1970-02-25

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in reference to a statement made by the hon. member for Calgary South yesterday afternoon in this chamber and to be found on page 4033 of Hansard. I take it that by his statement my integrity was impugned. I would have risen on a question of privilege at that time but I was absent from the chamber on other parliamentary business.
The hon. member for Calgary South said:
The hon. member for Calgary North.. .added a new dimension to the debate when he noted that the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Sulatycky)-* as recorded at page 3429 of Hansard-had been elected with 30 per cent of the vote.
Then the hon. member for Calgary South said that this observation was not accurate.
The point I was making in my speech was that there were two Conservatives who ran against the hon. member for Rocky Mountain. I have checked the figures contained in the report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the 1968 twenty-eighth general election. There were 28,360 electors on the list. The hon. member for Rocky Mountain received 7,355 votes representing approximately 25.5 per cent of the voters on the voters' list.
Of the 28,360 only 19,654 voted, so that of the actual votes cast he received approximately 37.3 per cent. In brief, the Liberal member received far less than 30 per cent of the total number of eligible voters on the voters' list.
My question of privilege is that the impression was left by the hon. member for Calgary South that my facts and figures were totally inaccurate. I have always considered this to be a gentlemen's club and in the House I have always endeavoured to treat all members, particularly those from my city, as having the proper qualifications for that club.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In respect of the hon. member's suggestion that this is a
question of privilege may I say that it may or may not be, but as no motion has been moved I suggest that the matter should not be pursued further. I should remind hon. members that there is a government order for the consideration of the House on which debate will be resumed in due course and at that time all members will have an opportunity to set the record straight if they think it is not straight now.



MR. SKOBERG-TYPE OF RETURNS TO ORDERS FOR PRODUCTION OF PAPERS

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege at this time. As recorded in Votes and Proceedings for Monday, February 23, returns to orders for production of papers Nos. 224 and 227 were laid upon the table. Upon receiving these returns I was extremely surprised, and, I might say, amazed to find a package of microfilm enclosed in a brown envelope with an accompanying official letter over the signature of the President of the Privy Council stating:
The attached information has been received by the President of the Privy Council from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
I can and do appreciate the fact that Members of Parliament have offices, some large, some small, secretaries and typewriters, desks, chairs, filing cabinets, dictating equipment, telephones, bookcases and water coolers, but at the present time I cannot find room in my office at least to instal a projector to view these microfilms. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that some determination be made concerning whether or not this is a proper response to a member's motions for the production of papers. I realize that the library no doubt could arrange a showing of the film, but this would not be much use to me in attempting to view it in my office.
If Your Honour should find that this is a legitimate question of privilege I am prepared to move that the method by which the returns to the orders for production of papers Nos. 224 and 227, dated February 20, 1970, were produced be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Until such time as you do rule, Mr. Speaker, I will hold that motion.

February 25, 1970
House of Commons


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs rising to contribute to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Moose Jaw? I was hoping he would. The hon. member for Moose Jaw has given notice of his proposed question of privilege as required by the Standing Order. Even though the hon. member's notice was somewhat sketchy and did not identify the returns to which he wished to take exception, I immediately suspected what he had in mind when I noticed the form of the returns to motions Nos. 224 and 227 standing in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw.
I am not sure whether the hon. member has a point of order or a point of privilege but certainly he has a point. The return presented by the department obviously is not in the conventional or traditional form. It seems to me that if a return is to be of any value to an hon. member it should be presented in a form that will convey to the member the information he is seeking and which the House has ordered he should receive. I suggest that this requirement is not met by the filing, by way of reply, of material which cannot be interpreted without the use of a mechanical device.
As of the present date there is not readily available to members the equipment required to print out the material contained on a film negative. I might say that even if such equipment were available it is still very doubtful that a return in the form now presented would be acceptable without a special order of the House or without a change in our rules.
It may be that at some time in the future the House will consider it expedient to provide for the submission of returns in this form, but this is looking into the future. For the moment I must rule that the return is not in proper form and does not comply with the order of the House.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SECRETARY GENERAL OF ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw your attention and the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of the Secretary General of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Mr. Van Lennep.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House that the budget will be presented on March 12.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	What is the annual salary of Dr. David Munro, head of the new section on Indian consultation and negotiation group of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
2.	Who are the members of his staff, and what are their respective annual salaries?


Hon. Jean Chreiien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: For a number of senior employees in the Indian Consultation and Negotiation Group their specific salaries are directly related to their individual performance.
The Government's policy regarding answers to questions concerning the salary of persons on performance pay is to indicate only the applicable salary range.
1.	Dr. Munro's salary range is $23,000 to $29,000.
2.	In establishing the Indian Consultation and Negotiation Group three divisions from the former Indian Affairs Branch complete with the employees in those divisions were transferred to the Indian Consultation and Negotiation Group. The three divisions are the Indian Eskimo Bureau, the Federal Provincial Relations Division, and the Policy and Planning Division.
The list below indicates the name of those employees plus two employees transferred from other sections within the department. They are:
Name	Salary range
J. W. Churchman G. A. Yeates C. I. Fairholm W. D. Mills L. L. Brown

February 25, 1970

The remaining employees are not under performance pay.
Name	Salary
G. E. Bell	$15,229
Mrs. M. Blanchard	$14,889
Mr. W. A. Gryba	$14,011
Mr. R. Moses	$14,304
Mr. R. W. Nablo	$18,260
Mr. C. F. Kerr	$15,229
Mr. H. G. Sprott	$14,304
Mr. W. J. Fox	$14,304
Mr. L. G. Smith	$11,637
In addition, approximately 37 persons are on Support Staff.
There are a number of vacancies and every effort is being made to fill as many positions as possible from the Indian population.


PRESS RELEASE BY IAN WATSON, M.P.
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	Was Press Release No. 63-69 dated July 7, 1969, by the Department of Transport entitled "Ian Watson, M.P., announces $250,000.00 St. Lawrence Seaway clean up for Mercier Bridge Approaches" printed at public expense and, if so (a) what was the cost of printing (b) how many copies were printed and what distribution was made of the copies?
2.	Will similar press releases be printed at public expense when required for all Members of Parliament?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes. (a) $5.04; (b) 1,400 English copies, 400 French copies distributed to Members of Parliament, the news media and special publications.
2. No, except where the member makes an announcement on behalf of the Minister of Transport, suitable releases may be issued.


&quot;YESTERDAY THE CHILDREN WERE DANCING&quot;
Mr. Monieith: 1.	Was the production of the Stratford National Theatre of Canada entitled "Yesterday the Children were Dancing", written by Gratien Gelinas in French and which was to be presented in English by the Stratford Theatre at the National Arts Centre in February, 1970, cancelled and, if so, for what reason?
2.	What was the actual reason for the dispute between the Actors' Equity Association of Toronto and l'Union des Artistes of Montreal, which brought about the cancellation of the above-mentioned play?


Hon. Gerard Pelleiier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the National Arts Centre as follows: 1. Yes, for the reason explained in Part 2.
Questions
2. A dispute is at present in arbitration between Actors' Equity and l'Union des Artistes over the correct interpretation of agreements between the two unions dated 25 June 1965 and 27 January 1969 regarding jurisdiction over theatrical production given originally in one official language and subsequently in the other.


DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING NATIONAL SECURITIES COMMISSION
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	What stage has been reached in the discussions or negotiations with provincial authorities with a view to the establishment of a national securities commission or some similar body?
2.	When were the last discussions with the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec on this subject and was any progress made?
3.	When was the last general discussion with the other provinces and was any progress made as a result?
4.	What are the chief points at issue remaining to be settled before general agreement may be reached?
5.	Is any general conference of officials of all the interested parties scheduled or contemplated in the foreseeable future?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. The establishment of a national securities commission or similar body was last formally discussed with the provinical authorities at a meeting of the Federal-Provincial Committee of Officials on Financial Institutions and Securities Regulation which was held on October 25, 1968.
2 and 3. The last discussions with the provincial authorities on this subject took place at the meeting referred to above. The meeting identified some of the basic issues that had to be resolved before agreement could be reached. These issues were the subject of careful study since the meeting and it is proposed to discuss the matter further with the provincial authorities very shortly.
4.	The basic question that remains to be settled is the precise role that the federal government should have in the field of securities regulation in view of the involvement of the provinces in the field and having regard to the desirability of not unnecessarily duplicating regulation requirements.
5.	As mentioned above, it is proposed to continue the discussions with the provincial authorities very shortly.

February 25, 1970
Questions
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-RADAR	FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO CONSTRUCTION OF
TRANSPONDER BEACON	COMPOSITE SCHOOLS IN QUEBEC


Mr. McCleave: 1.	Has the Department of Transport carried out experiments with a buoy or buoys equipped with a radar transponder beacon and, if so, where and with what results?
2.	Does the Department plan to equip present buoys with such beacons, and, if so, at what locations?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. No.
2. This will depend on the results of tests which might be carried out in the future, on buoys.


HALIFAX HARBOUR-REMOVAL OF SAMBRO LIGHT VESSEL
Mr. McCleave: 1.	On what date was the Sambro Light vessel replaced by a light and whistle buoy outside Halifax Harbour?
2.	Since that date (a) how many vessels and what number of lives have been lost in that vicinity (b) what are considered to be the causes of each tragedy?
3.	Is the Department of Transport now considering to augment the present buoy with a radar transponder beacon, or to replace the buoy with a lighted pillar whistle buoy or float equipped with such beacon and, if so, when is it expected a decision will be reached and any action taken?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. October 1, 1966.
2.	(a) 4, 18; (b) stranding due to faulty navigation, two ships; stranding while outward bound in high wind and sea and attempting to anchor. Error in seamanship, one ship; collision with ship in company while outward bound, one ship.
3.	Radar transponder beacons are under shore evaluation at this time. The results of the evaluation will determine their future application. No consideration is being given to change the type of buoy presently in position at this site.


BEAUCE CONSTITUENCY-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOL IN ST-JOSEPH
Mr. Rodrigue: Is the federal government contributing financially to the construction of the composite school in St-Joseph, constituency of Beauce and, if so, in what amount?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: No.
[Mr. Basford.l


Mr. Rodrigue: Is the Canadian Government contributing financially to the construction of the composite schools in St-Prosper, Beauce Constituency, East Angus, Compton Constituency, Ste-Rose d'Auteuil, Hull, Mont-Laurier and, if so, what will be the amount paid for each of these schools?


Yves Forest: St. Prosper, Beauce Constituency: No. East Angus, Compton Constituency: No. Ste-Rose d'Auteuil: No.
Hull: Comprehensive High School-the estimated federal contribution is $2,282,050.
Mont-Laurier: Comprehensive High School -the	estimated federal contribution is


$1,659,477. INDIAN AFFAIRS PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	What was the cost of production of the publication "Indian Summer"?
2.	(a) How many copies were produced (b) how many copies were distributed free of charge?
3.	How many persons are employed in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whose responsibilities include the preparation of publications of this sort for general distribution?
4.	What financial assistance are made available to persons who are not employees of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to assist in the preparation or production of materials depicting "the Indian way of life" in Canada?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. See answer to Question No. 766.
2.	(a) See answer to Question No. 766. (b) 3,150 English by this Department; 84 French by this Department.
3.	Three.
4.	None.


ROBERVAL, QUEBEC-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOSITE SCHOOL
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Has the federal government's financial contribution toward the construction of the composite school at Roberval been decided upon, and (a) if so, what is the amount (b) if not, what is the present status of negotiations with the local School Board?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Manpower and
February 25, 1970

Immigration and Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: Yes; the federal government has approved a contribution estimated at $2,252,027, towards expenditures incurred in constructing the Comprehensive High School in Roberval, Quebec.


LANGUAGE SOUNDTRACK CONVERSION, NFB FILMS
Mr. Hose: 1.	What was the cost in each of the last five years of translating and converting soundtracks of National Film Board films into (a) English (b) French (c) other languages?
2.	How much, percentage and total dollar amount, of National Film Board film production expenses for each of the last five years has been attributable to government department-commissioned films and other films?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the National Film Board as		
follows: 1.	(a) English (b) French	(c) Foreign Languages1964-65	43,925 37,953	138,7101965-66	27,092 81,830	119,1711966-67	86,457 110,201	116,7661967-68	16,713 76,477	101,0851968-69	39,170 105,707	100,6282. Government department-commissioned films and other audio-visual materials:	1964-65	$1,892,230	35.2%1965-66	2,736,246	41.4%1966-67	3,149,725	41.0%1967-68	3,143,737	38.2%1968-69	1,923,770	25.4%[English]	USE OF	LANGUAGE-DUBBED CANADIAN


PROGRAMS BY CBC
Mr. Orlikow: Is the CBC giving consideration to using programs prepared by either its English or French networks or the alternative network through the use of language dubbing, since this would mean both substantial financial savings and much greater use of Canadian programs?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the CBC as follows:
Yes. There has been a regular exchange of program material since the beginning of television. In the limited cases where it offers positive advantages, dubbing has been and continues to be employed. Two recent examples are the series D'Iberville and Moi et
Questions
1'Autre; the latter is being done on a limited and experimental basis. The whole range of potential exchange cooperation in cost sharing and program benefits is being explored more intensively in both information and entertainment programs.


TIME DEVOTED BY CBC TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF PROGRAMS
Mr. Orlikow: In each of the past five years, how much time in the peak viewing hours from 6:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. each day, has CBC nationally devoted to the following categories of programs prepared and produced in Canada (a) news and public affairs (b) drama (c) variety (d) light entertainment (e) opera and ballet?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the CBC that such figures have not been kept in the form requested. However, in recent years CBC Annual Reports have included an analysis of total network program content during a representative winter week.


CHARGES LAID UNDER INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
Mr. Harding: 1.	For the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, how many charges were laid against individuals or companies by persons in the department responsible for the enforcement of the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and Regulations regarding violations of the Act and Regulations dealing with pollution of waters?
2.	How many of the above charges resulted in (a) convictions (b) dismissal of the charges (c) withdrawal of the charges?


Mitchell William Sharp: There is no provision in the Boundary Waters Treaty for laying charges in the sense set out in the question. However, under Sections 3 and 4 of this Treaty, any party or person claiming injury for any damage suffered from any water interference or other diversion within the meaning of Section 3, may seek redress through the Exchequer Court of Canada. To the knowledge of this Department, no such suit has been brought under this Treaty.


SALARY OF CYC FINANCIAL COMPTROLLER
Mr. Rose: What is the annual salary of the new financial Comptroller of the Company of Young Canadians, Mr. Max Mendelsohn?
Questions

February 25, 1970


Gérard Pelletier: The salary of the Comptroller of the Company of Young Canadians as fixed by Order in Council of December 19, 1969, is "$250. for each day spent by him in carrying out his duties."

award of merit, post office department


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): Has the Post Office Department recently instituted an Award of Merit and, if so (a) when was it instituted (to) on what basis are awards made (c) who have been the recipients (d) what has been the cost of this programme (e) what does it hope to achieve through this programme?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communication):: (a) The
Post Office Department participates in the Merit Award Program of the Public Service of Canada which was established by Treasury Board in 1964. (b) The Award is for the purpose of recognizing exceptional contributions by an employee or group of employees, including significant and imaginative proposals over a period of time, (c) The department has to date presented Merit Awards to Messrs. F. Mills, J. Frey, E. Pa-rama and P. Hitchinson. The value of the awards was $4,000. (d) Costs of recommending the award are borne by the department. Awards are paid out of public Service Commission appropriation, (e) Increased Post Office Department efficiency and effectiveness.


