1970-10-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the House that I will call item No. 17 as the first order of government; business today because I understand an agreement has been reached that this reference to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence can be approved by the House without debate. Therefore I shall call it as the first item.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: That is correct, Mr. Speaker; as the result of discussion among those especially concerned, this has been agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



FISHERIES


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 relating to the acceptance of motions by unanimous consent I would like to ask for consent, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster but in conjunction with the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry who said that he would be glad to do so but has not done it yet, to move the following motion;
That the two draft agreements negotiated between fisheries experts of Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for resolving problems associated with Canadian and Soviet fishing operations in the northeastern Pacific Ocean, as referred to in a communique from the Department of Fisheries and Forestry dated October 21, 1970, be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has indicated the nature of his motion which, under Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There are a few nays which indicate there is not unanimous agreement. Therefore the motion cannot be put.
^



TAX REVIEW BOARD BILL


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-174, to establish the Tax Review Board and to make certain amendments to other Acts in relation thereto.


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


Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-175, respecting grain.


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


Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-176, to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products.
Motion agreed, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.



CANADA CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS BILL INCORPORATION, ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION, SHARE STRUCTURE, GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES, ETC.

Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-177,
respecting co-operative associations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
October 26, 1970
Questions

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

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1-Mr. Nowlan:
Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Information not available.


LIST OF ACTING MINISTERS
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): Who are the Ministers, Acting Ministers and Second Acting Ministers of each department of the federal government?
What is the estimated number of individuals, by country of citizenship, normally resident in Canada who had not by January 1, 1970, become Canadian citizens?	Mr. Barney Danson Prime Minisier):	(Parliamentary	SecretaryOffice	Name	Acting Minister	Second	Acting Min:Agriculture	Mr. Olson	Mr. Greene	Mr.	LaingCommunications	Mr. Kierans	Mr. Cote	Mr.	JamiesonConsumer and Corporate Affairs	Mr. Basford	Mr. Mcllraith	Mr.	JamiesonEnergy, Mines and Resources	Mr. Greene	Mr. Lang	Mr.	PepinExternal Affairs	Mr. Sharp	Mr. Martin	Mr.	DruryFinance	Mr. Benson	Mr. Gray	Mr.	SharpFisheries and Forestry	Mr. Davis	Mr. Dube	Mr.	CoteIndian Affairs and Northern Development	Mr. Chretien	Mr. Andras	Mr.	DavisIndustry, Trade and Commerce	Mr. Pepin	Mr. Lang	Mr.	DruryJustice and Attorney General	Mr. Turner	Mr. Mcllraith	Mr.	MacdonaldLabour	Mr. Mackasey	Mr. MacEachen	Mr.	BasfordManpower and Immigration	Mr. Lang	Mr. Marchand	Mr.	MackaseyNational Defence	Mr. Macdonald	Mr. Drury	Mr.	LaingNational Health and Welfare	Mr. Munro	Mr. Martin	Mr.	PelletierNational Revenue	Mr. Gray	Mr. Kierans	Mr.	ChretienPrivy Council	Mr. MacEachen	Mr. Macdonald	Mr.	OlsonPublic Works	Mr. Laing	Mr. Cote	Mr.	DubeRegional Economic Expansion	Mr. Marchand	Mr. Munro	Mr.	MackaseySecretary of State	Mr. Pelletier	Mr. Stanbury	Mr.	MunroSolicitor General	Mr. Mcllraith	Mr. Turner	Mr.	LangSupply and Services	Mr. Richardson	Mr. Olson	Mr.	CoteTransport	Mr. Jamieson	Mr. Richardson	Mr.	TurnerTreasury Board	Mr. Drury	Mr. Kierans	Mr.	LaingVeterans Affairs	Mr. Dube	Mr. Andras	Mr.	Basford


RAID ON MAGAZINE DISTRIBUTOR IN THE TORONTO AREA
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did the RCMP, in co-operation with Metro Toronto Police during 1969, make a raid on a magazine distributor in the Toronto area armed with a Writ of Assistance and, if so (a) on what date did this take place (b) under provision of which Act was the Writ of Assistance used?
2.	Were charges under the Act for which the Writ of Assistance was used laid against the magazine distributor and, if not, were charges laid under any other Act?
3.	Was a large quantity of magazines seized on the occasion of the raid, and, if so, what was the wholesale or retail value of the seized magazines?
4.	(a) How long were the magazines, seized through the use of the Writ of Assistance, kept by the police (b) were they held by the RCMP or the Toronto police?
5.	Were representations made by the magazine distributor or his legal counsel for return of the magazines and, if so (a) when and how long before they were actually returned (b) for what reasons were the magazines held for the length of time they were held?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Soliciior General):: 1. On information received that a magazine distributor located in Toronto, Ontario, was in possession of unlawfully imported obscene magazines and films, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in conjunction with the Metropolitan

October 26, 1970

Toronto Police Department, conducted a search on July 5, 1969 under authority of a Writ of Assistance issued pursuant to the Customs Act.
2.	Charges were not laid under the Customs Act. Subsequently charges were preferred by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Department under Section 150 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
3.	A total of 4,255 magazines, bearing 13 different titles, and 544-100 feet 8 m.m. films, bearing 20 different titles, were placed under Customs detention pursuant to the Customs Act. The value of the magazines and films was not determined as they were not appraised by Customs.
4.	The magazines and films placed under Customs detention were retained by the RCMP from July 5, 1969 until December 10, 1969. The Metropolitan Toronto Police Department was permitted, for a short time, to take possession of the magazines and films for examination concerning the proposed Criminal Code prosecution.
5.	Representation was made for return of the magazines and films by Legal Counsel on behalf of the magazine distributor on December 1, 1969. The magazines and films were returned to the magazine distributor by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on December 10, 1969. Samples of the magazines and films placed under Customs detention by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were forwarded on August 26, 1969, to the Department of National Revenue, Ottawa, for a ruling under Tariff Item 99201-1. A ruling was not given by the Department in view of the prosecution under Section 150 of the Criminal Code of Canada by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Department.


R.C.M.P. SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNT
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount of money in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1968 (b) March 31, 1969 (c) March 31, 1970?
2.	What rate of interest does the Government pay for the use of this money?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1968, (b) March 31, 1969 (c) March 31, 1970?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1968 (b) March 31, 1969 (c) March 31, 1970?


George James McIlraith: 1. (a) March 31, 1968, $104,724,111.76; (b) March 31, 1969, $130,811,253.12; (c) March 31, 1970, $165,764,567.44.
2.	Interest was paid on this account at the rate of 4 per cent per annum up until the quarter ending June 30, 1969. T.B. Minute 692055-2 dated September 25, 1969 amended Section 23(3) of the R.C.M.P. Superannuation Regulations, and effective with the quarter ending September 30, 1969 the interest factor changed in accordance with the schedule outlined in T.B. Minute 692055-2.
3.	(a) March 31, 1968, $3,534,722.02; (b) March 31, 1969, $4,494,764.86; (c) March 31, 1970, $5,454,750.61.
23226-35J
Questions
4.	(a) March 31, 1968, $988,991.22; (b) March 31, 1969, $1,101,036.09; (c) March 31, 1970, $1,315,474.24.


PENSIONS-RETIRED ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL
[Stage Direction]
Ques'.ion No. 71-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
1.	How many retired Armed Forces personnel are receiving
pensions including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the following brackets: (a) less than $20.00 per month (b) $20.00 to $29.99 per	month	(c)	$30.00	to	$39.99	per	month	(d)	$40.00	to$49.99 per	month	(e)	$50.00	to	$59.99	per	month	(f)	$60.00	to$69.99 per	month	(g)	$70.00	to	$79.99	per	month	(h)	$80.00	to$89.99 per	month	(i)	$90.00	to	$99.99	per	month	(j)	$100.00	to
$149.99 per month (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month (1) $200.00 to $249.99 per month (m) $250.00 to $299.99 per month; (n) 300.00 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of Armed Forces personnel or of retired armed forces personnel are receiving pensions including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the total number of retired Armed Forces personnel and also the number of widows of armed forces personnel or of retired armed forces personnel presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans of Armed Forces personnel are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) 6, (b) 37, (c) 308, (d) 276, (e) 341, (f) 379, (g) 603, (h) 926, (i) 1297, (j) 4873, (k) 6007, (1) 5025, (m) 3896, (n) 6127.
:. (a) o, (b) 8, (c) 23, (d)	171	, (e) 259, (f)	282, (g) 227,272, (i) 253, (j) 743, (k)	311,	(1) 202, (m)	99, (n) 68.Retired	Personnel	WidowsNewfoundland	67	11Prince Edward Island	153	13Nova Scotia	2,793	184New Brunswick	731	93Quebec	3,992	316Ontario	12,008	1,289Manitoba	909	133Saskatchewan	315	53Alberta	2,098	159British Columbia	6,054	503Yukon and N.W.T.	314	3Outside Canada	667	161
4. Seventy Seven; $34.18.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNT
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount of money in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1968 (b) March 31, 1969 (c) March 31, 1970?
2.	What rate of interest does the government pay for the use of this money?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1968 (b) March 31, 1969 (c) March 31, 1970?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1968 (b) March 31, 1969 (c) March 31, 1970?

October 26, 1970
Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1, 3 and 4. This information is tabled in the House annually in accordance with Revised Statutes 1966-67, c.44, s.53, and also appears in the Public Accounts, as Appendix 1, to the National Defence Expenditures.
2.	Section 21 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Regulations were amended by TB/CT 692055-1, dated September 25, 1969. The actual interest rates for the four quarters subsequent to this date, were as follows: Quarter ending September 1969, 1.2416 per cent; December 1969, 1.2575 per cent; March 1970, 1.2868 per cent; June 1970, 1.3174 per cent.


PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRMS HIRED BY GOVERNMENT TO PRODUCE INFORMATION ON GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What public relations firms or economic or social research organizations have (a) been commissioned by government departments, agencies or Crown corporations (b) been hired or given contracts to produce pamphlets, brochures, economic surveys, etc., for educating or explaining government policies to the public?
2.	By what government department or agency were they hired?
3.	What specific task were they given to do?
4.	How much money were they paid?
5.	Was the choice of the firm concerned arrived at by asking for tenders and, if not, how was the choice made?


James Alexander Jerome: See return to question No. 1,427 deposited with the Clerk of the House of Commons on June 22, 1970.


INCOME TAX ACT AMENDMENTS FOR CLAIMS OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR AIRCRAFT
Mr. Forrestall: Will the government give consideration to amending that section of the Income Tax Act which provides claims of capital costs for automobiles used in the course of employment with a view to including aircraft?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: This is a matter of Government policy. If the Government should decide to propose an amendment to the Income Tax Act to make the suggested change it will be announced at the appropriate time.


D.D.H. CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What was the original cost estimate, including all components, of the present DDH construction program?
2.	What is the present cost estimate including all components and sea trials?
3.	Is the construction program on time and, if not, what is the nature of the delay?
4.	Have there been any substantial cutbacks in the components of this program in order to maintain the original cost estimate?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. See Hansard dated April 28, 1969, page 8035.
2.	The program, including costs, is presently under review.
3.	No, there is a delay of approximately one year. Until the review has been completed, it is impossible to be more specific.
4.	See 2 above.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-REDUCTION OF FORCES
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence been instructed to prepare contingency plans for the reduction of the Canadian Armed Forces to a level below 60,000 members?
2 Is the government considering a further phased reduction of the strength of the Canadian Armed Forces beyond that already publicly announced and, if so, from what elements will such reduction be made?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. No, present plans call for a regular force strength of approximately 82,000 by April 1, 1973.
2.	No.


MARITIME COMMAND PERSONNEL
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 130
Mr. Forrestall:: 1.	In the nine months ended September 30, 1970, how many officers or men of the Maritime Command (a) have been released (b) transferred to other commands including Headquarters?
2.	What was the strength of the Maritime Command as of January 1 and September 30, 1970?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. (a) One hundred and thirty-eight officers, 1,327 men, have been released through normal attrition, e.g. reaching age for retirement, medical grounds, voluntary, etc. (b) Records are not maintained in a manner which would make this information readily available without a costly manual search of individual files.
2.	January 1, 70	September 30, 70Officers	2,011	2,172Men	13,120	13,486


APPOINTMENT OF WOMEN TO CERTAIN POSITIONS
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	In the period commencing April 23, 1968 and ending July 25, 1969, how many women were appointed to a position or otherwise employed, other than under the provisions of sections 8 and 9 of the Public Service Employment Act, by the government under conditions or remuneration equitable 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?


James Alexander Jerome: See return to question No.
October 26, 1970

317 deposited with the Clerk of the House of Commons on February 25, 1970.


NATIONAL DEFENCE RESERVE, BROKEN GROUP ISLANDS, BARKLEY SOUND
Mr. Barnett: 1.	Were Effingham and other Islands in the Broken Group in Barkley Sound, Vancouver Island, ever held by the government through the Department of National Defence, either by transfer of title, or through an agreement with the Government of British Columbia held in a National Defence reserve and thus removed from alienation from the Crown and, if so, when did the government assume such control of these lands?
2.	Were these lands subsequently released to the Province and. if so, on what date?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. Yes, according to Federal Order-in-Council P.C. 6777, August 26, 1943, these islands were reserved by the Province of British Columbia for use by the Dominion of Canada by Provincial Order-in-Council 874, June 21, 1943.
2. Yes, as the islands were no longer needed for defence purposes, the reservation was cancelled by the Province of British Columbia in 1967.


BEAUCE CONSTITUENCY-FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. Rodrigue: For each project in which the government has participated financially since 1965 in the constituency of Beauce (a) what was the nature of the project (b) what is the amount of money invested by the government in each of these projects (c) what was the amount of money invested by the provincial government in each of these projects (d) were any other contributions made and, if so, what was the amount of money involved and by whom were they made?


James Alexander Jerome: It is not feasible to provide aggregate information on expenditure disbursements or revenue collections for constituencies, counties or other comparable units. Government estimates are not prepared on this basis nor are records of expenditures kept in this way.
Information concerning expenditures could be supplied about specific projects or programs which are identified in a question. These, of course, would in some cases relate to a particular constituency or locality.


PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION-SELECTION STANDARDS
Mr. Osier: Has Treasury Board any plans to call for consultation with the Public Service Commission concerning (a) selection standards (b) the apparent lapses from government policy admitted by the Chairman?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: (a) Yes. Treasury Board consults with the Commission on selection standards on a regular basis, (b) No.
Inquiries of the Ministry


PERSONNEL OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TAXATION
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	Who are the persons recently appointed to the Advisory Committee on Taxation for the Department of National Revenue, and in each case, what is their present occupation?
2.	What remuneration do the above persons receive from the Department of National Revenue?
3.	What criteria were used in the selection of these persons?
4.	Does any earn less than $8,000 a year?
5.	What percentage of Canadian taxpayers, according to the most recently available statistics, earn less than $8,000 a year?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minisier of National Revenue):: 1.
The members of the Taxation Advisory Committee and their occupations are set out below: Raymond G. Decary, Lawyer; Sydney E. Ewens, Tax Manager; Edwin C. Harris, Professor; W. R. Latimer, Lawyer; Charles McLaughlin, Tax Manager; Charles Pelletier, Accountant; C. Albert Poissant, Accountant; Donald C. Selman, Accountant; Alan Sweatman, Lawyer; David Y. Timbrell, Accountant.
2.	The members of the Committee are serving without remuneration.
3.	The criteria used were a wide knowledge of taxation systems in general and a thorough knowledge of the Canadian system in particular by persons who would be representative of the various regions of the country and of its two official language groups.
4.	The provisions of Section 133 of the Income Tax Act prohibit the communication of such information.
5.	The most recently available statistics, which are in respect of the 1968 taxation year, show that 82 per cent of Canadian individual taxpayers earned less than $8,000 a year.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. He has indicated that he made suggestions to the province of Quebec with regard to a review of actions being taken under the War Measures Act. Can the minister tell the House whether he has received any assurance from the Minister of Justice of Quebec or from the government of Quebec that some authority is being established by that province for the review of arrests and detentions under the War Measures Act?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything to what I have said already except that I know from a personal conversation with the

October 26, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Quebec that he is actively considering that proposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since the government of Canada invoked the War Measures Act and suspended, to the extent that it has, the due process of law and since no assurance has yet been given by the province of Quebec, is the government of Canada itself prepared to establish an independent authority for the purpose of reviewing all arrests and detentions made under the Act in any part of the country?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, within the terms of those regulations the administration of law enforcement under those regulations is the same as the administration of the criminal law under the Criminal Code and is properly, in this case, left to the Attorney General of Quebec.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I notice the care with which the minister answered my question. I ask him now whether his position is that the Governor General in Council does not have jurisdiction under the War Measures Act to establish such an authority for the review of actions taken under that Act or, rather, that it is not expedient to exercise that jurisdiction?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Certainly, in so far as the first part of the supplementary question is concerned, the Leader of the Opposition is inviting the Minister of Justice to express an opinion as to the legal position. I appreciate that this is a serious situation and a serious matter. Perhaps in view of the importance of the matter the minister might like to reply to both aspects of the question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I was not asking the minister to express a legal opinion. I was asking him to tell the House what the position of the government is.


Mr. Speaker:: In any event, I suggest that the minister might reply to the question.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the position of the government is that the matter is properly within the jurisdiction of the Attorney General of Quebec. We have expressed our concern that the regulations be administered in a way appropriate to meet the very serious situation in Quebec while at the same time paying due regard to the civil rights of the people concerned.



SUBSTITUTE LEGISLATION FOR WAR MEASURES ACT REGULATIONS

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Can the Minister of Justice tell the House how soon he expects to be able to introduce into the House the specific legislation to be substituted for the regulations under the War Measures Act?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it will be either at the end of this week or the beginning of next week.



WAR MEASURES ACT-SEARCHES BY ARMED FORCES- ALLEGED DESTRUCTION OF FURNITURE

Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question I would like to ask the Minister of Justice.
Has he received any complaints to the effect that during searching operations some members of the Armed Forces might have misused their powers and caused unnecessary damage to furniture in some homes?


John Napier Turner: Personally, I have received no complaints yet, Mr. Speaker.



WAR MEASURES ACT ARRESTS-SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE TO PREVENT ABUSES

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to broaden the scope of these questions in view of the answer the minister has given to the question by my leader. I therefore ask the Prime Minister whether he has had an opportunity in the last few days to consider what some of us feel is a helpful suggestion by the Archbishop of Montreal to establish a committee of persons of outstanding integrity who would hopefully be able to avoid-I make no charge here- abuses or negligence in those aspects of the War Measures Act dealing with arrests of Canadians?


Righi Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to whom the Archbishop was addressing himself.


An hon. Member:: You.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If he was addressing himself to the government of Quebec, I take it they will have heard his representations. I am as willing as the hon. member to broaden the scope of this, as he says, but on this point I support the Minister of Justice entirely. The regulations adopted under the Act provide that the administration of justice under that Act will be the proper affair of the provincial Attorney General. This was not because the government did not think it could not do it, but because the federal government did not think it should be involved, but because we have confidence in the government of Quebec and we believe they can handle the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fairweather:: Leaving aside whether we have confidence in the government of Quebec, I wonder whether the Prime Minister has had an opportunity to discuss this proposal which I suspect was directed to him and other people in Quebec? If he has not had an opportunity, will he discuss what is surely a useful idea with Quebec officials?
(Mr. Turner.)
October 26, 1970


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the hon. member in the opening part of his question underlined very well the difference between his party and ours. They want to leave aside the government of Quebec; we do not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



INFORMATION LEADING TO INVOKING OF WAR MEASURES ACT

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: In view of the Prime Minister's statement last Friday that Parliament and the country already have the information on the basis of which the War Measures Act was invoked, will the Prime Minister inform the House whether the government had the intelligence referred to in these words by the Minister of Justice on Friday, October 16, as recorded at page 215 of Hansard:
It is my hope that some day the full details of the intelligence upon which the government acted can be made public, because until that day comes the people of Canada will not be able full to appraise the course of action which has been taken by the government.
Did the government have such intelligence on which the invocation of the War Measures Act was based? If the government did have such a report, did the Prime Minister's statement last Friday express his final decision not to make it public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, no, yes, no, Mr. Speaker. It was not a final decision. When I answered this question on Friday I added that it may be that we will have further facts to communicate to the House, but I impressed on the House then and I impress on the House now that the facts on which we did act are known to the people of Canada and indeed to this House. They are very clear facts. First, we had from the authorities of the province of Quebec and of the city of Montreal a clear statement that they apprehended insurrection. Second, there had been the abduction of two very important citizens in the province of Quebec, with an intention to murder them if the government did not give in to ransom. The third fact was circumstantial, if you wish, that approximately two tons of dynamite had been stolen in the province of Quebec this year, as well as a sizeable number of small arms and other ammunition. Also, there was a state of confusion and threats of violence in the province of Quebec. We decided to act on these facts as we interpreted them, and on this the government will stand or fall.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Justice was speaking for the government when he said to the House:
-until that day comes the people of Canada will not be able fully to appraise the course of action which has been taken by the government.
What the Minister of Justice informed this House and the people of Canada is obviously contradicted by the Prime Minister. Was he speaking for the government-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that he is now asking his question in the form of an argument. At this point it is no longer an acceptable question.


David Lewis: I simply ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Justice was speaking for the government when he made the statement I just read.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member might read my own statement and draw his own conclusion.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Does he intend to introduce a resolution providing for the placing of the CBC under trusteeship in order to clean up as it should be this haven for rebels who are well-fed at public expense?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, and I do not see that the hon. member has himself asked to introduce a bill to this effect.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Solicitor General supplementary to that asked by my hon. friend from York South. On Friday I asked the Solicitor General whether the contentions of Mayor Drapeau concerning the FRAP organization in Montreal were communicated to the federal government or to the RCMP, and, if so, whether they were accompanied by supporting information and evidence. The Solicitor General indicated he would try to provide whatever information he could today. I wonder whether he is in a position to do so now?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. On Friday the Solicitor General made it perfectly clear that he had no intention of entering the Montreal municipal election.


