporation and will bring to an end the unceasing warfare that existed in previous days regarding the marketing of fish through the authority of one province or another. This was a matter of concern to the fishermen of Newfoundland when the province entered confederation. It was a matter of concern in respect of the marketing of Newfoundland fish products during the early years Newfoundland operated within confederation.
This bill meets, in part, a concerted desire of the people of Newfoundland in particular, as expressed to the former leader of the Liberal party, as far as it parallels the kind of marketing board that has been developed for the marketing of Canadian farm products, particularly those from the three Prairie provinces. If the Minister of Fisheries has not already taken note of this, I should like to refer him to a letter which the Premier of Newfoundland wrote to the former Prime Minister on February 13, 1963, when he was Leader of the Opposition.
Parts of this letter were quoted not once but twice during the proceedings of the conference in 1964. The concluding sentence of the statement made to Mr. Smallwood by Mr. Pearson when he was speaking as Leader of the Opposition is that we should have the following:
-a federal-provincial program for fishery development to be founded on the principle that national action for fisheries should parallel the action already being taken, and action to be taken, for agriculture.
Perhaps this bill is in part a fulfilment of that pledge. I am not suggesting it is the complete fulfilment. I mention this to the minister because he admits himself it has been a long time coming. I made a special trip to Ottawa before the opening of the session of Parliament in 1964, full of hope and optimism that out of that Federal-Provincial Fisheries Conference we would have introduced during that session of Parliament interprovincial marketing legislation. I suppose it is always better to have something late than never. In this respect I find myself echoing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he comments on matters relating to pensions. It seems that it takes a long time for ideas to penetrate the heads of members of the Liberal government.
2778	COMMONS DEBATES	January 23, 1970
Canadian Saltfish Corporation


Mr. Lewis:: And their hearts.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: One of my colleagues says it is their hearts.


David Lewis: As well as their heads.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have never been able to decide whether human action is generated primarily from the heart or the head. I am inclined to think it is a combination of the two and that neither functions very well without the other. Whether the fact that Liberal ministers have been inclined to pride themselves on being hard-headed has in fact meant that they are also hard-hearted, I do not know; but perhaps this is the reason for the dilemma to which some of my colleagues have referred in their interjections.
I am glad the minister is taking action on matters of this kind. I hope that his heart is soft, while his head is hard, and that this measure when it is enacted will be administered in a manner which will fulfil the promises it contains. I hope it will in fact herald the beginning of a new day for the fishermen in the Atlantic region of Canada, and that those who sit in this House ten years from now will be prepared to admit that it was a wise and useful piece of legislation.
We will have questions to ask when the bill is before the committee. We may have some suggestions when we examine and discuss the measure in detail, in order that it might be improved and strengthened. Let me refer to one such suggestion. This measure is too ambiguous as to whether those who are clearly fishermen will have any voice in the policy development of this body. This is a matter that should be clarified before the committee. If necessary, amendments will be proposed to clarify the situation. This will enable the bill, when passed in its final form, to come closer to fulfilling the hopes I have expressed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, in so far as many of us are concerned, is a milestone in the history of the ancient saltfish industry. I have waited for this legislation for a long time, like many other people in Newfoundland.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
At long last we see in this bill what we hope will be the fulfilment of the expectations of the Newfoundland fishermen who have waited 20 years to see the fulfilment of the promise of Confederation with Canada. I could not help feeling a little disappointment

today as I listened to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) when he spoke on second reading of this bill. I was disappointed the minister made light of the subject and missed the opportunity he had to sum up the historical factors leading up to and indeed directly influencing the legislation now before us.
I am also disappointed that the bill is before us at a time when members are getting ready to leave for the weekend and when it is obvious we have only a few hours at our disposal. If we had the time which this legislation warrants, I or others who may be able to do it much more adequately would be able to tell this House the heartbreaking story of Canada's most ancient industry, the saltfish industry. However, the minister did not choose to have this debate on another occasion. I am sure his motives were good. As a matter of fact, I feel he did not expect to have to deal with this legislation today.
The minister knows better than I do the importance of getting this legislation on its way. Until this bill receives royal assent he knows the industry, which is suffering the disastrous consequences of last year, is in a state of suspended animation. The longer the delay in the passage of this legislation which received first reading on December 19, the greater the opportunity, for those who are critical of the bill, to tear it down. Justice delayed is justice denied.
So we are prepared to get this bill on its way and before the committee. I may be forgiven, however, if I make a few brief observations. Other remarks I would have made at this time I shall save for the committee stage, the report stage or third reading of the bill. Before I do so I would make a suggestion to the minister. He may not think it is really relevant.
With the passage of this legislation and the setting up of this corporation, carrying with it as it does the final recognition of the importance of the role in our economy of the inshore fishery, we hope there will be the ancillary result of making the iniquitous and unjust centralization program redundant. This is a cruel, unjust and inhuman program of moving the people of Newfoundland from their ancient homes to centralized ghettos which will have as its only effect the facilitation of the administration of welfare.
We hope the passage of this legislation will carry with it a recognition of the importance of the industry in spite of what Mr. Finn in his report and others have said through the years about the inshore fishery having no
January 23, 1970