'PERSONS SPOTLIGHTED ON CBC MONTREAL FORUM HOCKEY TELECASTS
Mr. McCleave: Does CBC determine what individuals, apart from members of the teams, are spot lighted on telecasts of National Hockey League games from the Montreal Forum and, if not, who does?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State is informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the television producer selects and directs all such coverage during game telecasts.


FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CERTAIN QUEBEC COMPOSITE SCHOOLS
Mr. Godin: What will be the federal government's financial contribution to the construction of the following composite schools:	Giffard, Levis, Ste-Anne-des-
Monts, Ste-Foy and Valleyfield?


Yves Forest: The
federal government has approved contributions towards the constructing and equipping of secondary vocational schools in Giffard, Levis, Ste-Foy and Valleyfield amounting to an estimated total of $3,847,566.20.
Submissions have recently been received requesting financial contributions for new comprehensive high schools in Ste-Anne-des-Monts, Giffard and Ste-Foy but these have not yet been approved.


MAXIMUM HORSEPOWER, AUTOMOBILES
Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider, in the interest of safety, that the maximum horsepower per weight of automobile and acceleration rate should be calculated at a reasonable and safe level for all motor vehicles especially the sports type?


Gérard Loiselle: Consideration is being given to the relationship between safety and both minimum and maximum power-to-weight ratios for motor vehicles. A reasonably high power-to-weight ratio appears necessary to provide the acceleration required during passing and to avoid hazardous traffic situations. Excessive power-to-weight ratios may have equally undesirable characteristics.


INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEMS, DEER LAKE AIRPORT
Mr. Marshall: Are Instrument Landing Systems being provided at Deer Lake Airport and, if so, when is it expected that installation will be completed?


Gérard Loiselle: An Instrument Landing System has been programmed for installation at the Deer Lake Airport but the date when this will be undertaken is subject to the availability of funds in future years.


COST OF CANADIAN DIPLOMATIC MISSION TO VATICAN
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What is the anticipated cost of Canadian diplomatic recognition of the Vatican for 1970?
2.	What is the breakdown of costs, income, expenses, etc?
February 25, 1970

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State
for External Affairs): 1. $175,000.
2.
(a)	Salaries and allowances	$105,000(b)	Transportation and communications	8,000(c)	Rentals and property maintenance	35,000(d)	Utilities	4,000(e)	Maintenance of furnishings andequipment	6,000(f)	Miscellaneous expenses (materialsand supplies,	etc.)	17,000Total	$175,000


PENITENTIARIES-COST OF MAINTAINING INMATES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the average cost of maintaining one inmate during the years 1967, 1968, 1969 in (a) federal institutions of all types (b) maximum security institutions (c) medium security institutions (d) minimum security institutions (e) farm and work camps?
2.	What is the cost of parole supervision per parolee for each of the years 1967, 1968, 1969?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: 1.	Average annual cost of maintenance per
inmate:
Type
Institution 1966-67	1967-68	1968-69a.	All types $4900.00	$5315.00	$6654.00b.	Maximum	4334.00	4632.00	5806.00c.	Medium	5539.00	6923.00	7700.00d.	Minimum*	3721.00	3944.00	5087.00
* Includes Work Camps.
Farm annex operation and maintenance costs are absorbed within the total costs of their parent institutions and are therefore not available as separated costs.
2.	Costs of operation as averaged out for parole supervision per parolee:
Supervision 1966-67	1967-68	1968-69Per parolee $ 757.00	$ 802.00	$ 851.00
Note: These are approximations as costs do not take into account capital investment nor are they netted out to reflect inmate industries.


PENITENTIARIES-VOCATIONAL TRAINING AND INDUSTRIAL INSTRUCTORS
Mr. Orlikow: What qualifications are required by the vocational training instructors and industrial instructors who are employed by penitentiaries?
Questions


George James McIlraith: Vocational training and industrial and maintenance instructors in the Canadian Penitentiary Service must possess at least a Grade 10 education, hold a journeyman certificate and have experience in the trade or specialty in which they are employed as instructors. Additionally, for vocational training instructors, those holding a teaching certificate are given priority in selection and are paid an allowance for such qualification.


PENITENTIARIES-SENIOR STAFF PERSONNEL
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What are the qualifications of the present senior staff officials at the Prison for Women at Kingston?
2.	Have any of the senior staff received training in the behavioural sciences (psychiatry, psychology, sociology, social work, education) and, if so, what degrees do they hold?
3.	Do the senior staff responsible for operating our penitentiaries seek the advice of those with professional knowledge of methods of changing behaviour?


George James McIlraith: 1. (a) Superintendent, J. D. Clark: High School graduation; partial Science Studies at University of Guelph; extra-mural University Courses in Psychology and Economics, extramural Psychiatric lectures in Human Behaviour; Method of Instruction Technique; Administration and Senior Officers Courses at Correctional Staff College. Thirteen and one-half years experience mainly in the area of treatment and training from 1956 under the supervision of M. Gauthier, Ph.D. in Psycol-ogy and later under S. M. Farrel, M.S.W., also at Kingston Penitentiary. Extensive experience during the past 13 years in close co-operation with Aftercare Agencies working for the rehabilitation of offenders. Promotion to Assistant Deputy Warden (Inmate Training) at Joyceville Institution, at which time, became responsible for the co-ordination of the Treatment and Training Program at the Medium Security Institution at Joyceville.
(b)	Deputy Superintendent, E. E. Boyce: High School graduate; 15 years administration and supervisory experience in the R.C.A.F.; and six years ago appointed Deputy Superintendent of Prison for Women.
(c)	Assistant Superintendent (Organization
and Administration) M. J. Webb:	Junior
Matriculation, Grade 12, plus Business College Training, Penitentiary Officer's Training

February 25, 1970
Questions
Course in Business Administration. Approximately nine years Penitentiary Service from Stenographer to Assistant Superintendent.
(d)	Assistant Superintendent (Services and Supplies) L. L. Burke: Junior Matriculation, Grade 12, Nurses' Training at Kingston General Hospital to Registered Nurse; Penitentiary Officer's Training Course in Business Administration; Personality and Behaviour Course, Institute of Psychology-1960. Thirty-one years Penitentiary Service from Correctional Officer to Assistant Superintendent.
2.	Yes. The Superintendent and the Assistant Superintendent Services and Supplies; neither hold degrees.
3.	Yes.


LIAISON WITH UNIVERSITIES ON FORMULATING PROGRAMS FOR STAFF TRAINING
Mr. Orlikow: Have the recommendations of the Archambault Report of 1938 and the Fauteux Report of 1956 in relation to establishing liaison with universities to formulate programs for staff training been followed and, if so, how is this put into practice?


George James McIlraith: The recommendations of the Archambault Report of 1938 and the Fauteux Report of 1956 in relation to universities and programs for staff training are being followed, the implementation of which includes:
(a)	Participation by staff members of the federal correctional services in the development of programs in criminology and other social sciences through direct liaison with university officials and as members of consulting boards of various organizations such as the Canadian Corrections Association and the Quebec Corrections Association.
(b)	The grant of university scholarships (ten per annum) to students pursuing graduate or post-graduate studies in criminology or related fields, and who have signified their intention to apply for entry into the correctional field of the public service on completion of their studies.
(c)	Authorization for up to 15 staff members of the correctional services per annum to be given leave of absence to pursue university training in criminology or other social sciences related to corrections at public expense.
(d)	By arrangement, practical training in federal penal institutions for selected students in criminology of up to one day per week during their course of studies for which they may be granted university credits.

(e)	The engaging of university professors on a part-time employment basis for specialized work within federal penal institutions and, in turn, the engaging of professionally qualified correctional services officials by universities as part-time lecturers.
(f)	The exchange of information with schools of criminology both in Canada and abroad.
(g)	The sponsoring of research programs relating to corrections and corrections training programs; eight projects of this nature being sponsored with Canadian universities at the present time.


FEMALE TREATMENT STAFF, FEDERAL PENAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What proportion of staff in a federal penal institution for women is for treatment?
2.	What are their positions?
3.	How many female staff in the Penitentiary Service have professional training?
4.	How many female staff have graduate training in the behavioural sciences?


George James McIlraith: 1. Prison for Women, Kingston, 21 per cent; Matsqui Institution (Female Unit), 19 per cent; Average 20 per cent.
2.	Positions: superintendent, deputy superintendent, recreational supervisor, teacher, arts and crafts instructor, vocational instructor (hair dressing), home economics instructor, sewing instructor, classification officer, chaplain, medical doctor, psychologist, psychiatrist. Total (both institutions), 40.
3.	Professional training, female employees, 24.
4.	Graduate training (behavioural sciences), female employees, 10.


KINGSTON ONT.-PRISON FOR WOMEN STAFF PROMOTIONS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many of the correctional staff members have been promoted in the past six months in the Prison for Women at Kingston?
2.	What are the criteria for promotion?
3.	Is promotion of staff dependent on a progressive non-punitive attitude towards inmates?
4.	Is promotion of staff dependent on efficiency in operating an institution?


George James McIlraith: 1.
None.
February 25, 1970

2.	Qualifications requirements for appointment, or promotion, vary with each class and category of position and are set out accordingly in the job description of each position.
Promotion criteria are designed, in each case, to meet the qualification requirements of the position and take into account: (a) formal qualifications-specialized courses and general academic attainment, (b) demonstrated ability through in-job training, (c) efficiency in the performance of duty, (d) personal attributes and suitability, (e) satisfactory health standard, (f) experience.
3.	As for 2.
4.	As for 2.


BANK OF CANADA ADVANCES TO CHARTERED AND SAVINGS BANKS
Mr. Caoueile: Since December 1, 1969, has the Bank of Canada granted advances to chartered banks and savings banks and, if so (a) to what banks (b) in what amount to each of those banks (c) at what interest rates?


Edgar John Benson: (a)
Because of the banker-client relationship involved, it has not been the practice of the Bank of Canada to publish the names of the banks who have taken advances.
(b) Between December 1, 1969 and February 12, 1970, the Bank of Canada published in statutory form 11 weekly statements of assets and liabilities at the close of business on Wednesdays. These returns recorded advances to chartered and savings banks (Asset item 4(c)) as follows:
Wed. December	3	$ 800,000
	10	Nil
	17	Nil
	24	Nil
	31	900,000
January	7	69,000,000
	14	Nil
	21	Nil
	28	Nil
February	4	Nil
	11	47,000,000
(c) The rate of interest charged on these advances was at the Bank rate of 8 per cent per annum.
'PURCHASE OF BOEING 707's AND DC8 JETS


Mr. Coates: 1. On what date did the federal government enter into an agreement to purchase four Boeing 707's?
Questions
2.	Have members of the Armed Forces been trained to operate Boeing 707's and, if so, on what date (a) was training initiated (b) will it be completed?
3.	What was the agreed price for the purchase of the four Boeing 707's and on what date will delivery be made?
4.	Were any negotiations carried out between the federal government and Air Canada relating to the purchase of DC8 Jets from Air Canada before a contract was entered into by the federal government and (a) if so, what was the result of such negotiations (b) if not, for what reason?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: The answer to part 1 is February 12, 1970.
The answer to part 2 is that members of the Canadian forces commenced training at Boeing Seattle on 18 February, 1970, and it is anticipated that this initial training will be completed by May, 1970.
The answer to part 3 is that the total program cost for the four Boeing 707's for the Canadian forces is $55.9 million (Canadian funds) including training for air and ground crews, spare engines, spare parts, ground support equipment, ground maintenance support, and sales tax, with delivery to be made between 18 February and 12 March 1970.
The answer to part 4 is that negotiations were not carried out with Air Canada for the purchase of DC8 aircraft as it is understood that Air Canada has no DC8 aircraft of an appropriate configuration surplus to present requirements.


ATLANTIC PROVINCES-HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION IN NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. MacLean: What is the estimated expenditure to be made by the federal government in the fiscal year 1970-71 for highway construction in national parks in each of the Atlantic Provinces?


Russell Clayton Honey: Newfoundland, $40,000; Nova Scotia, $142,500; New Brunswick, Nil; Prince Edward Island, Nil.


GROS MORNE NATIONAL PARK-CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAYS
Mr. Marshall: 1 Of the $1,971,000.00 allocated in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971 listed under future years requirements, phase 2, construction of new highway, Gros Morne National Park, what is the breakdown of locations of highways to be constructed?
2. Of the $40,000.00 under phase I, pre-engineering in the proposed estimates for 1970-71, what is the breakdown of the projects to be undertaken in Gros Morne National Park?
4072	COMMONS
U.S. ABM Safeguard System


Russell Clayton Honey: Newfoundland, $40,000.; the agreement to establish Gros Morne National Park the funds indicated in the estimates, for the next five years, have been allocated for: upgrading the existing highway (No. 73) to National Park standards from the proposed Park boundary (3 miles north of Wilton Dale) to St. Paul's plus about 4 miles from Cow Head to proposed north Park boundary. (Total distance of about 49 miles.) Additionally to construct about 20 miles of internal Park access roads to service Park facilities.
2. The sum indicated is for engineering surveys and design of the existing highway to National Park standards within the proposed boundaries of the Park.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	In the period commencing April 23, 1968 and ending July 25, 1969, how many women have been appointed to a position or otherwise employed, other than under the provisions of section 8 and 9 of the Public Service Employment Act, by the government under conditions of remuneration equivalent to a salary of $10,000 or more per year.
2.	Who are they?
3.	By whom were they employed and what was the rank of their position?
4.	How many men were appointed or otherwise employed under the same conditions during the same period of time?
Return tabled.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House Leader can tell me when I may expect an answer to question No. 516, dated November 20. It is the second time I ask for an answer to that question.


Yves Forest: We will make inquiries, Mr. Speaker.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 EXTERNAL AFFAIRS EXPANSION OF U.S. ABM SAFEGUARD SYSTEM -NUCLEAR TESTING AND ARMAMENT ESCALATION
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded

DEBATES	February 25. 1970
by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the announcement by the United States Secretary of Defence yesterday regarding the expansion of the ABM Safeguard system and the need for Parliament to consider the effects on the Canada-United States joint air defence NORAD program and more particularly, the nuclear testing on Amchitka Island, the increasing danger of continued escalation in nuclear armaments and the potential dangers to the people and environment in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has given due notice under the provisions of Standing Order 26 of his intention to request leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing the very important matter stated by him. In the interim the Chair has given close and detailed study to the circumstances outlined in his notice.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
As the hon. member is aware, the Chair is bound to review all attendant circumstances, and more particularly whether there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter during other proceedings of the House. I refer hon. members particularly to paragraph 5 of Standing Order 26 which reads in part as follows:
In determining whether a matter should have urgent consideration, Mr. Speaker, shall have regard ... to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means.
It seems to me that there will be a number of such opportunities in the very near future. I suggest, therefore, that the Chair cannot put the hon. member's motion at this time.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 214, 228, 229, 305, 312, 330 and 347.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.
February 25, 1970


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 214-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do Issue for a copy of the consultant report by DNS Incorporated on the world demand for aerospace products undertaken for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the fiscal year 1965-66, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is willing to table copies of the published report which includes the entire material provided by the D.N.S. study. The minister wishes to advise the hon. member that the basic study was augmented by additional information prepared by officers of the former Department of Industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Motion No. 214 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 228-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Public Industrial Relations Limited, a public relations study, undertaken for the Department of Labour in the fiscal year 1968-69, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Stand, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 229-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Canadian Facts Company Limited, on a public opinion survey undertaken for the Department of Labour in the fiscal year 1968-69, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Stand, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motions for Papers


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 305-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report on the National Film Board referred to by the Secretary of State and reported in Hansard of December 15, 1969 on page 1984.
Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, the report referred to in the motion was given verbally in discussion with officials of the National Film Board, and in view of the fact that there is no written report perhaps the hon. member would withdraw his motion.