David Lewis: It took place yesterday.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member for York South seems to be very knowledgeable on that subject. In any event, after making this clear I said I would look at the hon. member's question and if I saw anything in it which could be answered I would do so. I found nothing which required an answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

October 26, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



WAR MEASURES ACT-REPRESENTATIONS BY OSGOODE LAW SCHOOL FACULTY MEMBERS ON PROTECTION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES

Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whitby):: On a more serious note, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. May I ask whether the right hon. gentleman has received a telegram from 20 faculty members of the Osgoode Law School, York University, Toronto, requesting him to take action to protect the civil liberties of people arrested under the War Measures Act and specifically requesting that no one should be prosecuted for past acts which were not criminal prior to the proclamation of the War Measures Act?


An hon. Member:: You represent the one per cent.


John Edward Broadbent: May we have order, Mr. Speaker? If the Prime Minister has received such a telegram, has he replied to these distinguished professors of law giving them the assurance for which they asked?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not
have any knowledge of having received such a telegram from my distinguished confreres. I will look into the matter and see whether I can find some appropriate platform for arguing it out with them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Yukon for a supplementary and then pass on to another subject.
sfc *	*



AIRPORTS


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: In the absence of the Minister of Transport I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether, in view of the recent theft of $120,000 from Montreal airport despite the high degree of security already in existence, it is the intention of the government to increase the security measures in force at this airport?


George James McIlraith: I would be glad to take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Was the federal government or the minister consulted by the government of British Columbia before that government passed an Order in Council placing teachers and university professors in that province in double jeopardy?


John Napier Turner: I was not
consulted, Mr. Speaker.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Would the minister inform the House under what law or authority the British Columbia government passed the Order in Council, and would the government consider using its powers under the War Measures Act to annul this undemocratic order?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Vancouver-
Kingsway will recognize, I am sure, that she is asking the minister to express a legal opinion.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I repeat the second half of my question. Would the government consider using its powers under the War Measures Act to annul this undemocratic order which places teachers in British Columbia in double jeopardy?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to abuse the War Measures Act beyond its purpose.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a supplementary question to the hon.
Minister of Justice.
Would the province of Quebec have the right under the Constitution to adopt a legislation similar to the one passed by British Columbia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is once more inviting the minister to express a legal opinion.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Prime Minister. Is the government planning in the near future to introduce new measures to stimulate the economy and reduce the unemployment, poverty and misery on which terrorism feeds as an important first step in a long-range plan to remove this menace from our country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member is at least catching up with the importance of this and is calling it a first step. Of course we took this first step a long while ago.


George Harris Hees: Does not the Prime Minister consider that the seriousness of this situation and the seriousness of the question I asked merit a more positive and constructive answer, rather than just the meaningless parroting of the same answer-

October 26. 1970


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -that he has been giving us for the past three years while the economic situation has got steadily worse?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I
wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has announced that it is presenting over its network on Tuesday, October 27, a documentary for revolution entitled "The Legacy of Lenin". In view of the fact that the government believes that the situation in Canada is serious enough to implement the War Measures Act, has the Secretary of State seen the film and, if so, does he believe that to show it would be appropriate at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. While the hon. member might ask the question in a different way, in its present form he is asking two questions, first, whether the Secretary of State has seen the picture, which I do not think is a question that can be put at this time and, second, whether the minister believes the film should be shown, again a question asking for an expression of opinion. The hon. member should ask his question in a different way.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Then, Mr. Speaker, I will put it more directly. Since we as Canadians are experiencing the agony of a wave of revolution against our democratic government, will the Secretary of State consider the cancelling of the program "The Legacy of Lenin" to be projected by the CBC tomorrow evening?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to convey these remarks to the CBC authorities with the request that they be taken into consideration.



SUSPENSION OF PROGRAMS CONCERNING PREMEDITATED POLITICAL CRIMES

Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Does he intend to follow the example of the CTV television network and instruct the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to discontinue any program more or less connected with a premeditated political crime?


Gérard Pelletier: I do not
understand, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is asking whether we intend-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Léonel Beaudoin: -to follow the same policy as CTV and instruct the CBC to discontinue any program more or less related with a premeditated political crime?


Gérard Pelletier: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would be very surprised if the policy outlined by the hon. member had been adopted by any network, particularly in the area of information. In fact, radio and television networks are information media and I would be surprised that they could eliminate a part of the information in which they are duty bound to be interested.
As for comments, I would be very happy to consider the policy mentioned by the hon. member. I must say I have not yet seen it implemented. But I would like to find out whether it would be best for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to follow it, in which case I would surely recommend it.



INTERVIEWING ABROAD OF PEOPLE BARRED FROM CANADA

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State. Will he seek an assurance from the CBC that they will desist from sending teams abroad to interview people who are persona non grata as far as their being legally allowed into Canada is concerned, as the CBC has done in the past? I ask this question in light of the fact that some of their favourite commentators, such as Timothy Leary and others, are now fugitives from justice.


Gérard Pelletier: I don't know just what case the hon. member is referring to, Mr. Speaker. His question is very general and I could not give it a reply, particularly as his definition of persona non grata seems a little vague to warrant a specific reply.


John Angus MacLean: I have a supplementary question. If persons are not allowed to come into Canada because of criminal records or other reasons and therefore are not acceptable as temporary visitors to Canada, will the minister seek the assurance that the CBC will not send teams abroad to interview these same people so that what they have to say can be broadcast over the national network without their being in the country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérard Pelletier: I shall gladly pass that suggestion on to the CBC, Mr. Speaker. However, an interview which was recently filmed abroad clearly revealed the intentions of some subversive characters and could make the opposition aware of dangers which, so far, they seemed to deny.



&quot;0 COMMONS DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
October 26, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Barry Malher (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General. Are they aware of reports from Vancouver today to the effect that the city council there is to consider a motion which would ban all "subversive gatherings" under the powers that they consider to be contained in the war measures legislation and, if so, do they think that such action would be in conformity with Parliament's intention?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might want to reply to the question. I have some doubts whether it is in order but the minister may want to answer in any event.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the particular resolution before the Vancouver city council. I have been in touch with the Attorney General of the province of British Columbia and my officials have been in touch with his office underlining the purpose of the implementation of the War Measures Act, which is to meet a present emergency arising out of the particular subversive activities of the FLQ, and suggesting that any extension of the use of the War Measures Act beyond that purpose might very well be harmful.
% * *



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the implementation of the War Measures Act I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether there has been any tightening up of immigration laws in reference to those people coming into Canada who appear to have the same aims and objectives as the FLQ, even though they may not have membership cards?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the hon. gentleman is asking the question as a lawyer. There has been no tightening up in the sense that there has been no further extension of the powers applied under the War Measures Act by the adoption of any Order in Council further to those published on the first day in this House. There was nothing in them, to my recollection, that referred to immigration; therefore there has been no tightening up in the sense the hon. member asks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Perhaps I might ask a supplementary question. I take it then that the law applies to Canadians and anyone who wishes to come in and do the same thing as the FLQ is still permitted to come in under the immigration laws?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the supplementary question as asked is an argument in support of the question asked in the first instance.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, it was not meant as an argument. I am seeking information on this important matter.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question has reference to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and I tried to get in a supplementary earlier. Last evening the CBC included on its television show, "Weekend", an old panel discussion of doubtful taste and merit on the invocation of the War Measures Act. I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he has requested or will request the corporation for figures that would justify its claim on the air that they did this only in response to substantial viewer pressure, giving the impression that all sorts of people were dying to hear this week-old homily?



WEIGHTS AND MEASURES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will he clear up the confusion that exists in the minds of the business community and the country arising out of the government timetable in regard to the metric system and the confusion that has been created by the introduction of a bill in the other place?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-5 in the other place, the new Weights and Measures Act, is designed, among other things, simply to provide that the yard and other units of Canadian measurement will be measured against the international meter rather than against previous standards which at one time included the right arm of King Henry I. This is simply to improve the standard of measuring and measuring devices in Canada.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the strong representations made by the Canadian UNICEF committee, is the government giving favourable consideration to increasing Canada's grant to the United Nations Children's Fund to $2,400,000?

October 26, 1970


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have received representations from UNICEF and I have promised them consideration. I do not want to compromise the position of the treasury by saying "favourable consideration," but certainly this request is receiving consideration.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could the minister tell the House if the Government of London has made representations or brought pressure to bear concerning the eventual release of British diplomat James Cross?

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, we have received many messages from the British government with regard to Mr. Cross. I have exchanged messages, of course, with my counterpart, the British Foreign Secretary, and in all of them the British government have expressed their appreciation for the great efforts being made on behalf of Mr. Cross.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the British government offered the services of Scotland Yard and has the government of Canada accepted?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any such offers.



KIDNAPPING OF JAMES CROSS-OFFERING OF REWARD

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. As it is now three weeks since Mr. Cross was kidnapped, is there any reassurance the minister can give the House today? In particular, as he has had the weekend to think and reflect further upon the wisdom of offering a reward, is there anything more the Solicitor General can say in that regard?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour as the doughty champion of women's rights. Will he cause to be examined and remedied the recent ruling of the
Inquiries of the Ministry
Unemployment Insurance Commission in Ontario which penalized nursing mothers?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman's question is irrelevant. In the interval not only has an apology been extended to the lady in question but her full rights under the Unemployment Insurance Act have been extended to her.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister about Quebec but not about the War Measures Act. In view of the information contained in the report of the Economic Council of Canada issued last month that out of 77,000 new jobs created in Canada this year only 3,000 were in Quebec and in view of the fact that about 40 per cent of the unemployed in Canada are in Quebec, can the Prime Minister inform the House whether the government is planning some special programs to deal with this serious situation in that province? I hope it is and we would be glad to hear a statement on that matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The statement, if this is what the hon. member is asking for, should not be made now but on motions.


David Lewis: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I should have asked whether we might have the assurance that there will be a statement on this matter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there will, either in the form of statements in the House, answers to questions or announcements in the House, from time to time be announcements of measures which have been and will be taken in order to meet this unemployment situation. I remind the hon. member that not too many weeks ago, out of I believe an amount of $100 million which was set aside for the problem of public housing in Canada, a very sizeable percentage of that amount, I think nearly 50 per cent, went to the province of Quebec because we have this kind of problem in mind. I am glad to see we have the support of the House in this regard.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members would be interested to know whether there is a committee of cabinet, a task force, or some other body studying the particular problem of jobs in Quebec with a view to developing a program to meet the situation at least in part.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. As the only economic statement made in the House since the beginning of the session was that made by the Minister of Finance some days ago, has the government nothing
552

October 26, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
more to offer the House by way of hope that a worthwhile program will be introduced?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Simcoe North.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice, one that I have been asked about a great many tunes. Has the green car that was used in the kidnapping of Mr. Laporte been identified and the owner of the licence number established? Is this information in the hands of the provincial and federal governments, or was the licence number changed on the green car in which the body of Mr. Laporte was unfortunately found?


John Napier Turner: I will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
* *



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that there are several questions concerning the affair involving Keith Stead of the Museums Branch that are still unanswered, would the minister give the House the answer in three areas? Would he say whether Miss Monique Plamondon has returned from her extended tour of Europe, why it was necessary for Miss Plamondon to be in Europe for the past three months while the Stead case was being discussed and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This obviously is a question which should be placed on the order paper.



RAPESEED-RECEIPT OF TRUCKLOAD DELIVERIES BY SASKATOON TERMINAL

["Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker."]
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I should like to direct my question to his Parliamentary Secretary. In view of the recent press release by the minister in connection with the handling of rapeseed at inland terminals, can the minister inform the House if the inland terminal at Saskatoon has been instructed to receive rapeseed on a truckload basis and, if so, when will this facility be in operation?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the hon. member's question as notice and advise him later.



Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As a result of the press release regarding the appointment of a Board of Governors of the International Development Research Centre and in view of the fact that the House on February 20 of this year passed the bill concerning the International Development Research Centre in which it recommended that one of the governors be a Member of Parliament, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs advise the House why he decided not to appoint a Member of Parliament and if in the future he intends to appoint one to that board?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure there is urgency in the question. If there is, the hon. member could well give notice to the Chair for the purpose of having it discussed at the time of adjournment.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is his department, through the Prices and Incomes Commission, carrying out an investigation into "exorbitant fish prices" and can he indicate the basis for the investigation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure whether the commission is investigating the subject the hon. member mentioned. I will make an inquiry and check. In the meantime, if the hon. member wishes to give me information concerning the specific prices with which he is concerned I will be happy to pass it on to the commission.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, in the event that the minister does discover a reservoir of excessive profits, would he recycle them to the pockets of the fishermen who have in no way contributed to inflationary prices in the fisheries?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation and can assume it will be taken into consideration.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
[Mr. Hees.l
October 26, 1970

Development in respect of which, hopefully, he may be able to help us. Would the minister look into the allegation that about a week or so ago the Banff Springs Hotel refused entry into the hotel to a group of people from the Morley Indian Reserve who had been invited to participate in meetings of the Alberta Architects Association at the hotel, and that the Banff Springs Hotel, after refusing entry, subsequently rescinded their refusal on the threat of the Alberta Architects Association that they would walk out of the hotel.


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take that question as notice.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr.   Doug. Rowland@Selkirk: Mr. Speaker, this question is addressed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In light of the effect upon a number of Canadian communities of Canadian base closures I should like to ask the minister whether his department has made a study of the regional economic implications of base closures? If so, does he intend to make that report available to the House and to the public in general?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of making a public report. Nevertheless, this question is under consideration since the cabinet decided to close the two bases and, by the way, I shall be going to Manitoba very soon to review with the Manitoba government the best means of correcting the unfortunate consequences of these two base closures.

tEnglish]



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Oniario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. Last week the leader of the New Democratic Party expressed his views on a television interview program regarding the inplications of the War Measures Act. I gather he was chosen for this task because no federal minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask a question rather than make a speech.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I shall put the question very simply, Mr. Speaker. Is it government policy to refrain from allowing cabinet ministers to make public statements to the press or on television regarding the implementation of the
Inquiries of the Ministry
regulations because otherwise we leave the public as ill-informed as the leader of the New Democratic Party?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I had the impression that the hon. member wanted to make a speech.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Si. George's-Si. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. Can he tell us when the legislation relating to income security and veterans pensions will be coming before the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Now that the election in Montreal is over, in light of the difficulties that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has encountered and before the minister goes to Manitoba and before he makes any further statements, would the Prime Minister see that he applies for English instruction under the civil service's new B and B facilities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.



NATIONAL SECURITY


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice and I am hoping to receive a less flippant and more direct answer. Would he assure the House that no one will be prosecuted for past acts that were not criminal prior to the proclamation of the War Measures Act?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add further to what I have said, that prosecutions under the War Measures Act regulations lie within the jurisdiction of the Attorney General of the province of Quebec, and undoubtedly the Attorney General will want to interpret those regulations as they read.

October 26, 1970
Canada Shipping Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council moved:
That the papers entitled "Foreign Policy for Canadians", laid before the House June 25, 1970, be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
Motion agreed to.
[DOT]f*	^


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, October 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jamieson that Bill C-2, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, be read the second time and referred to the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution.
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on Bill C-2, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act. The bill deals primarily with one of the most pressing problems in our society today, namely, the pollution of our environment. Quite frankly the first question that comes to my mind is, why didn't the government put this bill under the authority of the new ministry of environmental affairs which is to be under the control of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis)? When raising this point, I do not question the ability of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) to deal with the problems arising from the pollution of our waters by oil tankers or merchant shipping, for I give him full marks for the efforts he and his department made in cleaning up the Arrow oil spill in Chedabucto Bay.
I regret it is not possible for the Minister of Transport to be here today but I believe he is well aware that the pollution of our water, air and soil, by oil and other hazardous substances is of direct interest not only to his department but also to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Public Works.
It was my understanding from the words in the Throne Speech dealing with pollution control, coupled with the explanation given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), that something definite would be done in this session to solve our pollution problems, and that the authority to do this would be vested in the Minister of Fisheries. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in all frankness what other interpretation can we, as members of this House, place upon the
words of our Prime Minister when he said on October 9, as reported at page 35 of Hansard:
A bill relating to the organization of the government wiU also be introduced shortly, proposing the establishment of a department concerned with renewable resources and environmental affairs which would have as its core the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, whose functions will be expanded to bring under the direction of a single minister the principal governmental activities relating to environmental quality in general, and pollution in particular.
By transferring to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry elements of the meteorological branch of the Department of Transport and the general responsibilities related to air pollution of the Department of National Health and Welfare, the principal governmental activities relating to the fight against atmospheric pollution will be brought together within one department.
The transfer of the bulk of the water sector of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the transfer of the responsibility for the Canada Water Act from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, (Mr. Greene) to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry will combine under the direction of one minister and his department general responsibility for the development of our water resources and the more particular responsibility of the protection of the water habitat of our marine life.
Finally, the transfer of the Canadian Wildlife Service from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry will bring together in one department responsibility for our renewable resources including, notably, the related research activities required for the effective discharge of these responsibilities.
These, Mr. Speaker, are the words of our Prime Minister, and yet the second bill brought into this House in this session is entirely contradictory to the outline he gave us of the government's plans for pollution control in Canada. Naturally, we cannot help but wonder why the Prime Minister has changed his mind. His original proposal made some sense to us, as the Minister of Fisheries has far-reaching authority under the Fisheries Act which, if implemented, would go a long way towards cleaning up the poisons presently destroying our oceans, our rivers and our lakes. However, in retrospect it is better to have this bill amending the Canada Shipping Act under the Minister of Transport than no act at all, since our pollution problems have reached gigantic proportions in Canada. We, therefore, support the bill in principle.
At present we have no way of knowing the amount of pollutants that cloud our air, foul our water, and destroy our soil, since science has not yet devised uniform and accurate standards for carrying out this type of measurement. In like vein, we have no way of knowing the cost of cleaning up our pollution problems. Everyone knows it is going to be expensive, but how do you measure the cost when a polluted stream loses its fish, or a breeding ground can no longer support its water fowl?
Canada is blessed with one quarter of the world's known fresh water volume, with 117,000 miles of ocean shoreline, and with one of the world's best concentrations of game, birds and fish. We are now belatedly aware that all are threatened by the creeping inroads of pollution, and while our problem is immense we are still not suffering as much as the people residing in the United States. It now appears that water pollution has probably killed more people than all the wars in history. Millions die