future and there being no future in saltfishing. As a result of this bill we hope that cruel program of centralization of which we have heard so much and about which the Canadian people have heard some disturbing reports will no longer be necessary. I say this notwithstanding the fact that the administration of the program has now passed from the minister of fisheries to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. We hope this bill will spell the end of that program.
There are in the bill a number of things which concern us. The minister referred to them as being minor amendments. We consider them to be major amendments. We consider, for example, the provision in the bill whereby the corporation will be empowered to make loans to fishermen to be a major item and one which in fact does not go far enough. If this bill in fact destroys the feudal system under which the saltfish industry is conducted in Newfoundland, it must by definite legislative steps eliminate the economically crippling credit system which is now the hallmark of the saltfish industry and which deprives the fisherman in many instances of a fair return for his labour.
We consider this to be a major item and hope the minister will heed the suggestions we will make in the committee in respect of the provision of a special fund which would be self-revolving to ensure that, regardless of whether the fishermen had a good or bad year, they would not have to suffer the consequences of the manipulation of interest rates and the imposition of a stricter credit regulation by the corporation. This corporation cannot, and indeed must not, function as an ordinary commercial corporation.
I make no apology, and I am sure no one from the province of Newfoundland would make any apology for saying that. We hope there will also be provision for the setting up of a fund of at least $1 million. I have not pulled this figure out of the hat. It is a figure suggested to me by those who should know what they are talking about. I believe $1 million or $2 million should be provided for this revolving fund to ensure that the fishermen at the beginning of each season have guaranteed, adequate funds with which to outfit themselves, and that there will be proper regulation and a fair and just rate of interest.
Only in this way can we ensure that there is and end to the feudal system whereby the fishermen in return for being outfitted in>
the spring of the year are obligated to give their entire catch to the merchant without knowing