Mr. Orlikow:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 312-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the review on the National Film Board undertaken by Mr. Andre Saumier for the Secretary of State.
Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, since this report on the National Film Board by Mr. Andre Saumier was tabled on January 22 last in the House I believe the hon. member would want to withdraw his motion.


David Orlikow: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 330-Mr. Thomson:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the feasibility study undertaken in the Department of Transport regarding a deep-sea harbour port in the Arctic.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Battle-ford-Kindersley.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I move it on his behalf.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, there is an engineering feasibility study being undertaken by the Department of Public Works and not the Department of Transport for a marine oil terninal at Herschel Island, and which has been approved by

February 25. 1970
Motions for Papers
Treasury Board. It is assumed that this is the study referred to in this motion. I am informed that this study has just commenced and will not be completed for at least 18 months, and I would therefore ask the member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: take it it is a good idea to have it withdrawn, and the hon. member can put down the motion in other terms later.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 347-Mr. Gleave:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, etc., between the Government of Canada and the Government of Czechoslovakia regarding farm machinery as referred to by the Minister of Agriculture and reported in Hansard of January 19, 1970 at page 2530.
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have searched the departmental records in Canada and the records of our embassy in Prague and we have not found any correspondence or memoranda of the kind referred to in this motion.


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


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


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise, as I have done before, with reference to Motion No. 80 in my name which has to do with the production of certain correspondence on anti-pollution regulations, and on this occasion I would like to draw it particularly to the attention of the Minister of Transport because the subject matter is now very much to the fore in light of developments since October 23 when this motion was put on the Order Paper.


Mr. Stanfield:: I should like to ask when the motion standing in my name, No. 306, is going to be brought forward. It is dated December 17, 1969, and has reference to the material received by the government in response to the request from the Minister of Finance for opinions regarding his white paper on taxa-

tion proposals. It may be, of course, that the Minister of Finance intends to file it as material associated with the budget that he intends to present on March 12.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will look into this. As a matter of fact, I had discussed it with my department officials.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I should to ask about motion No. 32, put on the Order Paper on October 23, in regard to the functions and responsibilities of the Department of Transport and the reorganization of that department. I wonder when I may expect a reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member's question will be looked into by someone on behalf of the government. For the moment I will ask the House whether the other motions shall stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by the Prime Minister with regard to the government's policy toward South Africa, I should like to ask the Minister whether he can state what the policy is? Do we continue to condemn South Africa for its apartheid policies, do we continue to encourage trade with South Africa, or do we continue with both these policies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I shall, of course, allow the Secretary of State for External Affairs to answer the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, but I think I should take notice that the Leader of the Opposition is asking the minister to state the policy of the government. Perhaps the minister would give a short statement rather than a statement which would normally be made on motions.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as you have suggested, this is not the time for a statement on government policy on such a matter. There are other occasions and the particular occasion will be the tabling of the white paper on Canadian foreign policy.
February 25. 1970


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government of Canada seriously considering economic sanctions against the Union of South Africa?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition will have to await the government's statement.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the government consider the chance to help maintain the independence of countries in southern Africa by making them a showcase of Canada's interest and concern by stepping up aid for their development and by exchanging diplomats, particularly with Zambia?
Kon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, it is the government's intention, as has been made known, to increase our appropriations for external aid, which I hope will be approved by Parliament, particularly for development. Africa is one of the areas in which we intend to have an increase. I will bear in mind the points made by the hon. gentleman.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Now that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has some doubt as to what the relations between Canada and the Union of South Africa are, can he give us an approximate date when we may expect the long-promised white paper on foreign policy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, without
answering the first part of the question, which was not a question but a remark, I have already said in the House on a number of occasions that we intend to table these papers, maybe one or several, before the end of the session.


An hon. Member:: In October.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for Exter-
Inquiries of the Ministry nal Affairs. In view of the statement yesterday in Washington by Defence Secretary Laird regarding the construction of four more missile bases, may I ask the minister if the Canadian government has been consulted regarding the increase in the ABM system, particularly with reference to the Sprint bases which will operate close to the Canadian border? Also, has the Canadian government been consulted with reference to the second underground nuclear test at Amchitka to try out the new Spartan missile?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before in the House, the United States has made its decision on its own so far as I know-certainly not after any consultation with Canada. Similarly, the Soviet Union has just announced a program for the building of ABMs. This has also been done without consultation with us.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since two of the missile bases will be close to the Canadian border and since the Amchitka underground test could have very severe consequences for the Canadian people, is the Canadian government making any representations to Washington about either of these programs?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, I expect we shall be expressing some views from time to time on these questions. If we feel that there is any special reason, such as there was at the time of the first underground test at Amchitka when we felt our interests were especially affected, we will of course make special representations. As the hon. gentleman knows, it is the view of the Canadian government that these enormous expenditures on armaments are most undesirable, and we have been working hard in order to bring about progressive disarmament.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. On February 2 the minister intimated that he had not then received from the United States government the results of the first tests at Amchitka. Has he now received the results of those tests and any information as to the extent of the new tests which, according to newspaper reports, are to be three times as large as the previous tests?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not yet received the information. I have had some intimations that it is not yet ready but that it

February 25, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry will be made available to us when it is. The next test, of course, is some years off, but before we agree to make representations or decide what sort of representations to make we would want to study the data from the first test most carefully.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the position of the government of Canada, since Canada is associated with the United States in mutual defence in a way it is not associated with the U.S.S.R., that Canada is entitled to be consulted with regard to measures taken to defend the continent?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is consulted by the United States on many matters involved in the alliances of which we are a member. We are consulted very closely about the NATO alliance and also on matters affecting NORAD. The particular installations being made now in the United States are purely for defensive purposes, for the defence of the United States. They may help to defend us, too.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's statement, should he not reconsider the necessity of expressing Canada's point of view on the installation of the ABMs? After all, these missiles are designed to shoot down enemy missiles over Canada and Canada will receive the fall-out.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would rather have them shot down over our territory than have them land here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harold Edward Winch: They will be aimed at the United States and not at us.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of reports to the effect that plans are under way to establish Canadian Armed Services units which will be stationed on several of our Arctic islands, is the minister in a position to enlighten the House or will he be making a statement on motions in the near future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the hon. member's question is a supplementary. It may be a related question but the relation is a bit distant. Perhaps the hon. member might be given the opportunity in a moment to ask his question.



FINANCE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
In the last few days, has he or has the Minister of Finance received a request from the Quebec government, specifically from the Quebec Premier or the Quebec Minister of Finance, for a meeting with the federal authorities this week in a new effort to obtain the $200 million?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker. As far as I know, neither the Minister of Finance nor I have received any request from the Quebec Finance Minister. However, if such a request has come without our being aware of it or if it should come some day, we would, without doubt, gladly meet with the Quebec government representative to explain that this amount of $200 million has been earmarked for a variety of purposes, and that Quebec's health insurance plan indicates that that province does not think its argument relating to health insurance is valid.



TAXATION


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Why did the government refuse to make available to the government of Ontario as far back as December and as recently as February 2 the background and details in support of its estimate of the increased revenue which would result from the implementation of the white paper policies, and why did the minister's officials at the meeting of Friday last-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but perhaps he could rephrase the question because, as asked, it invites debate. Perhaps he might ask his question more directly.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, why has this information been refused and why did the minister's officials at the meeting of officials last Friday produce only part of the information that had been requested for the past two months?
February 25, 1970


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to get together with the officials of Ontario for a long time but they have been postponing the meetings because they obviously know their figures are wrong.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the officials and minister of Ontario have not tried to postpone the meetings. They have been trying to bring about the meetings. May I ask a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the hon. member asks a supplementary, may I say that what 1 tried to suggest a moment ago is correct as evidenced by the answer that was given. The hon. member asked a question which invited debate. The minister's reply was argumentative. I suggest to the hon. member that he ought to ask a question instead of presenting argument.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to start a debate. May I ask a supplementary question. Is it not true that the minister's officials have known and admitted privately ever since December that the figures of the Ontario government in its projection are more accurate than those of the federal government,, and that the federal government has been trying to cover this up for the last two months?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. The minister had better get in touch with the Ontario officials and his own and find out what is going on.


Mr. Speaker:: Those remarks will close the debate, please.


George Harris Hees: I think the minister had better get together with his boys to find out what is going on.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Churchill has a very important question to ask.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence which I thought was supplementary to questions previously asked with
Inquiries of the Ministry respect to the defence of the North American continent. In view of reports to the effect that plans are under way to establish Canadian Armed Forces units which will be stationed on several of our Arctic islands, is the minister in a position to enlighten the House or will he be making a statement on motions in the near future?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, these reports in my view are premature.


An hon. Member:: But accurate.


Mr. Danson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order that relates to a previous reply, after which I was not recognized, and affects all hon. members of the House who sit closer to the Skyline Hotel than to Your Honour. Whenever a questioner is ruled out of order, the microphone is cut off and we at this end of the chamber miss the interplay that goes on. As a result we miss 90 per cent of the remarks of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


George Harris Hees: The hon. member missed a great exchange.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Although the Minister of National Defence said that the reports I alluded to are premature, is it not true that the Prime Minister made a statement last night to the effect that these units would be set up, as reported on this morning's radio news?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary is obviously out of order. The hon. member cannot ask a minister to confirm or deny a statement in the form asked.


Robert Simpson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my question was directed to the Prime Minister, not to the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is simply asking for confirmation or denial of a statement. Whether it is asked of the minister or the Prime Minister, it is equally out of order.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PLANNING OF ARCTIC EXERCISES

Harold Edward Winch: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will it be possible for the Minister of National

February 25, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry Defence in the near future to make an announcement as to the plannning for two exercises by the Canadian Armed Forces in the Arctic area this year
Hon Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, it is common practice whenever we do an exercise in the north, to advertise it.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister take this opportunity to explain to the House his own remarks with respect to a combined operation between the defence department and his own department with regard to protecting Canadian sovereignty in the north?


Mr. Speaker:: If the Minister of Transport wanted to do that it would have to be done by way of a statement on motions.



DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON ARCTIC ABM INSTALLATIONS

Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whii-by):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of National Defence. Are there discussions taking place between the government of Canada and the government of the United States as to whether ABMs should be installed at any time in the Arctic?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



EXPO 70 FINANCING OF APPEARANCE OF COLLING-WOOD COLLEGIATE BAND

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister aware of the fact that the Collingwood Collegiate band will be a featured attraction at Expo 70 in Osaka, Japan, and is the only school band to be illustrated in the official guide for Expo 70? Would the minister use his good offices to facilitate the financing of this unique Canadian goodwill mission by endorsing a plan already submitted to his department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I realize how important this suggestion is. I think the hon. member's question has to be considered as an earnest representation made by the hon. member and he has to assume it will be given earnest	consideration by the minister
concerned.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I want to address a question to the Solicitor General. Last Friday he announced that he intended to appoint a commissioner to inquire into the facts which are alleged to have occurred with respect to the improper deportation of three young Americans some weeks ago. Is the minister ready to announce the name of the commissioner, whether the commission is being appointed under the Inquiries Act and whether he intends to make certain the inquiry will be public?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I regret I am not able to announce the name of the commissioner yet. I hope to very soon. As to the other part of the question, the commission will be appointed under part II of the Inquiries Act. As to the suggestion that we make sure that the commission hearings be in public, I am not able to give a definitive answer at the moment because I am not sure whether that is a matter within the discretion of the commissioner.


David Lewis: A supplementary question. Will the minister assure the House that as far as he and the government are concerned they wish the inquiry to be public?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I want to consider that question because I would not want to be in the position of directing the commissioner if it is clear that it is a matter within his responsibility.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
In view of the renewed outbreak of bankruptcies in the country and in view of the fact that prominent people are to be found on the boards of directors of some of the bankrupt companies, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether or not he intends to send those people a note of appreciation for their contribution to the fight against inflation?



NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE


Mr. Pierre de Bane (Malane):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State a question.

February 25, 1970

In view of the wholly unjustified statement by the chairman of the Canada Council on cultural accessibility, could the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State inform the House if Mr. Mercier will be asked to disown his statement publicly or failing this, to resign if things come to the worst?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the board of trustees of the National Arts Centre-to be more exact-has already given the press explanations which are the equivalent, if not of a formal retractation, at least of the expression of a quite chastened personal opinion in respect of what he had inadvertently stated during a press conference.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.
I would like to ask the Secretary of State if he can tell the House whether steps have been taken or contacts have been established between his department or a member of the cabinet and the person involved in connection with this statement?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question, as asked, is not in order.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will the minister give an undertaking to the House that when Bill C-152 reaches the appropriate committee he will use his good offices to allow representatives of those living in Banff and Jasper Parks to appear before the committee to make representations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubts about the question. The hon. member recognizes that this bill is presently before the House. It seems that it might not be quite in order to allow a question which relates to a debate that is currently before the House.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Your Honour's suggestion and under normal circumstances I would completely agree with Your Honour. But since the minister has absented himself during the entire debate and has refused to come into the House, this is the only time I can ask the question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that the debate has not been completed. Perhaps there will be opportunities in the course of the debate to ask the question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister on a question of privilege.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House is very well defended by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, my Parliamentary Secretary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is in keeping with the procedure for the Chairman of a committee to allow people to appear before a committee and, as a minister, I would not have any objection if some citizens from Banff were to give evidence before the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest there is no question of privilege.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF LE DAIN COMMISSION-POLICY RESPECTING MARIJUANA

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the serious social problems in reference to the misuse of non-medical drugs, will the Prime Minister advise us now when the Le Dain Commission will be reporting? Also, was the Minister of National Health and Welfare stating government policy in saying that there may be a question of a moratorium on marijuana?


Mr. Sianley Haidasz (Parliament Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, their report has not yet been received by the minister and no policy decision has been reached as far as this matter is concerned.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question. I may have missed the first part of the answer. Can the Parliamentary Secretary advise us when the report may be forthcoming?


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, the minister expects the report will be ready for him at the end of this month.

February 25, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY



RIGHT OF TANKERS TO PROCEED THROUGH NORTHWEST PASSAGE WITH ASSISTANCE OF FOREIGN ICEBREAKERS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question arising out of the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Transport that an oil tanker proceeding through the Northwest Passage would not be given icebreaking assistance by Canada unless it complied with standards that Canada might lay down. I ask the minister whether it is the policy of the government of Canada to permit such tankers to proceed through this passage with the assistance of foreign icebreakers?


Mitchell William Sharp: As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, there are no foreign icebreakers that would be suitable to deal with the conditions found in the Canadian Arctic. This was demonstrated on the first voyage of the Manhattan and I know of no change since.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. Is it the policy of the government of Canada to permit tankers to proceed through the strait with the support of foreign icebreakers, whether or not the Secretary of State for External Affairs knows of their existence?


Mitchell William Sharp: That is another very hypothetical question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister consider implementing a moratorium on the second trip of the Manhattan until the McTaggart-Cowan task force reports and adequate legislation and pollution regulations to protect Canadian interests fully have been drafted and passed by the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, it is the intention of the government to bring forward legislation to control shipping of this kind in order to prevent pollution

in the north, if that is possible. Of course, even with the very best intentions pollution sometimes cannot be prevented. As the Minister of Transport has said, the necessary steps are being taken to ensure that the Manhattan is as safe as it can be.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Humble Oil Company or, indeed, any other oil company, yet been informed as to the regulations they will have to meet in order to be able to enter the strait?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, but they will be.