October 26, 1970

every year from water borne diseases. Each year in Canada water pollution costs us more than all the fires, floods, accidents and other disasters that occur across the country.
The bill before us describes a pollutant as any substance which, if added to any waters, would degrade or alter or form part of a process of degradation or alteration of the quality of those waters to an extent that is detrimental to their use by man or by any animal, fish or plant that is useful to man. All these words seem unnecessary to me for, in my opinion, a general description of a pollutant would be the addition of any foreign matter to the natural environment to a degree unsupportable by nature.
What do we mean by our natural environment? It is generally accepted that there are three distinct areas, soil, water and air. Soil pollutants are any substances added to the soil which impair the yield or quality of farm produce, affect the health of animals or humans, or which may contribute to subsequent air or water pollution. Water pollution is understood to include any substances which render the water unfit for the purpose for which it is intended.
Obviously pollution of the air started away back in the fourteenth century when coal first became a source of heat. It became intensified during the industrial revolution, and has worsened ever since. There is some degree of natural pollution, but most pollution is of man's own making. Our affluent society produces more waste per person than ever before, and unfortunately the situation is getting worse. In fact, this bill was brought into being because of polluted rivers and lakes and pollution in our ocean which menaces our health. Fish are dying in streams and bays; scum and algae and oil drive those who go on holiday from our beaches, while tourist resorts fail, property values fall and taxes rise with the cost of water treatment. It is now a realized fact that if water pollution is allowed to continue unheeded, the necessity for the purification of water before it is fit to be used will impose an intolerable burden on all sections of our society. No province in Canada is free from pollution problems. My colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), when speaking on this measure, referred to the problems faced by the fishermen in Placentia Bay when the bay was closed to fishing and a phosphorous plant closed for a month because toxic waste from the company caused widespread water pollution.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
In my native province of Nova Scotia, water pollution is also one of our major problems. There are no treatment plants, for example, for the raw sewage dumped into the ocean in the Halifax-Dartmouth area with its 250,000 population. The same can be said of many of our small cities and towns situated up and down the coast. This situation exists as a result of the fantastic cost of pollution control measures.
Just what does this bill propose to do to improve the situation? Primarily, through amendments to the Canada
Canada Shipping Act
Shipping Act, it hopes to correct through regulations the massive pollution of our environment by tankers and other ships. These amendments are aimed at establishing a maritime pollution claims fund under an administrator who will have very broad powers. In fact, as I read the duties of the administrator as listed on page 18 of the bill, section 750, he will be empowered to act as judge, defendant and claimant, depending on the stage of the claim. The man who holds this position will be required to have the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job, attributes which are hard to find among Liberal party supporters these days. Fifteen cents a ton is to be paid on each ton of oil shipped in and out of Canada by the shipping companies. I cannot help but wonder if this charge will increase the price of oil and gas in Atlantic Canada, an area which is presently suffering from economic disparity. Obviously, there is need for a fund. Why should the charge be placed on those in Atlantic Canada who are the least capable of paying additional taxes?
When reading the sections of the Canada Shipping Act that are being repealed, namely part VIIA, I cannot help but question the government's obvious inability to enforce this section of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil as set out in the convention schedule approved in 1954. I realize that the fines for polluting Canadian waters with oil were not heavy enough to pose a threat to ship owners or even to act as a deterrent, but I cannot help but question the number of times this act was enforced. In my opinion, legislation that is not enforced or is not enforceable is bad legislation.
In the bill, we read that the new regulations will apply to any fishing zones in Canada prescribed pursuant to the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act. I question the value of using fishing zones as control areas when they are in some cases inoperative. As the House is well aware, we have a Territorial Seas and Fishing Zones Act which was passed unilaterally with great fanfare in 1964. If the terms of that legislation had been implemented and had been enforced that year or even in 1965, our fishermen on the east and west coasts would not today be facing a serious decline in their fishery resource due to over fishing by other countries, as was so well depicted last evening on television.
However, the legislation was not enforced in 1964, nor was it enforced in 1965, in 1966, in 1967, in 1968, in 1969 or in 1970, and as a result of this government's vacillating and procrastinating attitude on this important matter we see our supplies of haddock today almost extinct, while stocks of redfish, flounder and cod have declined to dangerous levels.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I also say, "Shame" along with my colleagues on this side.
This pollution control bill applies to any fishing zones of Canada. I would like the minister to describe those fishing zones. In fact, since the minister is not here, I would like any minister to describe those fishing zones.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) has given a fair indication, I think, that we do not arrive at perfection overnight in matters respecting pollution. I recall that when the House dealt with the bill in 1956 which was to ratify the International Oil Pollution Convention of 1954, some of us who were in the House at the time felt this was quite a step forward in the control of the pollution of the high seas. Experience has taught us that that was a long way from being an adequate measure. Even though the convention was amended in 1962, we
October 26, 1970

still find, according to the available evidence before us, that the pollution problems on the high seas are increasing rather than decreasing.
We recognize, Mr. Speaker, in this party, as does the hon. member for South Shore, that this particular bill we are considering is not designed to cope with the over-all problem of the increasing pollution of the oceans of the world. It is the view of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), according to the statement he made when introducing the bill, that the bill will do something towards protecting the immediate coastal waters of Canada from pollution by oil and other pollutants carried by large cargo vessels. It is our intention, in considering this bill at the second reading stage as well as in committee, to see how far the measure before us will fulfil the hopes of the Minister of Transport.
In his opening remarks, the minister referred to the days when he was a professional broadcaster and to the instant experts that appeared on every side. He drew some parallel between that and the many people who are now instant experts on pollution. I do not know whether I am an expert, instant or otherwise, on pollution. Being able to recall a little encounter of mine with the minister when he was a professional broadcaster, I can tell the House that since that day I have always considered the minister to be an expert in professional broadcasting.
In his speech, the minister devoted a good deal of time to the question of the creation of a task force, under his authority, after the incident of the Arrow in Chedabucto Bay. I have had an opportunity of looking through volume 1 of the report of that task force. While I realize that it does not give us all the answers for coping with problems of pollution at sea, I can say that a review of the report indicates to me that if the minister were not involved in creating instant experts in the field of pollution, at least he had some success in that venture in creating what I would call a bit of instant expertise. To this extent, I found the reading of the report very encouraging. Perhaps one can venture to say that it may have some bearing on the success, in future, of the proposals in this bill, if they are included in the law of our land.
The report is forthright, couched in language that is characteristic of the head of the task force, Dr. Patrick McTaggart-Cowan. As it happens, he crossed my trail some time before I met the Minister of Transport at the time he was a broadcaster. I knew him when we were fellow undergraduates at the University of British Columbia, which is some little time ago now. Having read the report, I found that he put forward his point of view as vigorously as he did in the past when we argued about the major issues of the world as undergraduates. I ought to point out, perhaps, particularly for those from British Columbia who are following these proceedings, that we ought not to confuse Patrick McTaggart-Cowan with his equally distinguished brother, Ian, who has achieved a reputation in another scientific field and who is well known and respected in British Columbia and beyond.
Having read the report of the task force, Mr. Speaker, it came to my mind that there was a considerable con-
Canada Shipping Act
trast between the situation, so far as the responsibility and the ability of the Minister of Transport to cope with the emergency that occurred when the Arrow was wrecked, and the situation that had prevailed in the period before 1969, before we adopted the bill which added section 495-C to the Canada Shipping Act.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) referred to this bill in his speech. I think it is important to note that prior to the passage of that particular piece of legislation, the minister really had no power to act under the law unless and until a vessel was formally abandoned by its owner. That that bit of legislation was enacted in Parliament before the Arrow disaster was fortuitous, to say the least. If the situation at the time of the Arrow disaster had been that which prevailed at the time the motor vessel Schiedyk grounded on the west coast, off Vancouver Island, when we lacked effective anti-pollution measures and no one had any real authority in this field, the disaster on the east coast could well have been of major proportions instead of being contained and controlled to the extent it was. While it is true that the Schiedyk was not an oil tanker but a cargo vessel carrying pulp, it is nevertheless true to say that serious damage resulted from the leakage of oil from the fuel tanks of that ship when she went down. For example, there was damage to an important herring spawning area at Nootka Sound. There was damage also, real and potential, to pulp logs that move back and forth in the adjacent waters. As far as I am concerned, it was certainly a warning for the minister of the need to take instant action. To this extent, the enactment of section 495(c) represented another step forward in our rather fumbling approach towards the objective of government having the proper authority to deal with the ever increasing danger of pollution of our coastal waters.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I was interested to find out by chance, as one sometimes does, that the Arrow almost docked at the port of Port Alberni in my constituency with its cargo of Bunker C rather than Chedabucto Bay. In any event, there was a substitute "crate" that went into Port Alberni which carried a crew so ill-trained they created a smallpox scare on the Pacific coast. It came into our coastline flying a quarantine flag. According to reports, it was another gerrybuilt cockleshell that should not have been carrying any kind of oil cargo.
We must now consider what improvements, if any, the present bill makes upon the legislative provisions of existing section 495(c) of the act. I suggest there are at least two areas of improvement which should be assessed and considered in depth in committee. One is the provision which is in this bill and which was removed from former Bill S-23, the liability on the polluter to pay. While there will be arguments as to whether this particular provision is adequate, nevertheless there is embodied in the bill direct liability upon the owners of the ship and its cargo, and through establishment of the Maritime pollution claims fund, a supplementary payments pool.
I hope experts from the government's services will be prepared to inform the committee regarding the cost of

October 26, 1970
Canada Shipping Act
the proposals in this bill in the total picture of our economy. We must recognize that directly or indirectly the consumer is going to have to pay the costs resulting from this legislation. We should have detailed estimates of the added cost of oil products in Canada as a result of the requirement for liability insurance, the tonnage tax on oil, the required standards of construction, and of equipment on the ships carrying pollutant cargos to our shores. The committee also should have information of the indirect impact of this legislation upon the Canadian oil producing industry.
If the efforts to control pollution are going to be effective, Canadians must understand what it is going to cost and why. They should be able to assess the cost of this measure in relation to its importance to our environment. If that understanding is not created and developed, we will continue in the future, as has so often been the case in the past, to find that the legislation with high sounding terms and laudible objectives will not receive more than lip service from governments and industry. The exercise in this Parliament will have been futile. The law will not provide any real protection no matter what its provisions.
One important provision in the bill with which I agree is the one setting up special standards for ships carrying pollutants, oil and other substances, through our waters, as well as the establishment of the new pollution inspection service. These seem to be steps in the right direction, but the committee must obviously question whether these new services can be established without too much duplication of existing government services, as well as the way in which they can be efficiently established in order to further the real purposes behind the proposed legislation. I am interested in, and generally approve of, these sections of the bill.
The committee must examine this bill for defects. An obvious defect, which has already been referred to by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, is that jurisdiction is limited to an area extending only 12 miles from our sea coasts. I imagine the Minister of Transport has also had the experience of travelling along some portions of our sea coasts in a small plane. In my experience, 12 miles off shore from a height of 2,000 feet in a small aircraft is nothing more than spitting distance.
The western edge of my constituency along the open Pacific has historically been known as the grave yard of the Pacific. History books refer to the countless wrecks along those shores. One of the areas included in the new west coast national marine park is the area along the historic life saving trail where there was a single wire telephone line. When shipwrecked mariners crawled ashore they walked along this trail until they reached a telephone which they used to inform someone of their plight. In the days of sail and small steamers, wrecks were frequent. Even though the incidence of shipwrecks is not as great today, nevertheless we cannot discount the impact of wrecks of larger ships. The number of wrecks may be smaller, but the potential results of a single disaster are much greater.
I already referred to the sinking of the motor vessel Schiedyk shortly before the 1969 legislation came into
effect. Since that legislation came into effect there has been the Arrow incident on the Atlantic coast as well as the wreck of a tramp schooner off the northern shores of Nootka Island. If the latter had been a tanker, it would have created a disaster at least as serious as the Arrow and from the point of view of logistics, would have been infinitely more difficult to deal with.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
It is almost unbelievable that in this day and age, with all the electronic aids to navigation which exist, Loran stations, lighthouses, and all the rest which have been established along that coast, the master of a vessel driving for the shore of northwest America could find himself 250 miles or so off the Strait of Juan de Fuca and take his vessel in through shoals he could not possibly have navigated had he known they were there, until his vessel was finally deposited high and dry upon the rocks. Such vessels, flying the modern equivalent of the Jolly Roger, certainly have no place close to the shores of Canada whether they are tankers or whether they only endanger our sea life to the extent of the fuel they carry in their supply tanks.
It should be obvious that the proposed 12-mile limit, whether it involves a question in our own jurisdiction or of international law, is pitifully inadequate. No one should have any illusions on this score. When I flew over the Soviet trawlers a year ago this fall, watching them operate off the West Coast marine park area, I felt I could almost reach out and touch the sands of Long Beach, though at that point the vessels were some 20 miles offshore. I suggest that if it is to be of any real value, jurisdiction should be extended to the limit of what is referred to as the prohibited zone set out in annex A to the International Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, that is to say, a distance of 100 miles. The Convention makes reference to what is known, in the Pacific Ocean, as the Canadian western zone extending a distance of 100 miles from the nearest land along the west coast of Canada. On the Atlantic coast, as far as Canada is concerned, the zone would extend from latitude 42 degrees 05' north, longitude 64 degrees 37' west along the east coast at a distance of 100 miles from the nearest land. This is the minimum distance which should apply under this law.
I believe we could enforce jurisdiction of this kind, regardless of the position of international law, at least with respect to all ships sailing to or leaving Canadian ports; that is, we could ensure that all the required standards were maintained. I am referring, of course, to the proposed regulations governing ships carrying cargoes capable of causing serious pollution. No greater difficulty would attach to requiring that these vessels submit to inspection 100 miles off our shore, if they were bound for a Canadian port, than at the point of entry into what the bill presently refers to as Canadian waters. If the government is not prepared to make the kind of declaration in the present bill, as was made in the measure directed against Arctic water pollution, I suggest we might, at least, be able to shame other nations whose ships wish to sail close to our shores into operating

October 26, 1970

vessels of a kind which comply with safety standards. I may be wrong but I would think most of the traffic engaged in carrying oil close to Canadian shores would be originating from or proceeding to ports in the United States. If the wealthiest nation in the world cannot agree readily to ensure that all its shipping using waters less than 100 miles from our shores should comply with the standards proposed in this bill, then, surely, we should be able to shame them into doing so.
There is one other question which I believe the committee should consider, though it may not be so directly related to the terms of the bill we are discussing. I refer to the whole question of establishing what I would call a marine brigade for pollution protection and prevention, since the success of the legislation we are considering obviously depends to a great extent upon the effectiveness of such a course. Full weight should be given to the recommendation of the task force in this connection. The idea that provision should be made for fire protection and prevention at the municipal level has won longstanding acceptance; it should certainly be paralleled in the light of the evidence brought forward in the task force report. So far we have been lax in this respect.
The report makes special reference, as did the minister in his speech, to the part played by the armed forces of our country in the effort in connection with the Arrow, and, in addition, to the role of the armed forces in providing rescue teams ready for future emergencies. I noted particularly the reference in the report to the services performed by H.M.C.S. Cape Scott and H.M.C.S. Cape Breton. The task force recommended that these ships be maintained in a state of operational readiness to fulfil primary roles in the national contingency plan. This reference arises from the possibility that the Department of National Defence might withdraw these vessels from active service, having decided to pursue a different line of policy. This underlines a point which should be considered in committee. To what extent, in the long run, can we rely upon national defence forces when it is necessary to move rapidly to deal with pollution?
Any Minister of National Defence and his policy planners are, naturally, thinking primarily in terms of another kind of defence role. This shapes the direction in which they allocate their funds, train their troops and specifies the kind of equipment they acquire and operate. I put it to the Minister of Transport that we are entitled to detailed evidence showing the extent to which ships of the type I have named do, in fact, meet the requirements of situations with which the bill before us proposes to deal; we should be given the opportunity to assess, in committee, whether or not ships carrying suitable equipment should be available on a permanent stand-by basis for use by the coastguard service in emergencies. It is designed to provide rescue services, but at the present time the Canadian Coast Guard is not adequately equipped to perform the pollution prevention function. I remember once remarking to the hon. member who was minister of transport in the regime of the Conservative government that you could not build a coast guard simply by slapping a fresh coat of paint on a bunch of old vessels. The minister of that day assured me that that
Canada Shipping Act
was not all that was going to be done. While I am willing to concede that we have done a little more than simply repaint the old DOT fleet, we have not really done very much more.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In assessing this whole question of providing adequate protection against the disaster of oil pollution, I suggest that we have an opportunity to take a fresh look at what might be created in the way of an efficient, mobile, well organized and well equipped Canadian coast guard, one that would perform a number of roles in protecting the sea coasts of Canada for those people who use them and also protecting our natural life-the ecology, as we call it-of our sea coast areas.
These are some of the considerations that come to my mind on looking through the bill before the House, and I have outlined some of the subject matters that should be considered in depth by the committee. I think all of us so far have indicated that we are prepared to see the bill receive second reading and be sent to committee with our hopeful blessing. Some of us hope that when the bill emerges from the committee and returns to the House, it will in fact be a better bill than it is in its present form.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of extending unduly my remarks on Bill C-2 which, I think, is of some importance since it deals with problems of world interest, namely, the pollution of oceans or streams by waste discharged into them or by ships carrying oil especially.
As regards Canada, we have, I think, only two merchant ships left. All transoceanic cargo is conveyed by foreign ships which bring gazoline or oil to Canada and it is normal that the Canadian Parliament should take measures so as to stop water pollution.
Last year, explorations were conducted in the North in order to discover oil or natural gas fields and Indians and Eskimos are complaining that many rivers of that area are already polluted.
We heard recently that the water of James Bay and Hudson Bay, to important fresh water sources, are beginning to be polluted, and the government has done nothing to stop pollution there.
For instance, so far as James Bay is concerned, one puts the blame on shipowners, the pulp industry, Domtar and other companies, because they pour their waste products into rivers like the Bell River, the Harricanaw River whose waters are going to pollute further James Bay.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 is a very important one. It should not be used to protect industries, and to enable them to save millions of dollars at the risk of polluting Canadian waters.
Pollution exists not only in our region. The Ottawa river, a real jewel, which is even larger than any one in Europe, and which is extremely beautiful, is polluted. By

October 26, 1970
Canada Shipping Act
what? By E.B. Eddy and C.I.P., important companies which are dumping waste in it all day long.
I say that it is a crime to pollute a body of water such as the Ottawa river. We have no right to allow companies to do so. They should find a way of disposing their waste products other than throwing them in waters which should not only be protected but should even be drinkable. Only yesterday, our waterways were being discussed. At this moment there is practically but one area in the entire province of Quebec where one may find pure and clear water, and I am speaking of northwestern Quebec. Fishermen and hunters who travel to that area are more than happy to find out that they can breathe fresh air and that they can drink clean water. On the other hand, we have the Ottawa river polluted with mercury which kills our fish. Even commercial catches cannot be used for human consumption. This fish has become a hazard.
Mr. Speaker, had governments acted 25, 30 or 50 years ago, our rivers and lakes would have been protected. Nothing was done. I was reading recently about some people who crossed the Atlantic and reached Barbados on some sort of raft. All the way across, these people saw oil or tar floating on the waters. According to them, the Atlantic Ocean will soon be polluted.
Time has come for governments to wake up and require those responsible for pollution to be careful. Time has come for stringent regulations in order to stop them from polluting our waters.
The Great Lakes are completely polluted. By whom? By steel mills and coastal vessels dumping all their refuse into the water. Finally, everyone causes pollution.
In Hull some people throw their garbage into the Gatineau and Ottawa rivers, whether it be beer cans, oil cans or what have you. Even pieces of wood with rusty nails sticking out are cast into the water.
Individuals are partly responsible for the existing situation. It is a great temptation to put all the blame on companies. But we should blame ourselves also as we are equally responsible. Boaters sailing small pleasure craft on the Ottawa and Gatineau rivers are in the habit of tossing all their refuse overboard.
Today some people who would like to protect public health blame the companies. I also blame the companies, because they pollute water much more quickly than individuals. However, the citizens must also assume their share of responsibility. There are dumps but they certainly do not include the Rideau canal, the Ottawa or Gatineau rivers.
Some persons do not understand the matter at all. As soon as they see the floating waste of the E. B. Eddy, they immediately say that it is responsible for pollution. The E. B. Eddy, the CIP and the mills in Thurso and Hawkes-bury, are the main culprits but the people must also take some of the blame and assume their responsibilities in this regard.
As for transoceanic oil transport, Canadian inspectors should go abroad and supervise the loading of ships to
[Mr. Caouette.l
prevent them from polluting our waters. This could be a service not only to Canada but to all other countries that import from Canada. Unfortunately, that type of cargo is handled by foreign ships over which we have no control.
As a means of preventing pollution and promoting the Canadian economy, I would suggest the creation of a merchant marine with more ships than now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member even if it is only for a moment. I do not think the debate should really include the matter of a merchant marine. The hon. member will agree that if we launch now a discussion on the need of creating a Canadian merchant marine service, the debate will last a long time, and without knowing in detail the bill now before us, I do not think it covers the establishment of a merchant marine. Indeed, I feel the hon. member meant to refer to that aspect of the matter in passing. It should not be the subject of the debate.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your calling me to order since I want to limit myself to discussion of the bill before us. I only mentioned the merchant marine to point out that if we had more suitable Canadian ships to replace those that come to us from other countries and are not suitable, we would do away with pollution of Canadian waters.
However, Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid pollution we must take steps to control imported products and at the same time keep watch on what is happening here.
From the St. Lawrence river to the Great Lakes, pollution has become everywhere a serious problem.
Therefore, this bill must be immediately referred to a committee for serious consideration of proposals to be submitted to the House, in order to efficiently fight water pollution everywhere in Canada and to ensure public health.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might, at the outset, join with my colleagues and, indeed, everybody who has commented in this House in support of the very broad principles which are set out in these amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. I must, in the same breath, wonder out loud how in the world such lofty principles and objectives could have been so badly approached as they are in the bill now before us. I would hope, in a spirit of charity, that this is simply because there was an urgency to get this piece of legislation drafted to indicate to the world that we are concerned about what is happening in our waters. As I say, that is about the only charitable thing I can say.


Mr. Jamieson:: Thank you very much.


J. Michael Forrestall: I find it a little strange to be at once in absolute agreement and at once absolutely dismayed, because the minister has a reputation for bringing forward better legislation than he has this time. I doubt if
October 26, 1970

there is anybody in Canada who even begins to understand it.
I would have to indicate to the minister that the language o f the bill is, to say the least, somewhat confusing.


James Aloysius McGrath: Not worthy of a doctor of laws.