Canadian Saltfish Corporation how much they might expect in return. This is what is known as the iniquitous open-receipt system of buying fish. We consider this a major item. Even though we consider this a good bill, and even though we commend the minister for introducing it and think he is a good minister, we are also sure he is anything but infallible.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
We could have preferred if he had taken some of us into his confidence so that we could have given him our constructive suggestions in a more informal way, rather than having to make them in debate in this House or through the formal technique of amendments in committee.
We would also like to see an expression of intent spelled out in the bill, if for no other reason than to ensure that the corporation does not conduct itself as a purely commercial corporation. The philosophy of the bill should be spelled out in the preamble. It was quite adequately spelled out by the minister in a statement which he made at St. John's, and I quote his words:
Immediate objectives of the proposed corporation are to improve and stabilize the earnings of primary producers of cured cod fish. This would be achieved by maximizing returns from the trade and minimizing costs in assembling, processing and' marketing operations.
We would like to see that in the preamble of the bill. The minister may not occupy his portfolio in two years' time, and we should take steps now to make sure that those who follow know what was the intent of Parliament when this bill was passed.
The bill provides for the appointment of' five directors. The appointments will be made by the Governor in Council, which in this case means the Minister of Fisheries. It could conceivably happen that the five directors could come from Bay Street, or the equivalent street in Vancouver. The president could come from the west coast and the chairman of the board from Montreal. Unless they knew what Parliament had in mind when it passed the bill, they could forget that its primary purpose is to maximize returns to the primary producer, the fisherman.
I would not want the impression to be created abroad that this bill is merely establishing a marketing board. If it is to fulfil our expectations, it must be much more than that. This is not to suggest that marketing is not one of the principal functions of the. corporation.
2780	COMMONS DEBATES	January 23, 1970
Canadian Saltfish Corporation
Because of the ancient system of marketing in the trade, we have been losing our main markets to competitive countries such as Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Portugal and Spain. Exporters have failed to recognize the changes that are taking place in our principal markets for cured fish. Those markets are now more sophisticated than ever. Here I speak of our principal markets in Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Puerto Rico. Salt codfish, which is their principal source of protein, is now sold in local supermarkets with the aid of attractive packaging. Our exporters have failed to compete in this manner. They have failed to take account of the fact that in many of our principal markets salt codfish is a political football. A marketing board will be in a better position to deal with governments than individual exporters.
We feel that the corporation must have a presence in our export markets; it must have representatives in those markets. Indeed, it may have to build cold-storage facilities close to those markets in order to ensure that the product is adequately safeguarded. Notwithstanding the minister's opening statement, it is a perishable product and on occasion has suffered the consequences of being left on wharves in the West Indies for long periods of time. For this reason it will be necessary for the corporation to enter into agreements with the governments of Jamaica and other West Indian countries to build cold-storage warehouses in which the product can be stored.
We must do a better job in our principal markets by the adoption of new marketing techniques, new packaging and the elimination of the middleman. In many cases these principal markets have become fragmented, to the detriment of the saltfish fishermen.
The corporation will also have to determine in advance market requirements so that fishermen in future will not produce and cure fish on a hit-and-miss basis. At the beginning of a season the corporation will have to determine the grade of fish the Jamaican market will require. Then, as the sole purchaser of fish, it will be able to go to the fishermen and say, "We will require so many quintals of such a cure of fish for this market." The fishermen will know exactly what they have to produce, and they will produce it. This will bring some order into the chaotic situation that now exists in the industry. Without exception, improvements can be made in every one of our markets. They have to be made if we are to eliminate the archaic thinking that has caused so much damage to the industry.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I note that the bill calls for the setting up of the corporation's head office in St. John's, Newfoundland. I suggest that this is the obvious place for the corporation to have its headquarters because St. John's will be the principal centre of its operations.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I also suggest that the president of this corporation be a resident of the area in which the corporation is located, and somebody who has an active knowledge of the industry. Above all, Mr. Speaker, it should not be a political appointment. I leave that suggestion with the minister.
We look forward to studying this bill in committee. Many people have made representations to us and in committee we will be passing many of them on to the government. We hope the committee will get together very soon and deal with this legislation.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues on this side of the House, I welcome this legislation. I commend the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) for the initiative he has shown in tackling it and, we hope, putting an end to the old feudal system that has for centuries been the curse of the fishing industry of Newfoundland.
Those of us from Atlantic Canada, and especially from Newfoundland, have been looking forward with great anticipation to the legislation which we are now debating. We realize how important this legislation is to the fishing industry in Newfoundland and, indeed, to the other Maritime provinces. We also appreciate the minister's willingness to pay attention to the suggestions and arguments we have advanced in favour of this board and the corporation as outlined in the bill.
The minister is well aware of the representations made to him and the government, and the consistency of our efforts to impress upon them the absolute need for greater government involvement in the saltfish industry of Atlantic Canada. He is also aware of the pressing need for an organized effort by the government to regulate the processing and marketing of our salted cod.
One does not need to be a prophet or to possess divine inspiration to predict what will happen to the saltfish industry of eastern Canada without this type of legislation, without active participation by the government in the processing and marketing of the product.
January 23, 1970

It is regrettable that it has taken so long to have this board established. As my colleague from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) said a few moments ago, Newfoundland has been waiting for this opportunity since confederation, and we have lost 20 years. Let us hope that the board will function to the advantage of the people for whom it is intended, that is, the producer-the fisherman himself.
The average fisherman has been too long the victim of the old feudal system. The history of the fishing industry in my province has been one of exploitation, hardship, and in too many cases near-starvation for those engaged in it. For too long were we content to accept what always appeared to be inevitable as far as our fishermen were concerned, that is, they must learn to roll with the punches, take it on the chin and be satisfied to accept a standard of living far below the national average and one that would not be tolerated by people in any other part of this nation. A moment ago I said that our fishermen had been exploited for centuries. Of course, the reason is obvious-the system under which they have been compelled to operate lends itself to abuse and exploitation.
Can you imagine, sir, the people engaged in the fishing industry selling their catches on an open-receipt basis? Can you imagine any person today, engaged in any other industry in Canada, working all summer and not knowing what he will earn? But that situation has existed in Newfoundland for decades and, possibly, for centuries. Men fished all summer; they shipped or took their fish to the exporter and were given an open-receipt without knowing how much they would get. They took potluck, and come fall they hoped to obtain enough money to square their bills with the merchants and have a few dollars to spare.
If one were to compare the life of the average Canadian with that of the Newfoundland fishermen, it would be very interesting. The fisherman of Newfoundland has an average annual income of $900 or thereabouts. For that he must work during the fishing season from before daylight until after dark. He must constantly face the hazards of the seas, and is forced to run risks when battling the elements that would terrify t he average Canadian. He must conquer his fears and overcome the fury of the Atlantic. Total dependence on his own ingenuity and resourcefulness has instilled in him a fierce sense of pride and independence. The average fisherman is by nature a rugged individualist 21611-37