Randolph Harding: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker, which I will direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will a moratorium be implemented until legislation containing safeguards has been passed by the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is repeating the question that he asked in the first instance.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister or the government have given any thought to putting an all-Canadian ship through instead of the Manhattan, or is he in the arms of the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether the minister could indicate when the legislation which will set out the regulations will be before the House?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, we are moving forward with the legislation as rapidly as we can. If I may reiterate what I said yesterday, even though the legislation is not passed, the regulations which would flow from it will in fact be conveyed to the Humble Oil Company, and they will be obliged to agree to them before icebreaker assistance is provided.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I ask the co-operation of hon. members to move on to another subject.
February 25, 1970



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister received any communication, particularly from five Eskimo communities in Quebec, objecting to the proposal to transfer jurisdiction over them to the province of Quebec? If so, what is the minister going to do about these objections?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I did receive the representations of those five Eskimos. They will contribute to a large extent to a more thorough study of the record, once the officials of the federal government and of the provincial government are back from their consultation tour in New Quebec.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question to the minister. Inasmuch as the representations were that the Eskimo people wanted the choice of government to be made by them, instead of having a government imposed on them, will the minister accede to their request?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have always kept since 1964 the same approach, namely that we intend to consult the Eskimos before acquiring any service from provincial authorities.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. This is the second time in a few days that the minister has replied that there will be no transfer of jurisdiction without consultation with the Eskimo people. May I ask the minister specifically whether he will undertake here and now not to transfer jurisdiction without the consent of the Eskimo people?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has himself indicated that he has asked this question before, and I doubt whether it would be in order to ask it again at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I asked the question the other day and the 21701-481
Inquiries of the Ministry minister rose to reply, but Your Honour will remember that you then passed on to smother question and it was too late. Since the minister did rise to reply at that time I should like him to have an opportunity now to make it abundantly clear whether consent of the Eskimo people will be sought before there is any transfer of jurisdiction.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have always stated in the House that we intended to consult the Eskimo people and this is what we are doing presently.


Mr. Baldwin:: A further supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that there be no further supplementaries. We have very nearly run out of time and should pass on to another subject.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. About ten days ago I asked the Minister of Transport about the surcharges imposed by the Spanish government on Canadian charter airlines that fly to Spain. I am wondering whether any report has been received in this connection since this action has had a very serious effect on Canadian carriers?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not yet received a report.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is the minister now able to give me an answer to a question that I have asked on several occasions in connection with alleged irregularities with respect to the spending of $100,000 of the funds of an Indian band in northern Alberta?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received any final

February 25, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry report on the matter. The officials of my department as well as those of the Auditor General's office are at present on the reservation. They will submit this report to me shortly but they have not yet completed their inquiry.


Gerald William Baldwin: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that one of the allegations is that officials of the department persuaded the band council to sign blank resolutions and then filled them out as they saw fit-most improperly-would the minister not facilitate an inquiry into this matter by a parliamentary committee?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Before making a decision on that subject, Mr. Speaker, I am waiting to read the report of officials of my department who are to study this aspect of the question.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. What steps is the minister's department taking in an effort to head off a strike by female employees of Bell Canada in Quebec and Ontario?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, there are many steps still to be proceeded with before a strike could take effect; for example, there is the conciliation board stage. I am very hopeful that there will be no strike within Bell by the female operators.


Robert Muir: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister referred to a conciliation board. In view of the fact that there have already been indications of a serious slowdown in telephone service, when will a decision be made regarding the appointment of a conciliation board?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member knows that both parties have the right to name people to the board, and I have been waiting to hear from them. The last word I had was that it was hoped that a settlement would be arrived at before a strike became necessary.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the government giving favourable consideration to a United Nations proposal that an international sales tax of one half per cent for development aid be applied on some luxury goods in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt whether this question is in order. I am not sure whether it is a matter of urgency, but perhaps the minister might have a quick reply.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there is
enough difficulty applying taxes in Canada for the Canadian Government-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: -for this government just as much as for all governments in Canada in the past, that it seems to me it would be very difficult to get universal acceptance for the idea of a world government applying another tax.



TAXATION


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Is it his intention to announce any changes or amendments to the white paper on tax reform before the budget is presented on March 12?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will just have to wait and see.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The minister may remember that I gave him notice of it. Has he considered the request made in a recent speech by the Israeli foreign minister urging that an international conference on refugees be convened; and has
February 25, 1970

Canada offered to convene such a conference as one way of solving part of the Middle East crisis?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have seen this suggestion and I read the speech of the Israeli foreign minister. I feel, as I think most people do who have been concerned with this problem, that it is impossible to isolate any one element of the dispute and try to settle it separately. Both sides have made it quite clear that it must be considered as a package.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to either the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the publication of a survey showing that the salaries and bonuses of executives are rising at a very rapid rate, much greater than any labour wage gains, may I ask whether the government will be asking members of the business community if this practice is consistent with their agreement to follow a policy of restraint on prices and salaries.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the question indicates that the NDP now support downward pressure on wages and incomes. Of course we are as anxious to have downward pressure on salary and wage demands as we are on prices.



INFLATION-TRUST COMPANY INTEREST RATE INCREASE ON DEPOSITS

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the minister's interest in downward pressures, is it his intention to ask the Royal Trust Company of Canada, which has just raised its interest rate on deposits to 9 per cent, to roll back this increase in the interest of curbing inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is making a suggestion to the minister. I do not think it is a proper question at this time.


Max Saltsman: Perhaps I might reword my question, Mr. Speaker, and ask the Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry of Finance whether it is his intention to urge the trust companies to roll back the increase they have just announced.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I presume my hon. friend is talking about interest paid on savings. The position in respect of borrowers, including the government of Canada, is that interest has to be paid to people who are saving money at a sufficient level to attract people's savings.


An hon. Member:: A supplementary
question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Can he tell us whether his department has given subsidies to Domtar under the regional development incentives program so that the company will boost production in its mills in East Angus in the Eastern Townships?


Mr. Speaker:: This question should go on the order paper.



HOUSING


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr
Speaker, I should like to address a question to the heretofore unnoticed Minister of Public Works. In view of the fact that housing starts in Saskatchewan dropped from 430 in January of last year to 18 this year, and in view of the unemployment and economic situation there, is it the minister's intention to advance some of his public works programs in that province in order to help pick up the slack there as far as unemployment is concerned?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt about the question, but perhaps the minister has a speedy response.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the hon. member's question might better have been addressed to the minister in charge of

February 25, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. However, we have had discussions with the Premier of the province of Saskatchewan and have given him a list of our projects there. He has made representations to us that they be increased. There may be some additions by a number of departments in the present year.


Stanley James Korchinski: I ask the minister whether he intends to advance his projected public works projects.


Arthur Laing: This is what we have in mind.



HARBOURS


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. In his absence, on February 13 I asked the Minister of Finance whether a feasibility study had been conducted into the Come-By-Chance oil refinery operation. I ask the Minister of Public Works whether the application by the company for a substantial loan to provide docking facilities was rejected on the basis of a feasibility study and, if not, what was the basis of this refusal?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I think further
representations have now been made by the private company and are currently being discussed by us.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I might be allowed to direct a question to the government House leader regarding House business.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member wishes to ask a question of the government House leader about the business of the House. I have no objection to this, if there is consent. I should mention to hon. members that I am again somewhat distressed that so many of our colleagues have not had an opportunity to ask questions. I try from day to day to perhaps give priority to frontbenchers and then recognize members in the back rows. This may be a policy which should be changed in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I think this practice will have to be changed unless the Chair receives more

co-operation from the front benches of the parties on both sides of the House. Is the Leader of the Opposition rising on a question of privilege?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am so anxious to co-operate with Your Honour and my colleagues that I am going to absent myself from the House for two or three days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member will be missed. I gather that the hon. member for Huron wishes to ask a question about the business of the House. I am sure there will be agreement to allow him to ask the question, and for the President of the Privy Council to reply.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the government House leader can say whether it is possible to bring item No. 74 before the House either today or tomorrow in order that Your Honour can make a ruling on the proposed amendment and subamendment. I think this matter is urgent in view of the necessity for the government to announce a dairy policy before the start of the dairy year.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard to your previous remarks, it was in the interest of getting more time for questions that we arranged to remove some frontbenchers from the House under the roster system. With regard to the hon. member's question about the business for today and tomorrow-


Gerald William Baldwin: At the next election we will remove some more.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon.
member will be removed even farther into obscurity. Perhaps the hon. member for Huron would like to remove his House leader right now because the business for today and tomorrow was arranged after consultation with him and I do not think we should change it now.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, could I have the unanimous consent of the House to ask the Secretary of
February 25, 1970



State whether he can respond to two questions which were taken as notice? One was taken as notice yesterday, and I understand he has an answer ready. I was not able to get the floor during the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand there is unanimous agreement. I wonder whether the hon. member might be allowed to ask this one question for which I understand a reply has been prepared.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Secretary of State would like me to repeat the question. It was in connection with the phase-out of CBC stations on the east coast of Canada.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I inquired and the first answer I received was that there was no such intention.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Orders.
Report stage of Bill C-133, An act to repeal the Deep Sea Fisheries Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry-the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) on a point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) if he and the House leader would be in agreement to having Government Order No. 56 called. This is one of the fisheries bills which I understand is to be considered by the House. I can assure the House leader that we are very anxious to get this piece of legislation through the House today.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think we should stick to the business as announced, Mr. Speaker.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-133, to repeal the Deep Sea Fisheries Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Deep Sea Fisheries Act


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry) moved: that Bill C-133, to repeal the Deep Sea Fisheries Act, as reported (without amendment), from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, be concurred in.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) rising on a point of order?


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: No, Mr. Speaker. I am rising to speak on this measure, unless the minister wishes to make a statement first.


John (Jack) Davis: No, Mr. Speaker. We covered this matter thoroughly in the committee. If other members have anything to say on the matter, I would prefer to hear them first.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) would give a further explanation relative to Bill C-133, to repeal the deep Sea Fisheries Act. Since he has declined to do so at this time, and since this measure affects 10,754 east coast fishermen, there are a few comments I should like to make on third reading.
Every action of this government, in view of its wasteful and extravagant policies, is open to question. I believe the true purpose of this bill, despite the harmless-sounding words in the explanatory note, is to convert to the government's private purposes trust funds that were set up for the use and benefit of the deep sea fishermen of the Maritime provinces and Quebec.
The history preceding the establishment of this trust fund goes back at least to the war of 1812. It is a history of plundering by United States fishermen of the deep sea fisheries of the Maritime provinces, Newfoundland and Quebec. It is also a history of their excursions into the waters of the provinces and their so-called right to land, to dry and to cure their catch and come into the ports of those provinces for bait and supplies. Blood was spilled by maritimers, Quebeckers and Newfoundlanders in those days, in defence of their sea resources. These encounters provide some of the colourful background to the history of Atlantic Canada. So much blood was spilled that the disputing parties used diplomacy to settle the issue, a course which I recommend to the government in trying to settle some of the serious international problems which face us at present.

February 25, 1970
Deep Sea Fisheries Act
Following diplomatic discussions with the parties concerned, we had the Treaty oi 1818, the Treaty of 1854 and, after confederation, the Treaty of Washington of 1871. I believe it is an historic fact that the Treaty of Washington was the first treaty in which a Canadian participated in the negotiations on disputes with a foreign country respecting matters relating to Canada. Under that treaty the provisions relevant to this bill were that United States citizens were given the right to participate in all Canadian North Atlantic sea fisheries while Canadians received similar concessions in United States waters north of the 39th degree of north latitude. It was recognized, however, that the Americans gained much more than they gave away by this-I ask the House to excuse the mixed metaphor-horsetrading in fisheries rights. Provision was made for the setting up of an arbitration board to assess the validity of the Canadian claim and, if that claim was determined valid, to assess damages.
In 1877 the Halifax Fisheries Commission was set up. It consisted of one American, one Canadian and the Belgian ambassador to Washington. The commission recognized that the United States had received more in the way of Canadian North Atlantic fisheries resources than it had surrendered and an award of $5J million was made. Some time later this award was paid and Canada received $4,420,882 for her Maritime provinces while Newfoundland received the balance of the payment, about $1 million or, to be exact, 203,873 pounds sterling.
The next step was the enactment by Parliament of the Deep Sea Fisheries Act. This act provided for the distribution of the interest on the Halifax award to the deep sea fishermen of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec on an annual basis. It should be noted that the United Kingdom government made a separate settlement with regard to Newfoundland; therefore, the deep sea fishermen of Newfoundland are not compensated under this act.
Let us look at what is happening to our Maritime deep sea fishermen under the government proposals in this bill. Let us examine the facts to see what conclusions can be drawn from this government measure. The first fact which stands out like a beacon in the night is that the capital fund, out of which the so-called annual bounties are paid, is not composed of moneys contributed by Canadian taxpayers. These moneys were contributed by United States taxpayers in part

payment for their right to participate in the deep sea fisheries along the coast of the Maritime provinces and Quebec. This is a right they hold and pursue to this day. We have a situation in Atlantic Canada where foreign fleets can fish up to our territorial limit or three miles from our coast while Canadians must stay 12 miles offshore. In my opinion there is an analogy to this situation in respect of the Columbia River Treaty whereby British Columbians are paid by the United States for the United States right to participate in the water resources of British Columbia.
Another fact worth noting is that every Canadian government since 1877-this includes governments of Conservative and Liberal stripe-has recognized that for historic and constitutional reasons the Halifax award is a trust for the benefit of the deep sea fishermen of the Maritime provinces and Quebec. The distribution has always been confined to fishermen of this area of Canada. From time to time fishermen from other areas asked for a share of this award. However, fishermen from British Columbia were advised they were not eligible on the basis that the award was not made in respect of their fisheries resources, and in Newfoundland fishermen were refused on the basis that they were compensated separately before they entered Confederation in 1949.
The fact that the Halifax award moneys are in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and that the annual bounties are paid out of that fund, does not mean the fund contains public money of Canada which is available for the general purposes of the government. This is a trust fund within the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and the fishing bounty as paid represents the interest on the trust fund; the interest is paid by Canada annually for the use of the moneys in the Halifax award.
* (3:20 p.m.)
If there is any doubt on this point, I would refer the minister and the government to the Financial Administration Act which clearly defines the status. Paragraph (m) of section 2 of the Financial Administration Act reads as follows:
(m) Public money means all money belonging to Canada received or collected by the Receiver General or any other public officer in his official capacity or any person authorized to receive or collect such money, and includes
(i)	duties and revenues of Canada,
(ii)	money borrowed by Canada or received through the issue or sale of securities,
(iii)	money received or collected for or on behalf of Canada, and
(iv)	money paid to Canada for a special purpose.
February 25, 1970