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, forgive me, Mr. Speaker. I had forgotten about that. Might I extend my congratulations to the doctor. I do not blame the minister for the drafting. As I was about to say, I hope the ambiguity of certain parts results from the fact that further legislation is anticipated in this general area.
At the very outset, I should like to direct myself to the question of what will happen to this legislation once we have given it approval in principle. The minister, during the debate on Friday, indicated he was not firm about the intention of government to refer this bill to the special committee on environmental pollution. He said his mind was open to the proposition that this bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Transportation. I should like to support that suggestion. Indeed, I think there is some urgency for referral to a standing committee as opposed to the present intention. I hope the minister, or somebody from that side, will indicate before this day is over that the government will seriously consider changing its present intention in this regard. I say that for a number of reasons, although I think there are three basic ones.
First of all, this bill involves a series of amendments to the Canada Shipping Act designed to approach the general question of pollution. I think there would be great danger in any attempt by a regulatory or administrative group within the government, other than the Department of Transport, to even begin to approach the consequences of Bill C-2.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The second reason I put forward to the minister in support of this suggestion is that, of course, it is a much larger committee and one which is much broader in its representation in terms of the regions and interests of the country. In the attempt by the government on behalf of all Canadians to bring about the type of situation in which desirable controls may be achieved for desirable ends, I believe this proposal merits some consideration.
The third argument I put forward in a brief manner is that I believe the committee on environmental pollution intends, or in any event hopes, to tackle the question of environmental pollution in a broad sense or, if you like, philosophical sense. I think the committee would like to direct its efforts to the broader question of what we are doing to our environment, whether we are going at speeds which are dangerous, whether we are moving too slowly in some directions and conversely in other directions.
Because of the committee's stated hope that there would not be referred to it specific matters of legislation for consideration, at least at the very outset of its delib-
Canada Shipping Act
erations, I hope the government will perhaps consider directing this bill to the Standing Committee on Transportation. These are but three or four reasons. I believe, however, there are many others of which the government is aware. In view of the comments of the minister on Friday night to the effect that he had no serious objection to this bill being referred to the Standing Committee on Transportation, I urge the House Leader to appeal to his colleagues to acquiesce to this request.
There are a number of areas of very broad concern related to this measure. Perhaps I might indicate to the minister some areas in which I know my colleagues will be concerned whenever the bill appears before the committee to which it is to be referred. I should like to touch briefly on some matters which are of particular concern to me. At the outset, before becoming involved in some of the details of the questions which concern me, I might reiterate because I think it is important, that there should be a very early clarification of the language of the amendment. Perhaps the minister might do this by issuing a more extensive press release or by using the media somehow or other to reassure people, for whom I have no particular brief, who are having a little difficulty in interpreting exactly what the government intends.
I now wish to put forward, not a reservation but rather a general thought I have. It has to do with some views I expressed in the House about the possibility of conflicts of interest arising when we give in one department jurisdiction to establish regulations and place upon that same department the responsibility for investigation. I think most hon. members are very much aware of my concern about conflicts of interest which not necessarily have arisen but which could arise under the existing structure of the Department of Transport. I think much the same principle has been ignored in the drafting of this bill. I would ask the minister to give some thought to this matter prior to the bill being considered by the committee in the hope that some amendment might be made which would give to the people outside of Canada affected by this bill the assurance that this would not be an added difficulty. In other words, sometimes it is as important that justice seem to be done as it is that justice be done. I believe the minister is aware of this, but I draw it to his attention.
I am also a little concerned about the limited jurisdiction. Other hon. members have spoken about this and I shall not dwell on it except to add the comment-and I believe the minister is aware of this-that it would be very seldom that a bulk carrier which was not destined for a Canadian port would come inside the gulf stream anywhere near our jurisdiction. I might briefly explain that. The pattern of the traffic route in the north Atlantic is such that it clearly demonstrates that shipping does not come within 60 or 70 miles of our coast unless indeed it is destined for a Canadian port. If there should be any thought in the minds of the drafters of this particular amendment that it would be difficult to be beyond the limits they have now suggested because this might interfere with the normal freedom of passage of ships to and from other countries, I would think they could remove it from their minds.

October 26, 1970
Canada Shipping Act
Perhaps one of the most important contributions I could make to this debate at this particular stage would be to urge the Minister of Transport to appeal to his colleagues very strongly-I know he is quite capable of that-to release the strings on the budget of the Department of National Defence so that it might get on with an orderly program to meet the policing requirements. I do not think this policing is something which should be done by the minister's department. I believe that in 1970 we have reached the point where we must separate the responsibilities of the Department of Transport. I shall not go into the reasons because I think they are very clear. I suggest that never before has it been more obvious that there is a need for a loosening of the budget of the Department of National Defence. It would seem to me that this is the only department of government competent to carry out the policing that is required, not only under this legislation but also under several other measures which presently are before us. The people in this department would seem to be the only people who have the legal status necessary to successfully police this and other measures.
It would be absolutely wrong for us to say to the world that these are the measures we intend to enforce to protect our coast line and then fail to do anything about it. There is no need for me to say anything about the tramp steamships of the world and the condition of those ships which carry bulk cargo around the world. Others have dealt forcefully with this, and I agree strongly with them. In the absence of a Canadian mercantile fleet, it is obvious that we do not have the courage or intention of saying that no pollutant may be carried in or out of Canada except in a Canadian bottom. However, we must be prepared to show the world shipping community that we intend to enforce the provisions of this bill.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
It will be difficult to enforce the provisions of the bill. It will be hazardous to send destroyers out alongside oil tankers or, for that matter, alongside fishing vessels. The Department of National Defence will not be able to undertake this job when operating with a frozen budget, and I have not heard any plans announced by the Department of Transport to expand its fleet of vessels by building patrol type boats. In any event, Mr. Speaker, this is not a coastguard responsibility. A para-military operation is required. The coastguard's duties should be the day-to-day maintenance of our waterways and aids to navigation.
Why is it only oil tankers that are to be taxed? Why not tax all ships carrying pollutants? What about the very forceful suggestion made by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) in connection with the regular movement of phosphorous in and out of Placentia Bay? When the bill refers to the movement of any bulk cargo that is a pollutant, does it refer only to cargoes leaving Canadian ports destined for overseas, or does it refer specifically to the movement of bulk pollutant cargo between Canadian ports? I hope the minister can deal forcefully with these questions.
[Mr. Forrestall.)
Many segments of the Dr. McTaggart-Cowan task force report are ignored by this bill. I hope the minister is prepared to explain in detail why this has happened.
In conclusion I hope the minister will bring about a change of heart on the part of the government, withdrawing reference of the bill to the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution and instead sending it to the Transport Committee where shipping people will have an opportunity to speak to a body that has some continuity in shipping matters, instead of a committee that has no expertise in shipping matters.
I also trust the minister will announce the government's intention to introduce legislation soon dealing with offshore drilling, particularly with reference to the east coast. Provision has been made with respect to drilling in the Arctic, but we are still very much in the dark with respect to regulations governing other offshore drilling for oil and other minerals.
It is to be regretted that, despite the government's efforts, the community of maritime nations meeting at Brussels did not accept the Canadian suggestion to establish an international convention protecting all the world's shorelines and beaches, not to mention the full ocean environment, the birds above it and the fish below it. Protein from the sea may well become necessary to the survival of human life. I hope Canada's efforts in this direction will soon produce meaningful results. The government is on the right track and has responsibility to move unilaterally in the absence of such an international convention. In implementing the bill, I hope we demonstrate clearly to the other maritime nations of the world that we intend to keep our sea environment clean, no matter what the cost may be to them.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, debate on Bill C-2 has been going on for two days, and most of the points I would like to make have been covered by previous speakers. However, I would like to emphasize two or three matters. I feel a great deal of good can come out of our discussion at committee stage, and I give notice of my intention to propose one or two amendments when we reach that stage because I believe this legislation could be greatly improved if the minister would accept several amendments.
I am not sure that the suggestion to send this legislation to the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution is a proper suggestion. I feel that the legislation is not going to the right committee. I feel it should be sent to the Transport Committee, which is a much larger body than the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution. There is an opportunity in the Transport Committee for more members to delve into the intricacies of the various sections of the bill and to express their views on them. But I think more important than the size of the committee is the fact that for years the Committee on Transport and Communications has been dealing with shipping problems which, I suggest, should not be the subject of deliberations of a committee that has been set up primarily to deal with special environmental problems. The coastal trade, problems of shipping, transport
October 26, 1970

and matters related to the continental shelf, have been delved into on numerous occasions by the members of the Committee on Transport and Communications. I believe they understand the background of the problems which shipping along our Canadian coasts will face much better than members of the new committee which has just recently been set up.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I suggest to the minister that he seriously reconsider changing the terms of reference and having this matter referred to what I consider is the appropriate committee, namely, the transport committee. Although I must point out that I would very much like to sit in on the discussions of the committee, I realize that our members on the transport committee are very capable, and can certainly handle all the discussion that will take place there.
To get back to the bill, let me say that it deals primarily with pollution control problems as they refer to shipping. I want to say right at the start that no matter what aspect of pollution we consider, it is becoming crystal clear to the government and to the public alike that we need very tough legislation in this field. We have had warnings galore from ecologists and others who have pointed out to us what is happening to our environment.
When we are dealing with a bill of this nature which affects the ecology of our east and west coasts, I feel members of the House and the government in particular should be prepared to write into the legislation some of the toughest provisions that we can possibly make. I am one of those who feel that we do not have too much time to play around with the ecology of the oceans and of the waters and streams in this nation. There are also other aspects of pollution where firm steps have to be taken. I am convinced that in several respects the bill is not nearly tough enough. I support the objectives of the measure before us but, as I said earlier, I feel it would be far more effective if the minister could accept several of the amendments suggested by hon. members who have already spoken. I believe the acceptance of these amendments will help to make this legislation more effective.
For example, I suggest that Canada should extend its jurisdiction with regard to pollution control zones from the proposed 12-mile limit to the same 100-mile limit which we imposed last year in our Arctic waters. I ask the minister, in all sincerity, are the east and west coasts of Canada of any less value to our nation than the Arctic? Is there less chance of oil doing terrific damage in these areas than in the north? I am aware of the delicate ecology in the Arctic area, but I want to point out also that the amount of shipping in the Arctic, even with the possibility of big shipments going from the Prudhoe Bay area and from other oil fields which might be found in that area, will be small when compared with the amount of shipping along the east and west coasts. The oil pollution hazard that this potential shipping will create, far outweighs the damage which might be done in the Arctic area. If there is a section of this nation that needs protection, it is the east and west coasts of Canada. This is where the most development has taken place and where our coastal cities are to be found.
Canada Shipping Act
Coming from British Columbia as I do, I am aware of the immense and terrible damage that could be done if a major oil spill were to occur along the west coast of British Columbia. The same situation applies to the eastern area. It appeals me to think that as yet we are afraid to tell the world that we will impose a pollution control zone 100 miles out from our coasts. We already claim a 100-mile zone in the Arctic. We have announced this to the world, so why should we not tell all countries that we are going to have a similar zone out in the Atlantic as well as in the Pacific to protect the shores of Canada? In this way we could have some type of control over the ships that come into the area.
This recommendation does not come from the New Democratic Party alone. This recommendation was made by the task force "Operation Oil" that was in charge of the cleanup of the Arrow oil in Chedabucto Bay, and it is contained in their report. I think the minister and the government should take cognizance of what is contained in that report.
The task force points out in their report that the Arrow oil travelled over 100 miles from Chedabucto Bay and polluted the shores of Sable Island. No doubt this oil, spilled as a result of one of our worst disasters of this kind, did a great deal of damage to Sable Island, although one cannot say that that island is densely inhabited. This is the recommendation of the task force to the government:
We recommend that extensive pollution control zones be established to cover the rest of the coast of Canada consistent with the position taken by the government in the Arctic.
I endorse that position 100 per cent. If we can put this protective zone around the Arctic areas, then we should bring it right down the east and west coasts to the U.S. boundary and insist on having some control over oil pollution so far as shipping in this area is concerned.
Another point with which I would like to deal is related to the cost of cleaning up. I understand that under this bill the liability of a ship owner for cleaning up has been limited to $14 million, with the balance of the cost to come from a fund. I am of the firm opinion that if there were an accident involving a big oil tanker and it cost $30 million to clean up the mess, the ship owners ought to be liable for every single penny of the clean-up cost. I think this principle ought to apply on a Canada-wide basis to other industries polluting our streams and rivers. I do not see why the public should be liable for part of the cost of the clean-up. The polluters ought to be made liable. On the day we make ships and shipping companies liable for the costs of cleaning up, we shall begin seeing standards of construction of oil tankers that will to a very large degree, I believe, eliminate many of the oil pollution problems confronting the world today. I have no hesitation in saying that I think there should be unlimited liability on those who, perhaps through accident or otherwise, cause tremendous damage to the ecology of our country. This is the recommendation in the task force report, page 41:
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
We recommend that the law should make it clear that those who pollute pay the complete cost of clean-up, including the

October 26, 1970
Canada Shipping Act
cost of any Canadian federal or provincial personnel used in the clean-up, that the ship concerned be impounded until this has been accomplished or assured and that the legal penalties be in addition to this liability for the complete cost of cleaning up the pollution.
I agree with this recommendation of the task force.
May I raise another point? Other members have talked about ships that fly flags of convenience, the flags of small nations that will register any ships that wish to fly their flag. They impose low standards on those ships. We had an example of this in the case of the Arrow. Testimony showed that there was inadequate equipment on board, and some of it was not working. Under the bill, Mr. Speaker, some of these things will be corrected. We shall have a chance to check more thoroughly all the shipping that arrives in our coastal waters. Canada should take action against these flags of convenience on an international basis. There should be an understanding, world wide, that we will not allow any of these old hulks that have been picked up for low prices and used by unscrupulous individuals or companies to carry cargoes, which are often improperly insured, to sail our waters. When ships like that, and the Arrow is a case in point, have accidents, they hit us hard. In the case of the Arrow oil spill, Canada was hit and hit hard by the cost of cleaning up, to the extent of $3 million. Part of the money, I understand, will come out of some insurance fund. These are things that worry me.
May I refer to another point which I think I ought to raise at this time. You know, years ago Canada went out of the large scale shipbuilding business. We do not have much of a merchant marine in Canada. We have merchant ships on our inland waters, but not too many of them. So far as our export trade is concerned, I do not think very many ships are now carrying the Canadian flag. There might be one or two but there are very few, in any event. We should go into this business. We should build a merchant marine for our country and insist on the highest possible standards when building these ships. We should insist that ships built to a certain standard shall sail our waters. If they are to bring oil cargoes to Canada, they must conform to a certain standard. If the ships cannot meet those standards, we should insist that the oil be brought in Canadian bottoms. What is wrong with that? We could do a tremendous service to our nation by building a merchant marine. We could earn large sums of money through a Canadian merchant marine. We could give jobs to thousands of Canadians working the ships and also give work to skilled people in our shipyards. This would help to solve the unemployment problem which is plaguing our nation. I think the House ought to take another look at this matter, and look at it very closely. I feel our need for a Canadian merchant marine ties in very closely with the provisions of this bill and with guarding Canadian shores from shipping which, to be generous, is not of the best.
There is another point I should like to make. I know that other members wish to say a few words before the debate closes at five o'clock but I want to talk about the matter of clean-up. We have been told that already there is a program for attacking oil pollution problems on the

east and west coasts, and in the north. No doubt this is so. Although some steps have been taken to assist in dealing with some of the oil spills we have suffered, they are a long way from being perfect. I urge the minister to continue his efforts, not only with regard to the east and west coasts, the north, and our inland waters and rivers, but also to make sure that a tremendous amount of research effort is put into the solution of this particular problem. I think we must all recognize that the use of oil in our country will increase and that there will be more oil spills and larger oil spills in the years ahead, whether we like it or not. We shall encounter pollution problems from oil when we undertake offshore drilling. If there are not adequate plans for cleaning up in the event that there are oil spills, there could be immense and lasting damage to the north, to the fisheries, and to the potential of our coastal areas. Everyone is aware of this. I cannot emphasize this enough. You can never tell when an accident will happen. We must be prepared for one.
I could say much more, Mr. Speaker. As I mentioned earlier, I think that many of the points which have been raised in the House will be discussed in committee. When the bill comes back to the House, we shall have another opportunity to speak on it. If some of our suggestions have not been given consideration, we shall raise them again in the House and ask the minister to accept further amendments which will tighten this legislation. Basically, it is a step in the right direction.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I will not deal with Bill C-2 at any length because I feel, in view of the general support it has received in the House, that it is really not necessary for me to do so. I should like, first of all, to congratulate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson). When I listened to him last Friday I thought he gave one of the most lucid presentations on any bill that I had ever heard in this House. I generally support the provisions of Bill C-2 which update the Canada Shipping Act. It takes into consideration one of our most serious problems, pollution. It deals with pollution of our Territorial seas and of our great lakes and other navigable waters in Canada. It is high time this was done and I believe that all Canadians support the general intentions of this bill.
Pollution, as we know, constitutes a great problem. I am sure all members of the House, and all people in Canada, are concerned about it and want us to do everything we can in order to correct the situation. The Arrow disaster, of course, reminded us of the seriousness of oil pollution in our waters. The step taken by the government in the Arctic pollution bill, of course, was another vital step forward in the protection of our environment.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The minister spoke of the amount of expertise we have developed as a result of our experience in connection with the Arrow disaster. On Friday, the minister stated we probably have developed more expertise to deal with this problem than any other country in the world. I hope we will not have to use it. If this bill is accepted, the
October 26. 1970

likelihood of a disaster from an old tanker in our waters would be greatly reduced. The main provisions of this bill will control the type of ships allowed to sail through our waters. In this way we will eliminate the use of old antiquated tankers which at present pose such a serious danger to our shorelines.
I hope that some steps will be taken to ensure that pollutants are carried in self-contained compartments on these ships. In the event of a break-up this precaution would hopefully result in a loss of only one section of the ship rather than the entire cargo. It is a great step forward to insist as is done in this amendment on proper navigational equipment on board ships sailing within our waters. It is also important to have pilots handle these ships over dangerous areas, as well as to enforce traffic controls similar to the kind exercised in the air routes of the world. It is time we had these safe guards for shipping as well. I am certain hon. members agree on the need for fines for dumping pollutants and the need for security checks to insure that this act is properly policed.
When reading the bill I was quite confused by the terminology regarding the maximum fine of $210 million gold francs. I thought that was a huge amount of money.
I have since ascertained that it amounts to approximately $14 million. I am not an expert in the field, but I hope the committee will examine this to see whether it is adequate.
There are provisions in the act to establish a pollution claims fund. A charge of 15 cents a ton will be paid into the fund to take care of surplus damages in excess of the $14 million maximum liability. The other day someone asked what would happen in the early stages of this Maritime pollution control fund. The minister indicated there may be a provision whereby money will be put into this fund to take care of the early stages of its development. I think this is a good idea. I hope the government seriously considers and acts upon this suggestion of the minister.
The bill creates an opportunity to remind Canadians of the cost of fighting pollution. It is evident that the cost of transporting oil and other pollutants by ships under the aegis of this act will result in increased charges for such products. I think Canadians will be prepared to pay the small additional charge in order to ensure that the environment is protected for ourselves and future generations. I am sure we can make the same observation in respect to any measures taken to fight pollution. It cannot be done by a government getting its money from the sky. It must be done by individuals and governments who are prepared to spend money in this fight. Obviously the cost will be borne by either the consumer or the taxpayer, but I think this cost will be acceptable because of the protection it assures for everyone in this country.
Section 738(1) of the bill reads:
Where the Minister has reasonable cause to believe that a ship that is in distress, stranded, wrecked, sunk or abandoned is discharging or is likely to discharge a pollutant into any waters to which this Part applies, he may, or he may authorize any person to, destroy, if necessary, or remove, if possible, and sell or otherwise dispose of the ship, its cargo-
Canada Shipping Act
I wonder why the words "if necessary" and "if possible" are advisable in the section. There may be a legal complication as to what was necessary after the event or whether it was possible to save the ship. I suggest the committee should make some effort to determine whether in fact there could be such a difficulty. Section 747 (2) reads:
The Administrator, on the expiration of his term of office, is not eligible for reappointment.
I do not think that this provision is in any other act. If it is, I have not seen it. I wonder why it is in this particular act. The minister would know whether the administrator is doing a good job. In the event he is, he should be eligible for re-appointment. The committee should give some consideration to this provision.
Sections 761 to 765 inclusive outline the fines on summary conviction. I will not deal with that now. Other speakers have referred to it. These sections of the bill should be carefully studied. I am not privy to any of the facts on which these provisions are based but the committee should be satisfied that these fines will ensure conformity with the act. If the fines are too modest, people will ignore these regulations.
I welcome the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act and the new direction they have given. It is a big step forward in the government's war on pollution. I will have no hesitation in supporting this bill when it comes back from committee to the House of Commons.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to share with the minister the time remaining until five o'clock. I compliment the minister on receiving a Newfoundland honourary Doctor of Laws degree.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: I do not know the rights and privileges of such an awesome office. To determine this, I suppose one would have to ask a Philadelphia honourary Doctor of Laws. The minister has stolen a march on not only the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), a Professor of Law, but also the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). At page 33 of this bill the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), honourary LLD, has used the expression, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970. The minister has the rare honour of being first to bring these revised statutes to our attention. I might add parenthetically that the revised statutes do not have to be printed either this year or next year, regardless of what the minister has included in the legislation. In any event, come when they may, they will be called the Revised Statutes of 1970. How is that for a Newfoundland honourary Doctor of Laws?
I welcome that part of the legislation that establishes a fund so that fishermen will not have to chase oil tankers all over the world or to establish negligence or malopera-tion of the tankers resulting in losses to the fishermen. I think this is splendid.