Canadian Saltfish Corporation who works hard for his living. He would much rather battle the elements than accept social welfare.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation will have the effect of improving the lot of the average fisherman of Atlantic Canada, and especially of Newfoundland. I am therefore delighted that it has been brought in. We have suggestions to make in committee which we hope will improve the bill.
There is one thing I must say, because it has a bearing on the success of the fisheries in my riding and in most other parts of Newfoundland. I hope that the government will go a step farther and not merely stop with the establishment of the Saltfish Corporation. I believe it will be necessary for the government to make sure that adequate facilities are provided whereby fishermen can land and process their fish under sanitary and proper conditions. If the fishermen are to take full advantage of this legislation, adequate facilities must be provided for them.
If our fishermen are to comply with regulations pertaining to quality and sanitation set out in the bill, facilities must be provided. Those facilities should include landing and processing facilities, community wharves and the like. When the bill comes before the committee I hope the minister will indicate that my suggestions will be incorporated in the government's program, which is designed to encourage the saltfish industry. We must make sure that our fishermen derive the fullest benefit from the proposed corporation.
I also think the minister should look at the herring fishery, especially in Newfoundland. People who are eminently qualified to speak on the subject have suggested to me that we should consider prohibiting the use of large herring seiners in our bays. These seiners move in like giant vacuum cleaners and sweep up everything that is there. Their large catches of herring are reduced to oil that I understand is used for industrial purposes.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I have been informed that am unlimited world market exists for this very high-protein food. I am told that 95 per cent of the herring caught are used for oil rather than human consumption. I think this industry would perform a much greater service to humanity if greater emphasis were put on the nutritional and protein value of herring as food for human consumption, rather than reducing an estimated 95 per cent of the catch to oil.
January 23, 1970

Canadian Saltfish Corporation
I hope the minister will give thought to providing facilities which the fishermen want, and that consideration will be given to a certain group of people in Newfoundland. The hon. member for St. John's East mentioned a moment ago that these people have been dealt a great injustice by having their way of life destroyed by the federal government and the government of Newfoundland. I refer to the people who have been relocated under the joint federal-provincial housing resettlement program. These people have been moved from their traditional fishing areas and properties and resettled, in many instances, in places completely unsuited to them and which lack even the barest facilities needed to successfully prosecute the fisheries.
I ask the minister to give serious thought to providing facilities in the areas where these people have been relocated. I know of two or three in my riding. I could refer to Placentia. The minister is well aware of the problems that exist there. More than 200 families were moved into that town from outlying areas where previously they had adequate fishing facilities. They now find themselves in the same position as the proverbial fish-out-ofwater; they are in a settlement completely unsuited to their carrying on fishing.
I could refer to a number of other places in my riding where facilities are lacking, such as in St. Mary's Bay and St. Mary's itself. I repeat, that unless provision is made to provide adequate facilities for the fishermen, they will not receive the full benefits that could be derived from this legislation.
I know other hon. members want to speak on this measure, so I will conclude my remarks. I compliment the minister on his setting up the Saltfish Corporation. I hope he will accept our advice regarding fishing facilities. We look forward to discussing this bill further at the committee stage.