Paragraph (k) provides:
(k) "money paid to Canada for a special purpose" includes all money that is paid to a public officer under or pursuant to a statute, trust, treaty, undertaking, or contract, and is to be disbursed for a purpose specified in or pursuant to such statute, trust, treaty, undertaking or contract.
Section 20 of the Financial Administration Act provides:
20 (1) Money received by or on behalf of Her Majesty for a special purpose and paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for that purpose, subject to the provisions of any statute applicable thereto.
(2) Subject to any other act, interest may be allowed and paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in respect of money to which subsection (1) applies, in accordance with and at rates fixed by the minister with the approval of the Governor in Council.
Clearly, the Halifax Award was money paid to Canada pursuant to a treaty; money which was to be disbursed for a special purpose pursuant to such a treaty.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, when I have finished my comments I will welcome a question from the minister. Perhaps the minister would wait until I have finished my speech.
Clearly, also, Parliament, by the Deep Sea Fisheries Act, instructed the government to pay out an annual grant not exceeding $160,000 to aid in the development of the Canadian deep sea fisheries, to encourage the building and fitting-out of improved fishing vessels and generally to bring about some improvement in the working conditions of our fishermen.
It is now apparent to our fishermen and to every other Canadian that what the government intends to do by the repeal of this statutory instruction to Parliament is to gain complete control over the Halifax award which would be free of parliamentary control. Under subsection 1 of section 20 of the Financial Administration Act the government will be free to determine the purpose of the Halifax award without anyone to question its expenditures-not Parliament, not the Auditor General, and certainly not the fishermen.
By the terms of this bill the government intends to violate a sacred trust. It plans to confiscate, for no real reason, funds which have been specifically earmarked for the special use of our fishermen since 1877. If this type of action with special trust funds was engaged in by officials of a private trust com-
Deep Sea Fisheries Act pany, we would put them in prison. I do not really know what we can do to the federal government. Yet this government, with its almost total disregard for the rights of our fishermen, hopes to silently steal funds in the almost certain knowledge that the individual fisherman will accept his loss in the same manner that he accepts his loss from storms and disaster, silently and grimly.
At least our fishermen have a right to know what this government is taking from them on the flimsy excuse that the payment of fishing bounties is no longer appropriate to present day circumstances and that the amount of the grant provided for the in the act could be utilized in a more productive way. What nonsense! What tommy-rot! Whoever heard of the payment of money being no longer appropriate to present day circumstances?
How does the government plan to use this money to help our fishermen in a productive way? The bill is certainly very vague on this point. I ask the minister, why does he not spell out his program? Why does he not, instead of using pious platitudes, tell this House and the fishermen of Canada what he intends to do with this money? It should be made abundantly clear that this government has, by a reverse process, already taxed the Maritime and Quebec deep sea fishermen in the amount of $160,000 by dropping this sum from the main appropriation act for the fiscal year which ends 31 March, 1970. By this bill the government, having taken the $160,000 which rightly belongs to the fishermen of the Maritimes provinces and Quebec, wants to tax them the full amount of the Halifax award, namely, the $4| million in this trust fund, by way of a capital levy.
In my opinion, since the government has now decided to do away with the fishing bounty of $160,000, it should indicate what special programs it plans to initiate for the development of the sea fisheries of Canada, using the $4J million on which the bounty was based. As a matter of fact, I contend that this fund should be much greater than $4J million since the government has only been paying out $160,000 a year, which is the interest at less than 4 per cent on the $41 million which the government received from the United States government.
The government is now paying 8 per cent and more on Canadian savings bonds, and rather than taking money away from our fisheries trust fund it should have credited the fund with the difference between the 4 per cent paid to the fishermen and the annual


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


Thomas Speakman Barnett: entitled to share the revenue in the fund. This plea was rejected by the government of the day on the grounds that the sum was earmarked for the benefit of fishermen and fisheries in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and parts of Quebec.
I would add that a more recent predecessor of mine as the member for Comox-Alberni, the late Mr. A. W. Neill, also advanced a plea from time to time that some benefit from this fund should accrue to the fishermen on the Pacific Coast. This plea, again, was rejected. This indicates, I think, that the benefits under the Deep Sea Fisheries Act, which are for the improvement of the deep sea fisheries, are not applicable-I am prepared to accept this-to the deep sea fisheries of all parts of Canada, and that its original intent and purpose was to deal with particular sections of the fisheries of Canada and those sections only.
I find myself in agreement with some of the reasons advanced by the minister for suspending or doing away with the act. It has operated rather cumbersomely and in light of developing circumstances it is perhaps an anachronism. Nevertheless, having considered the pros and cons, and in my own mind trying to be as fair as possible to the arguments advanced by the minister, I have come to the conclusion that the case he advanced in committee is not really well founded unless he is prepared to provide an adequate substitute for the legislation. I submit that his argument that this money in essence is simply part and parcel of the annual vote by Parliament to the Department of Fisheries is not really in accordance with the spirit in which the act was passed, even though it may be technically in accordance with the way in which the money has been handled in recent years.
In other words, it is true that the amount involved, in terms of the value of money today and today's scale of expenditures by the government of Canada-even though the budget of the Department of Fisheries is far too modest, considering the job that is required to be done-is a small amount in comparison with the total budget of the Department of Fisheries. I would suggest that that budget has been developed having regard to the total picture of the Canadian fishery over the years. The sums we have expended under various programs, whether through the Fisheries Research Board or the economic development and marketing services of the department, have presumably been proposed with due regard to the total picture of the
Deep Sea Fisheries Act fisheries and their requirements, be they on the Atlantic coast, the Pacific coast or inland. It is therefore not appropriate, in my view, to argue that the amount that has been paid under this bounty over the years is simply part and parcel of the general pattern of the expenditures of the Department of Fisheries.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, this was the understanding of the provisions of the act that I acquired when I first came to this House and became a member of the Fisheries Committee. I interested myself in and made inquiries about the operations of the act, because like other members from British Columbia I was puzzled as to why this benefit was confined to the fishermen of one region of the country and was not applicable to the fishermen of Canada as a whole. It is on these grounds that the House must consider the proposal to repeal the act.
I recognized, Mr. Speaker, that the act as it stands really does not require that the government do anything. It simply gives the government the right to provide an amount not exceeding $160,000 per annum for the purposes set out in the act. The minister informed the committee, as I think he has probably informed the House, that in fact the government suspended the payment of the bounty for the fiscal year that is about to expire and the fishermen in fact have not received it.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
It is said that this bill is simply a piece of tidying up by Parliament-wiping out an old piece of legislation that will be in the statute books unused. This is a persuasive argument. I believe that sometimes we leave laws on our statute books far too long. But having reflected upon the matter since the committee hearings, I am convinced that the suggestion I put forward then, that if the act is to be repealed, the fishermen of the area are entitled to receive this amount for a special program of development in their interests. It is not something that should be wiped out.
Mr. Speaker, this government seems to be too prone to wipe out understandings that have been arrived at and carried forward over the years. This is true in respect of recently announced government policy regarding the Indian people: we are going to wipe out anything that is not thoroughly documented in the claims of the Indian people. How far do we allow the government to go in this direction? Are we going to say that anything that has previously been

February 25, 1970
Deep Sea Fisheries Act arrived at by understanding, and has been accepted as the practice by certain groups in Canada, has no validity in this generation unless it is spelled out in highly technical form?
We have to make changes in the law from time to time and eliminate things that become anachronistic. The manner of making such changes is	important-sometimes	more
important than the changes themselves. Changes must be made in a way which keeps faith with the undertakings made by our predecessors in this chamber. We cannot say that because the government of 1882 led by Sir John A. Macdonald is long since gone and the government in office today does not bear the same political stripe, it is proper that the undertaking made by his government can be wiped out without consideration. The remarks made by the then first spokesman for the opposition would not apply today to the minister in respect of his action. In fact, I am convinced that his motives are not those which the Liberal spokesman of that day applied to the government. As reported at page 1512 of Hansard for May 13, 1882, Mr. Killam said:
X do not think the hon. member could have more thoroughly convinced the House than he has done by his eloquent speech, that the distribution of this bounty cannot be intended for anything else than a political bribe.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think this proposal was enacted originally as a political bribe. Had it not been for the $4J million-some people argue it is $4 million paid into the general fund of Canada for the benefit of the deep sea fishermen of that area, this proposal would probably not have been put forward by Parliament. However, I think if we are not accusing the minister of political bribery, in this context we can very well accuse him of not being concerned enough with the political rights of the people of the area involved.
I do not know whether the minister has read the debates to which I have referred, but I suggest there was much more to the question than was outlined by the spokesman of the then Liberal opposition in this chamber when Sir Leonard Tilley said:
It was also considered that the interest on the $4,500,000 awarded by the fishery commission should be distributed among the fishermen who, under its operation, had been compelled to give up the advantage of having access to the American market for their fish.
This is still a fairly valid argument. The fact that the Treaty of Washington was abrogated really has nothing to do with it. As I

tried to argue in committee, Canada was not required to give back the $4| million that was still in the treasury when the Americans abrogated the treaty. The amount which has been paid out, calculated on the formula set out by the then minister of finance, is modest in relation to the average earnings on funds which the government of Canada has had at its command for investment since 1882.
Without belabouring the point any further, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to support the motion placed before the House by the member for South Shore unless the minister is able to come up with a more convincing argument for the repeal of the bill than he put forward in the committee.


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) that this bill be not now read a second time but be read six months hence. I followed the proceedings before the Fisheries and Forestry Committee with a great deal of interest, and I listened to the explanation given by the minister with respect to the introduction of this bill to repeal the act in question. I heard the minister assure us that this money would in all probability still be devoted to the benefit of the fishermen.
I think the minister recognizes, as the hon. member for South Shore has said, that this $4 million is a trust fund. The money is trust money in the hands of the government, for the benefit of fishermen of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec. It is all very well to say that the Treaty of Washington under which it was granted has been abrogated. Nevertheless, I am sure the minister recognizes, and I am sure that down through the years the government has recognized, that although this treaty may have been abrogated, the $4 million must be considered as money to be held in trust for the benefit of fishermen. I think that has been made abundantly clear by reason of the fact that the government of the day saw fit to pass the Deep Sea Fisheries Act.
My argument is that if, as the government says, this $4 million will still be applied to the benefit of the fishermen of the provinces concerned, if he is sincere in that and does not want to use it for any other purpose, there is no reason for repealing the act. There is nothing in this act which requires the government to pay the $160,000 out by way of bounty to the fishermen. I appreciate the minister's argument that the administrative
February 25, 1970

expense of the bounty is large. As far as the fishermen are concerned, the bounty is peanuts and only amounts to about $12 a year for fishermen who apply.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I agree that costs of administration are too great, but I again point out to the minister that there is absolutely nothing in the Deep Sea Fisheries Act which requires the government to pay that interest by way of bounty. That is my point. The money is paid for the benefit of the fishermen. Section 2 of the act provides:
The Governor in Council may authorize the payment, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, of an annual grant not exceeding one hundred and sixty thousand dollars, to aid in the development of the sea fisheries of Canada, and the encouragement of the building and fitting out of improved fishing vessels, and the improvement of the condition of the fishermen.
Nothing in the section says that the money must be paid by way of bounty. It says, "to aid in the development of the sea fisheries of Canada."


John (Jack) Davis: The hon. member should tell that to his friend, who says the money must be paid to the fishermen.


Melvin James McQuaid: Only because section 3 says that such grant shall be appropriated for the "said purposes at such times and by such instalments in each year, as the Governor in Council directs." Note, Mr. Speaker, that the section says, "in each year". This act was in effect last year, but the government failed to pay out the $160,000 which the act requires it to pay.
Section 7 of the act provides in part:
The Governor in Council may, from time to time, make such regulations as he deems necessary or expedient respecting the payment of the said grant-
Under the authority of section 7 of the act, the government must now pay out each year $160,000 for the benefit of the fishermen. It is paid to the individual fisherman. I repeat, there is absolutely nothing in this act which requires the government to pay the money in this way.


John (Jack) Davis: That is right.


Melvin James McQuaid: The money is there for the benefit of the fishermen, and I say to the minister that if he wishes to continue using it for the benefit of the fishermen he will not repeal the act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Deep Sea Fisheries Act


Melvin James McQuaid: This statute is our only guarantee that the $4 million will be used for the purpose for which it was originally intended. I have every confidence in the minister's word. If he says the money will be used to help the fishermen, I think probably it will be so used. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this minister will not always be Minister of Fisheries, and the next minister may decide to use the $4 million to help the Arts Centre in Ottawa. Despite what the minister says, that money is trust money; it is there for the benefit of fishermen. The government that passed the act recognized this fact. Section 2 speaks of an annual grant not exceeding $160,000 to aid in the development of the sea fisheries of Canada.
These moneys in trust ought to be used for no purpose other than to benefit our fishermen. If the government is anxious to guarantee the continuation of these payments, all it need do is change the regulations so that the $160,000 will not represent a $12.50 or $13 payment to every fisherman. Some other way must be found which will guarantee to the fishermen of Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Quebec, and so on, that the money will be used for the purpose originally intended. That is all we are asking. We are asking for a guarantee that this money will continue to be used for the purpose intended. The only lasting guarantee we have is the present statute, part of the law of Canada.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, subsidies, generally speaking, do not solve anything. They are a stopgap at best, and I regard a subsidy of the nature of the fisheries bounty to be a stopgap measure. It was a stopgap measure in the 1880's, and a modest one at that. These subsidies are, in the main, like crutches: you cannot lean on them too long without developing bad habits. I think we have developed some bad habits in this connection.
As Minister of Fisheries, I want more than anything else to improve the industry's image. I should like to put our commercial fishing industry on a self-supporting basis. I want to be able to say that our commercial fishermen do not owe anything to anyone. I want to be able to point with pride to a fishery which stands on its own feet, a fishery which competes effectively in world markets and a fishery which is no longer burdened with outdated and awkward measures such as the Deep Sea Fisheries Act.

February 25, 1970
Deep Sea Fisheries Act
The Deep Sea Fisheries Act which we are discussing today on third reading of this bill set up a fishing bounty in 1882. For 88 years thousands of fishermen in the Maritime provinces and Quebec have received an average of $13 a year. They received $13 each spring if they filled out the necessary forms. If they knew about the act, they received the $13; if not, they did not receive anything.
They had to apply for this money to receive it. They got it because of an ancient treaty signed in the time of their fathers, their grandfathers, and now their great-grandfathers, and they got it as recently as 1968 despite the fact that the treaty was scrapped four years after the bounty began to be paid to fishermen in the Maritime provinces and Quebec. Year in and year out from 1882 onwards $150,000, which was raised to $160,000, has been paid to those fishermen who knew about the bounty and took the trouble to write to Ottawa. Those who did not know about the fishing bounty of course did not write in and did not get their $13.
What happened to these bounty payments? The Halifax award, the settlement of approximately $4J million mentioned by hon. members, has been paid to individuals who did not necessarily put the $13 they received back into the fishing industry. Those people generally bought food, shelter or some other service with it. The $150,000 did not necessarily go back into the fishery; instead, it went back into the community and the economy in which they lived.
I began by saying that subsidies do not solve anything and, certainly, they do not solve anything in the long run. Indeed, they become a bad habit if we rely on them too long. Subsidies like the fishing bounty do not do much to solve problems in our present day fishery. These days $13 does not go very far, in any case. Also, it is doubtful whether all or even a large part of these payments go back into the fishery.
Because subsidies tend to give our commercial fishery a black-eye, I have been trying to get rid of them. We got rid of the salt subsidy to Newfoundland inshore fishermen in 1969. We dropped the deficiency payment scheme for fresh and frozen groundfish producers. We have introduced a self-liquidating price stabilization scheme in its place. We have put our government-supported fishing vessel insurance scheme on a self-paying basis and set up a freshwater fish marketing corporation which will operate in the black.