October 26, 1970
Canada Shipping Act
When studying that portion of the bill dealing with the pollution control officer, I could not understand how that office was set up. I assume this officer would be someone from the Public Service who would have other duties in other departments. On checking with the minister, he advised me this is so. This officer could be a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police stationed in an outpost if there are no other officials available. Whoever he is, and whoever these other functionaries mentioned in the legislation may be, I hope they will not find themselves in the position of a friend of mine from Beaver Harbour, Nova Scotia, a Mr. Leask, who was appointed a receiver of wrecks some seven or eight years ago. Lo and behold, there was a wreck in part of the ocean within his jurisdiction. But the receiver of wrecks is paid by the company concerned, and in this case, having seen its assets become a wreck, the company had no further interest. In addition, it was a United States company with no assets in Canada on which to levy. I entered for a while into the spirit of the merry-go-round between Mr. Leask, the Department of Transport and the marine lawyer in Halifax representing the United States company, but in the end Mr. Leask never received his payment as receiver of wrecks, and I intend to show up humbly before the environmental committee when this bill goes before it in an effort to see that nobody else finds himself in the position of Mr. Leask.
[DOT] (4:50 D.m.)
Finally, there has been some discussion as to whether this bill should be sent to the committee on environmental pollution or to another committee. I think there is much to be said for the contention that it should go to the Transport Committee. Surely, though, we could send it to the committee already designated and then, if we find, after some discussion there, that it ought to be handled by the larger committee, it could be transferred.
I am very much in agreement with those who have said that ships other than oil tankers may be carrying pollutants. I received a blistering letter lately from somebody who had travelled aboard one of the Canadian National ferries operating out of Nova Scotia this year and who had been horrified by the dumping of garbage all over the Atlantic Ocean. I make these remarks in the spirit which very much prevails this afternoon when we are all trying to do something about this serious pollution problem. I was prompted to take part in the debate, as were many other members, by the Arrow disaster, and I might point out that the first real debate on this subject took place when I brought the subject up on the adjournment motion late one evening and said that at least Canadian pilots, familiar with these waters, should be carried in these circumstances and also that rules should be laid down setting out navigation routes to be followed by vessels carrying potentially dangerous cargoes. I am glad to find that the bulk of these points, as well as others, are covered in the legislation before us, and for this reason I support the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the House that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: May
I first of all thank all hon. members who have spoken in this debate for their support of the principles of this bill, and thank them also for their worthwhile, and, for the most part, well thought out suggestions for the improvement of the measure. I wish to assure the House that if there is any suggestion from any quarter which it is possible to implement and which is within our competence as a Parliament and as a government, we shall be most pleased to do so.
I have taken note of all the comments which have been made during the debate but hon. members will appreciate that with the relatively short time at my disposal it would be impossible to deal with them all. I should like, nevertheless, to deal with one or two of them. In the first instance, with regard to the more or less general feeling that the bill does not go far enough, let me say that in ideal terms perhaps various parts of the measure should be extended. But I believe hon. members have also given their own, and the correct, answer to this charge by pointing out that we have in fact gone further unilaterally in this particular area than any other country on the face of the earth.
What we have done has been to stretch our jurisdiction to the absolute maximum. When we get into committee I shall be pleased to answer detailed questions on this issue and I hope to persuade members that the position is exactly as I have stated.
Reference has been made to the fact that below latitude 60 we have not gone as far as we did in connection with the Arctic pollution measure. Again, I believe the hon. member who made this point himself recognized the reasons behind this approach. There are unique circumstances in the north which do not apply further south. Moreover it is our judgment that we do not need the same powers in the area below latitude 60 as we do in the Arctic. If we were to extend the so-called pollution zones 100 miles to sea off, for example, the east coast, it would be tremendously difficult for us to try to investigate which vessels, among the enormous amount of shipping in that region, were heading for Canadian ports. But I hope to deal with this aspect of the matter also in the committee and if it can be demonstrated there that we could strengthen these provisions in some way I shall show no reluctance about doing so.
I wish to refer now, to the comments made by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and to thank him for his kind comments. He outlined the position correctly; there is a gap in our fishing zones on the south coast of Newfoundland, but, again, I do not believe it amounts to so great an inhibition as the hon. member believes it to be in terms of this measure. For example, the whole of Placentia Bay can, and does, come within the so-called pollution control zone. So while there is, in some respects, the gap to which he alluded, there are more teeth in this legislation even in these difficult areas than has been appreciated to date.
Finally, I should like to suggest that if hon. members are so disposed we might give second reading to this bill

October 26, 1970

and refer it to the particular committee named in the motion, but I undertake to discuss with House leaders and others a possible change in this arrangement if it is generally considered that this course would be wise or necessary.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)- United Nations-South Africa-Canadian abstention on arms embargo resolutions-Decision on spare parts; the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart)-External Affairs-Appointment of the Board of Governors of the International Development Research Centre; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)- Canadian National Railways-Retired employees' pensions-Action to implement committee recommendation for increase.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, Notices of Motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Mr. Baldwin-October 16, 1970
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization review Standing Orders dealing with Private Members' Public Bills with a view to making a report to the House with a recommendation that such changes be made as will allow a recorded vote on some of such bills.
Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether this motion could stand. I believe there has been agreement that it be allowed to stand and maintain its position on the order paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that motion No. 1 be allowed to stand and maintain its position on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Research on Treatment of Animals RESEARCH



STUDY BY STANDING COMMITTEE OF CARE, UTILIZATION AND TREATMENT OF ANIMALS

Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the following matters should' be referred to a standing committee, designated by the Prime Minister, with authority to call for persons and papers and report its deliberations with recommendations (a) the use of animals for medical research purposes, their care and utilization, and procedures for government licensing and inspection of, and control over, all premises using animals for laboratory research or medical training (b) as far as federal jurisdiction permits, recommendations regarding legislation providing penalties for those abusing animals, and any persons making a business of raising or catching animals for sale to research individuals or centres and not keeping same in a humane manner (c) the most humane method of trapping furbearing animals (d) consideration of the entire Canadian picture relative to the maintenance of fish, bird and animal wildlife and the regulations required for conservation (e) consideration of federal and provincial jurisdiction on the aforementioned items, and proposals for an effective manner of attaining federal-provincial agreement and legislative action.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is the fourth session in a row that I have introduced a motion of this nature dealing with the subjects enumerated in the motion now before the House. I hope all hon. members have noted that the motion is presented in a democratic manner. It is non-partisan; it is not dogmatic in nature; it does not put forward answers, solutions or procedures. It merely, but importantly, draws to the attention of the members of the House of Commons matters that I most sincerely and deeply believe should be referred to a standing committee of the House for complete study. This study would embrace research on the part of the committee. Having heard witnesses give evidence, the committee would then be in a position to report to the House of Commons and to the government any recommendations resulting from its studies that it felt were in the best interests of Canada.
I am not going to speak at length on the motion because, as I say, I have spoken to similar motions on three previous occasions. Certainly, I would not want to be guilty of the charge of speaking at length, thereby talking out my own motion. I hope sincerely that on this, my fourth endeavour, the motion will not be talked out but will be referred to a committee for study and report.
I should like to commence by quoting two lines from the most recent issue of the journal of the National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada entitled "Park News". The last paragraph at the bottom of page 15 reads as follows:
The truth is that today's great problems will not be solved. We are too late, and we have failed for lack of foresight. Only tomorrow's problems can be solved, and only if we agree today that we are responsible for tomorrow.
It is those words, Mr. Speaker, that are the motivation behind this motion-the acceptance, the recognition, that we are responsible for tomorrow. This is why I am requesting that we recognize the fact that in this country millions of animals are still used for purposes of medical

territorial government to set up Canada's first wildlife range. This resolution was passed at the international conference recently held at Whitehorse. It called for the allocation of 600,000 acres of wild range as an adjunct to the 1,000,000 acres established by the U.S. government in Alaska back in 1961. This is a matter for federal interest and action.
This is just one example of the type of study that could be made by the committee for the purpose of making recommendations to other members of the House of Commons. I am not going to carry on any longer. When I started I quoted from a national publication. I should like to conclude by quoting from a provincial publication. This is the most recent issue of Wildlife Review, which is published by the Department of Recreation and Conservation of the government of British Columbia. The last paragraph of the editorial on page 3 reads:
We have not much time left in which to learn to proportion our population to available resources, and to become good enough trustees of our inherited wealth of air, water, earth and forests so that posterity may hope to survive in a condition better than a bestial struggle.
May I say that the birds, the animals and the fish also are interested in posterity. They also have a claim on the inherited wealth of the air, water, earth and the forest but they cannot do very much for their own survival. We, the people of Canada, and the parliamentarians can do something about this and we must. That is why I say that if we, as Members of Parliament, will only recognize that we have a responsibility to those who come after us to pass on a heritage that is richer and more full because it passed through our hands, we will pass this motion so the subject can be studied by a standing committee of this House.


Mr. Tom H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond-Delia):: Mr. Speaker, I might point out at this time that as a result of a private member's bill I introduced last session the name Delta has just been mentioned in this House for the first time. I express on behalf of the 44,000 people who now live in Delta the pride they feel in knowing that their home is now officially recognized by name in Parliament.
The intent of this motion is highly desirable and it is one that I heartily support. I support it particularly as it relates to the special responsibilities that the Department of Fisheries and Forestry has in regulating and controlling the sealing industry of the Atlantic region. These responsibilities involve two areas of paramount concern; the conservation of the seal herd and the development and implementation of the most humane harvesting methods. It is significant, I think, that the recommendation for a committee to study, report on and make recommendations concerning the use, harvesting and conservation of animal wildlife has already been carried out in so far as the Atlantic seal herds are concerned. I am referring to the harp seals and the hooded seals.
Last year the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry conducted an exhaustive study on the whole
Research on Treatment of Animals subject of these seal herds and the sealing operation. It examined the manner in which the seals are harvested and the conservation measures in effect. It scrutinized as well the legislation applicable to the sealing industry.
The committee heard evidence from many persons involved with the seal fisheries. It heard evidence from senior officials of the fisheries service of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, from scientists and from persons directly concerned with the administration of the sealing regulations. It examined also Canada's severely damaged reputation abroad. Finally, the committee recommended that the seal hunt continue in the Gulf of St. Lawrence under continuing safeguards as to prevention of cruelty and preservation of the herds.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
To reiterate, the recommendation for a House committee study of our animal wildlife, in so far as the Atlantic seals are concerned, has already been carried out. However, I do not intend to imply that the department has stopped there in studying and developing management methods for the seal herds and the sealing operations. In fact, during the past year several new regulations were added to those already in effect. A brief review of the evolution of the regulations respecting the seal hunt would, I think, be in order. Although the seal herds have been hunted since the eighteenth century by coastal residents and commercial interests, partly for food but primarily for fur, there were relatively few regulations prior to 1964. During and following that year, several factors contributed to very rapid changes and additions to the regulations. These factors, not necessarily in order of importance, were: the increasing take of seals by foreign sealing vessels as well as our own; evidence produced by the scientists of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada that the seal stocks were being overexploited; the use of aircraft in sealing; and a large-scale international controversy over the humane aspects of sealing.
In 1964, as a preliminary measure, sealing vessels and aircraft engaged in sealing were licensed by the Department of Fisheries. Subsequently, the department, in consultation with the industry and with humane and conservation society representatives, developed a new set of sealing regulations for the Atlantic coast for the 1965 season. Open and closed seasons for operations from ships and aircraft were retained as before and new control measures were introduced. For the first time a quota was imposed; it applied to the southern portion of the Gulf of St. Lawrence-the main whelping area- where the take of young harp seals by ships and aircraft was limited to 50,000. Scientific research had shown that up to
90,000	young harp seals could be taken in the entire gulf without endangering the survival of the herd. Since 1965, the gulf harvests, including commercial and landsmen's catches, have generally been well within the safety margin. The taking of hooded seals, whose numbers were very low, was banned in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Also, the taking of adult seals from whelping and breeding patches was prohibited.

October 26, 1970
Research on Treatment of Animals
In addition to these conservation measures, new regulations came into force in 1965 which defined the type of club that could be used in taking seals, including its minimum weight and size. Another regulation, which set a limit on the time that seal pelts could be left on the ice before removal to a base of operations, was designed to prevent the possible loss of pelts in storms and changing ice conditions. Good as these regulations were, they represented but a starting point for the actions the department has since taken-consistently in consultation with conservation and humane groups and with the industry-in exercising control over the management of the seal herds and operating methods. Among the measures adopted since 1965, and in force today, there is a provision that anyone engaged in taking seals must have a personal sealer's licence. A primary responsibility has been placed on the masters of sealing vessels to ensure that every crew member complies with the regulation. In the event of violations of the regulations, our fishery officers have the authority to suspend a sealer's licence for up to 30 days.
The regulations covering methods by which seals may be taken have been redefined and made more effective, and the section pertaining to skinning of seals has been strengthened. A prohibition has also been imposed on sealing during hours of darkness. As a further control measure, this year a ban was placed on the use of aircraft, both fixed wing and helicopters for the taking of seals in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Aircraft could still be used in searching for seals-for which they required a licence-but they could not be used in actual sealing operations. I referred earlier to the quota the department imposed in 1965 of 50,000 on the take of young seals in the main sealing area of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. We could do this because Canada is the only nation harvesting seals there. However, we have been equally concerned for a number of years over the total take of seals from the herds which frequent the Front; that is the area off the coast of Labrador and northeastern Newfoundland. There we compete with the Norwegians in harvesting the seals and any quota or other conservation measure that we would like to impose required international sanction.
Largely as a consequence of Canadian initiatives, international action has now been taken to limit the combined seal harvest from the Front and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. At the annual meeting of the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries in June of this year, agreement was reached on an over-all quota of
245.000	seals from the Front and the Gulf, and this quota will apply in 1971. This figure is based on scientific calculations of the maximum sustainable yield of the seal population; that is, the total number that may safely be harvested without jeopardizing the seal stocks. The ICNAF quota reserves 45,000 seals for capture by Canadian landsmen and small boat crews, whose yearly catch averages this figure. Large Canadian vessels may take
100.000	seals and Norwegian vessels also have a 100,000 limit on their catches. Adoption of the 245,000 quota reduces the seal harvest below the average of recent years, which was about 285,000. It is below the 1970
harvest by Canada and Norway, which totalled approximately 258,000.
Also becoming effective in 1971 will be a five-day reduction in the duration of the hunt. I repeat that; in 1971 there will be a five-day reduction in the duration of the hunt. The season closing date will be advanced to April 24. This change is being made to reduce the take of breeding seals, particularly mature female seals. While the healthy survival of the seal resources requires careful management and restraint in harvesting, there is evidence that the cause of conservation would be little advanced by imposition of a total hunting ban as has been advocated by some persons. Biologists state if hunting were prohibited, the harp seal population would build up from its present level of about two million animals to upwards of four million. However, the natural environment can only support a limited number of animals of any species, and an unrestricted population increase would intensify the seals' struggle for survival. Competition for good in these circumstances would become fiercer, and as a result more animals would die of starvation, parasites, predators or disease.
The population pressure on essential environmental requirements such as suitable pupping areas, would also lead to large annual losses and a serious waste of a natural resource. Controlled harvesting, on the other hand, keeps the seal herds at a safe, self-perpetuating level, and provides for productive use of what otherwise would be wasted. These are the aims of Canada's seal conservation policies. So far in my remarks I have been speaking generally of the sealing industry and of the measures that the Department of Fisheries and Forestry has adopted to conserve the seal herds and to ensure that the animals are handled in the most humane way possible. But what about the people who are most directly concerned, the sealers themselves and their dependents who have a most important stake in this operation? The typical seal hunter is a fisherman in other seasons. For many such fishermen, the returns from their primary occupation are marginal and, despite their industry and resourcefulness, they find it difficult to make what would be considered a reasonable living.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
For most of these fishermen gainful employment is suspended from about November until the following April or May because of stormy weather and ice conditions. The spring seal hunt represents for them, as it has for their forebearers for nearly three centuries, the first opportunity to work, to earn money for the necessities of life and to help prepare for a new fishing season. Many of the sealers, especially the landsmen, not only derive money from the sale of pelts but also use parts of the seal as food for themselves and their families. They regard the seal herds as a particularly timely resource to be harvested as are other resources of the sea, such as cod and lobster, later in the season.
I shall not go too deeply into statistics but I think I should mention a few. In 1969, the last year for which full statistics are available, 391 fishermen on 11 large sealing vessels had average gross earnings of $900 for

October 26, 1970

less than two months' work. The average gross income for landsmen, for whom 3,048 licences were issued, was $120. Thus, the total income to sealers was close to $730,000. These are significant figures when one considers their relative value to the income of the people concerned. Additional earnings went to workers employed in plants where the pelts are processed.
I referred earlier to the participation of representatives of humane and conservation societies in the development of our sealing regulations. The opinions of these groups, which we value, have been based on first hand experience. For the past six years the department has invited representatives of these groups to witness the seal hunt. The observers have included veterinarians, biologists, conservation authorities and other specialists. Their reports, with rare exceptions, have expressed approval of the humane methods employed in harvesting the seals. I quote a few examples. In his report of observations of the 1970 seal hunt in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Mr. Thomas I. Huges, general manager of the Ontario Humane Society, states:
The Gulf of St Lawrence seal hunt, as it is now conducted, and as far as the young seals are concerned, is without doubt one of the most humane slaughtering operations I have ever witnessed. It is tightly regulated and certainly the regulations were enforced more stringently than in any other slaughtering operations that I know of. It seems reasonable to presume, therefore, that the "ultimate" has been reached so far as a regulated slaughtering operation is concerned. In my opinion there is nothing more to be gained by any further regulations.
Professor Keith Ronald, chairman of the department of zoology of the University of Guelph, has been carrying out studies on the seals for a number of years. Of his experience during the 1970 sealing seasons he states:
As in the past I flew from spot to spot on the ice, the helicopter landing wherever I directed...I examined the skulls of recent and older kills.. .1 met fisheries enforcement officers far away from their ships, sometimes wet and frozen.. .They are dedicated men directed by an understanding senior officer.
In all of my activities and observations there was no evidence of any inhumane act. . . All seals were killed quickly and were rendered unconscious with the first blow.
Finally, I should like to quote a letter which Mr. A. L. MacLaurin, president of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, sent to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) on February 9 this year. The letter reads in part:
The federation wishes to congratulate yourself and your department for your action both in the Gulf and on the Front to eliminate the cruelty inherent in the annual harvest of seals. I wish also at this time to apologize for the actions of some of our members in connection with the hunt as I am well aware that you have been bombarded with a great many completely misinformed and irrelevant letters and petitions on the subject of seals. The federation feels that you have done everything in your power to eliminate the cruel practices and we feel sure that you will continue to do so in the future.
Once again I wish to express our appreciation to yourself and the members of your department for their continued efforts on behalf of the seal herd both national and international.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, during the few minutes that I wish to take this
Research on Treatment of Animals af iernoon I would like to return to the motion, which is a very clear and simple one. My colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), who introduced it has been pressing for its adoption for some four years. A number of us during our daily work here have been working very hard with regard to different facets of the motion, which is in four parts although actually it seeks a single purpose: it simply urges that the whole matter of animal welfare be studied by a committee of this House.
There are four matters suggested for study and report. The first is the use of animals for medical research purposes, the second is the possibility under federal jurisdiction of introducing legislation providing penalties for abusing animals, the third is the most humane method of trapping fur-bearing animals, and the fourth is the "entire Canadian picture" in regard to conservation of fish, bird and animal wildlife. These four matters lead to the meshing together of federal and provincial jurisdiction in this respect.
Between members of this House and their constituents, there has been much discussion about animals. All of us at times have been deluged with letters concerning various forms of cruelty to animals or the well-being of animals. I know that a fresh batch of petitions will shortly be on their way to hon. members, urging that Canada take up this matter seriously and do something about it. When you get public opinion reaching such a level in this country, then I am convinced the matter is beyond being partisan in any sense and it is only proper that these matters be studied by a committee of the House. I feel that Canada is a long way behind other countries in this regard. A great deal of protective legislation with respect to animals, and medical experimentation involving their use, is in force in the United States, Great Britain and Scandinavia. We have no such legislation at the federal level in Canada.
I have before me an item taken from the Canadian Research and Development Journal for July-August, 1969, reporting that the tobacco industry was giving a grant of $300,000 to Dr. Hans Selye to "support investigation of any relationship between smoking and stress," and that the industry was also giving a grant of $300,000 to McGill University for an "interdisciplinary respiratory research laboratory." Both these grants appear to be for the purpose of investigating the validity of statements linking cigarette smoking with lung cancer. That is all very well, Mr. Speaker, but at the present time no machinery exists to supervise such experiments, and it is reasonable to assume that animals will be used in them. The work of the Canadian Council on Animal Welfare appears to be largely confined to laboratory animal husbandry and care, and the Criminal Code provides no protection for animals used in such research. For this reason I believe that we in Canada should make a preliminary study designed to introduce legislation to protect animals during experimental research.


An hon. Member:: What about human beings?