Louis-Roland Comeau: not bring in a bill which would affect only a certain area, if this bill is detrimental to some parts of Canada. We will see how this legislation works. As I mentioned, I hope the minister will be able to amend the legislation if it does not work.
I understand, also, that provinces can opt in or out of this plan. I would like to caution the minister about the expense incurred by Crown corporations. As I stated at the beginning, I do not look favourably on Crown corporations, and I hope the minister will be cautious and will ensure that this board will be operated effectively and efficiently. I want to raise just these few points. I might have more to say when the legislation comes before the committee.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my comments on Bill C-175 to establish the Canadian Saltfish Corporation, not only because, as most of my colleagues have said, it is a good bill but because I feel it may be the answer to many of the problems which exist in the fishing industry in my district. I commend the Minister Of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) for the positive approach he has taken since taking over the fisheries portfolio, and for the legislation he has already put forth since taking office. However, as is the case with most legislation, there are bound to arise many unforeseen human errors. I am sure the minister would agree that this is true with regards to some of the past programs which were instituted on behalf of the fishermen.
The bill to establish the Canadian Saltfish Corporation is a good one but I, along with others, have some reservations and I would like to point out some weaknesses, not to criticize for the sake of criticism but in order to offer positive suggestions which have arisen out of my assessment of the weaknesses in most of the past legislation and programs which were designed to cure the ills of the fishermen. There are peculiar problems in various parts of the Atlantic region, which necessitate a special appoach.
If I may make a general over-all criticism arising out of my short experience of politics, in assessing the fishing industry I believe it is a weakness in correlating and providing a system or plan whereby all the various programs support one another. If I may offer an example, I supported wholeheartedly the deficiency payment program. That was a good program but it seriously missed the boat in my district due to certain unforeseen factors.
21611-37^
Canadian Saltfish Corporation The deficiency payment program was an interim measure intended to compensate for the extraordinary situation which depressed the fishermen's income in 1968, and to avoid its recurrence in 1969. Payments will be made after February 1 on various grades of fish classified as to quality and character, such as light-salted, heavy-salted and split fish. I spent two weeks during the summer visiting many of the fishing villages in my riding, and in not one case where I inspected fish could I find any distinction made as to grade. Fish was purchased as one grade whether it was prime, maderia medium or small. Naturally, the fishermen lost out because they were paid according to the whims of the buyer. So again fishermen suffered because there was no grading or culling of fish. When they get the 50 per cent difference between the 1968 price and the target price, they will lose out on the greater difference which would exist if they had sold their fish by grade.
This emphasizes the fact that you can have all the programs you want, however good they appear on paper and however sincerely they are prepared-and I assure the minister that he has all my commendation for his sincerity-but what was the good of the deficiency payment program to the fishermen of the northwest coast of Newfoundland, when they were deprived of their livelihood because of the weak restrictions on fishing limits by the foreign draggers who appeared for many months in last year's fishing season?
As admirable as the deficiency payment program was, what is the point of deficiency payments when there are no fish to be caught? What good are deficiency payments if there is no culling and the fishermen are not given the advantage of trying to produce a better product, which the experts say should be done? We can have all the individual programs we want, and we can produce them on paper until they fill all the offices on Parliament hill, including the House of Commons, but we will never succeed unless we support the programs not only with money but by factors involved. This takes into account the fishing grounds, the facilities required and, most important of all, the guidance and leadership which we have not given the fishermen up to now. Equally important, we must have confidence in the fishermen who have the practical knowledge necessary and need our help.
Let me speak about some of the better-programs which have been introduced! through the initiative and good intentions of
January 23, 1970

Canadian Saltfish Corporation the government. Let us look first at the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, whereby an individual fisherman or a group of fishermen can get loans up to $25,000 at a preferred rate of interest in order to buy a boat or to purchase fishing gear or equipment. They have ten years to pay it back.
This is a good program because it gives the fisherman-on paper, mind you-the opportunity to get a loan at a bank or other lending institution, which he might not get under normal banking regulations, because it is guaranteed by the government. This program is designed to give fishermen with resourcefulness and initiative an opportunity to get themselves started in a competitive way in the fishing business. This is truly a wonderfully program, on paper. Just try to get a fisheries improvement loan in the province of Newfoundland! Just ask the many hundreds of fishermen in my district of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe about this!
During my two years in politics I have found that only two fishermen in the whole province were granted loans under this program, and in order to find those two I had to take the word of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), after reading the list produced by his department. The staff of the office of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) is aware of the number of times I have asked for material on fisheries improvement loans to send to my constituents because of my faith in the program. Of the many hundreds I have sent out, only one man indicated he was able to get a loan from the bank in his area. He got the loan, but not through the plan under which he applied as laid down in the act. He was granted a loan which he could have obtained anywhere, and was charged 11.9 per cent interest instead of having the advantage of the preferred rate under the act. This is why I say we must have some confidence in the fishermen who are supposed to be encouraged. As far as Newfoundland is concerned, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act is not worth the paper on which it is written.
Unless these matters are investigated and leadership is given to support the fishermen, we will never give them a decent start. Perhaps the loans offered under this legislation will overcome the serious lack of trust in those for whom its benefits are intended. I certainly hope that is the case.
The resettlement program is also good on paper but leaves much to be desired when put into practice. This emphasizes a lack of proper appreciation of its intention. The main