Our new saltfish corporation will also have to operate in a businesslike way. Our loans program for plant modernization will operate on a self-liquidating basis. In other words our fishermen, under our new programs, really do not owe anything to anybody. They will not be a burden on the Canadian taxpayer. The image of the industry will improve. It will certainly improve if we eliminate such ancient anomalies as the fishing bounty.
Once we have reached the stage where the fishery is a self-sustaining, commercial enterprise, we will be able to bargain more effectively in our export markets and say to our friends in the United States that our fishing industry is fully competitive, not supported by the Canadian taxpayer, not propped up by artificial measures and that it should not be discriminated against by buyers in the United States. Those of my department, of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and of the External Affairs Department who have gone abroad and endeavoured to negotiate agreements which would permit our fishery products to enter foreign markets with a minimum of tariff interference, have continually been met by the charge that our fishery is heavily subsidized. This is no longer the truth, Mr. Speaker. It will be more obvious when we eliminate props, crutches and anomalies like the fishing bounty.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Why hang on to old subsidies like the fishing bounty? Why continue to give our commercial fisheries a bad name? The bounty is a hangover from the dim and distant past. It costs money to administer-at least $25,000 each year. It involves a lot of red tape. It discriminates between people because those who knew about it and wrote in got the $13 and those who were not aware of it did not receive any payment.


Mr. Bigg:: Then why are you paying it?


John (Jack) Davis: We are not; we discontinued it last year. Hon. members may recall that the MacLean Royal Commission proposed the elimination of the fishing bounty in 1928. Here we are, 42 years later, finally getting around to the elimination of a bounty that should not have been paid in the first place. It has been a long, long time in force. On balance, I think it has been a liability. It is now long out of date.
To repeat, it applied only to fishermen who knew that the bounty existed. It was paid only to fishermen who wrote in and applied
February 25, 1970

for this $13 gratuity. It was confined to the Maritime provinces and Quebec. It did not apply to Newfoundland, Ontario and the west. Yet it it was on our statute books year after year for 88 years. It was just one more thing helping to convince other people that our fishing industry was both archaic and in need of support.
I believe our commercial fishery is much healthier now; markets have improved in recent years. Indeed, in the last 18 months they have picked up remarkably. Our problem, looking into the more distant future, is no longer one of markets but of supply, conserving our fisheries resources and harvesting them efficiently. We will be upgrading our fisheries products and getting much higher prices. The market side is really not the problem. It is a problem of conservation of our resources and efficient exploitation.
The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) talked about the $4J million paid under the Halifax award as being a trust. Over the years more than $14 million has been paid to the fishermen, the sons and grandsons of the fishermen, and now the great-grandsons of the fishermen who were alive at the time the Treaty of Washington was signed. The hon. member for South Shore talked about the original $4J million as being a trust for a loss sustained because the fishery of those days was subject to American fishermen taking cod near our shores and being free to dry their cod on our shores around the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Bay of Fundy.
Four years later, in 1886, that privilege expired. The United States government tore up the Treaty of Washington. Yet we are told that there is still a trust because of this ancient privilege which disappeared when the Treaty of Washington expired in 1886. Obviously, the idea of a trust is simply nonsense. Nowhere in the Treaty of Washington, the Halifax award or the Deep Sea Fisheries Act is there any reference to an obligation to make payments to individual fishermen. Indeed, this payment to individual fishermen was a device invented in 1882 by Sir Leonard Tilley.
It was perhaps politically opportune at the time. I think it could be defended in those years by saying there were no substantial programs assisting in the development of new vessels, new gear and new fishing techniques in the Maritime provinces and Quebec. Since then there have been many more effective programs introduced. If this program were to
Deep Sea Fisheries Act be continued today in its old form of individual payments to fishermen, it would constitute a fraction of 1 per cent of payments to fisheries development in the Mari-times and Quebec.
The $160,000 is earmarked for fisheries development. I would say at least $100,000 will still be going to the fishing industry in those areas. Indeed, if we take into account the cost of administering the program, I doubt very much if there is any transfer of money away from the Maritime provinces and Quebec as a result of the changes we are instituting today by repealing the Deep Sea Fisheries Act.
In conclusion I wish to refer to an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail quoting the Canadian Encyclopedia. It states:
"Some men are naturally inclined to attempt to make things better, and these are commonly described as reformers or liberals-"
Under that definition I trust I am a liberal.
"-others like to let sleeping dogs lie, and these are described as tories or conservatives."
I say it is easy to let a fishing bounty act lie. It should have been scrapped long ago. We are getting rid of it as a result of this legislation. Incidentally, the stand of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), according to that definition, would qualify him as a tory. I think after 88 years we should eliminate this legislation, which should have been withdrawn at the very latest in 1888.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my view the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
COMMONS DEBATES	February 25, 1970
Division


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the House ready for the question on the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Allmand	Douglas (Assiniboia)
Anderson	Dube
Badanai	Duquet
Barrett	Forest
Basford	Forget
Benson	Foster
Blair	Gendron
Blouin	Gervais
Breau	Gibson
Brown	Gillespie
Buchanan	Givens
Caccia	Goyer
Cadieux (Labelle)	Groos
Cafik	Guay
Chretien	(St. Boniface)
Clermont	Guay (Levis)
Cobbe	Haidasz
Comtois	Hogarth
Corbin	Hopkins
Cote (Longueuil)	Howard (Okanagan
Crossman	Boundary)
Cyr	Hymmen
Davis	Jamieson
Deachman	Jerome
Deakon	Kierans
De Bane	Laflamme



COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-134, to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
John (Jack) Davis: that Bill C-134, to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, be concurred in.


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


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, the legislation with which we are

February 25, 1970

dealing this afternoon is of a somewhat technical nature. No doubt the officials of the Department of Fisheries are watching its progress through the House.
I think it only fitting that I take this opportunity to pay a special tribute to Mr. Sam Ozere, the special adviser to the Deputy Minister of Fisheries, who is retiring shortly following a most distinguished career. I am sure his counsel will be missed by his fisheries department colleagues. On behalf of the House I wish him good fishing in his retirement years.
Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-134 we have what on the surface would appear to be a very simple amendment to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. In his statement on second reading the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis), and again when he appeared before the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, endorsed the explanatory note in the bill which states that the purpose of this amendment is to extend the provisions of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to include the service and supply vessels attached to foreign fishing fleets operating in Canadian fisheries waters.
During previous discussions on this amendment the minister also assured us there is no intention by the government to apply this amended act to our east coast ports, notably St. John's, Newfoundland, or Halifax and Sydney in Nova Scotia. According to the minister the reason for amending the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act is to enable the government to deal with a specific problem which exists on Canada's west coast, namely, the overfishing by the huge Russian and Japanese fishing fleets on the fishing grounds adjacent to British Columbia.
At the present time it is possible for supply vessels attached to these fleets to enter the port of Vancouver, for example, and leave again without in any way coming under the provisions of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. By this amendment to the act the minister has told us he would have the authority to exclude the supply vessels of the Russian and Japanese fleets, and the supply vessels of any other country for that matter, operating a fishing fleet off the west coast. He has also stated that the authority to restrict supply vessels as well as fishing vessels may or may not be used, but that it could serve as a bargaining lever when dealing with foreign fleets by suggesting to them that we as Canadians would allow them to use our ports
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act for fresh water, food and fuel if they abstained from fishing certain areas which are overfished.
Quite frankly, in view of the serious decline in our fisheries resources the objective behind the amendment, as stated by the minister, is highly desirable. Unfortunately this amendment, in our opinion, will bring about little or no improvement in respect of the problem and it may very well compound our present difficulties. In our opinion the proposed amendment is a questionable attempt by the government to strengthen the control over foreign fleets operating off our coasts.
While the minister has stated the amended act will apply only to the west coast, I would remind him that governments and fisheries ministers come and go and therefore it is difficult to say what could happen at some future time. The amendment proposed by Bill C-134 will mean that restrictions are applied to all supply and ancillary vessels accompanying foreign fishing fleets off Canada's west or east coast ports. It is therefore of concern to our major east coast ports of St. John's and Halifax whose trade with the offshore fleets runs to an estimated $12 million in St. John's and $3 million in Halifax and Sydney, Nova Scotia. This is a traditional trading pattern on the east coast.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Any action taken by the government to implement the provisions of this act in eastern Canada would only drive the offshore fleets into the ports of the French-owned islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. On the west coast there are apparently no such traditions, and the minister hopes that by refusing to supply the offshore fleets they will, so to speak, take their nets and go home.
The minister's attitude reminds me of the story of the ostrich which buries its head in the sand hoping that its problems will fade away. The tactic of striking at the supply ship is itself an admission that Canada agrees to the presence of these foreign fleets, that it 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 tactic has been tried in other parts of the world where nations have applied economic sanctions against another country in an attempt to bring it to its knees and make it listen to reason. It has never worked. If anything, this type of tactic only strengthens the
4096	COMMONS
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act will to resist and to oppose all future overtures seeking agreement on any problem.
In my view, this amendment is useless as a solution to the preservation of our fisheries resources. It is useless because it attacks the incidental problem, which is not a problem at all if the main problem is solved. Our main concern as Canadians is the decline of our fisheries resources on both coasts. In view of the need for increased food supplies in other countries, this should also be the concern of the nations which send huge fleets to fish off our shores. This amendment will only annoy those nations that fish the resources on our two coasts and may well, in the final analysis, prevent a proper approach being taken toward these nations by Canadian authorities in an effort to solve our problem.
I repeat that the approach must, and can, only be made at the negotiating table by Canadians talking common sense to their opposite numbers. We must also point out to all concerned at an international conference on the conservation of fisheries resources that there are only so many fish on the fishing grounds of the North Atlantic and the Canadian 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 must be preserved for ourselves and for future generations by conserving the spawning grounds and the spawning stock in our time, and that time is now.
In my opinion, it is mandatory that this action be taken through international negotiation and agreement. I ask the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, what efforts he has made recently to call an international fisheries conference to deal with the Poles and the East Germans who, he said in his speech in Montreal on February 5, are making massive raids on an awesome scale on our fish stocks by moving in on our continental shelf with dozens of big, modem vessels.
Surely the minister is not going to sit idly by hoping, wishing and praying that some action will be taken by our spineless, wishy-washy Department of External Affairs. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry should take the bit in his teeth and call for the immediate establishment of an international fisheries conference, so that our urgent fisheries problems can be discussed with the countries which share this problem.
I say this because the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has obviously no interest in our fisheries problem at the inter-

DEBATES	February 25, 1970
national level. While he busies himself trying to get Red China to recognize Canada, our fishing resources are being raped, pillaged and plundered by eight of the largest fishing nations of the world which operate right up to our three-mile limit. In the meantime, we Canadians stand by helplessly, begging our Department of Fisheries and Forestry and our government to take some action on legislation which was passed with great Liberal fanfare and bravado away back in 1964.
The jellyfish approach to our fisheries problem by the Secretary of State for External Affairs was never more apparent than when, in reply to my question concerning the number of meetings held between the French authorities and the Canadian government on the question of jurisdiction over the territorial waters surrounding the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon relative to the control of fishing activities in the past few years, he said there had been no discussions concerning jurisdiction over our territorial waters in this area.
There have been no discussions on oil rights, mineral rights and fisheries rights, and no meetings were held between the French and Canadian authorities on this matter during the last two years. Yet this is one of the major stumbling blocks to the establishment of geographical co-ordinates and the drawing of base lines, the very basis of the legislation passed in 1964, which would give us the right to reserve for our fishermen the resources off the coast of Atlantic Canada.
The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, in a speech in this House said that we have established exclusive fishing zones. Exclusive for whom, I ask him? Certainly not exclusive for Canadians. They are exclusive for the Spanish, the Portuguese, the French, the Italians and the fishermen of the United Kingdom and the United States. They are exclusive for the fishermen of Norway and Denmark. Canadian fishermen from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and the other Atlantic provinces must take their trawlers 12 miles off the coast while we see our resources raped, pillaged and plundered up to three miles off the coast or within our territorial boundary.
This is what the government has done to us in 1970. It has taken no action on legislation that was passed away back in 1964. I charge this government with flagrant disregard for the rights of our fishermen in Atlantic Canada. By its lack of action in calling for an international fisheries conference to deal with
February 25, 1970

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
these problems, we see the wholesale destruction of our Atlantic salmon by Denmark, a country which is also a member of the International Commission of the North Atlantic Fisheries.
In this instance Denmark is sailing a ship she does not own, and she has no intention of contributing toward its maintenance. I say this because 55 per cent of the salmon which migrate each year to Greenland waters are spawned and reared in North Atlantic rivers. About 70 per cent of these fish would return to their home rivers if they were not taken by foreign fleets. The Danes are using Japanese driftnets which are very effective in catching salmon.
It is estimated that Denmark's trawlers are costing United States and Canadian fishermen an annual loss of Atlantic salmon valued at $2i million, and the loss to our tourist industry in Atlantic Canada by the declining salmon runs in our rivers cannot be estimated. We can only guess the figure, but I feel certain it would run into millions of dollars. Something must be done soon to eliminate the fishing for Atlantic salmon on the high seas, or this species will be lost to us forever.
For all these reasons I suggest that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry use his good offices to call immediately an international fisheries conference. Hopefully, he will succeed where it is obvious the Secretary of State for External Affairs has failed. Unless action is taken soon, all the minister's words and all his expressed concern for the plight of the fishermen will be just so much sea spray over the taffrail.
Having stated our concern over some aspects of the legislation, I have an amendment to propose which I hope will strengthen the bill. The purpose of our amendment is to give provinces the right to exercise the option whether or not foreign fishing vessels or persons aboard such vessels will be allowed into that province for all or any of the following reasons: to unload, land or tranship any fish, outfit or supply, ship or discharge any crew member or other person, purchase or obtain bait or any supplies or outfits. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid):
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefore:
"this bill be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry with an instruction that the committee consider inserting therein a provision that where the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of a province so recommends, the Governor in Council shall make regulations to authorize foreign fishing
vessels to enter Canadian fisheries waters, or persons to be in that province or in Canadian fisheries waters, for the purpose of doing in that province all or any of the things described in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (2) of section 3 of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act."
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I take great pleasure in joining the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) in expressing my best wishes and those of my colleagues to Dr. Ozere. Those who have come to know him, particularly at meetings of the Fisheries Committee, have enjoyed his wealth of knowledge and the good-humoured way in which he has presented fisheries matters to the committee. I am sure all hon. members hope he will come back to see us from time to time and that his wealth of knowledge will be available to us when we need it in the future, whether or not he continues much longer in his present position.
I agree with the opinion expressed by the minister on this legislation when he spoke in the House on second reading. I disagree with the necessity to refer it back to committee, as suggested in the amendment which is before us and which in my view really goes beyond the scope of the bill. As I understand the bill, it is simply a matter of bringing this legislation up to date with respect to technological changes and advances in the industry. In that sense it does not in any way add to the powers that the minister now has under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, except that it makes clear that certain types of vessels ancillary to the operations of certain types of fishing fleets shall, for the purposes of this act, be included as fishing vessels and therefore come under the control of the minister.
As I understand the act, the minister now has power to declare whether foreign fishing vessels can enter Canadian ports for any purpose. The question of whether they enter ports on the Atlantic coast or the Pacific coast is not in any way altered by the provisions of the bill before us. For that reason I believe this to be a matter requiring a flexible policy to deal with situations that may arise from time to time on any or all of our coasts.
In other words, while I agree with the policy that prevents foreign fleets doing certain things, I think it is logical that the situation that has existed on the Atlantic coast, whereby fishing vessels are allowed to enter Canadian ports for supplies and servicing, should be decided upon after considering the
4098	COMMONS
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act circumstances that prevail from time to time. This should definitely be a matter for the minister responsible for fisheries. It should not be the responsibility of any provincial administration. I would assume that at any given point in time the views of a provincial administration may be expressed to the minister, whether it be the Atlantic or the Pacific coast that is affected. For that reason I say here, as I said in committee when a similar amendment was proposed, that I do not consider it necessary or desirable to make this change in the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
I have said that I agree with the minister in his assessment of the legislation when he introduced this bill. He said it was a very minor change in our fisheries legislation. I commend the minister for not having overstated the case of what the legislation might do to protect our fisheries. In this case I think his position is a logical one, although with respect to the previous bill I did not think his position was very logical. But, Mr. Speaker, I think some of the remarks of the hon. member for South Shore were well taken. I wish the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) were in the House to listen to this debate, because I agree with the hon. member for South Shore that on the surface at least our Department of External Affairs does not seem to be taking any particular interest in the fisheries. Indeed, it appears that the Minister of Fisheries single-handedly has to deal with the situation and make statements with regard to the need for protecting our fisheries.
Hon. members may recall that earlier in the session I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether when Mr. Gromyko, the Foreign Minister of the U.S.S.R., was in Ottawa, he raised with him the operation of Soviet fishing fleets off our coasts, particularly the Pacific coast. He replied that he had not. I said this was a grave omission on his part. I seek support in this House for the view that what happens to the resources of the fishing waters of Canada is a matter of national concern, a matter in which the Secretary of State for External Affairs should be involved. The situation on the Pacific coast is one upon which the views of the Canadian government should be made known officially to the Foreign Minister of the U.S.S.R., by our External Affairs Department. It is not good enough for fisheries matters in areas such as this to be put in a comer, as it were,