October 26, 1970
Research on Treatment of Animals
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Winona Grace MacInnis: We are doing something about human animals, and it is high time we began doing something about other animals. Only recently have Canadians generally come to realize that the conservation of species in the animal kingdom is vital to the survival of hitman beings. We are now constantly being told by biologists and ecologists that if we keep on allowing animal species to disappear, if we keep on allowing gaps to develop in the food chain of animal life, we ourselves will not be able to survive as a species. It is no longer a matter merely of polluting our environment; it is a matter of destroying our environment.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East pointed out, we know now that there is this other reason for our studying animal welfare. The reason is that it is so tightly linked with human welfare.
I will not go into facts and figures relating to cruelty to animals; we have heard a lot about that subject. I have also received increasing evidence that a great many of the repetitive experiments on animals, to test stress and other factors, are no longer necessary. These experiments have been made over and over again. Also, it is now being discovered that these experiments can be carried out with tissue and by mechanical means which will eliminate the necessity of torturing living animals. No one needs to have this point shoved down his or her throat. A committee of this House could be set up which would call before it different groups of witnesses so that the members of the committee, which would be constituted of members of different parties in the House would be in a position to make up their minds on these matters. We could call before us experts concerned with animal welfare. We could call before us biologists and ecologists who could tell us about the danger to our environment which would flow from letting this matter slide. We could have before us people concerned with conserving species by means of more humane trapping methods, other methods of sealing and other regulations, if such are necessary, all along the line.
The protection of animals should no longer be regarded as a contentious matter among parties. I think it affects all of us, and surely all of us should be prepared to send this subject to a committee without any prior commitment on our part. We should send this matter to a committee for study, just as we have so many of our resolutions and bills. I believe that we shall be surprised by the evidence that comes out in committee, and I am quite sure that we shall be moved to put Canada much closer to the forefront of modern thinking with regard to the protection of animals through regulatory legislation. I would like to give other hon. members a chance to speak on this matter so I shall conclude by urging once again that every hon. member support this resolution to send the whole matter to a committee of this House for study and report.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentay Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak this evening to the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). I must say that I always follow his flamboyant speeches with interest; he delivers them with all the passion and vitality of a 20-year old.
I shall limit myself to parts (a) and (b) of the proposal of my hon. colleague.
Any society with humane feelings must be concerned with the way animals are treated in the field of medical research, and those who use them have added responsibility in that regard.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Medical Research Council share the concern of the hon. member with regard to the use of animals in medical research. Thanks to those two bodies, funds have been supplied to the Canadian Council on Animal Care to enable it to assess the problems concerning the care of animals, and ensure that instructions are given to the appropriate provincial authorities as well as to universities, government departments and research laboratories at the local level. The Canadian Council on Animal Care published a guide on the care of animals used for experimental purposes, which gives instructions to Canadian research and educational institutions, whether they be universities, government or industrial agencies, on the adequate care and lodging of animals used in laboratories.
This guide is extremely interesting and should be read by all those who are concerned with the care of animals. They will see that the Canadian government as well as the National Research Council provided funds to publish this very important book.
This guide is also intended to be used as an evaluation basis for the care given to animals in Canada. The work of the Canadian Council on Animal care has and will continue to help us fulfil our obligations to ensure the highest quality care to animals used for scientific and educational purposes. While studying this problem and preparing this guide, the Council, as was mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Vancouver East, consulted breeding experts as well as researchers and many private and government bodies concerned with this important problem.
The underlying principle which must govern the care to be given to laboratory animals is the prevention of pain or unnecessary discomfort.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Any tests involving pain or discomfort for animals should be avoided unless there are good reasons to believe that they will help promote science and the wellbeing of all living species. However, if laboratory research animals must suffer pain or discomfort, appropriate anesthetic or analgesic agents should be appropriately used throughout the experiment, in the appropriate manner and administered to them so as to relieve all pain.
Even in experiment, animals should be spared abuse. The guide for the care of animals used for experimental

October 26, 1970

purposes specifies that wherever possible surroundings should always be the same and even controlled for temperature and humidity.
Animals must always be kept clean and the ventilation system must supply them with an adequate quantity of oxygen. Odors must also be reduced and the environment must be kept in acceptable conditions. Lighting, noise and odors must be controlled.
As with some animals noise can affect the result of a therapeutic dose or the administered medication, these animals must be protected as much as possible from noise.
It is owing to good human care and good treatment that the welfare of animals in ensured. Good treatment comprises the ability to feel and see changes, even small, in the attitude or health of animals, plus the necessary experience to remedy the condition of the animal to its advantage.
I dare hope that the Canadian Council on Animal Care as well as the SPCA and other institutions of the kind will see to it that animals used for research purposes in Canada are treated with kindness. Moreover, I would hope that scientists will study the possibility of using non-sentimental methods in the distribution of scientific information.
Every day brings us proof of man's inhumanity to man, and as long as this situation exists, we can expect to find inhumanity of man towards animal. Scientists have kept us informed of their obligations towards the animals they use for the promotion of science.
Thanks to the efforts made by the Canadian Council on Animal Care, I am confident that the animals used for experiments are receiving satisfactory care. In addition, research laboratories, while aware of where the animals come from, see to it that the suppliers treat these animals in a humane manner. The purpose of such operations is to supply healthy animals for research purposes. It is therefore in their interest to provide well-cared for and healthy animals.
Mr. Speaker, there are clauses in the Criminal Code which provide for quite heavy fines for ill-treatment of animals. To date, several provinces have already adopted legislation aimed at ensuring fair treatment of laboratory animals. In this connection, I would like to remind the House that Bill C-150, or the omnibus bill passed in 1969, deal deals with the treatment of birds and mammals. The object of the legislation is therefore to prevent the ill-treatment of those animals.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that, thanks to the support of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Medical Research Council, the Canadian Council on Animal Care aims at providing sufficient care and protection for laboratory animals. Moreover, the federal government does not make grants to research establishments that use laboratory animals unless those estab-
Research on Treatment of Animals lishments agree to follow the regulations listed in the guide on the care of animals used for experimental purposes that the Canadian Council on Animal Care has prepared.
Mr. Speaker, a thorough revision of the matter is important. If it is true that today some experiments can be done in a laboratory on living tissues, it is none the less unthinkable to make medical science advance through research on animals, because they represent entities with a heart, lungs, a liver, a spleen, bowels. Whether we like it or not, we will never be able to cultivate at will all those tissues and create some animal.
The hon. member for Vancouver East stated that we are living for tomorrow, that we are responsible for the future. I feel that we are living today to improve society for future generations. The welfare of future generations rests on medical research which must be carried on animals only.
We could also be engaged in similar research in other fields thanks to cultures of live tissues, but I wonder now if we are not merely marking time. I would like to quote [DOT]an excerpt from chapter 10 in a book written by Mr. Heller and entitled Of Mice, Men and Molecules. This excerpt is a true call for help.

Which is more important: dog food, or research on diseases such as cancer, leukemia, heart disease, and mental disease?
This is a legitimate question, because the total amount appropriated by the United States Congress last year for research on all diseases was equal to the amount spent by Americans on dog food.
Mr. Speaker, this thought could be developed to great lengths. To my mind, all scientifically based research must be carried out on animals in laboratories.
I have visited some laboratories. I have met Professor Best in Toronto and Professors Frappier, Selye and Vine-berg in Montreal. If Dr. Vineberg particularly had not had dogs at his disposal to try the Vineberg operation, which consists in a revascularization of the coronary system that supplies blood to the heart, I wonder where we would be today.
We have extended lives, we have made a breakthrough in the knowledge of the heart so that some people are able today to lead decent lives, and these advances have been recorded thanks to experiments on animals.
Furthermore, animals are well cared for in laboratories and if we need any evidence of it all we have to do is ask Dr. Selye to let us visit his laboratories where everything is spic and span.
Even if the hon. member for Vancouver East, whose opinions we respect, has eloquently expressed his view-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
574

October 26, 1970
Investment Companies Bill AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill C-3, respecting investment companies-the Minister of Finance.
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw to Your Honour's attention certain facts regarding the recommendation that appears in this bill compared with Bill C-179, which was the number of the same bill in the last session. I submit to Your Honour that this bill fails to meet the requirements of section 54 of the British North America Act, and Standing Order 62.
One always accepts as a basic principle that there must be included in recommendations a clear authority for the payment of funds out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I submit to Your Honour that if we compare the recommendation as it appears in Bill C-3 with that which appears in Bill C-179, reading the pertinent sections of the bill it is clearly seen that the recommendation is deficient. The recommendation as it appears in Bill C-3, the only pertinent portion with regard to the expenditure of moneys or charges on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, is at the end of line 5 and reads:
-to provide for the making of short term loans by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to the sales finance companies and the conditions and limitations therefor as specified in the said measure and for payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the said corporations-
I think that is a typographical error; the word should be "corporation".
-for such purposes-
The remainder of the recommendation is not germane to this particular point. Bill C-179 of the last session read:
-to provide for ... loans to such companies by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation out of funds advanced out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund; to provide for reimbursement of the corporation out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for losses sustained in respect of any such loans and for the establishment by the corporation of a special account in the Bank of Canada to which shall be credited revenues derived from such loans and to which shall be charged certain expenditures of the corporation mentioned in the said measure-
I now quote section 29 as it appears at page 39 of Bill C-3:
(1)	Subject to subsection (2), out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the Minister
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel.]
(a)	may, on terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council, authorize advances to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation (in this section and sections 30 and 31 referred to as the corporation' ) of amounts required for the purpose of making loans under section 16; and
(b)	shall authorize the reimbursement of the corporation for losses sustained by it in respect of loans made under section 16.
It is paramount, Mr. Speaker, that the moneys for the loans must come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, on the recommendation of the minister. There is no other source of funds available to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation for such loans.
(2)	The amount of advances outstanding under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) shall not at any time exceed the amount by which two hundred million dollars exceeds the aggregate of reimbursements to the corporation under paragraph (b) of subsection (1).
(3)	The capital budget of the corporation submitted pursuant to subsection (2) of section 80 of the Financial Administration Act shall not include information relating to anticipated capital requirements of the corporation under this section.
In other words, the normal budget of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation cannot in any way reflect possible requirements for any of the loans. This pins it down to the point where the minister must recommend any advances out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the corporation for the purpose of making loans to any of the companies which are the subject matter of this bill. Also, the minister must authorize the reimbursement to the corporation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of any losses. I emphasize this point because section 28 indicates that the Superintendent of Insurance shall ascertain and certify the total amount all the expenditures incurred in connection with the administration of this act, and shall prepare an assessment of the companies governed under the act based upon a formula related to their assets.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that nowhere does the word "expenditures" include provision for losses on loans. Then we go forward to the authority under section 30 enabling the corporation to establish a special bank account with the Bank of Canada. The section reads:
The corporation shall establish in the Bank of Canada a special account to which shall be credited all interest received by it on loans made under section 16 to which shall be charged
(a)	all interest on advances made to it under subsection (1) of section 29-
In other words, it will charge interest on behalf of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
(b)	all expenses incurred by it in carrying out its duties and functions under this act; and
(c)	any funds paid to the Receiver General pursuant to subsection (2).
That latter paragraph is not germane; it really refers to the reimbursement to the Receiver General of any surplus funds over and above the stated maximum. I therefore put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the bill clearly requires a recommendation that funds should be advanced to this corporation out of the Consolidated
October 26, 1970

Revenue Fund. This is not covered by the existing recommendation.
Why the changes were made, I fail to understand. I am not satisfied that the initial recommendation last year was sufficient, but on a closer reading for this occasion I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is clearly deficient and that we ought not to proceed now with the second reading of the bill before us. I submit that the bill should be withdrawn and reintroduced with a proper recommendation, because there is no way in which Parliament can vote moneys without the recommendation of the Governor General as required by section 54 of the British North America Act and Standing Order 62.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the learned argument of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). The recommendation to which he refers was provided to the government by the Department of Justice after looking carefully into the matter and deciding that it was quite proper in connection with this legislation. Nevertheless, I am sure Your Honour would wish to consider the arguments put forward. I respectfully suggest that we proceed with the second reading of the bill and move the bill into the committee, and Your Honour can then determine whether the recommendation is in order in its legal form.
The hon. member for Edmonton West is a legal expert with some knowledge, and I respect his opinion although I do not place it above that of the Department of Justice. If the recommendation is improper, we can bring forward another. I recall hearing somewhat the same argument last year, at which time hon. members opposite were good enough to permit the legislation to go to a committee of the House for further consideration. In this case, if the recommendation is insufficient we could then, with the leave of the House, take steps to correct it. After all, the recommendation is not the substance of the bill. If there is a technical difficulty which the hon. gentleman has seen and which the Department of Justice has not seen, I would respectfully suggest that Your Honour consider this matter and indicate to the House at a convenient time the steps we should take; for example, whether we should submit another recommendation.
The hon. gentleman is bringing forward a technical argument, after all, because the recommendation per se is not the legislation. As he knows, one drafts legislation and asks the Department of Justice to determine a proper recommendation to the House. The recommendation has been drafted for us by the Department of Justice and I would think it is in order. However, I would never argue with the hon. gentleman who is learned in the law, and if there are technical difficulties we undertake to change the recommendation as Your Honour sees necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: The point raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is obviously one of interest. I would not think it is entirely satisfactory or sufficient for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to say that the recommendation had been put forward by the law officers of the Department of Justice and there is there-
Investment Companies Bill
fore a presumption that it is right. I suggest that this presumption should not exist.
The hon. member for Edmonton West was generous enough to suggest earlier today, unofficially, that he was worried about this important point. This has given me an opportunity to look into the matter. I must say that having done so, I am not convinced one way or the other. The argument made by the hon. member for Edmonton West is a very strong one and I wonder, as he does, why the recommendation as prepared in the first instance for Bill C-179 in the last session was not used for this particular bill, which is essentially the same legislation.
The recommendation prepared for the earlier bill was much more complete because it spelled out that losses sustained by the corporation were to be included. The essential difference is that the recommendation for Bill C-3 now before us uses only the words "for such purposes". One wonders whether the purposes referred to by the law officers of the Crown include not only the usual mortgage operations but also losses which might be sustained by the Crown as a result of these operations.
My thought is that if the Chair arrives at the conclusion that the recommendation is imperfect, as suggested by the hon. member for Edmonton West, it is a very simple matter for the Crown', at a few moments notice practically, to correct the recommendation. As was pointed out by the Minister of Finance, this was done in similar circumstances last year when it was suggested by the Chair that the recommendation was not proper. In the course of the debate a new recommendation was submitted and the amendment was agreed to by the House.
My suggestion is that we proceed with our consideration of the bill, but not so far as to give it second reading; we would hold second reading until there was either a determination by the Chair or, if my ruling is that the recommendation should be corrected, until the government takes the necessary action to obtain an amended recommendation. In this way we would not arrest the work planned for this evening. We would proceed with consideration of the bill at second reading stage, but would not put the motion on second reading. In other words, we would hold the matter in abeyance until we find some way to resolve the difficulty brought to our attention by the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Edgar John Benson: That would be quite agreeable to the government. I regret the hon. member for Edmonton West did not bring his difficulty to my attention as he did to that of the Chair.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister was not here.


Edgar John Benson: Had he done so, I would have been glad to look at the recommendation to see whether it needed to be amended. We are willing to proceed now with the business before us, and in the course of the debate we shall take another look at the recommendation. Your Honour can, of course, do the same, and if you indicate
576

October 26, 1970
Investment Companies Bill
to us that the recommendation should be changed, then we in the government are quite willing to change it.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, this bill is practically identical to Bill C-179 which received second reading in the House of Commons and was referred to committee at the previous session of Parliament. It differs only to the extent that a new clause relating to the revision of the Statutes of Canada has been added and a slight amendment to clause 27 has been made to require the minister to table in Parliament the annual report of the Superintendent of Insurance.
A detailed explanation was given concerning the purpose and intention of the bill when it was before the House for second reading at the previous session, by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) on February 11, as reported at page 3491 et seq. of Hansard. I am sure hon. members would not wish to have it all repeated at this time. To recall to mind the general scope of the bill, however, I will make a few summary remarks.
The principal purpose of the bill is to establish a system of reporting and inspection applicable to a class of companies that are acting in a substantial way as investment intermediaries and that are not otherwise effectively supervised. The class of companies to which the act would apply may be described broadly as those companies that raise money on debt instruments and use a substantial amount of the money so borrowed for investment purposes. The main type of company that would be covered by the act are those commonly referred to as sales finance companies, although the act will apply also to other types of companies that borrow funds for the purpose of making investments and loans of other types.
Companies that are subject to the act would be required to file financial statements with the Superintendent of Insurance and would be subject to examination by members of his staff. The superintendent would be required to report to the minister with respect to any company where he considers that the company's ability to meet its obligations is inadequately secured. The minister would be empowered to take one or more of a series of actions leading to improvement in the financial condition of such a company or requiring it to discontinue borrowing from the public. In extreme cases the Attorney General would be empowered to seek liquidation of the company under the Bankruptcy Act. An appeal would lie to the Exchequer Court from ministerial action.
The bill does not prescribe any particular standards of financial strength or classes of eligible investments for companies subject to the legislation. It does, however, impose upon companies the obligation of maintaining themselves in a financial condition to give adequate security to their creditors and of refraining from making investments and loans where there may be a conflict of interest.
Special provisions that would limit the transfer to nonresidents of the shares of sales finance companies are also included in the bill. These provisions, similar to provisions in the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, the Trust Companies Act, the Loan Companies Act and the Bank Act, would limit the transfer of shares to non-residents to 25 per cent of the total and the transfer of shares to any one non-resident to 10 per cent of the total. Also included are provisions whereby adequately secured loans, for emergency liquidity purposes only, can be provided to Canadian-controlled sales finance companies through the medium of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
In general, the bill is intended to fill a gap in the present pattern of supervision and inspection of financial institutions. The fact that such a gap can have serious consequences has been illustrated by a number of failures of financial institutions in recent years.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all point out to the minister that the procedural arguments that were raised on the last occasion had nothing to do with the nature of the recommendations made at that time. If one consults Hansard for February 16, 1970, one sees there was some difficulty about the printing of notices and what have you, not only in regard to the bill but also in regard to Votes and Proceedings. This gave rise to the procedural argument raised at the time to the effect that improper notice had been given.
The minister has pretty well outlined the content of this bill. On looking at it we observe a strange pattern evolving. Primarily the bill deals with sales finance companies, but not for an instant does it have its origin or its paternity in that class of company. This was the infamous bill, Bill S-17, which began its passage in the other place during the 1968-69 session and was designed to control investment companies. There was at that time some sort of feeling of "big brotherism" on the part of the government that it was going to control the activities of all investment companies in this country.
The Senate Banking and Commerce Committee held public hearings on the bill and, with the aid of their counsel, entirely rewrote the bill with the exception of the title clause. That demonstrates how good was Bill S-17. The vital changes introduced in the other place were, first of all, the reduction of the application of the bill by providing an exception clause in respect of companies that met certain criteria and, secondly, the restriction of the government's power to enact further legislation by Order in Council. One has only to look at the old Bill S-17 to see what a Frankenstein the government had created and was trying to foist upon Parliament. The rewritten Bill S-17-with the exception, as I say, of the title clause-was passed by the other place and received pro forma first reading in this House. Then in a huff the government decided not to bring it forward and the bill subsequently died.
Then last session the legislation was brought forward as Bill C-179 and it received second reading in this House after some debate. It was then directed to the finance committee; but as Your Honour knows, the finance committee was then preoccupied with the White paper on

October 26, 1970

taxation and the amendments to the Canada Corporations Act and as a result the bill was sent to the justice committee toward the end of April. That committee took one look at the bill and must have thrown up its hands in horror. The government was in no great hurry to get the bill through, because it did nothing with the bill. As a result, the bill again died on the Order Paper. It has now come forward again as Bill C-3 with slight modifications, the major one being based on the criticisms of the bill during the debate on second reading last session.
As I have said, the primary purpose of the bill is to try to control the activities of investment companies. It requires auditors to report directly to the government, not to the client. There are also provisions relating to lenders of last resort, who are subjected to the most stringent conditions. The provisions relating to lenders of last resort contained in the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, as we know from the passage of that legislation some years ago, almost put Shylock in the category of a very kindly old soul. I suggest the conditions laid down in this bill are no better. As matter of fact, this is an attempt to use what I think is an entirely improper vehicle to protect the public from the activities of certain companies which over-extend themselves in regard to the sale of financial paper to people who think that guaranteed investment certificates guarantee repayment, when in fact they are a guarantee of a certain rate of interest that is applied to the particular investment. We have seen a great deal of activity by some of these companies.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
This bill purports to deal with certain federal companies. I have very grave doubts-if this is suggested by the minister-that the government will be able to sweep into the net all the sales finance companies operating under provincial charter. This is one matter the minister will have to explain. At the moment I am not satisfied that there is such jurisdiction, and certainly I do not see how the federal authority or the Minister of Finance can touch provincially-incorporated sales finance companies.
If the former minister felt he could not touch trust companies which were engaged in banking activities, and had to set up the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation in the way he did in order to deal with provincial concerns, I fail to see how the present minister feels he can regulate or control the activities of sales finance companies, at least to be logical in the thinking of the Department of Finance. I maintain, however, that the Minister of Finance was always erroneous in thinking that he did not have control of all those corporations, whether federally or provincially incorporated, which engaged in any of the activities that came under the title of the business of money and banking.
In any event, let us consider what has happened with this bill which started off as Bill S-17. The Senate revisions to Bill S-17 are contained in clauses 1-9, 18-28 and 32-40 in Bill C-3. First of all, there are minor grammatical and phrasing changes for which the Department of Justice has a preference and these have been used in the
Investment Companies Bill
redrafting of Bill S-17 into what was Bill C-179, now Bill C-3. A number of small, administrative changes are made by the bill but they are of no import.
There is the inclusion of an administrative subclause that was not in the Senate version. I refer to clause 27(3). It is inserted because of the non-Senate sales finance company provisions which have been tacked on to the Senate bill. Remember that Bill S-17 made no reference at all to sales finance companies, and it was only last year that the government felt it had to protect the Canadian ownership of Canadian sales finance companies and suddenly thought it had found a safe harbour. It decided to tack on to this bill certain provisions in order to cover the restrictions on the sale of shares in Canadian sales finance companies. Therefore, I am wondering whether we are not now seeing a rather dubious tail wagging a very sick dog.
Let us consider two further changes and their effect in amending the Senate version of the bill. If we look at clause 2(l)(b) and (E) of Bill S-17, and continued in the Senate revision, we read "instalment sales contracts". In Bill C-3 this has been changed to "conditional sales contracts, accounts receivable, bills of sale, chattel mortgages, bills of exchange and other obligations representing part or all of the sales price of merchandise or services". Secondly, the important exemption clause inserted by the Senate as clause 2(3) in Bill S-17 provided that notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (g) the companies set out should be deemed not to be investment companies for the purposes of the act. Bill C-3 has inserted into the provision the qualification, unless the company is incorporated after the coming into force of the act, "primarily for the purpose of carrying on the business of investment." I suppose this might be deemed to be supercaution on the part of the drafters of Bill C-179, now Bill C-3, to ensure that the exemption does not apply to a company incorporated after the coming into force of the act.
Let me come to a much more important reservation. The House will recall that I mentioned that the original form of Bill S-17 gave the Governor in Council power to make regulations. The phraseology was such as to prevent any regulation being considered ultra vires. I recall the great consternation and indignation that arose in the other place in respect of the Governor in Council arrogating unto itself, by that inclusion in the bill, a total exemption and the fact that any regulation that might pass should not even be attacked as being ultra vires. This was something unheard of. To their credit, the members of the other place threw out that provision. However in the redrafting of Bill C-179, and carried into Bill C-3, we find these words in clause 32:
The Governor in Council may make regulations to ensure the proper carrying out of the provisions of this act.
I intend at the appropriate time in committee to move the deletion of the word "proper" because-I put this question to the members of the House-is it for the Governor in Council, or for the courts, to determine whether a regulation is proper to the carrying out of the act? The Governor in Council has no authority, or should

October 26, 1970
Investment Companies Bill
have no authority, to determine that the regulations it passes are proper. It should not have the right to make that decision. The decision remains under the authority of this House and is granted to the Governor in Council. Whether it is proper or improper shall be determined by the courts and not by the Governor in Council.
One strange provision I find in the bill is the same as one I find in the amendments to the Canada Corporations Act. That is the view that the services provided by the government with regard to this sort of policy of "big brotherism" shall be paid for by the industry concerned. We evidenced in Bill C-4 during the last session the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) insisting that the expenditures of his department in looking after the activities of corporations into which there were investigations could be recovered from the companies through the power to apportion these expenses. This is similar, I suppose, to the Department of Justice saying that in the administration of justice a criminal should have to pay for the cost of investigating the offence with which he is charged and of which he may be convicted.
In this instance the administrative and all other expenses incurred in connection with the act shall be pooled. This starts with clause 28. We see the development of a formula by which each investment company would be charged pro rata, depending upon its mean assets. Investment companies are not all of the same nature. Many manufacturing and other types of commercial concerns with substantial investment portfolios which might bring them within the terms of the act in regard to investment companies would be assessed on the basis of total assets, a substantial part over which the Superintendent of Insurance would have no jurisdiction; yet that was the proposal.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
There are provisions whereby investigations can be made, and so on. I suppose a company could legitimately say it had to incur expenses in counteracting the investigation of the Superintendent of Insurance. Mr. Speaker, subject to what we will be able to uncover at the time of the proceedings before the committee, the power given the Superintendent of Insurance with regard to these companies is indeed extensive. Any company that is forced, shall we say, to engage counsel or to undertake certain expenditures with regard to the investigation made concerning its affairs in so far as they are affected by the provisions of this act, probably should be able to recover those expenditures from the Crown. But oh, no! The Crown does not believe in a two-way street; it is all one way. Again, this is a point which I give notice I shall raise in order to see that there is fairer play.
There is another matter to which I think the individuals concerned with the preparation of this legislation failed to give any consideration. I refer to the provision that on an investment company's letters patent there shall be a notation that the company is subject to the Investment Companies Act and the restrictions contained therein. When one considers this provision, one can immediately see that if a company is going into a market-particularly the foreign market-to raise funds, potential investors may be driven away.