weakness here is the lack of infrastructural logistics in providing the public facilities required in growth centres, in order to properly receive those who are relocated. We can designate growth centres for as long as we want, but they must be capable of providing the necessary facilities to allow a new resident to get the new start in life which the program is designed to give him. Again there is a lack of intersupport for the program.
I could give members many examples of frustration in this regard, but the one that sticks in my mind refers to a man who came to see me about welfare. He started out in one community with two motor boats, a horse, a truck, 23 sheep and his own garden in which he produced all the needs of his family. He enjoyed life.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
After making three moves, he ended up a stone's throw from the community from which he started and is receiving $112 a month in welfare for himself and a family of five. Without dwelling on all the other good programs, provincial and federal, such as the Fisheries Act, the Coastal Fisheries Protection regulations, the fishing vessel indemnity regulations and the fisheries loan boards, I suggest there must be an interrelationship with other departments of federal jurisdiction such as Public Works and Regional Economic Expansion.
I become a little tired and frustrated when I receive the same stock answer to requests for breakwaters, community-stages and other facilities which the fishermen must have in order to derive any benefit from this new corporation. In answer to the many requests I make of the Department of Public Works, I receive a similar tale of woe. I am told that on investigation it was found that due to the fact that the number of fishermen is decreasing over the years, and that the fisherman's income is decreasing, it is found uneconomical to accede to my requests.
I ask the minister how he expects the number of fishermen to increase, or their income to increase, if in the first place they do not have the necessary facilities. Let me refer to one example in the community of Anchor Point. I quote from a letter received from the provincial member of the district, who is also the provincial Minister of Public Works:
With reference to Anchor Point, this, as you know is one of the most prosperous settlements in St. Barbe North with some of the best fishermen on the whole northwest coast-
January 23, 1970

I have been endeavouring for the past few years to get a breakwater and combination community stage and freezer, as well as a haul-up and Ash drying area... I do hope you will do your utmost to try and secure these requirements during your term of office.
Well, I have tried. I am sure the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), as well as the district directors, know that I have tried for the past 18 months. I receive fine answers of agreement but then I hear the familiar tale of woe. I am told that departmental investigations reveal that about 52 fishermen operate 44 boats and use the public wharf facility. They say they agree there is a need, but unfortunately funds are not available; or that it is the view of the department that a community-stage, a fresh fish holding unit or a bait-holding facility are not required. I ask when they will be required. Are we waiting for the fishermen to become so discouraged that they go on welfare?
I hope to have an opportunity to deal with my misgivings about the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and its responsibilities in relation to the fishing industry in Newfoundland. But in the desire to complete the debate today I shall leave this question until I have another opportunity. I hope the authority vested in the Saltfish Corporation will be a means of overcoming the problems regarding loans. I hope the attitude of the banks in denying fishermen with initiative and resourcefulness an opportunity to obtain a loan to improve their lot as fishermen will not be adopted by the corporation. If I might be so bold, I would suggest that the criteria used for granting these loans must not be on the basis of the fisherman's security, because he has not been given the opportunity to build up any security due to the failure of past legislation to protect him and his industry.
I should like to make one final comment in respect of liaison and communication. There has been a complete lack of communication, by officials below the level of district officer, with the fishermen. I hope when the advisory boards and advisory committees are appointed we will realize the extreme importance of consultation with individuals or groups in all areas. This must be done even if it is necessary to enlarge the committees. I hope there will be no skimping in respect of staff, and that the officials will go to the fishing communities to explain the benefits under the act
Canadian Saltfish Corporation and to give the guidance and leadership required in order to produce a better quality of fish and so improve the income of the fisherman. There is also great need for communication with the many development associations which have sprung up and are becoming involved in the problems of their communities and districts. They are there to help, and I hope we will listen to the grassroots advice they offer for the good of all concerned.
I hope that every section of the province will be represented on the advisory committees, because of the peculiar problems that exist in their communities. Let us forget political appointments and screen-out the capable and the devoted rather than the patronized.
I join others on this side of the House in support of this bill, Mr. Speaker. I hope the minister will take the suggestions in the spirit in which they are intended, to produce the best legislation possible and to build a base out of the resources that have been staring us in the face for hundreds of years. Let us by co-operation and good will gain the respect and the confidence of the fisherman in the Atlantic region by showing him that he is deserving of equal opportunity with all other Canadians.