DEBATES	February 25, 1970
and left entirely to the Minister of Fisheries and the relatively small group of advisers he has within the department.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
In other words, this is a national matter and should be dealt with as one of national importance by the federal government and the external affairs spokesmen for Canada. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because of my experience in dealing with the protection of our coastal fisheries during consideration of the fishing zones act. It was very difficult at that time to develop any real sense of interest or momentum in the then Secretary of State for External Affairs who appeared to be constantly preoccupied with other matters. He was evasive in his answers in the House and little concerned about the effectiveness of that legislation.
I think some of the events that have taken place since then verify the fact that had our Department of External Affairs been prepared to be more direct and militant in the matter, some of the problems facing us today might not exist. I wish I could say, Mr. Speaker, that the member for South Shore and his colleagues were as vociferous and as strong in the presentation they made in 1964, when this matter was before the House, as the member for South Shore was in his speech today.
I wish the members of the official opposition had been prepared to support those of us who were attempting at that time to have the straight base lines laid down by act of Parliament instead of taking the wishy-washy position they took at that time. The wishy-washiness of the then Secretary of State for External Affairs was outdone only by the wishy-washy attitude of the member for South Shore who was then the member for Queens-Lunenburg.
Mr. Speaker, 1 am prepared to support this bill although I do not expect it will accomplish a great deal. However, I am happy to see that there is an indication in it that our Minister of Fisheries has some concern that we enter into negotiations with the Soviet Union and other fishing powers who are encroaching upon the fishing resources of our continental shelf. I hope that the fact this bill has come before the House and there has been an expression of concern about the Minister of Fisheries having to carry the burden of these matters alone, may move the govern-
February 25, 1970	COMMONS
ment to action which will provide better protection for our fishing resources than has heretofore been the case.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimali-Saanich):: Just a brief word, Mr. Speaker, to endorse this bill. It is a small bill and a small change to the act-it totals only three lines-for the provisioning, servicing and repair of vessels which are maintaining a foreign fishing fleet at sea. It is a very good step in the right direction, small though it is, and it must obviously be followed by more legislation and completion of the base lines system.
This bill is a good one and I would not have spoken on it had it not been for the amendment proposed by the spokesman for the Conservative Party, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). I think it would be unwise for this House to accept that amendment. The suggestion that the Lieutenant Governor in Council of any province should decide whether foreign vessels should come into the ports of a particular province could lead to a situation where the merchants in towns such as St. John's, Halifax or Lunenburg, could say, "Let us be the first to do this, because the whole foreign fleet will come here and we will have a big trade with the foreign fleet and the maintenance vessels."
This could lead to exactly the type of situation we are trying to avoid, that is, having these foreign fleets make use of Canadian port facilities to keep their vessels operating in areas off the Canadian coast. That is what we are trying to get away from. The amendment proposed would completely negate the bill and lead to competition between Maritime provinces for this trade. It would do nothing to improve the situation of Canadian fishermen, although it might do something for the merchants of the ports. I wished to speak only on that point, and I now resume my seat.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, at the opening of his remarks the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) courteously mentioned Mr. Ozere. This gentleman is retiring from service with the Department of Fisheries this year, in which he served two years past the normal 25-year work span of most people. In other words, he was 65 a couple of years ago, and we kept him on. I hope we will be able to rely on his services from time to time in the future, because they have been invaluable.
Mr. Ozere is a quiet man, an effective man who has gained the respect not only of officials in Ottawa, particularly those in the Department of External Affairs, but also abroad
DEBATES	4099
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act where he is well known in the fisheries circles of the world. He has had a hand in the writing of our fisheries laws and has been an effective fighter for Canadian fishermen. I can assure the House that he still has an important influence on our deliberations and on our thinking in relation to the fishing limits of Canada and our relationships with other countries, the protection of our resources, and so on.
I should like to refer briefly to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act amendment which is before the House. This amendment includes fishing supply vessels under the definition of fishing vessels, so that the Minister of Fisheries can at his discretion limit their entry into Canadian ports. In other words, the minister will be able to exclude supply vessels of large fishing fleets from our ports if to do so is consistent with national fisheries policy.
As I have stated in the House, and I repeat, the government does not intend to exclude foreign fishing vessels of any kind, including supply vessels, from ports in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. In other words, they will be able to come and go from our ports on the east coast, the principal ones they have been visiting over the years.
The main reason for continuing to service the long-distance fishing fleet of other countries in this way is that if we were to close the ports of St. John's, Newfoundland, and Halifax, Nova Scotia, they would go to St. Pierre and Miquelon, at the French Islands immediately south of Newfoundland and in the mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
I have been interested in the position taken so far by the members of the Official Opposition. The remarks in the House and in committee leave me with the impression that they are mainly concerned with the business done by the tradesmen, by the retail outlets and the wholesalers in our two principal ports of St. John's and Halifax, They have yet to give voice to the interests of the Canadian fishermen on the east coast.


Mr. McGrath:: That is not true, and it is not
fair.


John (Jack) Davis: I am sure the members of the opposition now awakened to their omission will find, if they talk to our fishermen-particularly the inshore fishermen in their own ridings-that to a man they are opposed to the servicing of big fishing fleets; they are opposed to helping them cut their costs by making food, fuel and other supplies available
4100	COMMONS
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act at lower cost than if the fleets had to send their fishing vessels and their supply vessels back home for these goods and services.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
As I said, on the east coast we are vulnerable because they can drop into St. Pierre and Miquelon and obtain the same services they are now obtaining in Halifax and St. John's. However, I doubt very much if our inshore fishermen or our commercial fishermen are very interested or sympathetic so far as this trade is concerned.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister doesn't know what he is talking about.


John (Jack) Davis: The position of some representatives of the Official Opposition is inconsistent in another way. They talk about driving the big Russian, Polish and East German fishing fleets away from our own fishing grounds, away from the grounds immediately off our coasts, away from our Canadian continental shelf. But at the same time they are pleading that we serve these fleets; that the costs of these fleets would be cut if they could be looked after at our east coast ports. They are inconsistent to this extent.
On the west coast the situation is clear. There are no alternative ports in the main body of United States or in Alaska, which will serve the large Russian fishing fleets. They have to send their vessels back home for repairs, servicing and supplies and therefore the additional power we are asking for in the amendment, that of being able to limit then* access to Canadian ports for supplies, is useful. It will be useful in our bargaining with the U.S.S.R. and when we confront them with our problem of fisheries conservation on the west coast, as well as when we try to eliminate a tendency of theirs to raid our waters and wipe out whole fish stocks in important fishing areas. On the east coast, as I say, we have a problem because of the existence of St. Pierre and Miquelon.


James Aloysius McGrath: Why does the minister try to defend his policies in terms of conservation and conservation measures?


John (Jack) Davis: This has something to do with conservation in that by introducing this amendment we shall be able to bargain, and thereby conserve our fish stocks. In conclusion perhaps I should say a word about the proposed amendment. First of all, it is out of order because it does not deal with any clause of Bill C-134. Second, I think if passed it

DEBATES	February 25, 1970
would be a retrograde step because it would tend to balkanize Canada. Many are critical of Quebec because it has wanted to talk exclusively on some occasions to other nations about a matter that comes under provincial jurisdiction in our constitution, that of education.
Yet here we have members of the Official Opposition who are prepared to turn over to the provinces the national power over fisheries.
They want to turn over to the provinces a power that under the British North America Act clearly and exclusively is a federal power. This is balkanization. This is a national power and not a provincial power, like education. Since I am opposed, as a matter of national interest, to a province's right to talk to other nations even on matters that come under provincial powers, I am doubly opposed to turning over to the provinces even broader powers that are within the federal realm.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Davis: The power over fisheries is exclusively a national power and it would be ridiculous in my view to turn it over to the provinces. Can you imagine what would happen? The Premier of Nova Scotia, or his minister of fisheries or external affairs would be talking to the Russians, the Poles or East Germans about whether he would allow their vessels to enter Halifax or other harbours in Nova Scotia and pick up supplies. That minister's policy might be different from that of the minister of external affairs-if you even made such a provincial minister-of an adjoining province, who might have a different policy with respect to foreign fishing fleets.
I think this is ridiculous. We are a nation because we stand together and because by standing together we win more influence in international affairs through having a common policy and following a common course of action. I say therefore, that the amendment is out of order, and second, that it is ridiculous from a Canadian point of view.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is the minister who is out of order.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before putting the question, which I intend to do, I would say a
February 25, 1970	COMMONS
word about the amendment. I have had a chance to reflect on it in more detail and wish to introduce a caveat at this stage. It seems to me, that the amendment goes beyond the scope of the amending bill. Since the amendment has been put to the House, however, I think all hon. members will probably agree that the House ought to decide on it. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: No.


James Aloysius McGrath: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The amendment is negatived on division.
Amendment (Mr. Crouse) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is now on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


James Aloysius McGrath: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN SALTFISH CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-175, to establish the Canadian Salt-fish Corporation and regulate interprovincial and export trade in saltfish, as reported (with amendments) from 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 saltfish, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, be concurred in.


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


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, on the third reading of Bill C-175 the Official Opposition is following the same course it pursued on second reading, which was to declare our approval of the principle of the bill. Although in favour of the principle, we expressed doubts on second reading about certain aspects of the legislation. These doubts were confirmed when the committee
DEBATES	4101
Canadian Saltfish Corporation heard witnesses and received briefs on the bill from industry representatives, and when the minister appeared before the committee to explain the purpose of the bill and answer questions on its administration.
One concern ran like a thread through the evidence of witnesses and briefs alike. It was a concern that I expressed at second reading. That concern is the complete absence from the bill of any safeguards to soften the impact upon the fishermen and small processors who may be sacrificed for the sake of efficiency. However, all witnesses before the committee indicated their approval of the principle of this bill and no one in the saltsfish industry denied the need for it.
There are, however, two ways of looking at this bill. The administration sees only efficiencies to be brought about by the application of the bill, but those who have lived in close proximity to the saltfish industry see the price that some of the fishermen and small plant processors will pay. In my view, unless this bill is administered in terms less cold than "necessary dislocation", "centralization", "redundancy" and similar bloodless but efficient words, that price will be high indeed.
There are still some questions unanswered in the bill. The most important of these is the question asked by the small plant owner who will, depending upon the manner in which the corporation operates, remain in business or become redundant. The bill spells out no responsibility on the part of the corporation to operate with less than the inhuman efficiency of a computer that has neither a body to be kicked nor a soul to be damned. The bill spells out no specific financial liability on the part of the federal government or provincial governments to assist the small plant owner who may be driven out of business if the corporation operates in a ruthlessly efficient way.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The minister was asked in committee about the procedure to be followed by the corporation when letting out its processing business. He replied that the corporation would call tenders for the processing of all salt codfish. It was explained that this course would be followed in order to bring about the maximum efficiency and returns for the fishermen. I have no argument with this reasoning, Mr. Speaker, but the course to be followed by the corporation does raise certain questions. For example, what becomes of the small plant owner and his employees who can get none of
February 25, 1970

Canadian Saltfish Corporation the corporation's business because he must cover his overheads by bidding one-quarter, one-eighth or one-sixteenth of a cent per pound higher than his bigger competitors who have lower overheads because of their volume of business?
The small salt codfish processor simply cannot convert to processing fresh or frozen fish, for this would mean an almost complete replacement of his equipment. He cannot afford to scrap all his drying equipment, to write it off as a total loss and at the same time finance the purchase of new machinery and refrigeration plant required by the fresh fish industry. In some cases both he and his employees have worked side by side over the years to build up the business and now, through no fault of their own, they will be out of business and unemployed.
Another question is whether the processing operations are to be concentrated in a few centres. If this is done, plants that are not in those centres will be put out of business no matter how efficient they are. In such cases local efficiency will be sacrificed to an over-all average efficiency throughout the participating provinces. There is a concern expressed by industry representatives that the burden of dislocation and redundancy will weigh unequally, not only upon the fishermen and not only upon the processing plant but upon the participating provinces. In other words, provincial governments are asked to opt in or opt out on a guesswork basis. These are some of the questions that are not answered in Bill C-175, and they were not answered by the minister in committee.
I suggest that in the absence of answers there is, and will be, a continuing obligation upon the federal government and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) to keep a compassionate eye on the operations and the results of the act establishing a Canadian Saltfish Corporation. I say this because the government has turned loose a monopolistic corporation upon the saltfish industry. It has ordered that corporation to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis and has hammered that order home with a warning that there will be no money from the federal government to pick up a deficit.
The government, in effect, has given the corporation a balance sheet for a heart-a heart that can only beat in the black at whatever sacrifice of redundant humans. I should like the government to have written into this bill some of the findings and conclusions of Mr. Justice Samuel Freedman when he acted
as industrial inquiry commissioner on Canadian National Railways' run throughs in 1985. That report was made to the minister's colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen) when he was Minister of Labour, and was tabled by him in the House. The commissioner, speaking of another federal corporation, said at page 103 of that report:
The Commission is of the view that an obligation rests upon the company to take reasonable steps towards minimizing the adverse effects which a run through may have upon its employees. That obligation has its root in the principle that when a technological change is introduced the cost of reasonable proposals to protect employees from its adverse consequences is a proper charge against its benefits and savings. Apart from the advantage of ex-peding traffic, the company's "run through" program would yield monetary savings of nearly a million dollars a year. These savings would be an annual item to be reaped by the company from year to year. Fairness demands that the advantages of the program should not fall all on one side- the company's-and its burdens all on the other- the men's. According, it is proper that the cost of protected measures for employees hurt by the run through should be charged against the savings resulting from it! Admittedly this would reduce those savings, but only at the beginning, for the savings would be recurring while the protective costs would not.
Mr. Justice Freedman had other words of wisdom which I recommend for study by the minister. At page 106 he stated:
Does a man acquire an equity in his job? To say that he does is not to imply that he is entitled to permanent tenure in it. His services may be terminated, but when they are he should be entitled, by view of his prior service, to some form of severance pay. Admittedly this approach is not in line with traditional attitudes towards the relationship between a man and his job. But it is dictated by considerations of wise social policy, and it is rooted in principles of morality and justice. It is especially relevant in an age of technological change. Nor can it now be regarded as revolutionary. The ground for it has already been broken by industries which have accepted the principle of severance pay as part of an employer's responsibility. The matter is well expressed by the London Times in an editorial comment on the Redundancy Payments Bill, a bill recently introduced in the British Parliament, and providing for a legal right to compensation on the part of workers losing their jobs through no fault of their own. The comment is as follows: "At the back of this too is the developing new conception-that a man holds some rights in his job just as an employer holds rights in his property, and that his rights gain in value with the years. In so far as the work done in it is part of an enterprise, he is a part owner, who must be compensated if his share is taken from him."
Finally, I am certain the Minister of Fisheries, as an engineer economist, will find the comments of Mr. Justice Freedman very