Again, I shall want a very full explanation as to why this should be the case. Is this to be another form of constrained company? There may be a restriction concerning the share ownership, but if this is to happen it must be clearly indicated that the company is only constrained in respect of the degree of foreign ownership of its shares, and that there are no other restrictions. There is also a requirement that the disposition of the assets or any part of the assets may require the minister's permission. Again I ask, has the minister become the senior partner of all investment companies? To what extent is this "big brotherism" to go?
I have already mentioned that the lender of last resort facilities of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation were designed for one purpose only, which was to protect the deposits of people who had money on deposit with chartered banks, trust companies and other concerns which took moneys on deposit under the terms of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act. But now we see the lender of last resort provisions being made available to sales finance companies which do not take money on deposit. They sell obligations to the public; they do not take money on deposit.
I have read some sections in respect of the previous argument, whereby the Minister of Finance is specifically authorized to recommend the advancing out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of a special loan account. He is also authorized to recommend the payment to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation of losses that may be incurred by the non-repayment of these last resort loans or any portion thereof. This is entirely new business that is being tacked on to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
There is one last point I should like to make. I am sorry the Superintendent of Insurance has left his position in the official gallery. I am also sorry the Minister of Finance is not here, because as a result of the provisions of this bill and the requirement placed upon the Superintendent of Insurance, I think this very esteemed office and its distinguished holder will be placed in a very invidious position. There is a massive conflict of interest as a result of the provisions of this legislation and the provisions of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.
We all know that one of the key officials in the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation is the Superintendent of Insurance, because it is his officials who examine the records of trust and other near bank companies. It is the Superintendent of Insurance who makes the actual recommendations concerning the financial condition of any corporation that is a participant in the Canada Deposit Insurance fund. Therefore, as a key official of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Superintendent of Insurance has an important voice in the approval or otherwise of any application for a loan under clause 16.
One might say: What is wrong with that? But if one reads the legislation carefully and starts with clause 22 and goes through to clause 25, one sees that this selfsame Superintendent of Insurance is the policeman dealing with investment companies. He is the sole person authorized +o investigate, to make recommendations to
October 26, 1970

the Minister of Finance and to recommend the withholding of certificates of registry as required under the act. In other words, if there is any one official who has the right to blow the whistle on an investment company, it is the Superintendent of Insurance.
But let us assume there is a sales finance company or other investment company subject to the provisions of the act which finds itself in difficulty and its affairs are examined by the Superintendent of Insurance. He recommends against issuing a certificate of registry, he recommends other restrictions on the operations of the company or that he be placed in charge of the assets of the company, as he could and probably would be. In other words, he becomes a trustee of the assets of the company for the benefit of the shareholders and the investors in the obligations of the company. Then the directors of the company, in order to carry on business, come to the Deposit Insurance Corporation for a loan; and whom do they see on the other side of the table but the Superintendent of Insurance? In other words, not only does he act as investigator and as prosecutor, but he must sit as judge as well.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
This is the end result of this tacking on of what I would say is a legitimate proposition of protecting the ownership of sales finance companies and also trying to save some shareholders and investors from certain types of, shall we say, financial imprudence rather than perhaps dishonesty on the part of officials of finance companies. But what are we asked to do? We are urged to create a Frankenstein.
The more I read this bill, the more I am appalled at the thinking that this is correct, that this represents the right procedures. I can just imagine the reaction of any hon. member, were he a director of a sales or investment company that found itself in difficulty. He would have to deal with the Superintendent of Insurance, see the assets ordered to be seized or placed under the tutelage of the Superintendent of Insurance and then, making a real effort to bail out the operation he would have to undertake to pay the most Shylock-like terms, only to find that the grantor of the loan on the other side of the table is no one but the Superintendent of Insurance. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the occupant of that office would have to have qualities absolutely beyond those of any archangel.
I have criticized this bill. There are parts of it which I would like to see enacted but which I believe are wrong in their application. I suggested that the bill is deficient in that it fails to provide for the authority of this House, and I will not have the objections I raised on a point of order dismissed as technicalities. The government is asking this House for authority to be granted to it, the servant of this House-not the master, but the servant- to spend moneys which the Constitution does not give the Governor in Council the right to do. In other words, if the recommendation is deficient the cabinet are saying, "We will patch it up. We will do a little papering-over job and that will be right." But, Mr. Speaker, this bill was given first reading and only then did we see this recommendation.
Investment Companies Bill
In actual fact, sir, this is a debate without prejudice, but I will renew my caveat and my objections. I want to see the appropriate recommendation accompany the bill, and not this slipshod work. It is terrible work on the part of someone, to bring in the bill with this type of recommendation. It is an affront, actually, to the authority of this House and for that reason I am so insistent upon the matter.
Depending upon what the government does with regard to the recommendation, I certainly am withholding my consent to any second reading on this occasion. As a matter of fact, I have not quite made up my mind whether I will support second reading of the bill. Frankly, there are certain things about it that appeal to me, but on the other hand I do not think the finance committee is the place to take sloppily-prepared bills and try to dress them up as we had to do with the Canada Corporations Act, which also was Frankenstein-like, prepared by people who did not know where they were heading. Yet the minister has had the effrontery to say that the House should consider this legislation quickly and get on with the job. I recommend to the House that we give this legislation extremely careful examination before we even think of consenting to it.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the question on second reading of this bill will be deferred until Your Honour has an opportunity to deal with the procedural objections raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I would submit that when Your Honour does have the opportunity to consider the very learned and detailed argument that was presented to us by the hon. member, you will agree that His Excellency's recommendation cannot possibly deal with all the details of the expenditure of public funds that a public bill of this nature must encompass, and that the recommendation appended to this bill does cover in fact, in spirit and in law what is required.
I would be the last to dismiss as technicalities the objections raised by the hon. member. I think they were important objections. They were objections that in substance were raised and dealt with last year in this chamber during debate on the former legislation which, regrettably, did not proceed beyond the committee to which it was referred. Nevertheless, I think that the recommendation does deal with the essentials of the bill.
As the hon. member and indeed the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) before him, indicated, this is the third time this bill, in its essential features, has come before us. We have had a comprehensive historical survey of its legislative history. I do not care to editorialize further on that matter except to say that people who have been the victims of lack of control in this particular area of financial institutions may wonder why three years after such a bill was introduced we have not yet disposed of it in Parliament.
The hon. member for Edmonton West has raised a number of specific details and I think some of them are very important. The hon. member has objected to the concept that under the bill the auditors appointed with

October 26, 1970
Investment Companies Bill
the approval ol the minister will report to the government and not to their clients, the finance companies which are paying them. This, of course, is consistent with the practice extant under the Bank Act. In section 63(8) of that act, as well as in other acts, this procedure has been adopted in dealing with key financial institutions.
The hon. member has applied such terminology as "Shylock-type of terms" and "parsimonious conditions" to the Crown's position as lender of last resort under the proposed legislation. Mr. Speaker, the Crown's position in this area is precisely that of lender of last resort. It is in no way attempting to compete with more conventional or usual sources of financing for this type of company. The legislation is deliberately drafted in such a way that recourse to the treasury for financial support will indeed be a last resort. We are not inviting them to come to us, but we are saying that if we ask them to remain Canadian-owned finance companies we have an obligation to offer them an ultimate source of financing if all else fails.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
We cannot ask the owners of these companies to commit themselves to continuing to retain the companies in Canadian hands without, at the same time, offering them a market of which they can avail themselves should other sources of financing fail. So I reject very definitely the rather colourful language of the hon. member for Edmonton West. Nothing is built into the provisions dealing with lender of last resort other than a very distinct bias to discourage companies from availing themselves of it.
The hon. member raised a question about the provision in clause 32 of the bill under which the Governor in Council will make regulations to ensure the proper carrying out of the provisions of the act. I am not entirely sure of his objection to that particular provision. There is certainly no suggestion in the provision that Parliament or the Governor in Council is usurping the proper function of the courts in determining the legality of the regulations. However, the provision is essentially the same as that which appeared in clause 21 of original Bill S-17. Again, this is an area in respect of which I must reject any suggestion of unusual conduct on the part of the government.
The hon. member made a great deal of the point that the services provided under this act by the Superintendent of Insurance would be paid for by the industries concerned. This, again, is consistent in principle with the practice followed in relation to the supervision of insurance companies, the supervision of trust companies, the supervision of loan companies and the supervision of banks. It seems rather mysterious to me that the hon. member should choose to make an exception in the case of finance companies. In all cases which I have cited, the expenses incurred in carrying out the supervisory functions are assessed against the companies concerned. The government, in proposing the bill in this particular fashion, intends to treat these organizations consistently with other financial organizations.
The hon. member also made much of the proposition that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation was being

used as a lender of last resort. The bill makes it very clear that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation is to treat its operations under this act as entirely separate from its other functions. We have a situation here where we have an appropriate agency under the government which can deal with the matter in question, and certainly it is proposed that it do so. There is no conflict of interest, nor is there any dilution of the funds for which the Canada Development Insurance Corporation was created, or any threat to its other activities. This is a separate and entirely distinct operation which it will be conducting. It is an appropriate agency and, indeed, I think a rather practical and economical use of existing facilities by the Crown.
Finally, the hon. member suggested that the Superintendent of Insurance will be in a position of having a conflict of interest under the bill because on the one hand he will be supervising other financial agencies and institutions and regulating finance companies, and in another function he will be the man to whom they will apply for loans of last resort. Again, I reject entirely the proposition that the Superintendent of Insurance will be in an invidious position in this regard.
The hon. member has raised very interesting problems. They are certainly problems that the committee, on which he and I have served for a period of time in rather onerous circumstances, will have the opportunity to explore. I know that I, and I am sure the government, value the opinions and suggestions of the hon. member. We will await with considerable interest the opportunity in committee to explore the propositions that he has put forward. However, it has been said before that this bill is before Parliament for the third time. It is a very important area of financial activity in Canada which I can say, without going into the lurid and well-publicized details, is demonstrably in great need of regulation and of responsible control. I would urge the House, as soon as the procedural problems are disposed of, to very quickly refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for its detailed study and report.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I move that we adjourn the debate until later this day, and proceed with the next order of business.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a minor point of order. Since the minister has already spoken, should not someone else move the adjournment of the debate?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has a good point.


Mr. Greene:: In response to my hon. friend's suggestion, I am pleased to move the adjournment of the debate until later this date.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
October 26, 1970


John James Greene: that Bill C-4, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has provided assistance to the gold mining industry since 1948 under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. The economic position of the gold mines had deteriorated because of rising costs of labour and materials and a fixed price for gold. The assistance was given in order to minimize the social and economic dislocations in the gold mining communities which would follow the abrupt closure of most of the gold mines. These conditions have persisted and the operation of the act has been renewed successively for short terms. The current extension of the act, which was approved by Parliament in 1967 for a period of three years, expires on December 31, 1970.
Delegations representing the gold mining communities and mining associations have presented to me their concern over the effect which termination of the act would have on the gold mining communities. I wish to thank those organizations for their interest and for the views which they have expressed. The government has also had the benefit of the findings of an interdepartmental study group which examined the problem at some length.
It is clear that many of the gold mining communities are dependent for their principal economic support from the gold mines. The majority of the gold mines are dependent on the financial assistance which they receive under the act. Only a few of the 28 lode gold mines now in operation could continue in production without the benefit of the assistance.
A substantial decline in the gold mining industry has occurred in recent years. The number of operating lode gold mines of significance has dropped from 87 in 1948 to 55 in 1960, and to 28 in 1970. The number employed in the industry has been reduced from 22,566 in 1948, to 16,542 in 1960 and to 7,352 in 1970. In addition to the 7,000 gold mine employees, there are some 5,500 other employees in the gold mining communities who are directly dependent to some extent on the gold mines.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Gold mines, to be eligible for assistance, must produce gold having a value which is 70 per cent or more of total value of the output of the mine. Consequently, the gold produced as a by-product by base metal mines is not eligible for assistance. The amount of assistance payable to a gold mine operator is based on the number of ounces produced in a calendar year and the average cost of production per ounce. Only gold sold to the Royal Canadian Mint is eligible for assistance. However, the average cost of production is determined using all ounces of gold produced by the mine, whether or not it was sold to the Mint.
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
Mines having an average cost of production of $26.50 per ounce or less do not receive assistance. There is only one gold mine in Canada now which has an average cost of production of less than $26.50 per ounce. The rate of assistance increases as the average cost per ounce increases over $26.50 until a maximum rate is reached when the average cost per ounce amounts to $45. The maximum rate of assistance payable on all eligible ounces is $10.27 per ounce. The financial support which the government has provided since the inception of the act has been substantial. A total of $281 million has been paid to gold mine operators from 1948 to September 30, 1970.
Hon. members may have noted the amounts of assistance which have been paid annually, in the Report on the Administration of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act for the fiscal period ending March 31, 1970, which was tabled in the House on October 15, 1970. The assistance paid with respect to the calendar year 1966 amounted to $15.3 million, for 1967, $15.0 million and for 1968, $13.5 million. Payments for the year 1969 are estimated at $13.5 million. The reduction in assistance payable in 1968 and 1969 was in part due to the sale of a part of the production of some mine operators on the open market to obtain the benefit of the high open market price during those years. With a continuation of the act, it is estimated that the assistance payable in each of the years 1970, 1971 and 1972 will amount to approximately $14.0 million.
Notwithstanding a continuation of assistance, it is anticipated that rising costs and the depletion of ore reserves will result in the closure of more gold mines. Three mines ceased operations in 1970 and one or two more have indicated that they may close within the next few months. Termination of the act would result in the abrupt closure of a majority of the gold mines.
Substantial adjustments face the gold mining communities in view of the continuing decline of the gold mining industry. Consideration has been given to the possibility of increasing the level of assistance under the act as a means of assisting the gold mining communities. However, a change in the level of assistance which would reverse the present trend in the industry or have any significant effect would be extremely costly.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the most appropriate policy for the government to follow, in providing aid to the gold mining communities, is to continue assisting gold mine operators under the act at the present level, to apply the benefits of existing federal social aid programs to persons displaced by gold mine closures and to examine the practicability of other avenues of potential economic support for the gold mining communities. Extension of the act will permit a gradual adjustment of the gold mining communities to diminishing economic support.
For those persons affected by mine closures, help is available through the federal programs of training and mobility for those who seek new employment, and through unemployment insurance and welfare programs.
582
October 26, 1970


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, once again Parliament is being asked to extend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. There has been an "emergency" in this regard for 24 years, just like the temporary buildings in Ottawa many of which were built at about the same time or even before the act was proclaimed. These emergency pieces of legislation are always with us. The minister has not given very much hope this evening that the situation of the gold mining communities will improve. In fact, the whole tenor of his remarks was that we will see the gold mining industry disappear very shortly.
This matter was also dealt with on September 29, 1967. At that time another minister of the department introduced the act. I made a lengthy address at that time, which I do not intend to repeat tonight; but I believe the remarks I made then are just as applicable now. Apparently there is very little hope of saving the gold mining communities on a permanent basis. The whole purpose of this act is to let the communities and the people down slowly and keep hoping that something will happen before the next occasion on which the act has to be renewed. The minister gently prepared us tonight for the next renewal. He stated this renewal will continue until June, 1973, at which time he will consider a further extension. This is a very unusual and unfortunate situation.
I intend to make only a few remarks on the bill. In many ways the situation in the gold mining communities is worse now than it was in 1967. The unpegging of the Canadian dollar this year has hurt the gold mining industry even more. The world price of gold-as we are all aware-is based upon the American dollar, at $35 an ounce. It has been that way for a long time. As the Canadian dollar moves upward, the mines receive less for their production. The action of the government in permitting the dollar to be freed earlier this year has had many unexpected effects. One is that the gold mining situation and the price of gold is worse rather than better.
October 26. 1970

One of the reasons gold mining communities and the gold mining industries have not received any increase in the subsidy this year-and this has always been questionable-is that we are at the present time in fact paying 6 per cent or 7 per cent more because of the increase in value. The situation, therefore, is worse because of the unpegging of the dollar. Some of the gold mines in northwest Quebec and northern Ontario, particularly those in northeastern Ontario, are troubled by rising costs. This naturally results from the inflationary trends we have had and by progressively lowering the grade of ore being mined.
It seems that everything that is happening is slanted against the existence of these communities. It is making it more and more difficult for Parliament to renew this subsidy into the indefinite future. However, we must recognize that people as well as money are involved in this problem. According to figures presented by the industry in a brief to the government, there are approximately 6,500 employees in the gold mining industry. Their direct dependents number 15,500. This totals over 22,000 people dependent upon these mines being kept open and operating at least on a part-time basis.
Some communities are dependent upon the continuation of subsidies until such time as an alternative should arise. It is very difficult to retrain people who have always worked in the gold mining industry. It is even more difficult to uproot them from their homes and force them to move elsewhere. The people who are in these 16 communities are settled with homes, schools and families. It is in the interest of this nation that these communities be assisted to remain viable and active. We hope the government will develop a plan for the future of these communities.
I should mention a situation that has developed since the last renewal in 1967. I refer to the good progress of the plan for development of the mid-Canada corridor which has been under active study for over a year and a half. It was originated by Richard Rohmer of Toronto. I was present at a well attended meeting at Thunder Bay in the summer of 1969. It was in fact opened and addressed by His Excellency the Governor General. He extended his best wishes for the success of the venture.
It is hoped that development of this kind will be successful and that the idea will be brought to fruition. It is the hope of many of the people in the mid-Canada development corridor that somebody, somewhere-government, industry or a group of private people-will come up with a plan to save the many mid-Canada communities which are now faced with difficult times. While this situation exists, the gold mining communities must be kept alive and support given to those citizens who have sufficient community spirit to keep them going. During the debate which took place in 1967 I expressed the hope that the government could find an alternative plan for these communities other than the handing over of straight subsidies. It was my hope that mining for other minerals could be developed so that new industries could be established. In some cases, in small ways, the situation has improved since then but the situation now is not one which makes us feel a solution is likely in the near future.
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
As I said, it is truly a travesty of the English language to continue calling this legislation the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act after 24 years. It is surely the responsibility of the government to provide an alternative for the communities concerned. I know that in some instances the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has provided incentives for industry to locate in these areas. Sometimes it has been successful, but it has come nowhere near offsetting the decline in the gold mining industry.
In these difficult circumstances, Parliament is once a gain asked to approve the continuation of a subsidy from the public purse. I think we are bound to question this policy. We can make suggestions for a better application of the subsidy and the setting of some rules along the lines of those the minister announced tonight; we can sympathize with the people and the communities concerned, but we need to look at the whole question very closely.
In August of this year, shortly after the government had announced its intention to extend the provisions of the act for a further period an article appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press, written by Maurice Western, a well-known member of the parliamentary press Gallery, entitled "Golden Subsidies". Mr. Western took the occasion to wonder why Parliament persisted in treating the extension of this act as a routine matter worthy of nothing more than superficial debate. He also drew attention to several other factors affecting the gold mining community, including the fact that the International Monetary Fund had developed so-called paper gold, or special drawing rights, the effect of which was further to erode the value of gold as a commodity connected with international currency. The article is, in a sense, a protest on behalf of the Canadian taxpayers against the continuation of a subsidy without apparent end. I agree there is a basis for this element of criticism and this is why the subject deserves our close attention.
In the end, though, we have been offered no alternatives; none have been developed since the last extention of the act three years ago. In these circumstances we can do nothing, I believe, except protest that the government should have made alternative plans. We must call attention to the fact that this is a continuing subsidy, but we must also let the industry and its dependents down as slowly as possible.
I believe the conditions the minister applied to the present extension represent a further tightening of the grip upon the gold mining community and foreshadow the eventual closing down of operations. It is significant that the minister should have mentioned June 30, the end of the school year, as the termination date. It is a chilling forecast that many families a few years from now are likely to be uprooted and move from the communities in which they now live.
Today we have no alternative but to support the extension of the act as requested by the minister. I believe it is in the interest of the country, on balance, to keep these communities alive and to keep the people in their homes.
23226-38i