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is of great interest to the fishermen of the Gaspe district and of the Quebec North Shore. As it is nearly six o'clock, I will be very brief as I would like the bill to be referred to the committee as soon as possible. Besides, I will have an opportunity to discuss the matter when third reading of the bill is moved.


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation to hon. members for their patience and courtesy in working overtime this afternoon, listening mainly to members from Newfoundland talking about fish. But it is Friday anyway, so it is appropriate.
I do not oppose the principle of Bill C-175, an act to establish a Saltfish Corporation and saltfish. I, along with my colleagues from Newfoundland, welcome it and we congratulate the Minister. We congratulate him for at least trying, which is more than many of his predecessors appeared to do.
2786	COMMONS
Canadian Saltfish Corporation
This measure is being hailed in some quarters as the end of all the problems for the fishermen engaged in the saltfish industry, or to use the $5 word, the panacea for all their problems. I am afraid I do not share in this enthusiasm. I wish it were so, but it is just not so.
As a Newfoundland fisherman would say, the minister has "a noggin to scrape," meaning a very difficult task, if this new corporation is to be instituted and truly used to improve the lot of the fisherman. We have seen many plans and schemes come and go which were ostensibly intended to aid the fishermen but ended up as the means whereby those other than fishermen could afford winter holidays down south, palatial homes and Cadillac comfort. I hope that this is truly the start of a real breakthrough for our Atlantic fishermen engaged in the saltfish industry. For the new corporation to be successful I think we must constantly remember its duties expressed in clause 23(b) as "increasing returns to fishermen." I think this is the line that should stand out. All members of the corporation should be aware of it at all times.
I am concerned that in the bill I see quite a large part devoted to inspection and policing of its provisions, including quality control, but no provision is spelled out whereby assistance and advice are given to our hundreds of small producers of saltfish, to help them produce a product as efficiently and as sanitarily as possible, ensuring that it will pass a rigid inspection and consequently result in the highest possible return to the fishermen. It is not enough to have an army of inspectors turning thumbs down. The reasons for such rejections must be pointed out, steps taken and assistance and advice given to correct them.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I do not think a grant limited to $100,000 to be spread over the five participating provinces, for the initial establishment of the corporation, is very generous at all. Surely, this corporation for which almost everyone expresses such great hope and enthusiasm, could have a little better send-off than this. Surely, the minister's colleagues who hold the purse-strings could be convinced to share a little more in the minister's enthusiasm.
For centuries, Mr. Speaker, the marketing of saltcod produced in Newfoundland has been done by sloppy, slipshod, hit-and-miss methods. I am delighted that a serious attempt is to be made in the area of con-
[Mr. Peddled
DEBATES	January 23, 1970
trolled marketing including packaging, etc., with regulations by the corporation governing all export and interprovincial trade in saltfish. Rigid quality control coupled with aggressive, imaginative marketing could raise the lowly saltcod to the prominence which such a delicious, nutritious and valuable food deserves.
Mr. Speaker, apart from our export trade in saltfish, it never fails to amaze me that so many people right here in Canada have never heard of Newfoundland saltcod. They do not know what they are missing. I blame the government of Canada and the government of Newfoundland for not promoting this delicacy and introducing it to our fellow Canadians across the country, as well as the export trade.
I remember last year, while the Standing Committee on Transportation was visiting St. John's, Newfoundland, the committee members were invited to the home of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) to enjoy the hospitality for which the Jamiesons are famous. There was a magnificent spread, Mr. Speaker, turkey, ham, hot dishes, cold dishes and God only knows what else. The Kelligrew's soiree had nothing on it. But the dish which really appealed to the members who were representative of all Canada was the traditional Newfoundland fish and brewis. I took particular note of the way the 20 or 30 mainlanders savoured this delicacy. It may be that their appetites were a little whetted by the stimulant known as screech, but the fact remains that they did go back for second and third helpings. While the Jamiesons may have had ham and turkey next day, I doubt if they had "fish and brewis".
I hope that one of the first things the corporation does, along with promoting export trade, is aggressively promote the sale of saltcod in our own country and the rest of North America. If the name must be changed from saltcod to some fancy-sounding name, and if it must be dressed up in a candy-striped package to appeal to our discerning and advertising mesmerized fellow Canadians and fellow North Americans, then let's do it. We in Newfoundland are a captive market, Mr. Speaker-half a million souls who produce nothing that I know of that our fellow Canadians consume. From the time we turn down our Quebec-made bedcovers in the morning, step out of our Quebec-made pyjamas, use our Ontario-produced toothpaste in a bathroom equipped from Ontario, and through the livelong day, everything that we
January 23, 1970