February 25, 1970

interesting where he states the following at pages 132 and 133 of his report:
Taking a broad, national, long range view and looking at employment in its totality, the economist may be justified in contending that technology does not cause unemployment. Within the picture, however, technology may bring about individual cases of difficulty and hardships, cases which will be multiplied if the general demand for labour is slack.
Economists have focused attention upon the responsibility of government to act with vigilance and wisdom in creating conditions in which technological change may safely and advantageously be introduced. In that regard the role of government is at least twofold. It must be concerned on the one hand with employment policy, that is to say, with adequate policies of economic development to increase the total demand for labour. It must be concerned on the other hand with manpower policy- that is to say, with policies of manpower training, retraining and relocation to create a flexible and mobile work force with fully developed skills.
In his summation Mr. Justice Freedman expressed our concern, and the concern of the people involved in the catching, marketing and processing of salt codfish, over the impact the establishment of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation will have on their industry. We sincerely hope that many of the problems associated with the establishment of this corporation will be resolved satisfactorily, and that it will eventually fulfil its prime objective which is to bring about an improvement in the incomes of all those engaged in the salt cod fishery.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I indicated support for this measure at the second reading stage and I do not intend to repeat the remarks I made on that occasion. I indicated there were some questions that should have been asked in the committee. Of course, a good many questions were asked there. As the House knows, some changes and amendments were made to the bill. I feel in its present form the bill is quite satisfactory. I suggest to the House it represents the beginning rather than the end of something. In other words, by merely putting into effect the words on this paper we really will not be doing very much. By this I mean that the form and substance given to the corporation personnel who will be responsible for managing it and carrying forward its operation will, of course, be the determining factor as to whether this is a beneficial piece of legislation.
# (5:30 p.m.)
I say on behalf of myself and my colleagues that we will be observing the operation and development of this corporation with interest.
Canadian Saltfish Corporation We will comment from time to time on its operation when we feel the circumstances justify comment. Having said that, since I should like to leave the way open for members who represent areas that are perhaps more directly affected by the bill than the one from which I come, I will conclude by indicating the support of our party for third reading of the bill.


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee which studied the bill, I committed myself to making a few remarks on the motion for third reading.
When the bill was referred to the committee, I suggested several amendments, allowing the fishermen of the Gaspe peninsula to avail themselves in the near future of the facilities of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation and of the regulation of interprovincial and export trade in saltfish.
The bill, as submitted initially, tended to assist fishermen engaged in fishing on a non industrial or family basis. This traditional type of fishing is dependent on the physical capacities of the fishermen.
The volume of the catch as well as the volume of fish processed are directly related to the number of fishermen engaged in this occupation. Undoubtedly, this is what makes non industrial fishing a family undertaking in which women, children and older people have specified jobs.
Fishermen seem to be forced to fish to meet the needs of their family or community, not in any way to raise their standard of living or that of the province or country.
Since the end of the war, fishing has become industrialized in the Gaspe region, through new methods, modernized fish plants and a federal assistance program to promote the building of fishing boats and the construction of adequate harbours and wharves.
Non industrial and family fishing has almost disappeared in the Gaspe peninsula but it still exists on the lower north shore of Quebec.
The Quebec government appears to be willing to conclude an agreement with the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) in order to allow the Canadian Saltfish Corporation to exercise its rights and negotiate with fishermen of the lower north shore who live too far from processing plants. These fishermen have to cure and salt their fish and then they wait for weeks before they are able to sell it to the dealers trading along the coasts.
4104	COMMONS
Canadian Saltfish Corporation I would like Quebec to sign as soon as possible this agreement with the federal government so that we may be of some assistance to these isolated and deprived fishermen.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the salt fish industry in the Gaspe peninsula is far ahead of that in Newfoundland or on the lower north shore. That is why the Quebec Department of Industry and Trade is not in favor of allowing the Canadian Saltfish Corporation to extend its jurisdiction to the Gaspe area. The salt fish from its waters-commonly called "Gaspe Cure"-is of a higher quality than the salt and dried cod from Newfoundland. In some countries, moreover, it is a highly appreciated food.
In spite of the high demand for "Gaspe Cure" and of the steady increase in the price of salt fish for the past ten years, the Gaspe fisherman used to get 4 cents a pound for his cod in 1960 and in 1969-


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, there must be something wrong with the translation of the hon. member's remarks since I heard something that is certainly not the fact. Let us chalk it up to the translation system, but there was something wrong with that last statement.


Alexandre Cyr: 
John (Jack) Davis: He wants it included in the record.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might point out that this is a practice we normally do not follow. In fact, we try to discourage it. As I said before, the House is the master of its own procedure and rules. I make the point that this seems to be a bad practice, but I am prepared to put the request to the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: What, precisely, are we being asked to put in the record?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member describes it as a series of figures or tables that he would like to include as part of his remarks in this debate. I think it is a dangerous practice which should be discouraged, but the hon. member has sought unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I take it that unanimous consent is not forthcoming.


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my request.
The bill before us provides for the establishment of a Canadian Saltfish Corporation, which will have to solve the numerous problems of the fishermen in eastern Canada, but what will happen to our fishermen and to the corporation if the cod is driven out of the gulf of St. Lawrence?
It is a recognized fact that cod feeds upon small fish like capelin and herring, which thrive in the gulf of St. Lawrence because herring fishing has not been intensified on the Atlantic coast.
For conservation purposes, the department prohibited, in 1967, the fishing of herring intended for processing plants, during the most productive period of the year.
Since 1967, producers of fish meal made of Atlantic deep-sea fish, increased the number of their fishing fleets and the herring catch has doubled in three years.
Three years ago, the Department of Fisheries and Forestry undertook studies on fishing in the gulf of St. Lawrence in order to determine the herring reserves and it seems that nobody has yet advised the minister to estab-21701-49J
Canadian Saltfish Corporation lish restrictions on herring fishing on the Atlantic coast. Must there be a disaster before controls are imposed?
Mr. Speaker, there is danger in increasing fishing in herring reserves on the Atlantic coast, as it can imperil cod fishing as well as the fishing of other species.
I should like to point out to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry that we want to protect fisheries on the Atlantic coast and that we are afraid that the situation which prevails on the Pacific coast and in the Scandinavian countries will arise in the gulf of St. Lawrence and on the Atlantic coast.
I should also like to mention cod fishermen and ask the minister to undertake negotiations with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-kasey) so that the unemployment insurance contributions paid by the fishermen will be calculated on a monthly rather than a weekly basis.
Often the weekly catch is low at a given time of the fishing season and normal or excellent at other times.
If calculations are made every month and if price adjustments at the close of the season are taken into account, as recommended by the Canadian Saltfish Corporation, the benefits which the fisherman will receive during the few months of unemployment will enable him to balance his family budget.
Four fishermen on a boat can catch about $500 worth of fish in a normal week. If the 25 per cent provided under the act is deducted, the cod fisherman therefore earns a salary of $100, which enables him to make a fair contribution to the unemployment insurance fund. If the contribution is determined on the basis of a week where the catch is worth $200 per boat, it will be quite small and will tend to reduce the rate of benefits.
I doubt if the Canadian Saltfish Corporation will become efficient within two seasons. The first years will be difficult, which is normal for such a corporation. The directors will have to negotiate with people who are used to depend on government welfare allowances to make both ends meet.
I know quite well the people of those depressed areas. I suggest that the Corporation should maintain a firm attitude from the very beginning of their operations and that the regulations in effect should not be the target of destructive criticisms from hon. members, for the sole purpose of playing politics, because in the long run, the fishermen will be the losers.

4106	COMMONS
Canadian Saltfish Corporation
Hon. members will have to reserve their comments for the discussion of the Department's estimates or for other occasions such as committee sittings.
Mr. Speaker, as the Corporation must correct a situation which has lasted for more than a century we cannot expect substantial results before two or three years.
I wish the Canadian Saltfish Corporation a long life and congratulate the minister for having given consideration to the problems of the Atlantic fishermen. It is a great stride on the road to a just society.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have 15 or 20 minutes in which to review some of the points we made in the committee and some of the successes we have had. I will take just a few moments to first congratulate the minister for taking the advice of members from Newfoundland who over the past two years have been working very hard to bring about this corporation. I think the minister is now realizing the importance of some of the representations we are making in the House of Commons and is taking our advice. If he keeps this up, it will certainly make a contribution to the fisheries of Atlantic Canada.
The establishment of a Crown corporation is not going to necessarily solve the problems of the salt fishery in Newfoundland. I say that because there is a great tendency, when a move is made to establish a corporation or any such body, for the government to back off altogether and leave it up to the corporation. I can see that the minister will have to work hard, as well as hon. members and members of the corporation, to get this program off the ground as quickly as possible.
We must employ top-notch men. There are all kinds of rumours about the person who will be in charge of the corporation. I think we in the Committee made sufficient representations to the minister to at least assure him that we will not be happy with appointments to the corporation other than on the basis of ability. We will require people who are willing to work really hard, in order for the corporation to succeed and to achieve its major aim, that is, to ensure that fishermen will get more money for their work and their produce. We must have a consistent hard-working effort by the men who occupy key positions in the corporation.
Apart from making that point I want to make just one other observation. We have in

DEBATES	February 25, 1970
Atlantic Canada tens of thousands of salt cod fishermen and people who are directly or indirectly involved in the industry. I am as sure as I am standing here that most of these fishermen are not aware of the features of the marketing corporation, how they will be related to it or what they have to do in terms of quality of produce, which is to be one of the major objectives.
They must know what they have to do. As the minister said to me in conversation one day, "It will be their business, and by and large they will have much of the responsibility of ensuring that the corporation works, by producing good quality fish." If we do not produce good quality fish, we might just as well forget about the corporation and the industry. The fishermen must know what their role is in the corporation, and what the corporation can do for them.
What are some of the major objectives? I am making this point to impress upon the minister and the Department of Fisheries the need for informing the fishermen about the objectives of the corporation. Personally-and I am sure I speak for all members-I am always sending out information concerning statements made in the House by the minister and other members in clarification of objectives such as are encompassed in this corporation. But I think if a formal mailing-piece, even if something similar to what was presented in the committee, were prepared in the form of a pamphlet and sent out to all fishermen, it would go a long way toward keeping them informed and establishing for them some guidelines in respect of the quality of their fish produce.
9 (5.50 p.m.)
I should like to draw the minister's attention to an almost unique situation in Newfoundland. I represent Fogo Island. This island has on it 600 or 700 salt cod fishermen. The community comprises about 5,000 people. On that island there is what is almost equivalent to a marketing board-a co-operative. I am not sure whether it is the only co-operative in Newfoundland, but it is the only one of which I am aware. It is very successful. It has the support of the people on the island and as a result of the co-operative the fishermen receive anywhere from a 10 per cent to a 20 per cent higher return for their fish.
This co-operative already has a substantial investment in the industry. It has a great many facilities. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I
February 25, 1970

ask the minister to ensure that the Fogo Island co-operative is involved in this corporation and made aware of its objectives. I hope it will be taken into consideration when decisions are being made with regard to the agents and others who will act on behalf of the marketing corporation.
I was told by officials of this co-operative only this week that they are happy about the legislation and are very optimistic about it, as all of us are although we have some reservations. This co-operative would have to be the sole agent on Fogo Island, where between 60,000 and 80,000 quintals of fish are produced annually. This is the only major contribution to the whole area. I could speak longer, but I shall not take up any more time in order that the bill may pass before six o'clock.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, before you put the question, I wonder whether the minister might be given an opportunity to reply. It is only five minutes to six, and I suggest he has a responsibility to make some comments.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members present in the House today-I might even say particularly the hon. members from Newfoundland-for the support they have given this legislation.
We are setting up a new corporation. It is a corporation which in my view is long overdue; a corporation of this kind should have been set up many years ago.
It is a corporation of a nature which has been recommended on occasion by royal commissions and by special committees set up to look into the salt fishery of Canada's east coast. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, the establishment of such a body did not come to pass; we have not had a centralized, export marketing agency. We have not had an organized trade or the equivalent of a trade which would serve the individual inshore salt cod fishermen well, one which would help him know what the market requires and would help him produce quality products in the quantities the market needs so that a higher income could be obtained from his catch.
The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) referred to the corporation, in its present draft form, as a bloodless and indeed heartless corporation. It must not be that. It cannot be that. Obviously the corporation in its first weeks and months will be a blunt
Canadian Saltfish Corporation instrument. I think it is up to all of us to try to improve it. Later we may want to improve the legislation. But the corporation itself will deal with many of the problems, if not all of them, which confront the inshore cod fishermen on Canada's Atlantic coast. But this legislation will have to be fleshed-out, humanized and supplemented by other measures. With this I agree.
Reference was made to centralization. There was particular reference to redundancy. The problem of redundancy was discussed at some length in the committee. This is a matter of concern to the salt fish trade, particularly in Newfoundland, but also in Nova Scotia and Quebec. There is no reference to redundancy in the act. Redundancy is a matter to be worked out by the federal government and the provincial governments which opt into this scheme.
I understand that all the provinces of the Atlantic area, including Quebec, will opt into the scheme. The reason redundancy has been left out of the bill is that property is a matter for legislation by the provinces. The provinces must have a voice in redundancy since they will have to pass enabling or companion legislation in order to make this operation whole, to make the Canadian Saltfish Corporation whole and able to operate in an effective, constitutional way.
At the present time we are developing a formula which we will propose to the provinces to deal with redundancy. In fact, we will be negotiating this formula with the provinces which will want to know what the formula is and, equally important, what the extent of the redundnacy is before they present their own legislation to the legislatures this spring. I expect that companion pieces of legislation in the five provincial legislatures will be introduced and passed later this year. Redundancy will be dealt with as effectively as possible.
There is a need to rely on a number of other departments, federal and provincial. The Department of Manpower will be concerned with training and retraining to upgrade the salt fishery and help those who want to leave it for better paying jobs. We will have the help of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of External Affairs in selling abroad. We will have the help of the various provincial departments in making adjustments.
February 25. 1970
'4108	COMMONS
Canadian Saltfish Corporation I want to stress that this bill sets up a corporation whose main objective is to improve the lot oi the inshore fishermen, particularly those living in remote communities and those on low incomes in the Atlantic region. These people have long needed a corporation of this kind to help rationalize their

income. This is a great industry and one Which historically was the first in Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 26, 1970