October 26, 1970
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
It is in our interest now to keep the industry operating in the interim while we continue to hope for the development of policies which will maintain the mid-north and improve it. For that reason, on behalf of the official opposition I support the motion for second reading.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to speak briefly on this bill which extends the provisions of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. Last year, when delegations came from the mining areas to the House of Commons I met members of the delegations, along with others, and heard their views about what should be done. I might say at the outset that I believe the bill which the minister has brought down for second reading this evening should receive the endorsement of the House. I realize that it means subsidizing the gold mining industry, but other factors are involved. Both speakers who preceded me have called attention to the number of jobs at stake, and this is something we cannot overlook, particularly at the present time.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I come from a mining district. While gold is not one of the major metals produced in my area, nevertheless I know what it means for mines slowly to become worked out. Once the mineral in the ground becomes exhausted, or once operations have reached the stage where mining no longer becomes profitable, a gradual decay in the community sets in until in effect it becomes a ghost town.
The thing that worries me about the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act is that when the legislation was first introduced, I believe in 1948, the government of the day knew it was only a matter of time before the gold mining communities would reach the point where even subsidy would not keep them alive. We had hoped that plans would have been made under the Industrial Development Incentives Act to bring new industry to these mining communities. This is essential to the continuation of the municipalities established in these area.
I should like to point out to the House that while many people feel that a continuation of the subsidy might not be warranted, I think it has slowed down the decline of the gold mining industry throughout Canada. As a result, both the government and the small municipalities in these mining areas have been given some opportunity, an opportunity that I do not think has been fully exploited, to try to locate new industries in their areas. I presume that last year every member of the House received a copy of the brief entitled "Submission to the government of Canada on behalf of Canada's gold mining communities by the National Gold Study Committee". Some very interesting information was contained in this brief which I believe can and should be used by hon. members to support this legislation. The minister has indicated that the new subsidy is to be continued until June 1973, which gives us another 2J years to study the situation in the areas affected and, I hope, to devise on an increasing scale some plans to bring relief to these communities through the provision of new jobs.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to some of the interesting information contained in the brief. The
brief points out that many gold miners are in the older age groups. Figures I have taken from the brief indicate that over 50 per cent of the miners presently employed are 45 years of age or older, which indicates that not too many young men are exploring job opportunities in the gold mining industry. Another very interesting fact contained in the brief is that 75 per cent of the miners have had less than 10 years' education. The brief goes on to point out that it would be very difficult to effectively retrain many miners in that age group. Although they could be retrained, people in an advanced age group like this, with limited education, really present a problem.
The brief also clearly indicates that since many miners in these areas own their own homes, if mines were to close down they would be unable to move out of the district to set up a home somewhere else. First of all, there would be the difficulty of a gold miner finding a job in another area. Secondly, his lack of training in other fields would make it extremely difficult to get other work. In other words, when mines close down many of the residents would remain in the immediate area and would have to receive assistance of some kind from the municipal, the provincial or the federal government.
I think these points are an indication that this legislation must be endorsed. This assistance must be given for a further period of time. At the same time, the government must make every effort to make certain that in the areas affected some type of new industry will be established within the next two or three years. I realize some mines will close down and there will be a loss of population in the area, but this should not stop the government making every effort to ensure that alternate sources of employment are found, something that will keep the younger people in the area and enable the municipalities to continue to thrive and to grow.
I do not need to say much more, Mr. Speaker. I am convinced that once the bill has gone to committee and is sent back to the House, an opportunity will be given for further debate. I also understand the government would like to bring back, for a few more minutes' debate prior to the adjournment of the House, the investment bill which the House was debating earlier.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of this debate. By unanimous consent, I would ask permission to present another recommendation from His Excellency the Governor General in respect to Bill C-3, an act respecting investment companies, which if the House so permits I will now read.
c (9:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we should first determine whether there is unanimous agreement to adjourn the debate now before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Finance seeks the agreement of the House to present a revised recommendation in connection with Bill C-3. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


October 26, 1970



INVESTMENT COMPANIES BILL


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration on the following order:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill C-3, respecting investment companies-the Minister of Finance.
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the revised recommendation is as follows:
His Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons a measure respecting investment companies; to provide for the supervision and registration thereof and the prohibition of certain loans and investments thereby; to provide for restrictions on the transferability of shares of certain investment companies to be known as sales finance companies and for loans to such companies by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation out of funds advanced out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund; to provide for reimbursement of the corporation out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for losses sustained in respect of any such loans and for the establishment by the corporation of a special account in the Bank of Canada to which shall be credited revenues derived from such loans and to which shall be charged certain expenditures of the corporation mentioned in the said measure; to provide for assessments of investment companies by the Superintendent of Insurance to cover costs incurred by him in the administration of the act and further to make certain provisions in connection with the administration of the act.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that this resolution is couched in exactly the same terms as the previous resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Recommendation."


Edgar John Benson: Yes, the previous recommendation; pardon me. I also understand that the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) wishes to make a few comments on this matter, at which time we might consider second reading.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Before my colleague takes the floor, Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister can assure the House that all appropriate steps have been taken, in the regular manner, to obtain the recommendation from His Excellency and that everything is in order.


Edgar John Benson: I would assure the House that this is the case, although rather hurriedly after the urging of the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it in the
Governor General's own hand?


Edgar John Benson: The signature is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If we are to return to this order, I suggest the Clerk call the Order and then the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave).


Edgar John Benson: that Bill C-3, respecting investment companies, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Investment Companies Bill


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, earlier today at 10 minutes to 5 I had the opportunity to share ten minutes with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and the bill under discussion was read the second time and sent to the committee. Now I see that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and myself are to be given an even greater challenge. We have only five minutes before, presumably, the same thing will occur in respect of this bill. This can be done, and I hope I will give him his full 2J minutes. I will do my best, anyway.
Instead of making a speech I should like to present five questions for his consideration and for the consideration of Mr. Humphrys, the Superintendent of Insurance. Of course, I ask for the answers when the committee deals with the measure.
The first question concerns the power in clause 15 which provides that no sale or disposal of the whole or any part of the undertaking of a sales finance company is to be of any effect unless and until the minister approves.
I suggest, sir, that we must ask whether this is not a rather extreme power for the purpose of keeping Canadian control over sales finance companies.
The second question would arise from the area of the bill-and it is a large bill, with 43 pages-dealing with loans to sales finance companies. This matter refers to a company that is backed into a corner and needs federal help to get itself out. It also involves the question of the powers that are given the Superintendent of Insurance in the face of this undoubted fact, that never as far as anybody can recall did a federally-incorporated company go down the drain. This whole area of power will lead to questions as to whether this part of the bill is an exercise in remedial legislation, or whether it is simply an exercise in staking-out or acquiring greater governmental power.
The third question, which is vital to the philosophy of the bill, is: Should Canadian companies, or the public, be put in the position of insuring consumer loans by sales finance companies? After all, it will be pretty hard to persuade "Joe Lunch-pail" that he has to put his might and strength behind a company which may be making rather large profits. Does this problem not fit exactly into the recommendations of the Porter commission? My fourth question, Mr. Speaker, is in connection with information obtained under the act. It is our suggestion that this information be privileged. There are precedents we can point to in the Statistics Act and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act.
In the final ten seconds left to me I should like to refer to the position wherein an employee might leave the government's employ and be in possession of rather sensitive information. It is our suggestion that where this takes place and an employee goes outside the public service to a place where the information could be of value, it could only be revealed after two or three years had elapsed since his employment in the public service.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister will now close the debate.

October 26, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that all the questions raised by my hon. friend are interesting and of substance in regard to this legislation. I think they are very important points. I can assure him that when this bill is before the committee, the Superintendent of Insurance or myself will deal with them thoroughly. We are looking for good legislation which will protect the Canadian public and at the same time do the job that needs to be done to ensure investors of security of investments.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.


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

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago I had the honour of attending the twenty-fifth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations as a parliamentary observer. During my stay at the United Nations the special political committee was presented with a resolution sponsored by a large number of lesser developed countries calling for compliance, on the part of all nations, with the Security Council resolution requesting an end to the shipment of arms to South Africa.
The resolution was moderately worded and really represented the absolute minimum in action that one could expect from nations opposed to the policies of apartheid in South Africa. It is no secret that some of the sponsoring countries were moved to ask Canada to act as a sponsor of the resolution. We were to my knowledge the only industrially advanced, predominantly white nation to be so approached. I consider that approach to be a compliment to this country. There were probably a number of reasons for the approach being made to Canada. There was the fact, for example, that under a previous administration Canada was instrumental in making South Africa's continued membership in the Commonwealth impossible, an act which I venture to say has had much to do with the Commonwealth continuing to exist as a multi-racial organization.
There was another reason-the fact that Canada has on numerous occasions verbally expressed its abhorrence of apartheid policies. Finally, and most importantly, there was the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) angry letter to
the British government denouncing its intention to supply additional arms to South Africa. To our everlasting shame, not only did we not co-sponsor the resolution but we abstained on the vote on the resolution, on the explicit instructions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), as he informed the House in answer to my question. Our action, or rather our lack of it, could be viewed as nothing but the sheerest hypocrisy by other nations, in view of our previous statements and actions.
The reason given by the Canadian government for its refusal to, in effect, put its money where its mouth is, was that the cabinet had not yet reached a policy decision in respect of the continuation or termination of military spare parts' shipments to South Africa. But it is not as if this resolution was a total surprise to our government. The United Nations has been dealing with the situation in South Africa virtually since the inception of that organization. The question of South Africa is an annual item on the agenda of the special political committee. The Security Council passed resolutions calling upon all nations to cease shipment of arms to South Africa, twice in 1963, once in 1964 and again in July of this year.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
This government has had ample time to decide upon its policy with regard to military spare parts' shipments to South Africa and has had ample notice that it would one day be called upon to demonstrate to the world whose side Canada is on. The truth is that this is simply one more example of the woeful unpreparedness of the government to deal with matters of substance in the field of external affairs.
It is not that the decision which the government is seemingly having so much trouble in reaching is so difficult. Even by the standards, if one can call them that, of the white paper on external affairs, the continued shipments of spare parts to South Africa cannot be considered to be in our national interest because they do not bring us much money and they risk permanently alienating approximately 250 million black Africans, not to mention countless millions of Asians, for the sake of the good will of a few million white South Africans. In the long term, where is the greatest potential for material gain? The answer is obvious.
I have used this argument with considerable reluctance, Mr. Speaker, because I do not consider it to be terribly relevant. However, I have used it because it might impress itself upon the minds of those minor league Machiavellians who are responsible for the White Paper. Surely the relevant consideration is that our military spare parts' shipments are of the type that significantly enhance the ability of the white South African regime to repress the black and coloured population of that country.
The government of the United Kingdom could at least argue that the equipment it planned to sell to South Africa is highly sophisticated and costly, of little or no use in the enforcement of apartheid. This argument may or may not impress one. It obviously did not impress the

October 26, 1970

Prime Minister, if his letter to Mr. Heath is anything to go by. But what can one say in defence of the fact that Canada keeps South Africa's 250 Harvard aircraft operational, aircraft which when equipped to carry 19-pound fragmentation bombs, as are the 100 on active service, are excellent counter-insurgency weapons. Indeed, they would be useless in any other role.
It now would seem that we are also supplying some jet engines for the now obsolete, except for counter-insurgency operations, F-86 aircraft in a move that would seem to be counter to the implicit guarantees contained in Senator Martin's speech at the time the United Nations first requested the embargo. There is no justification for the continuation of these shipments and I am appalled that the cabinet has been unable to reach the same, obvious conclusion.
Mr. Speaker, I dearly would have loved to employ this opportunity to discuss the broader implications of our policy toward South Africa, especially that of our total trade with and investment in that country. However, I have deliberately restricted myself to the narrower question of spare parts' shipments because I believe there is an open-and-shut case against these, and that the government could act and act rapidly to halt these shipments if it chose so to do.


Mr. Andre Ouellei (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I find it regrettable that the hon. member for Selkirk should have asked that his question be debated tonight because I am not yet in a position to inform him of the cabinet's decision on spare parts.
Had he shown a little more patience and waited for a few more days, I could probably have made in this House the statement which he requested on October 13 last, as recorded in Hansard for that date. Unfortunately, the cabinet has not yet made its decision. However, that should not take too long and I should ask the hon. member to show the same patience as shown by the African and Asian delegations to the United Nations, following the explanations given for our abstention.

The Canadian delegation studied with the greatest of care the text of the resolution before them in the report of the special political committee. The Canadian government was fully in sympathy with the underlying principles of this resolution. However, the Canadian delegation had to abstain on the resolution because its very essence, c'est-a-dire, the implementation immediately of Security Council resolution 282, was then and still is under review by the Canadian government.
When resolution 282 was passed on July 23 of this year, the Canadian government immediately began the very full and careful consideration which a subject of this importance requires. The resolution presented no difficulties for Canada, with one exception. Canada has been applying a general embargo on arms to South Africa since 1963. There have been no lapses in this general embargo. May I point out that in the survey prepared by the distinguished rapporteur of the special
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
committee on the policies of apartheid there was no indication to the contrary. However, Canada continued to furnish some spare parts for equipment which had been supplied to South Africa under contracts entered into before Security Council resolution 181 of August 7, 1963, was passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The time of the Parliamentary Secretary has expired. The Chair will now call upon the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart).



EXTERNAL, AFFAIRS-APPOINTMENT OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CENTRE

Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Speaker, today in the House I asked a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) with respect to the International Development Research Centre. I wanted to know why he had not named a Member of Parliament to the board of governors in the recent announcement appointing the president and 19 members of that board. Clearly the act, which was passed in this House on February 20 of this year, under section 10 allows that one of the governors may be a Member of Parliament. In this instance, since it was already written into one of our statutes, this was a sterling opportunity to open the door to have representatives on the part of the people on agencies that come under the aegis of the government but enjoy a certain independence.
I wonder why the minister did not bother to say a word about the presence of a Member of Parliament on this board when he made the announcement. If he has decided to do this at a later date, we would all like to hear it. If he ignores it completely as something that is not even in the act, that is another question. I suggest it is too bad if that is the case, because then he would just be ignoring the wishes of this House.
This question is much larger than that of who is a member of the board of governors of the International Development Research Centre. We shall see over the next weeks a number of private members' bills which deal with this very subject of placing Members of Parliament on the boards of directors of various Crown corporations and agencies. I believe this is a question of fundamental principle, because the people of Canada who sent us here expect us to look after their affairs and report back to them; yet in these instances we are not able to tell them anything. We are not able to represent them properly, simply because these groups are completely independent of Parliament.
Even when we ask questions of the minister in this House, we are not able to get an answer because he tells us they are independent bodies. The basic principle of this problem is before us and I hope that many hon. members will avail themselves of the opportunity to speak on the subject over the next weeks. But in the meantime when one of the bills has this principle written into it, I am at a loss to understand why the minister did not include a Member of Parliament on the board and why he did not mention it.

October 26, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Does he think that Members of Parliament are incapable of carrying out the task? Does he think that there perhaps is a conflict of interest? I suggest to him that the interest of the Canadian people is our business, and that that interest would best be served by having representatives of this House on bodies such as this board.
fTranslation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think that what was said by the hon. member has a lot of merit on many counts and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), on February 20 last, had emphasized himself that there were a lot of good things in the suggestions which were made. However, he took that opportunity to raise a series of questions, at that time, about the role which should be played by a member of Parliament, should the government decide to appoint one to the Board of Governors and he mentioned what should be his responsibilities.
If I may, I should like to refer to the questions then raised by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I consider it my responsibility as a member of the government to raise certain fundamental questions and to express a view concerning the nature of the real relationship between Parliament and a government agency created by and, ultimately, answerable to Parliament. This question raises the subject of the responsibility and role of the minister and of the member of Parliament.
He said further and I quote:
The role of the member of Parliament on the Board of Governors is by no means clear and this uncertainty poses real difficulties for the MP himself, the Centre and the government. It has been suggested that the member of Parliament will be a channel of communication between the Centre and the Government and between the Centre and Parliament. Does this mean that the MP is, in fact, a full participant in the deliberations of the Board, sharing fully in its responsibilities while at the same time being the representative of Parliament responsible for informing Parliament on these activities? Is it to be left to his own judgment to decide what is confidential and what is not confidential?
This series of questions indicates clearly that the role must be clearly defined and that the government does not consider making such an appointment.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-RETIRED EMPLOYEES' PENSIONS-ACTION TO IMPLEMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR INCREASE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, October 23, as recorded in Hansard at page 514, I put to the Minister of Transport the following question:
Is the minister yet in a position to report to the House on his discussions with the CNR concerning the increases in pensions by the Canadian National as recommended by a standing committee of this House and concurred in by the House itself?
The reply of the Minister of Transport was as follows:
No, Mr. Speaker. I am not at all certain whether it would be appropriate for me to report to the House regarding discussions between myself and officials of CNR. I can advise the hon. member that I have conveyed to the CNR officially the findings of the committee and the decision of the House. If there is anything subsequent to that which I can appropriately report I will, but I assume that this matter will emerge in the normal way through questioning before committees or in some other fashion.
There are few members of the cabinet for whom I have greater respect than I have for the Minister of Transport, but I say to him in all kindness that I do not think he can hide behind statements of that kind. The question of doing something about the pensions of retired employees of the CNR has been before Parliament for many years. In fact, it has been before us for decades. Some of us have seen to that. Finally, last spring, following the increases that were made in pensions of retired civil servants and in light of certain other developments, the government agreed to there being a study of this matter by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. That committee went into the whole matter of CN pensions very thoroughly and came up with what I regard as a very useful and significant report.
That report was passed by the committee on Wednesday, September 9, 1970, and was presented to the House by the chairman of that committee on Monday, October 5, 1970. Two days later, on Wednesday, October 7, the House on a motion duly made and seconded concurred unanimously in that report. In other words, that report represents the will of the House of Commons in this matter. It is a lengthy document. There is not time enough for me to read it tonight, but I should like to draw to the attention of the House what I regard as an important element in it. In one place in the recommendations the committee draws attention to what Parliament has done by way of escalating pensions under the Canada Pension Plan, the Old Age Security Act, and so on. It also draws attention to the action of Parliament in increasing the pensions of retired civil servants, not only on a current basis but also retroactively. Then it says this at page 36:14:
The committee strongly recommends that these principles be adopted on a broader basis and that other major employers, including Crown corporations, recognize their obligation to follow the lead of Parliament in this regard. The committee specifically recommends that the Canadian National Railways implement these principles forthwith.
I cannot say that I completely agree with the campaign on which my hon. friend for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) is engaged, but I am giving him a piece of ammunition. Here we have Parliament expressing itself very clearly on an important issue, yet there seems to be nothing that Parliament can do except make a recommendation. We cannot say to Canadian National Railways, "This is what you shall do." Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the government, through the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) can come pretty close to this. The Minister of Transport could at least have a real heart-to-heart talk with the president of Canadian National Railways and find out why the Canadian National is not prepared to go along with this recommendation, if that is the case. I hope not.

October 26, 1970

Before we come to the point where we engage in tough kind of talk, and before there are confrontations and what have you, I believe we should have a clear statement from the Minister of Transport in the House as to the position of Canadian National Railways. Does the CNR accept this report as something with which it should go along? Does it agree that it, like the government, must do something to increase the pensions of its employees who have already retired; or does it regard all this as a scrap of paper that the committee worked at, which has no weight so far as the Canadian National is concerned.
This is a terribly important issue, Mr. Speaker. It is closely related to the question of the pensions of retired civil servants. It took us about 25 years to win that. I hope it will not take that long to win this one. Surely, since in this case we have spoken clearly through the unanimous report of a Standing Committee-that being a committee with members of all parties on it-and through the unanimous recommendation of the House of Commons, it is high time for the CNR to meet the will of Parliament in this regard. The Minister of Transport should either report to us that the CNR is going to do it, or he should tell us what the government is going to do about it.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to reply to the member for Winnipeg North Centre and commend him for his continuing efforts in this House in order to secure higher pensions for CNR employees. In fact, there is no doubt that all hon. members would like to see the lot of CNR employees improve as soon as possible.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The hon. member is, however, very well informed on the recommendations of the Committee on Transport and Communications and is aware of the findings of this report which was concurred in by the House.
On October 23 last, the minister informed the hon. member that he had formally forwarded to the management of the Canadian National Railways the recommendations of the committee as well as the decision of this House, which had adopted the report. The normal procedure has therefore been followed and I do not see at this time what more could be done.
Undoubtedly we will have again the opportunity to discuss that question at the committee or elsewhere.
Eventually, the management of the Canadian National Railways will express their intentions or offer suggestions following the representations made to the hon. minister. We will then have the opportunity to study that question on its merit, and to resume discussion according to the circumstances, always bearing in mind the interests of those concerned.
Incidentally, I would like to point out to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that in my riding there are a great number of CNR employees and pensioners, and like all hon. members I am as anxious as he is to see that question dealt with fairly and equitably.
I cannot give any more particulars on that matter this evening, but I think that we should soon get more information after the representations made to the management of the Canadian National Railways by the Minister of Transport.

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Tuesday, October 27, 1970