put on, rub on or spray on comes from another part of Canada.
We are a captive market and I feel there should be some reciprocal trade. In that way, Mr. Speaker, not only would we be getting the goodwill of the Canadian people with regard to our produce, but I think we would be showing our export markets that indeed we have a good product-it is fit to eat because we eat it ourselves. I do not blame the people of Canada but, as I said before, I blame the government for not long ago adopting an aggressive and imaginative program for putting this product on the local market. There may then be such a demand from world markets that we would be surprised. Canadians are very well respected, and I am sure our saltfish would be too.
Of course, I also hope that demand for salt-fish will be strong and that we may be able to keep up with that demand. I am very serious about this and would like to see local markets promoted and see the product enjoy some respect.
1 know the minister must be given some time in order to close the debate, so I will say no more. May I indicate, however, that I shall have some questions when we come to the clause by clause consideration of the bill in committee.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I will not say very much in this debate, other than applaude the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) and his constituents. I could make many observations and talk longer on this subject than other members of the House, because in my constituency more people will be affected by this legislation than those in any other constituency. I think I can say that without fear of contradiction.
We are happy with this legislation. Even though all hon. members will not benefit to the same extent as I and my constituents, I am glad to see they are supporting the legislation, the credit for which must go to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) and not the Premier of Newfoundland. I shall have more to say about that in committee.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, may I first thank all hon. members here who have contributed in the debate, and, more particularly, those who have resisted speaking at some length this afternoon with a view to making a solid contribution in committee later. As hon. members know, the best work is done in commit-

Canadian Saltfish Corporation tees. I am glad to be able to get the saltfish legislation before our committee next week.
I wish to say very few words. We are talking about approximately 20,000 fishermen and, if you include their dependents, 100,000 people, all of them resident in the Atlantic region. By and large they are on the bottom rung of the income ladder in this country and yet they are among the hardest working people in Canada. Obviously we owe it to them to provide the best legislation we can. As some hon. members have said, this is only a beginning and, as others have said, we must integrate this legislation with other legislation which exists now and which is to be brought along. I agree with both comments.
The main objective of this particular piece of legislation must be the improvement of the incomes and the lot of those engaged in the saltfishery. Some remarks earlier may have left the impression that some of the people who produce saltfish in the Atlantic region will not be able to sell their product. That is not true. This corporation must buy all saltfish offered in the areas which come under the act. In other words, all saltfish offered for sale will be bought.
Of course, the corporation must have some discretion as to quality and it will increasingly put emphasis on high quality and pay top prices for that quality and reduce the price for the poorer qualities. To repeat, anyone offering saltfish will be able to find a market for his product. The area within which the corporation must buy the saltfish offered will include, I believe, all the territory within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, all of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. So far as the province of Quebec is concerned, I understand that only the north shore along the Gulf of St. Lawrence will be included in the legislation passed by the province of Quebec, but not the Gaspe. One of the reasons I believe is that saltfishing in the Gaspe is relatively prosperous. It has concentrated on very high quality; the Gaspe cure is famous and the area's product sells principally in the United States. This shows, of course, why the saltfish corporation should stress quality and what it may do in future in promoting saltfish in the markets of the world and promoting a product of which we will be proud.
There was reference to a crown-owned corporation backing out private enterprise. My impression of the industry really is that we need all the enterprise that we can get, not only the enterprise of the fishermen but also
January 23, 1970

Canadian Saltfish Corporation all the enterprise of the existing trades. There is no problem here except perhaps in southern Nova Scotia. The Nova Scotia government has agreed with us that several qualities of saltfish, for the time being, will not be included under the act, those being principally the boneless saltfish produced in southern Nova Scotia principally for markets around New York.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
It is possible under the act to exclude any grade or quality of saltfish. A province may exclude particular areas, if they wish, from the ambit of this corporation. It is my expectation that in Nova Scotia the boneless product will not be included under the act. It will be brought in by a change in regulations, but the province would have to concur in this. I think one of the worries of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) is removed in that connection.
I think I can end where I began. The fisherman has been looking forward to some action
along these lines from government at both the provincial and federal levels. This corporation, if well managed, will give him a price for his product which he deserves and which he will earn. We must have other related programs in the Department of Fisheries and in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I believe the Saltfish Corporation is a good start. It is a sound idea. It is a corporation in which I have confidence and which I believe will be well run. I look forward to hearing constructive suggestions in committee next week.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being after five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.
At 5.55 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Monday, January 26, 1970